Nathan Cullen

[The Environment, June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister seems to be the only leader on the planet who would look at our Arctic's melting icecap and see an opportunity to drill for even more oil, putting more fuel on the climate change fire.

Imperial Oil, with a record $3.2 billion profit last year out of the tar sands, is now turning its eyes to the far north.

The Prime Minister has the legislation, the power and the responsibility to finally defend the environment. In 72 hours, he will make the decision on Imperial Oil's Kearl oil sands development. Will he do the right thing and finally stand up for our planet?

[The Environment, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister continues his summer spinning tour of Europe, meeting with the Conservative Chancellor of Germany who has committed her country to spending $800 million to protect the world's forests, to establish a national home retrofit program and to meet Germany's climate change targets.

Could the government summon the courage to commit to putting a real price on carbon? When will the government stop damaging the environment here at home and ruining our reputation when abroad?

[Specific Claims Tribunal Act, May 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to give a brief response. I appreciate the minister's tone. The tendency in this place to accept victories or near perfect situations is rare.

As I think about my comments, I will note that I have just come from my riding. This past weekend, I was again faced with first nations bands under third party management and again faced with another string of suicides and loss of life.

Mistrust is going to have to be overcome by actual proof. The presentation of this bill may be merits of that proof. It will be my job, and I think the job of others, to hold the government's feet to the fire on this continually, day after day in the House of Commons. I think that is appropriate. I imagine that the minister would be doing the same in my role. For so many years, with so much injustice, the bar will be set pretty high. I think that is only appropriate.

[Specific Claims Tribunal Act, May 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting scenario.

The previous representatives of my region were part and parcel of that filibuster. They were part and parcel of trying to scuttle the entire deal. That was the effort. It was not simply to cause three days of delay. It was to attempt to ruin the first nations treaty, which was the Nisga'a treaty. That was declared and said by a member, and there is some irony, because that member returned to run as a candidate for the Conservative Party in the last election and held the position again, saying that treaties were a mistake. Before that, he was a Reform member.

However, he ran again as a Conservative. In debate after debate in communities of which 50% or more are first nations, while the non-first nations have grown accustomed to the idea and have seen the advantages of it, that gentleman unfortunately was joined by too many within that political movement in saying that this was bad for Canada, that this was bad for our region.

The Nisga'a, to their credit and under the great leadership of Dr. Gosnell and many others, a leadership that handed a torch to the generation that has now adopted this Nisga'a treaty, saw this for what it was. They knew that right intentions would win in the end.

Here is an interesting example. Out of the Nisga'a treaty, the Nisga'a were able to develop what now is called the Nisga'a Fisheries. In a sense, they take care of the Nass River, its tributaries and the outflow into the ocean and manage the fisheries from their perspective and from their cultural perspective. It is one of the few rivers in British Columbia this year that will have any kind of fishery at all. It has been lauded by DFO, environmental groups and industry groups as a well managed fishery, perhaps the best on the entire west coast.

When the Nisga'a treaty was being debated, an important comment was made by the head of the Credit Unions of British Columbia. When he was asked whether the Nisga'a treaty was good or bad in the short term or the long term, he said it was good in both, because finally it allowed for certainty on the land base. It allowed for certainty for forestry, for mining companies and for fishing. It allowed people to make the types of investments and decisions they needed to make, because there was no question about where fee simple was or was not, where the interdiction of the Crown existed and did not. This is what the Nisga'a had been basing their economic revival on: that land question.

As for questions of filibuster and questions of delaying and denying and hoping to resist the inevitable, it was, I would suggest to my Conservative colleagues, an unfortunate period in Canadian history, it really was. However, the Nisga'a persevered and right-thinking members of Parliament persevered.

Now we now have rules in this place, thankfully, which omit that type of tactics from happening in that manner and do not allow the introduction of some 100 or 200 amendments just to talk out the clock and try to destroy a bill, and this was a bill that was supported by a majority of Canadians.

It is incredible to me that the Conservative members would somehow equate trying to destroy a treaty with a representative commenting on a piece of legislation that affects him or her greatly. Thirty per cent of my constituents are first nations. I am amazed that in their sudden desperation to deal with this bill the Conservatives somehow are seeing a filibuster under every rock and tree. It is remarkable to me. The Minister of Indian Affairs has stood up in this House and asked questions, so I guess the Minister of Indian Affairs is therefore presenting some sort of filibuster to the House.

