Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I would agree with my hon. colleague. We think that bank executives should be doing more when it comes to fighting climate change, and putting money where their mouth is, which is why the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions is putting in place measures to ensure that the officials at banks and other financial institutions disclose their climate risks. We have also committed to and put in place measures to ensure that we have a taxonomy principle in Canada, so we ensure that green investments that are made are actually green.

Madam Speaker, the people who should resign are those who, hundreds of times, have voted against providing Canadians with clean air and clean water and protecting the environment. This is not tens of times but hundreds of times. If anyone should resign in the House, it is those people. Eight out of 10 Canadians are better off because of carbon pricing where the federal program applies. We are helping Canadians, and we are fighting climate change. The Conservatives are doing none of that.

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I must correct my colleague. This is not optional. It is an obligation that Canada's Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions is going to impose on all financial institutions. My colleague is speaking only about the big banks. I am not talking only about the big banks; I am talking about all financial institutions. The two of us agree on one thing, however. We agree that the big banks should be doing more to fight climate change, and we are going to work to make sure that happens.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. As she probably saw in the last budget, this year we have again invested extra money to be better prepared for forest fires. By the end of the year, we will have trained more than 1,000 firefighters across the country. We are working with our partners in the provinces, territories and indigenous communities, as well as the international community, to ensure that we are as prepared as possible for forest fires. Of course, being prepared for forest fires also means tackling climate change. Sadly, this is something the Conservatives have not yet understood.

Madam Speaker, not only did we invest additional funding in the most recent budget to increase our capacity to deal with forest fires, but last year we also implemented the first climate change adaptation plan in the history of the country. We worked with all the provincial governments. We are working with municipalities. We are working with indigenous communities to implement measures to help our communities be better prepared to deal with climate change.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, we took a major step toward launching Canada's 2030 nature strategy by introducing Bill C-73, the nature accountability act, in the House. Canada is the second country in the world to do so. The bill would hold our government and future governments accountable in making progress on our ambitious nature protection goals. The bill and the strategy provide a coordinated approach to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, help protect nature for future generations and ensure that we reach our goal of protecting at least 30% of our lands, waters and ice by 2030.

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a), developing and maintaining good-quality Canada-wide data on how plastic moves through the economy is necessary to transition towards a circular economy in Canada. The federal plastics registry, the registry, will provide critical data that will identify opportunities for the government to take further action to reduce plastic waste and pollution, as well as help monitor progress over time. The cost to government to collect data for the registry is $7,294,154 projected over five years to establish the registry, and $600,756 each year after for maintenance. The cost of inaction against plastic pollution in Canada is very high. As an example, the regulatory impact analysis statement for the single-use plastics prohibition regulations, SUPPR, determined that the SUPPR alone will save Canadians $581 million over 10 years in avoided terrestrial litter cleanup costs. Canadians want to see more concrete action, like the SUPPR, from governments and industry to tackle plastic pollution. The registry is a stepping stone for future actions that tackle plastic pollution and cut costs for all Canadians. In response to part (b), reporting requirements for the federal plastics registry will be introduced in phases to allow time and flexibility for those obligated to report. Phase 1 reporting will start in September 2025, requiring reporting on plastic placed on the market in three categories, electronic and electrical equipment, packaging, and single-use or disposable products, for the 2024 calendar year. Phase 2 reporting will start in 2026, adding reporting requirements for resin manufacturers and importers, as well as reporting on plastic placed on the market for the remaining categories: tires, transportation, construction, agriculture and horticulture, fishing and aquaculture, apparel and textiles. In 2026, reporting on plastic waste generated at industrial, commercial, and institutional facilities, plastic collected at end-of-life, as well as plastic sent for diversion and disposal for some categories, will also be introduced. In 2027, additional reporting requirements on plastics collected and sent for diversion and disposal for more categories will be added. Details of the reporting schedule appear in schedule 5 of the “Notice with respect to reporting of plastic resins and certain plastic products for the Federal Plastics Registry for 2024, 2025 and 2026”. In response to part (c), Environment and Climate Change Canada, ECCC, has consulted extensively on the development of the registry, and no company has quantified the cost of reporting or signaled how these costs would impact the price of food or consumer goods. ECCC continues to work with companies on the development of a technical guidance to reduce the administrative tasks and costs associated with reporting and assist them in fulfilling their obligations. ECCC has also created category-specific working groups to better understand supply chains and develop targeted reporting methodologies to further assist companies in fulfilling their reporting obligations. The federal plastics registry, the registry, is the most comprehensive registry of its kind. Other registries are usually limited to a few categories like packaging or electronics and electrical equipment. These registries differ from the registry by including provisions for extended producer responsibility and assigning costs to producers for the plastics they put on the market. Note that the registry assigns no charges to food or consumer good companies and does not regulate food or consumer products in any manner. It only aims to create an inventory of data on plastics throughout their life cycle and across several sectors of the economy.

