Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allow a specific number of days or hours for consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, emissions are down in Canada. That is not only according to us; the independent Canadian Climate Institute said that, for the first time in the history of Canada, we are on track to meet our 2026 and 2030 targets. There was less pollution in 2022 by 44 million tonnes than there was in 2019; this is the equivalent of removing 13 million vehicles from our roads, basically half of our existing vehicles in Canada. More needs to be done, which is why we are the first and only country in the G20 to have eliminated fossil fuel subsidies, as well as the only large oil and gas producer to put in place a cap on emissions.

Mr. Speaker, if the member will not take it from me, maybe she will take it from organizations she probably knows very well. Environmental Defence stated, “New data released today by the Government of Canada shows that [we are] finally starting to bend the curve when it comes to climate pollution. GHG emissions in 2022 were the lowest they have been in 25 years, with the exception of the pandemic years.” The Pembina Institute stated, “Canada’s climate policies are starting to pay off.... It appears the suite of measures introduced by the Government of Canada over the last several years is starting to make a notable dent in our overall emissions.”

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), Parks Canada informed the following groups of the opportunity to publicly comment on the detailed impact assessment: Wasagaming Chamber of Commerce; Clear Lake Country; the office of the member of Parliament Dan Mazier;, Riding Mountain Biosphere Reserve, Valerie Pankratz; Sandy Lake water protection committee, Victor Kowall and Daryl Kines; rural Municipality of Harrison Park, Ian Drul; the Province of Manitoba aquatic invasive species unit, Jeff Long and Rob Bajno; Erickson and District Chamber of Commerce, Eric Bjornson; reeves and mayors of western Manitoba communities. Notifications were provided in February and March 2024. In response to (b), Dameon Wall, external relations manager, provided information via phone calls or emails on behalf of Parks Canada. In response to (c), Parks Canada posted notification of the detailed impact assessment to the Canadian Impact Assessment Registry on February 9, 2024. The draft detailed impact assessment document was available on March 1 and was emailed to all who had requested it by March 3. All detailed impact assessments and basic impact assessments are posted on the registry as regular practice, and it has a searchable map at https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/exploration?search=&showMap=true. With respect to (i), date of public notice is not applicable. With respect to (ii), notification of the upcoming deadline for public comment was provided via the Parks Canada Facebook page on March 18, and to media and stakeholders via email distribution list on March 20. In response to (d), elected officials informed by Parks Canada were Ian Drul, reeve of the Rural Municipality of Harrison Park; and the office of member of Parliament Dan Mazier. In response to (e), with respect to (i), the answer is no. With respect to (ii), the answer is yes: Ian Drul, reeve of the rural Municipality of Harrison Park. With respect to (iii), the answer is no. With respect to (iv), the answer is no. With respect to (v), the answer is yes: the office of the member of Parliament Dan Mazier. In response to (f), Parks Canada received three public comments for the detailed impact assessment before March 10, 2024. In response to (g), as there is strong public interest in Parks Canada’s plans to use an approved pesticide, Parks Canada extended the public comment period to welcome input from Canadians about the potential impact of the proposed use on the environment. In response to (h), the draft detailed impact assessment document was shared with the following first nations on March 1, 2024: Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation, Ebb and Flow First Nation, Sandy Bay First Nation, Rolling River First Nation, Gambler First Nation, Waywayseecappo First Nation, and Tootinaowaziibeeng First Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I would invite my colleague to carefully read the report that was published yesterday because it states that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are 44 million tonnes less than they were before the pandemic in 2019. That is equivalent to taking 13 million vehicles, or half of Canada's vehicle fleet, off the roads. The last time that greenhouse gas emissions were so low in Canada, Connor McDavid from the Edmonton Oilers had just been born, O.J. Simpson was on trial and the google.com domain name had just been purchased. Our plan is working. We need to continue to fight climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that if she bothered to read the report, she would see that our record between 2019 and 2021 is the same as Germany's or even Italy's and that it is better than that of the United States of America. We are not talking about Russia or Iran here, but the United States of America. Our performance on fighting climate change is better than our neighbour to the south. We have tabled the consultation document to impose a cap on greenhouse gas emissions. I have said that we would have draft regulations this year and final regulations by next year.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. In fact, yesterday's report demonstrates—and this has been confirmed by the independent Canadian Climate Institute, for one—that we are on track to meet our 2026 interim targets and the 2030 goal. This will be a first in Canadian history. Between 2019 and 2022, we reduced greenhouse gas emissions in Canada by the equivalent of 15 million vehicles taken off our roads, but we need to do more. I completely agree. That is why we are working on new regulations for a carbon-neutral electricity grid by 2035 as well as regulations for a cap on greenhouse gas emissions, which will be announced shortly.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. colleague that the Supreme Court of Canada, in an opinion last year, told us that we had to revise the Impact Assessment Act. This is exactly what we are doing. However, through an agreement with the Ontario government, we will make sure that federal laws, such as the Species at Risk Act or the Migratory Birds Convention Act, will apply to Highway 413. These elements will be assessed as part of this project.

