Environment Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2025

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

We're all looking forward to the release of the climate competitiveness strategy. Are you able to share with the committee some of the principles upon which that will be based?

[Alison McDermott]

At a very high level, I can say that this climate competitiveness strategy is about realizing climate goals in a manner that enhances Canada's long-term competitive position. It is very much a part of Canada's commitment to fighting climate change and positioning Canada to lead in a global economy that is increasingly looking for decarbonized goods and services, technology and know-how.

The government is still developing this strategy, so I can't provide a whole lot of additional detail at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Mr. St‑Pierre, you have the floor.

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

It was shown that the regulations respecting reduction in the release of methane and certain volatile organic compounds were very effective in reducing emissions.

Can you tell us if these regulations will continue to apply until emissions are reduced by 75%?

[Megan Nichols]

Indeed, the existing regulations for oil and gas methane have already achieved 40% to 45% reductions of methane from the sector, so they have achieved their goal.

About two years ago, we put in place the draft regulations. We proposed increasing them to around 75%. We've been working since then to take stock of input and feedback from stakeholders, provinces and territories to work toward a final regulation. That work is still ongoing and will hopefully be completed soon.

[Shannon Miedema, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

I'm wondering about the status of the federal implementation of Bill C-226 on environmental justice and racism. It's a huge issue in my province of Nova Scotia.

Is the ECCC actively working with provinces and territories on implementing this, now that it's received royal assent?

[Alison McDermott]

Yes. The department is, after a bit of a pause during the prorogation and the election campaign, back to engaging with communities, provinces, territories and Canadians on how to develop that strategy. I think the timing set out in the legislation requires a strategy in 2026, so I would say the government is on track to be in a position to release that strategy during that time frame.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Mr. St‑Pierre, you have the floor.

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

Ms. McDermott, can you give us an update on the work that's been done on the road maps for taxonomy?

Going back to the 44th Parliament, there was some work tabled on taxonomy. I think it was paused because of prorogation. Can you comment on what's upcoming for a taxonomy or taxonomy generally speaking?

[Alison McDermott]

Yes.

Taxonomy is an important part of the sustainable finance piece of the government's climate plan. This is really about mobilizing private sector capital because, to get to net zero by 2050, the government does not have enough financing on its own to do that. The private sector is very much going to be required. The Government of Canada is very much committed to fostering the development of an overall sustainable finance market to try to support that kind of investment and drive economic growth and help fight climate change.

In October 2024, the previous incarnation of the government announced a plan to deliver sustainable investment guidelines, or the taxonomy, to help mobilize private sector capital towards activities essential to building a net-zero economy. As you may recall, this was in response to the Sustainable Finance Action Council's advice, which supported the idea of having an arm's-length and external-to-government body or group develop a voluntary green and transition finance taxonomy—

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Thank you, Ms. McDermott. Your time is up.

Welcome, Mr. Lemire. You have two and a half minutes.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's good to see you again. I hope your family is well.

Witnesses, given that we face a unique environmental situation, I would be curious to hear about the consequences of Prime Minister Mark Carney's arrival, particularly in a context where he is asking you to slash your departmental budget, which will clearly have an impact on the number of environmental assessments conducted.

I'm also interested in the consequences of passing Bill C‑5, which was pushed through with a closure motion and supported by the Conservatives. It is quite odd that the official opposition would curtail themselves. This bill's passage has a major impact on environmental issues. Meanwhile, a small group of friends in the Privy Council can get together, essentially, to indicate in schedule 2 of this bill the other laws whose provisions will not apply. I am thinking in particular of the Species at Risk Act and part of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, but also legislation on migratory birds and marine mammals, among others.

What impact does the passage of this legislation have on your work? Does your role as environmental watchdog remain just as relevant?

[Tara Shannon]

Thank you for the question.

Our obligations under the Species at Risk Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act do not change. We will be required under both of those acts to continue to do the analysis and assessments that we currently do. What Bill C-5 does, as my colleague Megan Nichols has spoken to previously, is focus on the question of how.

I will turn to Megan to see if there's anything she would like to add to that, but I do want to reiterate that our regulatory obligations under both of those acts have not changed.

[Megan Nichols]

As mentioned, a document on the conditions to be met for each project impacted by the act will be produced, and our minister will be responsible for developing recommendations on those conditions. I believe the minister intends to look at the regulatory requirements that fall under our department. It will also be up to us to enact all the conditions under our jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Mr. Lemire, you have time for a quick question.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Witnesses, what impact will the announced budget cuts have on your work?

[Linda Drainville]

We believe that, for the time being, we have the funds we need to carry out our mandate and produce results for Canadians. For the time being, we can say that we are on the right track.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Thank you, Ms. Drainville.

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

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

Thank you.

I want to lean into this emissions cap and production cap again. It's so important to the financial component of our province.

The Prime Minister is travelling the country. He's meeting with premiers. He's having conversations about our country being an energy superpower. Within that conversation, they're talking about walking back this emissions cap.

If it didn't have an impact on production, why is the government reconsidering this policy?

[Megan Nichols]

I don't know that I can speak to all the factors at play at the political level. I would just say, again, that we always have a suite of measures at our disposal in terms of how to best reduce emissions from a particular sector, ranging from regulatory measures to incentives to direct funding. There's always an opportunity to recalibrate the right balance in order to protect competitiveness and job growth.

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

Thank you.

You know, I've spent quite a bit of time talking to proponents in this industry, including OilCo, which is the provincial Crown corporation responsible for managing Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore oil and gas. They've actually called the federal emissions cap an “investment killer”, because it's creating uncertainty in investment in that industry. There is a high level of upfront capital cost to this industry.

What's your response to that?

[Megan Nichols]

Again, I can really only go back to the draft regulations that were tabled and the assessment that was done at that time of the costs and impacts as well as the benefits. At that time, the impact on growth of the sector was assessed to be very minimal, and similarly for GDP growth.

Again, we did receive significant feedback, all of which we are taking into account. That also includes additional information and data from industry that will help us make sure our policies are fit for purpose and in line with the government's priorities.

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

But you're talking about it with respect to growth. Wouldn't that really be within the same conversation as production? Don't they go together? Wouldn't there be an acknowledgement that if we don't have growth, we don't have production? How do you square that? How do you speak about it from a growth perspective but then say it's not a production cap?

[Megan Nichols]

I'm not sure if I'm fully following you. The assessed impact on growth, as I said, was very minimal, with, again, a minimal impact on production. The projected growth without the draft cap as proposed initially was 17%, and with the cap was assessed to be 16%. There was an extremely minimal impact.