Of course, we are not making that accusation. It is bizarre and beyond the pale coming as it does from a government that spent six weeks at the environment committee delaying a climate change bill. To suggest that a 20 minute speech is some grand conspiracy is amazing and disgraceful.

[Specific Claims Tribunal Act, May 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great anticipation that I enter this debate today because this affects not only regions like mine in northwestern British Columbia, but I believe it affects the very nature and fabric of our country. It is essential to ensure that legislation like this, Bill C-30, the specific claims tribunal act, is written properly, written well, and written with proper consultation with those most affected and those are the first nations communities that are impacted by the treaty process.

I think all parties within this place have recognized that the process that has existed for so many years has been tinkered with and touched at the margins, but never fundamentally addressed. As I will illustrate over my speaking time here, the greatest effect is on those first nations living in desperate straits.

I cannot recall the number of times, because there have been so many from all sides of this House and from all parties, that we have talked about the conditions of first nations people and how unacceptable those conditions would be for any other group within this country. We need to look upon this as Canadians with unequivocal shame and some understanding that it cannot go on and must change.

I can recall having conversations with the former Indian affairs minister just at the beginning of the tenure of the current regime about the ambitions and the desire to see fundamental shifts in the Indian Act itself. It has guided and ruled over first nations for far too long and is a broken act. The evidence does not need to be crafted up with more government studies because the real, anecdotal evidence is on the ground.

I refer to my colleague from Yukon, whose area has made some progress in trying to take a different approach to first nations consultation, a region, along with other regions across the north, that has attempted to have a deeper inclusion of first nations people in the decision making process. As a result, everyone has benefited. Is the system perfect in Yukon or in other territories in the north? Of course not, but it is a step ahead and I believe that it is simply a question of proximity.

I represent Skeena--Bulkley Valley, a region of some 30% to 35% first nations. In the communities that I represent, where first nations are living side by side with non-first nations, the understanding of the situation, the understanding of culture and history, is deeper and more profound. When I am touring the rest of the country, when I am speaking here in Parliament with my colleagues who do not have that experience, there is a certain alienation that goes on, a certain misunderstanding of what the reality is for first nations people.

That is somewhat to be understood but is no longer acceptable. In order for this country to progress, in order for us as Canadian people to start to feel proud again about having an inclusive, fair and just society, then simply this issue, if no other, must be addressed.

Regarding the specifics of this bill, this is an attempt to clear up a backlog that has not received enough attention, that is the 800-some land claims that wait in some sort of purgatory, some sort of limbo, that has gone on for too long and is costing both first nations communities and Canadian taxpayers untold millions of dollars in meeting after meeting with little or no progress. Unfortunately, those who most suffer are those who can least afford to suffer: the first nations people living on first nations reserves all across this country.

About 60% of these claims actually exist in B.C. For historical reasons, land was not seeded. It was not put under any treaty upon first contact and there was a promise made. There was a promise made in the enactment of what is now Canada that the Government of Canada, then controlled by British Parliament, would treat in good faith and would come to the table in good faith with first nations people and attempt to resolve the land question and issues surrounding land.

First nations across this country, and in particular British Columbia and in the north, took in good faith the documents that the government officials had in their hands, thinking that they meant something and that those documents would be adhered to. They thought that there would be some sort of justice and some sort of sense of decency and honour from the Crown, that the Crown would come forward and represent those interests and meet between nations and settle treaties because this had been the first nations experience through all of their history between different first nations.

The reason that we know this is because those nations are alive and well today. They will tell us the histories of when there was conflict between first nations which had gone on for thousands of years, that when they came to some resolution to a dispute, they would meet with honour and treaties would be upheld.

We have oral traditions in the northwest of British Columbia going back thousands of years. It seems that every time another archaeological dig is performed, the extension goes back another thousand or two thousand years. Some of the first nations elders in my communities shake their heads when they tell me about this because their claim, their understanding, is time immemorial. They have spent generation after generation and as they say “walked upon the bones of their grandfathers and great grandfathers and going back through time”.