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and remind him that, in 2022, greenhouse gas emissions were 44 million tonnes lower than they were in 2019, before the pandemic. That is the equivalent of taking 13 million cars off our roads. In fact, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are the lowest they have been in 25 years, since the O.J. Simpson trial and the birth of hockey player Connor McDavid. Things are going very well in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, I agree with my colleague that there is still a lot of work to be done.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was quoting Greenpeace. In that same interview, Greenpeace acknowledged that progress was being made in Canada and that this year's results were very encouraging, but that more needed to be done. I would like to remind my colleague that there is just one country in the entire G20 that has eliminated fossil fuel subsidies. That country is Canada, and we are committed to going even further by eliminating public funding, something no other country in the world has committed to doing. The cap on greenhouse gas emissions is coming. We are the only major oil producer in the world that has proposed putting a cap on these emissions.

Mr. Speaker, as the Supreme Court asked us to do, we have brought changes to the Impact Assessment Act of Canada to ensure that the federal government will do what the federal government is supposed to be doing while provinces do their part in impact assessment, and we are confident that this will help us to move forward. I would remind my hon. colleague that at the time Bill C-69 was adopted, we did not have clean fuel standards, we did not have zero-emission vehicle standards, we did not have regulations on methane and we were not working on a cap on oil and gas emissions or clean electricity standards.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Danielle for her testimony. With the next quarterly carbon rebate payment starting to arrive in Canadian bank accounts and mailboxes as of today, in Danielle's province of Alberta a family of four will receive up to $450 four times this year. Over 300 economists, which was 200 economists last week, from coast to coast agree that the evidence shows not only that carbon pricing reduces pollution in Canada but also that it does so at a lower cost than any other approach. Pricing pollution works. It can support Canadians and fight against climate change.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, if the Conservatives had even the slightest bit of intellectual integrity, then they would admit to Canadians that 97% of the fuels used on farms in backstop provinces are not taxed by the federal government. Second, do members know what I have been doing over the past few weeks? I have been meeting with farmers from Quebec, Nova Scotia and Alberta and with cattle and grain farmers. They are not talking to me about the carbon tax. They are talking to me about how the impacts of climate change are costing the agricultural industry hundreds of millions of dollars across the country.

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague wants to talk about crooks, how about we talk about the climate crooks on the other side of the House? If the Conservative member wants to know the benefits of putting a price on carbon, he can easily find out. All he has to do is turn around and talk to the member behind him. She was part of the first government in North America to put a price on pollution, because that is the right thing to do. It is the right thing for the economy. It is the right thing for fighting climate change. It is the right thing for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, I was involved for a long time in environmental organizations fighting climate change. At the time, we all dreamed of a federal government that would invest billions of dollars in the fight against climate change. It never happened until we came along. Back then, the investments amounted to a few hundred million dollars. Now our government has committed more than $100 billion to the fight against climate change. That is an absolute record in our country. We are transforming the economy and jobs for decades to come and fighting climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and for her efforts to speak French. I want to note that next Monday, April 15, the Canada carbon rebate will increase. A family in her province, Ontario, will receive $280 four times a year. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said two weeks ago that carbon pricing is the measure that least impacts the economy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. More than 200 economists concur and the Premier of Saskatchewan, with whom I hardly ever agree, also admitted that it was the best way to reduce climate change.

