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.

The Environment

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Western Economic Diversification Canada) and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change (Canada Water Agency)]

Madam Speaker, once again, Bill C-12 is a ground-breaking piece of legislation for Canada, establishing a legal framework for Canada to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050 and help the globe avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

There are many years before 2050 and we know that our actions in emissions reductions in those intervening years are just as important as where we are in 2050. That is why Bill C-12 requires the government to set emissions reduction targets at five-year intervals starting in 2030 all the way until 2050, and it will also require the government to report on its progress toward achievement of those targets throughout. Of course, the requirement to develop emissions reduction plans is also an important component of the legislation.

With respect to a near-term target, a new provision was added during committee review to require the inclusion of an interim GHG emissions objective for 2026. Adding an interim objective provides a mid-point check-in between now and 2030. The 2026 objective will offer an opportunity to have a more detailed look in terms of whether we are still on track for 2030 or not, and do the course correction accordingly.

Understandingly, the previous emissions reduction commitments made by signatories to the Paris Agreement are not enough to hold global warming below 1.5°C. There has been a global call for increased ambition and climate action. Canada heard this call, and in April at the Leaders Summit on Climate, announced an enhanced emissions reduction target of 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030. I am pleased to announce that because of amendments adopted by the House of Commons and the committee, this target will be embedded directly in the text of the bill.

To conclude, the measures contained in the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act would ensure that there is a clear process in place for setting targets, as well planning and reporting on progress, including in the key period between now and 2030.

Finally, along with the reporting requirements under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the act would ensure that the Government of Canada is committed and accountable for all the years to come in charting Canada's path to net-zero emissions by 2050.

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

Madam Speaker, I am resuming a question I asked previously. The minister of fisheries answered the question, but it pertains to climate targets and climate accountability. I made the point in question period that, when we talk about climate targets, they are not political. Climate targets are deeply about the science.

The minister of fisheries replied at the time that the new targets the Prime Minister had just announced at the Earth Day summit with Joe Biden were, in fact, to be put into the law and actually reflected in part of what is called the net-zero emissions accountability act, Bill C-12. Since then, the government decided not to put those targets in the act.

The key point I want to make today in our adjournment proceedings is about the nature of what we committed to do under the Paris Agreement in 2015 at COP 21. The key thing we committed to do was to work with all the other nations on earth to hold the global average temperature increase to no more than 1.5° above what those levels were before the industrial revolution, and to certainly hold it as far below 2° as possible.

Why does this matter? The survival of human civilization is very much at risk if we miss these targets. We are now more than 1°C in global average temperature increase above where we were as a society and a planet before the industrial revolution. Going above 1.5° is actually not a safe zone; it is a danger zone. It involves a significant risk to human civilization's survival. Going above 2° would put our future generations, our own children, very much at risk. That is why the targets are not political. They are about the science.

I am heartbroken that the government chose to put forward its so-called climate accountability legislation, which aims for a level of reductions of emissions that are not tied to the science. It actually puts us at risk. There is a lot of clamouring around Bill C-12 and the title “net-zero”, but net-zero by 2050 is the wrong target. Net-zero by 2050 does not hold to 1.5°. In the words of Greta Thunberg, net-zero by 2050 is “surrender” without short-term and near-term targets that ensure global emissions are cut in half by 2030.

I have just this moment left clause-by-clause as it ends on Bill C-12. The milestone year remains 2030, but the large problem remains that, if we do not improve what we have agreed to do, the target of 40% to 45% below our 2005 levels by 2030 referenced when I put this forward in question period is not close to being what we committed to do in Paris.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change set forth what all countries on earth have to do. Canada has a larger burden than most, because it is the only country in the industrialized world to see our emissions go up so very much since 1990 and go up since Paris.

We have a commitment to do better and to do more. That means that we should be revising our target upward and we should not delude ourselves into believing that net-zero by 2050 is anything other than a public relations gloss on what the science tells us we must do. We are in a climate emergency. We need to act like it and ban fracking, cancel the TMX pipeline and do those things in our power, as a wealthy industrialized society, to move to climate security.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I believe everyone has received the proposed new clause 27.1.

This proposed new clause would require that a thorough review be conducted of the act's provisions and operation five years after the act comes into force. This would be done by a committee of either the Senate or the House of Commons, or both—it would be a joint committee. Parliament or one of the chambers, whatever the case may be, would set up or constitute that committee for that purpose.

So the Bloc Québécois is proposing this final amendment because it is in keeping with our values. While we were supportive of the work that went into clause-by-clause consideration and we acted with due diligence in that respect, I share the view of many here, as well as Mr. Albas and Ms. May, that Bill C‑12 should have gone to committee so that there would have been greater opportunity for more testimony and, more importantly, more time. It was foreseeable that questions would come up, that procedural issues would arise, and that we would receive a whole host of briefs and correspondence.

There's nothing unusual about the amendment I'm proposing, and I think all members of the committee are well aware of that, given the complexity of the subject matter this bill addresses. The quality of our environment is at stake. It is about our planet and our health. We're experiencing a drought right now. Quebec farmers are worried about their crops. Farmers feed us. So this is an important issue.

We feel it's critically important to be able to do this review exercise. A first review would happen in 2026. So we would have the commissioner of environment and sustainable development's report in 2024, and the 2023 and 2025 progress reports, which would provide data for the review.

In our view, it's all the more important to include this clause because we're in a climate emergency. I think everyone recognizes that. We need to be able to rectify this, not just in terms of what Bill C‑12 contains about plans and reports, but in terms of the legislation itself.

I will conclude by quoting Lord Deben, who chairs the Committee on Climate Change in the United Kingdom. Lord Deben says that there must be nothing less than a constant reminder. We must hammer home the reality and point out over and over again where climate change denial is leading us and the negative economic effects that flow from turning a blind eye. Canada needs to fully grasp what its behaviours and inaction on climate change are causing in other countries around the world.

I would add that every time we fail, Canadians continue to pollute more.

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

Mr. Chair, I think committee members will recall that a number of the few witnesses we had spoke to the question of justiciability to make sure that this bill could have some measures that have accountability. Unfortunately, this was paired with my amendment that said the minister must achieve the targets. However, there remain a number of mandatory duties: the minister must prepare targets, must set milestone years and must take into account science.

Subclauses 7(1), 7(2) and 7(4), clause 8 and subclauses 9(1) and 9(2) include mandatory duties that could engage an application for judicial review. That's why I'm proposing clause 27.1, which was supported by, I think, West Coast Environmental Law and by a number of other organizations. It provides some guidance that this legislation anticipates judicial review of ministerial obligations, and says that where someone could seek judicial review within the Federal Court and relief, it's available under subsections 18(1) and 18.1(3) of the Federal Courts Act.

I hope members will find that this amendment deserves support so it can become part of Bill C-12.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 2)

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to introduce an amendment to add new subclause 26(2) to Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act. This motion clarifies that any regulation made by the Governor in Council under the act “must align with the international standards to which Canada adheres”.

This improves the act by ensuring that the regulations made under the act align with Canada's international commitments. It's something that we've heard a lot about.

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 26 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 27)

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

Actually, Mr. Ngan, you were very [Technical difficulty—Editor] and you should be commended for that, but the question was, is there any additional money in Bill C-12 now that the government is making this mandatory through this amendment?

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

Okay. It's like when you have a brand new car—you're going to drive it. I appreciate the answer.

The second question is that there's no funding in this legislation for that. We've seen the government draw criticism because it has not funded the Auditor General sufficiently. Does Bill C-12 give any extra resources? Obviously, if the environment commissioner were forced to do this—and as I said, they would probably do it anyway—that would draw resources from other activities. Is there any money in this?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to Monique Pauzé for making a number of the points that I will reiterate here in terms of my briefer amendment.

The current form of Bill C-12 is that the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development must put forward a report on an examination of the Government of Canada's implementation of measures, etc., to achieve its most recent greenhouse gas emissions target, etc.

The current scheduling of the report from the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development is to be once every five years. My amendment would change it to once every three years.

I'm anticipating the comment, because Mr. Bachrach just made it, that somehow there's some conflict with the upcoming Liberal amendment that the first report must be submitted no later than the end of 2024, referring to the report of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. Obviously, there's no conflict: It's a question of the sequencing.

If Mr. Baker's amendment goes through, as unlikely it is that a government amendment will pass in this committee—forgive the sarcasm—once Mr. Baker's amendment goes through, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development will have a report that is due, the first one, in 2024. The way the act now works, the next one would be in 2029 and so forth.

If my amendment is accepted—and I urge you to really consider this—the first report can be in by no later than the end of 2024. The next one would have to be before the end of 2027, which is really rather helpful, because under the government's approach to the first milestone year and the advance reports, the next report would be not from the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, but from the department, to assess how well it's doing to hit its 2030 target. That one would be coming in 2028. The timing works here. There are no inconsistencies. There are no conflicts.

It just makes sure that for the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, bearing in mind that the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development already has a statutory responsibility to report annually on various matters, this would mean that once every three years they would be reporting on climate targets, progress reports on climate targets and the other matters that are set out in clause 24 of Bill C-12.

I really do hope against hope that you're going to accept this moderate, modest, small improvement to the scheme of the act.

Thank you.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

To come back to the commissioner's role in the original version of Bill C‑12, it's virtually a cosmetic role.

In fact, the commissioner came to speak to the committee about his role, and as an example he referred to a rail safety report on an abysmal situation that he wrote in 2008, I believe. The recommendations in that report were not acted upon by any jurisdiction. A few years later, the disaster happened in the Lac-Mégantic area.

We therefore want the commissioner's role to be more than just cosmetic. In the original version of the report, the commissioner did not assess the action plan or the minister's report based on his ability to achieve the target.

Our previous amendments were about the action plan, the annual report and the assessment. That was what was important, but I believe we differ on the significance of the climate emergency.

In BQ‑31, rather than remove the initial provisions involving the commissioner, we're making a clarification. We're going to try to go a little further. We want the commissioner to conduct a review, as provided, but to do so two years before each milestone year to allow for rectification in the event that progress suggests we may fail to achieve the target.

The amendments I mentioned earlier were more substantive, but this one proposes a slight correction.

If the government, with the support of the NDP, of course, doesn't want the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development to play a meaningful role, someone needs to explain to me why not.

I referred earlier to Ms. Collins, who was a member of the committee. She had introduced a motion to consider the importance of giving the commissioner a more substantial role. She asked that the committee look into making the commissioner an independent officer much like the Auditor General, who currently directs his work. Again, it would be rather inconsistent not to support our amendment. We may have missed an opportunity when Ms. Collins put forward her motion, but this is another chance to strengthen the role.

To conclude, I will repeat some facts that everyone knows. Canada has never met its targets, never achieved even one of its targets. With a track record like that and given the demands and what I would call best practices, the legislation must contain safeguards. It's precisely the role of the commissioner to identify failures and determine what corrective measures should be taken. Our amendment strengthens that role. We're not asking that everything be changed, of course, we only want to strengthen the commissioner's role. It seems to me that it's the least we can do.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Once again, the intent of this amendment is to strengthen the role of the commissioner. When Ms. Collins introduced her motion, the committee did not vote in favour, but we have moved on. We are now talking about Bill C‑12 and we have another opportunity to strengthen the role of the commissioner.

The amendment proposes that, within six months after the progress report is tabled, the commissioner review the progress report. I am taking out the word “annual”, which used to go with the term “progress report”.

Amendment BQ‑29 dealt with the action plan. Amendment BQ‑30 proposes that the commissioner can double-check the report. Once again, this is about strengthening the climate governance and the role of the commissioner.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

Amendment BQ‑29 provides details for the commissioner's review of the minister's action plan and for the specific objectives of the commissioner's review. Without an independent review, the government's action plan can never really be evaluated against the objectives. It means that the public will never have an idea about the relevance and effectiveness of Canada's climate policy.

The commissioner is part of the principal accountability mechanism. It is the best transparency we have in monitoring the progress. Rejecting amendment BQ‑29 is, once more, rejecting transparency. The Bloc Québécois has introduced other amendments on transparency, and the committee has always chosen to vote against them. You have one more chance to vote for transparency.

Our amendment proposes that the commissioner be involved in evaluating the minister's report. Without this amendment, the minister will continue to do his own evaluation. In our view, the commissioner must therefore be involved twice, once to evaluate the plan and once to evaluate the report. The two are not the same.

In this matter, I am going to once more turn to the experts who came to testify before the committee as part of a study proposed by Ms. Collins. That study was about the possibility of making the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development a true independent officer, in the same way as the Office of the Auditor General, for example.

During that study, Corinne Le Quéré, the chair of France's High Council on Climate and a member of the Committee on Climate Change in the United Kingdom, clearly indicated that it would be desirable to have an independent commissioner. But she repeated that, in terms of Bill C‑12, the commissioner could well play a more important role. She came to testify to that effect on two occasions. Most recently, she said this:In the bill, the monitoring of the measures implemented is quite weak. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development is responsible for this monitoring. The commissioner is asked to submit reports fairly infrequently, meaning every five years. There isn't any real reason to wait that long to follow up on the legislation, policies and measures in place so that adjustments can be made quite quickly.

