Environment Committee on Oct. 27th, 2025

[Colin Hornby]

I'm sorry, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Fanjoy, you have five minutes.

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Rainville, can you give us your definition of climate competitiveness? How does it help us reach our imperative of being competitive in a world economy while reaching our GHG objectives?

[Etienne Rainville]

One of the significant things that's talked about when you talk about carbon policy and carbon border adjustments in all of these cases is carbon leakage. It's an inelegant term because it doesn't really describe what you're talking about very well. It's not understood by an average person.

It is industry responding to industrial policies, such as industrial pricing, by changing jurisdictions. What you want when you're looking for good, robust climate policy is something that avoids this carbon leakage. You avoid a facility moving from jurisdiction A to jurisdiction B because it has favourable treatment in one province versus another, for instance.

I know the government has a forthcoming climate competitiveness strategy, which we look forward to. When we talk about climate competitiveness, what we want is something that will reduce emissions but maintain the jobs in the industry in the country so that we don't have this depression effect on industry, but we have an environment in which industry can grow and produce at the same time it reduces emissions.

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Hornby, in your opening statement, you talked about how farmers have a tremendous vested interest in the environment. They make their living from the environment. I live in a riding that is both on the edge of the city and very much in the country. I meet with farmers all the time. They're very hard-working, practical and focused on outcomes.

I was wondering if you could share with us some practical solutions that you see, based on your experience in Manitoba. How can the agricultural sector help Canada meet its objectives in addressing climate change, while making sure our farmers continue to thrive?

[Colin Hornby]

There's a lot that can be done. A lot of it is in the way we're approaching the problem. I mentioned earlier the 4R nutrient stewardship agreement we have in Manitoba. That's a positive one. It's finding those areas of common ground. It's leaning, really, into the knowledge that producers have. It's avoiding anything that will punish their operations where there is no alternative. This was the big challenge when it came to the carbon tax. There was no alternative, so that was the issue. That's a big thing, for sure.

Market-based incentives would really be a good approach. There has been some success through programs like the on-farm climate action fund. I've heard from producers that having the funds available to adopt best management practices that will work in their operations and flexibility like that is what's really key, because every operation, even a mile down the road, is going to be different from the next one. I'm sure you know that from speaking to producers in your backyard.

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. McKenzie, the Conservative opposition members are on record opposing market-based solutions to addressing the climate crisis, as well as non-market-based solutions.

Are there other solutions that we're not looking at, or is this just a reflection of the fact that they do not have an environmental policy?

[Janetta McKenzie]

I'd like to highlight, to answer your question, that market-based solutions and non-market-based solutions—the latter being things like policy and regulation that obligate farms to reduce their emissions—both have a role in reducing emissions and in stimulating investment in low-carbon emerging industries. I'd like to highlight the electricity sector again here.

In terms of what climate competitiveness could mean in that sector, Canada is projected to be operating a 90% emissions-free grid by 2030. This puts us just second after France amongst the G7. However, there are many countries now joining the clean electricity race, so if Canada wants to retain our clean power advantage, we can't really afford to let demand growth result in new multidecade investments in high-emitting, high-cost gas and coal power stations.

We need both market and non-market mechanisms in order to ensure that we can stay apace with the rest of the world. We've already seen massive cost reductions in renewable power.

I will stop there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

I would like to thank all the witnesses for their testimony this morning. The witnesses are now excused.

The meeting will suspend while we prepare the next witness panel.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

I call the meeting back to order.

The committee is continuing its study on the effectiveness, potential improvements and capability of Canada's 2030 emissions reduction plan.

This afternoon, the committee is meeting with the following witnesses.

We have with us the Hon. Sonya Savage, who is here as an individual.

From Elbows Up for Climate, we have former mayor David Miller.

From the National Coalition of Chiefs, we have Dale Swampy, president and chief executive officer.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here today. Every witness has five minutes for their opening remarks.

We will begin with Sonya Savage.

Thank you.

[Sonya Savage, Senior Counsel, BLG, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am senior counsel at Borden Ladner Gervais, having returned to the private sector after serving as minister of energy and minister of environment for the Province of Alberta.

In 2023, I released Alberta's emissions reduction and energy development plan, which was a plan to cut emissions to net zero by 2050 without compromising affordable, reliable and secure energy. Since leaving government, I now spend a significant amount of my time working with and advising companies that are pursuing projects in the clean energy space.

Let me state at the outset that the science is clear that global temperatures are rising and urgent action is needed to reduce emissions. However, urgency cannot simply ignore feasibility. Any climate road map needs to be achievable. It serves no purpose to pick rigid, inflexible targets that cannot be reached.