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, I was an environmental activist for many years. In those years, we could only dream of a federal government that would invest tens of billions of dollars in the transition to fight climate change, to create the jobs and the economy of the 21st century. We have committed more than $100 billion since 2015 in the fight against climate change. That is not double what had been done before. That is not four times more than what had been done before. That is not 10 times more. It is 20 times more. It has never been done before in Canada in terms of investment to fight climate change and create opportunities for the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, in response to parts (a), (b), (c) and (d), various options to manage fallow deer on Sidney Island have been considered and adopted by Parks Canada. Recreational hunters have been hunting fallow deer on the private lands on Sidney Island since 1981, including paid and professional culls. Despite removing almost 15,000 deer, the population has continually rebounded. These culls have not been successful at keeping the deer population at a healthy level for the ecosystem. The Sidney Island Ecological Restoration Project is a multi-jurisdictional restoration project that aims to facilitate recovery of forest ecosystems that have been significantly damaged due to over-browsing by introduced invasive European fallow deer. The project has been collaboratively built from the ground up, with project partners co-developing the project’s vision and goals, thorough expert analysis by specialists and animal welfare organizations to implement the project safely, and then co-designing restoration actions. Project partners—including the W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership Council, Tsawout First Nation, Pauquachin First Nation, the Province of British Columbia, Islands Trust Conservancy, and Sidney Island residents—made the decision to proceed with eradication after more than 40 years of population control efforts, including culls, have not successfully facilitated ecosystem recovery. Project partners formed a project steering committee in 2019 and developed a three-part strategy for long-term ecosystem recovery, focusing on vegetation restoration, the eradication of European fallow deer, and the long-term management of black-tailed deer. Each project partner underwent an internal process to determine whether their community or organization supported the proposed strategy for ecosystem recovery. In spring 2023, all project partners formally approved the implementation of the strategy. Other methods of population management were also considered, including capturing and relocating animals to other areas, and sterilization. Relocation transfers negative impacts, as European fallow deer are invasive to the whole region and relocation would result in ecological degradation elsewhere. Sterilization of the fallow deer on Sidney Islands does not allow for a complete removal of the population. Unless completely removed, the population of fallow deer will eventually rebound, as it has been seen previously after culls on Sidney Island. Surgical sterilization would require the successful capture of every individual male or female in the population, which would be incredibly resource-intensive and also poses significant feasibility challenges. Parks Canada did not conduct a cost analysis on these methods of deer population management because the options did not meet the needs of the project for the reasons listed earlier. The intention of the Sidney Island Ecological Restoration Project is to eradicate the invasive fallow deer on Sidney Island. This operation is not a cull; it is an eradication. An eradication requires different skill sets from a cull, particularly as the project area includes private residential lots, many with residential built environment and some with full-time residents. Marksmen with extensive experience in deer eradications and a well-established safety record of marksmanship in semi-urban environments are necessary for the operation to be completed safely and effectively. Specific statutory and regulatory authorities are required for this operation, including permits granted by Parks Canada, Transport Canada, the Province of British Columbia and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. With eradication, the goal is zero animals remaining from the target population. Access to private property is required for this operation and has been provided by the Sidney Island Strata Corporation and the Islands Trust Conservancy. Animal welfare and visitor safety are priorities for Parks Canada. The proposed eradication methods were selected to ensure the humane treatment of wildlife and to minimize the safety risk to local community members and visitors. Public Services and Procurement Canada, on behalf of Parks Canada, posted a solicitation process requiring bidders to have experience conducting eradication operations in populated landscapes. A primary contractor was tasked with the development and implementation of an operational plan for eradication of invasive European fallow deer from Sidney Island, including phase 1 and phase 2 of the project. Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), on behalf of Parks Canada, awarded this contract to the successful bidder, Coastal Conservation Inc., a Canadian company, on March 29, 2022. The request for proposals was posted publicly and available to domestic and international firms. With respect to part (e), the fallow deer eradication project cost is not determined on the basis of a cost per deer. The project cost is based on the selection of a humane and effective method for complete removal of the population of deer. The scope of the overall restoration project reaches far beyond the short-term component of addressing the issue of fallow deer and includes propagation and planting of native plants and trees. The project goal is the restoration of the coastal Douglas fir forest ecosystem on Sidney Island. The estimated budget for the ecosystem restoration project is $5.9 million, $796,340 of which was incurred for phase 1. These expenses are for more than deer eradication; they include expenses such as meat processing, indigenous harvesters, equipment purchases and rentals, outreach activities, and amounts paid to contractors.

