Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I will give the Conservatives a number: 69 million cars in avoided pollution. That is our number on this side of the House. If we listened to the Conservatives, we would do nothing to fight climate change, pollution would be even worse and emissions would be 41% higher than with what we have been doing. We are working to fight climate change. We are working to support Canadians to create the economy of the 21st century. The Conservatives have nothing to offer.

Mr. Speaker, it seems Conservatives are now starting to listen to economists, and they quoted Trevor Tombe. Let us hear what Trevor Tombe has to say about carbon pricing and the price of food: “While concern around affordability is clearly warranted, climate policies are not a significant driver of the rising cost of living. Nor will removing policies such as carbon pricing materially improve the situation.”

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that we have come to the table with half a billion dollars in potential investments in Quebec, in the regions, in the forestry sector, for forestry workers and for indigenous communities. We are just waiting for the Quebec government to come to the table with us to talk. We want to find a solution. The Conservatives have nothing to offer, whether for the environment, the economy or jobs.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleague, once again, that at the end of 2022, the federal government and the Government of Quebec signed a joint letter stating that Quebec would submit a caribou recovery plan by June 2023. Here it is October 1, 2024, and we are still waiting for that plan. All we are asking is for Quebec live up to its commitments. We are ready to work with Quebec on finding solutions.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Conservatives are not huge fans of science, researchers or knowledge, but I would still like to quote Martin-Hugues St-Laurent, a professor at the Université du Québec à Rimouski, who recently said, “The emergency order is amply justified. The federal government is simply implementing the legislation given the absence of a provincial strategy deemed effective enough to contribute to the species' recovery.” I could also quote Alain Branchaud of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, who said, and I quote, “The emergency order proposed by the Canadian government is justified and measured. First and foremost, it's scientifically justified.” On this side of the House, we listen to science.

Mr. Speaker, as an MP for the amazing Montreal area, I am proud of the people I represent. Perhaps the member opposite does not feel the same way. I would like to suggest that he talk to forestry workers in Quebec. As they told me and several public commissions, the future of the forest and the future of their jobs depends on the health of the forest. The Conservative Party of Canada does not seem to understand that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read an extract from a report that came out today from the Insurance Bureau of Canada. It states, “Summer of 2024...ranks as the most-destructive season in Canadian history for insured losses due to severe weather. In only two months, July and August, this summer eclipsed the worst year on record and has pushed the 2024 year-to-date tally to over $7.7 billion” in severe natural catastrophes. What is the answer from the Leader of the Opposition? Let the planet burn. We will not take that on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Conservative Party and its leader are not there to protect Canadians. They are there to protect the interests of their friends, like oil executives who attended a special event for the Leader of the Opposition. I can assure everyone that oil executives do not come to my fundraiser. However, what the Conservatives want to do is take away something. In his riding of Carleton, 58,000 people are receiving the Canada carbon rebate. In Thornhill, more than 60,000 people are receiving more money than what they pay in carbon pricing. We are helping with affordability and we are helping to fight climate change.

Mr. Speaker, no plan for the environment, no plan for air quality, no plan for clean air, no plan for the economy, no plan for health care, that is what the Conservatives have to offer Quebeckers. We are working with everyone to try to find solutions to problems that can be quite complex. We just made an offer to the Government of Quebec worth nearly half a billion dollars. We will work together to find a solution for the forestry jobs, but also for protecting the caribou, which the Conservatives are incapable of doing.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues that three elections have taken place in Canada since 2015, and the environment was central to discussions and debates across the country each time. We won all three elections. They may not be pleased about that. What we are going to see in the House tomorrow is that the House has no confidence in the Leader of the Opposition. The House does not trust the Conservative Party, which is there to protect the interests of its friends, not the people of Canada. Whether on the economy, the environment or jobs, the Conservatives have nothing to offer.