Madam Speaker, I would like to share my time with the member for Surrey Centre. This morning, Environment and Climate Change Canada published data provided to the Parliamentary Budget Officer on carbon pollution pricing relative to the national and provincial gross domestic product for the years 2022-30. Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am happy to table this data in the House, along with a Statistics Canada study called “Aperçu de l’incidence des tendances météorologiques extrêmes au Canada sur la rentabilité de l’assurance des propriétaires et les consommateurs”; as well as another report, by the Canadian Climate Institute, called “Damage Control: Reducing the costs of climate impacts for Canada”. While I am at it, since Canada introduced its first-ever nature accountability act this morning, only the second country in the world to do so, I would also like to table “Toward a 2030 Biodiversity Strategy for Canada: halting and reversing nature loss”.

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that the data published today does not represent a comprehensive economic overview of the impacts of carbon pricing. Instead, it is background data related to a specific request from the PBO, which was then used to develop some of its analysis. The Government of Canada has a collaborative relationship with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It always has collaborated and always will collaborate fully with the PBO's requests, including by providing the PBO with all specific documents and information that respond to its requests. It should be recognized that the Parliamentary Budget Officer plays an important role in our democratic institutions. He assists all parliamentarians, be it in their day-to-day work or in long-term research, in order to enhance the quality of parliamentary debate and to promote greater transparency and budgetary accountability. Unlike the Conservatives, who have a history of muzzling scientists, on this side of the House we value science. Environment and Climate Change Canada estimates that the fuel charge and industrial carbon pricing system together will account for almost 80 million tonnes of greenhouse gas pollution reduction in 2030, compared to what would have happened without the carbon pricing. That represents about one-third of the currently projected total emission that will result from various actions being undertaken pursuant to the 2030 emissions reduction plan. If members take the time to look at the data that is being tabled today, which was requested for us by the PBO, they will see that according to the PBO we know that greenhouse gas emissions have already gone down by 25 million tonnes per year because of carbon pricing. A full economic assessment of carbon pricing cannot be done without considering the benefits of reducing pollution and the cost of not taking action, which is something, unfortunately, that the Conservative Party continues to ignore. Currently, climate change costs Canadian households an average of $720 a year, which is set to rise to at least $2,000 a year by 2050. Canadians are already feeling the cost of climate change through losses to communities and livelihoods from wildfires, floods and hurricanes. To estimate the economic benefit of emissions reduction, the Government of Canada uses a value known as the social cost of carbon. It quantifies the damages at $294 per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere in 2030. Canada's current social cost of carbon is the same value used by the United States government. Using that metric, the avoided cost for climate change in the year 2030 associated with the projected emissions reduction benefit of carbon pricing is about $23.1 billion per year. The social cost of carbon analysis is a core part of climate policy assessments used by many countries, as it reflects the reality of the growing impacts of climate change on current and future generations and is a standard methodology internationally recognized for estimating the benefits of reducing emissions. Abandoning carbon pricing without replacing it with other actions would forgo those benefits, and replacing it with more costly policy measures would significantly and unnecessarily increase the cost to Canadians, which is another thing that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has publicly recognized a number of times. In fact, a report from the Ecofiscal Commission concluded that carbon pricing would grow Canadians' incomes on average by $3,300 in 2030 relative to an alternative policy approach. The increased costs of climate change are well documented. For example, the Canadian Climate Institute document I referenced earlier tells us that by 2030, the annual costs of climate change impacts on Canada's GDP will be in the order of $35 billion. What is more, numerous studies have shown that the cost of inaction is far higher than the cost of implementing measures to combat climate change.