Once again, she added:

… the current design of the legislation makes the advisory group too close to the minister, and the independence isn't quite visible enough. It must be at arm's length. The distance isn't very visible. As a result, the advisory group is too close to the government and too far from the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, who monitors policy. These two positions, the one that looks back and the one that looks forward, should be brought together. In addition, they would need to be supported by a very strong analytical technical team that could analyze the reasons for past shortcomings in order to make projections and support the advisory committee. That way, past reports and future recommendations would play a much stronger role.

That final paragraph speaks to what I previously presented to the committee.

She also said that an essential characteristic of an effective framework is to require the government to disclose in a timely fashion the key information that the public needs to correctly evaluate the effectiveness of the promised new climate measures. In her view, the basis of a parliamentary democracy rests on an informed electorate.

Many in that electorate are parents of children who, in 30 years, will have to take up the burden that we are leaving to them. We must think of them.

I'd like to remind you that it was the NDP, through Ms. Collins, who introduced the motion asking for the commissioner to be more independent.

Finally, I would like to quote a passage from Ms. Collins' speech, on November 4, 2020 on Bill C‑12. In it, she dealt with the role of the commissioner:

The NDP has pushed for an independent climate accountability office and the appointment of a climate accountability officer, who would undertake research and gather information and analysis on the target plan or revised target plan; prepare a report that includes findings and recommendations on the quality and completeness of the scientific, economic and technological evidence and analysis used to establish each target in the target plan; and advise on any other climate change and sustainable development matters.

Let me point out, by the way, that the plan has no targets.

In that passage, we clearly see what the Bloc Québécois members and the witnesses invited to appear for the study have been saying. A considerable part of what they have been saying is found in these two amendments. The one we are currently discussing is amendment BQ‑29.

If we want to be logical in terms of the work the committee did before Bill C‑12, and what the experts and the witnesses came to tell us, I invite the members of the committee to vote in favour of amendment BQ‑29.

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

I appreciate MP Bachrach for weighing in on that. If he had wanted to take a more charitable viewpoint, we would have simply said to include the new term in it. That probably would provide some consistency. Again, the Conservatives believe that when a good idea comes forward and it's worthy of support, we should support it. In this case, because we've raised a number of concerns about this particular government's tendency to reject anyone else's ideas, especially when we're talking about a subject that this advisory panel will be engaging on, which by its very nature may be very divisive, we do need them to consider things like social, economic and technological factors, the best scientific information available and indigenous knowledge.

This is one of the amendments we're going to support and are glad to support, because quite honestly, Bill C-12 would be lesser without having some reference to the social, economic and other factors that are included in this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, I will read it again.

The amendment reads: que le projet de loi C‑12, à l'article 22, soit modifié par substitution, aux lignes 4 et 5, page 9, de ce qui suit:

au ministre un rapport sur ses conseils et ses activités dont le contenu fait état notamment du résultat de ses activités d'engagement.

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

Mr. Chair, I will be supporting the amendment, not just because it comes from the honourable member MP Saini but also because it does, I think, result in a better outcome. Conservatives have said that we do support transparency and accountability. This is one small measure that improves the bill, and we are not so ideological, Mr. Chair, that we will not support an idea that improves upon Bill C-12. We will be supporting this amendment.

Again, there was some charm inherent in Mr. Saini's presentation, and I will applaud him for that.

Extension of Sitting Hours in June

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, as you know, the NDP members have the reputation of being the worker bees of the House of Commons.

It is in that spirit that we proposed, not a few weeks ago and not in April but on March 7, that we start extended evening sittings because we believed it was important to get to legislation that was important for Canadians. On March 7, we wrote to all the House leaders to say that we should start streamlining, because quite frankly the government's approach on the House agenda has been absolutely inept.

We will be supporting the motion to extend the hours, but the real question is why did the Liberals wait so long? Why, on a key bill such as Bill C-12, which is so fundamentally important but was deeply flawed, did the NDP have to drag the Liberals kicking and screaming to improve the bill? Now, with a few days left in the session, the Liberals are scrambling to get it through.

Why did the Liberals wait so long when the NDP proposed this route on March 7?