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague opposite, but unfortunately, almost everything he said is untrue. Greenhouse gas emissions are the lowest they have been in 25 years. This is the first time in the history of the country that emissions have dropped while the economy is firing on all cylinders. The last time emissions were this low, O.J. Simpson was before the courts and the iPhone had been invented but not yet put on the market. The Conservatives have no plan to address climate change and are not proposing any adaptation measures, when that cost Canadians $7 billion this summer.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a quote from the member for Victoria: “The carbon tax is a crucial piece of a climate plan”. I would like to read another quote from the member for Victoria: “the PBO has put out a number of reports that confirm...that 80% of Canadians get more money back than they pay.” This is a fact that the Conservatives continue to ignore. I think there are a lot of people out there who are very concerned about climate change, who are wondering what is happening with the NDP and who are very disappointed with the fact that the NDP, faced with pressure from the Conservatives and with lies and misinformation, caved. We will not cave on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, interest rates are down. Inflation is down. Gas prices are down, and pollution is down. Pollution levels are at their lowest in 25 years. What we have achieved is the equivalent of removing 69 million cars from our roads, which means less pollution for Canadians and for our kids, all across the country. We are fighting for climate change. We are fighting for Canadians. We are fighting for a better future for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the fight against climate change, which the Conservatives refuse to talk about, or the issue of air quality, water quality or conservation, the Conservatives are pretty much the only ones who do not get it. Workers, unions, businesses, regional governments and experts all understand that there can be no future in forestry if we do not protect our forest ecosystem properly. There is no one in this country who does not understand that, except the Conservatives. We will continue to work with all stakeholders and the Quebec government to find a solution. The Conservatives can keep throwing out empty slogans.

Mr. Speaker, setting aside the fact that both the Parliamentary Budget Officer and 300 economists have said that eight out of 10 Canadians get more money than they pay in carbon pricing, we have a report today from the independent organization, the Climate Institute, which shows that emissions were down again in Canada in 2023. The report also shows that, without our plan, emissions would be 41% higher. The Conservative Party of Canada has a non-plan. It would be the equivalent, in terms of pollution, of an added 60 million vehicles on our road. That is what we are talking about here.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the member for Edmonton Strathcona. In June 2024, she said, “economists, journalists and members of Parliament have made it very clear that the carbon tax is not what is responsible for the cost of food increasing so much.” I can also quote the member for Victoria, who said, “the PBO has put out a number of reports that confirm...that 80% of Canadians get more money back than they pay.” That was in March 2024. In September 2022, the member for Victoria also said that the carbon tax is a crucial part of any climate plan.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that, in 2013, the Harper government used the same emergency order to protect a species. It was not radical then, but suddenly it is radical now because we are the ones using it. It is hogwash. I met the workers too. They came to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Experts, environmentalists, the first nations and workers are saying that we must protect the forest to protect jobs. Only the Conservative Party does not understand that.

Mr. Speaker, we held consultations with hundreds of people over the summer: workers, people from the regions, experts, industry representatives, environmental groups and first nations. The order is being developed, and there is a very simple way for us not to have to impose our order. The Quebec government must, as it has promised, present a plan for protecting caribou habitat. It is quite simple. Quebec has committed to doing this eight years ago. At some point, there needs to be action. The Conservatives, of course, will never act. We are taking action to protect the environment, and to protect jobs as well.

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and, if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, (a) on the day the House begins the debate on the second reading motion of Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, one member of each recognized party and a member of the Green Party be allowed to speak for no more than 10 minutes, followed by five minutes for questions and comments, and, at the conclusion of the time provided for debate or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, the bill be deemed read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed; and (b) it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to undertake a study of the factors that led to the recent fires in Jasper National Park, provided that the committee: (i) invite the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and the President of the King's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness and Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Agency of Canada, (ii) hold no fewer than three meetings to be held before October 11, 2024.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be back with you for the new session. That said, might I remind my colleague from the Conservative Party that the Government of Quebec has committed since 2016 to presenting a woodland caribou recovery plan in Quebec. We are now in 2024, soon to be 2025, and we have been waiting eight years for the plan. In 2022, the Government of Quebec signed a joint letter with the federal government stating that they would have a plan by June 2023. The plan would specify how to protect at least 65% of caribou habitat. The Government of Quebec committed to do that. If Quebec does not want a federal order, it simply needs to act.

Mr. Speaker, if only you knew how many times I met with Quebeckers this summer. They think it is completely ridiculous to talk about a coalition between the Liberal Party of Canada and the Bloc Québécois, even though we are capable of working together. Quebeckers find the idea of such a coalition completely ridiculous. However, we should not be surprised at comments like that coming from the Conservatives. Once again, we see how they have no interest in protecting the environment. They do not care about air quality, water quality or the future that we are leaving for our children and grandchildren. We think that we can support the economy, communities and the environment.