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I have two things I would like to say. First, we were asked to table the documents requested by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and that is precisely what we did this morning. The data we are presenting to the House are those the Parliamentary Budget Officer had asked us for. Second, while I know why my colleague likes to cite this CCPI report, the next time he talks about it I would like him to let the entire House know the reasons why Canada's performance is not improving. He knows full well what these reasons are, or at least I hope he does, because he often talks about this. I also hope he has read the document. If Canada's performance is not improving, it is due to fossil fuel production. Consequently, we need to tackle greenhouse gas emissions, and that is how our performance will improve.

Madam Speaker, my colleague probably already knows this, but Canada is the only G20 country to have eliminated government subsidies for fossil fuels. We did that last year. No other G20 country has done so. In addition, we did so two years ahead of the 2025 deadline. We even committed to doing more and eliminating indirect subsidies that are provided through Crown corporations like Export Development Canada, or EDC, and the Business Development Bank of Canada, or BDC. As for the second part of her question, she correctly read an excerpt of the letter from the deputy minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada, requesting that the Parliamentary Budget Officer simply be careful. We needed to make sure that we did not violate any privacy laws by providing this information. We checked, and the information is now public.

Madam Speaker, I said it in French, but I will say it again in English and remind the member that Canada is the only G20 country to have eliminated fossil fuel subsidies last year. The numbers he is referring to precede 2023. That is the first thing. Second, we need to tackle climate change pollution coming from all of the sectors, including the oil and gas sector in Canada. That is why we have already put in place regulations to reduce methane emissions in the oil and gas sector by at least 45% by 2025, next year. We will ramp those up to at least 70% by 2030. That is also why we are putting in place a cap on oil and gas emissions.

Mr. Speaker, as we here in the House already know, math is not the Conservative Party's strong suit, even less so for the Conservative Party leader. I know that he has a hard time counting higher than six, the number of affordable housing units he built when he was the housing minister. The data proves it. I have it here. Eight out 10 families are receiving more from carbon pricing than they are paying. In addition, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced by 25 million tonnes as a result of the implementation of carbon pricing.

Mr. Speaker, once again, he has proven just how ignorant the Conservative Party of Canada is when it comes to climate change, since federal carbon pricing does not apply in Quebec. Quebec has a system in place. The Leader of the Opposition simply has to turn around, look three rows behind him and a little to his left. Then he will have the opportunity to talk to someone who voted in favour of carbon pricing in Quebec. All he has to do is ask her for an explanation. If she cannot give him one, I would be happy to.

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague and friend, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, often says in the House, members of the Conservative Party of Canada are entitled to their opinions, not their own sets of facts. The facts are clear. Eight out of 10 Canadian families get more money back from carbon pricing than it costs them. Not only that, but the data also shows that carbon pricing is already responsible for a reduction in the pollution level of 25 million tonnes. That is half of our emission reduction so far.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have established in the House that math is not the forte of the Leader of the Opposition. He has a hard time counting past six, which is the number of homes built through social housing when he was the minister responsible for housing. However, the facts are clear: Eight out of 10 Canadian families get more money back from carbon pricing than the pricing system costs. Not only that, but carbon pricing is responsible for half of our emission reduction. Because of carbon pricing, there is less pollution in the atmosphere in Canada by 25 million tonnes.

Mr. Speaker, it is beyond me how the Conservative Party of Canada and those members who campaigned to put in place a price on pollution can look anyone in the eyes. How can they look anyone in the eyes and say, “We are doing nothing to protect you against forest fires, we are doing nothing to protect you against hurricanes, and we are doing nothing to protect you against flooding”? The Conservatives have no plan for the economy. They have no plan for climate change. They have no plan to work with communities to protect them from the devastating impacts of climate change.

