Finance Committee on Oct. 20th, 2025

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Since I have only 45 seconds left, I'll be quick.

People felt it would be an advantage to deal with only one party, in this case, Build Canada Homes, instead of a number of different stakeholders.

Is that where we're headed?

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Vancouver Fraserview—South Burnaby, BC]

Exactly. Build Canada Homes is about a one-stop shop for affordable non-market housing. That's where the focus is, in making sure that everyone who's building or seeking affordable housing in Canada knows that Build Canada Homes is where they can come for federal government support and partnership.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Lavoie.

Mr. Garon, you have the floor.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

We can take the time to thank the witnesses. I can wait.

I just wanted to raise my hand before you had time to strike the gavel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Okay, thank you. I'd like to thank the witnesses for their participation.

Thank you, Minister, and thanks to the deputy minister, for your testimony today.

Mr. Garon, you have the floor.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Chair, I have a procedural question on speaking times.

I believe there were still 8 to 10 minutes left when we started the last round. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall, in previous meetings, we had two and a half minutes. Speaking time for the Bloc Québécois was shorter.

It appears this time, during the last round of questions, everyone got their five minutes, except the Bloc Québécois.

What is the rule, and how do you divide up the time left at the end of a meeting?

If there's not enough time to complete a round, then it doesn't seem fair.

Can we get a clear rule on how things work in such a situation?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

I will ask the clerk.

I will suspend the meeting for now.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I still had a great question to ask. I will send it in writing to the witness.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

I imagine you did.

I look forward to your question and thank the witnesses for their participation.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Colleagues, we are resuming.

Before turning to our next panel, I'd like to answer Mr. Garon's question.

During its first meeting, the committee adopted a routine motion to set the speaking time for each party. I will read the motion:

That witnesses be given five minutes for their opening statements; that whenever possible, witnesses provide the committee with their opening statements 72 hours in advance; that, at the discretion of the Chair, during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated six minutes for the first questioner of each party as follows: First Round: Conservative Party; Liberal Party; Bloc Québécois. For the second and subsequent rounds, the order and time for questioning be as follows: Conservative Party, five minutes; Liberal Party, five minutes; Bloc Québécois, two and a half minutes; Conservative Party, five minutes; Liberal Party, five minutes.

I followed the routine motion. If there's some time left, we can modify the speaking order, but for that, we would need a consensus.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I totally agree with you, Madam Chair. I read the motion. However, it applies to full rounds of questions. It sets the speaking time for each party during each round of questions. If there's 10 minutes left in the meeting, there isn't enough time to complete a round. Therefore, if the time is split on a first come, first serve basis, the speaking time allotted doesn't respect the set ratios for each party. That's why before, when managing the clock, you—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

You will have read in the motion that the speaking time is at the discretion of the chair. Moreover, the unanimous consent of the committee is required to deviate from the routine motion. Next time, I will ask the committee if it wishes to do things differently.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

With that, thank you so much to our next round of witnesses. We are delighted to have the Honourable Julie Dabrusin, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, who is accompanied by Judy Meltzer, the associate assistant deputy minister for the environmental protection branch, and Alison McDermott, the assistant deputy minister for the strategic policy and international affairs branch.

Without further ado, Minister Dabrusin, you have five minutes.

Thank you.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as part of your study on Bill C-4. I will focus my remarks on part 3 of the bill, which follows through on our government's commitment to eliminate the consumer carbon price under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

As members know, regulations made earlier this year ceased the application of the federal fuel charge as of April 1, 2025. Bill C-4 seeks to legislate this decision by repealing the legislative framework for the consumer carbon price, also known as the federal fuel charge, to complete the process of concluding this policy. These proposed amendments follow the regulations made in March of this year that set fuel charge rates to zero, effective April 1, 2025.

It's important to note that the proposed amendment in Bill C-4 only affects the portion of the act under the purview of the Minister of Finance and administered by the Canada Revenue Agency, which was previously used to establish the federal fuel charge. The rest of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act remains in force.