Mr. Speaker, I have a news flash. We had a carbon tax election in 2021, and the Conservative Party had a platform that said that they would put in place carbon pricing in this country. Maybe they just have to go to look back at their own platform. Again this morning, the Parliamentary Budget Officer was in committee saying that eight out of 10 Canadian families, where carbon pricing applies, get more money than what they pay in pricing. Unfortunately, the Conservative Party of Canada continues to spew lies and disinformation on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for the question. The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada has indeed received a request for an assessment of the project. That assessment, as is usually the case, is ongoing and the agency will make a recommendation to me in the weeks to come. However, I would like to share something with the House. The leader of the Green Party and I, as well as many people in Canada, are very confused about the NDP's position on the issue of carbon pricing. I went door knocking on the weekend in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, and it is incredible how many people told me that they did not understand the NDP's position that would put Quebec and the entire country at a disadvantage.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has a collaborative relationship with the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO. We always have and always will cooperate fully with the PBO’s requests, including by providing all the specific documents and information that respond to the parameters of his requests. Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, like all departments in the government, routinely gives the PBO privileged access to data sets to support him in the creation of high-quality analysis. These data sets are not analysis, they are raw data, and they can sometimes contain sensitive private data. They respond to a specific request for information from the PBO and do not represent any kind of comprehensive economic analysis. Occasionally, data shared with the PBO may contain sensitive information that relates to specific companies. In order to protect their privacy and respect business confidentiality, such data must be managed in accordance with the Statistics Act. ECCC recognizes the PBO’s discretion to release some or all of the information as he sees fit and trusts the PBO will manage the information he receives in accordance with his mandate and any relevant legal requirements. We have reviewed all of the data in the material that was released on June 13 and are confident that none of it is confidential and can therefore be disclosed publicly. The PBO’s analysis of Canada’s carbon pollution pricing system confirms that the majority of households receive more in Canada Carbon Rebate payments than they face in direct costs due to pricing. Climate change is imposing increasing costs on Canadians, and Canada has made an international commitment to tackling this global challenge. The Government made the decision to place a price on pollution because it is widely recognized as the most cost-effective way of reducing carbon pollution that causes climate change. It reduces the pollution that drives more extreme climate impacts, and orients Canada’s economy to capture the advantages of a net zero transition. Any comprehensive analysis of the economic benefits of carbon pricing would also need to include the financial investments that result in part from carbon pricing regimes. Putting a price on carbon pollution encourages businesses to find ways to be more efficient, invest in cleaner technologies, and shift toward cleaner energy sources. The Government looks forward to receiving the PBO’s revised report in the fall and hopes it includes a more comprehensive analysis of carbon pricing that includes all the costs of climate change and the economic benefits of taking action to combat it.

Mr. Speaker, in 2021, Environment and Climate Change Canada, ECCC, and nine indigenous communities established the Crown-indigenous working group for potential oil sands mining effluent regulations, CIWG. The CIWG is exploring options to manage the buildup of oil sands mine water in tailings ponds located in the Athabasca oil sands region. One of the options under consideration is regulations that, if developed, would place strict protective conditions on the release of treated effluent to the Athabasca River. Any such regulations would be developed with protective standards reflecting available scientific information and indigenous knowledge. The key deliverables of the CIWG will include recommendations on the path forward for managing the buildup of oil sands mine water. Last fall, the public and stakeholders were invited to provide input on an introductory paper, found at https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/managing-pollution/sources-industry/mining-effluent/oil-sands.html, which included an update on the work completed by the CIWG to date, an overview of the collaborative process established through the CIWG and an opportunity for early feedback. The release of the introductory paper was accompanied by targeted engagement sessions with stakeholders and interested parties, including provincial and territorial governments, oil sands mine operators, environmental non-governmental organizations, academia and indigenous communities not included on the CIWG. In May 2024, ECCC published a “what we heard” report, found at https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/managing-pollution/sources-industry/mining-effluent/oil-sands/summary-report-introduction-crown-indigenous-working-group.html, summarizing input received on the introductory paper. ECCC plans to publish a discussion paper, accompanied by further stakeholder engagement, by the end of 2024. ECCC has been meeting regularly with the CIWG since the group was established in 2021 and leverages subgroups that have been established. The current focus of the CIWG is publishing a discussion paper by the end of 2024, completing an assessment of available treatment technologies, developing aquatic toxicity and monitoring requirements and developing an approach for incorporating indigenous knowledge.

