Evidence of meeting #17 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was targets.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Sam Banks  Committee Researcher
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Normand Radford
Michel Arès  Counsel, Legal Services, Department of the Environment

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Mr. Vellacott.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

My comments are more in the form of question, maybe to our resource people here as well.

Again, reading this over, the clause states:

The purpose of this Act is to ensure that Canada contributes fully to the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

I've been around this place for a few years, but help me understand this in terms of the legal weight. This is, as we say, a purpose clause, an interpretive tool. What kind of weight does this have in respect to other issues of ambiguity or lack of clarity in the bill? Can somebody inform me or clue me in on that?

It's more than just a straight statement, because it's a grid or lens through which we look at all the other aspects or parts of the bill. Is that correct? Does this clause have weight of a different significance from the other clauses? Is it a more weighty clause?

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

I will ask for comments.

3:40 p.m.

Sam Banks Committee Researcher

It would be part of the act; it's part of the bill. The purpose is to further clarify what it is the bill is seeking to do. It says it's to ensure that it contributes fully, not to ensure that these aims are actually achieved, so it's more aspirational.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

How does it affect other parts of the bill where there's a lack of clarity, or ambiguity, etc.? Does it weight on that?

3:40 p.m.

Committee Researcher

Sam Banks

You would return to that clause to see what the purpose of the bill is. What is the bill attempting to do? Does the later clause in conflict or that seems to have some sort of ambiguity follow that particular purpose? The bill would be read as a whole. It's an aid to determine what it is the bill is seeking to achieve.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

From a court's point of view, from a legal interpretive point of view, can it then be definitive in terms of determining other parts?

3:40 p.m.

Committee Researcher

Sam Banks

It always depends on the context in which the ambiguity would arise. You would actually have to see an ambiguity or a vagueness in the context in order to go back to the purpose clause. It is very difficult to answer that question in the abstract. You need a concrete example.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

Thank you.

(Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to)

(On clause 5--Commitment)

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

We have amendment BQ-1 on page 6.

I would ask Mr. Bigras to move it and explain the amendment, and then we'll go from there.

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Are we in fact talking about BQ-1?

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Yes, it's on page 6, BQ-1.

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

I move that Bill C-377, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 3 with the following:

reduced, subject to the targets identified in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,

It is important for our targets to be in line with those of the international communities. I realize that this amendment is debatable and I am open to considering a friendly amendment from the opposition or from the government.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Mr. Cullen.

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

As the UNFCCC has set out, they are in the process, as we saw in Bali, of setting what those targets and timelines will be. In the process, the document as it sits right now, those don't exist. We are thinking of a friendly amendment to this, with language that would read, “the ultimate objectives identified in the UNFCCC”. To refer to the UNFCCC targets...it is something that's coming, but it doesn't sit in black and white right now. I think the objectives that are outlined and that will be continually clarified in the UNFCCC are a better reference, and it makes sense in conjunction with this bill.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Does Mr. Bigras accept that as a friendly amendment?

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Yes.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Are there any comments?

Mr. Warawa.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

Chair, Bill C-377 proposes to add the qualification that the government has an obligation to ensure that greenhouse gases are reduced to specific targets, and it's subject to these targets identified in the UNFCCC.

The amendment would bind future Canadian governments to accepting targets agreed to under the UNFCCC. These targets may not be consistent with Canada's Turning the Corner plan and the UNFCCC may not be able to come up to an agreement that involves all the major emitters. We heard from the witnesses how important it is for Canada to take leadership, and Canada is taking leadership now with the Turning the Corner plan.

We have, historically, the toughest targets in Canadian history, but we have also taken strong leadership in asking that all the major emitters be involved. And we heard time and time again, particularly from the last set of witnesses, how important it is that we have all the major emitters part of the solution, not just 30%, but we have all the developing world's nations. G8+5 was mentioned, and we need to have 80% to 100% of the countries involved with reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, not just 30%. So this has some problems with the wording.

I'm unclear as to the focus of the amendment that Mr. Bigras has proposed. However, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change does not itself include any specific targets, which has been mentioned. I'd like to remind Mr. Bigras that the ultimate objective of that convention is the stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system. This objective applies to all countries, all the major emitters, and it should be.

Furthermore, we're not in a position to speculate on what will be the exact nature of any new agreement, as has been mentioned, since all parties are about to begin negotiations. They began in Bali.

So I have great difficulty with this proposed amendment, as I do with Bill C-377.

Thank you.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Mr. McGuinty.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to respond directly to the parliamentary secretary's comments.

First, he said this bill would bind Canada, and once it bound Canada to IPCC targets, it would run in contradistinction or against the government's own Turning the Corner plan. Well, in fact the government is already in breach of the existing international treaty obligations and has unilaterally decided not to be bound in its domestic plan, called the Turning the Corner plan, which, by the way, has never been subject to any kind of legislation or a vote in the House of Commons. It has unilaterally decided to be in breach of the existing legal standard. That's number one.

So the concerns the parliamentary secretary has for binding heirs and successor governments and having them compelled to have to live up to the standards set by an international body are not true. His own government has given plenty of evidence to Canadians that their domestic governments, including this government, particularly this government, have in fact unilaterally abandoned those standards.

Secondly, the parliamentary secretary continues along message track lines to foist untruths on the Canadian people about whether or not annex 2 countries, developing countries, are in or out of the international treaty. This is false. It's a patent falsehood that continues to be repeated ad nauseam by the government. There are 172 countries that have signed on to the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol and attachments thereto. All of them have in one fashion or another--this is directly on point to the parliamentary secretary's remarks, unless I'm missing something--agreed to common but differentiated responses to the climate change crisis in different timelines.

Our own minister, your minister, went to Bali to launch the two-year negotiation round as contemplated perfectly in the Kyoto Protocol to bring annex 2 countries like India and China and others inside the tent, so that by 2012 they would have hard targets like the 36 annex 1 countries that are first off the mark.

It is not fair, it is not right to continue to repeat fundamental mistruths about the Kyoto Protocol to the Canadian people, and I really would ask respectfully of the parliamentary secretary that he not do that, because it's not true.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Mr. McGuinty....

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Chair, I would really ask that you advise or help the parliamentary secretary to understand that if we're going to talk about apples and apples, we should talk about apples and apples, but not to throw wrenches in the monkey works, Mr. Chair, simply because it is good, for communication purposes, with the government's Turning the Corner plan. I'd like to make those two points.

Thank you very much.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Mills

Mr. Vellacott.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

I have a question, I guess, from this. I find it a little bit strange and a little peculiar why we would be committing ourselves to something in the future, not knowing what that agreement will be, the Convention on Climate Change, and what those targets would be.

Just on a personal basis, when I'm involved in some kind of agreement to buy an acreage, to buy whatever it happens to be, and then I'm making agreements that down the road there are these unforeseen, unknown things, whatever they happen to be, I'm agreeing to that too, and I don't have a clue what it is. I would never sign a document to that effect. I think most people in Canada would not.

I find it really more than odd, and rather dangerous, I guess would be the better word, in terms of why we would do that at this juncture when we don't know exactly what this will commit us to, subjecting ourselves, as we sit here.... We're signing a blank cheque is in effect what occurred.

I would like to ask the members if there may be some better way they would choose to qualify it. But simply to say that we're agreed to reduce, subject to those targets identified by the UNFCCC, I don't think is a wise or a prudent course of action for us. I think the Canadian public would see it that way, because by and large, I don't think they get into the kind of scenario that we're doing here.

If it's a house agreement, if it's a personal agreement of any sort, signing off on unforeseen speculative things down the road is not a wise thing to do.