Thank you very much.
I'll continue where my colleague unfortunately left off.
This time, we hope we don't miss our rendezvous with history. Some changes will have to be made to ensure that's not the case.
The purpose of our presentation is precisely to propose improvements to Bill C-12 to guarantee that better mechanisms are put in place to achieve our targets.
We have submitted a brief together with our colleagues from Ecojustice, West Coast Environmental Law and Climate Action Network Canada. We invite you to consult it for more details.
As you heard on Monday, we have established that five pillars are needed to firm up Bill C-12. First, we must act quickly and have ambition. Second, we need medium- and long-term predictability. Third, we must draft credible plans and reports. Fourth, we need robust accountability mechanisms, and, fifth, planning must be guided by the advice of experts and the best available scientific data.
We wish to draw your attention to the last two pillars.
The fourth pillar is very important because of our unfortunate tendency to fall short of our targets. The accountability mechanisms provided for under Bill C-12 as drafted are weak, even nonexistent. For example, the bill establishes no obligation to align the measures proposed in the plans with the necessary reductions to achieve the targets. Consequently, we believe that, to solve this part of the problem, the government must focus mainly on absolute GHG emissions reductions, not on carbon credits or future technologies.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't conduct research and development, but rather that we should base our decisions on what currently exists, not on what we would like to see in an ideal world.
In our brief, we ask that Bill C-12 ensure that 90% of efforts to achieve carbon neutrality focus on absolute reductions and that there be a demonstrable alignment between established targets and measures proposed in the climate plans.
The fifth pillar is equally important. Canadians must be confident that decisions are based on the best available scientific data, not on political compromises.
Science helps remove politics from decisions, which can at times be emotional and polarizing. The result is better governance. For example, the United Kingdom's climate change committee, which was established under its climate legislation, is wholly independent and bases its decisions on the most recent scientific evidence. It works. The committee's opinions are respected by all parties, despite changes in government, and the United Kingdom is in a better position than Canada to achieve its GHG emissions reduction targets.
More specifically, it is essential that the targets and plans provided for under Bill C-12 be based on the best available scientific information. Clause 8 of the bill currently provides that the minister must merely take into account the best scientific information available in setting targets.
Relying on science also means that the advice provided by the advisory body must be based on the best available scientific data concerning credible paths to achieving carbon neutrality and meeting Canada's commitments under the Paris Agreement.
Yesterday the International Energy Agency announced that no new fossil energy projects can be authorized if we want to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. That's the kind of information that is essential to the credible decision-making that must be considered and conveyed by the advisory committee.
In conclusion, Bill C-12 has the potential to become the structural legislative framework necessary to achieve Canada's climate ambitions and targets. To ensure this actually happens, we invite parliamentarians to accept the amendments we have just discussed, which complement those proposed by our colleagues from other environmental organizations that have testified before the committee.
Thank you for your attention.
I will be pleased to answer your questions.