Bill C-311 (Historical)

Climate Change Accountability Act

An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change

Business of Supply--Opposition Motion--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please, if the House will grant some indulgence.

On Tuesday, October 27, the hon. government House leader rose on a point of order concerning the admissibility of an opposition motion placed on notice on October 26, in the name of the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North. The hon. member for Vancouver East intervened on the matter, as did the hon. member for Wascana. So that the work of the House could proceed without delay, I immediately stated that the motion was out of order and I promised to return to the House at a later date with a fully considered ruling.

I would now like to put before the House the reasons for my decision that day.

For the benefit of the House, the motion printed in the notice paper read as follows:

That Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, be deemed reported from committee without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

In explaining why he felt the motion was out of order, the government House leader's main argument was that what this motion was proposing to do could be done only by unanimous consent.

He added that in his view the best the House can do to expedite legislation, without the unanimous consent of the House, is to offer a motion that considers each stage separately with a separate vote. Otherwise, he argued, a situation would arise in which any opposition party could put forward a similarly draconian motion on any private member's bill and have it expedited through the legislative process.

For her part, the House leader for the NDP stressed the wide latitude given to opposition parties on supply days to propose motions of their choosing.

In support of this argument, she quoted from House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 724:

The Standing Orders give Members a very wide scope in proposing opposition motions on Supply days and, unless the motion is clearly and undoubtedly irregular (e.g., where the procedural aspect is not open to reasonable argument), the Chair does not intervene.

The House will remember that on March 21, 2007, in a situation analogous to the one before us, I ruled out of order an opposition motion submitted by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. In that case, the motion in question sought to expedite the consideration and adoption of several government bills in a manner similar to the motion of the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North.

As I pointed out in a subsequent ruling on March 29, 2007, past interventions from the Chair regarding opposition motions have been rare, restricted to cases in which a motion is “clearly and undoubtedly irregular”. I also explained that there is nothing whatsoever in the relevant procedural authorities to suggest that opposition motions on supply days were ever conceived of as a means of fast-tracking bills already present elsewhere on the order paper. House of Commons Procedure and Practice stresses, at page 701, that a key principle underlying the business of supply is that the House, and by extension the opposition via motions proposed on allotted days, has:

--the right to have its grievances addressed before it considers and approves the financial requirements of the Crown.

As I stated in 2007, (Debates, March 29, 2007, p. 8138) it is evident from their historical background that opposition motions on supply days were never envisaged as an alternative to the legislative process:

The very high threshold of unanimous consent creates a pivotal safeguard in ensuring that every measure before the House receives full and prudent consideration. What is being proposed not only does away with that safeguard, it takes advantage of the stringent regime governing supply days. In that regard, for example, it is important to note the precedence accorded to opposition motions over all Government supply motions on allotted days.

Furthermore, recent amendments to the rules dealing with such motions offer an especially stringent regime: first, the rules provide what amounts to an automatic closure mechanism since the motion comes to a vote at the end of the day, thus guaranteeing a decision on the motion; and second, no amendment to the motion is possible without the consent of the mover.

In stark contrast, any motion which could be brought forward by the government to expedite consideration of a bill would be debatable and amendable, and the imposition of time allocation or closure would necessitate a separate question from the motion proposing adoption of the bill at a particular stage or stages in the legislative process.

In addition, as mentioned in my initial comments when ruling the motion out of order, as worded, the motion fails to provide members any opportunity to debate the bill itself, in effect short-circuiting the legislative process. The Chair is mindful of the wide latitude available to the opposition with regard to supply motions, but as your Speaker, it is my duty to ensure that matters placed before the House are in keeping with our rules. The reasons outlined above make it clear why the motion of the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North was ruled out of order.

In conclusion, I would ask hon. members to bear in mind today's ruling and the ruling of March 29, 2007, when they are preparing future opposition motions. The Chair will continue to give the traditional latitude to the sponsors of motions to be debated during supply proceedings, but the Chair counts on the co-operation of the sponsors to respect, and not go beyond, traditional limits for such motions.

