THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, June 7, 2021
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day by videoconference at 11:00 a.m. (ET), to examine the subject matter of Bill C-12, An Act respecting Canada’s efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050 and, in camera, to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Paul J. Massicotte (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, my name is Paul Massicotte. I am a senator from Quebec, and I am chair of the committee.
Today, we are holding a virtual meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
Before we begin, I’d like to remind senators and witnesses to please keep your microphones muted at all times, unless the chair gives you the floor. I would also like to remind senators to use the “raise hand” function when they want to speak. I will do my best to let everyone who wants to ask a question to do so, but for that to happen, I ask you to be brief in your questions and preambles. This applies to senators, but I would also like the guests to be sensitive to the fact that our time is limited.
Should any technical problems arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk so that we can address the issue quickly.
Now, I would like to introduce the committee members participating in today’s meeting: Margaret Dawn Anderson from the Northwest Territories; Douglas Black from Alberta; Claude Carignan from Quebec; Brent Cotter from Saskatchewan; Rosa Galvez from Quebec; Mary Jane McCallum from Manitoba; Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec; Dennis Glen Patterson from Nunavut; Paula Simons from Alberta; David Wells from Newfoundland and Labrador.
I wish to welcome all of you, dear colleagues, and viewers across the country who may be watching.
Today, we are starting our preliminary study of Bill C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada’s efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050.
This morning, we have with us from Environment and Climate Change Canada, John Moffet, assistant deputy minister with the Environmental Protection Branch, and Vincent Ngan, director general, Horizontal Policy, with Engagement and Coordination. From the Department of Finance Canada, we have Samuel Millar, director general, Corporate Finance, Natural Resources and Environment, Economic Development and Corporate Finance.
Welcome, and thank you for accepting our invitation. We’re reading to hear your presentation, Mr. Moffet. The floor is yours.
[English]
John Moffet, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Good morning, everybody. I will briefly provide you with some context for the bill and then give you an overview of it.
To start with, as members know, to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions need to decline rapidly over the next three decades. The Paris Agreement calls for governments around the world to take urgent and ambitious action on climate change to keep global warming well below 2 degrees and to pursue efforts to keep it below 1.5 degrees.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its report entitled Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5 ºC in 2018. That report concluded that global emissions need to decline rapidly and to meet net-zero around mid-century for there to be a reasonable chance of meeting the goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees. Achieving net-zero emission means either emitting no greenhouse gases or offsetting them completely through actions that remove them from the atmosphere.
Many governments around the world, as well as rapidly growing numbers of sub-national governments, cities and businesses have rallied around the goal of net-zero. Norway, United Kingdom, Germany, France, New Zealand and Japan have enshrined this commitment in their legislation. In Canada, Nova Scotia recently enshrined a commitment in law, while B.C. has committed to do so and the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec have committed to achieving net-zero by 2050.
The Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act supports Canada’s net-zero by 2050 goal. Importantly, it is aligned with how Canada already implements the Paris Agreement, including by setting mitigation targets known as nationally determined contributions, implementing measures to achieve those targets, reporting on our emissions through our national inventory reports and reporting on progress every two years via our national communication. Like that progress, the act does not prescribe the specific actions we need to take. Rather, it sets the goal and requires government to set successive, five-year national reduction targets to make plans to achieve those targets, to report on progress and to make adjustments when emissions are not on track.
In April, during the Leaders Summit on Climate organized by President Biden, the Prime Minister announced that Canada will enhance our emission reduction target to 45% reduction of emissions below 2005 levels by 2030. Minister Wilkinson has committed that Canada will formally submit our new Nitrate Vulnerable Zones target, or NVZ, to the United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change, or UNFCCC, in the coming months.
As members know, the act is still in the House. I will give you a brief overview of the status of the act, and the way it works.
The goal of the act, of course, is to achieve net-zero emissions. The act also mandates the minister to establish additional national emission-reduction targets at five-year intervals. These targets do not impose obligations on provinces, territories or individuals. As a result of motions adopted by the House committee, each target must represent a progression beyond the previous one. The target can be amended, but only to make it more stringent. National targets must be based on the best available science and on our international commitments.
Further to amendments by the House committee, the minister must also take into account Indigenous knowledge and submissions from the Net-Zero Advisory Body.
Another amendment from the committee will require that the 2030 target be Canada’s NDC for that year — our Nationally Determined Contribution — which will be submitted in the coming months. The House committee also stipulated that an interim objective must be set for the year 2026 in the 2030 plan.
As a result of another amendment from the House committee, targets must be set at least 10 years before the beginning of the corresponding milestone year. So the target for 2035 must be set by the end of 2024.
Another amendment adopted by the committee states that within one year of each target, the minister must publish a high-level description of the key measures the government intends to take to achieve that target. Then, of course, for each plan, the act requires the minister to prepare and table in Parliament an emission-reduction plan. Each plan must include the target, the measures the government will take, relevant sectoral strategies and emission-reduction strategies for federal government operations.
As a result of an amendment from the House committee, the reduction plans must also include additional information, such as our most recent official GHG emissions inventory — where we are at that point in time, a description of how our international climate commitments have been taken into account in the plan, a projected timetable for implementing each measure and strategy, and the projections of the resulting annual emission reductions.
Another amendment requires that the minister, when establishing the plan, must take into account the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, submissions by the Net-Zero Advisory Body and any other relevant considerations.
The minister must consult when developing plans and must publish a report on the results of those consultations. To reflect the fact that achieving net-zero emissions is an economic imperative and opportunity, the act requires the minister to collaborate with other federal ministers to implement the act. So this is not simply an obligation of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
The act also provides for a detailed accountability regime. It requires the minister to prepare and table a progress report midway through each five-year cycle and an assessment report at the end of each five-year cycle. As a result of an amendment by the House committee, three progress reports will be prepared before 2030 — one no later than the end of 2023, another in 2025, and another in 2027 — and each must include an update on the progress towards the interim 2026 objective.
The act also establishes a Net-Zero Advisory Body to provide independent advice to the minister on pathways to achieve net-zero emissions.
The act requires the Minister of Finance, in cooperation with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, to publish an annual report describing the key measures being taken across the federal government to consider and manage its financial risks and opportunities related to climate change.
Finally, the act requires the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to examine and report on the government’s implementation of mitigation measures at least once every five years. Further to another amendment adopted by the House committee, the commissioner would be required to submit its first report no later than the end of 2024.
In sum, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act will ensure there is a clear process for setting targets, planning, reporting on progress, and course correction. This will hold the federal government accountable as Canada charts its path to net-zero emissions by 2050.
[Translation]
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Moffet.
Mr. Ngan or Mr. Millar, do you have anything to add?
[English]
Vincent Ngan, Director General, Horizontal Policy, Engagement and Coordination, Environment and Climate Change Canada: No, not at this point. Thank you.
Samuel Millar, Director General, Corporate Finance, Natural Resources and Environment, Economic Development and Corporate Finance, Department of Finance Canada: No, nothing to add. Thank you.
The Chair: Let’s proceed to questions, starting with Senator Black.
Senator D. Black: Thank you very much, witnesses, for being here. Thank you for the tremendous amount of work and commitment you’ve put into this file.
Let me start by indicating very clearly that I support this important aspirational legislation. But it is important to me, and I believe to Canadians, that we need to achieve these goals. We need to clearly understand what is going to be required of governments, Canadians and Canadian commerce to achieve the goals.
My first question, if I may, is this: I have observed since 2015, when this government was elected, that it has been an article of faith in this government that the economy and the environment must go hand in hand. We’ve heard that many times.
However, this legislation does not reflect this policy view. There are no economic parameters, such as addressing competitiveness, job creation, export advantages or economic certainty for investment.
My question is simple: Why was an economic lens not built into this legislation? Are you open to this happening through amendments by mandating economic performance targets alongside net-zero targets?
Mr. Moffet: I can partially respond to the question. As a public servant, I cannot give you the government’s position on its openness to amendments. Minister Wilkinson will be appearing before this committee later this week and I suggest that some of your question would be appropriate for Minister Wilkinson to address.
To explain the structure of the act a little bit in the context of your question: The act requires setting of targets and then the development and reporting on plans. The targets themselves must be science-driven. The act is premised in the virtual global consensus science that action needs to be taken immediately to reduce global emissions and that, in addition, we need to drive down emissions to net-zero globally by 2050. The targets themselves will be science-based and not economic-based.
The plan, however, will be based on broad consultations and must be developed and tabled by the Minister of Environment in consultation with other federal ministers, thereby reflecting the important contribution of economic ministers and the overall economic development implications and opportunities associated with the pathway that Canada chooses to reduce its emissions and achieve net-zero.
I hope that partially explains the way that the act attempts to address some of your important considerations.
Senator D. Black: Thank you. I very much appreciate that, and it does. Unfortunately, it doesn’t move us from the 60,000-foot level to ground. In my experience, government consulting with governments, and government departments consulting with government departments, will never get us to a position where we will be able to make the economic investments — which will be in the trillions of dollars, evidence will show — in order to achieve these goals that we want to achieve.
I would suggest to you that we have produced a car here with three wheels. We will never be able to achieve the goals that we all want to achieve unless and until stakeholders who are directly affected, whether it’s First Nations people, the energy sector, the cement sector — until we have those experts directly contributing to the process, in my opinion, we are doomed to fail.
The Chair: Do the other witnesses want to add something to that comment?
Mr. Moffet: It might be appropriate to ask Mr. Ngan to describe the composition of the expert advisory body, which is one of the mechanisms in the act of ensuring that the range of considerations that Senator Black is emphasizing can be brought to bear in the process established by the statute.
Mr. Ngan: Absolutely. I would like to touch upon two aspects. One, it is about clause 13 of the proposed bill that talks about the public participation that is anticipated for developing the emission reduction plans as well as the targets.
Second, as senators, you are aware, there is also a provision under the bill that would establish an advisory body that would be taking the lead on two things: engaging Canadians as well as developing the pathways and providing advice to the government.
In terms of public participation, like the senator indicated, the minister would consult, as well as release what he or she has heard in terms of input from governments of provinces and territories, Indigenous peoples of Canada, advice from the advisory body following consultation, and any experts and interested parties that the minister deems appropriate to consult. These opportunities could be virtual or in person, and may be pursued through existing structures of fora as appropriate, particularly when engaging Indigenous partners. For the advisory body, it will bring in a wide range of expertise, representing different interests and scientific experts, and taking into account factors such as energy production and demand, as well as technologies.
It is a very robust mechanism established under the act that will allow input from both experts, Canadians, provinces, territories and Indigenous partners to provide input to the establishment of the targets as well as the emissions reduction plan.
Senator D. Black: That was a tremendous answer. Thank you for that. I completely understand where you are going with that, and I appreciate that.
I assume that you assume that the ministerial panel of 15 will have the expertise or, using clause 13, can obtain the expertise that is needed to develop these vastly complicated sectoral plans. Do you think that this legislation is robust enough to achieve that goal?
Mr. Ngan: It is our view that both the combination of clause 13 and clause 20 would allow the minister to engage, as well as the advisory body to be composed of experts from different views and taking in a wide range of factors, in order to discharge their duty to consult.
Senator D. Black: I appreciate that response. Thank you very much.
Senator Galvez: Thank you to our witnesses for their presence today. I will ask two questions, but I would appreciate, chair, if we know how many minutes we have per round so we can organize better and everyone has a chance to ask their questions.
The Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act will require the Government of Canada to set national targets every five years, together with a plan to achieve the targets. This is one approach. Another approach could be to set up carbon budgets in order to get to these goals.
You will please tell us what is the advantage and disadvantage of each approach and why the targets seem to be more appropriate to us?
Once the targets are fixed, it is my understanding and belief that every province will have the liberty and freedom to propose the technologies that, for them, are more competitive, convenient and economical to attain the goals.
The Chair: Senator, who is your question addressed to?
Senator Galvez: The first question to Mr. Moffet and the second question to Mr. Millar from Finance Canada.
Mr. Moffet: Thank you, senator. In our view, there is not a significant difference between the approach in the act of regularly updated targets with detailed emission reduction plans that include projected emission reductions throughout the period to which the target applies versus a budget.
A budget can be interpreted in a number of different ways. In some of the other countries that have adopted similar legislation, they have used the term “budget” to refer to the total emissions that would be emitted by the country in a period. The emissions from year one, year two, year three, year four, year five are added up and there’s your budget. What that does is it provides some clarity to the international community about the total contribution that the country will make to emissions and to the atmosphere over that period of time.
As I said, we don’t see a big difference between that and an obligation to develop a multi-year plan that includes measures and projected results of those measures on an annual basis, which would then enable decision makers, Canadians and the international community to know what Canada is planning to do and planning to emit, and how our emissions will be reduced on an annual basis over time.
The final point I would make is that the target plus plan plus reporting is basically the regime that is already in place under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. What we’re trying to do is develop a specific set of obligations in Canada that mirror our existing international obligations.
The Chair: Mr. Millar?
Mr. Moffet: I am happy to hear from my colleague from Finance, but I think the basic question was more one about how the plan would accommodate different provincial and individual business decisions. I have just a couple of points, and then my colleagues, Mr. Ngan and Mr. Miller, might want to elaborate.
First, as federal legislation, this legislation cannot impose obligations on provinces. What it will do is describe the specific federal measures that will be taken, and it will also provide an opportunity for those plans to include any measures that provinces have identified. It will not oblige them to do anything, but the minister will be able to report on what provinces are doing.
The approach that Canada has taken to date is, as you know, a mix of economic instruments, specific prescriptive regulations and then various tax incentives and program measures to encourage actions. The idea has never been to prescribe a specific technical pathway. It is the government’s view that we need to encourage innovation and be clear about pathways to avoid, but less so about picking specific pathways to follow.
The Chair: Mr. Millar, Mr. Ngan, do you want to add something to that?
Mr. Ngan: I don’t have any additional points to add, thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Millar?
Mr. Millar: No additional opponents to add, chair.
The Chair: Senator Galvez, any follow-up questions?
Senator Galvez: Second round.
Senator McCallum: Thank you to the presenters and the witnesses for coming to inform us on this bill. Clause 8 of Bill C-12 requires the minister to take into account the best scientific information. How do you define the best scientific information and how will the Indigenous knowledge of First Nations, Métis, and Inuit be taken into account, especially considering they have been very concerned about climate before I think any other group in Canada and had started to raise their voice? They’ve had a lot of experience with getting the impacts of climate in many of the areas in Canada.
The Chair: Mr. Moffet, I think that it is addressed to you.
Mr. Moffet: Thank you, senator. That’s a very important point that you’re raising. I would point to an amendment that the House committee passed that amended clause 8 to require that the minister account for, in addition to the best scientific information, Indigenous knowledge. The bill now explicitly requires that knowledge base to be taken into account.
The final point I’d make is that neither of the terms “best scientific information” nor “Indigenous knowledge” are defined in the act, so that will be something that will be left to interpretation by the minister and then will be disclosed through the target, the plan, and the ongoing accountability regime that is established under the act.
Senator McCallum: I will go second round, thank you.
Senator Simons: I have some questions about the makeup of the advisory board and on the advisory board’s responsibilities.
I note, thanks to our excellent briefing materials, that in countries such as New Zealand and Germany, the advisory board makeup and role is significantly more enumerated in terms of being more specific about who is on the board and what their qualifications are. I also know that the advisory board is to prepare an annual report, but the report will not necessarily be made public. Is there room to have the makeup of the board a bit more clearly delineated? Why is it that the advisory board’s report will not be made public?
Mr. Ngan: I am happy to give this answer. Senator, you have raised a very good point. Currently, the initial members will bring a range of expertise in science, business, labour, policy-making, rural economic development and Indigenous governance to the advisory body. That being said, there is recognition that the bill should be more specific about the composition as well as the knowledge and factors that should be considered.
As a result, the House Committee is considering an amendment that would help provide a greater specification in terms of expertise and knowledge that needs to be taken into account, including climate change science, such as environmental, ecological, social, economic and distributional effects of climate change, Indigenous knowledge, relevant physical and social sciences such as economic analysis and forecasting, climate change and climate policy at the national, subnational and international levels, including the likely effects and efficacy of potential responses to climate change, energy supply and demand and relevant technologies.
If you compare that to similar legislation in the world, such as the United Kingdom, you can see very strong similarities and comparability between the two legislations when it comes to considering the knowledge and expertise that should be included and synthesized into the advice to the government.
Senator Simons: You’re expecting that amendment to come to the House side?
Mr. Ngan: Yes, that is currently proceeding as part of the clause-by-clause revision.
Senator Simons: About the publication of the report?
Mr. Ngan: That is also correct that a more specific clarification, that the report will be made public has also been part of the amendment going forward through the House.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have a question that follows up on my colleague Senator Simons’s question. Could you clarify whether the minister must take into account the advice of the advisory body? I don’t see it in the bill. It’s one thing to have an advisory board, but is there an obligation to take it into account?
I’m also wondering if the government is open to amendments so that there can be a burden-sharing agreement between Canada’s provinces and territories, which is a way to engage the provinces.
I understand what you said at the beginning, that each province is free to have its own plan, but how do we, in a federal state like ours, get the provinces on board?
[English]
Mr. Moffet: I think that the specific question about the expert advisory body is an important one, but I would note that the bill does require that, pursuant to an amendment made by the House Committee, when the minister sets targets, the minister must account for the input of the Net-Zero Advisory Body. I think that was specifically what Senator Miville-Dechêne was asking.
In terms of how do we ensure that the provinces are engaged? This is an issue that the federal government has, of course, wrestled with for many years. The act attempts to respect the jurisdiction of the provinces by focusing on actions that the federal government can take, while enabling the minister to report on actions that the provinces and territories take.