Mr. Speaker, for the responses to parts (a) to (d) and (h) of the question, please refer to the statistical report on the Access to Information and Privacy Acts, published on the following website: https://parks.canada.ca/agence-agency/dp-pd/baiprp-atipo/rap-rep With respect to part (e) of the question, the information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. However, the length of time taken to process ATIP requests is calculated in calendar days and captured in the statistical report on the Access to Information and Privacy Acts, published on the following website: https://parks.canada.ca/agence-agency/dp-pd/baiprp-atipo/rap-rep In response to parts (f) and (g), Parks Canada undertook a preliminary and broadly scoped search in order 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. The information requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. Parks Canada concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this 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. In response to part (i), records management at Parks Canada is managed through shared folders hosted on file servers, GCDocs and SharePoint. Parks Canada records are also held in the specialized applications PeopleSoft, or Oracle; Maximo, IBM; STAR, SAP; ArcGIS, ESRI; NIRS, or the national integrated realty system; PC411, or Parks Canada 411; IEM, or incident event management; ParksNet, Intrant; CCMe, and other Government of Canada applications hosted by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. With respect to part (j), Parks Canada does not have an inventory of undigitized paper records. With respect to part (k), Parks Canada has not undertaken any specific investments to increase compliance with the Access to Information and Privacy Act.

Mr. Speaker, as part of its effort to fulfill Canada’s G20 commitment to phase out or rationalize inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, on July 24, 2023, the Government of Canada released the “Inefficient Fossil Fuel Subsidies Government of Canada Self-Review Assessment Framework” and the “Inefficient Fossil Fuel Subsidies Government of Canada Guidelines”. The framework defines a fossil fuel subsidy and the methodology for assessing efficiency, while the guidelines are meant to avoid the creation of any new inefficient subsidies. The framework and guidelines were jointly developed by Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Department of Finance Canada and apply to all federal departments and agencies. Proponents do not apply to the IFFS framework and guidelines, but rather, government departments and agencies are responsible for applying the guidelines when considering applications for project funding that could be deemed an inefficient subsidy to the fossil fuel sector. Subsidies to the fossil fuel sector are considered “inefficient” unless they meet one or more of the following criteria: subsidies that enable significant net greenhouse gas emissions reductions in Canada or internationally in alignment with article 6 of the Paris Agreement; subsidies that support clean energy, clean technology or renewable energy; subsidies that provide an essential energy service to a remote community; subsidies that provide short-term support for emergency response; subsidies that support indigenous economic participation in fossil fuel activities; subsidies that support abated production processes, or projects that have a credible plan to achieve net-zero emissions by 2030. No centralized database exists to track government-wide decision-making; however, departments and agencies are required to document how an approved project meets one of the six criteria, in cases where the guidelines apply.