Canada has a long history of missing targets and we're not on track to meet 2030. This is unfortunate, but it's also not a surprise. To be successful, there needs to be collaboration and that has been missing. Over the past decade, Ottawa has ignored advice from industry and has trampled provincial jurisdiction.

Fortunately, there are signs of a more pragmatic approach. I was encouraged to hear Prime Minister Carney say that a new climate competitiveness strategy will “focus on results over objectives”. If this means that both the climate and the economy are important, then maybe the economic decline we've seen can be curbed.

A new climate competitiveness strategy could also better align provincial and federal climate plans and focus on areas that are working. Three areas that come to mind are carbon capture, industrial carbon pricing and critical minerals.

Without carbon capture, it's not possible to achieve net zero. Alberta and Ottawa have already made significant progress incentivizing carbon capture. This is not just about the oil sands and the pathways initiative but also about multiple sectors across the economy, from power generation to hydrogen, cement, fertilizer, petrochemicals and steel. In 2022, Alberta awarded rights to 25 carbon sequestration hubs across the province. What is needed for these hubs to be successful is supportive policy.

Industrial carbon pricing, if priced right and left to the province to implement, can help attract investment into a low-carbon economy. Alberta's TIER program, which dates back to 2007, is a great example. That's why it was left in place in Alberta's 2023 climate plan.

Without critical minerals such as lithium, cobalt, nickel and uranium, energy transition is not possible. Developing a full value chain, from extraction to processing and manufacturing, should be an essential part of not only climate policy but also economic, industrial and foreign policy.

There is a key characteristic to all three things I just mentioned and that is collaboration with the provinces and industry.

There are other areas in Ottawa's climate plan that create unnecessary conflict. The clean electricity regs and the oil and gas emissions cap are divisive policies that will lead to economic harm and constitutional challenges.

The emissions cap, if implemented, will be a production cap. Industry says it can't meet the cap without reducing production. The result will be more capital moving to other jurisdictions, undermining Canada's ability to be a conventional and clean energy superpower.

The clean electricity regs are unachievable for natural gas generators. Alberta's system operator, the AESO, says that there are no technical, affordable alternatives that can make compliance possible. In 2024, after getting completely off coal-fired electricity, Alberta's grid now relies on natural gas for 75% of total power. Much more power will be needed in the years ahead for electrification of both transportation and heating.

In conclusion, when Alberta developed its 2023 climate plan, I saw an opportunity to align climate policy with industrial policy. Climate policy, if done right, can not only reduce emissions but can also attract investments into new areas, such as carbon capture, hydrogen, battery storage, clean tech and renewables. It can also support oil and gas and kick-start the development of critical minerals. I see that same opportunity now if Canada's new climate competitiveness strategy can better balance climate and the economy to achieve the goal of being a conventional and clean energy superpower.

I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Thank you, Ms. Savage.

Mr. Swampy, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Dale Swampy, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Coalition of Chiefs]

Thank you.

Climate change, inflation and indigenous reconciliation—these are, undoubtedly, complex policy problems. They're complex for policy wonks and outright mystical for everyone else, because addressing them causes an avalanche of unintended consequences to Canada’s entire economy, including first nations communities.

How can we solve climate change when addressing it drives up the prices of consumer goods? How are we supposed to support indigenous reconciliation if our government in power is unable to implement effective and sustainable climate change policy?

If you change your perspective, you can see different narratives that provide an opportunity to address these challenges combined. The complexity and interconnectedness of our greatest challenges can be a strength. It can lead to outside-the-box thinking with new and innovative solutions that finally move us forward in these critical areas where there has been so little progress to date.

However, to unlock this opportunity, we must move away from the short-term thinking of most politicians, who merely focus on their own political agendas. We must move away from politicizing these challenges and break with the narratives that continuously bring us the same poor results.

Many indigenous people follow the philosophy of seven-generations thinking. The main idea is that a decision you make today needs to benefit people seven generations from now. In a democracy like ours, that is much further into the future than the next election.

If we apply this idea to our most significant challenges—climate change, inflation and indigenous reconciliation—we can look beyond popular narratives and focus on the real problems. We can talk about climate change without villainizing an entire industry. We can see that further stifling the energy industry with new emissions caps has driven up the prices of consumer goods, fuelling inflation, increasing unemployment and creating unmanageable heating and electricity costs, all of which combined would result in an overall cross-societal lowering of our standard of living.

Looking at Canada’s challenges holistically and respecting their interconnectedness would allow us to find solutions that make a positive difference in all of those areas.

Almost 14,000 self-identified indigenous people work in Canada’s oil and gas industry. Their incomes benefit their families and communities across this country, allowing for significant progress in areas that address the poverty and inequality experienced by indigenous people.

