Second time’s a charm. Deuxième fois, ça suffit.
Yesterday, Canada’s parliament voted in support of the second reading of Bill C-311 (French and English full text here, summary here and below) the country’s first national commitment to greenhouse gas reductions. As a ratifying member of the Kyoto Protocol, the government has now committed, through this bill, to reduce emissions by 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, and by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
The Bill now needs to be passed in its third reading and then approved by the Senate. Once this happens, Canada will be committed to meeting scientifically required levels of greenhouse gas emission reductions.
This is an excellent move forwards, and the complete passing of the Bill would be a big step forwards for Canada, a country that has been known to show up at the UN climate negotiations in recent years to speak misleadingly of its commitments relative to current emissions, when the world talks in terms of the internationally-accepted baseline of 1990.
Summary of Bill:
The purpose of this enactment is to ensure that Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change by committing to a long-term target to reduce Canadian greenhouse gas emissions to a level that is 80% below the 1990 level by the year 2050, and by establishing interim targets for the period 2015 to 2045. It creates an obligation on the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to review proposed measures to meet the targets and submit a report to Parliament.
Sommaire:
Le texte vise à faire en sorte que le Canada respecte ses obligations en matière de changement du climat mondial, conformément à la Convention-cadre des Nations Unies sur les changements climatiques, en s’engageant à atteindre une cible à long terme selon laquelle les émissions canadiennes de gaz à effet de serre seront, d’ici 2050, réduites de 80 % par rapport au niveau de 1990 et en établissant des cibles intérimaires pour la période de 2015 à 2045. Il impose au commissaire à l’environnement et au développement durable l’obligation d’examiner les mesures proposées pour atteindre les cibles et l’obligation de présenter un rapport au Parlement.
- Total votes: 269
- Yes: 141 (Liberal, Bloc and New Democrat Party)
- No: 128 (Conservative)
The bill was introduced by the New Democrat Party, put forward by Environment Critic Bruce Hyer. It failed the first time it as tabled.
It is exciting that this bill has passed its second reading, yet still thoroughly upsetting that
- it passed marginally by 13 votes, and
- the Conservative party voted unanimously against the bill.
It would not surprise me if Canada was the last country on earth with climate change accepted as a partisan issue. One needs only to glance over to Germany, the UK or the US to understand that climate change is neither negotiable nor political.
A big thank you to all of you that worked with your Members of Parliament to vote in favor of this bill. A massive step forward after years of shuffled steps back.
Please take the time to continue contacting your Member of Parliament, thank them if they voted in favor, and ask them to support the Bill when it comes to its third reading.
Note: Canada has four political parties in the House of Commons. Loosely described as Conservative (right), Liberal (central), New Democrat Party/NDP (left), and the Bloc Québecois (for Quebec as a nation in itself). There is also the rising force of the Green Party of Canada, though there are no representatives yet to be voted into the House.
|
|
|||||||||||||
This is INCREDIBLE!!!!!!!!!! Woohoo!!!!! Well, now it’s up to us in the US to get our acts together. :p
It is fabulous news indeed!! A day to celebrate in Canada
YES!!. Now it just needs to tun into some action!
How can Canada meet those goals while the tar sands are still active? It’s impossible.
…Or is it: How can the Tar Sands continue at this rate of production with this new Federal Bill in play?
Can somebody please explain to this Australian what this means, since it is clearly passed into law over the objections of the governing party? Will Harper be forced now to legislate to achieve the target?
Some great news about Bill C-311. Now it’s on to the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, and back for another vote at third reading.
There’s more info here: http://www.sierraclub.ca/climatecrisis
It has not yet been passed into law – it only passed in the House of Commons. Canada currently has what we call a Minority Government, where the governing party is actually outnumbered by opposition parties. It is quite possible that this Bill will be put into law, and the government will need to respect the voice of the people and respond to that law.
While it was a HUGE success to get Bill C-311 through the House in its 2nd reading, it still has to be approved in its 3rd reading, and then it requires the stamp of approval from the Senate.
We need to keep the pressure on until this put into law.
(My apologies for not clearly wording this before. I have edited to post to better reflect the current situation).
Great now we can watch the country break up. BTW The 2020 target is 5% below what the Europeans are willing to do. Smart move..cutting your throat that is..again. The 2050 target is fine and should be the ONLY mandatory target. If you a draw a straight line between our current emissions and the 2050 target we should be at 6% below 1990 by 2020.
Tim, no the governing party can ignore this Bill if it passes because it’s a private members bill. Some will argue that these targets can be achieved without money. I seriously doubt it.
To reach these targets, any sane government will NOT force emitters to shutdown and lay off thousands of workers. They have to spend money to help industry cope and still be competitive. A carbon market still requires money to set up. Any reasonable judge would conclude that any reasonable action by government to fight climate change would require the spending of money and therefore would invalidate the law as unenforceable. In Canada, Private Members Bills can’t force the government to spend money. Even if the judge errs, the government can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. It could be years before a decision is made.
BTW Here is Australia’s target;
‘Hard targets’
The new measures announced by Mr Rudd will see:
• Greenhouse gas emissions cut by between between 5% and 15% by 2020, from 2000 levels
FUNNY It isn’t 25% below 1990 by 2020. Why is that? Because Rudd isn’t STUPID like Canadians.
Ken – The 1990 baseline is used because that is the language of international negotiations, so every one can be talking along the same lines. Using 1990 as a baseline versus a year such as 2000 is, at least for Canada, a much more stringent step. (I.e. 25% below 2000 levels would be equal to, if not greater than, Canada’s emissions in 1990. A 25% reduction below 1990 levels is approximately more like 40% below 2000 levels.)
When are each of the coming milestones (passage through the Environmental Committee, vote at third reading, etc)? Are there set dates?
I hate to tell you but the Canadian Government ignored the last Private Members bill on Climate Change and is using taxpayers’ money to drag it through the court system over the next few years. This one may actually be killed because it directs the government to spend/not spend in certain areas. A Private member’s bill can’t force the government to spend or not spend. I suspect the bill made it is this far simply as a delay tactic and the government will have it killed in the final reading by challenging it with the Speaker.
Mark – I am not sure if there is a set schedule. There was a vote last week that pushed it forward to its third reading, a vote that will happen in the coming weeks I would expect.
John – Points well taken.