I thank the House for its attention in this matter.

The Environment

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents, citizens of Vancouver and, indeed, all Canadians.

The petitioners call upon the government to pass Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act. They care deeply about the future of our planet and believe Canada should be playing a leadership role in the global effort to combat climate change. They want the government to take immediate action to meet the science-based greenhouse gas reduction targets that are mandated in the bill. They know climate change is real. They know we need to take our responsibilities and actions seriously now. They want us to commit to strong environmental targets at Copenhagen.

I am honoured to stand today in the House of Commons and present their call to action. Our future hangs in the balance.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Woodworth.

The time has expired. It is one o'clock and I know that some of you have other places to be.

I want to thank Mr. Lazar, Mr. McCabe, and Ms. Cobden for coming to committee today and helping us with our study of Bill C-311.

With that, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

We have one. The meeting is adjourned.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Something else you said that I thought made eminent sense was that it's easy to put a target out there, but it's the implementation that counts.

You're aware, of course, that the only thing Bill C-311 does is to put a target out there. Correct?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Lazar, you said a few things that I thought were eminently sensible. One of them was that there are risks both on the side of adopting too rigorous an approach and an approach that's not rigorous enough. My view is that Bill C-311—which we never seem to talk much about at this committee—is on the very rigorous side, with its target of 25% below 1990 levels. Would you agree with that assessment?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's what my next question was going to be. As a primary producer, you have no place to which you can pass it on, because you depend so much on the marketplace to dictate the price of your commodities.

We're heading into Copenhagen. A lot of people are calling Bill C-311 the Copenhagen bill. We've heard some members of the committee talk about the need to harmonize with the United States, but we also heard Mr. Lazar talk about this being a global issue needing a global policy. There has been discussion that countries in the developing world might not need to come to the table right away with the same standards that we in the industrialized world are going to put upon ourselves.

If we do things in Canada, the U.S., and Europe concerning carbon policy and reductions in emissions, and yet places such as China and India do nothing, what is going to happen to food production and to where food comes from in this country, if we aren't on a level playing field with those countries?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I'll stop you there. You used two examples, showing two extremes: one doing some very dangerous things to the Canadian economy whereby we would lose jobs, making extreme choices—which is the case with Bill C-311, I believe—and in the other example, doing absolutely nothing. In fact, Canada, through the clean energy dialogue, is moving towards a harmonized approach. We have set 20% by 2020. The United States is adopting very similar targets. In that example, we aren't going to be losing jobs to the U.S., and where it is a harmonized approach, tackling climate change has a North American target.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank both of our witnesses for being here today. I think it is important to talk about forests and agriculture.

Mr. McCabe, in Quebec, agriculture is responsible for 9% of greenhouse gas emissions, and I would imagine that the figure is probably similar for Ontario. So, greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture make up a pretty big chunk. If you had the support you wanted.... I think we all agree that such support would create new jobs. If you had more digesters and could better manage manure and biomass, which produce greenhouse gases on farmland, you could do it.

With the proper support, could you achieve the objectives set out in Bill C-311, which is currently on the table? Under that bill, emission reductions would have to hit 25% in 2020 and 80% in 2050, using 1990 as the base year.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's good to see you again, Mr. Lazar. And Mr. McCabe, it's good to see you again as well. Welcome. I don't think we've met before, but maybe we have.

I want to turn to both of you, first off, but I'm asking the same question of every witness who appears on Bill C-311 to start off the round of questioning. Does FPAC or the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have in their possession a Canadian climate change plan that you're working from now in your forest product and agriculture sectors?

You both made repeated calls for a number of elements to be addressed. Do you have in your possession now, 46 or 47 months into Canada's not-so-new government, a plan that you're working from that you are using with your membership, etc.? Do you have a plan? If you do, can you share it with us?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address those issues, because in terms of the spending power the government has had, the taxation power and the regulatory power we have had, we have been able to move on the whole spectrum of energy. We are not just dealing with renewables in isolation as the member would like us to do.

