Environment Committee on Oct. 20th, 2026

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

That's pretty good.

I have half a minute left.

Mr. Moreau, you were talking about freeing up kilowatt hours on the grid. Do you want to elaborate a bit more on that? You mentioned it in your opening statement.

[Vincent Moreau]

I'm sorry. I didn't understand. Can you repeat the question, please?

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

In your opening statement, you mentioned that one of your goals was to free up kilowatt hours on the grid. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to explain that a bit more.

What would you be doing to free up more kilowatt hours on the grid?

[Vincent Moreau]

I talked about freeing up kilowatt hours because we're talking about accelerating electrification, whether in terms of transport, buildings, processes or the industrial sector. However, to do that, it's necessary to improve energy efficiency and free up electrons.

We're talking about a network that is sometimes overloaded. For the greater Montreal area alone, the distribution network is operating at full capacity. In that case, how can we electrify certain buildings or electrify transport? Electrons need to be freed up, and that requires energy efficiency.

When we talk about freeing up electrons and freeing up kilowatt hours, that's for the sake of the economy of tomorrow, which must be fully electric.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you, Mr. Moreau.

Thank you, Mr. Reynolds.

We will now turn to Mr. Fanjoy for five minutes.

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses.

I'd like to revisit an important point that Mr. Leslie made earlier. Performing home energy retrofits raises property values. A property is more valuable after a retrofit than it was before. When we talk about investments of $5,000 or $10,000—

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

It was more than that.

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Excuse me, Mr. Leslie. I'm speaking.

Those investments come back out of the house when a homeowner sells. In the meantime, they benefit from dramatically lower operating costs.

I'd like to start with you, Mr. Thornell. You previously worked in the city on home retrofit programming. You're now with the Ottawa Climate Action Fund. I'm curious. In your experience in implementing and managing these programs, what changes to federal policies would make it easier for municipalities to deliver energy efficiency improvements faster to more Canadians?

[Aaron Thornell]

As I mentioned during my opening remarks, coordination among federal governments, utilities, provinces and, ultimately, municipalities, which are generally closest to the residents themselves, could allow for a much smoother delivery of programming and for consistency of programming. I think municipalities have tools in their tool belts. You made mention of LIC and PACE programming here in Ontario, which allow for the municipality to play the role of financier, where appropriate, for these kinds of energy-efficiency retrofits and backstop those through the property tax system.

As both of my co-witnesses said, there's a lot of stability there, and there's a lot of risk prevention or risk protection, given that model. I think leveraging those opportunities for coordination would be key number one.

Then, again, it would be just moving as much as possible away from, perhaps, the boom and bust cycle and giving municipalities, utilities and provinces tools to develop more structured blended-finance models to sustain these kinds of retrofit programs in the long term.

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Moreau, you talked about the MultiRés program, which provides full funding for energy-efficient retrofits tailored to the needs of buildings.

How has this funding model helped to overcome the financial barriers that prevent building owners from undertaking energy efficiency retrofits?

[Vincent Moreau]

Thank you for the question.

The most interesting thing about the MultiRés program is that the costs are 100% borne by investors. After choosing a financial plan and a profitability or amortization model based on the various energy retrofits they want to carry out or the energy efficiency rates they want to achieve, the owner chooses a plan or model for investment and renovation.

Not having to make a down payment at the outset is a major incentive. It removes a lot of red tape. When it comes to multi-residential buildings—that is, six to 15 housing units—not everyone has the cash needed to start retrofits. MultiRés is a program that absorbs 100% of the retrofit costs and puts the homeowner in a rebate program for a set period.

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Elbrecht, how can investments in residential electrification contribute to greater Canadian energy security while reducing household costs and helping to support a domestic clean industry and job growth?

[Jana Elbrecht]

Furnace oil is the most obvious example right now. I don't think that people planning for their winter household budget should need to read global affairs pages to see what's going to happen to their energy prices. Historically, the price of electricity across all provinces has been relatively stable, whereas the prices of both oil and natural gas have been incredibly volatile. Predictability is security when you're planning your household budget.

