Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm sorry, but I was having technical issues.
Thank you very much for hearing me today. I would like to say a few words about the governance of climate action in Canada, which has not worked in the past.
I've worked in the United Kingdom and have an international perspective on this question. Bill C-12 needs to guarantee that current climate objectives will be met. As I think you know at this committee, I flagged, when I was here in March, that Canada is the only G7 country whose emissions did not decrease in the decade prior to COVID. The COVID crisis has led to a temporary decrease in emissions, but because these are not structural decreases, as soon as the confinement lifts the emissions will come back up, possibly even above previous levels.
However, on the good side, the experience of the last 15 years shows that many countries have successfully implemented sustained cuts in emissions. I mentioned that I have worked in the U.K. I've also worked in France and other countries in the past. What I have done in preparation for this meeting is compare Bill C-12 with the corresponding laws in place in the U.K., which has the Climate Change Act, and in France, which has the energy-climate act. I have found ways in which Bill C-12 could be considerably strengthened to play a role in 2021 in curbing emissions in Canada.
There are mainly two directions in which Bill C-12 could be strengthened: first, by injecting a sense of urgency and clear signals to the population; and second, by strengthening the independence of the advice received by government.
On the first point, Bill C-12 has little sense of urgency and misses out on the clarity of signals. This is really important for guiding private sector investments. The objectives and pace of governance are too slow to deliver on the 2030 targets in particular, but also on the longer targets. This could be rectified by reporting on progress every year to maintain a clear and up-to-date picture of progress so far, or the lack thereof. You should set a milestone for this decade, for 2025 or 2026. Do not wait for 2030, as this is too far for sending a signal. You should determine milestones at least 10 years in advance. Both France and the U.K. determine their milestones 12 years in advance, and the private sector knows long ahead of time what the direction of travel is. Finally, you should base milestone levels on the advice of the net-zero advisory group.
On the second point, expert, independent, evidence-based advice is critical for making this bill work. Critical evidence-based advice takes into account not only the global constraints, as the net-zero target for 2050 does, but also national circumstances. What is the starting point? Canada is a federation and this comes with a set of constraints. There is a very specific fuel mix in Canada, which is different from that of the United States, the U.K. and many other countries. This can and will be an ally for the implementation of action by the government and Parliament. This point could also be considerably strengthened in Bill C-12, in particular by mandating that membership of the net-zero advisory body be based on expertise, not representation—you want these people there for their insights—and by providing sufficient and protected resources for operations to both the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, who makes the assessment of what has happened up to now, and the advisory body, which will make a recommendation for a policy going forward.
I want to end by saying that Canada has made a great step forward with this new climate target for 2030 and the net-zero objective for 2050, but it has a poor track record internationally in delivering on climate change. It is very visible, and it damages Canada. Bill C-12 and its implementation of climate action are very timely to rectify this course.
Thank you very much.