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.
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Madam Speaker, all parliamentarians here agree that we need to tackle climate change and do what is necessary for the environment.
How can my colleague assure Canadians that the Liberal government's plans will get results? From what we are seeing here today, this bill will delay initial results for the length of two majority mandates plus one year, for a total of nine years. I would like to hear my colleague's views on that.
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Madam Speaker, I disagree with the hon. member's statement. It has taken nine years, but we have flattened the curve on pollution. The reports that have been released show that we are moving in the right direction. The member's party said it supports the bill, and we look forward to further amendments. We want to work with the opposition to strengthen this bill, and we look forward to it. We hope the debate concludes today, so the real work on amending the bill can begin in earnest, rather than stalling it here in the chamber.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Madam Speaker, we welcome this bill. It is a step in the right direction, but it simply does not go far enough to ensure that we are doing everything we can to address the climate crisis.
When the Prime Minister was asked why there was no target for 2025, he did not even answer the question. He talked about how, ultimately, the accountability for the government's actions or inaction comes from Canadians themselves.
Canadians are saying the Liberals have missed every single climate target they have set, and they want the government to come up with a credible plan. They want a 2025 milestone to start with, so we can make sure we are monitoring where we are and measuring it. Will the member accept our proposal to have a milestone target for 2025?
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Madam Speaker, we look forward to amendments being brought, but I take exception with the member's claims about our climate plan. I know the hon. member will not believe me, so I will reference his former leader Thomas Mulcair, who called our climate plan absolutely marvellous, saying it put Canada on track to respect our Paris accord obligations. He went on to say that our Prime Minister had published a very bold, all-encompassing and frankly brilliant climate plan. We agree.
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary. We serve on the environment committee together. We are very excited to be able to get to this study and talk about amendments. In the meantime, as we look at the accountability aspect, I was so glad to see the word “accountability” right in the title of the legislation.
Could the parliamentary secretary tell us how accountability interacts with the work the Auditor General's office and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development would be doing to make sure the bill, and the audit of the bill, would show that we are making progress on our targets?
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Guelph for his passion on climate change, which has been evident since we both got elected in 2015. It has been a pleasure to serve with him on the environment committee these past few weeks.
Accountability is already in the legislation. The hon. member is correct in pointing out the role of the Auditor General, and we are fully willing to strengthen that. We are willing to work with opposition parties. We are willing to see amendments.
This is vitally important. All members keep talking about how vitally important it is, but all that is serving to do is delay this legislation. Canadians want to see us debate this. There will be further time for debate at committee stage, report stage and third reading, but let us get it to committee so we can get the real work done and evaluate amendments as they come forward.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, we see this often, when Liberal members get up in the House during debate, taking House time, to say we should speed it up to pass the bill, seemingly unaware that, when they stand up to speak to a bill in the House, they are consuming time and reducing the chances of the bill passing in the timeline they propose.
If the member wants the bill to pass in a certain timeframe, will he look in the mirror and consider his own culpability by choosing to give a speech today?
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Madam Speaker, that is why I gave a very brief speech, to get this through as quickly as possible.
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Madam Speaker, it is with great pride and emotion that I rise today to talk about the environment. I do so with thoughts of my children and my granddaughter, who will be celebrating her first birthday in three weeks.
There are different ways of achieving our common goal of combatting climate change. Climate change is real, and we need to face that reality by taking positive, long-term measures that will make a real difference. Here is why we have concerns about Bill C-12.
Yesterday, our party and the hon. Leader of the Opposition and member for Durham tabled a concrete, realistic and responsible environmental action plan that will produce tangible results. It is a bold, innovative plan that appeals directly to Canadians to address and combat climate change.
The key component of the environmental plan that we tabled yesterday is the creation of a personal savings account. We recognize that carbon pricing is a reality and that we need to put a price on carbon. However, in contrast to the current approach, which involves a government-managed carbon tax, we, the Conservatives, want to give that responsibility to Canadians.
When someone makes a purchase with a carbon footprint, the carbon footprint charge will be printed in black and white on the bill. That amount will then be immediately transferred to a savings account. The Canadian consumer could then use that money to make purchases of their choice with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We are starting from the premise that when one action is taken, another action will directly follow to offset the first action.
We believe that Canadians are in the best position to know what they need and how they can take action to combat carbon pollution. Instead of leaving this in the hands of the government, we are putting it in the hands of citizens.
We know that this is an innovative approach, and that is good because we need to innovate, think outside the box and get off the beaten path to deal with this problem properly. Adapting to this approach will be a real challenge, but that is exactly what we need to do. However, we want to do it with the help and participation of the provinces. We are not saying that here, in Ottawa, we know what is best and we will enforce that. We will work with the provinces to enable citizens to make the choices that they think are best, since Canadians themselves are the ones who know what is best for them and what is best for reducing their environmental footprint.
For example, someone could buy an electric bicycle, do renovations on their house by replacing their windows with energy-efficient ones, or buy a bus pass to avoid driving their car and therefore reduce their carbon footprint. These are positive, constructive, realistic and responsible initiatives that empower the individual.
