Environment and Sustainable Development

The Canadian parliamentary committee on Environment and Sustainable Development met to discuss home energy efficiency, but first addressed the budget for attending an international climate conference (COP31). Committee members questioned the high cost of the trip and asked for more details on the expenses, including interpretation costs. After some discussion, the committee approved the budget proposal to seek funds for the trip. The main discussion then shifted to home energy efficiency. Two experts, Maya Papineau and Charles De Land, shared their insights. Ms. Papineau, an economics professor, highlighted that actual energy savings from home retrofits are often much lower than predicted, sometimes only 60% of what models suggest. She emphasized the need to measure real-world outcomes, invest in training for contractors, and ensure that energy-saving programs are affordable for all households, especially the middle class and lower-income families. She also noted that some retrofits, like replacing windows and doors, showed very little energy savings in her research. Mr. De Land from the Canada West Foundation stressed that Canada needs better-performing homes that are energy-efficient, healthy, and resilient. He argued against relying on a single technology or banning certain energy sources, suggesting that a flexible approach is best, considering different provincial electricity costs and climates. He also pointed out the importance of quality workmanship in retrofits and the need for clear, measurable results to ensure public funds are well spent. Both experts agreed that while electrification is important, it must be balanced with grid capacity and affordability for homeowners. Representatives from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), including Kitchener Mayor Berry Vrbanovic and Marieke Cloutier, then spoke about their Green Municipal Fund (GMF). They explained how the GMF uses programs like Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing to help homeowners overcome the upfront costs of retrofits. They reported that their programs have led to an average of 30% energy cost savings for households and have created jobs. They emphasized the importance of federal-municipal partnerships and stable, long-term funding to scale up retrofit efforts across different communities in Canada. They also noted the high demand for these programs and the need for more funding to meet it. No specific decisions were made regarding new laws or programs during this meeting, but committee members asked many questions about how to improve existing retrofit programs, ensure they are cost-effective, and reach more Canadians. The discussion highlighted the need for better data collection, evaluation mechanisms, and flexible approaches to home energy efficiency that consider regional differences and household affordability.

This committee meeting was about a proposed law to change how boats are bought and sold, especially to prevent boats from being abandoned or becoming dangerous. The main goal was to make sure that when a boat changes owners, the new owner can properly take care of it. Key speakers included Wade Grant, who proposed an amendment to the law. This amendment would require sellers to tell buyers about the boat's condition in writing and get a written promise from the buyer that they have the money and intention to maintain and get rid of the boat properly. Mel Arnold and Branden Leslie, both committee members, raised concerns about how clear these new rules would be for everyday people selling boats. They worried about how sellers would know if they had done enough to avoid legal problems later on, especially if the buyer lied or if a hidden problem with the boat was discovered after the sale. Government officials like Stephanie Lane and Colin Henein from Transport Canada and Environment Canada answered questions. They explained that the proposed changes aim to make the process clearer and that the responsibility for the boat would transfer to the new owner once the sale is complete. They also clarified that the new rules would not apply to very large commercial boats (24 meters or longer) because those are already covered by other strict international rules. The committee members voted on and approved the proposed changes, including a small adjustment suggested by Mel Arnold to clarify that the buyer's resources and intent are assessed "at the time of transfer." The committee decided to report the proposed law, with the approved changes, to the House of Commons. They also ordered a new printed version of the law with all the amendments.

The committee met to discuss a proposed law, Bill C-244, aimed at addressing the problem of abandoned and hazardous boats in Canadian waters. The proposed law seeks to amend two existing acts: the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act. The goal is to prevent more boats from being abandoned and to make it easier to hold polluters accountable. MP Patrick Weiler, who introduced the proposed law, explained that it would close a loophole that allows boat owners to transfer old vessels to people who can't properly maintain or dispose of them. He said the law would require sellers to disclose the boat's condition and buyers to show they can maintain it. He also explained that the law would clarify that polluting the marine environment is a "strict liability" offense, meaning intent to pollute doesn't have to be proven for someone to be held responsible. Mr. Weiler highlighted that the problem of abandoned boats is widespread and affects coastal communities, the environment, and local economies. Officials from the Canadian Coast Guard, Environment and Climate Change Canada, and Transport Canada shared their perspectives. While they supported the overall goal of the proposed law, they raised concerns about how it would be put into practice. Transport Canada officials, for example, noted that it would be hard for sellers to truly know if a buyer has the "ability, resources, or intent" to maintain a boat, and that this could lead to unfair treatment or enforcement challenges. Environment Canada officials clarified that the proposed change to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act would mainly confirm existing legal interpretations rather than introduce new prohibitions on pollution. Committee members, including Mr. Arnold and Mr. Ross, questioned the practicalities of the proposed law, especially regarding how sellers would assess buyers and how the law would be enforced, particularly in remote areas or on Indigenous reserves. They also discussed the need for better facilities to dispose of and recycle old boats. The committee approved two small budget items for its work. A motion to study the Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act was introduced but was adjourned after a vote, allowing the committee to continue its discussion on the proposed law.