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we will never hesitate to be there for Canadians, to defend their right to clean water, clean air and a clean environment, unlike the Conservative Party of Canada. The extent of the Conservative Party's ignorance on this issue is beyond the pale. All the member has to do is turn around. If he were to turn around and talk to the member sitting right behind him, she can explain to him that Quebec has its own carbon pricing system, which was in place long before the federal system. What is more, several Conservative members have voted in favour of provincial carbon pricing. This is completely ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his advocacy for environmental and climate change issues. I would like to remind him that just a few months ago, we signed an historic agreement with all of the B.C. first nations, the Government of B.C. and the federal government: $1 billion for nature protection to help the province achieve the goals we have in Canada to protect at least 30% of our lands and water. We will continue working with our partners, whether they be first nations or the Government of B.C., to ensure we can protect more species and more habitat.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for his many very relevant answers to questions. I would like to ask him the following question. The claim is that this will cost the Canadian economy $25 million, but that does not take into account the annual benefits of investments made in the fight against climate change. That figure is $25 billion a year now. It also does not take into account the costs associated with climate change that will be avoided between now and 2030. That figure is $23 billion a year. Would that not add up to two, almost three times as much as the Conservatives claim?

Mr. Speaker, we respect the work of the PBO, who provides independent analysis on the government. Conservatives, unfortunately, are misleading Canadians yet again. Our government has supported, and will continue to support, the Parliamentary Budget Officer to fulfill his role in his office. The report correctly confirmed that eight out of 10 Canadians get more money back in the rebate than they pay in a fuel charge. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that carbon pricing is the least disruptive measure to use to fight climate change. Instead of misleading Canadians, Conservatives should take math classes over the summer and should come up with a real plan for the economy and for climate change.

Mr. Speaker, it seems that we have, in fact, underestimated the wacko math of the Conservative Party of Canada. Sara Hastings-Simon, an associate professor at the University of Calgary faculty of science, crunched the alleged numbers of the Conservative Party. Based on the savings, and according to her calculation, someone would have to drive 44,000 kilometres, not 37,000 kilometres. Therefore, one could drive from the North Pole to the South Pole and back and they would have some kilometres left. These are the types of mathematics that these people are doing.

Mr. Speaker, one cannot, in fact, drive from the North Pole to the South Pole. There are no roads, let alone the fact that there are two oceans. I am sure the Conservatives will find ways to blame me for that. However, if one were to drive from Canada's most northern city accessible by road, Tuktoyaktuk, in the Northwest Territories, and then drove to the most southern city accessible by road, Tierra del Fuego in Argentina, one would have to drive 16,000 kilometres. At an average speed of 100 kilometres an hour without stopping, that would take 160 hours, and one would only be halfway to the savings claim made by the Conservative Party of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the savings that the Conservative Party of Canada is claiming are simply not true. Let me quote Dan McTeague, a former Liberal MP, but a vocal opponent to our policies, including carbon pricing, and no fan of mine, I might add. When asked about that proposal from the Conservative Party, he said that he was “in the wilderness” and that there was no way that the savings that the Conservatives were claiming were true, number one. He is at the head of Canadians for Affordable Energy. Number two, it would cost the government “billions of dollars” of taxpayers' money. When are the Conservatives going to stop that?

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives do not understand math. Perhaps I should try culture. Consider Isabelle Boulay's beautiful song, Entre Matane et Bâton Rouge, which is a distance of 2,800 kilometres. That takes about 30 hours by car. A person would have to drive from Matane to Bâton Rouge, then come back and drive there again, come back and drive there again, come back and drive there again, come back and drive there one more time, and that would be their vacation. They are talking nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, to save as much money as the Conservative Party claims they would, a person would have to drive at least 320 hours over the summer. I do not know how much vacation time the Conservative Party thinks people have, but a person would have to drive 320 hours non-stop, without stopping to take bathroom breaks or to see the beautiful landscape. That is 320 hours of non-stop driving. What a bunch of nonsense. They are not good at math, nor are they good at culture, it seems.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question and the fact that, unlike the Conservatives, she thinks that climate change is indeed a significant problem that we need to address. I would remind her that we are the only G7 country to have cut fossil fuel subsidies, two years ahead of schedule no less. We are the only ones to have done that. Just this morning, we announced a $530‑million fund with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to work with our communities across the country. This is going to help 1,400 municipalities across the country to deal with the consequences of climate change.

