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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks, which I will now address.

I did hear a particularly interesting comment on Bill C-12. I was told that after a rather, well, careful reading, it was found to be empty. The good news is, a bill that is empty can be infinitely and generously improved. The minister is a good listener, which will be helpful. The Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc will all be able to amend this bill and make it more binding. The most common criticism is that it is not sufficiently binding. Canada has made international commitments. Some people do not realize the importance of integrating these commitments into Canadian law, meeting the targets and taking responsibility if our efforts fail.

I look forward to the opportunity to propose a number of improvements at committee.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and talk about the environment and climate change. I was eager to see this bill tabled. We waited a long time for it.

At the Bloc Québécois, we even took the initiative and tabled our own climate accountability bill, Bill C-215, which we debated here in the House a few weeks ago and which seems to have a few more teeth than Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada’s efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050.

Let us talk about Bill C-12. There are several interesting terms in it, like “transparency”, “accountability” and “net-zero emissions”. I have to admit, it is certainly a good first step. The government is taking this further than probably any other government before it. However, the reality is that, when you read the bill, you soon realize that it is nowhere near sufficient to address the climate emergency.

I will say it right out of the gate: Bill C-12 is dishearteningly tame. It needs to be more binding. If the Liberals are serious in their desire to protect the environment, ensure a green future for the next generation, implement a fair, green economic recovery plan, put an end to the cycle of broken promises and missed targets on greenhouse gas reductions and respect their commitment made around the Paris Agreement, they will surely be open to amending and enhancing the bill to make it more binding.

The emergency is real, and the health and financial crisis we are experiencing should not be an excuse for setting aside the climate crisis and the measures required to address it. Canada’s performance in reducing greenhouse gases leaves much to be desired. I would even say that it is embarrassing. Canada has never met its targets. It had to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol and will likely not meet the Paris Agreement targets. If it could, the government would have put that in the bill and shown more boldness and ambition. It would perhaps have been a little less concerned about 2050 and a little more about 2030. It would certainly be more concerned about the importance of meeting our international commitments than honouring its own election promises.

Climate change should not be a partisan issue. Unfortunately, that is what we are seeing with this bill. During the 2019 election campaign, the Liberals promised to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and they are repeating that promise with this bill, without telling us how they are going to do it.

I want to act in good faith, but Bill C-12 is so easy to criticize, even for the government. According to Environment Canada’s most optimistic projections, we will miss the 2030 target. We must stop burying our heads in the sand; Canada will not achieve its emission reduction target of 30% by 2030. We are a whopping 77 megatonnes short, even if we take into account the impact of the reduction measures that have been announced.

When you are about to miss a target, your logical priority should be to do everything in your power to quickly rectify the situation, reverse course and preach by example. The Bloc Québécois is not the only one to say this; environmental groups are saying the same thing. The Association québécoise de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique says that the bill is extremely vague and not particularly binding, and that it shows that the Government of Canada has not done the work since 2015. Like us, they are still waiting for a serious and responsible commitment on the part of the Liberal government.

We are hearing the same thing from the Climate Action Network, Ecojustice, Environmental Defence Canada, the West Coast Environmental Law Association and Équiterre, although I am not naming any names.

I will say it again: Canada failed to meet any of its international climate targets. In its current form, Bill C-12 provides very little guarantee that this trend will change.

We know that we want to move toward a net-zero economy and way of life, but we still do not know how to get there. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to realize that it will take more than one or two somewhat stringent measures to get there. For now, we have no idea whether the most polluting industries will have targets to meet, which is regrettable, whether we are moving toward the electrification of transportation or whether we will support some form of circular economy. We do not know any of this because there is no plan.

With Bill C-12, the Liberals are asking us to vote on a plan we have not seen yet. For now, what we know is that we will probably achieve net-zero emissions in 2050, even if we do not really know what that looks like.

Now is the time for concrete measures that will actually help reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

The bill must ensure real accountability, not only for meeting the targets that are already on the table, but for aligning Canada with the Paris Agreement and its ultimate goal of limiting average global warming to 1.5°C.

It is crucial that Canada have a five-year accountability cycle, that it start in 2025, not 2030 or 2050, and that it align with the Paris Agreement’s five-year inventory cycle and its goal of raising the stakes. That is the demand of every environmental group worth its salt and every individual who believes in the need for energy transition to ensure our survival on this planet.

I have trouble understanding the government’s lack of ambition and initiative with respect to Bill C-12. We should be past the point where we need to plan for an energy transition. In fact, we should be making the transition now, because 2050 is in the future.

We have to be realistic; the solution to the economic, health and climate emergencies does not lie in the perpetuation of an oil-based economy. We need to invest in natural resource processing, research and innovation in our institutions and the production of our own clean, renewable energy.

We must admit that Quebec has a lot to offer in this area. That is where our wealth lies; Canada’s wealth lies elsewhere. That is why, we in the Bloc Québécois think that the government should provide substantial assistance for the energy and economic transition of certain provinces toward a sustainable wealth creation model.

Economic development based on green technologies, such as biomass, wind and solar energy, hydroelectricity and geothermal energy can sustainably fuel progress and it can certainly be used as a model.