It does not, however, oblige the provinces to do anything, including to collaborate with the federal government. I think the underlying premise is that the ongoing process of setting targets and plans and reporting on them will make the issue of action on climate change a permanent concern on the part of all Canadians, and thereby create pressure and influence and expectations that would apply to all governments in Canada to participate in this important initiative.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I admire your optimism, and I hope that there will, indeed, be collaboration. I’ll leave it to the others because there isn’t much time left. Thank you for your answer.
[English]
Senator Patterson: What consultation took place in the development of this bill? I know there is a clause relating to the opportunity to have input into developing the action plan. Was there consultation with provinces and Indigenous organizations leading up to the development of this legislation?
Mr. Moffet: We did not undertake formal, structured consultations related to the bill. However, the government did make the development of such a bill a core part of its commitments during the election. It further publicly committed in the minister’s initial mandate letter and then again in the Fall Economic Update and the Speech from the Throne last fall.
We have received continuous input from a wide range of parties, provinces, territories, Indigenous communities, environmental NGOs, industry, et cetera.
Senator Patterson: Further on that, the preamble talks about a recognition-of-rights approach and refers to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Would you comment on how you get input recognizing rights, particularly from Indigenous peoples? We’ve just been reviewing the UNDRIP bill, Bill C-15, in committee, and we heard that national Indigenous organizations do not speak for and do not represent rights holders. We heard that clearly.
Would you acknowledge that, in the spirit of the preamble, consultation and collaboration with Indigenous peoples means reaching down to the grassroots, such as the 11 treaty rights holders in Canada and even chiefs and band councils, rather than dealing with national Indigenous organizations that do advocacy but do not represent right holders, according to many?
Mr. Ngan: I would like to answer that question. I fully agree with you that in order to take into account input from Indigenous partners as well as their Indigenous knowledge, we have to speak to the rights holders and the knowledge keepers.
Since 2016, the Prime Minister and the three national Indigenous leaders actually have established three bilateral tables on a distinction basis, not only just at the national level but with representatives from each region and the members are part of the three bilateral tables.
So there are existing mechanisms on a multilateral and bilateral basis that the government as well as the advisory body can reach out to the rights holders on a more local level beyond the national Indigenous leaders in order to seek input from First Nations, Métis people and Inuit.
That being said, you are quite right. The national Indigenous organizations are also the first to recognize that they do not speak on behalf of rights holders and knowledge keepers. But through the national Indigenous organizations, we have a better sense in terms of where we can reach out and also get the input necessary to obtain a very robust wealth of Indigenous and input from our Indigenous partners.
I hope that satisfies your questions.
Senator Cotter: Thank you to the witnesses for their presentations and generous responses to the questions. I had three questions, although Senator Simons asked one in relation to the advisory committee, so I will skip past that and wait to see what happens in the other place.
I think it’s fair to say that the net-zero initiative, which I fully support, brings opportunities with it but also challenges. Indeed, some of the preamble describes this as a problem to be solved, and that suggests that some of those problems and solutions will be visited upon some people and perhaps not others.
One aspect of this bill doesn’t seem to suggest at all the way it might be necessary or appropriate to try to achieve an equitable treatment of people in Canada on this front, and I’m interested in the degree to which the overall approach recognizes the equitable delivery of the whole initiative.
My second question builds upon Senator Miville-Dechêne’s question about federal-provincial relationships. One of the “whereas” clauses provides that climate change is a global problem that requires immediate action by all governments in Canada. So although it can’t dictate to the provinces or territories, it’s pretty clear that the statement is a comprehensive one. I think that’s legitimate.
It’s also the case that vast amounts of the Canadian economy fall within provincial jurisdiction. Ninety-four percent of employees in Canada are subjected to provincial, not federal, regulation and oversight, and if there is not some mechanism by which the Government of Canada makes a genuine commitment to engage with provinces so that all of the governments in Canada are pulling in the same direction rather than working at cross-purposes from themselves, we’ll find ourselves in great jeopardy, including the failure to reach these targets.
Could you comment on those two perspectives? Maybe Mr. Moffet first.
Mr. Moffet: Senator, my comment would be brief. As officials working in the federal administration on environmental issues, we would all acknowledge the point that you made about the importance of strong federal-provincial relations and the importance of engaging all levels of government in Canada in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in ways that minimize short- and long-term adverse economic outcomes and that stimulate positive economic benefits.
The particular stance of the government of the day with respect to its relationship with its provincial and territorial counterparts is primarily one of a political decision and not one that we can comment on. It’s not one, in my opinion, anyway, that can be dictated or circumscribed by a particular statute.