The committee met to discuss proposed rules about single-use plastics, hearing from scientists, industry, and environmental groups about the problems plastics cause and possible solutions. The discussion covered the environmental and economic impacts of plastic pollution, as well as the effectiveness of current and proposed government actions. Scientists Dr. Chelsea Rochman and Dr. Peter Ross highlighted that plastic pollution is widespread, lasts a long time, and harms wildlife, with microplastics found in fish and even the air. Dr. Rochman noted that Canada's bans on some single-use plastics have already reduced these items in the environment. Dr. Ross added that only about 9% of plastic in Canada is recycled, emphasizing the need to reduce plastic production and improve recycling systems. In contrast, Scott Thurlow from Dow Canada argued that plastic itself isn't toxic, but plastic waste is. He suggested the government should focus on encouraging more recycling and creating a market for recycled plastics, rather than banning products. Later, Greg Moffatt from the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada echoed the industry's view that bans harm the economy without solving the core problem of waste management. He called for a national plan focused on waste reduction, recovery, and recycling infrastructure. Karen Wirsig from Environmental Defence Canada and Anthony Merante from Oceana Canada strongly supported the bans, citing their effectiveness in reducing plastic litter and the widespread public support for such measures. They urged the government to expand bans, stop plastic exports, and invest in reusable systems, arguing that recycling alone is not enough. At the end of the meeting, committee members debated whether to invite the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to testify before finalizing their report. A motion to delay the report and invite the Minister again was defeated by a vote of 6 to 5, meaning the committee will now proceed with drafting its report based on the testimony received.

This committee meeting focused on Canada's progress, or lack thereof, in meeting its climate change goals. The committee heard from two former members of the Net-Zero Advisory Body who explained why they resigned and expressed concerns about the government's current approach to climate policy. Catherine Abreu and Dr. Simon Donner, both former members of the Net-Zero Advisory Body, were the key speakers. Ms. Abreu stated she resigned because she felt the government was letting politics and the interests of a few wealthy individuals undermine climate progress. She highlighted that Canada is the only G7 country where greenhouse gas emissions have increased since 1990 and criticized the government for weakening or repealing key climate policies like the carbon price, clean electricity regulations, and oil and gas emissions cap. Dr. Donner, a professor at the University of British Columbia, resigned as co-chair because he felt the advisory body's work had become "performative" and its expert advice was not being sought or considered by the government, especially regarding the Canada-Alberta memorandum of understanding on methane regulations. Both witnesses agreed that Canada is not on track to meet its 2030 and 2035 net-zero targets. Dr. Donner emphasized that current government modeling and independent analyses show Canada is far from its goals, and that the recent Canada-Alberta deal is not compatible with net-zero by 2050. Ms. Abreu noted that Canada's environmental protections are being weakened across the board and that the government is not being transparent with Canadians about the implications of these decisions. She also pointed out that the U.S., even under a Trump administration, is projected to continue reducing emissions due to existing investments in clean energy, unlike Canada. During the meeting, committee members also discussed the importance of the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, with Ms. Abreu stressing its critical role despite the current government's apparent disregard for it. There was also a debate and vote on a proposed motion by a Liberal committee member to study home energy and adaptation retrofits, which some opposition members viewed as a tactic to cut short the witnesses' testimony. The motion was ultimately passed, and the meeting concluded with the witnesses being thanked and excused.