That has brought them to a certain sense and understanding of how the land works, how their communities function with other communities, and that ability to have conflict which is inevitable between peoples. It happens within households. It happens within communities. It happens between nations. That seems to be an unfortunate but inevitable circumstance of the human condition, but then when those conflicts happen, that there is a place and a time for us to resolve those conflicts, a time when we sit down at the table as near equals as can be and settle our differences.

There are an enormous number of reasons why this imperative is growing and needs to be addressed. That is why New Democrats have put this solution, the requirement of an independent arm's-length tribunal from the government, into our last two election platforms and passed recently at the NDP convention. This is why we have a first nations consultation group working with our party to help guide what needs to go into this independent tribunal.

Frankly, what trust should first nations have in the House of Commons, in this Parliament, to get it right all by themselves because over the years any objective observer would look at the condition and treatment of first nations by Parliament after Parliament, government after government, and after so many promises made. The actual on the ground proof shows first nations that trust is not something they should necessarily bring to the table when this process is designed.

Consultation is a comment and word thrown around very casually by politicians. It is almost like a tick-box. First, get the name right, make sure first nations people's names are correct. Second, make sure the word “consultation” is in our speech and maybe throw in respect, trust, mutual admiration along the way. But consultation, one would hope would finally and clearly be legally defined by the government in conjunction with first nations, so that at the end of the day first nations are not asked to simply trust the government, that first nations are not simply assumed to be willing and equal partners in this conversation, but that they have something in hand that they can take to the bank, so to speak.

This legislation talks about three conditions in which a first nation may enter into this process. This is one of those important conversations, as we design this bill, that the clarity and full education of these conditions are presented to first nations people so that they can decide with full knowledge and understanding before entering a process.

We would hope there is a caveat included in this legislation that allows for accountable and transparent information sharing with first nations which are considering entering this process. For too long governments have dealt directly with the band councils, with some of the first nations' leadership that are represented here in Ottawa and lobby groups, and the first nations people actually living in the villages themselves are passed over, are simply not consulted, not brought in and not given a fair, free voice at the table.

These conditions are important for Canadians to understand because this is where the rubber hits the road. A first nation can file a claim when all of these three conditions are met: first, when a claim is not accepted for negotiation by Canada including a scenario in which Canada fails to meet the three year time limits for assessing the claims, which is part of the backlog right now. I comment on this because I have been around the treaty tables previously as a consultant. Time and time again, of the three parties sitting at the table, the province, the federal government and the first nations, inevitably, one of the two levels of government representing this place or the province, would suddenly find the lack of will to participate and would suddenly find its agenda to be full.

Meetings would get cancelled, postponed or delayed. Millions upon millions of dollars would be misspent this way on treaty processes with no clear timelines and no clear deadlines. All it would take was one of the parties to simply step back and say they were busy, particularly, and this is most unfortunate, when tables had progressed to near conclusion. This seemed to be the time when one of the parties, one of the levels of provincial or federal government, found a certain unwillingness to participate.

It is so difficult for first nations communities, for the first nations leadership, who have to go back to their people and borrow against their eventual claim. This is something important for Canadians to understand, that all of the costs that are incurred by the first nations negotiators, often times is some sort of borrowed money from the future, from the eventual claim. The longer the government delays, in effect, takes away treaty money, eventual money for settlement of claims, and puts it into the treaty process itself, year after year. There are some first nations in British Columbia who are $12, $14 or $15 million in debt in trying to settle their treaty processes. That money will be taken off the tab of their final treaty.

There may be some encouragement for the federal and provincial negotiators to keep themselves a job, to keep talking and keep things going. But that sense of urgency is required. As we all know in our personal and business lives there is no deal that is ever settled without a deadline. There is no difficult task that is ever completed without some sense of a deadline to encourage that urgency, to allow the innovation to take place, to actually settle the claims.

There is a second condition: at any stage in the negotiation process, if all parties agree, and here is a rare circumstance that we hope will exist more and more frequently, where all parties see within their common interest the need to agree. What a fascinating notion.

I know the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is listening intently and wants to know when those conditions will be created. Those conditions get created when people come to the table with proper intent, which is to settle treaties. What a remarkable notion.

It must be within the federal and provincial governments' interest to settle treaties. Certainly, it is within the interests of the first nations. They are living the reality of non-treaty conditions. They are living the reality of having no capital or collateral with which to negotiate and develop the economies they hope for, for their people. They have urgency.

So often and too often times the provincial and federal governments, and I am speaking specifically to the case in British Columbia, do not agree. The parties find some easy and common causality to find disagreement. Treaties are complicated things. They deal with education, cultural rights, land issues and revenue sharing. It is very easy when the government has the intent to not agree, to find something that lets it say it needs to take a step back from the process and move away from the table.

There is a third and last negotiating point: after three years of unsuccessful negotiations. Unfortunately, this should be the easiest condition to be met because if any experience is known to the British Columbian first nations communities, many of them would hope for a treaty process that looked at a three year horizon. They would pray for such a thing.

There is a highway that I would encourage the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to visit. It travels into the north of British Columbia. It is not a long highway but an important one. It travels from Terrace, British Columbia into the Nass Valley and visits the Nisga'a communities. The highway for many years was a dirt track that sloughed off into the rivers. We have many stories of people dying along the road. It was a logging truck road that was supposed service the 5,000 or 6,000 people who lived in Nisga'a territory.

The road is named Highway 113. The Nisga'a, when settling their treaty, were given the dubious distinction or honour of being able to name the highway. They named it 113 because it had been 113 years since they had first visited the provincial legislature and asked to be treated, dealt with, and negotiated with in a fair and honest way. It was 113 years of persistent negotiation, generation after generation, that would hand the baton to the next leadership and say, please push on because we need to settle this land claim and we need to settle the land question. It took 113 years.

Every time I travel that road, and I was just back there two weeks ago, I visit with the Nisga'a Lisims government, which has a general assembly at this time every spring. I would encourage the Minister of Indian Affairs to visit. He would be most welcome to visit by the Nisga'a and would be treated with dignity and respect, I can assure him.

Is it not remarkable for Canadians to consider that a first nation that has had to struggle through 113 years to settle a land claim still has the dignity, the poise and the respect to welcome representatives from the federal government, which, some would argue, put them through abuse for 113 years? Is it not remarkable that they would welcome those representatives to their community, that they would provide a feast for them, present them with their respect and their time, and ask those representatives to please accept them? Yes, it is remarkable.

Oftentimes, and perhaps not often enough, members of Parliament are visited by the first nations leadership, the elders from across Canada. I remember when we were settling the Dogrib claim not so long ago. The elders from that first nation community were here in the galleries of the House of Commons and watched question period that day.

I talked to them later and asked them what was going through their minds as they watched the to-and-fro of what we present as debate, what we present to Canadians of their leadership during question period. I wondered what those elders were thinking. They had the dignity and grace to not comment too much to me and said that they supposed it was something good for the cameras for us.

However, we deal with the lives of people. We deal with them when their lives are hanging in the balance and when they are unable to find economic opportunities. I have claimed, and I have been joined in this by many of the first nations leaders in my region, that the best social program is a job. The best way to encourage hope for the future is that prospect of full and gainful employment and the ability to put food on the table in a decent, hard-working way.

That is what first nations want, not just in Skeena in the northwest of British Columbia, but across this country. That is what everybody wants. Everybody wants some respect and some sort of capacity to use the capital that has been given to them, and in the case of first nations, it is capital that is rightfully theirs, which is the land question at its most fundamental.

I would hope, as I have for the four years that I have been in this place, that the cause of aboriginal people is one of those rare causes that will cross over the political lines. I hope that it will cross over the to-and-fro of ideological advantage in the political fray and allow us as people representing Canadians to discover what bonds hold us in common unity across the aisles, across the great divide of partisan politics. I hope that it will allow us to settle on something that we can be proud of.

If this bill is done correctly, this may be one of those rare instances. If the consultation and incorporation of first nations concerns are done properly, this may be one of those circumstances. It is why New Democrats have advocated for this for many years. It is why New Democrats will support the bill going to second reading and to understanding in committee: so that changes can be made, so that we can consider this properly, look at it in the full light of day and take in those consultations accurately.

