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]

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the officials two questions.

One is certainly in regard to PV-19. The language that PV-19 entertains is the word “ratchet”. Is there anything in the definitions section? MP May had mentioned the progression element, that it was added in previously. Could you just explain, first of all, if there is any legal text within Bill C-12, under the definitions, for the word “ratchet”? How would that interface with progression?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This one I'll give a bit of an explanation for. I have so many amendments.

I want to reference for members of the committee the amendment you've already passed that was brought forward by the government. It's amendment G-3, which includes the following: “Each greenhouse gas emissions target must represent a progression beyond the previous one.” My amendment is not only consistent; it buttresses this and frames it properly in the fact that we already have committed in the Paris Agreement to a principle that's called ratcheting up. In other words, any country may replace its nationally determined contribution at any time, but only to ratchet up.

I'm hoping that Raj Saini will see the benefit of making sure that we amend clause 11. We would add, “that is consistent with the purpose of this Act and with the commitment to ratchet up targets” within the meaning of “the Paris Agreement, done in Paris on December 12, 2015.” Again, it's just placing in the proper context how much we are already committed to, and in some additional amendments to Bill C-12, we reiterate commitments that we have made to only ratchet up.

I hope that this amendment will meet with your approval.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, this week is Environment Week in Canada. My question to the Prime Minister is this. Would it not be a wonderful thing if, during Environment Week, the environment committee strengthened Bill C-12, the so-called net-zero climate accountability act?

Specifically, one of my amendments has been rejected, and it would be so grateful to know from the Prime Minister why the government does not want the climate targets and climate plans to be based on the best available science. Right now the bill says the best available science must be merely taken into account. Surely we would not take it into account when we look at COVID. We base our decisions on science.

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

Yes, I will, Mr. Chair.

First of all, colleagues, as you know, I've been a big fan of a slightly different approach than the government has taken in regard to Bill C-12. For those who are watching, Bill C-12 takes a particular path where the individual minister is designated. In this case, it's the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. We think that a better response is to have that designated minister bring it to cabinet, so that there can be a full debate at the cabinet table where relevant ministers and departments—in fact, all of them, Mr. Chair, the Governor in Council, as it's called—would have an opportunity to debate and to refine exactly what is being debated. That would achieve more buy-in.

As you know, Mr. Chair, a criticism of government is often that it exists in silos. Sometimes people will ask me,“You know, Dan”—they usually call me Dan; they don't usually call me Mr. Albas like they do here—“why isn't one department speaking to another?”

We've seen multiple cases of this during the COVID crisis, where it seems that one department is doing something without coordinating with another one. It can be very confusing to the public. We, as Conservatives, believe that climate change is real. It's a serious issue that requires a serious response. There's no better way to get a whole-of-government and “all hands on deck” scenario going than by having all the cabinet ministers debate, refine and then stand behind it.

Right now, Mr. Chair, whether a minister wants to or not, they have to because of cabinet solidarity support for Minister Wilkinson, who is the designated minister. We want to have it so that every minister can have their say at the cabinet table, not simply defend a plan that was made by a sole, isolated minister who perhaps went and discussed with other departments. It doesn't necessarily dictate that it's a whole-of-government approach or that those conversations are complete and represent all parts of the country. Instead, Mr. Chair, we're relying on a minister who.... As we know, it's very difficult to get a memorandum of cabinet through. Without having that buy-in from the Governor in Council, we don't think you'll get as good of a result.

We believe, as Conservatives, that a different approach is necessary, which is having a full discussion at the cabinet table and a ratification that every minister can stand by. They would probably be better informed when they speak to their constituents. They won't be left saying that they don't necessarily support something, but because of cabinet solidarity they just simply say they support what the Minister of Environment or in this case, the designated minister, says on this.

Mr. Chair, we heard from witnesses like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, an eminent national stakeholder representing hundreds, if not thousands of chambers. Even in the small District of Summerland, all of the businesses in the district are members of that Chamber of Commerce. Probably, Mr. Chair, they would want to know that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is being heard. It is their voice here in Ottawa. They came and did a very thorough discussion, as did many other stakeholders, including the Cattlemen's Association, Pulse Canada and others.

I hope that this particular argument I'm making today will not fall on deaf ears once more.

Mr. Chair, perhaps Mr. Saini, who is so thoughtful and considerate, might decide that today is the day he will side with Dan, as my constituents call me.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Although it's unusual, I want to parenthetically appreciate Mr. Albas's effort to belatedly have debates on key concepts in Bill C-12. The process here has been offensive to full public engagement in the development of this legislation. I'll just put that on the record.

This next amendment seeks to make it clearer what the minister does in an emissions reduction plan. The current version, just to refresh your memories, under subclause 10(2), titled “Explanation”, states:

An emissions reduction plan must explain how the greenhouse gas emissions target set out in the plan and the key measures and the strategies that the plan describes will contribute to Canada achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

That would be amended in my proposed amendment from an explanation to a demonstration. It would be that an emissions reduction plan “must demonstrate” how the greenhouse gas emissions target set out in the plan and key measures will contribute to achieving net-zero.

Again, parenthetically, net-zero by 2050 is not our goal, not if we want human civilization to survive. We must ensure significant cuts before 2030 to meet the Paris objective, which is referenced in this bill, but the bill is not constructed around it.

In any case, this is one small change that I hope the committee will consider.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

I don't see any other hands up.

I would ask the clerk to do a roll call vote on PV-15.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)

We'll go to PV-16.

On this one, I have a ruling. My ruling is that the amendment is inadmissible. I will now take the opportunity to explain why.

