Bill C-288 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act
An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMay 17, 2006
- Debated in principleOct. 4, 2006
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberFeb. 14, 2007
- Passed the second chamberJune 21, 2007
- Became lawJune 22, 2007
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Grant MitchellSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Pablo Rodríguez7 interventions in debatepresents bill as sponsor and defends need for action on Kyoto
- Nathan Cullen3 interventions in debatejoins debate with pleasure on abiding by Kyoto agreement
- Paul Szabo3 interventions in debateThanks sponsor and calls bill important for meeting Kyoto commitments without excessive spending.
- Senator MitchellSenate · SenatorPresents the bill as necessary to meet Canada's Kyoto obligations and criticizes the government for inaction on climate change.
- Bernard Bigrasannounces Bloc will vote in favour of the bill
- Ruby DhallaCalls climate change pressing threat and criticizes Conservatives for rejecting Kyoto.
- Mark Hollandcongratulates sponsor and calls issue pressing
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. · 2006-10-04 · Passed
What the Senate tried to change
- narrows scopeSenator TkachukReplaces mandatory language with 'all reasonable efforts' or 'all reasonable attempts' in clauses 3,5,7,9; adds vehicle emission standards, early action recognition, large emitter regulations, and changes reporting timelines and committee referrals.Outcome not recorded in the debate · June 12, 2007 · Senate record
- otherSt. GermainDeletes amendment (b)(i)(B) on vehicle emission standards and reletters the following part.Voted down · June 12, 2007 · Senate record
- otherDi NinoReplaces paragraph (g) of the Tkachuk amendment to make the Environment Commissioner report optional rather than required.Voted down · June 19, 2007 · Senate record
- otherSenator SegalDeletes (g)(i) of the Tkachuk amendment (making the report optional) and reletters the rest.Outcome not recorded in the debate · June 19, 2007 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
81% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,425 words introduced, 2,790 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core duty on the Minister to prepare annual Climate Change Plans and regulations to meet Kyoto targets stayed in place, but oversight shifted from the Commissioner reviewing plans to the National Round Table advising the Minister and the Commissioner reporting progress to the Speaker. Two new elements were inserted: a just transition for workers and explicit provincial emission caps within federal authority.
- Added a just transition for workers to the list of measures in the annual plan.
After: “(iii.1) a just transition for workers affected by greenhouse gas emission reductions, and”
- Added a new regulation-making power to set provincial greenhouse-gas limits under Kyoto rules.
After: “tional authority, limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that may be released in each province by applying to each province Article 3, paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10 to 12, of the Kyoto Protoc”
- Replaced the Commissioner’s duty to review the plan and regulations with a duty for the National Round Table to advise the Minister and for the Commissioner to report progress to the Speaker.
Before: “It also creates an obligation on the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to review the plan and the proposed regulations and submit a report to Parliament.”
After: “It also requires the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy to advise the Minister — to the extent that it is within its purpose — on the effectiveness of the plans, and requires the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to submit to the Speaker of the House of Commons a report of the progress in the implementation of the plans.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The Act sets fixed annual deadlines and requires the government to meet Kyoto targets through plans and regulations, but leaves the content of those plans and the choice of regulatory tools almost entirely open. This mix of rigid timelines with broad substantive discretion produces a drafting style that is neither fully precise nor wholly vague.
Open to argument
“in any manner the Minister considers appropriate”
Subjective ministerial choice replaces an objective publication rule.“respecting any other matter that is necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act”
Open-ended catch-all clause grants unlimited regulatory power.“any reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are reasonably expected to result”
Vague predictive standard invites prolonged debate over what counts.“each province may take any measure that it considers appropriate”
Subjective provincial discretion undermines uniform national rules.
Clear-cut
“Within 60 days after this Act comes into force and not later than May 31 of every year thereafter until 2013”
Exact calendar triggers leave no room for argument about timing.“Within 180 days after this Act comes into force, the Governor in Council shall ensure that Canada fully meets its obligations under Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol”
Hard statutory duty tied to a specific international paragraph.“commits or continues an offence on more than one day is liable to be convicted for a separate offence for each day”
Clear per-day liability rule with no interpretive gap.
Discretion. Ministers and the Governor in Council retain near-complete freedom to choose which measures, standards, trading systems or agreements will be used and to decide what counts as adequate progress toward the Kyoto target.
Challenging the law itself. Broad grants of regulatory power and undefined terms such as 'necessary' could support a vagueness or overbreadth claim under section 7 of the Charter, though the core obligation to regulate is clear.
Disputing a charge under it. Most duties fall on the Crown and offences are defined only by future regulations, so an accused would have difficulty disputing the scope of the primary statutory commands.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.