Granted, one must understand, not having dealt with first nations communities very much, the notions of mistrust from the perspective of first nations. There has been too much history, too much practice, to ask first nations to come out with full and open arms, trusting whatever the government may or may not present.

We must understand, culturally speaking, where the cultural breaks have been when there have been so many atrocities visited upon first nations. We must understand that the lineage back to the tradition of the leadership has been disrupted so fundamentally that time to do this properly must be taken. The ability of government to actually open its mind and its heart to what first nations are telling it is an absolute necessity in order to bring first nations to the table properly and have them endorse this process all the way through.

It is available to us if we as parliamentarians listen properly, if we as parliamentarians act on the recommendations given to us, and if we as parliamentarians put aside the momentary interests of partisan politics and step into that rarefied atmosphere that allows us to develop something that is good for this country in the moment and good for this country in the generations to come.

[Specific Claims Tribunal Act, May 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the comment by the Conservative member was odd, because the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development also asked questions today. I do not think it was systematic obstruction or filibustering, although they are the experts on that.

My question for my Quebec colleague has to do with the problems of poverty, suicide, and so on. I am very familiar with the situation in northern British Columbia, but I am not very familiar with the situation in northern Quebec or the situation facing aboriginals in Quebec.

Are aboriginal peoples in northern Quebec currently in the same situation? Because there is a big difference between the people of Quebec—with respect to the situation in Quebec—and the rest of Canada. I am curious. Is the situation really similar? Because the Indian Act is so ridiculous and out of touch; it is a form of oppression.

I am curious about what is going on particularly in northern Quebec. I am not sure if my colleague is familiar with the aboriginals in northern Quebec.

For us, there is the problem of isolation, and there are economic difficulties that come from living in the north, far from cities, far from the central economy and the rest of the province. I do not know if it is the same in Quebec.

[Specific Claims Tribunal Act, May 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have two fundamental questions. The first one concerns the issue of housing.

For many years, the previous government and now the present government seem to face a crisis over the ability to enable or allow first nations to develop new ways to create housing within the reserve system. I am talking about on reserve bands.

When I look across my region, the housing crisis is being predicated and continued by a government policy that says that houses must be paid for and built by the federal government, using figures from, in some cases, 1989, as if housing prices have not changed since then. It also does now allow any innovative programs that would allow local first nations to combine with training facilities and training institutions to actually build the houses themselves and start to create those programs and training opportunities that first nations need and create the houses that would be more practical and applicable.

We have houses designed in Ontario for the west coast of British Columbia. These houses quickly mould and fall apart. Non-aboriginal Canadians look at this and somehow point back to the first nations as if they had designed and built those houses themselves.

My second question is perhaps a more fundamental one. What efforts has the member or his party made to look at the root cause of this? Is it the Indian Act. In his comments, he mentioned how the act was an anchor around the ankles of first nations people. The act, which was created decades ago, has very little in it that is applicable to the real world and yet no one seems to want to take a real march toward reforming the Indian Act. Any attempts that have been made have been pushed back.

The previous Indian affairs minister and I had some conversations about reforming the act but, apparently, that did not advance anywhere. I am wondering what the member's views are on both of those issues, both the practical in terms of housing but then the more fundamental, which is changing the very act under which first nations people are forced to live.

[Climate Change Accountability Act, May 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the member for Outremont. We will provide time for him to illuminate us in another official language.

Let me get to the four definitions. As the government spent day after day and week after week delaying the committee, Canadians stood by with growing concern about this bill being unable to pass.

The first amendment deals with the actual definition of greenhouse gases, which has been amended through changes we have made to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. This is a change in the bill that has been learned over time and is correct even by the government's own standards. I would expect the government to support this amendment, unless of course it chooses to stand on ideological principles only and vote against it.

The second will switch the role of who it is that will be guiding and looking over the shoulder of government. This is a role we clearly have defined as much needed. The commissioner of the environment appeared before us and made recommendations, which at least the opposition parties have adopted, to give the role to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy so that it can verify with some final seriousness that what the government is proposing to do with climate change will actually happen.

What a remarkable breath of fresh air this will present for Canadians. The spin and the doublespeak that have been so consistent from the government when it comes to climate change will in effect be against the law, because the government's plans will be verified by the national round table, which is made up of a group of Canadian experts on issues of the economy and the environment.