The committee met to review a proposed law, C-241, which aims to create a national plan for forecasting floods and droughts. Committee members went through the proposed law section by section, discussing and voting on several changes. A key discussion revolved around a change proposed by Liberal committee member Wade Grant. This change would make the national plan focus more broadly on "flood and drought forecasting" instead of specifically identifying "properties and infrastructure at risk from floods." It also changed some wording to say the government "may take" certain actions, rather than "must." Conservative committee member Branden Leslie strongly disagreed, arguing these changes weakened the proposed law and made government actions optional. Government officials, Stephanie Lane and Doris Fortin, explained that the changes would allow for a more flexible plan, considering that provinces are mainly responsible for issuing flood warnings and that a national plan cannot force provinces to act. Bloc Québécois committee member Patrick Bonin also raised concerns about actions being optional. He proposed a change to ensure the national plan would avoid duplicating efforts already made by provinces like Quebec. However, Liberal committee member Tim Watchorn argued this change was not needed because the proposed law already requires consultation with provinces, and he stressed the importance of all provinces working together. In the end, Mr. Grant's main change to clause 3 was approved. Mr. Bonin's change to avoid duplication was not approved. Other minor changes, like using "business days" instead of "days" for deadlines and fully writing "United States of America," were approved. After all the changes were voted on, the committee approved the proposed law C-241 as amended and decided to send it to the House of Commons for the next steps.

The parliamentary committee met to discuss the proposed budgets for the Environment and Climate Change Canada department and its related agencies for the 2026-27 year. Minister Julie Dabrusin presented the budget plans, highlighting efforts to fight climate change, protect nature, and improve clean energy. She mentioned a significant decrease in the Environment and Climate Change Canada budget but increases for Parks Canada and the Impact Assessment Agency. She also spoke about new methane rules, clean fuel regulations, and a plan to double the electricity grid by 2050, including retrofitting one million homes. Committee members asked many questions. Conservative members, like David Bexte and Carol Anstey, challenged the government's energy policies, the impact on jobs, and the spending on a climate conference (COP30), calling some expenses "luxury accommodations." Bloc Québécois member Patrick Bonin questioned Canada's climate change progress, citing reports that suggest the country is not on track to meet its targets and asking for specific numbers. Liberal members, such as Tim Watchorn and Eric St-Pierre, focused on the nature strategy, protecting lands and waters, and the benefits of the electricity strategy and energy efficiency programs. Officials from the Canada Water Agency, Parks Canada, and the Impact Assessment Agency also answered questions. Mark Fisher from the Canada Water Agency discussed the national water security strategy and efforts to protect freshwater. Andrew Campbell from Parks Canada spoke about indigenous partnerships in conservation areas and park visitation. Questions were also raised about proposed changes to how major projects are approved, the future of a radar research program, and the national adaptation strategy. At the end of the meeting, the committee quickly voted to approve the proposed budgets for the Canada Water Agency, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, and Parks Canada Agency. Several officials committed to providing more detailed information in writing on specific spending items and program impacts. A motion from a Conservative member about a letter from Liberal MPs concerning environmental policy was introduced but immediately stopped without debate.

The committee discussed a proposed law, Bill C-241, which aims to create a national strategy for forecasting floods and droughts. The main goal is to improve how Canada predicts and prepares for these extreme weather events, which are becoming more common and costly. Tatiana Auguste, a member of Parliament, introduced the proposed law. She explained that different parts of Canada currently collect flood and drought information in different ways, making it hard to share and use the data effectively. She believes a national strategy would help all communities, from small towns to big cities, better protect homes and infrastructure. Dr. John Pomeroy, a professor, supported this, highlighting that current forecasting is fragmented and a national system would bring together resources and technology, helping provinces and territories improve their predictions. Committee members raised questions about the proposed law. Some asked why a new law is needed if existing government departments, like Environment and Climate Change Canada, could already do this work. They also questioned the timelines for developing the strategy and whether it would create new administrative costs for provinces. Ms. Auguste clarified that the proposed law is meant to encourage collaboration and set a framework, not to force provinces or create new government bodies. She also stated that the proposed law itself doesn't allocate funds, but would lay the groundwork for future funding decisions. Representatives from various federal departments, including the Canada Water Agency, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Natural Resources Canada, and Public Safety, also spoke. They acknowledged the need for better coordination and shared examples of current efforts, like flood mapping programs. They explained that while federal departments provide data and support, provinces and territories are primarily responsible for water management and flood forecasting within their borders. They also discussed how a national strategy could help integrate climate change models into future planning and improve support for farmers and vulnerable communities. The committee decided that the deadline for submitting changes to the proposed law is Thursday, May 28. They also plan to schedule a meeting on June 11 to discuss the government's plastic manufacturing policy.

