This bill was last introduced in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2021.
Jonathan Wilkinson Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Okay.
In regard to the bill itself and the amendment, though, this just adds, again, a prescriptive quality as to what must be in the bill. Nothing in here goes further than what Bill C-12 originally proposed. The minister could submit all of this information previously. Now it's just that the minister must.
Again, it's not beyond what the scope of Bill C-12 allowed a minister to do. Is that correct?
Ya'ara Saks Liberal York Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues.
I'm pleased to introduce a motion to add new subclause 9(5) to the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act. This provision will require the Minister of Environment to take into account UNDRIP, the submissions and advice of the advisory body and any other relevant considerations when establishing the plan. This motion, therefore, ensures that various factors will be taken into consideration by the minister when establishing an emissions reduction plan.
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CPC-8 again follows up with the approach the Conservatives have taken. I hope that people don't deem that this is a Conservative way of doing it. I think this is just a good proposal to make sure that we have an “all hands on deck” approach when it comes to our net-zero and climate commitments.
This, Mr. Chair, would make a simple change. Right now, it's the Minister of the Environment or whomever would be designated under C-12 under future governments. Whoever that designated minister is really is running the show for the most part. We believe that the minister can play a very important role by forming much of the work to bring to cabinet, but ultimately, the Governor in Council should be establishing alongside that.
I would suggest that we want to see every minister around that table receive a presentation from the designated minister and have a good debate over it, because this is a big country with different aspects of climate change as it affects different regions. We all know this. Have every minister express their point of view and then have a consensus—a whole of government, if you will, Mr. Chair—where they rally around a particular issue and then present that to the Canadian public and to representatives in Parliament. We believe you would have a much stronger structure and a much better buy-in from the cabinet.
Mr. Chair, without further ado, I would just hope that honourable members would say that this would be a positive change to C-12, to see more than just one lonely minister out there trying to deal with these issues and making most of the decisions based on various factors, whether the advisory committee or different components, or from what they've heard from their provincial or territorial partners. To have a verbose discussion at cabinet and to have it ratified by the Government of Canada as cabinet is what the essence of this amendment would do.
I hope members might decide to change their minds from previous positions. Perhaps Mr. Longfield, now being back, might have a new perspective on it and might want to vote in favour of this amendment.
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to move Ms. Collins' amendment. The amendment reads as follows, for those who are following along online. I move that Bill C-12, in clause 9, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 4 the following:
(2.1) The emissions reduction plan for 2030 must include an interim greenhouse gas emission objective for 2026.
Mr. Chair, from the beginning the NDP has called for a 2025 emissions milestone. We heard from so many witnesses who clearly indicated the importance of such a milestone, as well as from the world's leading scientists, who have been clear that it is not enough to wait until 2030 to be accountable. The minister, however, has made it clear that he is not willing to accept a 2025 milestone, and we believe that this compromise solution, in addition to the additional reports between now and 2030—the progress reports and the environment commissioner's reports—and the fact that the 2030 target will be reviewed in 2025 will provide additional accountability in the lead-up to 2030 and will strengthen this bill. The bill has taken so long to make its way through the House that 2026 is not that far in the future, and this is, we believe, an important accountability measure. I hope that my colleagues will see fit to support this amendment.
I'll leave my remarks at that. Thank you.
I think in my opening comments.... I would say that I would reinforce the measures that were proposed in Bill C-12. In the interest of your time, I won't go into further detail on that, but it is one example that's directly relevant to this.
Secondly—
First, I think the ethos that you just referenced is, in my reading of the budget, at the heart of the budget. There are consistent and comprehensive assessments of the impact of all policies on climate change, including on ensuring a just transition, and of the ramifications of some of these adjustments for Canadians and Canadian regions so that appropriate support is provided.