The Bloc Québécois can propose a number of concrete measures. In this bill, we would have liked to see a plan outlining concrete measures for achieving our goals.

I want to get back to the Climate Action Network. I could not agree more with their desire to decarbonize the economy. It is an interesting concept that is now more relevant than ever. People often say that the environment should go hand in hand with the economy; you cannot have one without the other.

I had an interesting conversation recently with Paul Fauteux, an environmental lawyer who was the director general of Environment Canada’s Climate Change Bureau and co-head of the Canadian delegation to the international negotiations on the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. He is an optimist, but he is disappointed with the government’s inaction. We were discussing the fact that we should not be afraid of the energy transition and that we should not see it as bad for the economy or as a destroyer of high-paying jobs.

The opposite is true. Moving away from fossil fuels will result in net gains in employment. Whether for installing solar panels or renovating homes to adapt them to climate change and make them more energy efficient, the potential is huge.

However, decarbonizing the economy does not only mean that we are trading oil industry jobs for jobs in the solar and wind energy industry. We can build a low-carbon caring economy.

Some members may be wondering what a caring economy is. It is an economy where we care for the planet as much as we care for each other. The lowest-carbon jobs are the ones that do not extract anything from the land, that do not create any new waste and that have a limited impact on the environment. These jobs, often performed by women, need to be more highly valued. This work of caring for the most vulnerable members of our communities must be better understood. As part of our economic transition, care work needs to be become a good job, with union benefits, fair pay and safety protections.

Last Sunday, Laure Waridel, an associate professor with the Institute of Environmental Sciences at the Université du Québec à Montréal, said that it will take profound change, binding measures, systematic measures, because we are at the point where we have to completely transform the economy.

We are driven by development. This development brings in money, of course, but it is costly in terms of greenhouse gases. There is a cost, not just an environmental one, but also a social one, and that is fundamental.

The problem is that we are individualistic and think only of ourselves. The government is certainly not setting a good example. We need to stop working in isolation. We need to join forces. That is how we will build a society that is a bit greener and a bit fairer. In fact, I hope it will be a lot greener and fairer.

For that to happen, we need a government that can put partisanship aside and stop with the hypocrisy. It needs to walk the talk, as we say. A government cannot claim it wants to achieve net-zero emissions and in the same breath say that it will make the Keystone XL pipeline a priority in its relations with the United States. That makes no sense. It is literally an example of saying one thing but doing another. The government needs to choose between investing in the future and driving straight into a wall. I am sure members would agree that the right choice is to invest in the future. However, this cannot happen without real measures to reduce our carbon footprint.

Even the Canada Energy Regulator has projected that if Canada strengthens its climate policies to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions, neither the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion nor the new Keystone XL pipeline will be necessary. That is interesting.

Why does the government stubbornly support projects that are harmful to the environment? These projects are not even embraced by the new U.S. administration. These projects are not sustainable in the long term, as current events constantly remind us.

A group of over 100 economists and natural resources experts from all across Canada recently urged the government to abandon Trans Mountain before sinking any more of taxpayers' money into it. As I was saying earlier, this money should instead be used to accelerate the transition to a greener economy, particularly in Alberta, Canada's leading oil producer. We need to be far more aggressive in immediately transitioning away from oil and gas.

The International Energy Agency recently calculated that the demand for oil should drop by 30% over the next two decades if the countries that signed the Paris Agreement on climate change respect their commitments. The oil-based economy is no longer viable in the long term, and experts are doing all they can to remind us of that.

On Monday, the World Meteorological Organization published a report showing that, despite the brief decline in greenhouse gas emissions because of the COVID-19 crisis, concentrations of these same gases have reached record highs. Once again, these data show that urgent action must be taken because, as greenhouse gases continue to rise, the social and economic costs of inaction rise with them.

This could not be any clearer. We have to rework Bill C-12 to give it more teeth because the way this bill is currently worded, it does not measure up. The government has to work with the opposition to improve its bill by adding a target for 2025, a more ambitious goal for 2030, and a requirement to meet the targets instead of simply preparing to present reports that will outline yet another failure.

Again, the mandatory target for 2030, in other words Canada's commitment under the Paris Agreement, should be enshrined in law, and unfortunately, that is not currently the case.

I will come back to the particularly important words that the bill puts forward: “transparency”, “accountability”. The one that seems to be missing is responsibility. Instead of making the government responsible to Parliament, this bill wants to make the Minister of Environment and Climate Change the one who sets the interim targets. Clause 11 even gives him the right to amend the targets and emissions reduction plan.

If the minister and the government think that they will not be able to meet their greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, all they have to do is amend the targets and once again become fake climate champions. The government could change its targets to suit lobby and industry groups. That is not a serious approach.

The only limits that Bill C-12 imposes on the government, if it decides to amend the established targets somewhere along the way, is that it must consult its own federal ministers and provide an opportunity for comment to the public, the provinces and territories, indigenous groups, and advisory bodies created by the government itself.

Consulting an advisory body is good, but it is not the same thing as evaluating the measures and the progress towards the goal. Can these really be called limits? No. In addition, the minister reserves the right to choose which comments to share with civil society. The advisory bodies are window dressing, just like the role of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development in the bill. The bill does not even have the commissioner assess the minister's action plan based on progress towards the Paris targets. Once again, with no independent authority to assess the targets, tools and progress, this is not a serious approach.

We need a climate bill in which achievement of targets no longer depends solely on the will of the government of the day. The government must be accountable for its climate action. It must answer to the thousands of people who are counting on it simply to ensure healthy living conditions on Earth in a future that is nearer than we think.

I will give another example of the government's lack of seriousness when it comes to accountability. According to clause 16, the minister himself will state, in his own report, the reasons for failing to meet the target and the actions taken to address the failure. That means that the minister will be assessing his own performance. Self-assessment: is that what the Liberals' commitment to transparency comes to?

According to Bill C-12, the reports on the targets, whether or not they are achieved, must be submitted to Parliament and made public. That is fine. However, once again, there is a big loophole, because nothing in this bill requires that the content of the reports be assessed by an independent authority.

We have a lot of work to do, and I sincerely hope that every party in the House will collaborate to improve this bill and make it a truly binding text that will make all of our constituents proud. I am thinking of the mothers who are fighting on the front lines for their children's future, and the young people who are taking to the streets and to our courtrooms to demand that we fulfill our commitments. They are the people to whom the government should be accountable.

That is why I introduced my bill, Bill C-215. We need a transparent, accountable government. We need to measure progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions based on targets. Let's talk about my bill, because I hope that the government and the other parties will be inspired to set stronger limits on the governments that take office between now and 2050, no matter their political stripe. I believe that is the approach we must take. Once and for all, we must pass climate legislation that does not change with the political party in power. The climate emergency demands it.

With Bill C-215, we are proposing to require that the government announce the suite of measures that it plans to take to reach its targets. The government would thus be accountable as soon as the bill is passed, and it would have to respond publicly if it failed.

With Bill C-215, we would entrench in Canadian law our international commitments under the Paris Agreement and make them mandatory in Canada. It is essential that we do so. Bill C-215 also requires the government to establish additional measures to ensure that its action plan meets the requirements of this act. If not, the government must inform and explain to the House why it failed to do so.

Under Bill C-215, the minister's action plan must include interim targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to be achieved by 2025, 2030, 2035 and 2040, measures to be taken to achieve these targets, the method for calculating Canadian greenhouse gas emissions, tools or instruments for measuring the progress made and tools for assessing the impact of emission reductions. Those are what I call real constraints.

Of course my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I support climate legislation, but we think it must have truly binding measures so that future governments have the legislative tools they need to stay on course for a healthy and hopefully carbon-neutral future, a future in which, most importantly, greenhouse gas emissions will be significantly lower, not just compensated for by bogus measures.

Regardless of whether we are in government or in opposition, as parliamentarians, we must do better. As I said, the climate crisis must not be a partisan issue. That said, I am very much looking forward to studying this bill in committee. I do have reservations, but climate legislation is crucial. I am impressed with the minister's involvement on this file. I know he wants to ensure a healthy future for the next generation.

The legislative process presents a perfect opportunity to establish the robust accountability framework we need to ensure that Canada meets its international commitments and to support the aggressive action needed to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Let's work together towards that goal.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. As much as we often disagree, we can also agree.

I agree with him when he says that we must work together to improve this bill. I agree with him when he says that the oil and gas industry must play a role in getting to net-zero emissions. In fact, it is this very industry that must make the transition. Quebec and Canadian taxpayers' money must be used for the energy transition and to create good, green jobs for our friends out west.

Since my colleague is not satisfied with Bill C-12 and the government's climate change ambitions, will he commit to voting for Bill C-215, the bill I introduced on climate change accountability?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

That's great to hear. We've set some ambitious targets in our climate accountability legislation, Bill C-12, which we introduced last week. It's actually being discussed right now in the House, in fact.

I know that you have a background in working on projects in the private sector to restore the environment, and you have worked in this space also as a minister in the provincial government in B.C. I was hoping that, as the Minister of Digital Government, you could explain a little bit more how we're going to contribute to this plan that is part of the climate accountability bill.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place and debate the people's business, and Bill C-12 is a critically important debate. Last week as parliamentarians we received a 13-minute briefing on the bill with zero opportunity to ask questions and to have those questions answered. We have to ask, why was that? Why was there no opportunity to ask questions? This is a bill that the Prime Minister describes as an accountability framework, and on the very first day we are being denied the simple most important part of being accountable: the right to ask questions.

I have read the bill and much of the media coverage, and on that note I have to give the Liberal government full credit for its media rollout on the bill. Many headlines read “A road map to net-zero emissions,” which is rather fascinating because while the bill is clear on where it would like to go, it is completely void of any actual detail on how to get there. In fact, if it were a map, it would simply show where we wanted to be but no map or trails on how to get there. That is kind of the point, is it not?

In typical Liberal fashion, this bill will not hold the current government accountable for climate failures, only future governments. The easiest promises to make are those that do not require the maker to be held accountable, and that is exactly what the Liberals are doing.

The Liberals continue to promise both too much and too little when it comes to climate change. Their approach is obviously not working. The Liberal government's projections show that the government is not even close to keeping its current commitments, and yet it plans to set new, even higher targets to be met down the road.

Let us take a look back in history. If we go back about 27 years, in 1993, former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% relative to 1988 levels by 2005. What happened to those promises? They were broken. There are others.