Mr. Speaker, as part of its effort to fulfill Canada’s G20 commitment to phase out or rationalize inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, on July 24, 2023, the Government of Canada released the “Inefficient Fossil Fuel Subsidies Government of Canada Self-Review Assessment Framework” and the “Inefficient Fossil Fuel Subsidies Government of Canada Guidelines”. The framework provides a definition of a fossil fuel subsidy and the methodology for assessing efficiency, while the guidelines are meant to avoid the creation of any new inefficient subsidies. The framework and guidelines were jointly developed by Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Department of Finance Canada and apply to all federal departments and agencies. Consistent with the “Inefficient Fossil Fuel Subsidies Government of Canada Self-Review Assessment Framework”, the Government of Canada has phased out or rationalized the following nine tax measures supporting the fossil fuel sector: phase-out of the accelerated capital cost allowance for the oil sands, announced in budget 2007; reduction in the deduction rates for intangible capital expenses in oil sands projects to align with rates in the conventional oil and gas sector, announced in budget 2011; phase-out of the Atlantic investment tax credit for investments in the oil and gas and mining sectors, announced in budget 2012; reduction in the deduction rate for pre-production intangible mine development expenses to align with the rate for the oil and gas sector, announced in budget 2013; phase-out of the accelerated capital cost allowance for mining, announced in budget 2013; allowing the accelerated capital cost allowance for liquefied natural gas facilities to expire as scheduled in 2025, announced in budget 2016; rationalizing the tax treatment of expenses for successful oil and gas exploratory drilling, announced in budget 2017; phase-out tax preference that allows small oil and gas companies to reclassify certain development expenses as more favorably treated exploration expenses, announced in budget 2017; and phase-out of flow-through shares for oil, gas and coal activities, announced in budget 2022. Of the 129 federal non-tax measures that were assessed, none were determined to be inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. The Government of Canada has committed to undergoing a voluntary peer review of its assessment of federal inefficient fossil fuel subsidies under the G20 process. As part of the peer review process, Canada will prepare a self-review report, which will include information on federal fossil fuel subsidies and be examined by an international peer review panel. The self-review and peer-review reports will be published once the peer review is complete.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that, during the last election campaign, the Conservative Party of Canada promised Canadians that it would implement carbon pricing. It promised Canadians that it would implement a pollution pricing system. I would like to also remind my colleague that all he has to do is turn around and put that question to his colleague seated behind him. She was a minister in a Quebec government that fought against climate change and implemented one of the first carbon pricing systems in North America.

Mr. Speaker, if I were the Conservative Party, when it comes to the promises that have been made for a while now, I would not be throwing stones. In the 2021 election, the Conservative Party of Canada promised Canadians that it would introduce carbon pricing. The Conservative Party promised that it would establish a clean fuel standard. What do they actually do? They change their minds as often as they change their clothes. The Conservative Party does not even believe in climate change. It has no plan for the economy, no plan for jobs and no plan for affordability. On this side of the House, we are going to work to fight climate change, create jobs and help Canadians with affordability.

