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.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

You mentioned the creation of the Réseau intersyndical pour le climat. You're really proactive about this and always show sensitivity to workers to ensure support.

Do you think the government is ambitious enough and willing to put forth the necessary effort, not only through Bill C-12, but also in its approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, to show support for all sectors and all players in the field, as you say, out of concern for the workers you represent?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses.

I thank you for being here.

I really enjoyed your opening remarks. It is refreshing to hear that the economy and the environment are intrinsically linked, especially when it comes from the economic sector. There is often a fear that the economic sector doesn't want to get involved, but you are proof that it does. As Mr. Henry said earlier, the cost of not doing the energy transition will be even higher than the cost of doing it. So I thank you for wanting to make the transition.

I'll address Mr. Bolduc to start.

Mr. Bolduc, you said that you had some doubts about our ability to meet the national GHG reduction targets. I totally agree with you. Achieving carbon neutrality is a pretty ambitious target. That doesn't mean we should drop that target. We absolutely need to have ambitious targets, but the way we act must go hand in hand with achieving those targets. You mentioned that, quite rightly. I feel I should mention it again. The study report released earlier this week by the International Energy Agency, or IEA, noted that it is commendable that countries want to be carbon neutral by 2050, but that this requires that we stop all oil and gas projects. We know that the gas industry in Canada will grow by at least 30% by 2040. So I have a hard time imagining how we're going to meet our targets if we continue on this path. Certainly, with Bill C-12, the government has a responsibility, but so does the industry.

How do you see this collaboration between the two, then? Do you think the government is taking the right approach in proposing this bill?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you for your answer. It's very clear that in this entire process we're going through, so many levels are interrelated. We can't look at just one piece of the puzzle. We need to look at all of the pieces.

Dr. Burch, I'm a former small business owner. Businesses try to plan ahead and are often faced with challenges, such as how well do we plan when there are transitions happening on the table? I know how rewarding it can be to have a business and want to grow—and also want to be part of this transition that we're proposing with Bill C-12. As we transition to net zero, how can we support small businesses in the transition and empower them to take advantage of economic opportunities?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses who have joined us this afternoon. There is much to be discussed and much to learn as we go through this process, so thank you for your interventions today.

I was very interested in the comments by both Dr. Burch and Dr. Anand with regard to the societal buy-in—if you want to call it that—or collaboration as we move towards net-zero emissions and the impacts that we have to consider in getting societal change to take part in reaching net zero. We are creatures of habit, as I've said many times during this study, and it takes all levels, from the individual up to the federal government, to make sure that we all work together towards reaching net zero.

Bill C-12 certainly answers the urgency that Canadians have put forward to us on climate change, and we certainly hope that Bill C-12 displays the ambition that we want to put forward. We appreciate all of your contributions to making sure that we do have the ambition of Canadians as we do this.

Dr. Anand, I'd like to ask you about the impacts we're already seeing on the environment and the ecosystems from climate change. What will be the ecological consequences if we don't achieve net zero?

[Normand Mousseau, Professor, Departrment of Physics, Université de Montréal, Scientific Director, Trottier Energy Institute]

Hello. I am a professor of physics and the scientific director of the Trottier Energy Institute, or TEI. It is truly an honour for me to be here. Good afternoon to all the members of this committee and its chair.

I have been working on energy and climate governance issues for over 15 years. I was co-chair of the Commission on Energy Issues in Quebec in 2013-2014. I co-authored the proposal that led to the founding of the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices, and I actually sit on its board of directors.

The TEI is leading the Energy Modelling Initiative at the federal level with support from Natural Resources Canada. This initiative aims to structure the modelling capacity in Canada to support decision-makers. I work a lot on all kinds of initiatives that try to build structure into Canada's ability to move forward.

The TEI also publishes the Canadian Energy Outlook. We are currently working on our second edition, which models carbon-neutral scenarios. These reports will be available in a few weeks. What emerges is the immense challenges of meeting carbon neutrality targets and the absolute inadequacy of the measures in place, both federally and provincially. Basically, it is impossible to move in this direction with the measures in place today. I would also say that carbon neutrality is a big game changer in terms of how we do transformation in terms of intermediate goals. We absolutely have to keep the end goal in mind: zero emissions. Any trajectory and any decision has to be consistent with that end.

