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.

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

Yes.

Briefly, PV-26 says that Bill C-12, in clause 20, is amended by replacing line 15 on page 8 with the following:

reference of the expert advisory body.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thanks.

I'm going to move CPC-16, that Bill C-12, in clause 20, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 8 with the following:

(2) The Governor in Council may, on the advice of the Minister, determine and amend the terms of

Mr. Albas has kind of struck out on some of these, so I'm going to take a swing at this as well.

We have highlighted over and over why it's important to have a whole-of-government approach when it comes to this legislation, and not just a single minister in charge of this. We've heard from witnesses. There have been briefs. Even the Prime Minister himself said that a whole-of government approach is necessary. However, this Liberal-NDP agreement continues to argue for this one-man show.

Let's see how the one-man show has worked out for Canada.

On April 21, 2021, there was a news article published in The New York Times called, “Trudeau was a Global Climate Hero. Now Canada Risks Falling Behind”. It says, “Between [the] election in 2015 and 2019, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions increased...despite decreases in other rich nations during the same period”. It goes on to say, “If Canada lags too far behind the United States...it could face repercussions” and, “It'll be quite obvious to the world who's really serious about climate change and who's taking half measures”.

This government's one-man show approach is leaving Canada open to trade reprisals from the U.S. If we fall too far behind, then we're going to potentially have U.S. carbon tariffs on goods crossing the border. There are lots of problems here.

This example of trade, for example, shows that we need to have input from other ministers, such as finance, international trade, agriculture and many others. CPC-16 is an amendment that would make important changes to make this stronger.

This is what the Tsleil-Waututh Nation from British Columbia told this committee in a brief, and I'll end with this, Mr. Chair.

Our experience shows us that the government of Canada remains structurally siloed, rather than positioned to respond holistically to the climate crisis, limiting the federal government's ability to address this overarching and complex issue. Tsleil-Waututh Nation's engagement with Canada demonstrates potential for a whole-of-government approach, adds value by working towards this end, and contributes a necessary, rights-based Indigenous perspective. Our concerns and recommendations often require cross fertilization between varying ministries, such as [Environment and Climate Change Canada], Department of Fisheries and Oceans...and Transport Canada. The climate change challenge requires us to work together for decades to come—and we must start now.

Thank you.

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

I'm going to move on, Mr. Chair. To the point, it seems to me, that the NDP, coupled with the Liberals, have suggested that adding the term “independent” will make this independent, yet the vast majority of people who came forward to committee have said the bar the government has set—not Mr. Moffet, to be fair—in Bill C-12 does not meet what they believe is required to be similar to the U.K. legislation.

I believe in a made-in-Canada approach, so I am simply going to be voting against this. I believe that a Conservative government would do much better. If this becomes law, we're going to have to work with the advisory board towards the goals that are laid out by law.

It is not necessarily realistic that every single person who came and discussed the U.K. was wrong and that there was no practical difference between what the Government of Canada has proposed in its legislation here, and what Mr. Bachrach is adding the term “independent” to. I think that's just not credible at this time.

I appreciate again, Mr. Chair...because if I was getting under anyone's skin, that's not my premise for being here. My premise for being here is to ask questions and then raise concerns about the approach moving forward. I think I've done that.

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

I mean between what the U.K. has and what is presented here in Bill C‑12, because I want to know whether or not the amendment Madam Collins has moved actually moves closer to a model like that.

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

If their climate change accountability legislation does not refer to “independent”, why is there such a vast disparity, Mr. Moffet, between what witnesses have been calling for and what the government has presented in Bill C‑12? Does adding Madam Collins's amendment harmonize it or do you think that is already there without this amendment?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I wanted to respond to Mr. Albas.

I'm not presenting part (b) because when we adopted amendment G‑3, we decided that there would be no numerical target in the legislation, despite the commitments of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and despite the commitments of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, when he appeared before the committee to introduce Bill C‑12.

Despite all that, the alliance of the Liberal Party and the NDP ensured that there was no numerical target. As a result, part (b) of amendment BQ‑18, which deals with the target established under subsection 7(2), becomes obsolete, since there is no target.

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

The question I would then have, Mr. Moffet, is based on what Madam Pauzé said, because when I read subclause 7(2) in the bill, it states:

(2) The Minister must set the national greenhouse gas emissions target for 2030 within six months of the day on which this Act comes into force.

What is the difference between what Madam Pauzé wants to do, and what the government has already put in Bill C-12, or this one that's already been made in an amendment, and I'm operating off the old copy?

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

However, does it actually do anything that's different from subclause 20(1) as it's read in Bill C-12 currently?

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

Mr. Chair, I certainly concur with your assessment. Once something has been moved, it becomes the committee's and it no longer can simply be withdrawn unless there's unanimous consent. As I said earlier, it's not my intention to do anything other than to allow those witnesses and truly those Canadians who believe in much of what has been placed here to simply....

