Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to Bill C-288, the Kyoto protocol implementation bill.
It is well established in the Constitution and the Standing Orders of this place and in past Speaker's rulings that bills resulting in the spending of money must be recommended to the House by a minister of the crown.
Enactment of this bill would necessitate the spending of public funds. Since there is no Governor General's recommendation with it, it is out of order.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to subclause 7(1) of this bill which reads:
Within 180 days after this Act comes into force, the Governor in Council shall ensure that Canada fully meets its obligations under Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol by making, amending or repealing the necessary regulations under this or any other Act.
The referenced article in the Kyoto protocol sets out targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions for signatory countries. Canada's target pursuant to the protocol is to reduce its emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. In fact, our emissions are currently 34.6% above this target.
When the former government announced its project green plan for honouring its Kyoto commitment in 2005, it estimated that $10 billion in government investments through 2012 were required to realize the anticipated reductions.
Speaking at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on April 14, 2005, one day after the release of this plan, the then minister of the environment referred to this $10 billion as the “Kyoto money”. The hon. member informed the committee that approximately $2 billion had been appropriated in previous budgets, but that the remainder would have to come from future budgets. Budget 2005 announced some additional spending projections. A fraction of that spending was identified in the supplementary estimates for the 2005-06 fiscal year. But this money was never voted on by Parliament before dissolution last November, and this money was paid out through special warrants.
In any case, it is clear that Parliament has not authorized the extensive expenditures that would be required to “fully meet” Kyoto targets as Bill C-288 mandates.
Further, given the increase in emissions, it would seem that even the $10 billion projection was a vast underestimation of the spending required to meet the objective of this bill.
Erskine May at page 763 of the 22nd edition notes:
If there is any doubt on the matter and it appears that the new proposal may entail an extension of previously enacted purposes of expenditure or an increase in the expenditure potentially liable to be incurred in pursuit of such a purpose, a money resolution will be required.
Similarly, on February 8, 2005 the Acting Speaker ruled on Bill C-280 stating:
Where it is clear that the legislative objective of a bill cannot be accomplished without the dedication of public funds to that objective, the bill must be seen as the equivalent of a bill effecting an appropriation.
I find it difficult to see how this bill can mandate the government to fully meet existing Kyoto targets without also committing the government to additional significant expenditures in the billions of dollars. Only the Crown can recommend the expenditure of funds from the public revenue and this bill does not have that royal recommendation.
I would submit that this bill requires a royal recommendation. Since it is clear that the government's policy differs from the provisions of this bill, the House should know that no recommendation will be forthcoming.