Environment Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2025

[Simon Donner]

I agree. I think most of the Net-Zero Advisory Body would agree with what Professor Mousseau is saying. I'll add that in terms of specific policies, having incentives for electric vehicles and having an availability standard makes a big difference. It has been very effective in parts of the country, in provinces where there is more of an infrastructure for electric vehicles. It is quite easy to operate an electric vehicle in British Columbia and many parts of Quebec, for example. The policies make a difference.

When it comes to home heating and cooling, one of the things we've talked about in our recent advice to the minister was looking at a program that provides incentives for adopting heat pumps in low-income households, recognizing that the cost is too high right now, but those are upfront costs. It's true with most electric technologies that the upfront costs right now are higher, but the operating costs are lower. We need to help people get over that initial hurdle so they can save money in the long run.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Ellis Ross]

Thank you very much for that.

We will now go to Mr. Bonin for two and a half minutes.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Brouillette, what do you think of the legislation resulting from Bill C‑5?

Projects approved by the government have been designated as being in the national interest. For example, in Quebec, an LNG project would double the production of liquefied natural gas and its export.

Do you think this is a good project in terms of climate competitiveness?

I'll also mention the Pathways Alliance project on carbon sequestration and capture. This project, which is being led by major oil companies, is being funded by the government to the tune of billions of dollars a year.

Do you think these two so-called national projects align with the kind of shift we want to make?

[Caroline Brouillette]

Environmentalists want to build. There are things we need to build to transform our economy. That's what we've been discussing for some time in this committee. However, people want to build the right things the right way.

Unfortunately, Bill C‑5 seems to imply that only the concerted efforts of the provincial and territorial premiers and certain CEOs will help us speed up the construction of infrastructure. However, the literature and experience show us that we will succeed by consulting the communities, by working with them and by respecting the rights and sovereignty of indigenous peoples.

Bill C‑5 presents us with an opportunity to improve this by further defining the issue of national interest. The act has a provision that would allow us to do that. We think it's essential that the harmonization of our targets in the fight against climate change be part of it.

I want to be very clear that LNG and its planned export is not beneficial to the climate. I'm not the one saying this, but the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement du Québec.

We don't see any benefits because methane is an extremely potent gas. The idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by displacing coal simply does not hold water in terms of science and math.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I want to talk a little bit about the big carbon capture and storage project.

I know we don't have a lot of time to talk about this. I would invite you to send us a more detailed answer in writing later.

[Caroline Brouillette]

We've been hearing about this project for a long time.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Ellis Ross]

Thank you. I'll intervene here.

There was a request to send answers in writing.

We will now go to Mr. Gill for five minutes.

[Amanpreet S. Gill, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

My question is for Mr. Donner.

You have said Canada should align with world trading partners, but the U.S. is investing to gain a stronger advantage through initiatives like the Inflation Reduction Act, not carbon taxes. Would it make more sense for Canada to pursue technology investment initiatives instead of taxes and regulations that drive jobs out of our country?

[Simon Donner]

I think the first thing to be clear is that in terms of Canadian policy, we've been advocating, and I've been advocating, on this call for the importance—the data shows this—and potential value of the industrial pricing system. The industrial pricing system is effectively a way to incentivize technology and to encourage companies to invest in technology. I actually don't think those two things are exclusive. In fact, it's part of the point of having an industrial pricing system.

In terms of aligning with our trading partners, what I was referring to and what I think is really important here is that in setting our long-term targets and everything, we have to look to what the entire world is doing, not just what the United States is doing. We are last in the G7 at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

When we're thinking about transforming our economy and thinking about electrification in the direction of the clean energy boom that's happening around the world, that's about looking not just to the U.S. but to trading partners around the world as the government seems to be interested in doing. In that, it just points to the importance of paying attention to the decreasing cost in the huge rollout of clean energy around the world, the electrification that's happening with vehicles in other parts of the world, including some of North America. That's part of the motivation and part of the information that's informing our advice.

[Amanpreet S. Gill, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Thank you for that.

The Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act requires reporting, but there are no real consequences when government misses targets. Would you agree this lies essentially more in the class of politics than policy?

[Simon Donner]

I'd say that laws like the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act have been quite effective in other countries. As Professor Mousseau was pointing out, in the U.K., France, Germany, etc., the legislation is very similar to our legislation and has been quite effective.