The interesting thing is that she has opposed each of those initiatives. The member and her party have stood against us. They want to talk about energy but on every point, as with so much of that party's policy, members of the NDP have opposed good public policy particularly to do with energy.

The member has come out against carbon capture and storage, a major initiative by the government. It has the potential to make a major difference in the environmental situation across the country and yet the NDP has come out against that. The member in particular has spoken against it.

When we make a major commitment to the environment, she chooses to oppose it. A good example of that was the project announced by the Prime Minister recently in Keephills to reduce emissions from a coal-fired power plant. The member came out against that. The member has a cottage in the area. We really need to ask, does she oppose this because she dislikes economic development, because she is not really that interested in the environmental challenges that we face, or is this a case of NIMBY, not in my backyard, or does she not want this to take place because she has some investment in the community?

Worst of all has been her support for Bill C-311. She really needs to answer some questions about her role and her position on energy in Alberta. Bill C-311 would wipe out the Alberta and Saskatchewan economies. She supports it. It is a bill that would cost thousands of jobs. She still supports the bill. It is a bill that would cost up to and over $20,000 per capita in some ridings. She continues to support it.

It is a bill, according to the report that was released last week by the David Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute, that would cost Alberta 12.1% of its GDP and would cost Saskatchewan 7.5% of its GDP. She continues to support it. I think it was on Power Play, when she was asked about this report, she basically said that she does not think Alberta is coming out of this so badly. If a reduction of 12.1% in GDP is not a bad thing, I do not know what would be.

There is an energetic young man who is going door to door in Edmonton—Strathcona. Everywhere he goes he is asked how it is possible that there is an MP representing Edmonton—Strathcona who stands so strongly against the interests of Alberta. His name is Ryan Hastman. He is a Conservative candidate in Edmonton—Strathcona. He shares the disappointment that so many Albertans feel with the member. He would like to bring a different vision to this House, a vision that supports jobs, a vision that supports the Alberta economy, and a vision that supports the energy sector, both renewable and non-renewable, in ways that will lead us forward.

Climate Change Accountability Act--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader on October 8, 2009, regarding the admissibility of the motion of instruction moved on the same day by the hon. member for Vancouver East.

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Vancouver East, and the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for their interventions on this matter.

The parliamentary secretary argued that the motion of instruction listed on the order paper as Government Business No. 6 is out of order because, in his view, it attempts to time allocate a bill and, as such, is no longer permissive.

He added that the inclusion of a deadline in the motion of instruction had the effect of overriding existing reporting requirements for private members' bills already contained in the Standing Orders.

He also asserted that the motion contains two separate proposals and should, therefore, require two separate motions.

In speaking to the parliamentary secretary's point of order, the hon. member for Vancouver East pointed out that the committee may decide whether or not to exercise the powers given to it by the House, thus, rendering the motion permissive.

For his part, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley pointed out that there was a precedent for such a motion of instruction, referring to a motion that was debated on May 30, 2005.

As stated on page 641 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, and I quote:

Motions of instruction respecting bills are permissive rather than mandatory. It is left to the committee to decide whether or not to exercise the powers given to it by the House...

Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may give the committee an instruction by way of a motion which authorizes it to do what it otherwise could not do, such as, for example, examining a portion of a bill and reporting it separately, examining certain items in particular, dividing a bill into more than one bill, consolidating two or more bills into one bill, or expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill.

In the matter raised by the parliamentary secretary, the Chair must determine whether the wording of the motion of instruction is permissive or mandatory.

The first and main part of the motion is to give the committee the power to divide the bill. This is recognized as permissive by past practice and procedural authorities. I can see nothing in the motion of instruction that orders the committee to do anything specific with Bill C-311. The deadline and other procedural actions contained in the motion apply only if the committee takes the step to create Bill C-311A, in the full knowledge of the consequences that would ensue.

As I read the motion, the committee can still choose to report Bill C-311 in the same way as it would any other private member's bill.

