A plan to make a plan
Climate change and government change
MIKE SILICZ
The House of Commons recently passed a private members’ bill calling for Canada to meet her commitments to the Kyoto Protocol. On Feb. 5, 2007, the motion was voted through the House 161 to 115, and it will soon be passed successfully through the Senate. The bill, which states that Canada should “honour the principles and targets of the Kyoto Protocol in their entirety,” is a clear cry by a majority in the Canadian federal parliament to meet the goals of the Kyoto Protocol. But will the bill actually accomplish the goal of “honouring” the Kyoto accord?
The motion tabled as Bill C-288 is itself nonbinding. This means that the open-ended nature of the procedure does not mandate a specific, concrete commitment from the government. The bill simply states that the government has 60 days following royal ascent to produce “a plan” to honour Kyoto. In no way does it specifically say that Canada must follow her Kyoto commitments; rather it simply states that the government is to have a solid plan on climate change and that the minister of Environment must report periodically to the House on the said plan’s progress. The real debate will occur when that future “plan” is voted upon. In other words, what has been passed is simply “a plan to come up with a plan” to address Canada’s international commitments under Kyoto. What then is with all the hype surrounding this bill?
This Liberal-sponsored bill, backed by both the NDP and BQ, is little more than classic partisan politics. It is an attempt by the three minority parties to better position themselves for an upcoming election, and in reality has very little to do with actually meeting our Kyoto commitments. While the bill does introduce solid mechanisms for change, it is again nothing more than an idea to come up with a plan. More to the point, it is simple pre-election politicking that only pays lip service to the biggest geostrategic security threat to ever face Canada: impending climate change. Why is this bill little more than empty rhetoric?
First, the real purpose of this motion is to put all the members of the House on record as being either for, or against, committing Canada to Kyoto. This motion essentially split the House along party lines, with the three minority parties for the bill, and the Conservatives against it. This allows the minority parties, when heading into a future Canadian federal election, to smear their Conservative opponents for voting against implementing the Kyoto targets.
Second, as Environment Minister John Baird has said, this bill is nothing more than a “toothless tiger.” There is a substantial legal difference between “honouring” our Kyoto commitments, and criminalizing any failures to meet them. Bill C-288 has no punishment mechanisms to force a government to comply. The minister of Environment could present a cocktail napkin with the words “My Kyoto Plan by John Baird” to the House, and the Harper government would legally have followed through on its commitments. Toothless to say the least.
The Harper government originally scoffed at the futility of this private members’ bill. However, the government has since wisely changed its stance, realizing the general lack of understanding most Canadians have of parliamentary politics. While those in the know in Ottawa understand the futility of the bill, all the average Canadian will ever see is Harper not following the democratic bill of a majority within the House.
When the Harper government inevitably fails to table an effective way to meet Kyoto goals, to the surprise of no one in Ottawa, the three opposition parties will have what they were originally seeking in the first place: not a solution to a poor climate policy, but rather the ticket to a spring election. Thus, failure to follow this bill will result in nothing but more rhetoric and debate, followed most likely by a non-confidence vote that will bring down the Harper government to precipitate yet another federal election.
And thus, ladies and gentlemen, we have our answer to the purpose of this bill. Banking on populism, opposition parties are attempting to ride public sentiment in favour of Kyoto to get elected into office. The real purpose of this bill is to set the stage for the next federal election that will likely arrive when the snow starts to melt in Winnipeg. It is unfortunate that in the process of discussing climate change, actually trying to solve the problem has again been caught in the crosshairs of partisan politics.
Michael Silicz is a first-year law student with a background in political studies and history.