Mr. Ngan: To add to Mr. Moffet’s response, as you know, the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change that was adopted in 2016 was the product of a federal-provincial-territorial collaboration. Since then, there have been many ongoing discussions in collaboration with our provincial and territorial partners, whether on a bilateral or multilateral basis.
On the multilateral basis, there is currently the coordinating body called the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, which has, at the ministerial, deputy ministerial, assistant deputy ministerial and at my level, intergovernmental communities to talk about the environment but also with a focus on climate change. So there are existing mechanisms that can help Canada to continue to work with provinces and territories in collaborating on climate action, but also reporting on progress collectively.
Senator Cotter: Mr. Ngan, my follow-up question is whether in the CCME mandate and agenda, the specific issue of the net-zero plan is part of their ongoing dialogue.
Mr. Ngan: Absolutely. Actually, at the latest discussion this year, the direction is to have the climate change working group to establish a work plan on net-zero, so that there is collective discussion and collaboration among provinces, territories and the Government of Canada in order to look into net-zero. This is actually fresh off the press.
Senator Cotter: I have one other related question that Senator Black might ask if I don’t. Is this also a subject matter among tables of ministers connected to the economy as well as the environment?
Mr. Ngan: There are currently nine ministerial tables, including climate, and there are others such as energy, infrastructure, transport, forestry, agriculture, innovation, emergency management and finance. Many of those sectors are key to contributing to the pathway to net-zero. So this is definitely a direction that all these intergovernmental mechanisms have top of mind when it comes to achieving a longer-term greenhouse gas emission ambition.
The Chair: I wish to ask a question of Mr. Moffet. I make the observation that for the last 30 years our government has committed and publicly stated their climate change goals and how important it was, and that speech is very serious. This is questioning our livelihood and the quality of our livelihood, but in spite of that they have always failed to achieve it. In spite of its importance we made progress but not much in Canada, when you compare our result to the U.K. which is down 35%, we’re basically near the same point we were a couple of decades ago.
I suspect this is only going to succeed if the penalty for not achieving is significant. It must be more than simply a report saying we’ve failed, sorry, we’ll try again. Why would we have confidence in this plan when many have failed and our structure is not as threatening as the U.K. structure? There is a significant opportunity for an out in our structure. Why would we have confidence in this plan, Mr. Moffet?
Mr. Moffet: That is an excellent question, senator. There are a number of elements in the bill that point to the path forward. Essentially, the bill establishes a systematic process, where we don’t just set targets but governments are obliged to provide a detailed plan and then report on progress and then report on whether the plan has achieved the target or not.
In and of itself, a law cannot guarantee that the plan will be achieved. There is no way for a federal law to 100% guarantee that all Canadians reduce their emissions and a particular target is achieved on a national basis. This creates an ongoing, fully transparent process, so we avoid this situation of establishing a target and then not being clear about how we will achieve the target and the date for the target passes and we may or may not have achieved the particular expectation.
That is why the bill is called the “accountability act” and it is the premise of the bill that the public accountability is the best way to ensure we commit and recommit on an ongoing basis to this important objective.
I would make a final point, senator. There is not really any national legislation that has the legal effect of requiring a country to achieve a target. It’s simply not possible for legislation to do that.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator D. Black: Again, witnesses, thank you for your frankness here.
I want to pick up on a tone established initially by Senator Miville-Dechêne, followed by Senator Cotter, and brought to a sharp head by our chairman, Senator Massicotte. We want to get there, but today we’re raising some real concerns about how to get there. So let’s drill down on this issue of provincial coordination.
Now, we’re not just talking about cooperation and coordination for its own sake. Without cooperation from the provinces there will be absolutely no certainty in the marketplace and therefore no investment in the marketplace and these goals will not be able to be achieved. That’s why my colleagues are urging upon you the need to consult.
I would observe as a final thought, I noted with interest, Mr. Moffet, you indicated there have been no consultations on this legislation leading into it. Apparently there have been some discussions, some outreach, but to Senator Patterson’s question there have been no consultations. My concerns coming into this meeting are actually elevated after your information today, simply because I don’t know how we’re going to get there from here without listening carefully to what we’re suggesting. If you want to comment, great; if you don’t, that will be fine too.
Mr. Moffet: The main emphasis all senators are making is that moving forward it will be critical for the federal government to consult with and seek to ensure significant GHG reductions, to the extent there is political willingness to rally provincial action in support.
The bill requires consultations on target setting and developing plans. It is through that ongoing process of setting targets, preparing plans and the consultation in the development of those two elements that we envisage there will be an opportunity, indeed a mandate, for the federal government to engage with its provincial and territorial counterparts.
