Environment Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2026

[Alain Bourque]

Well, as soon as you have data, you can do something with artificial intelligence. We've already started using this in all kinds of projects. There is going to be, probably, a significant revolution on how to connect science with decision-making. I guess that's a good thing.

[Alain Bourque]

Can I add something?

The Quebec environment minister asked me to give him, at some point, recommendations on adaptation.

Groupe d’experts en adaptation aux changements climatiques

made recommendations to the provincial government, in that case, to orient investment.

That's valid for everyone, so I'll add it to the documentation for your committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Thank you, Mr. Bourque.

Mr. Bonin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Obviously, Quebec is not perfect. That said, however, I think that in the Canadian context, it has done a lot of work.

How do you envision collaboration with the federal government, which says that it wants to develop a new flood strategy and an adaptation strategy, for example?

Do you feel that the provinces have a primary role to play in terms of intervention and planning?

Should the federal government provide financial support rather than doing the work, on which certain provinces may be further ahead than others?

[Alain Bourque]

It's true that many adaptation issues are generally under provincial jurisdiction. It's not exclusive. Earlier, I gave the examples of land use planning and forest management. Several issues fall under provincial jurisdiction, but there are also connections. For example, agriculture and the environment are shared jurisdictions.

I think the most important thing is that any federal action must connect with provincial stakeholders to ensure consistency. Even us at Ouranos, as we try to advance adaptation, we sometimes get very frustrated to see conflicts between the federal and provincial governments, or even between the provincial and municipal governments—it doesn't only happen at the federal-provincial level.

Given the urgency of the climate risk we face, it's absolutely crucial that things get done in a coordinated manner. I still dream of the days when I was young, when infrastructure investment programs were paid for one third by the federal government, one third by the provincial government in one third by the municipal government. It seems to me that those were the good old days. It was simple. Each player could advance infrastructure development by integrating the aspects that were important to all three levels.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Obviously, you are an adaptation expert. However, you often talk about the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, because otherwise, to a certain extent, we won't even be able to adapt.

What do you think of the government's approach, which is heavily founded on adaptation, when we have seen several setbacks in terms of reducing emissions?

Isn't the federal government being inconsistent, given that it's somewhat abandoning emissions reductions in the fight against climate change?

[Alain Bourque]

The fact is, even though we're focusing on climate change adaptation, our scientific message clearly says that we must do both. It's not mitigation or adaptation, it's mitigation and adaptation. That's our message.

As for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, I sometimes joke that I'm glad I'm not too involved in that area, which seems terribly complicated in Canada.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

We can see that Canada is no longer meeting its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Given what the science is saying about this, do you think the government is acting responsibly?

[Alain Bourque]

I'd like to remind you that, when it comes to climate science, global greenhouse gas emissions are what matter, really. We need to achieve global carbon neutrality. So it's important that all countries align themselves with the Paris Agreement. This agreement was guided by science. We chose to aim for well below 2°C and, if possible, close to 1.5°C, based on scientific evidence.

The scientific message is very clear: We must aim for 1.5°C to 2°C and adapt to the rest. Doing both will be an extremely tall order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Ross, the floor is yours for five minutes, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Taylor, you talked about a polluter pay principle and how China is one of the biggest polluters in the world. My colleague asked if that would be one of the defendants in that type of situation.

Just to clarify, are you talking about the polluter pay system being the polluter that doesn't abide by emissions legislation or regulations in their given country or jurisdiction?

[Kiera Taylor]

A variety of actors can be targeted for this. Right now, as we're seeing these lawsuits and the legislation move forward, there aren't specific actors that are continuously being targeted. In the China example, it isn't clear that the path is to pursue specifically companies in China that aren't, say, abiding by the specific laws there.

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

Specifically, are you talking about a polluter pay system for a polluter that is exceeding the emissions target set by a government, or are you talking about a polluter pay system just in general?

[Kiera Taylor]

It's the latter. Whether the polluter is reducing emissions or not would be part of the legal process, I'm sure, but the fact of a polluter emitting and those harms causing physical climate damage and costs for Canadians is what is material.

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

If a country like Canada sets emissions targets and a company is below those targets, should that company still get sued for damages?

[Kiera Taylor]

It's not likely that the company would be targeted for damages, no. If it is a polluter that is actively reducing emissions and, therefore, either is becoming...or is not a major polluter, that wouldn't be prudent for litigation. That's generally speaking, because your example is a polluter that is actively and aggressively reducing emissions.

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

Okay, so, you're not talking about an oil and gas company that's abiding by federal regulations or emission targets. You're not talking about the polluter pay principle on that equation; you're talking about those that exceed emissions targets.

[Kiera Taylor]

Not necessarily.

Again, various targets can be chosen based on the legal viability. It wouldn't necessarily exclude a company from being pursued if it is abiding by emissions reductions legislation.

However, I'll go back to my point. This polluter that we are imagining is a polluter that is actively and aggressively reducing its emissions, so it is unlikely to be the target of litigation.

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

What about the policy-makers that set those emissions targets? I'm talking about government. Do they have a role to play in terms of the polluter pay principle that you're talking about?

[Kiera Taylor]

To be the target of litigation, do you mean?

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

Yes. It's governments across the world that are setting emissions targets and are claiming to achieve the Paris Agreement and the commitments, but very few countries are meeting those commitments.

Is there a role for the litigation you're talking about for governments that are setting the targets, the legislation or the regulations in your principle?

[Kiera Taylor]

We are already seeing those lawsuits play out with youth suing governments for violating their human rights. We're already seeing that there's litigation towards governments on this. What we're talking about here specifically are the insurance associated costs and the physical costs that everyday Canadians are feeling via increased extreme weather.

What you're discussing is a similar principle, a similar logic, but that's separate from what we're discussing today and what is already actively happening globally.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Thank you.

Mr. Fanjoy, you have five minutes.

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Taylor, I'd like to pick up on the theme that my colleague started.

I don't believe you were presenting a specific model for how polluters pay. However, one very common model is via carbon pricing, and that doesn't necessarily require there to be specific targets. There could be specific targets, but as long as the business has a market-based incentive to reduce its emissions, then we can harness the power of those incentives.

Earlier in my career, I was in business. I'm very familiar with financial statements, and I know that nowhere in financial statements is there a line item for the natural capital that makes business possible. I think that in many ways we're in the circumstance that we're in because we have a system that allows profits to be privatized and liabilities to be socialized—which I would expect my Conservative colleagues would not like to see, but that's, unfortunately, the circumstance we're in.

You've been speaking with and lobbying private companies, publicly traded companies. What are you seeing from leaders in the business community in terms of stepping up and acknowledging their role in addressing this crisis?

[Kiera Taylor]

We have had multiple direct engagements with Canadian insurers. In those conversations, it seems like the industry is rightly focused on adaptation and resilience, but very narrowly focused on adaptation and resilience.

As I mentioned before, by continuing to underwrite and invest in fossil fuels, they're contributing to the need for increased adaptation and resilience. Unfortunately, in the conversations with the business leaders in the insurance industry, there is a reluctance to focus on emissions reductions and that part of climate risk management. I believe I mentioned that we filed a shareholder resolution at Fairfax Financial, asking it to disclose its financed emissions. While the proposal got 60% support from independent shareholders, the company has not made any progress towards that and it has refused to engage with us. It's a mixed bag within the industry, but, overall, there is a focus on adaptation as opposed to emissions reductions.