Bill C-12 (Historical)

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act

An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050

This enactment requires that national targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada be set, with the objective of attaining net-zero emissions by 2050. The targets are to be set by the Minister of the Environment for 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045.
In order to promote transparency and accountability in relation to meeting those targets, the enactment also
(a) requires that an emissions reduction plan, a progress report and an assessment report with respect to each target be tabled in each House of Parliament;
(b) provides for public participation;
(c) establishes an advisory body to provide the Minister of the Environment with advice with respect to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 and matters that are referred to it by the Minister;
(d) requires the Minister of Finance to prepare an annual report respecting key measures that the federal public administration has taken to manage its financial risks and opportunities related to climate change;
(e) requires the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to, at least once every five years, examine and report on the Government of Canada’s implementation of measures aimed at mitigating climate change; and
(f) provides for a comprehensive review of the Act five years after its coming into force.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Chair, again, we've sincerely listened to the testimony and consulted with various stakeholders and individuals on our own time outside the committee process. One area that I do think could be greatly improved.... This will be a discussion at COP26 in Glasgow as there is more discussion about non-anthropogenic sequestration, as well as emissions, etc. This is something that I'm sure many members may, from their own experience in their constituencies.... This has come up to me in my capacity as the shadow minister of the environment and climate change, where constituents have called MPs and asked for some particular information, for example, Canada's sequestration through natural means. There are duelling reports between the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Natural Resources. They don't line up. The information and the years that are collected are not presented in the same formats. It makes it incredibly difficult for people to have an assessment.

Let's get to the rationale for it here. It's that Canada has a unique geography. As the second-largest land mass, we have, from coast to coast to coast, incredible natural habitat that we believe needs to be conserved. I know that the previous Harper government made large commitments and did a lot on conservation. I've heard many stakeholders say that was good work, and I've seen this government make commitments. That work is still in progress, according to the minister. But again, we don't see it reported like they do in the United States every year, an actual report that underlines in one report what the....

Again, this is what, essentially, my amendment would do. It proposes that Bill C-12, in clause 14, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 6 the following:

(a.1) a summary of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions released into or removed from the atmosphere because of non-anthropogenic factors;

This would tell us if Canada is doing better in protecting, in showing that trusteeship of these wonderful lands, whether they be grasslands in the Prairies, whether they be wetlands in various provinces or whether they be the tundra. There are many, many things that the government does right now, but it does not report in a single report those emissions and those sequestrations so that the average Canadian can pull that out or call their member of Parliament and their member of Parliament can go right to that report and give it to them.

As I've said, this is something that is going to become more and more under the attention of the upcoming Glasgow COP26, as they start to discuss. This is more about giving the information so that Canadians can know, in a simple form, where the pluses and the minuses are, whether or not those assets that are largely, I believe, both provincial and federal Crown lands, those forests, tundra, grasslands and wetlands are being preserved, and what the status of it is. I do think that this is an important step, because the science is out there. It is being done. It could be compiled in an easy-to-access way. This is something that, internationally, is going to receive more and more focus. We should be anticipating that so we can actually come to the table and actually be able to talk with up-to-date information.

I believe that this is an area that the average Canadian citizen would do well from. This is something that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Environment and probably even the Prime Minister would need to be briefed on. We would be able to make better policy decisions, I believe, by the collection and the reporting in a common structure.

I would just ask all honourable members to look at this. It is a very balanced amendment. It talks about a basic reporting structure for, again, emissions released into or removed from the atmosphere. This would give the opportunity for conservationists, as well as the layperson, to get that information in a timely way. It's something that I believe government already has, and it could do a lot more by simply presenting it in a common format.

I will leave that there. Hopefully, it will get some support. I do know that every party has made conservation commitments. This is more about having those numbers at our fingertips so that we can better communicate to our constituents about this.

Thank you.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Will it be as meaningful, though, as other progress reports, as laid out in Bill C-12, if you don't have the data that Mr. Moffet referred to?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the preamble.

The numbers of my amendments don't flow from this one. I will be quiet for some time after this one before getting back to the matter of an advisory panel.

Before we proceed to the ritual slaughter of my amendments, I'll just recap.

