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

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, because I think here lies a significant question that all Canadians need to ask, whether from Quebec, Alberta, the Maritimes, the west coast or whatever the case may be, and that is where we get our oil while this transition takes place. Do we get it from jurisdictions that have very poor environmental standards, jurisdictions that have few or no ethical standards, or from a choice supplier that could be Alberta?

I think many Canadians would agree they would rather have oil and energy produced by a jurisdiction like Alberta versus foreign jurisdictions that do not have those same standards. I hope the member from the Bloc would support that sort of initiative, which is truly good for not just Albertans or Quebeckers, but all Canadians.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's remarks. At one point he suggested that parties other than his claim to own the narrative around climate change, and I would argue the Conservatives have certainly owned a narrative around the issue, it is simply not the narrative that resonates with most Canadians.

The vote at second reading on Bill C-12 is a vote on the principle of holding the government to account on its climate targets. If the Conservative party votes against the bill at second reading, how is anyone to understand that as anything other than a vote against the principle of climate accountability?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the members opposite would be suggesting things that I am not sure are entirely within the scope of what is being debated here.

I look at Bill C-12 and I see many concerns. I have highlighted some of them and there are others that some of my colleagues have also done a great job at highlighting. There is a lot of work that needs to be done. Certainly, if this bill passes, a lot of questions will need to be asked and answered, hopefully along with changes made at committee.

Our job here in this House, the job of each and every member, is to represent our constituents. That is something that I will do each and every day to ensure that their voices are heard in this place.

The House resumed 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, and of the amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 13 minutes.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Repentigny has the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a federal bill that paves the way for real government accountability in the fight against climate change is very urgently needed.

I would be shocked if there were still elected members in this 43rd Parliament who would deny that the climate crisis will affect the entire planet in this century if governments do not legislate appropriately.

We are already feeling the effects of climate change, as evidenced by the increase in such extreme weather events as floods, forest fires, heat waves and so on.

Bill C-12 must not be taken lightly, and the provisions that must be included in it will require painstaking work in order to secure the future of the next generations.

We are being asked to lay the foundation for the common good. Our work must be done in a spirit of collaboration and willingness to listen. Legislating climate accountability is probably the most important challenge of the 21st century.

After Bill C-12 was introduced, we were able to identify the problems with it and rightfully raise red flags. We also had the time to compare this bill to other countries' legislation, gather information, share research, consult experts and reflect on what amendments would be required for such a bill to emerge and, above all, what it would need to come to fruition.

First, Bill C-12 does not include mandatory reduction targets. Instead, it requires the minister to set the targets. Therefore it is false to say that Bill C-12 would force the government to take action that would meet greenhouse gas reduction targets. It is a bit difficult to follow. The member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie stated that his government was ready to set targets and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change stated that he could perhaps include them in the bill. This is a reason for studying the bill in committee. However, at present, there is nothing in the bill to that effect and it is crucial.

Furthermore, the bill does not require the minister to fulfill his commitments. It requires him to prepare a progress report. If Canada does not meet its target, which, again, is not identified in the current version of the bill, then the minister is asked to include in his report the reasons Canada did not meet its target. That is it. Federal government officials confirmed that the bill does not provide for any binding measures or penalties for failing to meet targets.

The Prime Minister of Canada's defence against this criticism is that it is up to the voters to penalize the government if it fails. He said:We live in a democracy, and ultimately it is up to Canadians to continue to choose governments that are serious about fighting climate change and that will be accountable to the public every five years.

Even though it is true that voters ultimately have the power to punish politicians, this statement primarily shows that the Prime Minister is opposed to making the greenhouse gas reduction targets binding. This means that he is opposed to requiring that Canada fulfill its international commitments, even though he just increased his targets in front of the many countries attending the U.S. President's summit.

The government cannot say that Bill C-12 contains restrictive measures while at the same time saying that the only real restriction is the election result. I remind the government that the climate crisis, the global risks associated with this crisis and its immeasurable consequences have nothing to do with election strategies. The government has a role and a responsibility as a legislator, and in my opinion, it is irresponsible and unconscionable for it to cheapen this legislation by shifting them to future governments.

In this version of Bill C-12, the action plan, the minister's reports and the method of calculating emissions are not subject to review by an independent authority. An essential component of this type of legislation depends on the diligent efforts of what Bill C-12 refers to as an advisory body. I mention this because Canada cannot achieve its ambitions or optimal progress on climate change until the government clarifies certain details about this body.

We will have to be vigilant with respect to the key aspects of this proposed advisory body. Its duties must be spelled out in the legislation, it must be composed of experts in relevant fields who have no conflicts of interest, and it must be completely independent. In our view, the people on this advisory body should not represent Canadians. There are 338 MPs in this place to do that. What we need are scientists.

Let us look at other countries with this type of body. In the United Kingdom, scientists represent 67% of the members; in France, 85%; in New Zealand, 33%; in Quebec, 75%; and in Canada, 7%.

Expert Corinne Le Quéré, who Quebec can be proud to count among those trained in its universities, has an incredible amount of experience preparing legislation combatting climate change.

