Environment Committee on May 28th, 2026

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

That's great. Thank you.

I'll pass my time on to my colleague, Bruce.

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Thank you.

My question is for Mr. Fisher from the Canada Water Agency.

Canada is blessed with so much water. One of the challenges is that it's not always in the right place at the right time. We experience droughts and floods as a result of extreme weather events and climate change.

Can you talk to us a bit about how the Canada Water Agency is helping to prepare Canadians for greater resilience with respect to our water?

[Mark Fisher, President, Canada Water Agency]

Through you, Madam Chair, thank you for the question. It's a good one.

It is true that many Canadians look at Canada as a water-abundant country, but there is a different story. Of the fresh water that we do have that's available, 60% flows north, away from 80% of the population. As you indicated, there are certainly regional differences in terms of water availability and water quality. Front and centre in the Canada Water Agency's work is working with provinces and territories, indigenous partners and local groups to restore and protect nationally and regionally significant freshwater ecosystems. Through our policy work, we're also working on and committed to developing Canada's first national water security strategy. This will really allow us to look at those more variable and uncertain futures and make sure that the federal government, as well as many partners, has an eye on that future and how we put the right policies and programs in place to make sure—to your point—that we have sufficient water available where we need it and of the quality that we need to service a variety of ecological and socio-economic needs.

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Thank you.

The water security strategy will address having water where we need it. What about flood risk management? Is that within the scope?

[Mark Fisher]

I know earlier in the week there was a robust debate and discussion on Bill C-241. It's a bill that hasn't passed the House yet, but we know it's certainly an issue that's top of mind for Canadians. As we develop the national water security strategy with many partners, floods, droughts and other issues will come up in that context. We certainly see an opportunity for synergy among those strategies if that bill is passed. We look forward to having that discussion in more detail depending on where that bill goes.

Thank you.

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you, Mr. Fanjoy.

You have the floor for six minutes, Mr. Bonin.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yesterday, my colleague the member for Honoré‑Mercier was quoted in Le Devoir. He said that he wanted more data before he could say that Canada has failed to meet its greenhouse gas emission targets. However, his government's “2025 Progress Report on the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan” shows greenhouse gas emissions are projected to reduce by 21% to 28% by 2030, which is way below the 40% to 45% target.

Ms. Johnson, are the data released by your government showing this trajectory and which indicate that we are not on track to meet our greenhouse gas emission reduction targets by 2030, reliable?

[Mollie Johnson]

I'm sorry. Are you asking me if the information that we put out as the Government of Canada is unreliable? No, we put out reliable information.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Okay.

Thus, right now, as per the 2025 report, we're not really on track to meet our target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

Is that correct?

[Mollie Johnson]

You can read the 2025 report. You've read our 2026 NIR. It shows where we are making progress in moving toward our objectives. The government is committed to delivering on our 2050 objectives, and we're continuing to do that work, as the minister said.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Have you assessed the impact of government decisions on greenhouse gas emissions within your department? I am thinking, for example, of the methane regulations; changes to the clean electricity regulations; the deferred, watered-down industrial carbon pricing; and the pipeline with a capacity to move one million barrels a day.

Are you carrying out internal assessments on how this will impact the country's emissions trajectory?

[Mollie Johnson]

We provide ongoing analysis and advice, as we do on all things. There's a distinction between that and the modelling and reports, such as those that we put out in December and the NIR. As you well know, being very well versed in this topic, there are interactive effects, there are complexities and—as you discussed with the minister—that global number is really important. We have work to do as a number of these decisions are modelled and put together. We really do have work to do. Right now, we're working on taking what has been happening in the decisions made over the past period of time and putting things together so that we can come forward and deliver a comprehensive modelling.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

You're saying that you have done some analyses. Can you share them with the committee? I gave some examples, but—

[Mollie Johnson]

I'm happy to share the information we have.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Okay.

I take it you will provide us with information on the various reduction measures that have been changed in relation to the emissions reduction plan. Is that right?

[Mollie Johnson]

As I said, on a measure-by-measure basis, that's not how we operate. We really look at these things from a global perspective. On an individual...we talk about them, but we don't have them modelled in the way that I would expect you are looking for them.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'm having a hard time keeping up with you, because you're telling me you look at these things from a global perspective, but to do that, you need to have each of these individual measures, don't you?

[Mollie Johnson]

Yes, but as you were saying earlier when speaking to the minister, there's a distinction between the global number impact and trajectories to get to 2050 versus the individual measures and interactive effects. When we put out our information and share our information, we need to make sure that we are credible in talking about where we're going on our path to 2030 and 2050, so that's the work that we have to do.

As an example, with the update to industrial carbon pricing, there are a number of decisions that still have to be made jurisdiction by jurisdiction on the implementation of the benchmark. That will all impact what it's going to look like and the impact it will have on the emissions going forward. We need to know this to understand the impacts going forward, and the details matter.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Okay.

I would be grateful if you could provide us with whatever information you are able to share.

Minister LeBlanc has announced some regulatory adjustments and amendments, including some that will transfer the responsibility of analyzing pipeline projects from the Impact Assessment Agency to the Canada Energy Regulator.

What implications does that have on the Impact Assessment Agency?

[Terence Hubbard]

Thank you for the question.

Some of the proposed changes are outlined in the discussion paper. The goal is to find ways to make the process more efficient, not to cut back on environmental obligations.

For example, environmental assessments for pipelines will still be carried out, but the assessments will be done by the Canada Energy Regulator.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Okay.

Does the regulator have the skill sets to carry out impact assessments?

I see my time is up.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bonin.

I will now turn to Mr. Ross for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to start with Ms. Johnson, please.

The minister was just here talking about the agreement that was signed in my riding, by the way, in Klemtu—or Kitasoo. The older name is Kitasoo. He was talking about a conservation land agreement. It's quite interesting. One of the provisions speaks about open-net fish farms. Kitasoo has had a fish farm for the better part of 30 years.

In the context of this agreement, is the idea of the fish farms provision to continue the phase-out under Canada's plan to June 30, 2029, or is it to renegotiate fish farms in the context of Kitasoo's fish farms?

[Mollie Johnson]

I'm going to pass this over to my colleague, Mr. Campbell, on the basis that it's a Parks Canada lead.