Liberals Snub the Climate Change Accountability Act: What does it mean? (Updated)

Posted by Devin Johnston on October 21st, 2009

Iffy and the Liberals are feverishly at work to close whatever policy gaps remain between themselves and the Conservatives. Today the Liberals announced that they will not support the passage of Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act. Environment critic David McGuintly claimed that the Liberals need more time to study the bill, an excuse that rings hollow given that the Liberals have had more than three years to do so already.

The bill was originally introduced by the NDP in October 2006 as Bil C-377. At the time, the Liberals voted in favour of the bill. With Liberal, Bloc, and NDP support, the bill passed the House of Commons. Unfortunately, the Conservatives were able to delay approval of the bill in the Senate, where it died on the order paper when Stephen Harper triggered an early election in 2008. The bill was re-introduced by New Democrat MP Bruce Hyer in February of this year.

Speaking to CBC News, McGuinty stated that the reason for the flip-flop is that "[the Liberals] need to hear more about the American position, the European position, the Chinese position". This is a very significant statement when you take into account what the Climate Change Accountability Act does (and does not) require the government to do.

The main purport of the bill is to establish hard caps on greenhouse gas emissions, phased in between 2020 and 2050. The Minister of the Environment would be required to develop an interim plan to meet these targets within six months of the passage of the bill. Thereafter, the Minister would be required to conduct a review of the plan and its implementation at least once every five years, beginning in 2015 until the target emission levels are met. The bill would also grant cabinet broad powers to set regulations under the Act to implement the emissions plan.

Notably, the bill would not mandate any particular regulatory regime. Instead, cabinet would have broad discretion to implement the regulatory scheme of its choosing, so long as it has the effect of meeting the emissions targets outlined in the bill. This means that the government would have considerable flexibility in terms of implementation, including the ability to change their strategy down the road if the original plan is found defective for any reason.

Coming back to David McGuinty's comments, I am curious to know what he means by the word "position". When I first read the quote, I assumed that he meant that the Liberals wanted to wait and see what approach other jurisdictions would take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, given that the Climate Change Accountability Act would not bind the government to any particular regulatory regime, that interpretation doesn't make sense. There is no need to wait and see what approach other jurisdictions will take on this issue, because the bill allows the government to take whatever approach it wishes (and even change its approach later on down the road).

The only other interpretation I can make of McGuinty's words is that the Liberals are waiting to see whether or not other countries will take action to reduce emissions at all. In other words, McGuinty's comments seem to suggest that a Liberal government would not take action to reduce emissions unless countries like the United States and China do first. As pogge points out:

This is the party that signed us on to the Kyoto Protocol in the first place and then spent a decade or more studying implications without actually doing anything. So does this mean they didn't study the implications of this bill the last five times they voted for it? Awesome. Just awesome.

If Stéphane Dion were dead, he'd be rolling around in his grave.

The Liberals' bombshell announcement comes just one day after the Green Party publicly begged the Liberals to support the bill. Elizabeth May is quoted in a press release saying "Stalling and waiting to see what others will do is not leadership and will only have a negative impact on Canada’s economy." So far, the Greens have not issued a statement in response to the Liberal's flip-flop on the issue. I can only assume that Elizabeth May will publicly condemn Iffy & Co. in the near future.

With the Liberals' 180 on climate change policy, Iffy has effective transformed his party from a principled alternative to Conservatives to a less successful version of them. So far, Iffy has:

• endorsed the expansion of the tar sands;
• rejected the possibility of raising taxes to balance the budget;
• foreclosed the possibility of working with the Bloc or NDP as part of a formal coalition;
• voted against employment insurance reforms that would provide $1-billion in benefits to some 200,000 unemployed Canadians; and,
• rejected calls to support the speedy passage of meaningful climate change legislation.

Perhaps the reason that the Liberals are self-destructing in the polls right now is not because of Iffy's short-lived election bravado. I think most voters simply feel that if they're going to vote for a conservative party, they might as well vote for the Conservative Party.

Update

Liberal bloggers respond to their party's failure to support Bill C-311.

Spread the word and fan the winds of change: