Environment Committee on Oct. 30th, 2025

[Catherine Potvin]

Quebec's climate change advisory committee made a statement about the third link while I was still a member of it. All the studies show that the third link would really not have any benefit. The committee called for a halt to the expansion of anything related to highways and major projects of that kind. If there were a third link exclusively for public transit, that might be helpful. I do not think that is a promising project for Quebec though. Moreover, now is not the time to invest in more highways.

Furthermore, we need to rethink the system. Let me tell you that my granddaughter was in Japan this summer. When I told her that the Via Rail train that runs across Canada travels at 60 kilometres per hour, she started laughing because the train she took in Japan travelled at 600 kilometres per hour. We are significantly behind on the international scene.

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

Can you tell us quickly if you think Quebec is on track to meet its objectives for 2030?

[Catherine Potvin]

Unfortunately, I don't think any level of government is helping us right now to achieve our objectives for 2030. As a Canadian and a Quebecker, I expect more from my government to make our lives better. A tragedy is coming for low-income earners, our children and our grandchildren. It is up to you: We elected you to guide the country.

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

Thank you, Ms. Potvin.

Mr. Reed, I have a few seconds left.

In the past, we've discussed carbon pricing. I'm curious to get your perspective on industrial carbon pricing, or your organization's perspective on the industrial carbon price.

[Graeme Reed]

I appreciate that.

Very quickly, our focus was mostly on consumer carbon pricing and ensuring that first nations could appropriately benefit from the recycling of revenues.

In the context of industrial carbon pricing, I think the priority would very much be how first nations that are creating their own carbon-related projects can benefit through either offsets or other voluntary markets.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bonin, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our distinguished witnesses.

Ms. Potvin, I believe you said that the 2030 emissions reduction plan was well thought out, but not perfect. I think you said there have been setbacks on the environment, in particular since Mr. Carney took office. Can you elaborate on those setbacks? In your opinion, are they acceptable in 2025? How serious are those setbacks in terms of meeting greenhouse reduction targets?

[Catherine Potvin]

First of all, the plan was very broad, covering construction, industry, transport and the oil and gas sector. The price on carbon was of course the centrepiece though. So the first thing Canada's new government did was eliminate the price on carbon.

That decision was clearly highly problematic, in two ways. I know that people across the country disliked this regulation, but carbon pricing was a way for the government to generate revenue that it could in turn have invested in low-carbon alternatives.

So the federal government made things much harder for itself by eliminating that source of revenue. There are two levers: regulation and investment. Regulation is not very popular, but it is more acceptable when paired with investment. For example, the public is more receptive to measures to eliminate the sale of combustion vehicles if there is also an incentive covering the price difference between those vehicles and electric vehicles.

Finally, the government is hurting us and itself by eliminating the revenue generated by carbon pricing. This directly contradicts the fundamental principle of user pay. We know where the problem lies. It has been identified and well explained; moreover, everyone understands it. So it cannot be resolved unless something is done about it. I think that is a great weakness right now. We have also heard talk about carbon pricing for heavy industry and I hope that promising approach will be part of the government's solution.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. LaBobe and Mr. Reed, from the Assembly of First Nations, I understand that you were not consulted at all on the climate competitiveness strategy. How problematic is that for you? What kind of consultation should the government conduct, on this strategy and on the development and enhancement of its emissions reduction plan?

[Graeme Reed]

I can start briefly, and then the regional chief can add to that.

First nations have not been consulted on the federal approach to carbon competitiveness. What we're concerned about is losing the last 10 years of collaborative discussions on what first nations require to ensure that decarbonization advances alongside decolonization.

Often what we've done to advocate for specific rights and title holders is ensure they have sufficient time and financial and technical resources to contribute meaningfully.

Different processes have occurred that provide better space and time for first nations, and we would look to return to those best practices to ensure that moving forward, first nations don't get structurally excluded.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I gather that the Assembly of First Nations was not pleased with the way the government developed and implemented Bill C‑5. The same thing is true for Canada's climate strategy. With regard to major projects and combatting climate change, do you think the government is backtracking, including in its relationship and reconciliation with first nations?

[Graeme Reed]

Just broadly, first nations were concerned about the speed at which Bill C-5 was advanced through the House and the Senate. The Assembly of First Nations hosted two national virtual forums to respond to the prospect of accelerating project development and the concerns that first nations have with respect to major project development.

Is this a rescinding of the progress that was made? I think the concern is very much that we're not benefiting from the 10 years of experience we have in positioning first nations in a more meaningful way, and we're sacrificing relationships for expediency. Our position is very much about how we can ensure that first nations have appropriate time and capacity to contribute to these essential conversations.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

So you maintain that the government should consult you before it publishes its climate competitiveness strategy. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Mr. Bonin, your time is up.

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

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Nugent, Oceans North has been quite vocal in its support of the UN's net-zero shipping tax. Could you tell me exactly what this new tax would cost in numerical terms?

[Amy Nugent]

First of all, I would say that in 2023, the International Maritime Organization agreed unanimously to a net-zero strategy on global shipping and had been working on measures to reduce emissions in that sector. That was agreed to in 2023.

For some background, the goal being net zero—

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I'm sorry to interrupt you. Do you have any idea, based on the expected valuations of the net-zero shipping tax, what the collections would be?

[Amy Nugent]

I was going to explain how you derive the cost—

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I'm just looking for a number on this.

[Amy Nugent]

The number comes from measures to reduce emissions. If you're reducing emissions and getting to net zero in the maritime sector, which has not yet had the benefit of any transition investment, you would need.... Estimates of what it would cost to get to that transition put it at about $500 a tonne.

We saw similar costs when we did early-stage transition, for example, in the oil and gas sector in Alberta, where I worked. If you put $500-a-tonne cost to the transition.... One of the measures in the net-zero framework at the IMO was putting a $380-a-tonne charge on the ships that exceeded a threshold. On the dirtiest ships—

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Ms. Nugent.

I'm going to move on to the government's positioning on the tax, if we don't know the numbers.

It's been reported that the federal Liberals have been supportive of this tax. Is that correct in your assessment?

[Amy Nugent]

I can comment on the Government of Canada. I think you're asking about the party, so we can do that in terms of the Government of Canada's role in the negotiation.

The position has been, along with the United States at the time, previous to the recent meeting, and the United Kingdom and other marine nations, to support that net-zero framework. As I said, in 2023, that was actually a unanimously supported framework by the IMO.

Yes, they're definitely supportive of measures to reduce greenhouse gases in the shipping sector.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

The IMO documents acknowledge that this tax will increase the price of food. Has any assessment been done, by you or any organizations involved in the advocacy, as to how much the price of food would increase from this UN net-zero shipping tax?

[Amy Nugent]

The IMO itself, with member states, did do cost analyses. I think what you're driving to is whether this is going to increase the cost of the goods that are shipped.

Of course, an analysis is done on that by a committee of the IMO. I'm not involved in those technical discussions, but absolutely mitigating those costs and ensuring that you're not driving up prices of consumer goods or goods being shipped is among the objectives.