She has spoken extensively about the absolute need to include specific targets in the act. There is no doubt that she has knowledge and advice to share regarding good governance because she contributed to the success of the U.K. climate change committee and she chairs France's high council on climate.

Corinne Le Quéré, the scientific community and environmental groups agree on the following essential elements: The committee's mandate and powers must be set out in the act; the act must specify that the committee must have access to all of the climate-related scientific knowledge, including indigenous knowledge; the committee must be properly funded; the committee must be able to provide its expertise in an independent manner, whether of its own initiative or at the request of parliamentarians; and the committee must be officially involved in establishing greenhouse gas reduction targets, monitoring progress and preparing related reports.

The hon. Minister of Environment and Climate Change has repeatedly stated that he is open to working with opposition parties to improve Bill C-12. As we know, people are becoming more and more aware of how the decisions we are making now will affect the future of the planet.

The Bloc Québécois has taken a firm stance on environmental issues in Canada, and we want to collaborate on this bill because, as we all know, this is a whole-of-government issue that transcends borders.

The only way we can achieve any progress is by viewing the climate crisis through that lens. Still, there are undeniable facts we must face. The first is that the clock is ticking. We have to get to net zero as fast as we can, before 2050 if possible. If we acknowledge that premise, this climate change act has to include all the right tools to ensure we get there as fast as possible.

We are calling on the government to be ambitious and courageous enough to put an end to the cycle that has resulted in Canada consistently missing its targets and failing to achieve its goals in recent decades.

The international community expects better. Lord Deben, chairman of the UK Committee on Climate Change, explained to the parliamentarians present at the preparatory meeting for COP 26, which I attended, that Canada must fully grasp how its behaviour and climate inaction affect other countries around the world and realize that every country counts. He concluded with some words of wisdom: Humankind has not learned to live with respect for biodiversity, the environment and the health of our oceans. Humanity's very existence is weakened by what could happen in the future, and that is why we must fully grasp what is happening and avoid repeating the mistakes that brought us to where we are now.

We must protect biodiversity and preserve natural habitats for future generations. The areas that are supposedly protected by federal legislation must be truly protected. They must not be compromised, as when the government authorizes drilling off the coast of Newfoundland to cater to the oil industry.

I do not want the shores of the St. Lawrence River to erode or Quebec's native wildlife to disappear. I do not want to hear that thousands of people are dying because of pollution. Health Canada estimates that 15,300 premature deaths per year in Canada can be linked to pollution. I no longer want to witness the despair of people around the globe who are overwhelmed by the effects of our inaction. If their habitats are destroyed, they are forced to leave their islands and their homes, becoming climate refugees, while the sums promised by rich countries to help them adapt fall short of what is needed to address the real climate catastrophes.

Now is the time to get our priorities straight. Together we can still change the trajectory. Never before have we been in a situation where the earth is warming so fast, with the global temperature expected to rise by two degrees centigrade by 2043, which is not far off. We are running out of time, and small steps are no longer good enough. We need to take a giant leap forward.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her speech.

Bill C-12 would do nothing more than create a committee and make recommendations to the government for coming up with a plan. In other words, the Liberals currently do not have a plan. What does the member think about that?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

In my opinion, the government has a plan, but it lacks long-term vision. It presented 45 or 48 recommendations shortly before Christmas. However, there was nothing binding. We are at the point where we need binding measures if we want to meet our climate targets.

The problem is not the belugas in the St. Lawrence or the polar bears. The problem has to do with our children since they are the ones who will pay for all of our negligence of the past few decades and for our current negligence.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like the member, I also hold out great hope for the work the environment committee has to do on this bill. There are some significant improvements that need to be made to the wording.

I want to ask the member about the importance of following up these words with action. We have a Liberal government that invested billions of our public dollars into purchasing a pipeline and is right now trying to increase its exporting capacity. I would like to hear the member's comments about where that money could have gone, and about the importance of starting a just transition for energy workers in provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan to those transferable skills we need for the renewable energy economy of the future.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I will make a comparison. The budget includes a $17.6-billion investment for the transition to a green economy, but there was also a $17.1-billion investment in a pipeline, with more to come. This means that the amount allocated to the green economic recovery for all of Canada is only slightly higher than the cost of the pipeline.

My leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, has already said that he was willing for the pipeline money to be invested in Alberta so that workers could receive training or switch careers.

We already know about different energy sources that are within reach. Whether it is solar, wind or geothermal energy, they are all ready to go. We do not even have to do any research, we just have to get on board.

When my leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, made his remarks, he was standing in solidarity with the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

We have worked together at some conferences of the parties, including the one on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

She raised some really good points about other countries, their legislation and their advisory bodies. However, she did not mention the United Kingdom, which has an advisory body entirely made up of experts and scientists.

Why does she think the government introduced such a weak bill like Bill C-12 when we have such strong examples?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, with whom I have worked many times.

Bill C-12 was very weak. It was not what we expected, given the climate crisis we are currently experiencing. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change is open to amendments. The Bloc Québécois is prepared to propose a number of amendments to make the bill binding and ensure that we can meet our targets.