The bill proposes a phased repeal of part 1 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to ensure an orderly process for charge payers and the Canada Revenue Agency.

First, charging provisions would be retroactively repealed as of April 1, 2025.

Second, rebate provisions would be repealed as of October 1, 2025, to allow time for charge payers to claim any outstanding rebates.

Third, registration provisions would be repealed as of November 1, 2025, giving registrants, like distributors and importers, until October 31 to file returns.

Finally, all remaining provisions of part 1 would be repealed effective April 1, 2035. This ensures continuity for final wind-down activities, including Canada Revenue Agency processes that still rely on existing rules.

This phased approach ensures that the transition is efficient, predictable and fair. The repeal applies only to part 1 of the act. The remainder of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act continues to establish minimum national standards for carbon pricing stringency. This ensures that carbon pollution pricing applies to a broad range of greenhouse gas emissions from industry across Canada.

Part 2 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, administered by Environment and Climate Change Canada, establishes the federal output-based pricing system, our regulatory trading system for large industrial emitters. It also creates Canada's greenhouse gas offset credit system, which provides incentives for projects aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions or increasing the removal of these gases from the atmosphere.

The federal output-based pricing system remains in place and continues to apply in provinces and territories without their own system that meets national standards, or where they request it. Today, this includes Manitoba, Nunavut, Prince Edward Island and the Yukon.

Because the consumer carbon price was already removed through regulations in March, these legislative changes do not create new impacts on emissions.

Part 3 of Bill C-4 follows through on what regulations have already achieved: the removal of the consumer carbon price. It enshrines that decision in law while ensuring a fair and orderly transition for Canadians and businesses. At the same time, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act continues to serve as the foundation of Canada’s approach to carbon pricing. Federal and provincial-territorial industrial pricing systems continue to drive cost-effective emissions reductions and incentivize investments in decarbonization. Such investments are critical to ensuring Canadian competitiveness in a low-carbon global economy.

I look forward to your questions and to supporting the committee’s work on this important legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Minister Dabrusin.

We begin this round of questioning with Mr. Kelly from the Conservatives for six minutes.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you.

Minister, your website says that you have “supported putting a price on carbon pollution” and have “taken a strong stance against oil sands expansion”. Is that the policy of your government?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Our government has been very clear that, moving forward, we need to make sure that Canada is an energy superpower—that means in conventional energy and renewables. What that means, though, is that we need to be low carbon, low risk and low cost for the future.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Minister, your words—or if we take your website's words, anyway—are that you have taken a strong stance against oil sands expansion. If Canada is to be an energy superpower and to have additional production in the oil sands, it will require expansion. Do you support or oppose oil sands expansion?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

To be clear, our government's policy—and the Prime Minister has been very clear on this—is that, moving forward, we need to make sure that we have the strongest economy in the G7, and that includes being an energy superpower that will be low risk, low carbon and low cost. We will be sure that, as we move forward as an energy superpower, we are helping, across Canada, to meet those needs. When I'm talking with people around the world, what I am hearing is that they are looking to Canada to produce the energy they need for the future.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

They've been looking to Canada for 10 years, and your government has hemmed in and done everything it can to harm the production of energy in Canada. Have you changed your mind, then? You're no longer taking a strong stand against oil sands expansion, is that...?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I take issue when you say that we haven't been producing in this country the energy that the world is looking for. I was in Nova Scotia, and I got to see all of the opportunity that's being built in offshore wind. That is an amazing opportunity—

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

These are your words.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

—for our country. When I look at what our country is producing in nuclear capacity right across this country, how we're working—we had an energy agreement with nuclear with Romania—and our know-how, we are consistently providing to the world the energy they need.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

If we are going to supply the world with safe, reliable energy, we are going to need oil sands expansion. Do you still oppose oil sands expansion?