Environment Committee on Oct. 27th, 2025

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Miller.

The University of British Columbia is in my riding. When I try to get my kids to school, it takes me longer than average because there's so much traffic backed up. Transit is desperately needed.

I just wanted to know what interventions in transit—and in buildings, actually—you see being needed to deliver emissions reductions at the federal level.

[David Miller]

My brother-in-law is your constituent, by the way, as is my sister-in-law. I'm sure they say hello.

Building cities that are oriented towards public transit, walking and cycling is done worldwide, and we can learn from those best examples. For example, the Broadway subway, once built, will change your neighbourhood for the better. It's an example of system-wide thinking.

There are many excellent examples of cities that are taking bold steps—London, with its “ultra low emission zone”, and Paris and others—to densify their city around public transit, walking and cycling, which dramatically reduces the need for people to rely on cars, whether they're clean or not.

We can do that in all of our cities across Canada. It has nothing to do with attacking the oil and gas industry. It's about building better, more affordable places for people to live in that are easier to get around in and less expensive, greener and more pleasant to live in. If you build a city around transit, walking and cycling, that's the result. That's why so many cities globally are taking those steps.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

You mentioned waste. I know that emissions from landfills and others are very concerning. Do you know how the green municipal fund or related federal programs are helping curb emissions from landfills and what is needed to allow municipalities across Canada to manage their waste more effectively? I drive by the waste in my territory, and I know that a lot it is being shipped up into the interior as well.

[David Miller]

First of all, we need to minimize the amount of waste we produce. There are lots of people working on that issue.

With respect to the green municipal fund, it's been a very forward-thinking program that has empowered municipalities, large and small, across this country to experiment with doing the right thing for the environment and the right thing for climate. In particular, methane capture at landfills is essential, and waste separation at source so that we can compost is essential. The green municipal fund, to my understanding, has supported a number of projects in smaller municipalities that have allowed them to learn from places like Toronto that have been undertaking those techniques for some years.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Swampy, you mentioned that having first nations on boards is important to bringing the knowledge of many generations of first nations forward. Do you agree that first nations' knowledge, traditional knowledge, is important when moving forward with these types of developments?

[Dale Swampy]

Yes. It's not only important but also necessary. Our people went through all of the government processes that tried to assimilate us into society and failed. Understanding first nations and what they desire is important because we're not leaving. Our communities have been there from time immemorial and will continue to be there for centuries to come.

We have to be a part of an industry that reaps the benefits of the natural resources in Canada, of which there are lots. It has to include first nation people because we're stewards of the land. We appreciate the environmental protection plans that Canadian industry implements, and we want to be part of that. We want to be part of that monitoring, ensuring these environmental protection plans are done properly and are done in a manner so that, when the company leaves—

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Thank you, Mr. Swampy.

Go ahead for six minutes, Mr. Bonin.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Miller, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the costs of climate inaction. Before the last election, the Bloc Québécois commissioned a study that showed the costs for households and the costs in general.

Can you tell us more about the costs that the members of your coalition are facing? Could an increase in emissions reduction measures help reduce those costs?

[David Miller]

The costs of climate disasters in Canada are incredibly significant. A perfect example is Jasper. Jasper prepared tremendously because it knew the risk of wildfires and knew that wildfires were being made more violent and more likely because of climate-related weather changes. Despite those preparations, 30% of Jasper burned down.

Think about the impact on the residents of Jasper. For most of us, our home is our biggest single investment. Many residents of Jasper lost their homes. They had to deal with an unfamiliar experience in insurance, and because the entire town was affected, they had literally nowhere to go. Add to this, of course, the businesses, and the costs are extraordinary.

We can't adapt our way out of climate because the costs are big and because these kinds of damages are so significant. I think this needs to be front and centre when we're thinking about Canada's climate strategy. Should we do our part and do what we've agreed to with other nations so that nations together can address the problem, or do we want to face many more “Jaspers” over time?

We saw this summer that Newfoundland was on fire, for example. I certainly never thought I would see it in my lifetime—Newfoundland on fire. This is real. It's serious. The costs are immense. Once the headlines are over, the recovery continues. Jasper is still rebuilding, and it will be for a very long time. It's not the only one.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

In the letter you sent to the party leaders just before the election, you made a number of requests. Could you table that letter?

Also, can you tell us about fossil fuel subsidies? You're asking that the subsidies be stopped and the money used differently. Can you confirm that?

On that subject, can you explain to me why you think the federal government continues to subsidize fossil fuels? According to Environmental Defence, the government subsidized them to the tune of $28.5 billion last year, in 2024.

[David Miller]

Thank you for that very important question.

The government continues to subsidize fossil fuel companies. Indeed, we see new demands for subsidies—for example, for carbon capture and storage. The letter is clear: The nation-building projects we propose, such as a clean energy grid coast to coast to coast, are not just to bring clean energy everywhere in this country; they're also to create new industries, to create a massive number of jobs connecting the grids and to dramatically reduce reliance on diesel, which is very expensive for our northern communities. If subsidies are needed, they should go to these kinds of forward-looking projects.

Personally—not speaking on behalf of Elbows Up—I have a great deal of difficulty accepting the fact that Canada's oil majors, who made $35 billion in profits in 2022 alone during COVID, should get further subsidies to do what's right for the environment, right for the people of Canada and right for the climate. They have the money. Innovative new ideas are the ones that need support, which should be where the government puts its money.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

In its election platform, the Bloc Québécois proposed doubling public transit funding. It is still proposing that, in fact.