Members are aware that the Standing Orders stipulate that a private member’s bill must be reported back to the House before the end of 60 sitting days, or, with the approval of the House, following an extension of 30 sitting days. Otherwise, the bill is deemed reported back without amendment.

It has been argued, in this case, that the inclusion of a deadline in the motion of instruction comes into conflict with the provisions of Standing Order 97.1(1), thus rendering the motion out of order.

However, in the view of the Chair, it is not unreasonable to envisage a scenario where the House, for whatever reason, would want a committee to report a bill back prior to the reporting deadline set out in Standing Order 97.1(1).

So, there is nothing, in my understanding of that Standing Order, or in the procedural authorities, that would preclude the House from adopting a motion of instruction that included a reporting deadline.

The example referred to by the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is particularly instructive on this point. That motion of instruction, debated in the House on May 30, 2005 (Journals, p. 800) stated in part: “that Bill C-43A be reported back to the House no later than two sitting days after the adoption of this motion”. It provided a deadline remarkably similar to that contained in the motion of instruction moved by the member for Vancouver East.

In the view of the Chair, just as in the 2005 example, the inclusion of a deadline in the motion of instruction for Bill C-311 does not infringe on the committee's discretion to exercise the power to divide the bill, nor with its discretion to amend the bill.

Finally, the Chair is not persuaded by the parliamentary secretary's argument that the motion contains more than one proposal and that it should be divided into two separate motions. A close reading of the motion shows that the portion regarding the reporting deadline is contingent on the main proposition; namely, the permissive instruction to divide the bill.

Accordingly, for all the reasons outlined, the Chair must conclude that the motion is in order.

I thank hon. members for their interventions on this matter.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Watson brings up a very good point, though, that his letter dated April 20, 2009, requested a costing of Bill C-311, because the author of Bill C-377 and Bill C-311--the Pembina Institute and Mr. Layton, both said it should be costed. And under that logic, that was his request.

To hear back from the budget officer saying he couldn't afford to do it and yet now can afford to do a costing at the request of a Liberal member of Parliament raises a number of serious questions, and we need to look into this.

[Aldyen Donnelly]

My opposition to Bill C-311 is due to the shock it would promote. Every time we jump out and set a target that feels out of reach—I'm setting aside the question of whether or not it is in reach—we back whole communities into fear-based tactics. My position is that we know which those communities are; that's not uncertain. The prudent next move is to develop a strategy for working with the communities and finding out what's possible.

I don't mind the whole strategy being about trying to get to Bill C-311 types of objectives or another set of objectives. But I think that if you pass one more bill and haven't gone through that process, there's difficulty.

I also want to add a little comment about the whole international trading thing. Last year, in 2008, the United States discharged just over one billion tonnes of CO₂ equivalent from coal-fired power plants that are over 55 years old. We don't have a coal-fired power plant in Canada that is yet 45 years old, so when we're having this dialogue and talking about money flows, it's expensive to cut emissions here. I'm not saying don't do it, but when we have a new economy, writing off a 20-year-old plant is a lot more expensive than walking away from a 65-year-old plant.

Those are our special circumstances. Our 26% increase in goods-producing jobs since 1996 was from capital investment that came here and that did not go to the United States, and it was capital investment that came here from Europe. We have a special challenge and we have to go at this differently from anyone else.

[John Drexhage]

I think this can't be resolved only by governments and Parliament; this really has to become a much broader national discussion. We have, for example, really called for a first ministers conference on a national energy strategy for quite a few years now. We need those kinds of discussions; we need this kind of bottom-up engagement. It can't only be solved in Parliament. Hopefully, Bill C-311 can be one of the many pieces in the quiver, as it were, that will press this forward.

Thank you.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I'd like to ask one final question if I still have time.

The government isn't thinking beyond the economics. Do you think a bill like Bill C-311 could show that the economic picture—if it were to be studied in order to develop a plan—would be better if we had realistic and effective goals of 80% for 2050? What would happen if we didn't have this bill?