Senator Galvez: I will ask an identical question because in hearing what is being discussed it’s important to know and to understand how progress is going to be measured.
I know there are some amendments in that direction. Could you please explain how progress will be measured?
Mr. Ngan: In addition to prescribing the rules, responsibilities and the legally binding process for the government to develop plans and also implement measures to work towards net-zero emissions by 2050, the accountability regime includes a progress report and assessment reports. There is a cyclical practice and rigour when it comes to reporting on to the extent to which the government, in collaboration with other parties like the provinces, territories, Indigenous partners and industry stakeholders, have met the target.
Through amendments to the proposed bill, there will be two to three progress reports released before 2030. The progress report will focus on the extent to which we are on track to meeting the relevant greenhouse gas target and also provide an update on the implementation of the key federal emission reduction measures, and any relevant sectoral strategies and emission reductions and strategies for the federal government in terms of greening its operation and any other information, as appropriate. The progress reports released before 2030 will inform Canadians and parliamentarians alike of whether or not we are on track and if course recalibration is required.
In addition, with the information from the National Inventory Report available for the target year, an assessment report will be released cyclically in order to demonstrate the summary of the official greenhouse gas emission inventory for that particular target year and a clear statement on whether Canada has met that particular target. The assessment report will also include an assessment of how the key federal emission reduction measures and any other relevant sectoral emission reduction strategies contributed to that particular target, as well as information on adjustments that could be made to the subsequent emission reduction plans in order to increase the possibility of meeting or exceeding that subsequent national target.
These are regimes in addition to setting the target, as well as putting in place an emission-reduction plan to hold the government accountable when it comes to demonstrating transparency of the extent to which the government and Canada as a whole are on the pathway to achieving net-zero by 2050.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: My question is for whoever wants to answer it. I understand that the targets aren’t included in the bill. Are we to understand that the government wanted to avoid being sued. If that’s the case, why did the government say, according to the notes I had here, that Bill C-12 will create a legally binding process? How is it legally binding if the targets aren’t part of the legislation and aren’t incorporated into it as it goes along? Will this bill be subject to a judicial review, eventually, if Canada’s targets aren’t met?
Mr. Moffet: Those are good questions. Thank you, Senator.
[English]
The 2030 initial target, as a result of an amendment passed in the house committee, will be Canada’s nationally determined contribution. As I mentioned in my introductory remarks, the prime minister indicated that target will be a 40-45% reduction below 2005 levels. We will be codifying that target in our nationally determined contribution in the next couple of months, and we will be submitting that to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. So the bill will refer to that NDC, and that target will then be part of the legislation.
In terms of whether the act itself creates legally binding obligations, yes, it does. It requires primarily the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, but in addition, some of the other obligations are on other ministers, including the Minister of Finance, to do various things, including setting targets, developing plans, issuing progress reports and issuing assessment reports that include course corrections. If a minister at any point in time fails to comply with one of those obligations, yes, there would be recourse to a judicial review.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: But those are about the process. They have to follow a certain process. My more pointed question, I suppose — and I may know the answer — if we do not achieve our targets, if Canada fails to achieve its targets, can a lawsuit be launched against the government?
Mr. Moffet: I don’t think that this bill would enable that action to be taken.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Okay.
Senator McCallum: My question is about the provinces as well. In 2019, the combined emissions from Alberta and Ontario made them the largest emitters. They represented 60%. Will this bill affect some provinces more than others, and how would you resolve this?
Mr. Moffet: Well, senator, the bill will affect some provinces more than others. It will affect some industry sectors more than others. It will affect some Canadians more than others. The imperative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, however, applies throughout the economy and, in order to achieve net-zero, all activities will need to achieve net-zero. The way in which the processes established by the bill will account for those various different impacts and opportunities is, again, through the processes established in the bill that requires consultation with provinces, territories, Indigenous peoples and Canadians in establishing targets and plans and in reporting on results.
Senator Simons: I want to return to the issues raised by my colleagues, Senator Black, Senator Miville-Dechêne and Senator Massicotte. We are told there will be three interim reports between now and 2030. There will be many, many other reports of various descriptions, but where is the moral hazard for failing to meet these targets? You told Senator Miville-Dechêne that there is no right of civil action to hold the government accountable. The government is accountable for producing the reports, but is there any moral hazard beyond public shaming if this doesn’t actually come to pass? This is called a public accountability act. Who is held accountable?
Mr. Moffet: Well, the act creates specific obligations on the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. The minister must discharge those obligations through Parliament and public reporting. If the minister does not, the minister will be subject to judicial review. If the government as a whole fails to address climate change by developing a weak target or not implementing a plan, then Canadians will have recourse against that government.