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, over the past two years, we have implemented a clean fuel standard, something that the Conservatives promised to do the last time, but they flip-flopped again. We increased the price on pollution, something that the Conservatives promised to do, but they once again flip-flopped. We are capping greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas sector, and we are the only major oil-producing country in the world to do that. Our emissions are so low that the last time they were so low in Canada was just after the Canadiens won the Stanley Cup. We have come a long way since then.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question, but also for her advocacy on these issues. Making our communities more sustainable and more resilient when it comes to climate change is a priority to our government to help plan the cities and communities of the future. That is why, this morning, together with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, we announced a $530‑million fund, the first fund in the history of Canada devoted to climate change adaptation and resilience. This fund will help serve 1,400 communities across the country to better prepare us and better prepare our communities for the impacts of climate change.

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the cost of registration of the mark with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office was $510 plus taxes, $526.29. There were no further expenses given the work was done in-house. In response to (b), all work was done in-house. In response to (c), work began in early 2021 because new technology started to allow new fabrication methods that eliminated the need for a dedicated signage version of the beaver logo. There had been two different logos used previously, one for signage, without cross-hatching on the tail, and one for other applications, with cross-hatching. By combining these two versions, Parks Canada would see savings in signage production and efficiencies in managing its graphic elements. The most noticeable change is the removal of cross-hatching on the beaver’s tail, which was previously present on the standard logo but not on the simplified version used for signage. Given that the cross-hatching on the tail does not reproduce well on small screens and embroidery, it has not been incorporated into the new, refined version of the logo. In response to (d), Parks Canada submitted to the Intellectual Property Office its registration request of the new beaver logo on May 29, 2023. In response to (e), the new beaver logo is being implemented gradually, for example after inventory of printed materials is liquidated or at the end of the regular lifecycle of products, to reduce waste and costs. Digital products, such as PowerPoint templates, social media avatars, letterhead, etc., were amended in-house.

Mr. Speaker, for part (a), the total amount of expenditures incurred on consultants from November 4, 2015, to April 17, 2024, represents $516,285,228.42. This amount excludes objects codes 0301, 0351 and 0352 as those include consultant expenditures as well as other expenditures. For parts (b) and (c), Parks Canada undertook a preliminary and broadly scoped search to determine the amount of information that would fall within the scope of the question and the amount of time that would be required to prepare a comprehensive response. This preliminary search identified a total of approximately 5,300 contracts which the agency would need to individually list in its response to this question. Parks Canada concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question is not possible in the time allotted and could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information. Please refer to the proactive disclosure website, https://search.open.canada.ca/contracts/, for contracting inquiries over $10,000.

Mr. Speaker, this is a prime cut of Conservative baloney. I know what I am talking about; my dad was a butcher. The savings that the Conservative Party of Canada claims for Albertans is based on people travelling 37,000 kilometres during their holidays. For 37,000 kilometres, someone can go from the North Pole to the South Pole and still have kilometres left to achieve the savings that the Conservatives claim.

Mr. Speaker, I know math is not the forte of the Conservative Party of Canada. Let me walk its members through it. By their math, Albertans would have to use 3,293 litres of gasoline over a three-month period. At an average of 8.9 litres per 100 kilometres, that is equivalent to 37,000 kilometres. Someone would have to drive for 10 consecutive days, nonstop, and after two weeks of vacation, they would have two days left, or maybe three, to enjoy that vacation.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party of Canada's calculations and purported savings are hogwash. To save as much money as the Conservatives claim, an Alberta family would have to travel 37,000 kilometres on its vacation. Folks could go from Montreal to Mexico City, back to Montreal, back to Mexico City, back to Montreal, back to Mexico City, back to Montreal and back to Mexico City and still not have racked up enough kilometres—

