Environment and Sustainable Development

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 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.

The Canadian parliamentary committee on Environment and Sustainable Development (ENVI) met to discuss the 2025-26 supplementary estimates for Environment and Climate Change Canada, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, and the Parks Canada Agency. Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature, Julie Dabrusin, presented the spending adjustments, highlighting their role in strengthening Canada's economy, protecting nature, and advancing climate goals. She noted increases for high-performance computing operations and climate initiative awareness, as well as reallocations for Parks Canada and the Impact Assessment Agency. During the meeting, committee members questioned Minister Dabrusin on various topics. These included concerns about hunting and fishing rights related to the proposed Seal River national park reserve, wildfire risk reduction in national parks, the government's net-zero advisory body, fertilizer use by farmers, and the tanker ban off Canada's west coast. Members also inquired about industrial carbon pricing, the automotive strategy, public transit projects, environmental assessment agreements with provinces, and funding for fossil fuels. Later in the meeting, committee members questioned government officials from Environment and Climate Change Canada, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, and Parks Canada Agency. Questions focused on fire mitigation in national parks, rebuilding efforts in Jasper, funding for the Canada Nature Fund, spending cuts in the 2026-27 budget, wildfire management in Gros Morne National Park, and the Blue Mountain-Birch Cove Lakes park. A Conservative member introduced a motion to invite former members of the Net-Zero Advisory Body to appear before the committee and to request related documents, leading to procedural debate and the meeting's adjournment due to lack of interpretation services.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development met to discuss protecting Canadians from extreme weather events. The committee heard from representatives from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and the town of Parson's Pond, Newfoundland, about the challenges they face and the support they need. Later in the meeting, the committee heard from experts on flood risk management and insurance. They talked about the need for better adaptation measures, risk awareness, and financial incentives to protect communities.