On top of that, when we're talking about doubling the grid, we're also talking about electrifying in a smart way, building the grid of tomorrow. Those technologies in people's homes—whether those are electric water heaters, heat pumps with smart thermostats, solar or at-home batteries—can be leveraged to store energy or to shift the peak. Part of this is a beautiful future scenario, and part of this is already happening with the peak perks program and with similar programming in Quebec and B.C.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you, Mr. Fanjoy.

Mr. Bonin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Moreau, we have already heard testimony that some people were signing up to publicly funded programs even if they already intended to carry out retrofits or improvements to save on energy. Obviously, I imagine that means fewer environmental gains.

Is that a problem or not?

[Vincent Moreau]

Unfortunately, I'm not aware of that issue. You're letting me know about it, so I wouldn't be able to give you an answer. I'm sorry.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you for your honesty.

The current government is making a lot of investments in fossil fuels; there's no denying it. Do you think the government should invest the same amount in energy efficiency, renewable energy and energy conservation?

[Vincent Moreau]

Are you asking me if it should invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency solutions?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

There's currently a $43‑billion pipeline proposal that will be paid for mainly through public money. Should that money instead be invested in energy efficiency, energy conservation and renewable energy?

[Vincent Moreau]

If we want to meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets, it's clear that the trajectory we need to take right now has to focus on renewable energy and technologies. If we're serious about meeting the targets, we have to think about everything that's currently being spent on oil and gas development. When it comes to transition, I understand that certain choices can sometimes be prioritized from an economic standpoint. However, that means we will have to redouble our efforts to be able to meet the targets afterward. If we want to move in a direction that makes it possible to meet the targets, we absolutely have to double, or even quadruple, the efforts to invest in renewable energy or energy efficiency technologies.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'd like to come back to the LC3 program, which I heard about. Could what this program started be improved, specifically to invest more in practical solutions, on the ground, to reduce greenhouse gases?

[Vincent Moreau]

In fact, we submitted a request for the federal budget, this fall, to expand the LC3's scope. The LC3's ability to mobilize private capital for decarbonization solutions has been proven. We can see that it has an impact, and we have data that demonstrate the impact on the ground.

However, there are other large municipalities that don't have access to that kind of funding structure, so we asked ourselves why not expand our model. We propose adding three more LC3 centres to central Canada, as well as adding major urban areas such as Gatineau, Quebec City, Victoria and Saskatoon to the network. That would make it possible to mobilize private capital to accelerate decarbonization and energy efficiency across Canada.

The LC3 is a low-cost model, protected in perpetuity, which helps reduce risks for private investors and create structuring financial vehicles that would, in fact, accelerate climate solutions on the ground.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bonin.

Mr. Leslie, it's over to you for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to move the following motion that I have on notice. I move:

That, given that section 9 of the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act requires the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to establish an emissions reduction plan, and paragraph 10(1)(b) requires that plan to describe the key emissions reduction measures the Government of Canada intends to take to achieve its emissions target;

given that the Government of Canada has changed a number of measures described in the existing 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan;

the committee recommend that the Government of Canada:

1. promptly initiate the process to update the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan so that it accurately reflects the measures the Government of Canada currently intends to pursue;

2. take all reasonable steps to avoid unnecessary expenditure of public funds on litigation where the issues in dispute concerning the existing 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan, and

3. that the committee report this recommendation to the House.

Madam Chair, some Canadians may have heard the news, but maybe some around this table have not. Taxpayers are currently footing the bill for a government to defend an emissions plan that no longer reflects several of the policies that it originally relied on. Given that we are here talking about the home energy retrofit, which I know is part of the current emissions reduction plan, and given the new spending, I think it's an opportunity for the government to have a reflective view of what the current policy is regarding its plan to reduce emissions and achieve net zero by 2050, in line with the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. The government instead is currently spending money trying to have a case sponsored by three young students thrown out. Thankfully, the Federal Court has rejected that attempt. The litigation is ongoing. It's unclear to me whether the government thinks it's a wise way to spend taxpayers' money.

Instead of paying government lawyers to argue whether an outdated plan complies with the law, I think it's time that we simply have the government update the plan, tell Canadians what the government actually intends to do and stop wasting taxpayer money.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Mr. Leslie, we'll suspend momentarily to review.

Thank you to our witnesses. It being 5:40 p.m., we will release you. We won't make you stay for this conversation just for a few more minutes of testimony.

Thank you very much for your time today. We really appreciate it.