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

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I respect my colleague's concern.

As we have said from the beginning, we cannot achieve net-zero emissions without the energy sector's ingenuity and know-how. A number of Canadian oil and gas companies have already committed to net-zero emissions, and they are innovating to meet that challenge.

Canadians, industry, international markets and oil and gas companies know that achieving net-zero emissions is good for our economy and our environment, and we are taking action to get there.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I am sure she is committed to fighting climate change, but I have my doubts about her government, just as I did during last night's emergency debate on the French language, which I watched. There were a lot of good intentions and fine words. The government says that it is going to take action and that it is going to do this or that, but nothing much actually gets done.

One of the key promises the Liberal government made a year ago was to plant two billion trees. We saw the Prime Minister taking selfies with Greta Thunberg and that sort of thing. Things were really going to get moving. Two billion trees is a lot, but I would imagine that a lot of trees can be planted in a year.

My question is simple. Since the Liberal Party was elected, how many trees have been planted in Canada, and how many of those were planted in Quebec?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

For years now, ever since 2015, our government has been taking concrete action to protect the environment. Some of those measures include eliminating single-use plastics, buying hybrid buses, which I talked about in my speech, installing more charging stations, increasing protected areas from 13% to 25%, making significant investments in green infrastructure and introducing measures to encourage businesses to invest in clean energy.

Those are all concrete actions our government has taken over the past few years, and that is what we will continue to do.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, climate change is the number one issue for people across this planet. The people of my riding, especially indigenous and young people, were expecting the government to take real action in this bill. The government does not even have a milestone target for 2025. They have nothing, so there will be no accountability, or even a progress report, until 2028. The environmental commissioner currently does not have enough resources to do the regular work and is not truly independent.

Does the member agree that the environmental commissioner should be an independent officer, like the official languages commissioner?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

It is true that there is no 2025 target, but the Paris Agreement is structured around 2030, as are provincial plans, including British Columbia's and Quebec's, and the whole world's plans.

Bill C-12 provides for greater accountability and transparency by introducing an obligation to set a target and develop an emissions reduction plan, both of which must be tabled in Parliament within six months of the act coming into force. There are also legally binding procedures that require the current government and future governments to set national climate targets.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in the debate on Bill C-12, a bill that does absolutely nothing for the environment. By way of analogy, I want to explain a little about what the bill actually does and what it does not do.

In 2015, Stephen Harper passed balanced budget legislation as part of the budget. The idea was that he would put in place a law that would require the government to, in most situations, run a balanced budget. That was a good idea and one that was advanced by many fiscal Conservatives who believed on principle that if there were a law in place requiring governments to run balanced budgets, they would be much more likely to balance budgets going forward.

The problem was that in 2016 the Liberals came in. Every time a budget is passed, a new law is also passed. Therefore, what did they do? They repealed the balanced budget law.

In my province of Alberta we had a balanced budget law in place that was actually repealed by another premier of that same political stripe. The idea is certainly desirable, that we might have legislation in place that would bind the actions of future governments. It might have some rhetorical impact, but it only goes so far, insofar as a subsequent government, or maybe even a subsequent group of people from the same party, could repeal or slightly amend the legislation in order to allow them to continue on the course they are on.

The parliamentary secretary is reminding me that I am splitting my time with member for Edmonton Riverbend. I want to thank the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for being so helpful all the time. I look forward to further feedback from him as we go.

It was at least credible as an exercise for a government that was already running a balanced budget to put in place balanced budget legislation. Imagine how absurd it would be if today we had a government that was not running a balanced budget and had no intention of running a balanced budget, putting in place legislation to require a government in 2040 to run a balanced budget.

That would be a little silly. It would demonstrably be an excuse for not having a plan. It would putting in place legislation to bind a future government to have a plan that it does not currently have, recognizing full well that the future government could repeal the law that required it to have a plan, or at least extend it.

This brings me then to Bill C-12, a bill that does not present a plan for action for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is simply a framework by which the government would put in place a plan that it would be expected to follow by achieving certain targets at certain distant points in the future.

I have no problem supporting a bill that calls on government to act, to put in place targets and act on those targets in response to future events as we move forward. However, it should not escape members of the House that we have yet another case in another important policy area where, instead of putting forward an action plan, the government is choosing symbolism. It is choosing statement over substance.

The Liberal government has been in place for five years and we still do not have anything like a serious environmental plan. Instead, what we see from the government are warm words, attempts to demonstrate its feeling and solidarity and aspirations for distant dates. What frustrates me about the issue of the environment is that we have serious challenges in terms of our environment. They require a serious response, a response that understands the opportunities and the trade-offs, and that makes choices today about how we move forward toward the realization of targets that have been put in place.

