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

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, tomorrow is World Environment Day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank MP Saks.

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, again, we've sincerely listened to the testimony and consulted with various stakeholders and individuals on our own time outside the committee process. One area that I do think could be greatly improved.... This will be a discussion at COP26 in Glasgow as there is more discussion about non-anthropogenic sequestration, as well as emissions, etc. This is something that I'm sure many members may, from their own experience in their constituencies.... This has come up to me in my capacity as the shadow minister of the environment and climate change, where constituents have called MPs and asked for some particular information, for example, Canada's sequestration through natural means. There are duelling reports between the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Natural Resources. They don't line up. The information and the years that are collected are not presented in the same formats. It makes it incredibly difficult for people to have an assessment.

Let's get to the rationale for it here. It's that Canada has a unique geography. As the second-largest land mass, we have, from coast to coast to coast, incredible natural habitat that we believe needs to be conserved. I know that the previous Harper government made large commitments and did a lot on conservation. I've heard many stakeholders say that was good work, and I've seen this government make commitments. That work is still in progress, according to the minister. But again, we don't see it reported like they do in the United States every year, an actual report that underlines in one report what the....

Again, this is what, essentially, my amendment would do. It proposes that Bill C-12, in clause 14, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 6 the following:

(a.1) a summary of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions released into or removed from the atmosphere because of non-anthropogenic factors;

This would tell us if Canada is doing better in protecting, in showing that trusteeship of these wonderful lands, whether they be grasslands in the Prairies, whether they be wetlands in various provinces or whether they be the tundra. There are many, many things that the government does right now, but it does not report in a single report those emissions and those sequestrations so that the average Canadian can pull that out or call their member of Parliament and their member of Parliament can go right to that report and give it to them.

As I've said, this is something that is going to become more and more under the attention of the upcoming Glasgow COP26, as they start to discuss. This is more about giving the information so that Canadians can know, in a simple form, where the pluses and the minuses are, whether or not those assets that are largely, I believe, both provincial and federal Crown lands, those forests, tundra, grasslands and wetlands are being preserved, and what the status of it is. I do think that this is an important step, because the science is out there. It is being done. It could be compiled in an easy-to-access way. This is something that, internationally, is going to receive more and more focus. We should be anticipating that so we can actually come to the table and actually be able to talk with up-to-date information.

I believe that this is an area that the average Canadian citizen would do well from. This is something that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Environment and probably even the Prime Minister would need to be briefed on. We would be able to make better policy decisions, I believe, by the collection and the reporting in a common structure.

I would just ask all honourable members to look at this. It is a very balanced amendment. It talks about a basic reporting structure for, again, emissions released into or removed from the atmosphere. This would give the opportunity for conservationists, as well as the layperson, to get that information in a timely way. It's something that I believe government already has, and it could do a lot more by simply presenting it in a common format.

I will leave that there. Hopefully, it will get some support. I do know that every party has made conservation commitments. This is more about having those numbers at our fingertips so that we can better communicate to our constituents about this.

Thank you.

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

Will it be as meaningful, though, as other progress reports, as laid out in Bill C-12, if you don't have the data that Mr. Moffet referred to?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the preamble.

The numbers of my amendments don't flow from this one. I will be quiet for some time after this one before getting back to the matter of an advisory panel.

Before we proceed to the ritual slaughter of my amendments, I'll just recap.

So far, attempts to do the things that most witnesses asked us to do.... We had the Climate Action Network, a coalition that includes most of the environmental law groups in Canada. Advice came in a written brief from the Tsleil-Waututh first nation because, of course, we didn't have time for them to testify in person. We've lost the chance for a 2025 milestone year or to put the target from the Paris Agreement of 1.5 into the purpose of the act or base the bill on science or to operate using carbon budgets.

This is an opportunity to bring Bill C-12 into line with most of the climate accountability acts around the world in one respect. All those things that I just mentioned are what you typically find in other climate accountability legislation around the world.

The one witness we did have time to hear from on this point was Professor Corinne Le Quéré from the University of East Anglia Law School. When I asked her about it, she pointed out that certainly all the laws she knew of incorporated those elements that I just described, which we already voted down. They do tend to have this element in common: that the advice that comes to government in setting their plans and targets comes from experts. It's heavily experts of climate science and expertise as well, for instance, in renewable energy and other technologies.

I'll give a quick recap because Professor Corinne Le Quéré's expertise was primarily with the French climate accountability legislation. I'll just let members know because we didn't hear about other laws. I think it's a large deficiency in developing a knowledge base for reviewing this bill.