Mr. Speaker, information on the GDP, or gross domestic product, impact estimates of the clean fuel regulations for 2030 is included in the regulatory impact analysis statement, published along with the regulations in 2022 at https://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2022/2022-07-06/html/sor-dors140-eng.html. To evaluate the direct impact of the regulations, as well as the effect of relative price changes on Canadian economic activity and GHG, or greenhouse gas, emissions, a macroeconomic analysis was completed. When these effects are taken into account, it is estimated that the regulations will result in an overall GDP decrease of up to $9.0 billion, or up to 0.3% of total GDP, while reducing up to 26.6 megatonnes of GHG emissions in 2030, using an upper bound scenario where all credits are sold at the marginal cost per credit. The regulations will work in combination with other federal, provincial and territorial climate change policies to create an incentive for firms to invest in innovative technologies and fuels by setting long-term, predictable and stringent targets. The broad range of compliance strategies allowed under the regulations will also allow fossil fuel suppliers the flexibility to choose the lowest-cost compliance actions available. If the regulations induce more long-term innovation and economies of scale than projected in the estimates presented in this analysis, then the regulations could result in lower costs and greater benefits, particularly over a longer time frame. The social cost of carbon is a monetary measure of the net global damage from climate change that results from an additional metric ton of CO2 emissions for a given year. Since the publication of the clean fuel regulations in July 2022, the federal government has updated the social cost of carbon estimates, aligned with updates made by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Taking this into account, it is expected that the monetized benefits of the regulations will exceed their costs, over the full time frame of analysis, 2022 to 2040.

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), figure 5.1 reports emissions from the national inventory report of greenhouse gas sources and sinks in Canada. Cropland emissions are determined using an internationally accepted method, which has been modified to reflect Canadian soils, climate, crops and management practices. It is further adapted based on empirical data collected from research studies across Canada. Included in the emissions from cropland are direct and indirect nitrous oxide from synthetic fertilizers, organic fertilizers, crop residue decomposition, cultivation of organic soils, mineralization of soil organic carbon, conservation tillage, irrigation and manure on pasture and rangeland. Additionally, the method estimates nitrous oxide and methane emissions from field burning of agricultural residues as well as carbon dioxide emissions from liming and urea fertilizer application. In response to part (b), the national inventory report primarily uses survey data provided by Statistics Canada from the census of agriculture, as well as other annual surveys that describe the distribution, yield and acreage of crops across Canada, as well as data from the Statistics Canada fertilizer shipments survey that describes the amount of fertilizer sold. Additionally, the inventory uses surveys on fertilizer use and expert opinion to inform the method. In response to part (c), figure 5.1 describes the emissions as of 2021. The national inventory tracks annual emissions, starting in 1990. The latest data point now available is 2022, released in early May.

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), figure 5.1 reports emissions from the national inventory report of greenhouse gas sources and sinks in Canada. Livestock emissions are determined using a standard Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, methodology and consist primarily of methane emissions from livestock production and manure management. The method tracks enteric methane emissions from livestock, mainly ruminants such as cattle and other ruminants, as well as methane and nitrous oxide emissions from manure management. This method is based on an internationally accepted standard, which has been modified to reflect Canadian climate, livestock types and management practices. It is further adapted based on empirical data collected from studies across Canada. In response to part (b), data for the modeling comes primarily from the Statistics Canada census of agriculture, as well as the biennial livestock survey from Statistics Canada, which describes the population, age and gender distribution of livestock types. Additional data on livestock productivity and manure management practices come from Statistics Canada surveys, as well as from expert opinion surveys. In response to part (c), figure 5.1 describes the emissions as of 2021. The national inventory tracks annual emissions, starting in 1990. The latest data point now available is 2022, released in early May. In response to part (d), the data can be broken down by livestock group. Livestock groups include dairy, beef, sheep, swine and other minor animal categories for enteric methane as well as manure management emissions of methane and nitrous oxide. In response to part (e), no, the information is for farms only. Emissions from processing facilities would be included in the industry sector.

Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v), with respect to the protected areas addressed in Bill S-14, an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Rouge National Urban Park Act, and the national parks of Canada fishing regulations, extensive consultation and engagement on the intent to expand or complete the establishment of each of these protected areas has taken place. Within Bill S-14, there are planned expansions for seven national parks and one national park reserve and the creation of two new national parks. Much of this land is already under the control and administration of Parks Canada, and in some cases for over 20 years. As such, the consultation and engagement has been varied and dependent upon the circumstances, has been supported by local ongoing working relationships and has occurred over an extended period of time. Specifically, regarding the creation of new protected areas, Parks Canada begins consultation and engagement with provincial and territorial governments and indigenous governments and organizations at the feasibility stage where a potential protected area site is initially selected. This consultation and engagement is critical and carries on throughout the establishment process. Consultation processes with partners, key stakeholders, provincial and territorial governments, indigenous peoples, and representatives of communities located in or near the national parks and national marine conservation areas occurred in many communities and took many forms. This includes face-to-face meetings, correspondence, community newsletters, public open houses, community participation in the development of park management plans, and other fora. Canada has a legal duty to consult and accommodate, where appropriate, when it contemplates a project that may adversely impact upon the section 35 rights of indigenous peoples and takes these responsibilities very seriously. In fact, in a number of cases, protected areas that will be established or expanded within modern treaty areas are a requirement of land claim agreements or other agreements with modern treaty and self-government partners. Concerning the detailed aspects of the question, Parks Canada undertook an assessment to determine the amount of information that would fall within the scope of the question. The information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. In some cases, Parks Canada has had administration and control of the lands for 20years or more and the lands have been managed as though they were part of the park during this period and consultation and engagement has occurred via formal and informal means throughout the time period. Parks Canada has concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to the question would require a manual collection of information that is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), since 1996, only one company has reported undertaking weather modification activities in Canada, Weather Modification Inc., which operates a hail suppression program in Alberta. With regard to (b), annual operations happen between June 1 and September 15 each year. The objective of the cloud seeding operations is to reduce hail damage caused by thunderstorms in central and southern Alberta. With regard to (c)(i), according to the 2023 Atlantic High-Skilled Program, or AHSP, notice of intent, clouds are seeded either from the base or from the top. Cloud base seeding involves releasing silver iodide, or AgI, particles at the base of updraft areas near the cloud base, which then get transported up to the clouds through the updraft winds. Cloud top seeding, conducted between the levels of -5 and -10 degrees Celsius, involves dropping flares into the cloud which release AgI and will penetrate the edges of single convective cells meeting the seed criteria. Factors that determine cloud top or cloud base seeding are storm structure, visibility, cloud base height, or time available to reach seeding altitude. With regard to (c) (ii), AgI is used as the primary seeding agent. With regard to (c) (iii), according to the 2020 and 2021 AHSP Notices of Intent, five aircraft are used every season to execute on the operations, which are tagged as Hailstop 1 to Hailstop 5. Between 2015 and 2020, the fleet included three Beechcraft King Air C90 prop-jet aircraft and two Cessna C340 aircraft, and since 2021 the fleet consists simply of five Beechcraft King Air C90 prop-jet aircraft. The operational equipment also consists of one C-band Doppler weather radar, 250 kilowatt peak power, with 1.65 degree beam width, located at the Olds-Didsbury airport, 15.3 metres tower-mounted, including a radome, as per the 2020 and 2021 AHSP Notice of Intent. With regard to (d), to date, Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, is not aware of any weather modification activities in Canada that would violate the Weather Modification Information Act, other Acts administered by ECCC. With regard to (e), ECCC does not provide any funding in support of this activity. With regard to (f), there are no government agencies responsible for the activities in part (e) at the federal level. With regard to (g), Weather Modification International works under contract to conduct cloud seeding operations on behalf of the Alberta Severe Weather Management Society, or ASWMS. They are an American organization based in Fargo, North Dakota, as per the 2023 AHSP Notice of Intent. With regard to (h), the emissions produced by AgI, as a seeding agent, are considered to have negligible environmental or human health impacts according to a screening assessment done by ECCC and Health Canada.

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to remind my colleague that I was born and raised in the very beautiful town of La Tuque, just south of Lac‑Saint‑Jean, in the very beautiful riding of my friend, the Minister of Industry. Second, Quebec itself has been promising to present a caribou recovery plan since 2016. In a joint letter between the federal government and the Government of Quebec in 2022, the Government of Quebec once again promised to put forward a caribou protection strategy and to protect at least 65% of the species' habitat.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that climate change has already cost Canadians $25 billion in the last 10 years alone. Not five years from now, not 10 years from now, it is already happening. If we do not do anything, it is going to be an extra $35 billion to Canadian taxpayers. What we are doing on this side of the House is we are helping Canadians fight climate change and we are helping Canadians win affordability, which is why eight out of 10 Canadian families get more money back from carbon pricing than what they pay.