As I said in my speech, this is not about belugas and polar bears. This is about our children and grandchildren.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Western Economic Diversification Canada) and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change (Canada Water Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act. This bill fulfills an important commitment made by the government to put in place legally binding requirements for this government, and future governments, to set climate targets and publish plans to meet those targets in consultation with the public and interested stakeholders.

It includes important transparency and accountability mechanisms, including the requirement to publish milestone plans to achieve the targets we set, progress reports to assess whether we are on track to meet our targets, and assessment reports to determine whether targets have been met. If a target is not met, the minister must outline the reasons Canada failed to meet its target and give a description of actions the government will take to meet the target, as well as any other information the minister deems appropriate.

Bill C-12 also includes a role for the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, requiring the commissioner to examine and report on the government’s implementation of measures to mitigate climate change every five years.

Our government recognizes that we are faced with a climate emergency and we must act now. The overwhelming evidence behind climate change compels us to take action. That is why in December we released our strengthened climate plan, which contains over 64 measures and $15 billion in investments. Recently, budget 2021 included additional measures that will enable us to go even further, reflecting the government’s ambition and the seriousness of the challenge before us.

Science is the foundation of the Government of Canada’s action on climate change. We ended the war on science when a Liberal government was elected in 2015. Our government relies on evidence-based policy-making and depends on our scientists to provide information that helps us protect the environment. Canada has a strong science and knowledge base to draw on. This scientific foundation not only enables targeted action, but also allows us to evaluate the effectiveness of our actions and to adjust as needed.

Climate change is a global issue, and we cannot tackle it alone. That is why governments around the world rely on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a valuable, credible and independent source of scientific information, to inform their actions on climate change.

The IPCC “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C”, released in fall 2018, tells us that limiting future warming to 1.5°C instead of 2°C would reduce the negative impacts of climate change and allow most terrestrial and marine species to keep up with the pace of climate change, preserve coral reefs, increase the chance of keeping sea level rise below one metre this century, allow some Arctic sea ice to remain in the summer and allow more scope for adaptation, particularly in the agricultural sector.

The objective of the ECCC-led “Canada’s Changing Climate Report”, released in 2019, was to understand how and why Canada’s climate is changing and will continue to change in the future. This report is a comprehensive science assessment to help Canadians and policy-makers understand Canada’s changing climate so we can strengthen our resilience to climate change through adaptation and mitigation actions. The assessment confirms Canada’s climate has warmed mainly in response to global emissions of carbon dioxide from human activity. The effects of widespread warming are already evident in many parts of Canada and are projected to intensify in the near future.

The following conclusions, based on the report’s headline statements, tell a story about Canada’s changing climate. Canada’s climate has warmed and will warm further in the future, driven by human activity, and this warming is effectively irreversible. Both past and future warming in Canada is, on average, about double the magnitude of global average temperature increases. Changing temperature and precipitation, and changes in snow and ice, have important implications for freshwater supply, and the seasonal availability of fresh water is changing with an increased risk of water supply shortages in summer. A warmer climate will intensify weather extremes in the future: extreme hot temperatures will become more frequent and more intense, which will increase the severity of heat waves; there will be increased drought and wildfire risks, since projected increases in precipitation are not sufficient to offset the effects of projected warming; and the projected increase in heavy precipitation, a main cause of urban and rural floods, will increase future flood risks that are now costing us billions. We have seen those kinds of floods up close and personal in my home province of Manitoba.

Achieving a future with limited warming requires Canada and the rest of the world to reduce emissions to net zero around mid-century. This is why we are embarking on a pathway of rapid emission reductions. We recently announced an ambitious target of 40% to 45% reductions by 2030, putting us on a path to net zero by 2050.

The science is clear that urgent action to reduce greenhouse gases is needed if this future, which is consistent with achieving the long-term temperature goals of the Paris agreement, is to be achieved. The evolving science continues to support an increased need for urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Climate action must continue in parallel with research efforts, drawing on existing knowledge and incorporating new insights as they become available.

The cycle of setting targets, establishing reduction plans and reporting on progress set out in the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act provides key opportunities for state-of-the-science information to be integrated into the government’s efforts to achieve net zero by 2050.

I hope all members in the House will join the government in recognizing the urgency of climate change and support sending this important legislation to committee. The government has expressed its willingness to consider constructive amendments and hopes to work with all parties to strengthen and pass the legislation.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it fascinating to hear the Liberals talk about their commitments and their environmental convictions.

In 2017, this Liberal government established new manufacturing standards for insulation boards that contained a highly polluting foaming agent. Companies that manufacture these boards, including Soprema, near Drummondville, in my riding, had four years, or until January 1, 2021, to comply with the new regulations.

However, for so-called economic reasons, this same government decided to grant exemptions to multinational companies, even though they already possessed the required technology, as the government knew full well. Could the member tell me how anyone can believe this government and trust it on environmental matters, when it does not even honour its own commitments or enforce its own industry standards?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we did make commitments in the 2015 election platform that we would put a price on pollution and proceed down this path to getting a handle on our emissions. Indeed, we saw in the budget $17.6 billion to help create a more clean and sustainable future, including major investments in retrofits and other housing needs. Therefore, we are addressing the housing issue from coast to coast to coast.