A few years ago, I piloted the Le climat, l'État et nous initiative, which aimed to transform environmental governance in Quebec. Rest assured, I failed completely. Environmental governance in Quebec is unfortunately not on track to achieve its goals either.

I worked with several stakeholders, among others. We looked at several models abroad, so you won't be surprised to find some similarities with the statement that Corinne Le Quéré presented earlier. Indeed, I have worked with her on several occasions over the years.

Bill C-12 is essential, but clearly insufficient. There are significant gaps in it that make it impossible for us to achieve our goals or get where we want to go, even though those things are important. I don't want to go back to that, so I'm going to talk about a few other issues.

The first issue is data. It's important to prepare progress reports to indicate where we are. Yet data in Canada on greenhouse gas emissions are published at least two years after the fact. It is absolutely impossible to manage a transition and assessment with data that is consistently too old. It is imperative that this bill include a requirement to produce data on a monthly or quarterly basis, at most, as is done with employment data and other essential data in Canada. Without this, we are working in the dark. There's no way to assess the quality of the measures that are put in place. We're going to mess up completely.

We also need a clearer horizon. I completely agree with Professor Le Quéré that we need to set intermediate milestones in the longer term—5, 10, 15 years in advance. This will allow industry and investors to understand where we are in terms of regulatory transformation. These milestones need to include sectoral targets that will facilitate guidance. Thirty years is really too far away for many policy-makers, investors and industries.

In addition, we absolutely need to have better accountability. If this bill has a major flaw, it is this. Indeed, if we can assess neither the capacity nor where we are going, nor what we have done so far, we cannot get there.

The next issue is similar to one of the recommendations we made at the Quebec level a few years ago. It is imperative to elevate the status of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to that of a senior official who answers directly to Parliament. This will allow the commissioner to use different approaches and tools than the Office of the Auditor General, including the ability to evaluate not only programs, but their relevance to the achievement of objectives. He would be able to conduct a much more integrated evaluation of environmental actions, not just based on an accounting approach such as that developed in the Office of the Auditor General.

Annual progress reports are also needed. Again, five years is not enough. We see that abroad. When we just have 30 years left to achieve our goals, we need to make sure that the billions spent year after year are really moving us in the direction we want to go. These reports need to include not only progress at the federal level, but the full picture of what is happening from a Canadian perspective.

We need more independent and responsive boards. Currently, in Canada, there is the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices. There is also the Net-Zero Advisory Body. These two bodies could work together, but they are both insufficient at present. The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices does not have enough flexibility or teeth. It has no legislated existence and no direct access to Parliament.

I think my time is up.

[Denis Bolduc, General Secretary, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Denis Bolduc. I'm the general secretary of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, or FTQ. I'm joined by Mr. Rondeau, a union advisor for the Environment and Just Transition. I'll be giving the presentation.

I want to acknowledge all the committee members.

The FTQ has 600,000 members spread across all economic sectors and all regions of Quebec. Our members work in some of the most carbon-intensive industries, including cement, steel and mining. A number of them work directly in the energy sector.

I can say without bragging that the FTQ is the union organization in Quebec most committed to the fight against climate change. In 2013, we started a process of reflecting on climate change. We've had a standing committee on the environment in place for several years. We've also taken part in a number of parliamentary proceedings in Quebec City and in several key events on climate change and the just transition. Since 2015, a FTQ delegation has attended the COP meetings. We'll be there again this year, in Scotland, for the COP26.

Canada is committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 and is also committed to taking action to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The FTQ is pleased with the federal government's willingness to take serious action to fulfill its commitments. We understand that this is at least the intention behind Bill C-12. However, we doubt that the measures in this bill will achieve the carbon neutrality goals. A change in direction is needed.

The International Energy Agency released a very good report this week. This report shows that we can achieve the goal of keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius without compromising the economy—which is important—if governments commit to moving away from new hydrocarbon production projects.

In our opinion, the energy transition and the achievement of the carbon neutrality sought by Bill C-12 systematically require a transformation of our economy, but also of our jobs. The transition must be planned and it must include the people directly affected. We must ensure respect for the economic and social rights of workers, the sustainability and viability of jobs and the sustainability of communities in the transition. Governments must put in place just transition mechanisms in all workplaces involved. Carbon neutrality legislation must be accompanied by just transition mechanisms based on social dialogue. In our view, they go hand in hand.

