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. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.
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.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
It being 6:52 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
The House resumed from March 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this bill.
One thing is very clear. Climate change is truly the greatest challenge of this century, if not this millennium. The Bloc Québécois examined this bill carefully, and we support it in principle simply because we cannot be against doing the right thing. However, we think that the bill needs improvement. We need to give it some teeth.
Like most environmental protection agencies, the Bloc Québécois was pleased that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change introduced this long-awaited bill.
However, we are somewhat disappointed with how weak it is in its current form. The overall goal of climate legislation should be to make current and future governments responsible for their climate action in order to prevent a perpetual failure to reduce emissions. Targets were set a long time ago, but unfortunately, we sometimes see them being changed along the way. Changes have been made several times over the past 30 years, leading us to believe that we had lowered our emissions when they had actually increased compared to when we first started setting targets.
Unlike Bill C-215, an act respecting Canada’s fulfillment of its greenhouse gas emissions reduction obligations, which was introduced in the House by the Bloc Québécois, Bill C-12 as drafted will not help achieve that objective.
Major changes would be needed for Bill C-12 to have any real impact on ensuring that Canada fulfills its obligations under the Paris Agreement. Also, unlike the Bloc Québécois bill, this bill does nothing to enshrine the Paris Agreement into Canadian law, even though it ought to be. The fact that the Paris targets are not even included in Bill C-12 only confirms that Canada is not serious about its commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050.
Furthermore, the Bloc Québécois believes that the bill should include a binding target of a 30% reduction below Canada's 2005 levels by 2030. The bill should also set an interim target for 2025.
Also, one of the major problems with Bill C-12 is that it does not set out any credible accountability mechanisms for reductions. The only obligation that Bill C-12 imposes on the minister is to prepare a report. Ultimately, the minister will get to assess his own progress and share his findings with the public. Under Bill C-12, the role of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development is almost non-existent, when the commissioner actually needs a bigger operating budget.
The government should enlist neutral, objective, independent institutions and authorities to ensure that these measures really have teeth and to hold the minister to account. Under the bill as it stands now, the minister is accountable only to himself. That is why we also think that there should be an action plan and that the measures taken by the government should be examined by this authority—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
I am sorry, but we have to move on to questions and comments.
The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague.
I am very disappointed in this bill. Other countries, such as England and New Zealand, have much stronger legislation. They passed bills with hard-hitting measures that will truly tackle the perils of climate change.
Bill C-12 is the weakest bill in the world.
What does my Bloc Québécois colleague think about the fact that the Minister of the Environment did not compare existing laws elsewhere in the world to come up with measures that work?
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
Yes, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot did indeed have time left. I am very sorry.
The member has another six minutes for his speech if he wants. Then we will come back to the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her question.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot once more.
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Madam Speaker, certainly, I will gladly pick up where I left off. I was a little surprised by the interruption, as I did not think we were there yet.
Bill C-12 needs to include an action plan, measures and a review by an independent body that will assess whether the targets are being met and whether Canada is fulfilling its obligations under the Paris Agreement. The bill is missing that aspect. The Paris Agreement is more than just a declaration of intent. As we have said before, the government needs to walk the talk. It needs to listen to the major environmental groups, which have all pointed out the significant flaws with Bill C-12.
That is what the Green Party member pointed out in her question when she said that this bill is one of the weakest in the world, which is is true, unfortunately.
The best approach would be to take inspiration from Bill C-215, the bill on climate change accountability that was introduced by the Bloc Québécois. Our bill set out binding reduction targets and introduced real accountability mechanisms, and that is what really matters.
The goal of Bill C-12 is not to ensure that Canada fulfills its international commitments, but rather to enshrine into law the existence of a target to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. However, the Paris Agreement is quite clear. In order to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, the middle of this century, we must first cap greenhouse gas emissions around the world as soon as possible.
The purpose of any climate legislation is not to support the government's efforts—which is exactly how this bill is being presented—but rather to force the government to fulfill its commitments and keep it from failing again.
At the beginning of the House debate on Bill C-215, I remember being told that we needed to preserve policy space. However, since a bill can be repealed, policy space does not disappear. Of course, it is much more difficult to repeal legislation than it is to just leave policy space, as the current bill does. Still, I think it is only right for a government that wants to adjust its actual greenhouse gas emission targets downward to be required to follow a much more rigorous process, rather than being able to make such changes lightly.