The House of Commons environment committee met to discuss reports from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. The reports focused on flood mapping, climate resilience of federal assets, and the federal response to avian influenza. Jerry DeMarco, the Commissioner, presented the reports, highlighting that the government was slow in producing and sharing flood maps, had gaps in overseeing climate resilience efforts, and needed to improve planning for future health and wildlife threats like avian influenza. Committee members questioned representatives from various departments, including Natural Resources Canada, Public Safety, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, about the reports' findings. A key point of discussion was the slow progress and lack of publicly available flood maps, despite significant spending. There were also questions about a flood risk awareness portal developed by Public Safety, which was criticized for not including climate change considerations and for being difficult to update. The committee also discussed the government's response to avian influenza, including vaccine procurement and surveillance efforts. Several committee members expressed concern that the government was not doing enough to protect Canadians from the impacts of climate change and avian influenza. They questioned whether taxpayer money was being spent wisely and whether the government was prioritizing the right areas. The committee requested additional information from the departments, including contracts and data related to the flood mapping portal. No specific decisions were made during the meeting, but the discussion highlighted the need for the government to improve its efforts in these areas.

The Environment and Sustainable Development committee met to discuss Canada's strategy to protect nature. Secretary of State for Nature, Nathalie Provost, presented the plan to protect 30% of Canada's lands and waters by 2030. The strategy focuses on conserving ecosystems, integrating nature into infrastructure planning, and encouraging private investment in nature. Provost emphasized the importance of Indigenous leadership and knowledge in achieving these goals. Committee members questioned Provost on the specifics of the plan, including where the protected land would come from, whether hunting and fishing would be restricted, and how the strategy would affect economic development projects. Conservative members expressed concerns about the impact of the strategy on resource development and the rights of hunters and anglers. They questioned whether the plan would hinder projects like the Churchill port development in Manitoba. Liberal members highlighted the importance of local conservation efforts and asked how the government would support community-led projects. They also inquired about conserving land closer to urban areas to improve access to nature for more Canadians. Members from other parties questioned the budget and targets of the plan. Parks Canada representatives, including Interim President and CEO Andrew Campbell, then presented their plan and priorities for the coming year. They discussed the Canada Strong pass, which offers free admission to national parks, and its impact on tourism. They also outlined Parks Canada's role in protecting nature, establishing new protected areas, and recovering species at risk. Committee members questioned Parks Canada representatives on various issues, including the impact of the Canada Strong pass on local communities, wildfire management, and infrastructure projects in national parks. Parks Canada committed to providing additional information to the committee in writing.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development met to discuss Canada's industrial carbon pricing system. The discussion included whether the current system helps or hurts Canadian businesses. Witnesses presented different views on the effectiveness and impact of the carbon tax. Some argued it's essential for reducing emissions and staying competitive in a global market that increasingly values low-carbon products. Others claimed it harms Canadian businesses, drives investment away, and doesn't significantly reduce global emissions. Mark Purdon, an associate professor, argued for a shift towards a cap-and-trade system similar to Quebec's, saying it offers more transparency and aligns better with international standards. Catherine Swift, representing manufacturers, said the carbon tax increases costs for businesses, makes them less competitive, and contributes to companies leaving Canada. Aaron Cosbey and Steven Haig from the International Institute for Sustainable Development, argued that industrial carbon pricing is effective and that a strong, rising carbon price is needed to meet climate goals. Ross McKitrick, an economics professor, presented a study suggesting the carbon tax will slow economic growth and reduce the standard of living. Heather Exner-Pirot argued that overzealous climate policy makes Canadian industry uncompetitive and shifts production to countries with lower environmental standards. Jason Clark, representing New Economy Canada, stated that a clear carbon price is a competitiveness benefit, not a cost, and that it drives innovation. Michael Bourque and Nadine Frost from Fertilizer Canada, expressed concerns about the carbon tax putting Canadian fertilizer producers at a disadvantage compared to international competitors. Committee members questioned the witnesses on the impacts of the carbon tax on various sectors, its effectiveness in reducing emissions, and its effects on Canada's competitiveness. The committee is expected to produce a report with recommendations based on the evidence presented. No specific decisions were made during the meeting, but the discussion will inform the committee's report.