Imposing new taxes is not going to cut it. That is the Liberals' approach. When they are talking about action, they are talking about putting in place new taxes. The new taxes on Canadian industry and Canadian activity only is simply going to chase jobs and opportunity beyond our borders. If the Liberals succeed, as it seems they are intent on doing, in shutting down our energy sector, those investments will still happen. Global demand for energy is going up. People need energy.

The question is not if can we shut off our use of energy. The question is if we can find ways of producing energy and delivering energy that are more efficient and more effective. Can we provide that quality of life to people around the world who require an increase in the use of energy, but do it in a way that reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

If we recognize that the problem is not going to be solved by reducing the use of energy, and that it is only going to be solved, generally speaking, by increasing the efficiency of energy production, that should push us not only to lead in the production of energy that is clean, efficient and effective, but also to lead in a way that recognizes the existing technology.

It is great to talk about wind, solar and other alternative sources of energy, but we have to recognize as well where the existing technology is today and how we can make concrete, meaningful improvements to the use of existing technology that providing energy to people right now to meet their energy needs.

That is why I believe that a real environmental plan should be pro-Canadian and pro-Canadian energy. We should encourage the development of Canadian energy, and we should also encourage our energy sector to continue on the road they are on, in terms of improving efficiency, improving effectiveness and delivering more energy to more people in an efficient way.

We have colleagues in this House from all other parties who, frankly, attack the development of pipelines, who attack efforts to find new markets for Canadian energy. We know, by and large, that the issue for them is not really about the transportation. It is generally about wanting to shut down the production of that energy, but they do not think about what will replace Canadian energy if we shut it down. It is going to be energy from other countries.

A member from the NDP was just attacking the Keystone XL project. We have had other members attack other projects in this place. It was the Liberal government that imposed arbitrary regulations, which killed the Energy East pipeline project. We have politicians from all parties, aside from the Conservatives, who are attacking energy projects, but they do not think about what the alternative would be. Should the United States be importing more energy resources from Venezuela, which has lower environmental standards and lower labour standards?

Should Quebec be importing more oil from Saudi Arabia?

Should we be taking more energy resources from outside of Canada? I would like Alberta to be able to supply Quebec with more of its energy. Of course, the Bloc is not going to like that, because it would be great for national unity if Alberta energy were fuelling Quebec's energy needs.

The fact is, though, that more Canadian energy, cleaner Canadian energy with continually improving innovation and standards, would be good for the environment, not bad for the environment. It would reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

We can do even better than that. We can make Canada a super power in terms of the development of clean energy technology. We can incentivize the development of new technology and then export that technology around the world. We can meet our environmental obligations by helping developing countries access the technology that we have here, helping them access it to address environmental challenges that are both local to those places, but also global.

This is our contribution. This would be a great vision for environmental improvement and economic development, not to shut down our energy sector, but to mobilize and unleash our energy sector as an engine for technological development that can actually respond to the challenges of climate change and other environmental challenges that we see around the world. That is the real vision for the environment and the economy that has been lacking from this government. It would prefer to send signals and demonstrate its interest, without actually taking action.

Can we achieve the targets in Bill C-12? Can we get to net zero by 2050? I believe we can, but we will only get there, not by putting in place legislation that merely sets out targets, but by supporting and unleashing the development of our energy sector as a clean energy hub for the world. That is what we need from the government.

We need a government that truly understands the importance of addressing our environmental challenges and supporting our workers through pro-Canadian energy approach. That is not what we have from the government. That is what we need going forward.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Madam Speaker, the member said we have no plan. I would like to ask the member this. If he and his party are going to try to make the case during this debate that we have no plan, why have they spent so much energy, effort and passion contradicting, voting against and denying the many items in our plan that are now reducing greenhouse gases?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is no plan. All the government talks about is using the environmental challenges we face as an excuse to raise taxes and shut down Canadian energy. Of course, Conservatives are opposed to those things, not only because they are bad for our economy but because they do not help us achieve our environmental objectives.

I will remind the member that Stephen Harper was the first and I believe the only prime minister in history to put in place a plan that reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Some members would like us to have done more and to do more going forward, but I will take that record against Liberal increases in greenhouse gas emissions any day of the week.

Liberals do not understand that the solution is not shutting down Canadian energy and higher taxes. It is, rather, unleashing our economy to pursue that potential that is going to allow us, together, to respond to these environmental challenges.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Since he loves talking about Alberta and the oil industry so much, I have a question for him about that. CBC reported recently that thousands of jobs were lost in Alberta because oil prices fell by about 30% in March. With that in mind, I would like to know whether he still thinks it is a promising industry that will help us reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and achieve net zero one day.

