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.

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis.

Had my colleague listened to my speech, he would have known that I said we need to work with all stakeholders in the industries involved. Workers want to have an impact. They want to contribute, but they are not represented on the advisory body. Oil and gas industry representatives are not part of the process.

Your government says it is inclusive, so you should work with everyone around the table to come up with a unanimous approach and have a meaningful impact on the environment. That is what we have to do for our children and grandchildren.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member that he is to address his questions and comments to the Chair, not directly to the member.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a simple question for my colleague.

One of the Liberal government's key campaign promises was to plant two billion trees over about 10 years. That breaks down to 200 million trees a year. As far as we know, not that many trees have been planted, maybe 100,000. The government broke its promise.

What does my colleague think of the idea of planting trees to help combat climate change?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to apologize for my previous intervention.

In response to the question by my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, I would say that unfortunately, the government has broken its promises yet again.

Tree planting is a tangible measure. Carbon capture from planting trees has a positive impact. Every environmentalist and every scientist agrees with that.

I would like to inform my colleague that all the members of the Conservative Party of Canada have planted far more trees than the Liberals have in six years.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are indeed in a climate crisis. This Parliament voted to affirm that.

Does the hon. member think we should have a target for 2025? As well, should the government be responsible for meeting that target in 2025, whoever is running the government?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

We must act now if we want to have an impact as quickly as possible. We have had a health crisis. The current government was slow to react and to close the border, but it did react eventually. If we want to do something about the climate crisis, we must act very quickly.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour and privilege to be a strong voice for the hard-working people of Mississauga East—Cooksville. I know first-hand just how devastating the impacts of climate change can be on their lives. My riding in the city of Mississauga has had to deal with some of the worst flash flooding in the country. Extreme weather events that used to happen every 40 years are now happening every six years. Canadian cities are facing two crises as they converge in a perfect storm, the combination of a rapid rise in extreme weather events, as a result of climate change, with growing deficits in sewer and storm-water infrastructure.

On that note, I want to thank our government for the millions of infrastructure dollars in assistance it has provided Mississauga to help mitigate future flood damage. Per year, there are now 20 more days of rain in Canada. That is up 12% since 1950. In 2012, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities estimated that replacement costs for Canada's sewer and storm-water infrastructure would be almost $55 billion.

In Mississauga, we are seeing floods. Across Canada, we are seeing more intense fires, floods, droughts, heat waves and hurricanes tearing through communities, ripping away lives and livelihoods, and having increasingly dire impacts on our public health.

I say all this to make it crystal clear that climate change is the greatest long-term threat that we face as a community, both locally and globally. It is also our greatest economic opportunity. Members may ask how great it is, and it is a massive $2.6-trillion opportunity. By taking bold climate action, we will create new jobs for the future, strengthen our economy and grow the middle class, while also ensuring clean air and water for our kids and grandkids.

Canada has become a global leader in clean technology, with 11 Canadian companies appearing on the 2021 global clean tech 100 list of the most innovative and promising clean technologies from around the world.

Our neighbour to the south, our greatest trading partner and friend, the United States of America, has resolved to take bold action on climate change as an opportunity to create millions of good-paying middle-class jobs. Going forward, Canada will continue to work closely with the United States and other countries to reach our ambitious climate goals, creating growth and improving the well-being of all people.

Members may ask how we will achieve all that. It is spelled out through our government's ambitious Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act. The question will be posed, and it is a great question. Let me explain.

Let us look at some of this government's most recent investments. Since October 2020, we have invested $53.6 billion to establish Canada's green recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, create jobs and secure a cleaner future for everyone. On top of that, budget 2021, which was announced last week, also builds on that approach, including through a new investment in Canada's net-zero accelerator that will incentivize Canadian businesses and industry to develop net-zero technologies and build our clean industrial advantage.

Budget 2021 also includes new measures to make life more affordable and communities more livable by helping more than 200,000 Canadians make their homes greener and working toward conserving 30% of Canada's lands and oceans by 2030. These new measures will help Canada exceed its Paris climate targets, reduce pollution and reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Since 2015, we have been committed to finding real solutions to help tackle the climate crisis while also creating jobs, strengthening our economy and growing the middle class and those working hard to join it. We have put a rising price on pollution that puts money back into the pockets of Canadians, made new investments in public transit and banned harmful single-use plastics to protect our oceans. Together, we will continue to take action in fighting against climate change and secure a better future for Canadians.