With billions of dollars invested over the past decades, the same energy companies that facilitate economic independence and self-determination for all of these indigenous communities have become global leaders in producing clean energy. They have reduced greenhouse gas emissions, unlike companies in any other country, and they lead the way to innovative carbon-tech solutions that will finally make achieving Canada’s emissions targets possible.

The authors of this legislation either didn't see the relevance of their emissions cap proposal for indigenous people or don't care. Frankly, both are possible, but the latter appears more likely. They say that they did speak to some indigenous people, but ignoring the diversity of our community and following the false narrative that all indigenous people oppose energy projects.

Regardless of the reasoning, when all is said and done, 14,000 indigenous people, their families and their communities will suffer from the outcome without ever having been given the opportunity to express themselves. Instead, Ottawa will decide, and indigenous communities will face the consequences of linear thinking applied by a paternalistic government that thinks in short-term political frameworks.

Instead of applying visionary thinking that would benefit future generations of Canadians, the government is taking steps to further inhibit progress in order to appease a small demographic of voters with a greenwashing policy solution on climate change that will hurt indigenous and non-indigenous alike today, tomorrow and seven generations from now.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Thank you, sir.

For five minutes, the floor is yours, Mr. Miller.

[David Miller, Spokesperson, Elbows Up for Climate]

Thank you.

I'm the co-chair of Elbows Up for Climate, a coalition of over 250 mayors and councillors working together to ensure that Canada prioritizes climate action and economic sovereignty. As you mentioned, I'm the former mayor of Toronto and the former chair of the Ontario auto industry mayors. I currently work on climate issues as the managing director of the C40 Centre.

I'm speaking today from the traditional territories of the Lekwungen-speaking peoples, including the Songhees and Esquimalt nations.

My comments will focus on the importance of building Canada's economic independence by choosing nation-building climate projects.

This summer, our country was literally on fire from coast to coast to coast. Well over 200 communities were impacted by wildfires and more by flooding. Manitoba and Saskatchewan both declared states of emergency.

Communities that are not directly impacted often host climate refugees for weeks and months at a time. The impacts our communities are facing are widespread and devastating, from Jasper's cleanup costs to massive home insurance increases in Yellowknife. The estimates of the insured damages from Flin Flon and La Ronge are at $300 million and counting. Why should everyday Canadians bear the cost of inaction? Without urgent action to tackle climate change, studies suggest that Canada is on track for $100 billion per year in climate damages by 2050. These are just three examples. There are many more.

That's certainly part of the reason that the overwhelming majority of Canadians demand climate action. Climate change is real, and the impacts are serious and getting worse. Science shows that it is primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels and that the world needs to nearly halve their use by 2030. That's only possible if Canada does its part. The good news is that climate action is nation-building. It can help us build the made-in-Canada economy we need—far more resilient and less dependent on our neighbour.

The asks of our campaign are clear. Create a national east-west-north clean electricity grid; build a national high-speed rail network; build at least two million non-market, energy-efficient homes; make our homes and buildings warmer in winter and cooler in summer with retrofits and heat pump installations across the country; and fund a national resilience response and recovery strategy so our communities can prepare for the climate disasters we know are coming, respond when they are hit and rebuild afterwards.

In closing, it is critical that the voice of communities suffering climate disasters be heard. We know that the voice of the oil and gas industry has been heard. Public records show over 600 meetings between the government and oil and gas lobbyists since January, with 50 meetings with Minister Hodgson since the elections, an average of two a week.

The voice of the majority who want climate action and want to live in safe, resilient and economically strong communities needs an equal place at the table to, for example, point out the simple scientific fact that we have to reduce reliance on fossil fuels rapidly, not increase it. There is no grand bargain with science. We make the point that the fossil fuel majors, which made $35 billion in profits in 2022 alone, do not need public subsidies. Ottawa's funding should instead be invested in projects that create the jobs of the future: nation-building not nation-burning projects.

Today there is an exceptional opportunity and duty to build the future we need. The government's plan needs to be significantly more ambitious, to apply the polluter pays principle more rigorously and to prioritize climate-forward, nation-building projects that are crucial for our short-term reality and long-term prosperity.

Mayors and councillors across the country understand the challenges this government faces when it comes threats from the U.S.A. The jobs of our residents are on the line. Allowing our communities to burn, be flooded or otherwise damaged by climate-related disaster is a choice, one we do not need to make if Canada plays its part in ensuring that the world avoids climate breakdown.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Thank you, Mr. Miller.

We'll start questioning, with Mr. Ross for six minutes, please.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you for your presentations.

Mr. Swampy, it's good to see you again. The National Coalition of Chiefs mission statement emphasizes that you wish to defeat on-reserve poverty through resource development.

What does meaningful economic participation look like for first nations individuals and communities?