Second, I think an important innovation, which formally you're more familiar with than I am, is from outside of the budget per se, in a separate bill. I think it's Bill C-12, by my memory. It puts in place a net-zero advisory body that provides, as I recommended in my opening remarks, a framework so that we don't just know where we're going, but where we stand today. In other words, it looks at the adequacy of policies that have been put in place, both actual and prospective, identifying any gaps between those policies and the targets. As you well know, and members will be familiar with, the 40% to 45% target is new, so in my judgment additional policies will be required, which underscores how important this committee's work on these issues is.
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you.
We will vote in favour of this amendment.
First, I'd like to remind everyone that several witnesses appeared before the committee and asked that Bill C-12 be reinforced. However, so far, the amendments we have passed don't do much to reinforce anything. I'm thinking that maybe now we have a chance to finally hear what the witnesses came before the committee to say. Partisanship aside, I feel this amendment can do just what it was meant to do, which is to reinforce this legislation so that it achieves the goals that were set.
I'd like to add that, in any event, the Minister of the Environment does not work alone. He also works with all the provincial environment ministers, who consult each other a lot too. That's why I'm not concerned about this giving powers to a “Superminister”.
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you. I'm sure if MP Saks has a point of order, she will simply voice that, and then I would let her assume the floor.
CPC-4 is a short amendment. It just says that the Governor in Council must take into account the best scientific information. Again, this is just a different approach to what is offered in Bill C-12 thus far. The cabinet itself must take into account the information that one minister.... As important as the minister of the environment and climate change is, I would also remind you that the government has created flexibility. It can appoint a different minister if it wants. The Liberal members might want to speak to exactly why they might switch that.
Ultimately, we believe that in order to best tackle climate change, it's important to have all hands on deck. Having the cabinet itself—the Governor in Council being its formal name—take into account the best scientific information when it is going about what is envisioned in clause 8, I think, would be a very good approach. I would encourage all honourable members to support this approach—even just once. Just once, say “yes”.
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I agree with some of what Madam Pauzé just said. I think our goal at this point is to move forward together in the spirit of co-operation, recognizing that we still have a lot of amendments to get through. I believe, in reference to Mr. Albas's point, that there's a difference between obstructing a committee's work using the rules of procedure and people making an honest misinterpretation of the procedure, and that we should have the will of the committee heard. The alternative is that we amend it at report stage, which will take the time of everyone in the House. I think it would be much more efficient for us to simply deal with it here.
I will move an amendment from the floor that Bill C-12, in clause 7, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 4 with “greenhouse gas emissions target at least nine years, 366 days, before”.
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I've been told that this amendment is problematic, and that leads me to make the following ruling that it's not admissible. I will tell everyone 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. The bill establishes that “net-zero emissions” means that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere are balanced by anthropogenic removals of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere over a specified period.
Amendment PV-4 seeks to achieve net-zero emissions through an absolute greenhouse gas emissions reduction of at least 90% below 2005 levels, which is not foreseen in the bill.
The House of Commons Procedure and Practice book, 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-4 introduces a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I must rule the amendment inadmissible.
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wanted to add that I agree with Ms. May and Mr. Albas; it is not redundant to add this clarification. Clause 4 of Bill C-12 clearly has more force than the preamble. Net-zero emissions and meeting the commitments of the Paris Agreement are at the heart of the bill, so I see no problem in repeating it in this clause.
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you for that.
Mr. Chair, I have received some feedback, and I think it's important for the committee, as a group, to listen to that feedback. It is my understanding that a large majority of the briefs that were submitted, 62 of 70 briefs, were filed with us yesterday. That was obviously after the cut-off of last Friday for amendments. At least that's the feedback that I've heard.
I just wanted to say that the feedback further said that it almost felt like the committee was not serious in saying, “Please send us your thoughts. If you can't appear as a witness, please, we want to hear from you.” The person who contacted me said that they felt that the committee was rushing things and was not legitimately sincere in the process.
I know some might point out that my party is opposed to BillC-12. That may be true. You can hold me to account for that. My voters will—certainly some of those who feel strongly about it.
