OTTAWA - The Conservative government was accused of preparing a quasi "coup d'etat" after suggesting Friday it might ignore an upcoming Commons vote to respect the Kyoto accord.
The Tories dismissed as insignificant a Liberal bill that would require them to table a plan within 60 days explaining how they would meet Canada's commitments under the climate-change treaty.
The bill is slated for a final vote in the House of Commons next Wednesday, having easily sailed through an earlier vote with the support of all three opposition parties.
Some constitutional experts said the government has a democratic obligation to follow laws adopted by Parliament and could face lawsuits if it fails to comply.
The Liberal who authored the bill said ignoring it would amount to a "coup d'etat" and would trigger a constitutional crisis -- but the government discarded such suggestions.
"No," said Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon, when asked if the government felt bound by Bill C-288.
"I'm telling you that we will act (on the environment) instead of adopting an empty piece of legislation."
It was the latest twist in a climate change debate that has become increasingly politicized as polls suggest the environment has become a dominant issue for Canadians.
The legislation was also ridiculed as useless by House Leader Peter Van Loan, by spokespeople for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and in government talking points distributed to reporters.
They did not explicitly say they would ignore the law, but said their government's fate was not bound to it. The legislation contains no financial provisions and is not being considered a confidence matter.
As for the environment, the Conservatives said they were working to revise their own Clean Air Act and noted that greenhouse-gas emissions rose nearly 30 per cent under the Liberals.
The Kyoto target -- a six per cent cut in emissions by 2012 -- would be impossible to meet without crippling the economy, they said.
"It's like trying to say, 'I'm going to pass a motion that says I'm going to change the laws of gravity,'" said Harper spokeswoman Sandra Buckler.
"Well, how are you going to do that? You can't just say that . . . . Just because you say the sky is green, that doesn't make it so just because you legislate it."
The legislation forces the government to submit its plan for perusal within 60 days by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.
The government would also need to set annual emissions targets, publish an annual climate-change progress report, and establish jail sentences or fines for people and business that break the law.
The bill's sponsor says the government has only two options if the bill is adopted in a final Commons vote next week, then passed by the Senate.
"It either has to respect Kyoto -- or call an election," said Pablo Rodriguez, a Liberal MP from Montreal.
He dismissed suggestions that the government might simply ignore the bill. Senior government officials sent out talking points to journalists Friday calling the bill "useless" and "powerless."
"They can't (ignore it)," Rodriguez said.
"It's almost launching a coup d'etat -- to say: 'I don't care what the Commons says; I don't care what the Senate says; I don't care what all of Parliament says; I'll do what I want. I'm the new king of Canada.'
"You can't do that."
Some of the country's leading constitutional experts appeared to agree.
"Laws passed by Parliament are the law of the land. There's no ambiguity in that," said Ned Franks, professor emeritus at Queen's University.
"The government needs to produce . . . a plan and have some money budgeted. (This is) Parliament kicking up its heels and saying, 'We're in a minority Parliament -- which means you have to have the support of more than just your own people to get things done.'
"And that means that if the House expresses its views on things and you don't like it, you still have to live with it."
Patrick Monahan, dean of the University of Toronto law school, has also said publicly that the government would be bound by the legislation.
One well-known professor of environmental law, who has argued cases before the Supreme Court, said there is "no conceivable basis" to the argument that the law is useless.
"It's not something any government could ignore. It's that simple," said Stewart Elgie, a professor at the University of Ottawa.
"If they didn't (comply) they'd be breaking the law. One presumes the federal cabinet will follow the law. If they didn't follow the law, someone could take them to court and get a court order."