[Dale Swampy]

It's clear that in the past 150 years first nations have not been involved in Canada's natural resource industry. The National Coalition of Chiefs recognizes this and would like more participatory inclusion in major projects. If we had ownership in the Giant Mine in the Northwest Territories back in the fifties and sixties, we wouldn't have the environmental destruction we have right now. If there were Northwest Territories first nation members on the boards of these big corporations, you wouldn't see the environmental damage you have today.

The oil and gas industry is moving towards that. Right now, we have the big six getting first nations people on their boards. First nations people are helping to manage the environmental protection plan that is going in place right now out there. I am on the board of Emissions Reduction Alberta. It has funded over $1 billion to advance technological research into finding new sources of sustainable green energy.

It's these kinds of movements that are moving forward. We're proud to be part of the oil and gas industry in doing what we can for the 14,000 self-identified indigenous workers in that industry.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you.

First nations leaders are in a tough spot, especially if they're under the Indian Act, which is very strict. First nations leaders have had to balance environmental issues with their standard of living objectives, which Canada has not been able to achieve. First nations are trying to achieve that on their own through resource development.

What is your response to critics who claim that resource development and indigenous rights are at odds?

[Dale Swampy]

I don't think that resource development right now and first nations rights are at a head. I believe the oil and gas industries have turned around and have become more inclusive in terms of getting first nations involved in their operations. We've seen that with the ESG guidelines that have come through, as well as the DEI requirements for corporations. We've seen a lot of work through developing indigenous relations policies that match communities that exist within their areas of operations.

The NCC is working towards getting extra consideration for our people to transition from the unemployed lifestyle to the employed lifestyle. Some 60% of our people are on social welfare. We want to get away from that. We need the Canadian people, the Canadian government and industry to give us extra consideration to move us from the unemployed lifestyle to the employed lifestyle.

You've seen that with the Fort McKay First Nation. It's one of the biggest and wealthiest nations in North America with a median income of over $100,000 per household. It didn't happen overnight. It took 50 years of companies like Suncor and Cenovus committing themselves to getting our people in Fort McKay transitioned from the unemployed lifestyle to the employed lifestyle.

The natural resource industry is our biggest industry. We can't turn our backs on that. The world requires us to be able to supply the resources it needs to be able to power its economies. We can't stop that by saying that clean energy is a priority, and that we must kill the natural resource industry. That's not going to work. If we kill our own industry, we're not going to have the economy we need to be able to fund clean energy projects like Emissions Reduction Alberta is doing.

We have Canadian companies like Kathairos Solutions inventing technologies that get rid of emissions. We have to move forward with something like that rather than doing the stopgap solution that is being created right now with this legislation.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you.

Many first nations have expressed support for pipelines as a path to prosperity.

Why do you think that support is often ignored by provincial and federal governments, or even media outlets for that matter? Why is it ignored?

[Dale Swampy]

It's because there's no ability for them to be able to access the areas of their political agenda that are important to them. We've come to a situation where politics has become exclusive politics, where individuals are acting on only one side of the scope. We elect our officials to do things that are important for us. In order to do those things and make those decisions, they must become informed. In order to be informed, you have to look at all sides of the argument in this.

With northern gateway, we had over 75% of the communities supporting it and signing on as owners. We tried to meet with the prime minister at that time—Trudeau—and he wouldn't meet with us. Then, in November of 2016, he announced the cancellation of northern gateway, saying that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Thank you.

Next, we have Mr. Grant for six minutes.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for attending.

Mr. Miller, I hope you're having a good day in the territory of my cousins, the Lekwungen-speaking people. I'm from the Musqueam nation, on the other side of the Salish Sea, in Vancouver Quadra. I grew up there. It was in my early days of elementary school when I first began understanding the effects of climate change. My city, the city of Vancouver, has been at the forefront of trying to tackle that.

I know you have a lot of experience in this. I just want to know if there are examples from cities that you would recommend we follow the lead of at a federal level.

[David Miller]

Yes. There are very significant examples globally of cities undertaking real climate action that both creates jobs and industries and reduces reliance dramatically on burning fossil fuels. The key areas, from my perspective, are transportation, how we generate electricity and how we manage waste and building. I'll give a couple of them.

Shenzhen, China, has completely electrified its bus fleet and taxi fleet. In doing so, a company in Shenzhen became the world's leading manufacturer of electric vehicles. At a time when we're facing challenges in southwestern Ontario because of the actions of the U.S.A., it gives us a great precedent.

A second is your own city of Vancouver. Its building code is probably the leading building code in the world in terms of reducing reliance on fossil fuels, particularly gas, and dramatically reducing emissions. It's a model that should be copied by all provinces and cities across the country.