So far, attempts to do the things that most witnesses asked us to do.... We had the Climate Action Network, a coalition that includes most of the environmental law groups in Canada. Advice came in a written brief from the Tsleil-Waututh first nation because, of course, we didn't have time for them to testify in person. We've lost the chance for a 2025 milestone year or to put the target from the Paris Agreement of 1.5 into the purpose of the act or base the bill on science or to operate using carbon budgets.

This is an opportunity to bring Bill C-12 into line with most of the climate accountability acts around the world in one respect. All those things that I just mentioned are what you typically find in other climate accountability legislation around the world.

The one witness we did have time to hear from on this point was Professor Corinne Le Quéré from the University of East Anglia Law School. When I asked her about it, she pointed out that certainly all the laws she knew of incorporated those elements that I just described, which we already voted down. They do tend to have this element in common: that the advice that comes to government in setting their plans and targets comes from experts. It's heavily experts of climate science and expertise as well, for instance, in renewable energy and other technologies.

I'll give a quick recap because Professor Corinne Le Quéré's expertise was primarily with the French climate accountability legislation. I'll just let members know because we didn't hear about other laws. I think it's a large deficiency in developing a knowledge base for reviewing this bill.

Certainly, in Pakistan, which has climate accountability legislation, and in Denmark, the advisory bodies are specifically experts and are defined in the act. New Zealand includes something called a Climate Change Commission, which is independent and gives expert advice. Costa Rica calls theirs the Scientific Council on Climate Change. The U.K. calls it, of course, the Climate Change Committee. It is highly respected. South Korea calls theirs the Committee on Green Growth and it is independent and housed within the prime minister's office and not in any one ministry.

In this, by describing it as an expert advisory body, the chair is quite right. Subsequent amendments I will put forward describe how this expert advisory committee would work and how it would be composed.

I'll just take a moment to say we will come to NDP-4, which basically modifies the word “advice” with the word “independent”. I think that attempts to create the false impression that by the time the Liberals and NDP vote for NDP-4, we will have created an independent commission that's aligned with the way other countries around the world have devised and designed their climate accountability legislation. We will not have done so, because the committee will still be made up of political appointees. It's only their advice that will be described as independent, whereas the committee structure will not be.

Again, to have anything like the rigour of other countries' legislation, we should have made other amendments before this moment. Certainly, the advisory committee to provide independent advice needs to be an independent advisory committee made up of experts, as opposed to the model we have here in a multi-stakeholder group.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I have a really quick question. This amendment will say, “That Bill C-12, in clause 13, be amended (b) by replacing”....

Is there going to be a (b) in there, and is that a problem? Is that okay, or should the first item in there be (a)? Does that matter? Maybe the clerk could advise me on that.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Yes.

Quickly, again, I did say a mouthful in the last intervention on the amendment, but just to be abundantly clear, we don't believe the approach taken in Bill C-12 balances adequately—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Yes, I would like to put it forward, Mr. Chair, and give some explanation.

As I spoke of in previous amendments, the designated minister in this case is the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Obviously, Bill C-12 does allow some flexibility where the Governor in Council can designate someone else.

It regards clause 12, where it says “Other ministers”:

When establishing or amending an emissions reduction plan, the Minister must do so in consultation with the other federal ministers having duties and functions relating to the measures that may be taken to achieve that target.

In this one, there is a little bit more balance because, as we know, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change certainly does have influence in the cabinet, but not sole responsibility. As I've said before, one of the criticisms I often hear from constituents is that our government operates in silos, where sometimes one department, such as Natural Resources, may not be aware of what's happening in the others.

For example, just the other day, in one of the other committees, the Minister of Natural Resources was asked about whether or not he was aware of the lawsuit against the government in regard to its plastics policy. The minister was not aware of that.

To make sure there's better collaboration, while the clause itself does talk about speaking with other ministers, it is rather vague in regard to which other ministers. It does seem, because of the vagueness, that the minister gets to decide who is consulted, how in-depth, and whether or not that leads to a more positive outcome.

That's why CPC-11 requests that Bill C-12, in clause 12, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 5 with the following:

When advising the Governor in Council on the establishment or amendment of an emissions reduc-

Again, I think this would create a much better approach, where it is still the minister who does the consultations, but he or she, in a future iteration, whether it be this government or another, would then be bringing that to the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council can then discuss and make sure those silos are being broken down.