In terms of provincial jurisdictions, the issues of respect for jurisdiction, engagement and constraints with provinces are often complex. We can easily assume that things will be no different this time around. Canada must address this issue quickly, while respecting provincial jurisdictions. Above all, the implementation mustn't be delayed because of constitutional wrangling. We suggest that you begin discussions with the provinces now.

I'll talk about the advisory committee proposed in the bill. The government must receive decision-making advice from a credible and competent advisory committee that's free of conflict of interest.

In Quebec, the advisory committee on climate change is composed of 12 people, nine of whom are from the scientific community. That's nine out of twelve people, so three-quarters of the committee. This is totally different from the proposal in Bill C-12. The bill proposes that only one person out of 14 would come from the scientific community, while four people would come from fossil fuel companies. We're concerned about this.

We believe that science should guide government decisions, not corporate interests. The current composition of the committee opens the door to conflicts of interest. Solid rules will be needed to guard against this possibility.

With respect to accountability, the bill calls for evaluation milestones every five years. We're wondering about the date of the first milestone. In our view, a first report card in 2030 is much too far in the future.

I will conclude by telling you that what worries the FTQ most is the complete lack of transition planning. We see this as an indication that carbon neutrality will happen without workers and their communities. Without them, it cannot work. We need to include just transition mechanisms in the bill now.

[Dr. Aaron Henry, Senior Director , Natural Resources and Sustainable Growth, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you.

Chair and honourable members, it is a pleasure to appear before the environment and sustainable development standing committee to share my comments on Bill C-12. Thank you for the invitation.

For those I have not met, my name is Aaron Henry. I am the senior director of natural resources and sustainable growth at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. The Canadian Chamber represents over a quarter of a million businesses through our network.

I'd like to start by simply saying that in principle the Canadian Chamber is supportive of Bill C-12. However, we believe that there are some details within the legislation as it's proposed, as well as some mechanisms of execution, that could probably benefit from greater clarity and improvements to strengthen the confidence of Canada's business community in the act.

I would like, though, to start with what we see as a potential value of Bill C-12. I think in many respects it dovetails with some of the comments by the other speakers today.

If developed well and in consultation with Canada's business community, I think this bill could lead to greater policy, certainly in Canada. I think it could create stronger and mutual trust among government, business and Canadians in the pursuit of our efforts to decarbonize.

As many other speakers on this committee have noted on other days, we have a history of setting climate goals and failing to meet them. Not only does this undermine our efforts to meaningfully contribute to global efforts to combat climate change, but it poses a risk to Canada's leadership on the global stage and to its reputation. Also, from the business perspective, it creates a risk for paradigm swings in Canada's policy environment. This takes place as successive governments introduce new measures and more stringent regulations to close ground on lapsed targets. That, in itself, creates uncertainty for an investment environment. It makes it harder for businesses to adapt and cope, and to know where they stand. That, in turn, creates additional financial and political risk for Canadian businesses.

As such, in principle, legislation that increases the transparency and accountability of our efforts to achieve net zero has significant value, especially given that we are discussing policy choices that take shape over the span of decades.

With that said, the chamber recognizes the value in making a few improvements or changes to the legislation. The first is that we acknowledge that climate change has many different dimensions to it. How we approach net zero will have consequences that go beyond simply reducing emissions. There are implications for social inclusion. There are implications for Canada's economic prosperity and labour forces and for rural communities. As some of the witnesses who attended yesterday will attest, there are even public health dimensions.

In short, not all of the pathways to net zero are created equal. Some pathways will carry higher trade-offs than others. Some of them will achieve the desired environmental outcomes, but at the unnecessary expense of other social and economic factors.

While the goal of reducing emissions falls squarely within the remit of Environment and Climate Change Canada, I think those other dimensions demand the attention of other ministers for whom those issues fall within their portfolios. For that reason we'd like to make the suggestion that rather than having the minister approve a five-year plan, that should actually be a Governor in Council decision and made with cabinet.

At the same time, we are concerned that, as described, this legislation doesn't really give full consideration to the economic opportunities and consequences that are attendant to pursuing net zero. The goal of developing sectoral decarbonization strategies has the potential to create closer collaboration between government and industry to ensure greater policy certainty, but there are currently two gaps that I think need to be closed to achieve this.

