“The most important thing about C-288 was that it was about accountability. It was forcing the government to say what they were doing or not doing in terms of climate change and emissions reductions etc., etc. By repealing the bill, they don’t have that obligation anymore to be accountable to what they do or don’t do. For a government that said accountability was important, there’s a huge contradiction here,” said former Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez, who introduced Bill C-288, the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, in 2006.
It was one of the rare private member’s bill that passed all legislative stages to become law in 2007. It aimed to “ensure that Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol” and forced the government to develop a climate change plan. It also required the environment minister to seek advice from the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) on the effectiveness of the plans and required the environment commissioner to track the progress of the implementation by submitting an annual report to the House Speaker.
The act, which was passed during a minority Parliament, will be repealed under the omnibus Budget Implementation Bill, C-38, which the government introduced on April 26. Bill C-38 is 452 pages and contains a large section that will significantly change the environmental regulatory regime among several other budget and non-budget-related items. The Canadian government gave notice in December 2011 that it would formally withdraw from the International Kyoto Protocol Agreement, which sought to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Conservative government has always been opposed to the Kyoto Protocol, saying that implementing it would cost thousands of jobs and deal a significant blow to the Canadian economy. It has since introduced several sector-by-sector plans to reduce greenhouse gases by intensity and at lower rates than outlined in the Kyoto Protocol rather than develop a comprehensive plan which puts a price on carbon. When it came to implementing the requirements of Bill C-288, critics said last week that while the government complied with the letter of the law, it did not follow the spirit.
P.J. Partington, climate change technical and policy analyst at the Pembina Institute, told The Hill Times last week that it’s “very unfortunate” the government has chosen to repeal the accountability bill instead of amending it to reflect its own emissions reduction targets and climate change initiatives.
“I think the issue before was that the act was rooted around the Kyoto Protocol which this government has always said well, that’s not our target. We’re going to respect the law, but not the spirit. But if it was amended for example to fit to their targets, I think that would be extremely helpful and it would go a long way in terms of building credibility but it would require them to do the work of reviewing what their climate change plan is and opening that up for public discussion,” Mr. Partington said.
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May (Saanch-Gulf Islands, B.C.) said that the repeal of C-288 is a blow to the environmental accountability mechanism, on top of the elimination of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.
“The answer [last week] in the House, it was clear, they have no plans to put anything in place instead,” she told The Hill Times. “Pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol and repealing our own domestic legislation means that the federal government will not be reporting to Canadians on what they’re actually doing on greenhouse gases.”
Ms. May said the government could have indeed amended Bill C-288, but questioned why it would when all signs have pointed to the Conservative dismantling environmental protection.
“If a government were interested in being accountable, and if a government were interested in reducing greenhouse gases then they would’ve amended it. Of course if they were interested in those things, they wouldn’t have withdrawn from Kyoto in the first place,” she said. “This is a government that’s hell bent on destroying environmental laws, increasing greenhouse gases, violating international commitments and doing what we can internationally to stop other countries from working to reduce greenhouse gases.”
Liberal MP Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Ont.) said she asked Environment Minister Peter Kent (Thornhill, Ont.) about the accountability factor during debate on the Budget Implementation Bill last Thursday, but did not get an answer.
“Under the Kyoto Implementation Act, there are accountability measures that you have to report on what’s been done, where we didn’t make it, NRT reports, environment commissioner reports and as we know, the National Round Table has now been removed, so what I asked the minister in House was what accountability measures is he going to replace that with? I did not get an answer,” she said. “It’s devastating. It’s absolutely devastating. Climate change is our most pressing environmental issue.”
Mr. Kent’s office did not return an email for response last week, but during debate on the Budget Implementation Bill last week, he said that Canada is moving beyond “Kyoto.” In response to Ms. Duncan’s question, he said, “I anticipate that [this] week, when the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development presents his annual report, that members will perhaps see his acknowledgement of Canada’s legal right to serve notice of our withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol and that, in this final year under the protocol, we will again appropriately report, as provided under the protocol, our greenhouse gas inventory.”
Mr. Kent said he has repeatedly thanked the NRTEE for its work and stressed that it was created 25 years ago. “That organization’s time has passed. There are any number of other similar bodies in academia within the NGO community who can adequately address connections between the environment and the economy. We are moving for a post-Kyoto climate change regime that will include all of the major emitters, both in the developed and the developing world,” he told the House.
NDP House Leader Nathan Cullen (Skeena-Bulkley Valley, B.C.) criticized the government last week for putting time allocation on the massive budget bill. The time allocation motion, which passed 145-122 last Thursday stated that there would be six sitting days for debate on Bill C-38. Ms. May called the move “undemocratic.”
Government House Leader Peter Van Loan (York-Simcoe, Ont.) told reporters, however, that that had been the longest debate on a budget bill at second reading in the last 20 years.
“We think that’s a good thing because we think the priority for Canadians is the economy. We want to see a focus on the economy. We know there has not been a lot of debate on the economy in the House and we’re happy to be able to bring that to them,” he said in the House foyer last Thursday. “It’s also important that we come to decisions. People sent us here to focus on the economy, to get our job done, to focus on job creation and economic growth, bring in measures like responsible resource development, bring in measures like our job creation tax credit for small businesses and our small businesses want to know that they’re going to be able to rely on that, and be able to do that now, today, to hire people to create new jobs. So that’s why it’s important that we get this passed soon.”
Environment Commissioner Scott Vaughan will be tabling his spring report on May 8, which focuses on the government’s compliance with Bill C-288. It is his third and last report, required under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Bill. The commissioner’s spring report will also look at “meeting Canada’s 2020 climate change commitments” and whether Environment Canada has established a plan to reduce greenhouse gases by 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020.
Mr. Partington said he still “holds out hope” that the government will table a similar accountability bill to C-288 which reflects the Conservatives’ targets.
“I don’t think accountability is something that a government should be against. I think they should be supporting that and if they have a plan like they say they do, I don’t see why they would want to hide that from Canadians,” he said. “I’m sure they would appreciate input from expert bodies and building sort of a broader consensus for action. I guess I still hold out hope that the government would table a similar bill that would apply to themselves and ideally look even farther into the future because it’s important to have something that’s guiding the transition to a lower carbon Canada rather than just rhetoric.”
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: Bea Vongdouangchanh
No comments:
Post a Comment