I would also like to take this opportunity to ask him why he and his party refuse to support energy transition measures by investing in green technologies that could help create green jobs in his province and for his constituents. When I say “green technologies”, I am not talking about oil. In fact, if I may comment briefly on the Keystone XL pipeline, I would remind him that even the Americans do not want it. President-elect Joe Biden has been quite clear on that.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an important question to respond to: What is the future potential of the energy sector in Canada? It is important for the member to know that while there is an economic impact, no doubt, of fluctuations in the oil price, investors understand that oil prices go up and oil prices go down and investments are significantly informed by an assessment of the long-term confidence they can have in that market. That is why, even when oil prices have been low, we have seen significant investments made in the energy sector in other jurisdictions.

We have a particular challenge here in Canada and that has to do with market access. It has to do with the fact that there are great energy projects that make it most of the way through the process, but then Liberal MPs publicly lobby cabinet to kill those projects and they are not able to proceed.

We have a challenge in Canada facing the energy sector, but it is not a problem of price because the price is always fluctuating and decisions are made on long-term horizons. The problem we have is politics. I have been told by ambassadors that Canada is seen as a country with political risk when it comes to investment in the sector. It is not a technical problem. It is a political problem.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member and his Conservative colleagues have said they are worried about how much getting to net zero will cost, but the costs of meeting our targets and stopping dangerous climate change are so much lower than the costs of missing these targets. In fact, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has projected that by 2050 and in the years leading up to 2050, it will cost between $21 billion and $43 billion a year. Wildfires, flooding and extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and intensity, and people are worried about their kids and their future but also about the present impacts of climate change.

Does the member agree that the climate crisis poses a serious threat to our environment, our health and our economy?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is very important to be clear about the areas on which we agree and the areas on which we disagree. Conservatives agree that we should work toward that 2050 net-zero target, but the difference between our parties is that New Democrats seem to believe that the way to get there is to shut down highly productive parts of our economy and simply allow that energy to be produced in less clean, less effective ways in other parts of the world.

Conservatives do not believe that we should get to net zero by shutting down our economy. We believe we should work toward that goal by technological improvement through things like carbon capture and storage and green technologies that can work within and in concert with our energy sector to address the challenges we face, while providing people all over the world with the energy that they vitally need.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join members from beautiful Edmonton Riverbend, albeit it is a little snowy here today.

I am pleased to participate in the debate to speak to Bill C-12. I want to start specifically by addressing how bills like this impact my home province of Alberta.

Most Canadians are aware of how tough the times have been here in Alberta over the past several years. Thousands upon thousands of jobs have been lost in the energy sector and my city of Edmonton has an unemployment rate of over 12%. Calgary is about the same. These two cities already had some of the highest unemployment rates in the country before the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has made the situation even worse. Unfortunately, many businesses will not reopen and many Albertans will have no jobs to return to after the pandemic is over.

Why have times been so tough for Alberta? Federal government legislation that appeared designed to decimate the energy industry and rapidly deplete the oil and gas industry has been introduced. Bill C-69 overhauled federal environmental assessment processes for construction projects, effectively deterring investment in Alberta. Bill C-48 bars oil tankers from loading at ports in northern B.C., making it impossible to export Alberta oil to new markets. On top of all that, we suffered through a regulatory attack like no other from the Notley NDP government, which really set us back decades. Just as all this was occurring, the government announced a new clean fuel standard, which is yet another blow to Alberta.

Honestly, it will be impossible for Alberta to fully recover, with yet more regulation that makes our province unattractive to investors. Our leading-edge energy industry will not be competitive against other countries if we have so many regulations tacked on by the federal government.

To help counteract this attack, the Alberta government just launched a natural gas strategy that would see the province become a leader in hydrogen production and liquefied natural gas for export. Natural gas will be regulated under the clean fuel standard. No other jurisdiction in the world is applying this type of standard to liquefied natural gas. However, the clean fuel standard will once again exacerbate the economic depression, as reported by Canadians for Affordable Energy, which estimates this standard will cause 30,000 job losses nationally and at least $20 billion of capital will leave Canada. Alberta will disproportionately experience this loss, but all Canada will be impacted.

I agree with my colleagues across the aisle that it is well intentioned to strive toward net-zero emissions. However, we do differ on how to get there. Harnessing the energy sector and its talent is, in my opinion, key to meeting that target. We must include energy industry stakeholders when developing any environmental plans. From what we have been hearing initially on Bill C-12, the government has failed to do just that.

At the end of the day, climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. For decades more, the world will continue to use oil and gas. The question then becomes as to whether energy will come from democratic countries like Canada with strong environmental protections or from dictatorships with no environmental protections or respect for human rights.

