Climate advisory body still at half-capacity six months after requesting more appointments
The government has named only five members on its Net-Zero Advisory Body six months after members requested the feds bring their numbers up to 10 so they could fulfill their mandate.
“It indicates that the federal government isn’t placing much of an emphasis on action and accountability when it comes to climate change and getting our emissions down,” Gretchen Fitzgerald, executive director of the environmental non-profit Sierra Club Canada, said of the lack of appointments to the independent body.
The Net-Zero Advisory Body (NZAB) was reduced to only four members earlier this year after terms expired without renewal, and two former members quit over the feds’ environmental policy and lack of direction from Prime Minister Mark Carney’s (Nepean, Ont.) new government.
Established in 2021 with 14 members, NZAB is an independent group of experts that provides advice to the environment minister on reaching Canada’s goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.
Keith Brooks, programs director at Environmental Defence, said NZAB's status highlights the concerns of those who resigned.
“The government is not treating this body seriously, they're not interested in seeking their counsel, and … generally [not] that interested in having a serious plan around climate change,” Brooks said.
Simon Donner, former NZAB co-chair, said he resigned because his position began to feel “performative.”
And in a June 9 House Environment Committee meeting—in which Donner testified alongside Catherine Abreu, another former NZAB member—Abreu told MPs the the body wasn’t consulted on the government’s climate competitiveness strategy released last year in Budget 2025.
The feds are legally mandated to seek NZAB’s input on climate plans, as per the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, which outlines NZAB’s mandate and Canada’s emissions targets.
In January, the remaining four members asked the feds to pause the group's activities, saying they could no longer fulfill their mandate.
The members sent a series of requests to Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin (Toronto—Danforth, Ont.) aimed at getting the body back on track, including additional membership appointments, a review of NZAB’s structure and function, clarity on the budget, a standing meeting with Dabrusin every two months, and a pause until those expectations are put in effect.
Six months later, after May's order-in-council updates, only one co-chair has been appointed from the existing membership—Robert Hornung, an independent climate consultant—and one member’s term reappointed. Anne de Bortoli, a carbon neutrality research lead at Polytechnique Montréal, first joined NZAB in 2023. The three other members are: Karen Ross, the executive director of farmers for climate solutions; Damon Matthews, a Concordia University geography, planning, and environment professor; and Michael Bernstein, the president and CEO of Clean Prosperity.
In April, in response to NZAB’s annual report, Dabrusin wrote that the feds will be “implementing a series of updates” to the body.
The statement reads that the government will be “working with the existing NZAB members to refine its structure and operations.” A current NZAB member also told The Hill Times that negotiations with the feds are ongoing.
Dabrusin’s office did not respond to questions about when new appointments would be made.
'It's an approach where science doesn't win,' says Bloc MP Bonin
Fitzgerald said the body could be understaffed either because NZAB isn’t a priority, or because the government is having trouble recruiting new members.
“Because it's so clear from independent assessments that we don't have a path to net-zero right now—or even our 2030 targets—people are reluctant to put their names on such an eminent group,” she said.
Canada has set as a target to reduce emissions by 40 to 45 per cent by 2030, compared to 2005 levels; 45 to 50 per cent by 2035; and hitting net-zero emissions by 2050.
But according to the feds' own 2025 progress report, Canada is off-track to meeting its 2030 and 2035 goals—a forecast that is also shared by other independent climate analyses, including the Canadian Climate Institute.
Bloc Québécois environment critic Patrick Bonin (Repentigny, Que.) told The Hill Times he’s “more than concerned” about NZAB's status, and that he doesn’t see how the body can fulfill its mandate in its current state.
“It seems that it’s an empty shell,” Bonin said.
“The control of this government is centred close to Mr. Carney, who is governing like a CEO of a private company and removing all obstacles, all voices, that won’t agree with him,” Bonin added, when asked what the NZAB’s state signifies.
“It’s an approach where science doesn’t win.”
Thomas Green, a senior manager of climate solutions at the David Suzuki Foundation, said the environmental sector is having little influence over the government’s decision-making under Carney.
“Clearly, our access to influence those kind of decisions isn’t happening,” said Green, referring to Carney’s recent environmental policies moves.
A number of other nations, including the United Kingdom, Germany, and France, also have climate councils advising on their emissions targets.
Green said the U.K.'s equivalent Climate Change Committee has had "quite a lot of impact" on that country's climate policies.
"In the U.K., we've seen a dramatic drop in emissions, and ideas like carbon budgeting in a five-year cycle that ... help government make the needed policies and investments to position the country for the future," he said.
In 2025, emissions in the U.K. were 54 per cent lower than in 1990, dropping two per cent from the year before.
Natural Resources, Finance 'dictating where things are going,' not Dabrusin, says Green
Since taking office, Carney has walked back a number of key planks of then-prime minister Justin Trudeau’s climate policy—a move that led to the resignation of former Trudeau-era environment minister Steven Guilbeault (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, Que.) from Carney’s cabinet and as an MP.
Carney, a former UN special envoy for climate action and finance, ditched the consumer carbon tax and the proposed oil and gas emissions cap, and adjusted the EV sales mandate. He also signed an energy deal with Alberta back in November, outlining a pipeline project running from the province to British Columbia’s coast.
The two governments agreed on an industrial carbon pricing model last month, bringing them closer to finalizing the project’s terms. Environmentalists denounced the agreement, saying it significantly weakens this country’s emissions reduction framework.
“Meanwhile, we observed [Energy and Natural Resources] Minister [Tim] Hodgson just taking so many meetings with the oil and gas industry,” Green said.
Hodgson (Markham—Thornhill, Ont.) and other cabinet ministers met with oil and gas industry leaders earlier this month ahead of the upcoming July 1 CUSMA review deadline.
Green added that, within the government, the Finance and Natural Resources departments appear to be the ones driving the decisions, which is why he believes NZAB should report directly to Parliament and the finance minister, not just Dabrusin.
“That’s certainly the impression one gets under this government is that it’s Natural Resources and Finance that are dictating where things are going,” he said.
Green said the government's energy would be better spent on implementing NZAB’s climate policy “guidance” from its December 2025 annual report than wasting time negotiating its reform requests.
“That would be better, in my view, than spending the time to bring [NZAB] up to 10 members, give it a budget, have it feed information to the environment minister, and then have the environment minister shut out from the cabinet decisions.”
But Brooks said it's important NZAB continues because Canada needs a serious plan to fight climate change, and it should be informed by experts in the field.
"For too long, climate changes has been a bit of a political football, a bit of a partisan issue, even," he said.
"And this is an issue because then climate policy ... comes and goes based on election cycles, and the idea of an expert advisory board is meant to offer sound advice about what are the respective policies, but [is] also an attempt to depoliticize decision making."
ewand@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times