I don't believe that by simply writing words down we're going to see absolutely all the silos in government break down. Life is too large and too complex. I think government strives to deal with all of that, but that isn't always the case. I think, wherever possible, common sense and a willingness to acknowledge things as they are would, with this particular amendment, lead to a better outcome because the Governor in Council would be able to hear those consultations. They would be able to question and educate themselves, ask questions of the responsible minister, and we would see, at the end of the day, a far better understanding of what is being proposed when it comes to achieving the target.

Let's be mindful that the Government of Canada is a very large organization. Obviously, we want to make sure that an all-hands-on-deck approach is taken by the Government of Canada. The best way to do that is to have a thorough discussion and not end up in a situation where key ministers may not be consulted, may be unaware of particular actions taken by the government, or, as in the example I gave earlier of Minister O'Regan, be taken unawares about an action taken against the government.

I hope this would be a common sense proposal that all members would be able to think of. Yes, I am looking at Mr. Bittle, hoping that this time I can sway him to this side. It looks like he is giving it consideration.

Mr. Chair, I will release the floor and hopefully, by that point, Mr. Bittle will have had time to think about the approach and perhaps support it.

I'd ask all honourable members to consider supporting this particular amendment, which is CPC-11.

Thank you.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the officials two questions.

One is certainly in regard to PV-19. The language that PV-19 entertains is the word “ratchet”. Is there anything in the definitions section? MP May had mentioned the progression element, that it was added in previously. Could you just explain, first of all, if there is any legal text within Bill C-12, under the definitions, for the word “ratchet”? How would that interface with progression?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This one I'll give a bit of an explanation for. I have so many amendments.

I want to reference for members of the committee the amendment you've already passed that was brought forward by the government. It's amendment G-3, which includes the following: “Each greenhouse gas emissions target must represent a progression beyond the previous one.” My amendment is not only consistent; it buttresses this and frames it properly in the fact that we already have committed in the Paris Agreement to a principle that's called ratcheting up. In other words, any country may replace its nationally determined contribution at any time, but only to ratchet up.

I'm hoping that Raj Saini will see the benefit of making sure that we amend clause 11. We would add, “that is consistent with the purpose of this Act and with the commitment to ratchet up targets” within the meaning of “the Paris Agreement, done in Paris on December 12, 2015.” Again, it's just placing in the proper context how much we are already committed to, and in some additional amendments to Bill C-12, we reiterate commitments that we have made to only ratchet up.

I hope that this amendment will meet with your approval.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Environment

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this week is Environment Week in Canada. My question to the Prime Minister is this. Would it not be a wonderful thing if, during Environment Week, the environment committee strengthened Bill C-12, the so-called net-zero climate accountability act?

Specifically, one of my amendments has been rejected, and I would be so grateful to know from the Prime Minister why the government does not want the climate targets and climate plans to be based on the best available science. Right now the bill says the best available science must be merely taken into account. Surely we would not just take it into account when we look at COVID. We base our decisions on science.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Yes, I will, Mr. Chair.

First of all, colleagues, as you know, I've been a big fan of a slightly different approach than the government has taken in regard to Bill C-12. For those who are watching, Bill C-12 takes a particular path where the individual minister is designated. In this case, it's the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. We think that a better response is to have that designated minister bring it to cabinet, so that there can be a full debate at the cabinet table where relevant ministers and departments—in fact, all of them, Mr. Chair, the Governor in Council, as it's called—would have an opportunity to debate and to refine exactly what is being debated. That would achieve more buy-in.

As you know, Mr. Chair, a criticism of government is often that it exists in silos. Sometimes people will ask me,“You know, Dan”—they usually call me Dan; they don't usually call me Mr. Albas like they do here—“why isn't one department speaking to another?”

We've seen multiple cases of this during the COVID crisis, where it seems that one department is doing something without coordinating with another one. It can be very confusing to the public. We, as Conservatives, believe that climate change is real. It's a serious issue that requires a serious response. There's no better way to get a whole-of-government and “all hands on deck” scenario going than by having all the cabinet ministers debate, refine and then stand behind it.

Right now, Mr. Chair, whether a minister wants to or not, they have to because of cabinet solidarity support for Minister Wilkinson, who is the designated minister. We want to have it so that every minister can have their say at the cabinet table, not simply defend a plan that was made by a sole, isolated minister who perhaps went and discussed with other departments. It doesn't necessarily dictate that it's a whole-of-government approach or that those conversations are complete and represent all parts of the country. Instead, Mr. Chair, we're relying on a minister who.... As we know, it's very difficult to get a memorandum of cabinet through. Without having that buy-in from the Governor in Council, we don't think you'll get as good of a result.