With our Bill C-215, we wanted the interim emissions reduction target for 2030 to be a reduction of at least 30% below the level of Canadian greenhouse gas emissions in 2005, which is consistent with the Paris Agreement. In comparison, the Liberal Party's Bill C-12 states that the minister will set the greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for 2030 within six months of the day on which the act comes into force. The bill does not actually contain any binding reduction targets. It merely states that it will be up to the minister to announce the new targets.
In the throne speech, the government states that it will bring forward a plan to exceed Canada's 2030 climate goal, and the Prime Minister keeps saying that it will be exceeded. If the government is so sure that it will exceed its reduction target for 2030, why did it not include it in the bill? If the government is so confident, I think it should have nothing to fear from including the targets in the bill. Even if it has concerns about not being able to meet the targets, they should still be written into law.
There is also a problem with the reports. According to the bill, the minister must set targets for the milestone years, but these years are not specified. The targets are established one by one over time, five years before the milestone year. The first target, which should be the one for 2035, will be set in 2030. One question we could ask ourselves is the following: If the progress report is already evaluating whether the interim targets are being met, why would the assessment not be done on an annual basis, after the national inventory report is submitted in accordance with the United Nations framework convention?
In my introduction earlier, I spoke about the role of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. The bill does not expressly state that the measures must be assessed based on Canada's ability to adhere to the Paris Agreement. However, for the law to truly ensure that the government's actions enable Canada to meet its targets and honour its international commitments, the commissioner's role must be to assess whether the planned measures will allow Canada to meet its targets and how meeting them would enable Canada to honour its obligations under the Paris Agreement.
In addition, Parliament needs to be able to ensure that the government is honouring Canada's international commitments. The legislation must include a mandatory target for 2030. If the Liberal government's good faith were a valid and satisfactory guarantee of Canada's climate success, why would we need climate framework legislation? This is a valid question.
The government cannot say that Bill C-12 contains restrictive measures while at the same time saying that the only real restriction is the outcome of the election. The Bloc Québécois is fully prepared to work with the government, the opposition parties, environmental groups and the public to amend Bill C-12 to ensure that Canada's international climate commitments will actually be honoured.
However, it is a problem that the minister is the one who establishes the body's mandate and that the minister can change this mandate at any time. As the bill stands now, the advisory body is restricted to providing advice with respect to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. The fact that experts are not being asked to provide advice on the short-term targets, the interim targets and the 2030 target is yet another example of how the government does not understand that this is a climate emergency. It is not prioritizing the rapid reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.
The Acting Speaker Bloc Gabriel Ste-Marie
We now move to questions and comments. I would ask the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to repeat her question.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, my question is simple and clear.
What is being proposed in Bill C-12 will result in Canada having the weakest law in the world with respect to the government's responsibility to tackle the great threat of the climate emergency.
Other countries have laws. For example, England passed a very strict law in 2008, which resulted in greenhouse gas reductions. Every year, England meets its targets while Canada fails to do so.
In my colleagues's opinion, why did the minister not study the stricter legislation of other countries?
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, at their recent convention, the Liberals voted against the proposal of their party's Quebec wing to promote green energy and to put an end to fossil fuel subsidies. Despite all the good intentions and fine speeches, the Liberal Party rejected this proposal.
We cannot transition to clean energy while increasing fossil fuel subsidies, as is currently happening. Unfortunately, Canadian governments, no matter which ones, often only pay lip service. As the member said so well, we have not really studied what is being done well elsewhere.
Let us now hope that the detailed study in committee will amend and improve the bill.
Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, my question is in regard to the importance of the national government working with provincial and territorial governments and other stakeholders to further the cause. As we talk about the legislation for net-zero emissions, I think it is very robust and ambitious, and it will meet the needs and expectations that Canadians have of the government.
Would the member not agree that, if Ottawa is working in co-operation with other jurisdictions in different areas, we will be better able to achieve the types of goals Canadians want us to achieve?
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, we completely agree that Ottawa must work with Quebec, the provinces and the different levels of government. That is not the issue, and promoting this collaboration is part of our DNA.
We really want environmental matters to be an exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec. In my view, collaborating with the provinces means, for example, not imposing an oil project when the provinces do not want it.
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of my hon. colleague. I agree with so much that he presented around ways to strengthen this accountability legislation.
I wonder if he could provide the House with a change that he feels would go the furthest and would be the highest priority amendment to this legislation to improve accountability and strengthen the bill. Is there one idea that he feels stands out?
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will simply say that most of the useful ideas can be found in the bill that the Bloc Québécois introduced, such as the need for real accountability, a recognized monitoring and oversight body, and 2030 targets.
In other words, we cannot simply rely on good intentions and let the minister assess his own performance. We need an independent oversight body and we need much more binding targets.