Certainly, in Pakistan, which has climate accountability legislation, and in Denmark, the advisory bodies are specifically experts and are defined in the act. New Zealand includes something called a Climate Change Commission, which is independent and gives expert advice. Costa Rica calls theirs the Scientific Council on Climate Change. The U.K. calls it, of course, the Climate Change Committee. It is highly respected. South Korea calls theirs the Committee on Green Growth and it is independent and housed within the prime minister's office and not in any one ministry.

In this, by describing it as an expert advisory body, the chair is quite right. Subsequent amendments I will put forward describe how this expert advisory committee would work and how it would be composed.

I'll just take a moment to say we will come to NDP-4, which basically modifies the word “advice” with the word “independent”. I think that attempts to create the false impression that by the time the Liberals and NDP vote for NDP-4, we will have created an independent commission that's aligned with the way other countries around the world have devised and designed their climate accountability legislation. We will not have done so, because the committee will still be made up of political appointees. It's only their advice that will be described as independent, whereas the committee structure will not be.

Again, to have anything like the rigour of other countries' legislation, we should have made other amendments before this moment. Certainly, the advisory committee to provide independent advice needs to be an independent advisory committee made up of experts, as opposed to the model we have here in a multi-stakeholder group.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I have a really quick question. This amendment will say, “That Bill C-12, in clause 13, be amended (b) by replacing”....

Is there going to be a (b) in there, and is that a problem? Is that okay, or should the first item in there be (a)? Does that matter? Maybe the clerk could advise me on that.

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

Yes.

Quickly, again, I did say a mouthful in the last intervention on the amendment, but just to be abundantly clear, we don't believe the approach taken in Bill C-12 balances adequately—

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

Yes, I would like to put it forward, Mr. Chair, and give some explanation.

As I spoke of in previous amendments, the designated minister in this case is the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Obviously, Bill C-12 does allow some flexibility where the Governor in Council can designate someone else.

It regards clause 12, where it says “Other ministers”:

When establishing or amending an emissions reduction plan, the Minister must do so in consultation with the other federal ministers having duties and functions relating to the measures that may be taken to achieve that target.

In this one, there is a little bit more balance because, as we know, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change certainly does have influence in the cabinet, but not sole responsibility. As I've said before, one of the criticisms I often hear from constituents is that our government operates in silos, where sometimes one department, such as Natural Resources, may not be aware of what's happening in the others.

For example, just the other day, in one of the other committees, the Minister of Natural Resources was asked about whether or not he was aware of the lawsuit against the government in regard to its plastics policy. The minister was not aware of that.

To make sure there's better collaboration, while the clause itself does talk about speaking with other ministers, it is rather vague in regard to which other ministers. It does seem, because of the vagueness, that the minister gets to decide who is consulted, how in-depth, and whether or not that leads to a more positive outcome.

That's why CPC-11 requests that Bill C-12, in clause 12, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 5 with the following:

When advising the Governor in Council on the establishment or amendment of an emissions reduc-

Again, I think this would create a much better approach, where it is still the minister who does the consultations, but he or she, in a future iteration, whether it be this government or another, would then be bringing that to the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council can then discuss and make sure those silos are being broken down.

I don't believe that by simply writing words down we're going to see absolutely all the silos in government break down. Life is too large and too complex. I think government strives to deal with all of that, but that isn't always the case. I think, wherever possible, common sense and a willingness to acknowledge things as they are would, with this particular amendment, lead to a better outcome because the Governor in Council would be able to hear those consultations. They would be able to question and educate themselves, ask questions of the responsible minister, and we would see, at the end of the day, a far better understanding of what is being proposed when it comes to achieving the target.

Let's be mindful that the Government of Canada is a very large organization. Obviously, we want to make sure that an all-hands-on-deck approach is taken by the Government of Canada. The best way to do that is to have a thorough discussion and not end up in a situation where key ministers may not be consulted, may be unaware of particular actions taken by the government, or, as in the example I gave earlier of Minister O'Regan, be taken unawares about an action taken against the government.

I hope this would be a common sense proposal that all members would be able to think of. Yes, I am looking at Mr. Bittle, hoping that this time I can sway him to this side. It looks like he is giving it consideration.

Mr. Chair, I will release the floor and hopefully, by that point, Mr. Bittle will have had time to think about the approach and perhaps support it.

I'd ask all honourable members to consider supporting this particular amendment, which is CPC-11.

Thank you.