That is not all. We go much further. We have a zero emission vehicle plan, which is especially great for Quebeckers. As everyone knows, Quebec has a lot of expertise in that area. Over in Saint-Jérôme, Lion Electric is making electric buses that are sold across North America, which is great. We will support the sector by investing $1 billion in building our electric vehicle manufacturing and developing affordable battery technology.
I have no personal connection to Saint-Jérôme, but it is well known that Saint-Jérôme is a hotspot for electric vehicle know-how. Saint-Jérôme CEGEP students can even earn an attestation of collegial studies in electric vehicle technology. This is a place where people are focused on the future and invest in training. We will put $1 billion into supporting this.
The same goes for our targets. We are inspired by British Columbia, which wants 30% of vehicles sold there to be electric by 2030. British Columbia is on its way, and we are following in its footsteps. Major auto industry players such as Ford and GM are following suit and have similar objectives. As our leader said recently, the world has changed, Canada has changed, and we have to head in that direction. This is how we will do it.
We also want to reduce industrial gas emissions. That will not happen overnight because we know that major polluters pollute more because of their philosophy and the fact that they have to produce so much. Our approach is to work with major polluters to reduce their gas emissions.
We also want to establish North American standards. I say this because we could set extremely strict standards in Canada, but if we do not do so in partnership with the Americans, in particular, we would of course be left with our hands tied behind our backs, as it would make our businesses less competitive globally. We therefore have to work with the Americans and come up with North American standards for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in various industries. That would be the realistic, responsible and correct approach to take, one that would not hurt Canada's economy, but on the contrary, would create some important opportunities.
We also want to develop a carbon capture credit. This technology exists in Canada, particularly in central Canada, in Saskatchewan and Manitoba for example. It is already highly developed, and it is constantly being improved. If Canadians were to put their faith in us in the next election, our government would make that a priority, with a $5-billion program to build that carbon capture capacity and innovation even further.
I know a little bit about this because a business in my riding, CO2 Solutions, had also developed this as a way to take action and reduce pollution through carbon capture. When carbon is emitted, it is immediately sequestered underground so it cannot damage the environment. These are positive, constructive and truly realistic approaches. Someone can have 100,000 crazy ideas, but they will not necessarily be feasible. We, on the other hand, have concrete and realistic solutions, and we are reaching out to the provinces and to businesses. Most importantly, we are putting measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions into the hands of Canadians.
However, we must recognize that with respect to Bill C-12, which we are debating today, something changed between the time the government introduced the bill and now. The government decided to create an advisory group and invite only people of its choosing to develop certain policies and ideas. If it is going to open the debate, it must open it to everyone. The government cannot choose only the people who will go along with it and then make us live with the potentially serious consequences of the decisions made. That is why we have very serious reservations. In fact, we think it is unacceptable. What the government did when the debate began was to introduce a new measure that literally no one saw coming.
Therefore, I would like to move the following amendment. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following:
“the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050, since the Bill fails to:
A. implement a plan that recognizes climate change is real and addresses the significant problem it represents, while also ensuring that economic development and job growth can flourish all across Canada; and
B. address the fact that, after committing to working with Parliament on the makeup of the advisory group, the government appointed climate activists whose influence, if acted upon, would lead to the destruction of the oil and gas sector, disproportionately threaten certain regions of the country and their essential industries, and weaken national unity.”
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
The amendment is in order.
The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on a point of order.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, maybe procedures have changed, but with questions and comments when an hon. member raises their hand, am I not entitled to ask a question?
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
Absolutely. I was just confirming how to proceed. I am sorry.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, to my hon. colleague, it is entirely the point that when one understands a carbon budget and when one understands the threat of maintaining or expanding oil and gas activity over even the next decade or more, the chances of losing human civilization to runaway global warming are very severe, and we should be planning for the protection of workers and an orderly transition away from fossil fuels. In fact, that is what is required and being planned around the world.
I would ask my hon. Conservative colleague how the Conservative Party can claim to have a climate plan but think expanding oil and gas well into the future is some sort of right based on regional representation.
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Madam Speaker, I want to pay my respects to the member of the Green Party. I can assure her that I welcome each and every question and will ensure that she will have the time to ask questions.
To the member's point, we have to realize the truth that we live, and I will give the example of Quebec. In the province of Quebec, based on the last study, nine billion litres of gasoline were sold last year. Around 60% came from America.
We would prefer to have Canadian oil instead of American oil. However, if we cancel projects such as Keystone XL and Line 5, which is the will, unfortunately, of the new administration in America, then where will America get its oil from? It will get it from countries that are bigger polluters than we are. So, to save the planet, I will support the Canadian oil and gas industry.
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
Madam Speaker, I think that the government over the last six years has clearly demonstrated its ability to appreciate the value of our environment and the importance of our natural resources, recognizing that we need to take into consideration the environment, the economy, indigenous issues and other issues that surround it. Our policy has been very successful.
Maybe my colleague could elaborate on why it is that the Conservatives have not been able to land on anything successfully that deals with a very important aspect, the environment, and doing what is right for the environment. This is something that Canadians want them to do. Why have they not been successful—