Let us go to 1997 when Prime Minister Chrétien signed the Kyoto accord. This promise was to reduce our emission levels by a smaller amount of 6% below 1990 levels. That would be achieved by 2012. What happened to that promise? In 2006, when the Liberals were voted out of office, Canada was 30% over that commitment. As a result, we know that former prime minister Stephen Harper eventually had to withdraw Canada from the Kyoto agreement because we could not reach that target.

Let us not forget that in 2009, at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, Prime Minister Harper matched the U.S. target to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 30% by 2030 in what was a non-binding agreement. In 2015, shortly after the election of the current Prime Minister, he sent the largest Canadian delegation in history to attend the Paris UN Climate Change Conference and at excess cost, I would say, of $1 million.

We all know that in Paris, despite often criticizing the former Harper government, ultimately the Liberal government adopted the same targets. Despite what partisan Liberals and others say, Conservative governments, both federally and provincially, have a long record of practical and successful environmental initiatives.

Let us now look at where we are today. Reports indicate that the Liberal government did not keep the commitments it made in 2015. It has missed its 2020 target by 123 million tonnes. Once again, we are not meeting our greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Obviously, the government is following a pattern: It promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a certain amount by a certain date and then it breaks that promise. It makes another promise and then it breaks that one too.

Now, there are new developments. Today, we are examining Bill C-12. This bill once again postpones addressing the problem to such an extent that it will be up to whatever government is in office in 2050 to deal with it.

The government is going to have a problem with the bill's strongest opponents precisely over that.

The government is not proposing anything at all today. It has no road map, no solution, no willingness to listen and no penalties in case of failure.

Once again, they are promising to do more later.

At this point, I probably sound quite negative about the bill. That is not actually my intent. I just firmly believe that when we debate the bill, we must be very candid about what is really up for debate, as it is certainly not a road map as some have described it. I will actually give the Liberal government some credit for that, because it did not follow the usual approach of the Prime Minister, which is to promise things he has no intention of delivering on. We know the Prime Minister is an expert at making promises he will never have to be responsible for. Setting targets 30 years down the line means that future governments have 30 years to figure it out. More importantly, industry has the time to come up with much-needed solutions.

Indeed, the Minister of Natural Resources has spoken of improving energy efficiency in homes and businesses. He has talked about hydrogen fuel cells, as well as the potential for small modular nuclear reactors, although I will note on the last point that once again the Liberal government has delayed promised plans and details on that. The point is that what the bill would do, by making commitments so far in the future, is leave the door open for future innovation. We know that we will see more electric vehicles in our future, some built right here in Canada, a made in Canada solution.

There is a company in British Columbia that could soon be transporting passengers in the world's first electric seaplane.

These are all exciting examples of the kind of innovation that can reduce our emissions. I am pleased that ourMinister of Natural Resources has recognized some of them. Personally, as environment critic, I love it when we can all agree on areas where we can use innovation rather than fiscal measures to reduce our emissions. We will not prosper as a nation by taxing ordinary Canadians and making industry foot the bill for costly regulations. That may be the Liberal way, but it is not the right way.

When I agreed to serve as the environment and climate change critic, our new official opposition leader was clear. He pledged to recognize the importance of ensuring that Canada meets its greenhouse gas emission commitments. If we want to do that, we all have to work together on areas where we can come to an agreement. I believe that much of our time in the previous Parliament was spent talking about issues on which we disagree. When we do that, we are not serving the interests of future Canadians.

The reality is, from my perspective, there is really nothing to oppose in this bill. In many respects, it is a Seinfeld bill. It is largely devoid of details or costs. In fact, I suspect that those who will be opposing this bill will do so for that very reason. Canadians agree on the importance of protecting our environment and natural spaces. It is an issue that our party and leader are passionate about.

In my speech thus far, I have not mentioned the Canadian oil and gas industry, much as this bill is also largely silent on this essential Canadian industry. We know this industry has publicly stated it is committed to the highest environmental standards in the world, and many of its members have committed to net zero by 2050. We need to ensure that these critically important Canadian industries will be part of the solution.

We will be proposing amendments to this bill in committee that clearly state that Canadian oil and gas has the highest environmental standards in the world, and that any action plan must draw on that expertise and ensure that oil and gas play a necessary role in providing the world with energy. This legislation must also recognize that Canadian energy is not the enemy, as many Liberals believe, but part of the solution. As I mentioned previously, we need to find ways that we can work together if we are to succeed.

We also need a mechanism that can, over time, figure out how much it will cost Canadians to remain on that path to net-zero emissions by 2050. The Parliamentary Budget Officer indicated that, in order to meet our current commitments by 2030, the carbon tax might have to increase to over $200 a tonne, but the Liberals still refuse to be honest with Canadians about that.

I know some people will say that it will cost a lot more to do nothing. However, consider for example someone on a fixed annual income who lives in a 70-year-old house when winter temperatures fall below -20°C. Their monthly heating bill could force them to choose between heat and groceries for the month. We cannot ignore this. We cannot ignore the fact that many rural communities do not have public transit. In many cases, they have lost Greyhound as a private carrier.