Bill C-12 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. Amendment PV-16 seeks to establish a carbon budget measure that is not foreseen in the bill. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” In my opinion, PV-16 introduces a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill.

This is just a clarification—

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

This question is for Mr. Moffet.

If we get into the methods, the tools, etc., are we venturing into provincial territory? Wouldn't the provinces be required to do a lot of these things to achieve the goals that are set out in Bill C-12?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I first want to thank Madam Michaud for putting this forward. She has certainly been an advocate in the House of Commons. We don't always agree on issues, but I hope we both agree that she's certainly doing her part in doing what she can to put forward ideas that are important to her and, I would imagine, to her constituents.

Also, I think she clearly has seen that Bill C-12 is not the same as her own private member's legislation. I think her experience from working on that legislation is certainly being brought to bear here.

What I would ask Mr. Moffet is very similar to my line of questioning on the previous amendment, G-8. Can the minister, without prompting from Parliament, introduce all of these things in Bill C-12?

Again, is this something for which the minister already has the power in terms of “a description of the measures to be taken” and adding a description of the method for calculating greenhouse gas emissions? With all the amendments we've had thus far, is there anything prohibiting the minister from being able to do this if Bill C-12 were to pass as is between both Houses?

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

Okay.

Since we are going to be voting on this, Mr. Chair.... Conservatives certainly believe in keeping our international targets when it comes to the ones before us. By the same token, though, this sounds to me like the Liberals are simply responding to concerns in the public and trying to say, “We'll just add a bunch of things that specify to make it look like we're chalking up this bill to be stronger.”

In fact, what they're doing is just listing things that the minister will already have to do, or at least this will present it as a prescriptive form rather than anything new or above what Bill C-12 originally intended when it first came to the House of Commons.

Thank you.

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

Just on that point, Mr. Chair, one of the things we were hoping to have in Bill C-12 that, unfortunately, due to previous amendments, we weren't able to table was to have a social and economic lens. As I have said, there are certain regions of the country that will be exposed.

I would just ask Mr. Moffet, when he gets us the list of economic sectors and gives us the rundown on that, if that is broken down by province as well. A lot of industries out west, for example, and in Newfoundland and Labrador and even the Northwest Territories have aspirations for their own economic development. I certainly want to know if this is only going to be reported on an industry-by-industry basis or if there will be some sort of regional breakdown. I think that would be helpful.

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

Okay.

In regard to the bill itself and the amendment, though, this just adds, again, a prescriptive quality as to what must be in the bill. Nothing in here goes further than what Bill C-12 originally proposed. The minister could submit all of this information previously. Now it's just that the minister must.

Again, it's not beyond what the scope of Bill C-12 allowed a minister to do. Is that correct?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues.

I'm pleased to introduce a motion to add new subclause 9(5) to the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act. This provision will require the Minister of Environment to take into account UNDRIP, the submissions and advice of the advisory body and any other relevant considerations when establishing the plan. This motion, therefore, ensures that various factors will be taken into consideration by the minister when establishing an emissions reduction plan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CPC-8 again follows up with the approach the Conservatives have taken. I hope that people don't deem that this is a Conservative way of doing it. I think this is just a good proposal to make sure that we have an “all hands on deck” approach when it comes to our net-zero and climate commitments.

This, Mr. Chair, would make a simple change. Right now, it's the Minister of the Environment or whomever would be designated under C-12 under future governments. Whoever that designated minister is really is running the show for the most part. We believe that the minister can play a very important role by forming much of the work to bring to cabinet, but ultimately, the Governor in Council should be establishing alongside that.

I would suggest that we want to see every minister around that table receive a presentation from the designated minister and have a good debate over it, because this is a big country with different aspects of climate change as it affects different regions. We all know this. Have every minister express their point of view and then have a consensus—a whole of government, if you will, Mr. Chair—where they rally around a particular issue and then present that to the Canadian public and to representatives in Parliament. We believe you would have a much stronger structure and a much better buy-in from the cabinet.

Mr. Chair, without further ado, I would just hope that honourable members would say that this would be a positive change to C-12, to see more than just one lonely minister out there trying to deal with these issues and making most of the decisions based on various factors, whether the advisory committee or different components, or from what they've heard from their provincial or territorial partners. To have a verbose discussion at cabinet and to have it ratified by the Government of Canada as cabinet is what the essence of this amendment would do.

I hope members might decide to change their minds from previous positions. Perhaps Mr. Longfield, now being back, might have a new perspective on it and might want to vote in favour of this amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move Ms. Collins' amendment. The amendment reads as follows, for those who are following along online. I move that Bill C-12, in clause 9, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 4 the following:

(2.1) The emissions reduction plan for 2030 must include an interim greenhouse gas emission objective for 2026.

Mr. Chair, from the beginning the NDP has called for a 2025 emissions milestone. We heard from so many witnesses who clearly indicated the importance of such a milestone, as well as from the world's leading scientists, who have been clear that it is not enough to wait until 2030 to be accountable. The minister, however, has made it clear that he is not willing to accept a 2025 milestone, and we believe that this compromise solution, in addition to the additional reports between now and 2030—the progress reports and the environment commissioner's reports—and the fact that the 2030 target will be reviewed in 2025 will provide additional accountability in the lead-up to 2030 and will strengthen this bill. The bill has taken so long to make its way through the House that 2026 is not that far in the future, and this is, we believe, an important accountability measure. I hope that my colleagues will see fit to support this amendment.

I'll leave my remarks at that. Thank you.

[Mark Carney]

I think in my opening comments.... I would say that I would reinforce the measures that were proposed in Bill C-12. In the interest of your time, I won't go into further detail on that, but it is one example that's directly relevant to this.

Secondly—