Environment Committee on Oct. 8th, 2026

[Moe Kabbara]

I don't really have a lot of details on this particular question, beyond the fact that I think the apprenticeship program that was announced is a great model, especially with the electricians being involved. We will be monitoring uptake of that program and how it actually results in increasing capacity for installations of the systems required. We know there's a big gap on the installer side.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Do you think the federal government should better fund these sectors and help the provinces do more? Do you think enough is being done right now?

[Moe Kabbara]

Clearly, whenever you go to any province and ask what the biggest challenges are going to be, labour comes out, whether we're talking about the electricity system build-out or the transformation of the building sector. Obviously, more needs to be done, but I think the progress we've made specifically with the apprenticeship program is a good start.

In modelling out and mapping out exactly what our needs and gaps are, I think there is a role for the provinces and a role for the federal government in collaboration with institutions on the training side. I don't think we've hit a threshold where enough is being done.

I agree with that assessment. I also feel that we've done more in the last year than we have in the last 10.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

In that regard, apart from today's announcement, do you think there have been setbacks since the Carney government came to power?

[Moe Kabbara]

Do you mean in labour training?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'm talking about all measures for energy efficiency, energy savings and greening buildings.

[Moe Kabbara]

The short answer is that I don't think we've lost ground. I'm happy to expand on that, but off-line.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you, Mr. Bonin.

We'll now turn to Mr. Leslie for five minutes.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Kabbara, I'd like to start with the labour piece in today's announcement. I appreciate that you're pretty realistic about not putting in heat pumps where they don't belong. I appreciate the realistic approach that you've offered here.

Do we have the labourers to put a million heat pumps in homes over the next five or seven years, or however many years this announcement is for?

[Moe Kabbara]

That's a good question.

We're looking at the scale of this transition and where it's going to happen. I think the goal is a million. I think the program we have, depending on how it's being utilized, will get us a few hundred thousand. We installed 200,000 ACs. It's the same thing, so I don't think we're off by an order of magnitude.

The constraints are going to be regional. It depends on the regions that have markets. There's a big market in the Maritimes and Atlantic Canada because the economics work, and they've developed that labour market much more than in other regions—for example, Alberta.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you.

I'll move to Mr. Mari. I feel that it's going to be very frustrating to listen to your answers, but thank you for being so blunt about the assessments of what you and other builders have to do in your municipality in particular.

I'm from a rural area. My community's only holdup is in whether or not we can get collaborative federal and provincial funding to expand sewers and water treatment plants.

We will build. We have no issues, because we have relatively small city councils and RMs, and we have reeves and a small number of employees there. We follow the building codes and we get things built because people want to build houses, so when I hear these stories of gatekeepers making up ridiculous reasons to delay projects for two years, it just makes my blood boil, even though I don't understand it. We're clearly in an affordability crunch and a housing shortage situation, and it's clear what the cause is.

You previously warned that adding one well-intentioned building requirement after another can drive up builders' housing costs. How should government decide when the next energy requirement costs a household more than it can reasonably recover through lower bills?

[Luke Mari]

Are you referring to building code changes?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Yes.

[Luke Mari]

There's no doubt in my mind that the incremental changes to the building code are driving up costs, some of it for good reason and some of it perhaps not. On the energy efficiency, in a moderate climate it's not going to be as big a deal as it would be in other parts of the country. I don't think I can expand much more than that. I think the seismic code changes we're seeing in British Columbia add far more cost than we're seeing from energy requirements.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

My next question will be about transparency. We actually have legislation from one of my Conservative colleagues that would require the National Research Council to explain how proposed building code changes would affect housing costs, identify who is developing them and keep that information in a public registry.

Do you believe there is merit in that legislation?

[Luke Mari]

Yes.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

That's a very concise answer. As politicians, we're not used to that.

Quickly, if a taxpayer's money is helping a landlord retrofit a building.... You all touched on that a bit, but I'll go to you quickly, Mr. Mari, because I have only a few seconds left.

If you're a landlord that has an all-inclusive rate, isn't there a benefit that's going to accrue to the landlord? How do you guarantee that it trickles down to a tenant for a lot of these scenarios where they might not be paying their own utility bills?

[Luke Mari]

I have half a page on this topic. How do you maintain public interest with federal subsidization to landlords? I don't have an exact answer or a complete answer, other than I think you have to decide where you place value. If a tenant's safety and comfort are a public interest, then there's value in subsidizing the landlord's work.

In British Columbia, we have highly rent-controlled environments, so there are very limited ways to recoup some of these investments. Perhaps there could be a one-time debt burden or cost recovery measure that a landlord could apply to the provincial government for. I think, if we're talking about, say, $80,000 or $85,000 of past programs for deep retrofits—

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Mari, I'm going to cut you off.

In my final seconds. Madam Chair. I would like to move my motion from June 11 regarding the obligation.... I'm hoping we can pass it quickly, like we did with my colleague Patrick's earlier this week. It's with regard to the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, and it reads:

That, pursuant to the legal obligation under section 27.1 of the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, which requires that a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of the Act be undertaken five years after the Act comes into force, and given that the Act received Royal Assent on Tuesday, June 29, 2021, the committee undertake the statutory five year review....

I'll dispense with reading out the rest of it, but I'm hoping, given that the five-year window has now passed, this committee will quickly agree to set aside time this fall to begin the statutory review.

The reality is that Parliament put this act in place for a reason. It has the word “accountability” in it. We've seen five years' worth of plans, reports and audits sitting in front of us. Our job as a committee is pretty simple, in my view. Let's look at what worked, what did not, what Canadians paid for and whether this law is, in fact, doing what Parliament said it would do. If this committee is not prepared to review this law, there wasn't exactly much point in putting in place the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act to begin with.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you, Mr. Leslie.

Monsieur Bonin.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Chair, my colleague already talked about this motion.

I think that's obvious to the committee. Members will recall that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development was the committee that worked on the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. The act is very clear that there must be an assessment after five years. That was more than five years ago. The government says that fighting climate change is important, so I think it's one of the first things to be done.

Is this legislation that was passed at the time working? Is the government on the right track?

Our committee did hear from a number of witnesses back then. It's a key component. I think there's a way to do that quickly. We need an overall vision. On the one hand, we need to know whether the government is complying with its laws. I know that, in some respects, it has set aside environmental legislation. On the other hand, we need to know if these laws are working, or if they're just sitting there. Are they being used?

For now, we ourselves should have started this assessment, which was required after five years, not after five and a half years, which is about where we are, or after six years if we wait.

There is a climate emergency. We saw it today: The Canadian Climate Institute released a publication saying that, in 2025, greenhouse gas emissions increased, when they should be reduced. Canada has nearly 700 million tonnes of greenhouse gases equivalent to CO ₂. The Canadian Climate Institute says that it will increase even more, that the increase will escalate.

Therefore, it is urgent to see if the legislation works. Is Canada implementing it? In my opinion, it is up to our committee to express its opinion on this and study the situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you, Monsieur Bonin.

Mr. Grant.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to recognize that we have witnesses here from across Canada, speaking on a very important issue. We've talked about affordability all day today, and this study is a major part of that affordability, based on the announcement we had today. I'd really like to hear more from them before they go.

I'd like to move a motion to adjourn the debate, please.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

The debate is adjourned.

We're going to continue with the witness testimony, and we're going to split the last five minutes up between Mr. Fanjoy and Mr. St-Pierre.

We'll start with Mr. Fanjoy for two and a half minutes.

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Kabbara, you indicated in response to a question from Mr. Bonin that you don't think we're falling behind. I want to give you an opportunity to elaborate on what good you see happening. What more could we do?