Millions of Canadians depend on imported fuel oil to heat their homes because no other options are available. We cannot forget about those Canadians, and they should not be forced to carry a disproportionate share of the cost burden.

I mention this because when it comes to putting a price on pollution, as the current Liberal government likes to say, we know that all too often some of the biggest industrial polluters typically get exemptions from the price they pay on their pollution because of carbon leakage, which is a big concern.

What is carbon leakage, for those unfamiliar with the term? When an industry in one jurisdiction is paying carbon taxes and cannot compete with that same industry in another jurisdiction that is not paying carbon taxes, the situation is called carbon leakage. We know that if an industry loses market share to heavier-polluting competitors, it affects our economy and does not reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

Carbon leakage is not the only example of where big polluters get a break from paying a price on pollution. In British Columbia, although the B.C. NDP government signed on to the Liberals' carbon tax framework, the new B.C. LNG investment will be exempt from the carbon tax increases called for in that agreement. This is not an isolated incident where a polluting industry in B.C. has secured some form of carbon tax relief.

Why am I raising these points? Because we cannot ignore the fact that more and more major polluters in Canada are being exempted from paying the price for their pollution.

These carbon tax exemptions rarely make the headlines for various reasons, but they do happen. However, the average citizen or the small business owner has to pay for their pollution.

This brings me to the last, but not least, part of my speech on this bill. Since it will take 30 years to meet the targets, we have an opportunity to try to work with our biggest trading partner, the United States. Hopefully, we will have a clearer idea of the policies and regulations required to help us collectively reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

These emissions are a global problem. Climate change has had devastating effects on many sectors in my riding over the past year. Forest fires and floods have caused hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damage. Local farmers have been hard hit by changing weather patterns. I am sure that other members in the House have had similar experiences.

Canada is not responsible for global climate change, but we can and must be part of the solution.

It may raise some eyebrows that my party will be supporting this bill at second reading, but if we are going to have any success, we need to find those things that we can agree upon and take action. There are things we can and must agree on.

In summary, I see very little in this bill to oppose. It is not a road map. It is essentially a piece of paper with a destination on it. Fighting climate change at home and around the world is an important goal that requires work. It will be current and future governments that will start to fill in the map and show how they intend to reach that destination, but we must agree on a starting point. I would submit that is precisely what Bill C-12 is: a starting point.

I, for one, will be supporting this bill for what it is, and what it can and must become. What I do not support is the Liberals' failed record on climate change. They are on track to miss their 2030 climate commitments, and they have failed to plant a single tree. My wife has planted more trees than the current government.

The Liberals continue to over-promise and under-deliver when it comes to climate change, and their approach is clearly not working. Conservatives will build a climate policy that respects the jurisdiction of the provinces, focuses on making industry pay rather than taxing ordinary Canadians, and is founded on proven market-based principles for incentivizing positive economic change. Conservatives understand that reaching net-zero is a goal that Canadians care about and want to see action on. We must preserve 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. Canadian workers are counting on it.

I would like to thank all members for taking the time to hear my comments today.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

moved 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.

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to address the House of Commons today for the second reading debate of Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act. It is an act that I believe is extremely important.

Our government's highest priority continues to be the health and well-being of Canadians. That is why we are taking unprecedented action to combat the health emergency presented by COVID-19. As we come through this, and we will, that commitment to the health and well-being of Canadians demands that we put two things in place with an eye on the post-pandemic horizon.

First, we must build back better in a way that makes the economy more competitive, cleaner, stronger and fairer than it was before.

Second, Canadians expect us to have a thoughtful plan to counter a parallel emergency that has continued during the pandemic and will get significantly worse in future if we do not take more action than we are now, that being climate change.

Canadians know how much of a threat climate change is to our health, our economic well-being and our planet. We are already experiencing the ravages of climate change, what with extreme weather events, catastrophic floods and devastating fires.

As with COVID-19, ignoring the risks of climate change is not an option. Such an approach will only increase costs and worsen the long-term consequences. To use a pandemic metaphor, if we want to flatten the climate curve and avoid its worst effects, the best available science tells us that the planet must reach net zero by 2050.

Reaching net zero by 2050 means that emissions produced 30 years from now would be fully absorbed through actions that scrub carbon from the atmosphere, whether through nature, such as planting trees or through technology, such as carbon capture and storage systems. This imperative comes at a time when the world is changing. We are seeing an acceleration of global momentum and healthy competition toward a net-zero carbon economy by 2050 as nations, investors and consumers recognize the ecological imperative and the economic opportunity of moving to a clean economy.

Over 120 countries have made a commitment to be net zero by 2050, including many of our major economic competitors and trading partners. This will likely soon include our biggest trading partner south of the border. Low carbon and climate-resilient projects and technologies are not just good for the planet, they are good for business.

Mark Carney, the former governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, recently said that the transition to net zero “...is creating the greatest commercial opportunity of our age.” On the day before Bill C-12 was introduced in this House, Tiff Macklem, the current Governor of the Bank of Canada, said that “...we need to position Canada to seize the climate-smart opportunities that consumers, workers and investors are looking for.”

Major Canadian companies have already committed to net zero by 2050, including companies such as Cenovus, Teck Resources, MEG Energy, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Enbridge and the Canadian Steel Producers Association. Shell's global chief executive officer says that net zero is “the only way to go” for his company. Canadian companies such as Maple Leaf Foods and CAE are already carbon neutral.