First, there needs to be a clear economic lens built into the legislation. This lens should set parameters to ensure that the sectoral strategies developed by the proposed advisory body adhere to those parameters such as economic competitiveness, job creation, international opportunities for emission reductions, and the potential export advantages in commodities and clean technologies that Canada can leverage. At a minimum, there needs to be an economic lens that makes the criteria through which different sectoral decarbonization strategies are selected transparent and clear for all concerned stakeholders.

Second, we feel that a very high task has been placed before the net-zero advisory board. It's simply that having 15 people to successfully develop decarbonization plans for multiple economic sectors over multiple years is a big challenge. I think that challenge seems even greater given the absence of the direct inclusion on the advisory board, or through other mechanisms within the act, of industry expertise in developing these sectoral strategies.

Our recommendation would be that the legislation be amended to ensure that industry stakeholders—the stakeholders who are closest to the technological and business opportunities to lower emissions for their sector—are given a clear and formal role in developing sectoral decarbonization strategies.

Finally, we do have some concerns about the scope of the legislation—I think that's already been raised—and how exactly it will interact with provincial jurisdictions and the climate ambitions set by provincial governments. It would be helpful if there were some amendments that would clarify how the targets set by provinces will be integrated into this act. This will be critical in calibrating offset policy and carbon credit creation. It will be very important to ensure greater technological certainty around technologies that are eligible for offset creation and pass the test of additionality. Without strong coordination—

[Dr. Sarah Burch, Associate Professor, Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Waterloo, Executive Director, Interdisciplinary Centre on Climate Change, As an Individual]

Hello, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you very much for the invitation to speak today at this critical turning point in the history of Canada's response to climate change.

My name is Dr. Sarah Burch. I'm an associate professor and Canada research chair in sustainability governance and innovation at the University of Waterloo. I'm also the newly appointed executive director of its Interdisciplinary Centre on Climate Change, which is a hub of over 100 faculty, scientists and students who explore the unfolding consequences of climate change and the solutions to it.

I'm a lead author of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's sixth assessment report, which, as you know, is currently under way. This is the largest scientific collaboration of its kind, and our assessments directly inform international negotiations on climate change, as well as national, provincial, state and even municipal climate change planning around the world.

As a person who focuses on transitions to low-carbon resilient communities, I'd like to take this time to add my voice to the chorus of scholars, advocates, business leaders, youth, indigenous knowledge holders, and decision-makers who know that Canada can demonstrate real leadership on this issue.

None of this will be new to you, but I'd like to clarify what we know for sure.

We know that climate is already changing. This isn't a problem for other people elsewhere at some distant point in the future. We know that our own activities and the burning of fossil fuels are largely responsible for those changes. There are impacts such as flooding, stress on ecosystems, loss of species, drought, extreme weather events, heat waves and fires, and we are seeing evidence of these impacts now, here in Canada.

This is a human issue, not simply an environmental one. Marginalized communities will suffer the most under a changing climate. We have seen this as the COVID pandemic has unfolded. Pre-existing inequalities were exposed and deepened as a result.

So what do we do?

The ambitions set out in the Paris Agreement will not be met without transformative levels of greenhouse gas reductions in synergy with actions that protect us from the impacts of climate change. Incremental greenhouse gas reductions, such as those obtained through modest efficiency gains in a system still fundamentally dependent on fossil fuels, will not lead to reductions of the pace and scale required to constrain warming to 2°C or less.

As we know, between 1990 and 2019 Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions increased by around 21%, and they decreased by only around 1% between 2015 and 2019. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, however, has clearly demonstrated that we have to cut emissions in half by 2030 if we're to avoid the most costly and irreversible effects of climate change. Given Canada's historical contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and our exceedingly high per-capita emissions, it's our responsibility to meet and exceed this call by the IPCC.

The U.K. has pledged to reduce greenhouse gases by 78% by 2035, in fulfillment of the statutory obligations laid out in its 2008 Climate Change Act. This is exciting, but it's not what interests me. Much more important is the progress it has made so far: Emissions in the U.K. have fallen by 51% since 1990. Likewise, Germany has committed to reducing its emissions by 65% by 2030, and the U.S. has now recently committed to a 52% reduction below 2005 levels by 2030. The stories behind progress in these countries are more complex than those targets would suggest, of course, but collectively they convey ambition and urgency.