Mr. Speaker, the objective of the single-use plastics prohibition regulations is to prevent plastic pollution by eliminating or restricting the manufacture, import and sale of six categories of single-use plastics that pose a threat to the environment. The response is framed by this objective. Questions (a), (b), (d) and (e) in this inquiry pertain to use patterns of reusable fabric checkout bags. This is outside the scope of the analysis undertaken in support of this risk management objective. Plastic fabric checkout bags are less likely to be littered and become plastic pollution and do not pose the same risk of ecological harm to wildlife and their habitats as single-use plastic bags due to their different characteristics, such as weight and buoyancy. Questions (c), (f) and (g) pertain to the end of life of reusable fabric checkout bags. In 2016, the recycling rate of plastic textiles was zero, while the value recovery rate was 7% through waste-to-energy. The rest was landfilled. Based on Statistics Canada’s pilot physical flow account for plastic material, it is estimated that in 2019 nearly 350,000 tonnes of synthetic textile products, such as polyester, nylon, PVC and acrylic, were produced for Canadian consumption, many of them imported into Canada. In that same year, around 329,000 tonnes, or 94%, were landfilled, and 14,000 tonnes, or 4%, were incinerated for energy recovery. It can be assumed that this data is representative of the rates for plastic fabric checkout bags. Textiles and apparel make up the fourth-largest category of plastic waste sent to landfills in Canada. Environment and Climate Change Canada will publish a discussion document in 2024 to solicit feedback on key elements of a proposed road map to address plastic waste and pollution from the textile and apparel sector. In answer to question (h), as part of the regulatory development process, the Government of Canada conducted a strategic environmental assessment, which reviewed available life-cycle assessments comparing single-use plastics product categories within the scope of the regulations with alternatives. Many life-cycle assessments conclude that a reusable substitute must be used many times before its environmental impacts equal or become less than those of single-use plastic products. That is why the regulations mandate minimum performance standards for reusable plastic checkout bags, cutlery and straws. The performance standards ensure that reusable substitutes made of plastic can be reused enough times to minimize or negate many of the negative environmental effects identified at the upstream stage of the product life cycle. The potential upstream environmental effect depends on the alternatives used to replace prohibited single-use plastic products. It is expected to be mitigated to a significant degree by existing or proposed measures from federal, provincial and territorial governments. The government also considered other sources of evidence, such as litter data, peer-reviewed studies and the Government of Canada’s 2020 “Science Assessment of Plastic Pollution”. The evidence concluded that downstream effects from the regulations are expected to be on the whole significant and positive, given the reduction in plastic pollution and consequent reduction in threats posed to wildlife. With regard to question (i), direct responses to some of the questions posed are not yet available. The federal plastics registry would begin to obtain data, in the coming years, on the quantity and types of plastic placed on the Canadian market, how it moves through the economy and how it is managed at its end of life. Other questions may be answered as performance measurement of the regulations is undertaken. The regulations are being implemented in stages. The sale prohibition on single-use plastic checkout bags came into effect this past December. Therefore, the Government of Canada has only started monitoring its implementation, which includes the emerging issue of some reusable plastic fabric checkout bags being essentially single-use in practice, as well as their management at end of life. Reusable plastic fabric checkout bags are currently, for the most part, not recycled in Canada. The government encourages reuse through the guidance document outlining considerations to take into account when selecting alternative products or systems to the prohibited single-use plastics that prevent plastic pollution and help Canada transition to a circular economy. Reduction strategies and reusable alternatives to single-use plastic items are identified as preferable in terms of overall long-term costs and environmental impacts. Before the publication of the regulations, Canadians were already in the habit of bringing their own bags with them when grocery shopping. In 2021, 97% of Canadian households used their own bags or containers while grocery shopping. Of those who used their own bags or containers, 51% always did, 33% often did, and 12% sometimes did.

