Environment Committee on Nov. 24th, 2025

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

I think we should have the environment commissioner appear relatively soon. In fairness to what is a reasonable ask for a government that has caused much pain and very little gain, as the results have shown by this commissioner, I think we could start that for following appearances, but include the dates specific to the upcoming appearance so that we may ask questions of the environment commissioner regarding both the June and November reports.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Is there debate on the proposed amendment?

Ms. Miedema, go ahead.

[Shannon Miedema, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

I would ask for some clarification on that last piece that you just proposed—

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

All pain and no gain....?

[Shannon Miedema, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

—and why it's part of this motion.

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

Sure.

I'm amending the last paragraph, which is the invitation for the commissioner to appear before the committee to discuss his reports, including those of June 2025. That was the one that the commissioner has not yet appeared for. Since this was originally drafted.... I think it was tabled previous to his November 6 report coming out. It is so that we would be within the scope of questioning, during his appearance, that is based on the June 2025 reports and the November 2025 reports—not just the June reports. We're bundling probably two hours for both of those reports.

We're not touching the remaining words that give continuity for a more or less automatic invitation to the commissioner each time he releases his semi-annual reports.

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

I'd like to suspend for two minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Okay, we will suspend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

We're resuming debate. Is there any further debate?

Is everyone in favour of the suggested amendment presented by Mr. Leslie?

(Amendment agreed to)

Go ahead, Mr. Leslie.

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

After further consideration, I think my colleague may have been correct in suggesting that “November 2025” should be added throughout.

I would like to move that wherever it says “June 2025,” we add “and November 2025”. It looks to be on two prior occasions within the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Is this another amendment that you are proposing?

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

That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Is there debate on the proposed amendment?

(Amendment agreed to)

Are there any further amendments?

We'll go back to the motion.

Is there any debate on the main motion?

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

We're back to questioning the witnesses.

Mr. Bonin, you had a few seconds left. Over to you.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'd like to hear your comments on user acceptance of electric vehicles. We've heard that 99% of people want to keep electric vehicles.

Have you understood that when people try electric vehicles, they adopt them and want to continue using them?

[Stéphane Pascalon]

I think that when people try an electric vehicle, they adopt it. Then they calculate the long-term costs and see plenty of advantages.

The initial outlay is a challenge, but consumers benefit over time. People continue to use an electric vehicle, because they can spend the money they save on things other than transportation.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Do you have specific solutions for affordability?

It seems to me you mentioned vehicle affordability. It might be in your brief.

[Stéphane Pascalon]

Earlier, Mr. Adams said that the zero-emission standard would help lower costs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Thank you.

Mr. Ross, you have five minutes. The floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Adams, thank you for your testimony here today.

It seems we're getting on the affordability topic for the majority of our discussions and our questions and answers, yet we are the environment committee.

In that same vein, can I ask about end of life when it comes to batteries for EVs? There doesn't seem to be one national strategy to address how these batteries are stored or recycled. Can you tell me if the cost of recycling these batteries or storing them at the end of life is absorbed by manufacturers? Is that subsidized by government, or is that passed on to consumers?

[David Adams]

It's a situation where the industry itself is taking care of that because there are not enough raw materials for the batteries. The manufacturers want back much of the materials in batteries to integrate it back into new batteries. Before they even get to the stage when they're recycled, after batteries decline below about 80% of their efficiency in the vehicle, they're no longer useful to the same degree, so they become battery storage for electricity, and then they go on to be recycled after that.

Currently, there is not an issue with the recycling of batteries. The manufacturers want those batteries back. The manufacturers have worked to develop a program so that, if there is an orphan battery somewhere in a junkyard or somewhere else, they will take care of that battery as well.

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

Okay, thank you.

However, there is a cost to do that. Where is that cost absorbed? Is it by the manufacturers?

[David Adams]

Yes.

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

Then it's not worked into the purchase price at all.

[David Adams]

The recycled materials help defray the cost of developing new batteries by bringing those batteries back into the whole supply chain.