Environment Committee on June 9th, 2026

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Just to be clear, do I split five minutes with Mr. Johns?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Yes.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you.

I thank you again, Ms. Abreu, for your very clear statements.

I want to go back to some of the key points: that Canada is not doing as good a job as the Trump administration and that the climate accountability act is being ignored.

Given what you've experienced, do you think there's any point in keeping the climate accountability act, or should we just let it be repealed so Canadians know the truth?

[Catherine Abreu]

It's absolutely important to have national legislation that enshrines our long-term climate goals as well as a climate governance regime. That being said, while it's not being respected, communication around why that legislation is not being respected is absolutely paramount. We are not getting that kind of honest and transparent communication with Canadians.

I certainly would not recommend repealing this legislation. I, in fact, am here to stand up for this legislation. It is absolutely critical. As I mentioned, we are not a front-runner country when it comes to having this legislation. We were 59th to pass a climate law, so already we were out of step with many of our global peers. Eliminating a climate law, particularly when we announced a climate emergency in 2019, would just make us embarrassing on the global stage.

When it comes to the damages that Canada is experiencing from climate change, according to the studies of the Canadian Climate Institute, by 2025, the Canadian economy was being slowed by $25 billion annually because of climate impacts. It is a huge impact to the Canadian economy and it's not something we can ignore, nor can we ignore the shrinking market share that Canada has in the global clean energy economy, which is only growing.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Ms. Abreu, as you said, there is a global energy revolution happening. Dr. Donner said the same thing. Canada is not part of it.

Are we in a very small group of countries that are still defending and willing to subsidize fossil fuels? Are we putting ourselves outside of what is now an increasingly global norm, in your view?

[Catherine Abreu]

Fossil fuel subsidies, unfortunately, continue around the world. We see, in particular, fossil fuel subsidies for consumption in many parts of the world. This is to offset the increasing costs of fossil fuels that people on the ground in many countries are experiencing because fossil fuel markets are becoming increasingly volatile.

We are one of a number—I wouldn't say a tiny number, but still a relatively small number—of countries that are offering the amount of subsidies that we do on production. I'm not sure that Canada would necessarily count itself amongst those other countries like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and, of course, the United States. We are certainly falling out of step with many of our global peers when it comes to really taking advantage of the transition.

I will point out that Canada has a unique advantage. We have an incredible abundance of clean energy in this country that we are not taking advantage of. Instead, we obsess over this one industry that, yes, is important and we need to plan for a managed phase-out of that industry over many years with respect to workers and communities, but let's invest in the resources that we have in this country. Those are clean energy resources.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Thank you.

Ms. Abreu, the Prime Minister was elected just over a year ago. He was elected as a climate champion. He served as the UN special envoy on climate action, leading global net-zero initiatives. This was his pedigree.

Do you believe that he is betraying what he got elected on, his pedigree and the work that he had been doing prior to becoming Prime Minister?

[Catherine Abreu]

My solidarity is with the many who had much higher expectations for this Prime Minister when he came into office, seeing his commitment to climate in other arenas and having read his book. Many of us are experiencing that disappointment. It's not only around climate policy. As someone growing up in Canada, even if I set my concerns around climate change aside, I'm concerned that we are not having the conversation about where we want to prioritize future opportunities in this country. We've been having the same conversation the entire time that I've been in my professional career. It's sad. I just have to be really honest with you all about that. It feels like we're stuck in the same conversation over and over again.

Even if I put my concerns for climate aside, the fact that we're not actually transitioning our economy into the future really worries me. That, in particular, is what many of us are disappointed about, because we felt that this Prime Minister would be the right one to think through the options at the intersection of economic potential and clean economy potential in this country. That's not what we're seeing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you very much, Ms. May and Mr. Johns.

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

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank our witnesses for appearing today.

I want to thank our Conservative friends, as well, for giving their time to Mr. Johns and Ms. May. I guess they're embracing their true commitment to climate change mitigation and environmental champions by allowing other voices at the table.

Welcome, and I welcome your questions.

My first question is for Ms. Abreu.

In your estimation, what institutional changes would make the advisory board more effective in providing independent advice to the government?

[Catherine Abreu]

The first step is to appoint members to the body. I believe that there are still only four members who are currently on the body out of a maximum of 14. Definitely, having some human resources there would be essential.

As Dr. Donner already mentioned, investing and making sure that the right co-chairpersonship is there is really important. I know that Dr. Donner will have further observations to share as the former co-chair.

In other iterations of this kind of dynamic that we see in other countries, the level of autonomy that the climate council has is really critical. That's autonomy both in terms of resourcing—the ability to oversee its own research and activities budget—as well as the level of autonomy of its staff. As Dr. Donner mentioned in his opening statement, we experienced the difficulty of having staff who were sometimes being put in challenging positions in terms of their roles within government. Those would also be areas that a new structure would have to look at for the advisory body to be more effective.

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you.

My next question would be for Dr. Donner, then.

During your time on the net-zero advisory board, what recommendations, Dr. Donner, do you believe had the greatest impact on federal climate policy?

[Dr. Simon Donner]

Honestly, it's a bit hard to answer precisely because of the timing of our advice. A lot of what we were advising on was aimed at very long-term decisions. There weren't necessarily things being done in immediate policy.

The one time when we lined up quite closely with the government, because of planning from the government's standpoint, was on advice towards the 2035 target and advice towards what could be done to close the gap towards 2030. That was our second annual report.

Most of the advice that we gave was not taken, but it was discussed in great detail with the government. It was discussed in great detail with the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. It was discussed in great detail with the Privy Council Office. That's because of the coordination, and that's why I pointed to the importance of coordination in my statement.

Another thing I will point out is that we worked a lot on industrial policy and industrial strategy. I know that in the previous government, there was a lot of interest from outside of ECCC in the advice we were giving, and the previous co-chairs met with many people outside of ECCC about that advice. Again, it wasn't directly adopted, but I think it did influence some of the direction that the government took.

You all don't have to like me personally, but we're just doing research and giving advice. Why not listen to the experts? They're there working for the government, serving at the pleasure of the government. It's worth listening to them.

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Dr. Donner, I don't dislike you personally. I want to make that clear.

My last question is for Ms. Abreu.

We just heard Dr. Donner talk about the long game, if you will, of the recommendations that the advisory body made. Would you agree with me, though, that you painted a bit of a bleak picture by painting us versus the U.S.A. in terms of the progress that they're making? Is that not a bit of a false narrative?

We can go back to the Bush era, when they started laying the groundwork for this. With the commitment, the ability and the sheer heft, if you will, of the U.S. to enact some of these—and the California climate regulations, which are not insignificant—that is all catching on now, and to compare it.... Would you not agree that it's a bit of a false narrative to compare all of those years of planning and that stewardship by progressive presidencies, which is now coming to fruition...?

We're being compared to Donald Trump, of all people. Do you agree that it's a little bit unfair to do that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Give a short answer please, Ms. Abreu.

[Catherine Abreu]

I don't agree that it's unfair to do it, because if we were not making that comparison, then we would be saying that it was okay for previous successive governments in Canada not to take any action on climate change, which is not the case. It was not okay. In fact, we now have a decade of revolution in Canadian climate policy behind us.

What I'm talking about is how this government will plan to continue that legacy. Currently, there is no plan to continue any of that activity. Instead, there's just an elimination of policies without any new pathways being put forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you very much, Mr. Malette.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to very warmly thank our witnesses for their time and testimony today. They are now excused.

We'll suspend for a few minutes while we switch to in camera.

Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]