Leveraging climate action as we rebuild Canada's post-pandemic economy is simply the smart thing to do. It will ensure that we emerge stronger, better prepared and more competitive in a low-carbon world.

During the last election campaign, our government promised to come up with a plan that would allow Canada to exceed its pollution reduction targets and create a legally binding process for all future governments to set national climate targets that will achieve the science-based goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, is the fulfillment of our commitment to Canadians to put these legally binding processes in place.

This process is essential to our strategy for a sustainable post-pandemic economic recovery and long-term prosperity for all Canadians in a low-carbon world. It reflects our government's desire to stimulate our collective ambition for climate action and to do more than ever before in a considered and pragmatic way, guided by scientific data and evidence.

The proposed Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act is an important contribution to articulating a Canadian vision for a clean economy, and it sends a signal of the depth of our resolve to be a serious competitor in the clean global marketplace.

To do that, we need to tool up for low-carbon advantage and demonstrate that Canada is meeting climate risk head-on. By doing so, we can provide the confidence and certainty required to attract investment and ensure that Canadians are delivering products and services that will be in high demand the world over now and well into the future.

The bill marks the first time a Canadian government has introduced emissions accountability legislation to address climate change and achieve net zero by 2050. One element of its importance is that accountability legislation has the muscle to depoliticize climate action by setting legal requirements on governments to achieve climate headway. It is intended to ensure that never again will Canada have a government like that of Stephen Harper, which established an emissions reduction target but never brought forward a credible plan to achieve it.

The Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act would be the first significant step in the second phase of our government's climate plan. In phase one, during our first term in government, we spearheaded the creation of a pan-Canadian framework to fight climate change that comprised over 50 separate initiatives, including a price on pollution, a plan to phase out coal by 2030 and historic investments in public transit, nature and renewables.

In the coming weeks, the government will be announcing an enhanced clean-growth plan and further investments that encourage, accelerate and support the work Canadian businesses are doing to move to a thriving carbon-neutral economy. The plan will also provide Canadians with visibility on how we will meet and exceed our 2030 Paris Agreement target.

Bill C-12 provides the legal framework to put the emissions reductions goal of that plan and future plans between now and the middle of the century into law. The act would provide a legally binding process for this government and for future governments to set national climate targets on a rolling basis every five years between 2030 and 2050 and to meet the goal of net zero by 2050.

It would provide that this government and future governments must bring forward detailed plans as to how they would meet these targets. In the near term, Bill C-12 would require the Government of Canada to establish the initial 2030 target within six months of the act's coming into force, along with an emissions reduction plan. Both would have to be tabled in Parliament.

A progress report would have to be tabled by 2027. If the government of the day is not on track to meet the 2030 milestone, it would have to detail how it will get back on track. In addition, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, supported by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, would have to examine and report on the Government of Canada's implementation of the measures aimed at mitigating climate change within five years of the coming into force of this act and every five years thereafter.

For each subsequent milestone year, in 2035, 2040 and 2045, a target would have to be set and an emissions reduction plan established at least five years in advance of each subsequent milestone year. Both would have to be tabled in Parliament.

Finally, if a target is not met, the government would have to table a report in Parliament detailing the reasons why and identifying specific actions to correct course and catch-up.

Bill C-12 also requires the Minister of Finance to publish an annual report explaining how the government is managing its financial risks and opportunities related to climate change. This information will help the government manage the risks of climate change in its decision-making.

This is in addition to our current reporting requirements, including the fifth biennial report to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the official national greenhouse gas inventory that we publish every year.

The five-year targets and the plans for meeting them will be based on the best scientific information available. They will require an inclusive approach that reflects Canada's unique demographics and geography, the importance of our resource-based economy, and the governments' shared responsibility for energy and the environment.

The input and engagement from all parts of Canadian society are crucial. The Government of Canada simply cannot achieve net-zero emissions by the middle of the century on its own. That is why the act would establish the independent net-zero advisory body, a group of up to 15 experts with a diverse range of experience and expertise from across the country. It would include business, labour, indigenous, clean technology and environmental leaders.

The advisory body's ongoing advice to government over the next 30 years would be informed by extensive consultation and engagement with Canadians. Its initial work would focus on identifying actions that support both net zero and economic recovery from the pandemic. The advisory body would provide its advice through an annual public report, and the government would be required to publicly respond to the advisory body's recommendations.

All of the public reporting measures are designed to ensure accountability to Canadians and accountability built on transparency, both of which are vital to establishing credibility with Canadians. Moreover, transparency and accountability are key to fostering dialogue when friction arises on the ways and means of moving forward on climate change. Bill C-12 lays out a framework of accountability and transparency to ensure we reach net zero by 2050 in a way that gives Canadians confidence that as a nation we will succeed in this endeavour.

Should the bill pass, it will be extremely difficult for any future government to shirk its responsibility to take action on climate change. I believe the reaction in Parliament and among Canadians generally would provide severe sanction to a government that did not honour its legal obligations under the act.

I want to say a few words about the parliamentary process.