The third role is to allow for a new role for the commissioner of the environment. The commissioner of the environment exists within the Auditor General's office. Again, this will provide the commissioner with a means to look back on what the government says it has done, the commitments it has made, and to verify whether those things happened or did not.

When I came to the House in 2004, there had been for too long a perception in the Canadian public that in issues related to climate change we were doing okay. My colleagues will remember it as well. The perception was that maybe we were not great, but we were not awful. Only when we started to open the books, and report after report came in about Canada's actual greenhouse gas levels, did Canadians and parliamentarians become increasingly concerned and then downright angry. International agreements that we had signed and committed to had been broken.

What Canada had put its signature to and its good name and reputation, which were earned over years and years, were suddenly in jeopardy. The world looked upon us as maybe not being an honest broker in the environmental global community, as maybe making commitments that we were not intending to keep.

This amendment and this bill would prevent that and would begin to recover and repair Canada's international reputation. Could anything be more critical to us in this place than to start to perform with authenticity and in such a way that we can hold our heads up with pride at international meetings and at future protocol meetings under the United Nations? This is what the amendment would do. Again I encourage all members in this House to support it.

Finally, the fourth amendment, which is as important as the rest, would allow the national round table to provide a more concrete advisory position to the minister of the environment, to guide his or her hand, if we will. One thing we have learned is that minister of the environment after minister of the environment has been in desperate need of adult supervision, of somebody looking over and making sure that as much time is spent on the policy as the politics. That is what Bill C-377 does. It should pass.

[Climate Change Accountability Act, May 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your wise ruling today and ask you to accept our accolades.

The reason this is important for us as parliamentarians is that what took place at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development is something that all parliamentarians, regardless of political stripe or interest, should resist. The government's unwillingness to accept a private member's piece of legislation meant that it used a tactic that has never been known in the recorded history of this place: that of filibustering, in a sense, a private member's bill.

As was noted in a Speaker's ruling some weeks prior to this, the committees in this place must learn to function and govern themselves in an appropriate way. They must learn to conduct the will of Parliament and the will of Canadians who have sent us to this place to advocate on their behalf for good things to happen.

Bill C-377, with the four amendments that I will be addressing today, does exactly that. For the first time in Canadian law, the targets relating to climate change, the greenhouse gas emissions for this country, will be legislated into law, thereby prohibiting any government, this one or any future government, from resisting the will of Canadians, from resisting the inclination that we must do the right thing when it comes to climate change.

As for these amendments, the irony, I suppose, which my colleagues are well aware of although I am not sure that all government members are, is that when we ran into this impasse in committee, this filibuster presented by the Conservatives, it was around clause 10, which is a clause for accountability and transparency when dealing with greenhouse gases. That is all the clause said. This part of the bill said that the government must tell Canadians what it has done, what the record has been on climate change, where the successes and failures have been, and then also tell Canadians what the plans are and have that accountable to Canadians. That is where we hit the roadblock.

This is obviously ironic coming from the Conservatives, who spent a great deal of time and effort in the last Parliament and then in the lead-up to this one in their campaign, talking about transparency and accountability. When it came to facing a bill on the environment, on climate change, which is top of mind for Canadians, in the very section that says the government must be transparent and accountable the government chose to delay and deny the reality of what we are faced with.

The fact is that Canada as a nation, as an economy, is far off track with our own commitments, our international commitments, but also far off track with what the rest of the developed world is doing, which is to find a way to make our economy more efficient, to produce more green collar jobs, and to allow Canadians to feel assured about our environment's future and not have to continue to face the threat of irreversible climate change, which we are already seeing.

It is a moral question that the government has been unable to face. It is a question of ethics that the government is unwilling to consider. In its two and a half long years in the House, following up on the 13 long years in government of the previous regime--too many--the government has been unable to effectively address the issue of climate change.

New Democrats, under the leadership of the member for Toronto—Danforth, have finally presented a reasonable, considered piece of legislation that will allow the country to move forward on this critical issue.

