Environment Committee on April 21st, 2026

[Thomas Green]

At the foundation, we've been working hard to strengthen the east-west grid across Canada. We think the federal government should be investing in that. We should be adding more renewables to the grid. We should be supporting Canadian households to electrify and replace furnaces with heat pumps. We should be replacing more electrified public transit and have more EVs on the road.

All of these switches mean that we get off the roller coaster of fossil fuels and the kind of inflation that it causes and that we'd be better positioned for when the next crisis happens.

I noticed in the last panel that there was a discussion about there not being investment in certain oil and gas projects. One of the reasons there's a lack of investment in some of these projects is that the world is moving so quickly to renewables. Batteries have come down in cost. Solar and wind have come down in cost. It doesn't make sense to invest in more fossil fuel supply when, as you point out, your constituents are responding to floods and other people are facing or will face wildfires this summer.

It makes much more sense to try to reduce how much fossil fuel we produce, export and use, and to electrify our economy.

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Auer, I'll turn to you. You've mentioned that cement and concrete are responsible for fairly large emissions.

Can you briefly tell us what the industry is doing and what innovations it's pursuing to reduce that?

[Adam Auer]

Sure.

The lowest hanging fruit in our sector has to do basically with two strategies. Here, I should point out that we actually have a road map for decarbonization that's been published for a number of years now, and if you want to dig into the details, you can look at it. That said, basically we need fuel substitution to lower carbon alternatives; clinker substitution, which means new cement recipes that reduce the most carbon-intensive ingredients in the formulation; and then, ongoing, more traditional process and efficiency improvements.

In the longer term, it's carbon capture technology that will be required to get us into the deep reduction territory.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you very much.

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Thank you.

Quickly, Madam Chair, could we have that road map provided to the committee?

[Adam Auer]

Yes.

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Excellent.

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

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Ms. Winter, you talked about the negative effects on productivity that too big a difference from one province to another can have on carbon pricing.

Do you think it's a disadvantage if Quebec maintains its carbon pricing when Canada doesn't enforce its safety net, the famous benchmark, compared to the carbon price for industry in the other provinces?

Could that cause economic problems?

[Jennifer Winter]

No, I do not believe it would be disadvantageous for Quebec to maintain its cap and trade system. The federal backstop and federal benchmark allow for flexibility amongst provinces. The benefit of Quebec's system is quantity certainty with the cap and trade system. Thus, relative to the rest of Canada, Quebec has more certainty on its emissions reduction path. The other provinces and territories have chosen price certainty rather than quantity certainty.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'll clarify my question. I'm not sure if you caught it.

Quebec has its system in place. If Canada doesn't maintain an equivalent system, could the fact that there's a price in Quebec and that there's no price elsewhere be a disadvantage for Quebec businesses?

[Jennifer Winter]

Yes, technically speaking, if Quebec were the only province with emissions pricing, then it would be a higher cost jurisdiction relative to the other provinces and territories. It could, of course, mitigate this through free allocations of emissions permits, which would protect competitiveness both within Quebec, for importers of goods, and outside Quebec, for Quebec exporters.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Auer, I think you mentioned the importance of having up-to-date analyses regarding the exposure of various sectors, among other things.

To your knowledge, when was this last done at the federal level?

[Adam Auer]

I think it was with the original ouput-based pricing launch in 2018 or 2019.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Does your industry and the sector as a whole currently benefit from the free allocation of emissions units provided under the systems in place in Canada? For instance, in Quebec, we're talking about up to 99% free allocations for large emitters, depending on the sector.

Do you have this information, and if so, could you send it to us? If not, could you tell us where we might find this information?

[Adam Auer]

I certainly would be willing to share.

The short answer is that every province has its own benchmark. As for the federal backstop for cement, we're in the highest category. Ninety-five per cent of the emissions above the benchmark are covered.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you, Mr. Bonin.

We'll now go to Mr. Ross for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Dr. Winter, thank you for your testimony.

I do like the conversation we're having here, because we're trying to have a thoughtful discussion of consequences and trade-offs.

I was an MLA in the B.C. legislature for a few years and was quite shocked when the Business Council of B.C. did an analysis of CleanBC's plan. A lot of mayors across B.C. were also shocked when the BCBC took the B.C. government's numbers and facts and basically compiled them to show that the cumulative economic loss to B.C. would be $109 billion to $132 billion, over 10 years.

Are you aware of that analysis, and did you agree with the thought process that went into it?

[Jennifer Winter]

I have not seen that analysis. I'm sorry.

If I could briefly comment, my impression is that it's quite possible it is accurate, but it does lack the other side of the coin, in that, by continuing to emit, there are climate damages—

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

Hold on a minute. If you haven't read it, I'll wait until you read it, and then maybe you can give me a thorough analysis of what you think of it.

The B.C. government basically tried to downplay it, saying that the Business Council of B.C., the biggest business advocate in B.C., didn't know what they were talking about, even though the author took it from all the graphs and numbers and compiled it. He had to dig for it through all the government pages on the Internet. He had to dig for it, and that's what came out. They didn't deny it.

Also, in that same report, the BCBC actually predicted that annual household income would decline by $11,000 annually. When we're talking about the consequences and trade-offs, I don't like to forget the human element.

Have you done an analysis of all these policies, whether they be national or provincial, in terms of the impact on the household of the average Canadian individual?

[Jennifer Winter]

My work on household impacts has been limited to carbon pricing.

I do have work that enumerates Canadian emissions mitigation policies, and we have ongoing work to evaluate the combined impact of those policies.

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

Until I see something else, I'll go by the Business Council of B.C.'s analysis, which the B.C. government hasn't denied.

In that context, when we're talking about the consequences and trade-offs—I'm looking at your bio, by the way—I've yet to come across anybody, in terms of the EV mandate, talking about the impact on the land and water. We're all geared towards the emissions, which is good, especially when we're talking about Canada's commitment to it, but nobody seems to talk about what this means to the land base.

Whether we're talking about Canada or South Africa, or whether we're talking about different regions around the world that still use forced or slave labour or don't have worker standards or environmental standards.... Has your office actually looked into these consequences or trade-offs?

[Jennifer Winter]

I have done some work on this—project-specific analyses of the consequences and trade-offs, such as coal mining in Alberta and the partial upgrading of facilities. That's fairly similar to what the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada does in evaluating the benefits and burdens.

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

Have you done this internationally?

[Jennifer Winter]

No, I haven't done it internationally.