It takes co-operation and collaboration to bring about real change, and several parties in the House of Commons have proven their commitment to ambitious climate action, including the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, the Green Party and even some Conservative members.

I want to congratulate the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia for her work on Bill C-215 and the member for Winnipeg Centre for her work on Bill C-232. These bills are part of a long line of bills introduced in an effort to address this problem.

It is important to recognize the contribution made by Jack Layton, who was the first to introduce his bill, the climate change accountability act, in 2007. Unfortunately, that bill was defeated by Conservative senators 10 years ago to the day last month, without debate, despite majority support in the House of Commons.

I would also like to commend the work of my colleague, the government House leader, who managed to get his private member's bill, the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, passed in 2007, before the Harper government repealed it in 2011 and withdrew from the Kyoto protocol.

In developing the bill, I have reflected on the hard work done by my colleagues in the House and on the work of those who came before us. It is certainly my hope that they see their work and devotion reflected in the spirit and intent of Bill C-12. I am committed to taking an approach of co-operation and collaboration and will consider, in good faith, constructive suggestions to improve this legislation further. That is how the parliamentary process is supposed to work, and I am committed to doing my part to make it work.

I am confident that together, in the spirit of co-operation, we can achieve an outcome that allows us to continue to move another step forward to address the threat of climate change. I have engaged in constructive conversations with many of my parliamentary colleagues on moving forward with action to address climate change, and it is my hope that we can work together to pass the bill in this minority Parliament so that we can quickly move forward on its implementation.

At the end of the day, climate change is a science issue, not an issue of ideology. It should not be a partisan issue. It is my hope that MPs from all parties in the House will work together and collectively support this vital legislation.

As a nation, we cannot afford inaction. It certainly will require resources. It will also require pragmatism and, certainly, Canadian ingenuity.

Canada has the tools to do this, including a skilled and innovative workforce that is already rising to the challenge of emissions reduction. From copper to nickel to energy, Canada has the resources needed to develop, produce and deploy clean technologies and proven expertise. We have a productive and resilient manufacturing sector. We also have the innovative spirit, talent and experience to be among the world's cleanest suppliers of natural resources, and we have the drive, born of a chance, to create a future we can pass along to our children and grandchildren with confidence and with pride.

I am sure that many colleagues, as well as their children, nieces, nephews and grandchildren, have watched some of Sir David Attenborough's programs on the the natural world. One of his comments resonated strongly with me. He said, “We are the only species that can imagine the future. Living in balance with nature simply requires the will to do so.”

The bill represents a key step in demonstrating our collective will to do so, and I very much look forward to engaging with my colleagues today and in the days to come as we move forward with this very important legislation.

The Environment

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege to ask a question in the House a few weeks ago about the trucking industry and how it relates to environmental policy.

One thing that we can all agree on is that most Canadians are at the point where they believe that some plan is needed and that some actions need to be taken to help our environment and to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we have. There may be disagreement on exactly what to do, but people would more or less agree that something needs to be done.

It was interesting to see Bill C-12 introduced by the government, a bill that had no plan and no targets. It was missing a lot of things, including consequences. If there were targets that were missed, there were no consequences for that in the bill. I found it ironic that the government has been unable to achieve the targets that Prime Minister Harper set years ago for 2030. The government is not on track to hit those targets either.

The trucking industry is significant in our country. Transportation accounts for about a quarter of the greenhouse gases produced in Canada, and of that quarter, the trucking industry produces a significant amount. Therefore, the trucking industry is a key player when it comes to reducing greenhouse gases in Canada. Roughly 90% of our goods travel by truck at some point in their lifespan. Ten million trucks cross the border every year between Canada and the United States, so there is a significant number of trucks on the road and they produce a significant amount of greenhouse gases.

As I spoke to members of the trucking industry, they were very much interested in playing a role in looking forward and developing future technologies and future plans to reduce the amount of carbon from trucking in the environment. Decarbonization of the trucking industry is what they would say. They would like to be a part of it. They would like to be at the table discussing plans for this. They know that, for their industry to succeed in the future, they are going to have to make changes and they want to be a part of those discussions. What they are asking for is to have a task force of engine manufacturers, the government, environmental groups, trucking industry players and drivers, all the players together around the table, coming up with a plan and a strategy for how to decarbonize the trucking industry going forward.

A few weeks ago, at the environment committee, I asked Marc D'Iorio, director general of energy and transportation at the Department of the Environment, if there were any plans to have a task force such as this. He said, “I'm not aware of direct work to create a working group. However, there are a number of measures being considered”, and he went on basically to say that they are going to come up with a plan and then they will tell others what it is.

I asked him to clarify. I said, “Are you saying that there have been no discussions to create a working group to get industry players in line with this, no efforts to get all of the people at the table to help develop these types of regulation?”

He said, “Not that I'm aware of.”

I asked the same question of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and his answer was that “obviously there is a need for consultation”, but that there was no plan for that.

When we come up with something as important as a plan for reducing carbon in the trucking industry, it is important that all the players have a role to play, that all the players' input is gathered and considered, and that a good plan is developed, because we have to make sure, not only that we reduce greenhouse gases but that the plan is workable. It has to allow industry to survive and produce its service at a price that is going to work and that customers will be able to pay. If government goes in and just creates regulations and dumps it on the industry, that is going to be a problem.