Canada has set an ambitious emissions reduction target under the Paris Agreement of 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030. Bill C-12 brings the accountability and transparency that are required to achieve our goals. The bill has robust accountability and transparency included within it: a requirement to put in place a target and establish an emissions reduction plan, both to be tabled in Parliament within six months of coming into force of the act; a legally binding process for the federal government to set climate targets and bring forward an ambitious climate plan every five years between 2030 and 2050; a 2030 progress report, which must be tabled before the end of 2027; a 2030 assessment report, to be tabled within 30 days of the 2030 national inventory report data; an annual report detailing how the federal government is managing the financial risks of climate change and the opportunities; and a review by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development within five years of coming into force of the bill.

The very structure of the Paris Agreement is based on the year 2030. Our plans in provinces like B.C. are to be commended, as well as Quebec and those around the world. Bill C-12 includes best practices that we have found around the world, such as the creation of an advisory body.

This is consistent with the undertaking we have seen by our peer countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany, New Zealand and France. An advisory body composed of up to 15 experts is established to provide the Minister of Environment and Climate Change advice with respect to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. This advisory body would engage with experts, stakeholders, indigenous peoples and the public to make sure its advice is grounded in the priorities and ideas of all Canadians. The advisory body would submit an annual report to the Minister of Environment with respect to its advice and activities.

Bill C-12 would provide an opportunity to secure a prosperous and sustainable future. By taking this decisive action now, we are creating the industries of the future, creating good-paying jobs, advancing innovative technologies and protecting our country and the world from the utter destruction of climate change.

I encourage my fellow parliamentarians to support Bill C-12 and its speedy passage. They are voting for a bill that would set a strong foundation for a healthier environment, economic growth and possibilities for today and beyond.

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

Madam Speaker, this member just voted to have this steamrolled through. I really hope he is interested in debating today.

The Minister of Environment has put forward an advisory council, and members of that advisory council have actually made comments against oil and gas, saying they want to phase it out, specifically the Davos approach. Does the member agree with that kind of rhetoric? Does he agree with the targeting of Alberta? Let us not forget Newfoundland and Labrador, which also has its own aspirations for oil and gas, as well as British Columbia, with liquefied natural gas.

Does the member agree with having that kind of division sown upon giving advice to the minister?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I respect the hon. member, but I reject the premise of that question. That hon. member and the member's party, the Conservatives, have been obstructionists to any kind of climate change policy for the last six years. They have blocked, stymied and done everything possible to stop legislation in Canada from moving forward on real opportunity for meeting our targets. That member does not have the ground to stand upon. As well, members of the Conservative Party of Canada believe climate change is not real.

When it comes to the advisory council, it is representative of all of Canada, all sectors, genders, and indigenous people. It is the type of advisory panel one would want to see represented in the Parliament of Canada.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, passion is a wonderful thing. I was moved by the speech that my colleague from Mississauga East—Cooksville gave. It reminded me of the fine speeches given by Jean-Marc Chaput, the well-known Quebec speaker who unfortunately passed away last year.

In 2017, the Liberal government imposed new greenhouse gas emission reduction standards for highly polluting products used to manufacture insulation board.

These new standards were to be implemented in 2021. In January 2021, afew months before the new rules were to go into effect, these same Liberals granted exemptions to multinationals, while Canadian businesses like Soprema had invested millions of dollars in a new product. This has led to an imbalance in the market, and Soprema is paying the price, even though it did all the right things.

I would like to know if my colleague believes that this is the way to reduce greenhouse gases and help companies get through this crisis.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I offer my condolences for the loss of the member's friend, who was passionate about climate change and the subject.

When it comes to looking at industry and understanding about jobs, industry has gotten behind this legislation. The forestry industry is just one example, as well as labour. Jerry Dias, Unifor national president, said, “Canada can meet [its] international climate change obligations and create good jobs at the same time.” We are working together with all stakeholders to make sure we get this right.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am getting really bad flashbacks to 2005, when Stéphane Dion was standing in the House making the same kind of wild statements about making the world a better place, when in fact there were no standards, there were no plans, and year in, year out our greenhouse gas emissions were rising, as they have been under the Liberals.