The question really is how we ensure that government is going to implement the plans that are put forward. As I mentioned before, the emissions reduction plan, though not good enough to meet the 2030 target, was the most comprehensive climate policy plan that Canada has ever had. That was an accomplishment. The issue is that enough of it hasn't been implemented, and now some of the measures are being removed or cancelled.

[Amanpreet S. Gill, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

The government can't even meet the ones they've already made.

Another one is that the Net-Zero Advisory Body is taxpayer funded. What accountability measures are in place to ensure that advice is practical and cost-effective and not just aspirational?

[Simon Donner]

The Net-Zero Advisory Body members are appointed by the government, and we have very clear terms of reference around considering not just what it takes to reduce emissions but economic prosperity, health and well-being and the environment. Our mandate is not just to advise on what you could do to reduce emissions but what is a realistic pathway for Canada that includes and considers economic and social well-being. It's right there in our mandate.

[Amanpreet S. Gill, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Canada has failed to meet every climate target it has ever set. Isn't it hopeless to call for these new, more ambitious promises when the government can't meet the ones it's already made?

[Simon Donner]

I'll tell you just as an individual that I find that frustrating as well, and I understand why members would ask those questions. These emissions targets are not just about reducing emissions; they're about trying to prepare Canada for the future. It's about trying to reduce the impacts of climate change and to make sure we're ready for a future in which the rest of the world is trying to decarbonize.

Though some of the targets seem a long time away—2050 certainly seems a long time away—the actions we need to take to reduce emissions and prepare for the low-carbon economy require long-term thinking. These require multi-decade transformations. Having these things off in the future help motivate the right decisions today that will help Canada not just reduce the impacts of climate change but be prosperous in low-carbon economies of the future.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Ellis Ross]

Thank you very much for that.

I'm looking at the time. I know a lot of members have to get to question period, other meetings and whatnot. In the interest of time and not wanting to disrupt this very robust conversation—we're getting a lot of knowledge here—I'm going to propose that we do one more round of two minutes apiece.

We'll start with Mr. St-Pierre from the Liberal caucus.

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

Ms. Brouillette, as you know, the provinces have access to many regulatory and legislative tools to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, Quebec has set an emissions reduction target of 37.5% by 2030.

Is Quebec on track to meet its target? If it is, what effect does that have on the federal target?

[Caroline Brouillette]

Thank you for the question.

Unfortunately, as mentioned earlier, there has been a decline in several provinces and territories, including Quebec.

Quebec is not on track to meet its 2030 target. This is very worrisome, because Quebec was a national leader on climate issues, having adopted an industrial strategy based on hydroelectricity.

In Canada, since the environment and energy issues are a shared jurisdiction, we have to rely on teamwork, as I said earlier.

So it's important for everyone to do their part, at both the provincial and federal level.

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

Thank you, Ms. Brouillette.

Mr. Donner, the federal government has existing methane regulations, for example, requiring equivalency agreements. How important is provincial action and implementation towards meeting the federal climate objectives?

[Simon Donner]

It is absolutely vital. That's why some of our recent advice to the Minister of the Environment was on doing everything we can to make these equivalency agreements more transparent and accountable. For example, methane emissions reductions are really low-hanging fruit for Canada. We have the technology to reduce methane emissions from landfills and from oil and gas. We could meet these targets that the government has created but that have not been finalized and implemented.

The good thing about it is that the technologies required to do that are technologies that Canadian companies could be marketing and exporting overseas. To make this happen, though, because the provinces end up doing some of the implementation and monitoring, we need a solid agreement with the provinces. Without those agreements, we're missing out on not just emission reductions, but we're missing out on economic opportunities.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Ellis Ross]

Thank you.

Mr. Bonin, you have two minutes.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Brouillette, I believe it was you who mentioned the carbon border adjustment. Europe has such a system in place.

Do you think it would be a good idea to adopt that approach here in Canada?

[Caroline Brouillette]

When the Prime Minister announced his election platform, he said he would move forward with such a policy. If that's the case, we think that certain mechanisms must be analyzed in terms of the repercussions it could have on countries in the global south, in particular.

Right now, the European adjustment is severely penalizing those countries.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

You may have some reservations, but it's something that should be assessed.

Is that correct?

[Caroline Brouillette]

It looks like the government is going to move forward on this. A little later, I can send you our thoughts on the conceptualization of the policy.