I will read this out, and perhaps the Liberals and the NDP, all parties, can stand and be counted on each one. Then we can proceed in that regard.

Again, PV-25 amends Bill C-12 in clause 20 by replacing lines 6 to 8 on page 8 with the following:

20(1) There is established an expert advisory body whose mandate is to provide the Minister with expert advice with respect to achieving emissions reductions that are consistent with the conclusion drawn in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C of the need to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, including expert

Mr. Chair, maybe I will make a quick ask here of either Mr. Moffet or Mr. Ngan.

I believe the main thrust of this amendment is not just the adoption of the 1.5°C but the term “expert”. Right now, the way the advisory board is set up, it's not necessarily derived just on expertise. Is that the case?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just before we vote on clause 18, I want to say that I understand that amendment BQ‑16 is null and void because the committee decided to reject the idea of making the progress report an annual report, even though the government receives the data on greenhouse gas emissions in Canada each year.

It would have been possible to do so. However, I understand that the amendment is null and void. I just want to say that I agree with what Mr. Albas stated earlier. I find it deplorable that the government is voting against all the Bloc Québécois and Green Party amendments, which are there to improve Bill C‑12. The government said that it was open to the idea of working with the opposition members. We understand that this isn't the case.

I gather that the same thing will happen with amendment BQ‑17. We'll see when we get to the other clause.

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

Colleagues, appreciate that this is something I asked a number of different groups because, as we know thanks to Madam Pauzé, electrification is going to be an important step.

Our current electrical grid, as we know, is not sufficient. Even the uptake that people expect for electric vehicles, as was said during Madam Pauzé's study on electric vehicles, would require the equivalent of 7.5 Site Cs. Obviously, that's just the aggregate amount of energy. There could be many different sources for it, such as nuclear or hydro. There are so many new ways that people are utilizing electricity, from various renewables to high-efficiency natural gas.

Quite honestly, Mr. Chair, the need for this bill to reference the state of Canada's electrical grid is important. This is something that I'm asked about by constituents on a regular basis. They say, with all these new electric cars—and we all drive in at five o'clock or 5:30—when we all plug them in, how will that work? That's a great question, and one that provincial and territorial governments are going to have to wrestle with as we move forward with some of these adoptions of new technology and a new emphasis on things like electric vehicles. Obviously there have been some investments that we've seen in hydrogen, and that's a plus, but there are going to be increasing questions about electrical loads.

I asked a number of different groups who responded very positively that it would be helpful to have this. As you know, Mr. Chair, when you cross an interprovincial boundary or an international boundary, it is under the federal government's jurisdiction.

I'll read out the amendment, which is that Bill C-12 in clause 15 be amended by adding, after line 29 on page 6, the following:

(c.1) an assessment of electric grids in Canada and the steps needed to ensure that they can manage an increase in electricity demand due to transportation electrification;

Mr. Chair, we heard from the Canadian Electricity Association, and in their brief, they said they support the aim of Bill C-12 and believe that a clear and focused plan is essential for Canada's ability to achieve net zero by 2050, and that holding ourselves collectively accountable for meeting targets is important, but those targets must be matched with focused policy so that we can achieve them.

As I said earlier, one of the areas we are going to be looking to achieve in is further electrification. This would offer an update so that people can understand the grid. Again, it does not interfere with any provincial jurisdiction. What it does do, though, is create a summary, so that for the average citizen—all of our constituents—if they asked you the question, you could refer to that and give them an up-to-date answer.

This is part of good governance. This information is already publicly available to some extent, but nothing that I'm aware of actually includes it in a Government of Canada report. This would allow for greater transparency, which is one of the stated goals of Bill C-12.

I would ask all honourable members to support the amendment, because we need to have a greater understanding of the state of our electrical grid. I think this would be welcomed by groups like the Canadian Electricity Association, knowing that this is going to be an area that a lot of money—a lot of potentially private investment as well as public investment—is going to be needed for us to achieve our goals of electrifying the transportation network and making Canada a greener and more environmentally friendly country as a whole.

Again, I would ask all honourable members to support this particular amendment. It's an easy one for the Liberals to support, because I think this is one of those good governance provisions that we all can rally behind.

Again, just to make sure that Madam Michaud knows I'm thinking of the Bloc and of their constant quest to make Quebec as strong a province as possible, this would not interfere with that. Hydro-Quebec is a very respected organization and does a lot of good work, both interprovincially as well as internationally. I would hope that the Bloc members would be supportive of that.

I know that I referenced Site C. I just would say to MP Bachrach that obviously the provincial government is supportive of Site C, but I hope that by utilizing Site C he did not mean that he would somehow tie himself to be voting in favour of 7.5 more Site Cs. It was just an example that I was using.

I hope to get every committee member to support this particular amendment to Bill C-12 today, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thanks.