Do you think our request is worthwhile? Should the federal government play an additional role by sending money to the provinces and municipalities?

[David Miller]

Yes, public transit is very important.

It's the lifeblood of communities. When I was in office in Toronto, we negotiated the new deal for cities and communities with the federal government and provinces for national funding for cities and towns, including direct funding for public transit. Federal funding is important on this issue, because public transit, particularly clean electric transit—electric buses, for example—is of national interest. Seeing our cities succeed economically is of national importance. Reaching our environmental goals, which really can only be met with excellent public transit across the country, is of national importance as well.

I applaud the position on double funding. If this Parliament can make it a priority to support Canada's cities and public transit agencies far more strongly, including—

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Mrs. Anstey, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Thank you to the witnesses.

Ms. Savage, thank you. I'll direct my questions to you.

We've watched the federal government, through policies like the 2030 emissions reduction plan, effectively target Canada's oil and gas sector, but now the tone seems to be shifting. The government is talking about becoming an energy superpower, building at lightning speed and driving new investment, yet we still see the emissions cap.

With your extensive and diverse experience in law, government and the private sector, I'd really like your insight on this. Can we be an energy superpower with the emissions cap? If not, can you expand on why?

[Sonya Savage]

I think we have the ability to be both a clean energy superpower and a conventional energy superpower. We have the ability to be a clean energy superpower and attract investments into new things like hydrogen, clean fuels, critical minerals and new tech. That's important. It's also important that, if we want to be a conventional energy superpower, it means oil and gas.

I don't believe the emissions cap and the clean electricity regulations are consistent with that at all. If the cap leads to a production cut, which industry says it will, then how can we expand to new and growing markets? We'll continue to be dependent on primarily one market, which is the United States. We need to be able to expand our production, grow markets and develop beyond the United States.

The emissions cap is particularly challenging for industry because when they make an investment decision—whether it's in clean tech or whether it's where they have their production—they have to know that the project they're investing in is going to cover capital costs, cover the costs of financing and cover operational costs. If the emissions cap makes that unaffordable and makes other alternatives in other jurisdictions more investable, we'll lose production and we won't be able to be an energy superpower.

Likewise with the clean electricity regulations, as many of you have probably heard already, Alberta's electricity grid is completely off coal, but it's 75% dependent on natural gas. Our gas generators have said that they cannot comply with the clean electricity regs as drafted. If we want to be a superpower in both clean energy and conventional energy, we need to support natural gas power generation. That will support the development of data centres and AI. Both of those regulations are not consistent.

On top of that, they're layered onto industrial carbon pricing, which in my view has worked well. Industrial carbon pricing has worked well for both the province and Canada—since 2007 in Alberta. Those two regulations layer on top of it, adding a layer of complexity. If we can strengthen and keep the industrial carbon price strong, we do not need the emissions cap or the clean electricity regs.

We can do all we need to do to be a clean energy superpower and a conventional energy superpower by working with the provinces and ensuring that we have a robust industrial carbon tax.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Thank you so much.

Just going back to the targets, Canada is currently projected to achieve only 30% to 35% emissions reduction by 2030, which falls short of its 40% to 50% target. At the Canada-United States Law Institute 48th Annual Conference, you stated that it's “irresponsible to legislate something” that you can't meet, noting that such policies merely export labour and emissions to countries with weaker regulations, effectively “transferring economic power and global security” abroad.

Can you just elaborate quickly on that point? I think it's important.

[Sonya Savage]

Sure. When you pick a random target for an emissions target that you have no ability to meet, you'll see carbon leakage. Industry will invest somewhere else. We'll see production transferred to other jurisdictions. If we leave a barrel of oil in the ground here in Canada in Alberta, it will come out of the ground somewhere else in the world—in countries that have less stable democracies and countries that have lower emissions reduction targets. It will be a transfer not only of production but of wealth and emissions. That can tend to cause geopolitical instability.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Mr. St‑Pierre, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In your opinion, Mr. Miller, how important is the role of Canadian cities in meeting our 2030 and even 2050 targets?

[David Miller]

I'm sorry. I missed the first part of your question.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I'm happy to ask it in English.

How important would you say Canadian cities are toward meeting Canada's 2030 or even 2050 targets?

[David Miller]

They are extremely important. From the plan before you, a very significant proportion of Canada's emissions are in buildings—how we build them, operate them, heat them and cool them—and transportation. Properly empowered and properly resourced, our cities can help retrofit buildings and build public transport, which can dramatically reduce emissions.

There are other things we could do in cities. For example, the United States' President has said that he does not want to invest in electric vehicles. Could we help rebuild our auto industry, which is at risk today, through city-based thinking about greening delivery fleets, taxi fleets and other fleets? China has done this and has created a significant industry as well.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

What would you say is the approximate percentage of emissions that come from cities in Canada?

[David Miller]

I'm sorry that I don't have that figure off the top of my head, Mr. St-Pierre, but it's quite significant. Approximately 80% of Canadians live in urban areas, and 70% of global emissions are attributable to cities or the activities required to sustain them, like a power plant outside a city, for example.

I do have to challenge some of the comments today. It's not possible to have an all-of-the-above strategy. Science tells us we need to reduce emissions not just in Canada but everywhere, and things like natural gas plants increase emissions. That's a scientific fact. The opportunity from an urban perspective is to generate clean energy, build clean transportation and run our buildings fossil fuels-free. That's all possible. It's done somewhere in the world today. We just need to take the best practice examples and properly fund our cities and towns so they can help make the changes needed rapidly.