Last year, the Liberal government put $18 billion into the oil and gas sector. How is it credible that the Liberals can tell the world they are leading, when they are not putting money into alternatives and continue to maintain the 20th century economy as it was?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, maybe the member did not have an opportunity to hear some of my remarks.

We have invested $53 billion in creating jobs and securing a cleaner future for everyone. In budget 2021, there are a number of initiatives for more affordable communities, more livable communities, helping 200,000 Canadians make their homes greener, and working toward conservation, with 30% of Canada's lands and oceans being protected by 2030. The targets are there, the numbers are there and the dollars are there, I say to the member.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to debate the federal government’s climate ambitions and the Liberal Party’s commitments in Bill C-12.

We are in quite a predicament. On the one hand, the Liberals want to accelerate the debate because they have just realized that they did not give Bill C-12 enough priority in their parliamentary calendar. On the other hand, the Conservatives have tabled a motion in amendment seeking, not to modify Bill C-12, but to draw the debate out and have “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-12”. That is something.

It is ironic that the motion to amend asks the government to “implement a plan that recognizes climate change is real”, when the Conservative Party does not even recognize climate change exists. I would like to remind members that, at their convention a few weeks ago, 54% of Conservative members rejected a motion to recognize the existence of climate change. Regardless of what the party leader said to try to rectify the situation, the members were clear and, as a result, the environmental plan they tabled a few days later has no credibility at all.

The Conservatives want the government to fight climate change “while also ensuring that economic development and job growth can flourish all across Canada”. We understand that that is the Conservatives’ greatest fear; for them, a green shift means an economy in tatters. Just last week, a Conservative member moved a motion asking that the government recognize that “replacing oil and gas with more environmentally sustainable options is not technologically or economically feasible”. That is rich. Not only is it excessive to ask the government to do something like that, it is also irresponsible to make such a statement unequivocally. I fear that people will be misled.

Quebec is living proof that polluting fuels can be replaced by clean energy and that the green shift is good for the economy. Quebec is a champion for green energy and the reason Canada enjoys an enviable position on the world stage. We have an advantage over the 50 U.S. states and the other Canadian provinces thanks to these investments, and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry said as much recently. The green technologies developed in Quebec are already being marketed outside the country, and the benefits for Quebeckers are significant. For example, Hydro-Québec has signed agreements with New York, Vermont and Massachusetts.

There is much to reproach the government for, but it has understood one thing: we need to move forward with the development of green energy, because it is good for the planet and for the economy. We need to stop thinking about the environment and the economy as mutually exclusive, because they are actually complementary.

The Conservatives' amendment also tries to make the government admit that the members it appointed to the advisory group provided for in the bill included “climate activists whose influence, if acted upon, would lead to the destruction of the oil and gas sector, disproportionally threaten certain regions of the country and their essential industries, and weaken national unity.”

Once again, that is quite a statement. Of course, we are not surprised that the Conservative Party is defending the oil and gas sectors. Equally unsurprisingly, climate and environmental policy experts say that these two sectors are harmful to the environment. We cannot bury our heads in the sand. It would be surprising if the experts said that in order to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, we need to continue investing heavily in the oil and gas industry. That would be very surprising.

I expect that the experts are well aware that this industry is the Achilles heel of the government's climate ambitions, and that they are also aware that supporting the industry is not viable in the short, medium or long term if we want to meet our greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

The government is certainly being ambitious with its targets, but it is becoming difficult to follow. Since the Liberal Party came to power, its greenhouse gas emission reduction target has been 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, which was the same target established by the Paris Agreement and Stephen Harper's government.

The climate plan presented last December proposed to exceed this target. With the increase in the federal carbon tax, we could now expect a 31% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The target in last Monday's budget was a 36% reduction by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. This new target was soon superseded when, on the margins of the climate summit hosted by U.S. President Joe Biden last Thursday, the Prime Minister of Canada announced a new target, or rather a range of targets.

Apparently, the target is now at least 40%, the minimum target that countries had to commit to in order to participate in the summit, but it could reach 45% if all goes well. The problem is that the $17.6 billion in green investments set out in the budget will allow us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 36%, not 40% or 45%.