Therefore, I would hope that the government would see this and see the logic of getting all the players at the table up front to develop a plan together, so that everybody has a say in it and a good plan can be developed. Then we will have no need to rework the legislation later.

My question for the government is the same question: Is the government planning to have a task force made up of all these industry players as it develops regulations for the trucking industry?

[Cedric Smith, Analyst, The Pembina Institute]

Mr. Chair and committee members, thank you for the invitation to take part in your consultations on zero-emission vehicles.

My name is Cedric Smith. I am an analyst with The Pembina Institute, a clean-energy think tank with offices in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. The Pembina Institute leads the urban delivery solutions initiative, a national network of businesses and organizations working to modernize urban freight operations in Canadian cities.

Today I am here to talk to you about ZEVs and Canada's climate commitments. Under the Paris Agreement, Canada has committed to reducing GHG emissions by 30% below 2005 levels as of 2030. More recently, Canada has set a target of net zero by 2050. Only last week, Canada introduced Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050. Reducing emissions from transportation, which make up a quarter of Canada’s total emissions and have increased significantly over the past two decades, is necessary to meet these targets.

Pembina views an accelerated transition to ZEVs as key to Canada's decarbonizing its transportation sector. Recent analysis by the International Energy Agency indicates that achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions as of 2050 would require that over 50% of passenger cars sold be electric as of 2030. Canada has set a non-binding target of ZEVs making up 10% of new light-duty vehicles sold as of 2025, 30% as of 2030 and 100% as of 2040. Without further action, Canada is unlikely to meet those targets. Currently, ZEVs make up only about 3% of the market.

There are three major barriers to further ZEV adoption in Canada: high upfront purchase prices, insufficient charging and refuelling infrastructure, and insufficient supply. Targeted policy action can help alleviate these barriers.

First is purchase incentives. ZEVs have higher upfront purchase prices than traditional internal combustion engine vehicles. Estimates by the ICCT, for example, indicate that the differential is $10,000 for short-range cars and $27,000 for long-range SUVs.

Canada's iZEV program provides point-of-sale incentives for the purchase or lease of zero-emission vehicles, with a maximum incentive of $5,000. The program has been allocated $300 million for three years, beginning in 2019-20. Uptake in year one of the program suggests that iZEV could run out of money in year two without additional funding. iZEV should be topped up by $150 million in the next federal budget.

Second is funding for charging and refuelling infrastructure. “Range anxiety” refers to a fear of owners of internal combustion engine vehicles that ZEVs will run out of power on a trip. Such fear is often noted as a barrier to ZEV ownership. It is also important that ZEV adopters be able to charge their vehicles at home. The majority of early adopters have home access to charging infrastructure.

Unfortunately, Canada’s public ZEV-charging network remains limited with under 4,500 charging stations, comparing unfavourably with over 12,000 gasoline stations. In addition, about one-third of Canadians live in multi-unit residential buildings, such as apartment buildings or “garage orphans”—dwellings with no access to garages or driveways—and face unique difficulties with home charging.

Canada’s zero-emission vehicle infrastructure program, ZEVIP, has been funded with $130 million over five years, beginning in 2019, to fund the deployment of electric vehicle infrastructure in public settings, including on-street and parking areas, as well as for multi-unit residential buildings. To scale up the program and increase the funding contribution, ZEVIP should be topped up by $300 million in the next federal budget.

Third is adoption of a zero-emission vehicle standard. Canada has an issue with electric vehicle supply. According to recent research, only one in three dealers in Canada has at least one plug-in electric vehicle in stock. This figure decreases to less than one in five for dealers outside of Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec.

The implementation of a light-duty zero-emission vehicle standard would help increase supply in Canada. Such a standard would require that an increasing portion of auto manufacturer vehicle sales be zero-emission. Quebec, which has a mandate in place, makes up about 57% of Canada's plug-in electric vehicle inventory. Since the adoption of Quebec’s ZEV act in 2016, the percentage of ZEV models available in California that are also available in Quebec increased from 66% to 92%.

It should be noted that, in addition to greenhouse gas reduction benefits, increased ZEV sales will also create economic benefits for Canada as manufacturers benefit from an expanded domestic market. Globally, the majority of electric vehicles—80%—are produced in the same region they are sold.

Canada has, in the past, lagged behind in the transition to an electrified transportation future. In 2018, for example, the electric share of Canada’s vehicle production was 80% lower than the global average. Recently, however, there had been announcements of auto-manufacturing investments in EV manufacturing, including $1.8 billion to retool the Ford Oakville Assembly Complex to produce battery electric vehicles. Expanded Canadian ZEV markets will only accelerate this positive momentum.

Targeted policy, including purchase incentives and funding for charging and refuelling infrastructure and a zero-emission vehicle standard, can help increase zero-emission vehicle sales and help Canada to meet its climate targets. In doing so, economic benefit will be derived for Canadians as well. Thank you.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, of course the Prime Minister will, and so will everyone on this side of the House.

I will ask, respectfully, the leader of the NDP, whether the NDP will commit to supporting the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act. This is landmark legislation. It sets Canada on the path to net-zero emissions by 2050. I am so proud of Canada for this legislation and I hope all members of the House will support it.

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)