We believe, as Conservatives, that a different approach is necessary, which is having a full discussion at the cabinet table and a ratification that every minister can stand by. They would probably be better informed when they speak to their constituents. They won't be left saying that they don't necessarily support something, but because of cabinet solidarity they just simply say they support what the Minister of Environment or in this case, the designated minister, says on this.

Mr. Chair, we heard from witnesses like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, an eminent national stakeholder representing hundreds, if not thousands of chambers. Even in the small District of Summerland, all of the businesses in the district are members of that Chamber of Commerce. Probably, Mr. Chair, they would want to know that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is being heard. It is their voice here in Ottawa. They came and did a very thorough discussion, as did many other stakeholders, including the Cattlemen's Association, Pulse Canada and others.

I hope that this particular argument I'm making today will not fall on deaf ears once more.

Mr. Chair, perhaps Mr. Saini, who is so thoughtful and considerate, might decide that today is the day he will side with Dan, as my constituents call me.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Although it's unusual, I want to parenthetically appreciate Mr. Albas's effort to belatedly have debates on key concepts in Bill C-12. The process here has been offensive to full public engagement in the development of this legislation. I'll just put that on the record.

This next amendment seeks to make it clearer what the minister does in an emissions reduction plan. The current version, just to refresh your memories, under subclause 10(2), titled “Explanation”, states:

An emissions reduction plan must explain how the greenhouse gas emissions target set out in the plan and the key measures and the strategies that the plan describes will contribute to Canada achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

That would be amended in my proposed amendment from an explanation to a demonstration. It would be that an emissions reduction plan “must demonstrate” how the greenhouse gas emissions target set out in the plan and key measures will contribute to achieving net-zero.

Again, parenthetically, net-zero by 2050 is not our goal, not if we want human civilization to survive. We must ensure significant cuts before 2030 to meet the Paris objective, which is referenced in this bill, but the bill is not constructed around it.

In any case, this is one small change that I hope the committee will consider.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

I don't see any other hands up.

I would ask the clerk to do a roll call vote on PV‑15.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)

We'll go to PV-16.

On this one, I have a ruling. My ruling is that the amendment is inadmissible. I will now take the opportunity to explain why.

Bill C‑12 requires that national targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada be set with the objective of attaining net-zero emissions by 2050. Amendment PV‑16 seeks to establish a carbon budget measure that is not foreseen in the bill. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” In my opinion, PV‑16 introduces a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill.

This is just a clarification—

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

This question is for Mr. Moffet.

If we get into the methods, the tools, etc., are we venturing into provincial territory? Wouldn't the provinces be required to do a lot of these things to achieve the goals that are set out in Bill C-12?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I first want to thank Madam Michaud for putting this forward. She has certainly been an advocate in the House of Commons. We don't always agree on issues, but I hope we both agree that she's certainly doing her part in doing what she can to put forward ideas that are important to her and, I would imagine, to her constituents.

Also, I think she clearly has seen that Bill C-12 is not the same as her own private member's legislation. I think her experience from working on that legislation is certainly being brought to bear here.

What I would ask Mr. Moffet is very similar to my line of questioning on the previous amendment, G-8. Can the minister, without prompting from Parliament, introduce all of these things in Bill C-12?

Again, is this something for which the minister already has the power in terms of “a description of the measures to be taken” and adding a description of the method for calculating greenhouse gas emissions? With all the amendments we've had thus far, is there anything prohibiting the minister from being able to do this if Bill C-12 were to pass as is between both Houses?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Okay.

Since we are going to be voting on this, Mr. Chair.... Conservatives certainly believe in keeping our international targets when it comes to the ones before us. By the same token, though, this sounds to me like the Liberals are simply responding to concerns in the public and trying to say, “We'll just add a bunch of things that specify to make it look like we're chalking up this bill to be stronger.”

In fact, what they're doing is just listing things that the minister will already have to do, or at least this will present it as a prescriptive form rather than anything new or above what Bill C-12 originally intended when it first came to the House of Commons.

Thank you.