Senator Simons: The recourse is at the ballot box, fundamentally, is what you are saying?
Mr. Moffet: Yes.
The Chair: A brief comment on Senator Simons’ last point: That same recourse has been applicable for the last 30 years and hasn’t achieved very much, but let’s hope it changes.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question concerns emissions that are not anthropogenic, which are completely ignored in the balance sheet. I understand that we’re not required to talk about them under the treaties, but if we want to get a clear picture, shouldn’t there be a chapter on them in the reports? We could deal with non-anthropogenic emissions from forest fires, for example, to see the impact.
I understand that we don’t have direct control over this, but if we know that they exist, perhaps we could take action on forest fires, for example? If we realize that significant emissions are coming from natural fire, that could lead to investments in wildfire suppression, for example. Has this possibility been considered? Has anyone thought of it? If not, why not?
[English]
Mr. Moffet: The short answer is yes. Any measures that the government takes to change the way in which the natural environment either emits less or increases sequestration would be appropriate elements of a plan, and would be reported on and, indeed, currently are reported on under the UNFCCC.
As a matter of interest to senators, an interesting report was just issued today concerning the possible role that nature-based solutions could play in both reducing emissions and in increasing sequestration. This is an important and growing element of the government’s research focus and development of policies to move us towards net-zero.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: You didn’t answer my question directly.
What I wanted to know is why we don’t add information on the balance sheet or emissions. They can be measured, even though we’re not required to do so under the treaties, so why don’t we at least add a section of information, as it’s a transparency bill, dealing with that part of the emissions that are not anthropogenic?
[English]
Mr. Moffet: Senator, I think there are two reasons. First, the focus of this bill is on what we can do as a government, as businesses, as individuals. So what we can do, falls within the scope of anthropogenic emissions. As soon as we decide to influence something then that activity, or the emissions that result, are captured by the notion of “anthropogenic emissions.” We’re not ignoring the way nature operates. Indeed, by establishing an ambitious target, we are implicitly calling on governments to consider the widest possible range of activities.
A second issue is, with respect to non-anthropogenic emissions — emissions that have nothing to do with human activity — there is limited technical ability globally to determine exactly what those emissions are on any kind of periodic basis.
The Chair: Senator Patterson, I noticed your hand up earlier but you removed it. Did we satisfy your question?
Senator Patterson: Can I have a quick question?
The Chair: Go ahead.
Senator Patterson: I would like to ask this: Some climate accountability laws in other countries, like the U.K., require governments to plan for and report on adaptation to climate change. Bill C-12 only contains provisions about mitigating climate change. Should Bill C-12 be amended to include provisions about adaptation to climate change? Has that been considered and, if so, how could that be done? Thank you.
Mr. Moffet: I think that question, if I might respectfully suggest, is best addressed to the minister. The government made a determination to focus this bill on mitigation. I think the government has announced the development of a national adaptation strategy. We’ve made significant organizational changes within the department to support the development of that strategy and to generate information for Canadians. So the government is taking adaptation seriously. But the policy question of whether or not that issue should be part of the act is fundamentally one that as officials we can’t take a position on.
Senator Patterson: Could you give us the details of the plans to develop a national adaptation strategy, please?
Mr. Moffet: I will turn it over to my colleague Mr. Ngan, but I think the short answer is we can certainly follow up with the committee. There are a lot of details there.
Mr. Ngan: Two things I would like to comment on. Number one, if we compare our regime with the ones under the U.K., you can see that the U.K. has a much broader mandate than just achieving net-zero on mitigation. They have carbon pollution pricing as well as internationally traded mitigation outcomes, as well as adaptation. Therefore, we are talking about two different regimes. Ours, that we are talking about here, is about putting in place a legally binding process and holding the government accountable in developing plans, setting targets towards net-zero emissions by 2050. That is comment number one.
Comment number two is that my colleague in Environment and Climate Change Canada recently convened a forum engaging provinces and territories and stakeholders as the very inaugural approach to developing a national adaptation strategy. The journey will last for approximately 9 to 12 months to engage all the necessary partners that we have to develop that strategy. This commitment is included in the strengthened climate plan and is also echoed through many other government announcements since the release of the strengthened climate plan in December 2020.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, I see no further questions from yourselves. At this point, I would like to thank our three experts for joining us this morning and for answering all our questions in a very methodical, complete manner. We very much appreciate it.
I will now suspend for a couple of minutes. As you know, we would like to have a closed session with the members of the committee. So we say thank you, again, to the experts. Let us pause for a couple of seconds.
(The committee continued in camera.)