Mr. Speaker, I know that math is not a strong suit for members of the Conservative Party of Canada, so let me help them out. To achieve the savings that the Conservatives are suggesting, a family would have to burn through 3,293 litres of gas over three months in one summer. If a vehicle uses 8.9 litres per 100 kilometres, that means it would have to travel 37,000 kilometres. A person could drive from the North Pole to the South Pole and practically all the way back to the North Pole at that rate, and of course, they would have to do so over just a couple of months. What nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, maybe I need to go through the math again to make sure it is understood. The savings that the Conservative Party are claiming, based on the member's assertion, are based on use of gasoline over the summertime of 3,293 litres. Do the math; it is not complicated. At an average consumption of 8.9 litres per 100 kilometres, a family in Alberta would have to drive 37,000 kilometres to be able to benefit from the claimed savings. This has nothing to do with reality. It would be nice for the Conservative Party of Canada to come down to earth and leave la-la land for a little while.

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, on April 17, put an update on his website, saying that the last estimate he had done was based on faulty premises. We thank the PBO for doing that. In fact, it confirms what we have known all along and what economists and independent organizations in the country are saying, which is that eight out of 10 Canadians are better off with the federal pricing on carbon. It helps fight climate change. It helps Canadians with affordability. We thank the PBO for doing that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I would like to remind her that Climate Scorecard gave Canada a grade of 70% in 2024 for our climate change performance and that our greenhouse gas emissions dropped by over 50 million tonnes. That is the equivalent of taking 15 million cars off our roads. We are getting there. We need to do our part in fighting climate change. Every sector of the economy and every region of the country must contribute to the fight against climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that in recent years, we implemented a clean fuel standard, which the Conservatives promised to do during the last election campaign, but they changed their minds. We continue to move forward with carbon pricing, which the Conservatives promised to do during the last election campaign, but they changed their minds. We have put in place methane regulations and a zero-emission vehicle standard to ensure that Canada has only zero-emission vehicles by 2035. We are taking action to fight climate change and protect Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that more than half of the oil consumed in Quebec is Canadian oil and that as Quebeckers, we consume 360,000 barrels of oil every day. Yes, our record is better than the rest of the country, but Quebec also needs to make an effort. No one is off the hook from fighting climate change. No one is better than everyone else. We must all work on fighting climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct my hon. colleague. Since before the pandemic, our emissions have gone down in Canada, and we have one of the best performances of all G7 countries when it comes to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions since 2019. However, I would agree with the member that more needs to be done, which is why we have put together the first-ever national adaptation strategy, working with provinces, territories, indigenous nations and municipalities to ensure that we are better prepared to help Canadians and their communities face the impacts of climate change. This is something that, unfortunately, the Conservative Party of Canada cannot even bring itself to mention.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Still, I would like to remind him that, when we took office in 2015, Canada was not even protecting 1% of its territorial waters and coastlines. Now, that figure is 15% and will likely rise to 20% in the next few years, as we make our way to at least 30% by 2030, the target agreed upon by all the countries at COP15 in Montreal. We are investing record amounts, particularly in partnership with indigenous peoples across the country, to protect more and more of our land.

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a) the total cost of building materials, including lumber, plywood roofing materials, caulking materials, concrete and supporting hardware, was $1,889.04. Environment and Climate Change Canada, ECCC, staff purchased materials from local retail stores and then built the structure using a total of nine person days. The breakdown of the cost is as follows: Picton Home Hardware, February 27, 2024, $904.38; Picton Home Hardware, March 13, 2024, $530.69; Picton Home Hardware, March 13, 2024, $286.60; Picton Home Hardware, March 14, 2024, $63.68; Home Depot, March 8, 2024, $67.30; Home Depot, March 11, 2024, $36.39. In response to (b), no contracts were issued related to the construction of the barn swallow structure at Prince Edward Point National Wildlife Area. ECCC sourced specifications and the design for free from partners at Ontario Parks, and acquired the construction materials locally when possible using credit cards. ECCC technical staff then built the structure using approximately nine person days. Retail vendors of the materials and amounts are provided in part (a).

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. colleague that just last week the national inventory report came out and showed that, since before the pandemic, our emissions have gone down 44 million tonnes. It is the largest decrease in the last 25 years. It is the equivalent of removing from our roads 13 million gas-powered vehicles. Our plan is working. However, I will agree with the member that there is more we need to do to fight climate change in this country, if only the Conservative Party of Canada could understand that.