Mr. Speaker, I think there are a lot of people watching at home who just cannot get over the fact that the disinformation coming from the Conservative side is now limitless. The member who just asked a question voted in favour of carbon pricing in Quebec. She voted to fight climate change. She was part of a government that was a North American leader in the fight against climate change, and now, under pressure from her climate-change-denying leader, she is turning her back on all her principles. That is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, we are doing exactly that. We are the first country, the only country, in the G20 to have phased out fossil fuel subsidies, two years ahead of everyone else. We are the only country that has committed to eliminating public financing for fossil fuel subsidies. We have the best performance of all G7 countries in terms of greenhouse gas reduction between 2019 and 2021. We are working to fight climate change. We are working to improve air quality all across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that, over a year ago, the Quebec government and the federal government jointly signed a letter in which we committed to protecting at least 65% of caribou habitat, as requested by the scientific community. This agreement also stipulated that we would consult with indigenous people on this plan. The Government of Quebec has committed to doing that. We expect the Government of Quebec to keep its word.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to part (a) of the question, the Sidney Island Ecological Restoration Project is a multi-jurisdictional restoration project that aims to facilitate recovery of forest ecosystems that have been significantly damaged due to over-browsing by introduced European fallow deer. The project has been collaboratively built from the ground up with project partners co-developing the project’s vision and goals, conducting thorough expert analysis by specialists and animal welfare organizations to implement the project safely, and then co-designing restoration actions. All necessary statutory and regulatory authorities were granted for this operation, including permits granted by Parks Canada, Transport Canada, the Province of British Columbia and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Access to private property to carry out the operation was provided by the Sidney Island Strata Corporation and the Islands Trust Conservancy. Specifically, with respect to part (i), operations by helicopter, a special flight operations certificate, or SFOC, to operate at low elevations was not required for operations above Gulf Islands National Park Reserve, as this work was done for the purpose of the National Park Reserve administration and was thus permissible under Canadian aviation regulations 602.15(1)). An SFOC was issued to Kestrel Helicopters by Transport Canada for the portions outside of Parks Canada boundaries and jurisdiction. Two aviation security exemptions were issued by Transport Canada to include Kestrel Helicopters Ltd. in the existing exemptions for contract companies, which exempts these companies from the application of section 526 and subsection 527(1) of the Canadian aviation security regulations, or CASR, 2012, and to include Wildlife Capture Management Ltd., Kiwi Field Crew Ltd. and Coastal Conservation Ltd. in the existing exemptions for air carriers, which exempts these companies from the requirements set out in subsections 78(1), 78(2), 79(1), 79(2) and 80(1) of the CASR 2012. With respect to flying at night, permits were issued to three professional marksmen by the Province of British Columbia, granting exemption from the following regulations under the Wildlife Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 488: 3(1)(b)(i) hunting/killing wildlife with a firearm or bow during prohibited hours, and 3(1)(b)(ii) hunting/killing wildlife with the use of or aid of a light or illuminating device. With respect to part (iii), using silencers, and part (v), using high-capacity magazines, permission to use the suppressors and 10-round magazines was granted to the contractor under their business firearms licence, issued by the chief firearms officer of the RCMP. With respect to part (iv), using .223 caliber bullets, the use of .233 caliber bullets to hunt deer is legal in British Columbia, as per section 17(1)(e)(i) of the British Columbia hunting regulation. Further, the federal regulations prescribing certain firearms and other weapons, components and parts of weapons, accessories, cartridge magazines, ammunition and projectiles as prohibited or restricted, SOR/98-462, do not list .223 bullets as prohibited ammunition. In response to part (b) of the question, project partners include W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership Council Pauquachin First Nation, Tsawout First Nation, the Province of British Columbia, the Sidney Island community, and Islands Trust Conservancy. This project has received additional participation and support from Cowichan Tribes and Penelakut Tribe. The British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is not a project partner but was consulted on the project's methodology, provided feedback on the project’s operational plan and attended several days of the on-site operation as an observer. Members of the public have had the opportunity to provide input at various stages of the project: In spring 2021, project partners consulted local indigenous and community members on the project proposal, and in July and August 2023, the public had the opportunity to review the detailed impact assessment and provide feedback. A primary contractor was tasked with the development and implementation of an operational plan for the eradication of invasive European fallow deer from Sidney Island. Public Services and Procurement Canada, on behalf of Parks Canada, awarded this contract to the successful bidder, Coastal Conservation Inc., a Canadian company, on March 29, 2022. The request for proposals, including the requirements for developing a plan for the removal of fallow deer and an option to conduct eradication activities, was posted publicly and available to domestic and international firms. Parks Canada has also consulted Transport Canada, Public Safety Canada, the Department of Justice, the First Nations Health Authority, Island Health, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Capital Regional District. In response to part (c) of the question, Parks Canada has released documents related to this project through access to information requests. Copies of the documents can be requested online at https://open.canada.ca/en/search/ati.

Mr. Speaker, while Conservatives still debate whether climate change is real, while some of those members say that climate change is actually created by body heat from humans and others say that carbon dioxide is good for the planet, 200,000 farmers in the last decade have said that they have experienced the impacts of climate change, making food costs go up. There is no link between carbon pricing and food prices, but there is a link between climate change impacts and food prices. What is the Conservative response? It is more climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite ironic to be lectured by the Conservatives on support to farmers when at the end of last year they voted against the on-farm climate action fund to support sustainable agriculture. They voted against the dairy innovation and investment fund for farmers. They voted against funding in support of dairy, poultry and egg supply management producers. On this side of the House, we believe in our farmers, we support our farmers and we help them fight climate change.