Mr. Chair, what I'm talking about here is the process itself. When people talk about cynicism and whatnot, I would simply point out that we raised these concerns very early in the process, when the committee chose to accelerate its study. In that compression, it seems that we've squeezed some people, in their minds, out of the process completely.
I would point this out, not to point the finger and wag it at people, but simply to say that we need to do better next time, Mr. Chair. I would ask all committee members to think about that feedback. Maybe you've heard directly from them, but having the majority of those briefs submitted so late in the process really irked many people, because it felt like we were never serious about listening to them in the first place.
I've raised that in terms of process. We can have debate over the product of this bill, but I think it's important that there's a trust that's given to us and that we honour that public process. Unfortunately, we did not pass that bar.
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy being here in the House to talk about various bills. I have to say it has been a while. I feel a bit rusty, but I would like to take this opportunity to thank the House of Commons staff who support us and make these hybrid sittings possible. When we are at home, we can be in our ridings. I am grateful to them because I think it is just incredible that this all came together so quickly. I also want to thank the interpreters. Their work is so important, and we do not say that often enough.
We have waited two years for the Liberal government's budget. Let us not blame everything on the pandemic. Canada was the only G7 country that did not introduce a budget in 2020. All the provinces introduced budgets too. The federal government kept us waiting.
Admittedly, there are some good things in this budget, which I will come back to. However, there are some gaping omissions. The Bloc Québécois has made its position clear on those. My colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean outlined them clearly earlier: seniors and health have been forgotten. It is quite ironic, given that we are experiencing one of the worst health crises in our history. We think that that is where investment is needed, to support the health care systems of the provinces and Quebec.
The government ignored the unanimous request made by the House through the motion that was tabled by the Bloc Québécois and accepted. It also ignored the unanimous requests of the provincial premiers, who asked for health transfers to be increased from 22% to 35%.
As I was just saying, it is inconceivable that we could be going through a health crisis without making the necessary investments in health care. Seniors are not getting enough. We did see a glimmer of hope. The Liberal government got in on a promise it made in 2019 to increase old age security. That is great, but the government is not going far enough. It is forgetting seniors aged 65 to 74 who are also in financial difficulty, just like those aged 75 and over. The government is increasing pensions for seniors aged 75 and over, but only by roughly $60 a month, which we do not think is not enough. We in the Bloc Québécois have been asking for an increase of $110 per month, and we will continue to lead that debate. The House has not heard the last of the Bloc on this issue, because the people of all regions of Quebec deserve it.
This comment comes up a lot in my riding. Grandparents, who have worked incredibly hard all their lives, feel so neglected by the federal government, even though they are the ones who have suffered the most in this pandemic, both mentally and physically. This virus can be extremely harmful to their health. It is appalling that they are being let down like this, when we thought we were making progress with this request.
I would like to talk about the money being allocated to the tourism industry in this budget. For a region like mine, the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspé, tourism is extremely important. The fact that some emergency assistance programs, such as the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the rent subsidy, are being extended will certainly help many businesses back home. I commend that, but there are businesses that were in financial difficulty before the pandemic or that were having a hard time finding workers. Some other programs that were necessary for some people, such as the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB, are now hobbling business owners. It was already hard enough to find people who wanted to go to work, and things did not get any easier once the situation stabilized a bit. There were pros and cons to this program. It is a little frustrating because business owners are the ones paying the price. It is important to have targeted assistance for this type of sector, but that is not really what we are seeing. Yes, a few million dollars has been allocated to the tourism industry, but the devil is often in the details. When we look a bit closer, hundreds of millions of dollars are going into ad campaigns to make sure people go visit the various regions of Canada. That is good, but is that really the way to help our industries and our small businesses? That is the question. I think we can do several things at the same time.
Allow me to share some figures. The tourism industry is a vital part of the economy in the Gaspé region. There are 700 businesses and nearly 7,000 jobs, 50% of which are permanent. This is not just a seasonal industry.
