Canada’s Net-Zero Advisory Crisis Signals a Troubling Shift in Climate Governance

Two high-profile resignations from Canada’s Net-Zero Advisory Body (NZAB) have exposed a deeper, more troubling shift in the country’s climate governance. When founding members Simon Donner and Catherine Abreu walk away both respected, long-standing climate experts it’s not simply a staffing issue. It’s a political signal.

This advisory body was designed to provide independent, science-based guidance to help the federal government stay on track toward its 2050 net-zero commitments. That purpose now appears compromised.

Simon Donner, a climate scientist at the University of British Columbia and former co-chair of the NZAB, announced his resignation publicly, stating that the body’s structure and governance had become “more difficult” as the government shifted its climate priorities. His words cut deeper than any bureaucratic phrasing could: he was comfortable offering advice that might be rejected, but not participating in a process that felt “neglected or performative.”

That distinction matters. Advisory bodies only work when governments treat them as meaningful partners not window dressing.

Catherine Abreu, another co-founder and a well-known advocate for ambitious climate policy, echoed Donner’s concern in her own resignation announcement. She alleged that the NZAB’s functions had been “significantly curtailed so as to serve in name only.” According to her, two major recent decisions the federal memorandum of understanding with Alberta and Bill C-5, which gives the government power to exempt some projects from environmental laws were pushed through without any consultation with the advisory body.

This isn’t just a procedural oversight. It’s a sharp departure from how the Trudeau government engaged with the NZAB. Under the previous administration, ministers routinely requested expert input on major files: the oil and gas emissions cap, strategies to close the 2030 emissions gap, and key pieces of the national climate plan. That kind of exchange reflected the spirit of the Net-Zero Accountability Act, even if the law did not legally oblige it.

By contrast, the Carney government has so far shown little interest in treating the advisory body as a serious partner, even if it hasn’t technically violated the Act. And that’s the heart of the problem. Climate accountability isn’t only about legal obligations it’s about integrity, transparency, and maintaining public trust.

With a new emissions reduction plan update due before year’s end, the timing of these resignations could not be more consequential. Canada has committed to cutting emissions by at least 40 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, and the advisory body’s input has historically formed a substantial part of those progress assessments. Now, according to Abreu, even she is unsure whether the government intends to ask for the NZAB’s guidance at all.

The response from the Environment Minister’s office acknowledging the resignations but offering little reassurance does not ease concerns. A promise to meet with the advisory body “before the end of the year” feels more like damage control than genuine engagement.

If the government wants to maintain credibility on climate action, it must rebuild a functional, transparent relationship with the experts it appointed to hold it accountable in the first place. Otherwise, Canada risks falling into a familiar political pattern: ambitious climate targets paired with underwhelming follow-through.

The resignations of Donner and Abreu are more than symbolic they are a warning. When experts begin to feel their work is performative rather than impactful, the integrity of the entire climate governance system is at stake.

Canada cannot afford climate advisories that exist only on paper. And Canadians should not settle for climate leadership that does the same.