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the colleague opposite that in the ag committee last week, one of Canada's foremost experts on food policy, Sylvain Charlebois from Dalhousie University, said, “we don't see evidence of that”, talking about the impact of carbon pricing on food in Canada. Actually, they invited him to speak at the ag committee. I think we have it here. The Bank of Canada has said that pricing pollution is not having a material impact on inflation in Canada. It is less than half of 1%. We know that—

Madam Speaker, the Canada carbon rebate is increasing. An Ontario family of four will receive $280 per quarterly payment throughout the year. What we are doing is making big polluters pay more for their pollution. What the Conservative Party wants to do is make pollution free for those big polluters, like oil companies that are making record-level profits. Not on this side of the House. We will work to continue fighting climate change and supporting Canadians through the Canada carbon rebate.

Mr. Speaker, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer has reiterated many times, eight out of 10 Canadians get more back from carbon pricing than what they pay. Carbon pricing works. It helps to reduce pollution in Canada, something that the Conservative Party campaigned on during the 2021 election campaign. The difference between them and us is that, on this side of the House, we are serious about fighting climate change and working with Canadians to help them face affordability issues.

Mr. Speaker, since we are talking about Alberta, I wonder if the Conservative Party of Canada and its leader support the freeze that the provincial government has put on 30 billion dollars' worth of investment. Thousands of jobs are at risk in Alberta because of the reckless decision of the premier to freeze renewable energy development, the fastest sector for energy development in this country. What does the Conservative Party have to say about that? Conservatives say nothing, because they do not care about economic development. They do not care about fighting climate change, and they do not care about helping Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, right now in Canada, we have a province, Alberta, that has to talk about rationing water next summer because of climate impacts. We have atmospheric rivers in British Columbia that are affecting thousands of people and ski resorts that have to close down. We are seeing the costs of climate change that have not doubled or tripled but increased by 10 times over the last decade. What is the answer of the Conservative Party of Canada? It is to make pollution free again and let the biggest, most profitable and polluting countries off the hook. Not on this side of the House, where we will fight—

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that, the last time I checked, the St. Lawrence fjord was still part of Quebec. The Quebec system applies in Quebec, not the federal system. Quebec's cap-and-trade system was established long before the federal carbon pricing system. Quebec's system works very well to help reduce emissions. It was not the Bloc Québécois or the federal government that put it in place, but rather the Quebec government. A number of Conservative Party members voted in favour of the Quebec system. He should direct his questions to them. They sit on the same side of the House as he does.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a quote from Glenn Wright, who is the former vice-president of the National Farmers Union: Farmers will be among the hardest hit if we don’t act fast to slash greenhouse gas emissions and stabilize the climate. For this reason—to protect farmers—the NFU supports pollution pricing; it is an important policy tool to reduce the harmful emissions fueling the climate crisis and threatening farms and food supplies.

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite ironic to be lectured by the Conservative Party on our support for farmers when, just at the end of last year, the Conservatives voted against the climate action fund to support sustainable agriculture. They voted against the dairy innovation and investment fund. They voted against support for dairy, poultry and egg supply management producers. On this side of the House, we will support our farmers in the transition toward a low-carbon economy and will help Canadians make that transition.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, what the member is saying is simply not true. Just before Christmas, we put out a study by Environment and Climate Change Canada that shows that carbon pricing will be responsible for between 20% and 30% of our greenhouse gas emissions between 2019 and 2030. On the issue of carbon pricing and climate change, we have no lessons to take from the Conservative Party, whose official position today, as Alberta is suffering from droughts, as there are unforeseen storms in eastern Canada and atmospheric rivers in B.C., is still that climate change simply does not exist.

Mr. Speaker, do members want to know the truth? Climate change is real. That is the truth. Do they want to know the truth? Climate change is impacting Canadians all over the country, including farmers from coast to coast. Do they want to know the truth about climate change? It is costing Canadians billions of dollars. That is the truth about climate change. Our party is working. We are reducing emissions. We are helping Canadians with affordability. That is the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I said this in English, and I am pleased to say it in French. We put out figures on carbon pricing just before the holidays. Carbon pricing will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% to 30% by 2030. We have already reduced greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of 30 million tonnes. There is still a lot of work to be done because the Conservatives spent 10 years doing nothing to fight pollution and climate change. Thanks to our programs, our actions and the actions of Canadians, we are starting to tackle this problem. The last thing we need is for the Conservatives to come back and wreck everything.