I'm going to move CPC‑14, and I'll just read it into the record here. It's that Bill C‑12, in clause 15, be amended by adding, after line 21 on page 6, the following:

(a.1) a summary of the measures undertaken by the governments of the provinces to contribute to Canada's efforts to achieve the national greenhouse gas emissions target for that year and of their impacts on those efforts;

This kind of carries on with what we were just speaking about, and I think it expands upon it quite nicely.

The government has already proposed in G‑11, and just now in G‑12, that we would add some key co-operative measures or agreements with the provinces. It's very critical that we have provincial buy-in to the plan. That's why I'd like to propose this amendment, to deepen this a little bit more.

Ultimately, the vast majority of the reductions that are going to occur in Canada are going to come from measures that are under provincial jurisdiction. It's the provinces that control our natural resources and our electrical grids, and they also regulate a large portion of the transportation industry. We absolutely need the provinces on board or this isn't going to work.

Now, unlike the Liberals and the NDP, which have tended to be more combative with the provincial governments in Canada, Conservatives believe that we need to work together with the provinces. For example, under Liberals, we've seen lawsuits, such as the carbon tax lawsuit we recently saw, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court. It tied up a lot of time and energy and created some animosity between governments. We don't want to do that. We want to be more co-operative.

Also, I think it's the people on the ground who know what they need to do to reduce emissions. They don't need Ottawa to tell them what to do. In Saskatchewan, for example, our environment has always been a very high priority, because our agricultural-based economy depends on a healthy environment.

I'll give you an example. For many years, I was involved in an agricultural company based in Saskatoon that brought a new innovation to farming, and it brought this new farming technique right into the mainstream. That technique was called “zero tillage”. In a nutshell, it's essentially allowing stubble to stand over the winter and then using an air seeder and air drill to seed directly into the stubble. Farmers are able to retain carbon in the ground and minimize fuel use by reducing the number of passes they have to take over the ground.

In Saskatchewan, when it comes to the environment, our farmers were doing what they should long before being told what they have to do.

We've heard testimony after testimony from pulse farmers, cattlemen, CAPP and the Chamber of Commerce about the need for provincial co-operation. I know that the federal government should work with the provinces, but the reality is that this act says very little about the provinces. In fact, it seems to me that it goes out of its way to avoid talking about the provinces. It seems that the government is being very careful to create a situation where it can work in isolation if it feels that it needs to. My fear, too, is that if we don't achieve our targets as set out in the legislation, then we're setting it up for finger pointing, where the federal government can accuse the provinces of not doing their part, because they weren't a part of this initially.

I believe that we need to modify this legislation and bring the provinces into this discussion in a more formal way. Instead of generating laws and fighting each other in court, the federal and provincial governments should be working together. This legislation should set the foundation for the provinces and the federal government to work together. It should set things up for a co-operative arrangement where everybody is pulling in the same direction.

I'll just end with a reference back to Ecojustice, from their joint submission to the committee. I believe it's one of the ones we didn't have a chance to hear from in testimony, but their submission called for regional and provincial jurisdiction to be respected. This amendment does exactly that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Mr. Chair, I'll finish my intervention today by thanking both officials for clarifying things for me. I know these questions can be difficult, because I struggle with them when stakeholders ask me whether or not this law applies to things under provincial jurisdiction. It wasn't entirely clear.

The government obviously felt that Bill C-12 needed this amendment. Otherwise, they wouldn't be putting it forward. That being said, I believe that by allowing the minister—instead of having a whole-of-government approach—to arbitrarily pick which key examples will be selected.... Maybe this isn't such a bad thing. Maybe showing some positive examples could be good. However, it could be a punitive tool whereby you showcase provincial or territorial governments that are aligned with the government of the day, or municipalities it will perhaps want to recruit new candidates from to put them on a bit of a pedestal so the candidates can have a good news story. I think that having one minister make these decisions, rather than having a whole-of-government approach, doesn't make a lot of sense. As we know, much of the reporting is already being done right now through the pan-Canadian framework, and there is regular reporting.

This is too arbitrary and, again, doesn't necessarily add to the bill, so the Conservatives will be voting against it. However, if any of my Conservative colleagues want to ask a question or raise a concern, they should, because we do think that provinces are a key area here. We would like to see further reporting on the summaries of what provinces are doing, but not in an arbitrary, politically driven process.

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

This dovetails with what is already envisioned in the original version of Bill C-12. There's no extra work, other than just to embed the extra information into the minister's report. Is that correct?

[Vincent Ngan]

Thank you for the question.

Canada, like any other country, must comply with the UNFCCC methodology and reporting requirements. The information definitely is very consistent year after year, and it is consistent with international practices. Canada would not be venturing into developing its own methodology that is inconsistent with reporting requirements set by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The assessment report, as well as the progress report here, stipulates in legislation the same methodology and requirements to ensure consistency and transparency. I agree with you that it's very consistent and also that there is greater clarity in terms of the types of reports and in terms of the progress that the Bill C-12 process entrenches in legislation.