Normand Mousseau, a physics professor at the Université de Montréal, says that if all of the greenhouse gas reduction measures work, in the best-case scenario, we would see a 23% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030.

In an interview on Friday, he said that based on what is happening in other countries, a carbon tax alone is not enough to meet our targets. We need to create new standards or new regulations to decarbonize certain industries.

The federal government announced several billion dollars in investments, but the amounts are not aligned with the recently announced greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

We believe that this 40% or 45% reduction is more hot air than a real commitment. We believe that a real commitment would be ending support to the oil and gas industries. We believe that a real commitment would be announcing that we will never again finance a pipeline. We believe that a real commitment would start by incorporating the new target, whatever it is, into Bill C-12, which has not yet been done.

As the bill now reads, the minister must set a target for each milestone year, and the targets will be set one at a time, five years before the beginning of the milestone year to which they relate.

The problem is that the government refuses to include 2025 as a milestone year, because it is too soon or, more likely, because it would be unable to meet the target.

That means the first milestone year in Bill C-12 is 2030, and the target is a reduction of at least 40% in greenhouse gas emissions. I find it odd that the government is setting such a high bar for 2030 without establishing a means of measuring its progress before 2030, since that is the very purpose of the bill.

During question period last week, I asked the Minister of the Environment if the new Liberal target would be included in Bill C-12. The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who appears to be acting as the new minister of the environment, answered that yes, it would be included.

Before I get too excited, I wonder whether the actual Minister of the Environment endorses this commitment and whether he will propose an amendment to his bill to fulfill it. I sincerely hope so, because it is ridiculous to have a climate act without a greenhouse gas reduction target. It is also ridiculous to say that the minister will set the target once the act is in effect, and it is still more ridiculous to say that he can change the targets as he goes along.

Bill C-12 must show Canadians that Canada is truly meeting its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. The act must be transparent and include a real accountability and reporting mechanism, because we are talking about climate accountability.

Seeing the Prime Minister make a commitment on the international stage is encouraging. It seems promising, and it is cute to do it on Earth Day. However, we must not forget that Canada has never succeeded in meeting any of the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets it has set over the years. Kyoto, Copenhagen, Paris: the Government of Canada has failed lamentably each time.

Moreover, Canada is at the bottom of the class. It is the only G7 country where greenhouse gas emissions have increased since 2015. Why? Because it is an oil-producing country and it is incapable of stopping.

All this makes me think of the concept of “doublethink” from George Orwell's 1984. I am not saying that this government and the regime in Orwell's novel are anything alike, but the Liberals' environmental discourse is a perfect example of doublethink. According to Orwell, doublethink is the ability to hold two conflicting opinions simultaneously by suspending critical thinking. In Orwell's words, doublethink means “to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic”.

In my opinion, that perfectly describes the Liberals' strategy when it comes to climate change. The Liberals know they have to act, so they talk about a green recovery, the electrification of transportation and bioforestry. At the same time, however, they continue to subsidize the oil and gas industry heavily. They spend billions to buy an oil pipeline and even allow companies to drill for oil without environmental assessments.

The unbelievable thing is that they are convinced that they are doing the right thing, precisely because they are applying doublethink to climate change. The Liberals know that they are contradicting themselves, but they still believe in the virtue of these two diametrically opposed visions. They are not fooling anyone. Most of us actually have more confidence in Joe Biden, the new U.S. President, whose intentions are clear.

President Biden has announced that the United States will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 50% to 52% by 2030. Remember, the U.S. is also an oil-producing country. In fact, it produces more oil than Canada and has a larger population, but its target is more ambitious than ours. This is not a competition, but at least the United States has started working harder, and it even had to pressure Canada to do the same.

I sincerely hope that the Liberal government hears this message and that it is serious about its ambitions and commitments, because we are in a climate crisis. Time is running out.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know this is a topic my friend from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia is very passionate about. However, I will note to her that it is Canadian industry that in many ways is leading the way in the fight against climate change. Whether it is energy, forestry, mining or cement, we are seeing Canadian industry reducing GHG emissions by measures the government can only dream of right now. Why do the member and her party continue to follow the Liberals in their quest to destroy Canadian industry?