However, targets, as we've seen, are insufficient. They're not in and of themselves action. Specific scalable policies and actions are required to deliver on those targets, along with clear mechanisms for assessing whether we're doing what we said we'd do. We have to hold ourselves accountable.

Furthermore, the cost of unbridled climate change vastly outstrips virtually any estimate of the cost of transitioning to a low-carbon economy. We must, however, recognize that some sectors and communities will bear a larger share of the burden of that transition. In a just transition, the costs of climate change mitigation are shared rather than placed heavily on marginalized communities and workers in certain sectors. These communities can be beneficiaries of the transition to a low-carbon resilient economy rather than collateral damage.

Pulling out specific points in relation to Bill C-12, my suggestions are as follow.

Bill C-12 should set a clear and achievable 2025 milestone so that we know sooner rather than later whether we're making progress. It should legislate a more ambitious emissions reduction target of at least 50% by 2030 to align with IPCC recommendations.

It should make clear who's responsible for reaching objectives and exactly how they'll reach them. There's a crucial missing link between objectives and measures.

It should clearly define a more robust role for the net-zero advisory body to help set this target, as well as review, assess and report on progress.

It should ensure that a just transition is supported federally, explicitly seeking synergies between adaptation, which means protecting ourselves from the consequences of climate change, and mitigation, which means dealing with the causes, while lifting the burden of the transition from marginalized communities.

Thank you.

[Dr. Madhur Anand, Professor, School of Environmental Sciences and Director, Guelph Institute for Environmental Research, University of Guelph, As an Individual]

Thank you to all of the members of the committee for this opportunity, and a special hello to MP Lloyd Longfield.

My name is Madhur Anand. I am a professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of Guelph. My own research has examined the impacts of climate change on ecosystems in Canada and world-wide, and also how human behaviour and social dynamics can determine the success of climate change mitigation. Our research, some of which was just published yesterday, shows that a growing number of national-level climate agreements can tip the balance towards achieving global targets.

I'm also director of the Guelph Institute for Environmental Research where researchers across all seven of our colleges—engineers, ecologists, mathematicians, artists and economists—are all working on the interdisciplinary challenge of climate mitigation. No one group or sector will be able to solve it on its own.

Canada has not met its obligation to reduce emissions according to international climate agreements. This may very well be because we lacked legislation such as Bill C-12. Research on over a hundred countries world wide shows that passing a new climate law is correlated to reduced emissions, so there's hope here. This act is essential.

The remainder of my comments have to do with clause 10 of the bill, which describes the contents of the emissions reduction plan. This is because we simply cannot afford to reach clause 16 of the bill, which is failure to achieve targets. We know that time is short to head off a cascade of climate tipping points and the nation isn't going to get a second chance to do this right.

Regarding targets, found in paragraph 10(1)(a), the bill proposes using “the best scientific information available”. Emission targets will be very hard to detect without sustained scientific work in measurement, monitoring and modelling. The unaggregated data collected by various sectors need to be accessible to both scientists and the public.

Regarding scenario planning to meet the targets, assumptions about human behaviour and societal uptake of technological change must be very explicit and realistic. Our own research shows that social learning, incentivizing behavioural change and evolving social norms can influence the projected peak of global temperature by as much as one degree Celsius.

Emissions targets need to account for both social-cultural processes and political speed bumps. This could also include consequences of missing targets early on, the effects of which will be cumulative and even harder to mitigate.

Regarding paragraph 10(1)(b), which is “a description of key emissions reduction measures”, Canada needs to see the writing on the wall. A fossil fuel-free global economy is inevitable. The sooner Canada acts, the easier it will be to participate in the economy of the future instead of languishing in the past. We have evidence from over a dozen measures that have been effective in other countries at reducing emissions for the energy sector and much of this technology already exists.

Here, I want to focus on some other measures that are usually overlooked, namely land use changes including sectors of agriculture and forestry. Measures need to include not only just new emissions, but also carbon sinks. In other words, it is the way we manage cover crops, grasslands, peatlands and forests, and avoid land degradation. These are all things that can help us achieve our targets.

Alas, no new political or scientific measure can succeed if it does not have social approval. This brings me to my comments on paragraphs 10(1)(c) and 10(1)(d) on strategies.

