Stand-Up Committee on C-30

GONG!

The voting composition of the special committee studying bill C-30 is five tories, four liberals, two BQs and Nathan Cullen (NDP - Smartest guy in the room, make room for four horses) of the NDP. Their job is to review and rewrite the Government's Clean Air Act. One party wants to take an eraser to it. One party wants to take a pen to it. One party wants to add the word "provincial" to it, and the last one wants to leave it alone.

There are rumours that the Government has made a deal with the NDP to get some key amendments on the bill including hard caps on LFEs, a commitment to Kyoto numbers and fixed regulatory authority. Liberals say they don't need to amend CEPA to do any of this, and they are correct- the proposed changes have questionable constitutional implications. Not a sexy argument for the remarkably underinformed public, but what is correct is totally irrelevant at this point.

Let me tell you why that CAN'T work without the support of at least one other party.

5 tories + 1 NDP = six

4 Liberals + 2 Bloq = six

Chairs of Standing Committees can only break ties in favour of a) the status quo - in this case the bill as introduced to the committee or b) extending debate. The first amendment to the act proposed at clause by clause from any party will result in a stalemate.

The problem with breaking the deadlock is that the NDP is steadfast in its opposition to provincial equivalency agreements found in the amending act. In simple terms, provincial equivalency is the federal government's way of saying "we set the target, and if you get there without us, our regulations don't apply in your province." For obvious reasons, the BQ favours of this approach. The NDP believes in 'one standard to regulate them all.' I could staunchly defend both positions from different industry perspectives.

The Liberals do not want to see this act passed. Period.

If ideology was the test, some individual amendments proposed by the NDP would pass with the support of the BQ (like the aforementioned hard caps). Since this is Parliament, and logic no longer applies, there may be objections to any amendment proposed by the enemy. Alternatively, the very high level of debate we have seen thus far (Tastes great, less emitting) may continue and NO amendments will be accepted. Then Mr. Dion gets to have his election on Kyoto.

So, what does that actually mean? The Committee has committed to clause by clause review of the bill for the week of the 19th of March (the day before the budget). The NDP will prop up the government for a while, and once the budget is passed, the numbers in the so-called "alliance" will quickly change to 7-5 and the committee's work will be quickly completed.

And Jack will be out in the cold again. Brrrrr.

BTW- I have flipped back and forth on the Al Gore for President in 2008 for four months. Inside information from fundraisers is "No way," but with Mr. Gore expected to announce the "S.O.S. Earth" concert series tomorrow in London, I am swinging back to yes. He gets more free press coverage right now than I have ever seen, and he doesn't have to declare until December to stay on the New Hampshire ballot. His buzz remains strong. And, by the way, when you have already run for president and gotten 50 million votes, your infrastructure is already in place.

The difference between Gore and every other democratic candidate is that he a) actually has a reason to run for President (everyone else seems to be saying - I am the best person to be the steward) b) has no Iraq baggage and c) draws from the strengths of every other candidate the second he declares - starting with Hillary's money- her biggest and most important advantage. More on Hillary-08 another day, but for now - Al Gore remains the most potent political force on the planet on this issue.

Even Rusty (C- Paris 07) is quoting him for Christ's sake.