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.

[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.

[Vincent Ngan, Director General, Horizontal Policy, Engagement and Coordination, Department of the Environment]

Thank you for the question.

This question actually pertains to whether the bill should include, on an annual basis, the issuance of an assessment report. The importance of this would be, as Mr. Albas indicated, that due to the collection and the provision of data from Statistics Canada as well as from stakeholders, there's usually 18 months between that particular year and the year we could actually assemble the national inventory report.

That being said, I think it is important to take into account the following facts. In terms of Bill C-12, which is the net-zero emissions accountability act, currently there is the annual projections report that provides information to Canadians as well as shares internationally whether Canada is on track with a particular greenhouse gas emissions target. Of course, for the past few years, the reporting has been on 2030. Every year, the national inventory report, although with an 18-month data lag, also identified the state of play in terms of Canada's emissions level.

I want to reassure Canadians. If they want to know, with a particular milestone, that we are on track, based on empirical data from past years' emissions levels, those reports will be able to provide a very clear picture.

I will leave it to the committee to determine whether that amendment is appropriate or necessary. I think that will be my answer.

The Environment

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act has robust accountability and transparency, just to name a few aspects. It has a legally binding process for the federal government to set climate targets and bring forward plans to meet those targets, rigorous ongoing process reports, yearly reports by the independent advisory body and ongoing audits by the Office of the Auditor General.

As we have previously stated, we are open to amendments. We are pleased to see members from the Bloc and NDP help move Bill C-12 to committee.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on April 22, Ottawa announced new greenhouse gas reduction targets of at least 40% by 2030. That same day, the Bloc Québécois asked the government if it would insert that target in its Bill C-12.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage promised this would happen and said, “Yes, we will include Canada's 2030 climate change target in Bill C-12.” His government not only failed to do that, or to tell the truth, but it has also prevented the Bloc Québécois from inserting it in its place. Why is that?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his passion about Canada achieving net zero by 2050, which is a commitment the government has made through Bill C-12 that is making its way through committee.

Indigenous knowledge forms a central part of that bill and of the expert committee involved. That is a commitment by the government, and something we will continue to do to ensure that Canada meets its targets of net zero by 2050.

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

Madam Speaker, tomorrow is World Environment Day.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House that, when Ottawa announced its new greenhouse gas reduction targets, it promised to give those targets force of law. On April 22, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said, “we will include Canada's 2030 climate change target in Bill C-12”.

Not only did the government not do that, but it is also fighting the Bloc Québécois in committee to prevent us from doing so in its stead. Why is it refusing to include the targets in the bill? Is it because it has no intention of meeting them?

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise virtually tonight in adjournment proceedings to address a question I initially asked on April 15 of this year.

People who have been paying close attention to the climate agenda and our rapidly shrinking opportunity to make the difference that we need to make, as time passes and our emissions are still rising, will recall the April 22 climate summit hosted by President Joe Biden, held virtually with leaders from 40 countries.

On April 15, first I noted that our emissions kept rising right up until COVID, with recently announced reports to that effect. My second point was that a report from a news outlet called The Breach said a special cabinet committee had formed during COVID with representation of senior levels of government from natural resources, finance, environment and elsewhere that was actually focused on helping the oil and gas sector. My third point was that our subsidies continued to go up.

The minister's response was that we would see a new target soon. I return to the fundamental question on the not-so-new target now. Since 2015, the Liberal government has proclaimed that Canada is back and clearly understands that the climate issue is real. Has it actually grasped the science? This is my core question.

I will say again that as well-intentioned as the government might be, it does not seem to understand that we must hold to no more than a 1.5°C global average temperature increase above the global average temperature at the time of the Industrial Revolution. Blowing past this target by failing to put in place rigorous targets now will lead us to a place where we do not get a do-over. We cannot fix it later.

From the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its special report on 1.5°C, which came out in October 2018, we know that if the world community does not move mountains in this coming decade, it will be too late.

In his book Values, Mark Carney said that understanding carbon budgets is very important. On page 273, he said:

If we had started in the year 2000, we could have hit 1.5°C by halving emissions every 30 years. Now, we must cut our emissions in half every 10 years. If we wait another four years, we will have to halve our emissions every single year. If we wait another eight years, our 1.5°C carbon budget will be exhausted.

The Prime Minister attended the Biden summit. He announced a new target and proclaimed that it was ambitious. It is not. It does not meet the demands of science, and neither does Bill C-12, which we are currently debating in the environment committee. They have good intentions, great press coverage and good public relations, but they fail to do what is necessary.

Years ago, I marched with my daughter in the streets of New York in the lead-up to the COP before the Paris agreement. I saw a sign as we marched that said, “It's time to stop debating what is possible and start doing what is necessary”.

We have to cancel the TMX pipeline. We cannot afford $17 billion on a pipeline that blows our carbon budget. The choices are stark. The government is failing.

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

Could you explain what the obligations are under the target regime that was originally proposed in Bill C-12, and what the interim greenhouse gas emissions objectives are in terms of obligations?

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

Mr. Chair, I believe I spoke to this amendment prior, but I'll just read it into the record for anyone who's following along online.

Ms. Collins moves to amend clause 14 of Bill C-12 by adding after line 11 on page 6 the following:

(3) Any progress report relating to 2030 must include an update on the progress that has been made towards achieving the interim greenhouse gas emissions objective for 2026.

I believe it's fairly self-explanatory. It definitely strengthens the bill to have the 2026 objective in there. This simply ensures that the progress reports, as we discussed earlier, reference progress towards that interim objective.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Okay, but it doesn't expand. It's prescriptive. This is just saying, “These are of the nature that we'd like to see in the report” and even then there's a lot of “if available” and “relevant to the report”, etc. There seem to be a lot of ifs or conditions.

Under the current Bill C-12, though, the minister has to do certain things. This is just prescribing how he arranges those reports, more or less, and still offers flexibility. It does not actually increase the amount of knowledge that the minister has to give, other than to specify what he has to give.

Mr. Moffet, you seem to want to comment on that.

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

There is nothing in Bill C-12 as it exists without this amendment that would circumvent the ability of the minister to include that information.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank MP Saks.

Again, I'm going to be asking a few questions here. Hopefully, this is not taken in any way other than inquiring.

First of all, Mr. Moffet, in regard to this particular amendment, G-11, is there anything in here that actually expands the regime envisioned in Bill C-12, or is this all information that more or less could be reported on from the minister's perspective?