Rapid societal change is possible. We have seen with the pandemic how willing the public and the private sectors are to work together for a common goal and to adopt new behaviours if they understand the risks and the benefits. The strategies should therefore demonstrate the economic, social and environmental benefits of emission reductions, so people and sectors can see the net benefits for Canada.

In developing its strategies, the government must consult not only with natural scientists and economists, but also with social scientists and those working across the arts both within and outside of academia and with indigenous groups, all of whom are able to help us change the language, the culture and the narrative around climate change mitigation.

Thank you.

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

Fantastic. I'll go to Professor Wright, then.

It's certainly one of the mysteries of our federation, as a confederation of Canadian provinces, territories and the federal government, that we're not as able to split out the responsibilities as independent nation states do within the European Union, and this has been a historical weakness.

In looking at Bill C-12, I really support your amendment to bring in subclause 10(c) to the list of things about which we must report.

Can you think of other means, perhaps modelling on the EU, by which we can ensure that our provincial, territorial—and, I would also think, municipal—orders of government are involved in saying that this is how we take apart this challenge and get at it in each order of government?

[Prof. David V. Wright]

There are two levels of thinking along the lines of “binding” in this context. That's not a particularly helpful concept here, but let's tackle it.

First of all, this statute is legally enforceable, and that's represented or indicated by the mandatory provisions throughout. However, just like any law that the federal government enacts, it's open to a subsequent federal government to repeal that act, just as we saw with the initial federal environmental assessment statute. In that same way, future governments can repeal it, just as the KPIA was repealed.

With regard to the latter, on perhaps a more interesting and more practical level, this statute can only go so far, because it cannot impose emission reduction targets or specific budgets on a province-by-province level. Rather, the elephant in the room in Canada for decades has been the lack of formal agreement among all provinces, territories and the federal government with respect to who is going to reduce emissions by how much.

One option is to adopt what the European Union has adopted, which is, in some realms, called a burden-sharing agreement, but today is typically called an effort-sharing agreement, which sounds a little less scary, a little less burdensome. Either way, it is a negotiated agreement whereby all those jurisdictions—in Canada we have national jurisdictions and provinces—indicate explicitly what their contributions are going to be to emission reduction. Another way to think about it is that it's almost like a mini Paris Agreement within the Canadian federation.

You can't set that out in Bill C-12, but you can create a sort of portal that recognizes that this might be happening. That could be included in, for example, subclause 10(1), with information about provinces and territories. You can at least create the platform and consistency for that kind of burden-sharing agreement.

The last thing I would say is that this is almost like a pan-Canadian framework circa December 2015, but with emission reduction targets signed by all jurisdictions.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Perfect.

My question is for Mr. Wright.

In November, I think, you conducted a preliminary review of Bill C-12 and brought up several things. You said that it was impossible to bind future Parliaments because of our democratic system, which we inherited from the United Kingdom, and our federal system.

You proposed earlier that part of subsection 10(3) be moved to subsection 10(1). Is there another solution, which would consist of reproducing the European Union Burden Sharing Agreement here? Would that agreement apply here?

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Heaps, I read an article you wrote, I think last year in June. One of the things you mentioned was that a unified federal strategy would unleash almost $30 trillion worth of opportunity.

Can you elaborate on the economic opportunities to make sure that businesses are well prepared when Bill C-12 is implemented? What are the opportunities for Canadian businesses, and why is a unified federal strategy very important to access those opportunities?

[Prof. David V. Wright]

Yes. Thanks for the question.

As you all know, under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement, Canada has a number of regular reporting obligations in the form of annual emission inventories, such as for example, biennial reports that include projections of where the emissions are and where they're going.

Bill C-12 takes a step towards domesticating those obligations, so in many ways there is emerging alignment between those international reporting obligations and the creation of similar obligations on the domestic front. It's not a negative thing in many cases. This may be a cut-and-paste job of taking what's being submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change secretariat and putting it in the reports required under Bill C-12. I think that's a good thing. It reduces the reporting burden, but it also aligns and puts front and centre domestically what Canada is doing or perhaps is not doing.

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

Yes, I think that's one of the losses, the loss of the national round table. I think Bill C-12 is weakened by essentially putting in a mini round table of multi-stakeholder concerns instead of an expert group. If we could recreate the national round table—but that's a topic for another day.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?