The actual amendments dealing with this bill are I think quite instructive. This bill, like all bills by the time they reach their final stages and final processes, originated some two years ago. The final four amendments to this bill deal with lessons learned over two years. They are lessons learned at the special legislative committee on the clean air and climate change act. That act was a flawed government bill that the NDP rewrote and for which it presented the best thinking on issues related to the environment at the time.

This was learned from events with respect to Bill C-288, when the government found a way to again try to put the kibosh on what was happening. We learned again from this bill.

Mr. Speaker, please correct me if I am wrong procedurally, but I have just been handed a note about splitting my time with the member for Outremont.

[Climate Change Accountability Act, May 12th, 2008]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-377, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 2 the following:

““greenhouse gases” means the following substances, as they appear on the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999:

(a) carbon dioxide, which has the molecular formula CO2;

(b) methane, which has the molecular formula CH4;

(c) nitrous oxide, which has the molecular formula N2O;

(d) hydrofluorocarbons that have the molecular formula CnHxF(2n+2-x) in which 0<n<6;

(e) the following perfluorocarbons:

(i) those that have the molecular formula CnF2n+2 in which 0<n<7, and

(ii) octafluorocyclobutane, which has the molecular formula C4F8; and

(f) sulphur hexafluoride, which has the molecular formula SF6.”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-377, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 43 on page 8 and lines 1 to 12 on page 9 with the following:

“the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy established by section 3 of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act shall perform the following with respect to the statement:

(a) undertake research and gather information and analyses on the statement in the context of sustainable development; and

(b) advise the Minister on issues that are within its purpose, as set out in section 4 of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act, including the following, to the extent that they are within that purpose:

(i) the likelihood that each of the proposed measures will achieve the emission reductions projected in the statement,

(ii) the likelihood that the proposed measures will enable Canada to meet its commitment under section 5 and meet the interim Canadian greenhouse gas emission targets referred to in section 6, and

(iii) any other matters that the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy considers relevant.

(2) The Minister shall

(a) within three days after receiving the advice referred to in paragraph (1)(b):

(i) publish it in any manner that the Minister considers appropriate, and

(ii) submit it to the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons and the Speakers shall table it in their respective Houses on any of the first three days on which that House is sitting after the day on which the Speaker receives the advice; and

(b) within 10 days after receiving the advice, publish a notice in the Canada Gazette setting out how the advice was published and how a copy of the publication may be obtained.”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-377 be amended by adding after line 12 on page 9 the following new clause

“13.1 (1) At least once every two years after this Act comes into force, the Commissioner shall prepare a report that includes

(a) an analysis of Canada’s progress in implementing the measures proposed in the statement referred to in subsection 10(2);

(b) an analysis of Canada’s progress in meeting its commitment under section 5 and the interim Canadian greenhouse gas emission targets referred to in section 6; and

(c) any observations and recommendations on any matter that the Commissioner considers relevant.

(2) The Commissioner shall publish the report in any manner the Commissioner considers appropriate within the period referred to in subsection (1).

(3) The Commissioner shall submit the report to the Speaker of the House of Commons on or before the day it is published, and the Speaker shall table the report in the House on any of the first three days on which that House is sitting after the Speaker receives it.”

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-377 be amended by adding after line 12 on page 9 the following new clause:

“NATIONAL ROUND TABLE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

13.2 (1) Within 180 days after the Minister prepares the target plan under subsection 6(1) or prepares a revised target plan under subsection 6(2), the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy established by section 3 of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act shall perform the following with respect to the target plan or revised target plan:

(a) undertake research and gather information and analyses on the target plan or revised target plan in the context of sustainable development; and

(b) advise the Minister on issues that are within its purpose, as set out in section 4 of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act, including the following, to the extent that they are within that purpose:

(i) the quality and completeness of the scientific, economic and technological evidence and analyses used to establish each target in the target plan or revised target plan, and

(ii) any other matters that the National Round Table considers relevant.

(2) The Minister shall

(a) within three days after receiving the advice referred to in paragraph (1)(b):

(i) publish it in any manner that the Minister considers appropriate, and

(ii) submit it to the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons and the Speakers shall table it in their respective Houses on any of the first three days on which that House is sitting after the day on which the Speaker receives the advice; and

(b) within 10 days after receiving the advice, publish a notice in the Canada Gazette setting out how the advice was published and how a copy of the publication may be obtained.”