Domestic energy production, including oil and gas, is an important part of making our country more self-reliant and more resilient in the future. In today's world, we cannot afford to become reliant on energy from any other countries and, quite honestly, we have no need to. Getting to net-zero emissions in the energy industry requires a plan, not just a plan to have a plan. What we see here is a mission to develop a plan in the future and the government's plan is already being poked full of holes. The focus could have been on harnessing energy and the use of technologies from sources such as nuclear and wind carbon capture, with the government providing incentives similar to those that were used to stimulate the early development of the oil sands. Many governments have a long record of practical and successful environmental initiatives.

Under our previous Conservative government, Canada successfully tackled acid rain, expanded national parks and removed dangerous chemicals from the biosphere. We must persevere on our shared environment for future generations without sacrificing the jobs Canadians need today or damaging the economic engine that helps fund our vital social programs.

Our recent report from the Canada Energy Regulator found that, even with policies in place to curb emissions, oil and gas will still make up two-thirds of energy sources in 2050. This report also found that there will be increased demand for natural gas, which I mentioned before as a fuel that will become more heavily regulated under the clean fuel standard. This is again a deterrent for investors in foreign markets. We have an opportunity to help with emissions globally, by being part of the switch from coal-fired plants in Asia and other parts of the world to natural gas, a much cleaner form of energy.

Exporting our natural gas, technology and talent to other parts of the world will go a long way in the fight against climate change. Removing coal-fired plants makes a huge dent in emissions globally. We all agree everyone has a role to play in tackling climate change and Canada is no exception, but aggressively regulating our energy industry when there is still known demand for its products is short-sighted.

We can do more good globally by using our technologies in oil and gas to help tackle climate change both abroad and in Canada than by abruptly shutting it down. Natural gas is a huge opportunity for Canada to be a world player in other markets. More excessive regulation by the federal government not only hinders this opportunity but threatens the livelihoods of many Canadian families.

The bill before us would set targets to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050. This is a laudable goal and I want to be clear it is one I fully support, but it is once again a big shiny object over here being used to distract Canadians when the government cannot be clear on what the vision of its plan is to get there.

Is this a bill to strike a 12-person committee? If it is, then be honest and tell us that. Do not promise this is a visionary piece of legislation that requires three ministers to walk across an open field that some communications person somewhere decided would make good optics to distract the Canadian public.

We see the government continue to make new environmental commitments, while still failing to meet its previous climate promises. The government's own projections show it is not even close to meeting its current commitments, yet it is setting new targets that are higher and even further into the future. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Canada is on track to significantly miss its 2030 emissions commitments. What about the two billion trees promised in the last election? I have not seen a single tree planted by these guys. Actually, there is not even a plan to plant a tree, let alone a budget to do it.

I, for one, would really like to work with my colleagues across the aisle to produce a comprehensive plan to tackle greenhouse gas emissions and to meet net-zero emissions by 2050. I have kids and I desperately want their future to include a safe and healthy environment. It is hard to support the government when it delivers an optical illusion of a plan that continues to include more regulations and taxes that hurt our economy by deterring investment in Canada. Life has become more expensive for Canadians as a result. Eventually Canadians are going to ask, “At what cost?”

I truly believe here in Canada we can develop a plan that harnesses the technology and brainpower of our energy industry to help other countries transition to energy sources that are much less harmful to the environment. We can make Canada and Canadian energy independent instead of importing oil from countries with brutal regimes and human rights abuses. We can remove regulations and red tape, and at the same time make Canada more attractive for international investment.

I am here and fully on board with achieving a net-zero goal. We can do this by creating a comprehensive plan and policies. We simply need the government to work with us in opposition as opposed to continually pretending to the world it cares without any necessary targets required. I plead to the government to please consider working with us, especially at the environment committee, to strengthen the bill so we get it right for all Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, on the day the bill was released, the member for Edmonton Riverbend tweeted a question on Twitter asking if net zero was achievable by 2050. Then we listen to the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, and it seems to me there is a lack of commitment to be able to achieve that net-zero target.

I am wondering if my friend from across the way can provide his thoughts on whether the Conservative Party would be committed to hitting the target of zero emissions by 2050.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, through you to the parliamentary secretary, forgive me for consulting with my constituents on certain questions that are before the House.

Obviously my personal view is that we can certainly get to net zero, but it is working with the opposition. It is not going through with a photo op of walking across a field pretending this is something that is visionary. There is no plan here.

We are hearing over and over again in Alberta that this, on top of everything else that has already been put on us, is just so debilitating to jobs and the economy. We have already suffered through Bill C-69 and BillC-48, the clean fuel standards and now this: a plan to have a plan. Again, I want to make sure we get this right. I am more than prepared to work with the government to do that, but we need to do it and we need to it soon.