Businesses in the area benefit from tourism year-round, which is good. The region saw around $16 billion in economic spinoffs in 2019, but that figure dropped to $5 billion in 2020. This more than $10-billion drop represents a lot of money, and business owners are the ones taking the hit. It is shameful that they are not getting direct assistance, which we have been calling for since the beginning of the pandemic. The message does not seem to be getting through to the other side of the House, though.
As we gradually reopen over the summer, I truly hope that the industry will recover. However, we must bear in mind that there are still no international tourists or cruises, so we cannot expect to see the same results, the same amount of money coming in. The sector will need targeted assistance from the federal government, and that is what we are calling for.
When I see all the different Canada-wide programs that are being announced, such as the national child care program, I realize that it may be good news for the provinces that do not have this type of program. However, Quebec already has a day care program.
We have heard the Prime Minister speak about an asymmetrical agreement with Quebec to redirect these funds. I do not really understand what is meant by an asymmetrical agreement, but it looks like interference to me. The Government of Quebec has been managing its day care system very well for many years. If the federal government decides to implement a similar program, it must give Quebec the money it is owed with no strings attached. Letting Quebec invest these amounts as it sees fit seems perfectly logical to me.
In regions like mine, there is definitely a shortage of day care spaces. Elected officials and families are saying so. However, it is up to Quebec to decide how to use these funds in its system. I believe that it is in the federal government's interest to redistribute these funds without conditions, but that is not the message we are hearing at this time.
I would also like to talk a bit about the environment. Bill C-30 offers no details about how the government plans to invest the funds announced in the budget. I hope that will be revealed in another bill soon because we are talking about $17 billion in green recovery funding. As I said earlier, $17 billion seems like a heck of a lot of money, but consider this: It is exactly what the government will have invested in the Trans Mountain pipeline alone.
Considering the fact that the government continues to invest heavily in the oil and gas industry, we have to wonder how committed it is to fighting climate change. That is a little frustrating too. The budget allocates a mere $1 billion to climate change adaptation. People in the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspé are very concerned about shoreline erosion, and they are experiencing more and more floods. Stakeholders in the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspé have said how disappointing it is to see so little money invested in adaptation. The Conseil régional de l'environnement du Bas-Saint-Laurent has pointed out that rebuilding roads only to have them destroyed again the next year is not good enough. What people need is a multi-year framework and actions that will stand the test of time.
I still have several things to say, so I will say them quickly. In the budget, the government announced that, if all of the proposed measures were put in place, Canada would be able to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 36%. However, according to people in my region, that reduction is not enough. The executive director of the Conseil régional de l'environnement du Bas-Saint-Laurent thinks that number is all well and good but that it is lower than Quebec's commitments and the targets adopted by many countries that are parties to the Paris Agreement. The federal government itself realized that several days later and announced a range of higher targets. Ambition is all well and good, but the measures that were announced are not consistent with that ambition. We need to look at how we can align all of that.
Since I do not have much time left, I will close by saying that members are beginning the clause-by-clause examination of Bill C-12 tomorrow in committee. I heard the minister assure us that he was going to include this new target in the bill, but that does not seem to be the case based on what we are seeing in the amendments. I am anxious to see how the government will keep its promise with regard to fighting climate change, because that is the challenge of this century, and we really need to address it.
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
We have arrived at the end of our session today.
I would like to thank the witnesses for their insights and expertise on an issue that we all know is critical to the planet and to our country. It made for a very interesting discussion.
Committee members, the testimony phase of our work on Bill C-12 is now complete.
We were planning to have two two-hour meetings next week, but due to all sorts of constraints and unforeseen circumstances, we're going to have one four-hour meeting on Wednesday of next week. There will be breaks, obviously, and the meeting will be at 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday. We will be doing clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
With that, I am ready for a motion to adjourn.
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Burch, we've heard from several witnesses over the course of the past couple of meetings who have urged us to include economic indicators in Bill C-12. I'm wondering what your view is on this.