The Canadian parliamentary committee on Environment and Sustainable Development (ENVI) met to discuss industrial carbon pricing. The committee heard from various witnesses, including Caroline Brouillette from Climate Action Network Canada, Jim Keating from the Oil and Gas Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador, Jennifer Winter from the University of Calgary, Adam Auer from the Cement Association of Canada, and Thomas Green from the David Suzuki Foundation. Brouillette argued for strengthening industrial carbon pricing to hold polluters accountable and drive emissions reductions, emphasizing that it doesn't significantly impact household costs. Keating expressed concerns about Canada's competitiveness in attracting offshore exploration investment due to carbon pricing, suggesting learning from Norway's approach of offsetting carbon costs with fiscal measures. Winter highlighted that existing systems incentivize emissions reductions while protecting competitiveness but could be improved through harmonization across provinces. Auer supported well-designed industrial carbon pricing to attract investment and accelerate decarbonization in the cement industry, noting the need for a harmonized national market. Green emphasized that industrial carbon pricing is essential for climate competitiveness and that the government should ensure a robust system with a strong, rising carbon price. Committee members questioned the witnesses on various aspects of industrial carbon pricing, including its impact on competitiveness, investment, and household costs. Some members expressed concerns about carbon leakage and the need for a level playing field across provinces. Others emphasized the importance of industrial carbon pricing as a tool for reducing emissions and driving clean energy investment. The committee discussed the potential for carbon border adjustments and the need for a stable, long-term carbon price trajectory. The committee agreed to request additional information from the witnesses, including reports on industrial carbon pricing and the road map for decarbonization in the cement industry. The committee will continue its study of industrial carbon pricing at its next meeting.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development met to discuss Canada's approach to electric vehicle (EV) adoption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for light-duty vehicles. Witnesses from the Department of Industry, the Department of the Environment, and the Department of Natural Resources provided opening statements and answered questions from committee members. Benoit Tessier from the Department of Industry outlined the government's automotive strategy, which aims to support the auto sector's transition to electric vehicle manufacturing. He mentioned the government's plan to repeal the electric vehicle availability standard and introduce new GHG emission standards for light-duty vehicles. Mark Cauchi from the Department of the Environment emphasized the importance of reducing emissions in the transportation sector while supporting jobs and affordability for Canadians. He explained that the government is moving towards a performance-based standard that gives the auto industry flexibility in how they reduce emissions. Anna van der Kamp from the Department of Natural Resources discussed the challenges and opportunities related to EV charging infrastructure. She highlighted the importance of home charging and the need to address gaps in public charging, particularly in urban areas and remote corridors. Committee members raised concerns about the affordability of EVs, the impact of the new standards on the auto industry, and the availability of charging infrastructure in rural areas. Several committee members expressed concerns about the practicality and affordability of EVs in rural and northern communities, as well as the potential impact of diverging from U.S. emission standards. The committee discussed the government's targets for EV sales, the availability of rebates, and the role of the Canada Infrastructure Bank in supporting charging infrastructure. The committee requested additional data and modeling from the government to better understand the impact of the new policies.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development met to discuss industrial carbon pricing in Canada. The committee heard from witnesses from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Pembina Institute, and Resource Works Society. Franco Terrazzano from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation argued that carbon taxes make life more expensive for Canadians and drive businesses to the United States. Tim Weis from the Pembina Institute stated that industrial carbon pricing is the most important policy for reducing emissions and driving investment in clean industries, and that it has enjoyed support from various sectors in Alberta for nearly two decades. Margareta Dovgal from Resource Works Society said that the current output-based pricing system (OBPS) is built on assumptions that constrain production rather than enable it, and that it needs to be reformed to reflect the actual trade exposure of the energy sector. During the meeting, committee members questioned the witnesses on the impact of industrial carbon pricing on food prices, competitiveness, and investment in Canada. Carol Anstey (Conservative) asked about the impact on food prices and carbon leakage. Eric St-Pierre (Liberal) inquired about industry support for carbon pricing and the misinformation surrounding it. Patrick Bonin (Bloc Québécois) questioned the witnesses on the transparency of the carbon pricing system and the need for government intervention. David Bexte (Conservative) asked about the equity of emissions thresholds across different industries and the impact of carbon border adjustments. Charles Séguin, Dale Beugin, and Etienne Rainville also testified. Séguin spoke about the need to account for the growing divergence between Quebec's approach and that of other provinces. Beugin argued that industrial carbon pricing is Canada's most important climate and clean growth policy, and that modernizing industrial carbon pricing systems across Canada is hugely important. Rainville stated that industrial emissions pricing is expected to drive as much as 50% of Canada’s emissions reductions by 2030. The committee did not make any decisions during the meeting, but the discussion will likely inform future policy recommendations related to Canada's emissions reduction plan. The meeting was adjourned early due to upcoming votes in the House of Commons.