ENVI Committee Report

We, the members of the Conservative Party of Canada, respectfully submit the following Supplementary Report in response to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development’s report on Bill C-377. Specifically, Conservative members are extremely concerned regarding the lack of any economic analysis or costing to the Bill, its constitutional validity and the manner in which the Bill is being reported back the House of Commons.

Bill C-377 is a dangerous and irresponsible piece of legislation.  What the NDP is proposing would require a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from where we are today.  That is simply not possible without causing massive job losses and huge price increases in electricity, heat and gasoline. The costs that this bill would impose on Canadian families and businesses could be astronomical, yet the Leader of the NDP, Jack Layton admitted at committee that he hadn’t bothered to find out how much the bill could cost Canadian families in increased gas and energy prices.

Regulatory targets of this nature should be evaluated carefully and logically.  For example, the previous Liberal government set arbitrary targets and then did nothing, which were a failure.

Andre Turmel from the Canadian Bar Association raised his concerns to the Standing Committee on the Environment on February 11, 2008, regarding arbitrarily setting targets. He said: “(targets)… should be linked to and coherent with targets set out in existing international law. The targets in (Bill C-377) are not."

We can not move forward with a Bill that would shut down the economy. This Government can not impose such costs upon Canadians, especially during uncertain economic times.  Financially speaking, reaching the targets proposed in the Climate Change Accountability Act would come at a steep cost to our citizens.

Should we set objectives that we know from the very beginning make little or no sense, objectives that would be impossible to meet without considerably disrupting the Canadian economy? Or should we set realistic and achievable targets that will strengthen Canada’s long-term competitiveness, targets that will still represent significant and positive progress in our fight to reduce harmful air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions? Conservative members agree with the latter.

Our government has been clear that climate change is one of the greatest threats facing the world today.  We have brought forward our Turning the Corner plan to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions on absolute 20 percent by 2020.  This is a realistic and tough target, similar to that being pledged in other countries around the world. Our clear statement of principles has helped to shape Canadian environmental policy both domestically and internationally.  Our policy is tough, it is real and it strikes the right balance by protecting our environment while ensuring Canadian families can still put food on the table.

Conservative members have also raised serious questions and concerns about Bill C-377’s constitutionality. A major indictment of this badly written bill was delivered on February 11 when six very distinguished legal experts appeared before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable to speak to the legal and constitutional aspects of this bill.

Theresa McClenaghan, Executive Director and Counsel along with Joseph Castrilli, counsel, were there representing the Canadian Environmental Law Association.  They were joined by Dr. Peter Hogg of Blake, Cassels and Graydon LLP, Andre Turmel, Secretary, National Environmental, Energy and Resources Law Section and Tamra Thomson, Director Legislation and Law Reform with the Canadian Bar Association and Stewart Elgie, Professor, Faculty of Law with the University of Ottawa.  Each of these witnesses were united in their view that Bill C-377 would not withstand a court challenge based either on Peace, order and good government or constitutionality.

Mr. Castrelli stated, and I quote: “Peace, order, and good government would appear to be less likely to find favour with the Supreme Court as a basis for upholding the constitutionality of the regulatory limits authority of Bill C-377 under any circumstances because of the potential for major impact on provincial jurisdiction to act in a host of areas.”

Respected constitutional scholar Peter Hogg told the committee that C-377: “The bill enacts no restrictions as to the kinds of laws that are contemplated or the kinds of activities that can be regulated. Such a sweeping grant of authority to the executive is unprecedented outside of wartime and should be a matter of political concern, quite apart from the constitutional issues. However, the constitutional issues are all that I'm concerned with, and they are, in my view, enough to defeat the legislation.”  He went on to say; “My conclusion is that unless the bill is changed in the ways that Mr. Castrilli suggested in his closing phrases—and these would need to be quite radical changes—the Parliament of Canada simply lacks the power to enact Bill C-377. If Parliament were to enact the bill, it would be struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada.”

Another major concern with Bill C-377 is the unprecedented manner in which it is being reported back to the house.   On Thursday April 3rd, 2008, the committee adopted the following motion to report back: “That the title, the preamble and clauses 1, 2, 10 as amended, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Bill C 377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, be deemed adopted; that the Bill, as amended, be deemed adopted and that the Chair report the Bill as amended to the House;”

There is great concern about the precedent that will be set by sending the Bill to the House in such a manner. First, the committee using their majority voted to shut down debate and return the bill to the House on April 3rd, 2008, even though the Bill could have remained in committee for further deliberations until May 7, 2008, as per the 30-day extension (sought from the House of Commons pursuant to Standing Order 97(1) on March 4, 2008, and was approved on March 12, 2008). 

The Committee adopted clauses 3 to 9 in a respectful manner that included fulsome debate of the many issues in each of the respective clauses and passed several amendments. Conservative Party members expressed serious concerns with the clause 10 along with an amendment, which was adopted. In an attempt to shut down debate completely, opposition members outrageously overruled the Chair on two procedurally sound rulings resulting in a tyranny of the majority.

This openly contradicts a ruling made by the Speaker on Friday March 14, 2008, where he stated: “...neither the political realities of the moment nor the sheer force of numbers should force us to set aside the values inherent in the parliamentary conventions and procedures by which we govern our deliberations.”

Second, the bill is being reported back to the House half amended and half un-amended. The opposition has done this with the intent of amending the remaining clauses in the House. Essentially the opposition is proposing to use the House of Commons to do committee business regardless of the fact there was more time available in committee to deal with the remaining clauses.

According to Standing Order 76 (5): “The Speaker shall have the power to select or combine amendments or clauses to be proposed at the report stage and may, if he or she thinks fit, call upon any Member who has given notice of an amendment to give such explanation of the subject of the amendment as may enable the Speaker to form a judgement upon it. If an amendment has been selected that has been submitted by more than one Member, the Speaker, after consultation, shall designate which Member shall propose it.”

Furthermore, the accompanying note to Standing Order 76 (5) states: “The Speaker will normally only select motions that were not or could not be presented in committee.” It goes on to read, “For greater certainty, the purpose of this Standing Order is, primarily, to provide Members who were not members of the committee with an opportunity to have the House consider specific amendments they wish to propose. It is not meant to be a reconsideration of the committee stage.”

Conservative members believe there were opportunities to deal with the remaining clauses and amendments before the May 7 deadline. Therefore we respectfully ask the Speaker to summarily dismiss any amendments proposed in the House to Bill C-377.

Submitted respectfully by:  Mr. Luc Harvey, MP; Mr. Maurice Vellacott, MP; Mr. Mark Warawa, MP and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment; and Mr. Jeff Watson, MP.