Thank you.
My name is Thomas Green, senior manager, climate solutions. I've been at the David Suzuki Foundation for eight years, and I've been working on carbon pricing since the very beginning.
DSF was one of the environmental organizations that signed on to the letter to the Prime Minister, which was sent in March. We've also sent the committee a more detailed written submission.
Canada's climate policy tool kit has been depleted. We've lost the consumer carbon levy and the oil and gas emissions cap. The electric vehicle availability standard is going to be replaced with yet-to-be drafted tailpipe standards. What is left is the powerful lever of industrial carbon pricing, and it's really important to get it right.
The government has rightly placed climate competitiveness at the heart of Canada's economic strategy, and that strategy depends on robust, predictable and actionable industrial carbon pricing.
Industrial carbon pricing is supported by leading economists. There was a recent letter with 200 economists supporting continuing with industrial carbon pricing.
We're very concerned that the Alberta MOU—and how it's implemented—risks undermining industrial carbon pricing. Indeed, a week after the MOU was signed, Alberta weakened its system further with regulatory changes that flood the market with credits. Prices predictably collapsed.
Why does carbon pricing matter beyond climate? It's a competitiveness policy. As the EU carbon border adjustment policy takes effect, global markets are increasingly pricing carbon intensity into trade and investment decisions.
A June 2025 survey of industrial carbon pricing participants showed that it is working to reduce emissions in Canada, to support business performance and to advance low-carbon investments, yet confidence was lacking that the price will reach $170 by 2030. That's in part because we see a lot of pressure both from industry and from some across the political spectrum to weaken it or get rid of it entirely.
The question is not whether Canada can afford robust industrial carbon pricing but whether Canada can afford to be caught without it when trading partners come looking at the carbon content of our exports. The Canadian Climate Institute showed that $57 billion in decarbonization projects are linked to the carbon price signal. Those are real investments in jobs and government revenues that are at stake.
On actual costs, you've heard referenced before the CCI study showing that oil sands' compliance costs are about nine cents per barrel today, rising to 50¢ by 2030, which is hardly a competitiveness risk. We've also heard reference to the Fraser Institute's flawed findings, and we caution the committee on basing its recommendations on a model that hasn't been validated and that doesn't do an adequate job of modelling how industrial carbon pricing works. It's an outlier, and sectors with little or no industrial carbon pricing appear in the Fraser Institute's analysis to have the largest model impacts, which shows that it's not working properly. It doesn't price how industrial carbon pricing protects competitiveness and how industry reacts by investing in decarbonization.
New Economy Canada's vice-president of government relations had this supportive statement on carbon pricing when the budget came out, saying, “The newly announced climate competitiveness strategy sends the right signal on the importance of industrial pricing for global competitiveness. At the same time, businesses need certainty as soon as possible to unlock investment”.
The task for the government—and our core ask—is to ensure that the 2026 review results in a robust system that includes a strong, rising and enforced minimum industrial carbon price; a clear and credible, post-2030 industrial carbon price trajectory; the restoration of a level playing field across jurisdictions; and a few other elements like this.
Economists support industrial carbon pricing, and the World Bank recognizes it as a powerful tool for driving efficiency and innovation.
This committee has an opportunity to see it and act accordingly with these recommendations.
Thank you. I welcome your questions.