Mr. Speaker, facts are facts. The facts are that eight out of 10 Canadian families get more money back from carbon pricing than they pay. It is a fact that climate change is going to cost Canadians $35 billion by 2030. In fact, right now, eastern Canada is seeing a second heat wave before the summer has even started. People are being evacuated in the Northwest Territories. What is the Conservative response? It is to let the planet burn. It is immoral. We will not have that on this side of the House. We will work with Canadians. We will help them. We will be there for them. Unfortunately, the Conservative Party of Canada will not.

Mr. Speaker, eight out of 10 Canadians do better where the federal system applies. The Conservative Party of Canada, after campaigning to put in place carbon pricing during the last election, has now turned its back on it, just as Conservatives have turned their backs on Canadians. Their only answer to climate change is to ignore it and to let the planet burn. This is immoral. We will not let that happen on this side of the House. We will be there to support Canadians, unlike the Conservative Party of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, if anyone should resign in this House, it is the people who are misleading Canadians about the benefit of carbon pricing. There is 25 million tonnes less pollution in this country because of carbon pricing. We have a plan to work with Canadians to help them better prepare to face the impacts of climate change. The Conservatives have nothing: no plans for adaptation, no plan to reduce the amount of pollution, and no plan for the economy. If anyone should resign, it should be them over there.

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the member to update his speaking notes, which date back many months. We just received, in fact, the Climate Scorecard 2024 Government Climate Leadership Award for one of the best performances in terms of greenhouse gas emissions reduction since 2019 in all of the G7 countries, something that has never happened under a Conservative Government of Canada and will never happen under a Conservative government.

Mr. Speaker, if anyone in the House ought to resign, it is the member who just spoke. Back in 2021, he campaigned on a promise of putting a price on pollution and introducing a clean fuel standard. What are the Conservatives doing today? They have turned their backs on those promises. They are the ones flip-flopping. They have no plan for the economy. They have no plan for helping Canadians deal with the impact of climate change. They have no plan for combatting climate change.

Mr. Speaker, it is sad to see the Conservative Party of Canada continue to display its complete ignorance on the issue of climate change. The member should just turn around and speak to the member behind him. She was part of a provincial government in Quebec that introduced a price on pollution long before the federal government did. As he knows full well, or should know by now, the federal price does not apply in Quebec. It applies to other provinces.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who recognizes the importance of combatting climate change. However, I disagree with the premise of her question, since Canada is the only G20 country to have eliminated subsidies for fossil fuels. We did this two years sooner than any of our G20 partners. We even went further by committing to also eliminating public subsidies from Crown corporations for fossil fuel production. We are the only G20 country to have made this commitment, and we will do it by the end of the year.

Mr. Speaker, I again thank my colleague for her question. I would remind her that last year, for the first time in Canada's history, we adopted a national adaptation strategy. The provinces, territories, indigenous peoples and experts worked together to develop this strategy to help us prepare for the impacts of climate change. In fact, all the provincial, territorial and federal ministers are scheduled to meet in two weeks to work on implementing this national adaptation policy.

Mr. Speaker, I said it earlier in English, but for the benefit of my colleague, I will say it in French. Canada just received the 2024 Climate Scorecard award for its performance in the fight against climate change. Between 2019 and now, we have been a top performer in the G7 when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I completely agree with her that more needs to be done. That is why we continue to move forward with our plan. Over the next year, we will be capping greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector to ensure that that sector, like the others, is doing its part to reduce emissions.

Madam Speaker, this side of the House will take no lessons from people who are incapable of doing even basic math. This is the party that told us a few weeks ago—although it never mentions it now—that if we were to remove all federal taxes on gas over the summer, people in Alberta, for example, could save $1,000. I tried using math, and that failed. I tried using culture, and that failed too. Now I am going to try astronomy. In order to save $1,000, if all federal gas taxes were removed this summer, a person would have to travel 10% of the distance between the earth and the moon—

Madam Speaker, that is so ridiculous. First, the data sent to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, at his request, confirms that where the federal price on pollution applies, eight out of 10 families receive more than they pay. Second, it seems like the only thing the Conservatives can calculate is the cost of implementing measures. Of course there are costs, but the Conservatives never talk about the benefits, which are estimated at between $15 billion and $25 billion a year right now. I do not mean only in 2030, but each and every year, and that is not counting the $23 billion less in climate change impacts that Canada will see as a result of our measures. If anyone in the House ought to resign, it is those—