Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is wrong. We publish an annual report on greenhouse gas emissions in April. It happens every year, just like Christmas or tax time. I would be pleased to arrange a personalized briefing for all Conservative members interested in the climate change issue—I know there are only a few of them—on Canada's progress in the fight against climate change and on the support we provide to help Canadians transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that federal carbon pricing does not apply in Quebec because the Quebec government has had a cap-and-trade system in place for over a decade. If he wants to speak with Premier François Legault, I would be happy to give him his contact information. This is not federal pricing Let us talk about what the Conservatives are doing. Last month, they voted against the climate action fund to support sustainable agriculture, against the dairy innovation and investment fund and against funding to help supply-managed dairy, poultry and egg farmers. That is what the Conservatives have done.

Mr. Speaker, I think that a lot of the people watching us just cannot understand why, in 2024, a party that wants to form the government someday, maybe, still cannot grasp the importance of climate change. In 2021, drought caused a 27% decrease in Canada's grain production. Just two years later, in 2023, grain yields dropped by 13% across the country, again, due to drought. Over the past decade, 200,000 Canadian farmers have seen their costs increase because of climate change. What is the Conservatives' response? They are going to make polluting free again.

Mr. Speaker, the impacts of climate change on our agricultural sector are incredible, which is why we have put in place measures to help our farmers diminish their greenhouse gas emissions. Let us talk about how much the farmers in the ridings of our colleagues have received: in the riding of the member for Carleton, $2.4 million; in the riding of the member for Dufferin—Caledon, $3.7 million; in the riding of the member for Haldimand—Norfolk, $22 million.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservatives, we are here to support the agricultural industry in the energy transition so that it can produce the food that Canadians need while reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. In our colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent's riding, farmers received over $5 million to help them reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and farmers in the riding of Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier received $1.2 million. We gave farmers across the country $1.5 billion. What has the Conservative Party done? It voted against all of these measures to support the agricultural industry.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite says that he will vote against. I am going to talk about what the Conservatives voted against. They voted against the climate action fund to support sustainable agriculture. Last month, they voted against the dairy innovation and investment fund and funding to help supply-managed dairy, poultry and egg producers. That is what they have voted against. What do they vote for? We are not sure, but it is certainly not for farmers.

Mr. Speaker, what the Conservative Party does not seem to realize is that farmers are among the first to be affected by the impacts of climate change. Look at the droughts in the Prairies. Alberta thinks it may need to ration potable water this summer for all residents and for farms. What is the Conservative Party doing while this is happening? It is saying that climate change is not a problem and that we can just let the planet burn. Our plan is working. We have already reduced greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of more than 30 million tonnes, and it is certainly not thanks to the Conservatives. We will continue to be there to fight climate change and work with our farmers.

Mr. Speaker, I have lost count of the number of times I have risen in the House to explain to members of the Conservative Party of Canada that federal carbon pricing does not apply in Quebec. It is not complicated. It does not apply. The Government of Quebec introduced its cap-and-trade program over a decade ago, long before the federal program. If the member opposite has a problem with carbon pricing in Quebec, he can call the Premier of Quebec, François Legault. I would be pleased to give him the premier's telephone number.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), to produce this projection, the government used the provincial-territorial computable general equilibrium model, EC-Pro, from Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC. EC-Pro simulates the response of the main economic sectors in each province and territory, and their interactions with each other, including interprovincial trade. It captures characteristics of each province and territory’s production and consumption patterns through a detailed input-output table, and links the provinces and territories via bilateral trade. Each province and territory is explicitly represented as a region and the rest of the world is represented as import and export flows to the provinces and territories, which are assumed to be price takers in international markets. To support analysis of energy and climate policies, the model incorporates information on energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, or GHGs, related to the combustion of fossil fuels. It also tracks non-energy related GHG emissions. Ideally, estimating the incremental impact of carbon pricing alone would involve developing a bottom-up baseline that does not include carbon pricing. However, given that carbon pricing is now in the historical data and that a significant number of complementary GHG-related measures and regulations have also been introduced or planned, it is extremely challenging to develop a bottom-up baseline that does not include carbon pricing. Therefore, to develop a scenario that does not include carbon pricing, ECCC used a statistical technique that relies heavily on price elasticities, namely how consumers and industry respond to changing prices. To quantify emissions in the absence of carbon pricing between now and 2030, the initial starting point for this analysis was the reference case with current measures, or Ref22, and with additional measures, or Ref22A, reported in the eighth National Communication Report and fifth Biennial report submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC, on December 31, 2022. The statistical technique to isolate the carbon pricing contribution is as follows: in the calibration of EC-Pro to Ref22 and Ref22A parameters, the carbon price prevailing in the relevant years is explicitly added. This includes the Output-Based Pricing System stringency and the fuel charge coverage, as well as provincial carbon pricing. By doing this, the model establishes a statistical relationship between the prevailing carbon price and fuel use and related emissions by sector by province by year and a baseline that explicitly includes carbon pricing as identified in Statistics Canada’s Supply and Use Tables. The next step is to develop a relationship between the EC-Pro parameters, namely elasticities and cost curves, to match the CO2 and non-CO2 emissions by sector, by region, and by source to target the emission levels in Ref22. For carbon capture and storage, or CCS, and other technologies that are being driven by carbon pricing, we account for what would have happened if there were no carbon pricing. For example, to assess how carbon pricing and policies to promote reductions influence CCS activities, the level of CCS is held to the current historical level allowing the model to then endogenously project CCS activities in response to policies. The final step is to run this scenario where the carbon price in the Output-Based Pricing System and the fuel charge are set to zero. With regard to (b), a 2018 study conducted before the full implementation of carbon pricing across Canada was released in December 2020 and can be found at https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-action/pricing-carbon-pollution/estimated-impacts-federal-system.html. With regard to (c), an updated analysis, referring to (a), was completed in October 2023 drawing from projections reported in the eighth National Communication Report and the fifth Biennial report submitted to the UNFCCC on December 31, 2022. With regard to (d), the analysis was directed and overseen by the Director General, Economic Analysis Directorate, and by the Director, Model Development and Quantitative Research, Economic Analysis Directorate, Strategic Policy Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada. With regard to (e), the government does not measure the annual amount of emissions that are directly reduced by federal carbon pricing. Retroactively attributing specific GHG reductions to a specific action, such as carbon pricing, a discrete regulation, or a specific incentive, is difficult given the multiple interacting factors that influence emissions, including carbon pricing, tax incentives, funding programs, investor preferences and consumer demand. The National Inventory Report, which reports annually on historical GHG emissions, does not include this information.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome back my hon. colleague to the House. I agree with her. I think that the profits of these companies must be addressed in the House and that is what our government is doing by putting in place measures like no other country in the world has. We have put forward the world's most ambitious target to reduce methane emissions, a very powerful greenhouse gas, and reduce them by at least 75% by 2030. We have eliminated fossil fuel subsidies, the only country in the G20 to have done so. We are also in the process of putting a cap on the emissions of the oil and gas sector.

Mr. Speaker, climate change is an urgent and existential threat that poses significant risks to the well-being of Canadians and ecosystems. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that increases in global warming reaching 1.5°C would cause unavoidable increases in multiple hazards and present significant risks to ecosystems and humans. At current rates, global warming of 1.5°C will likely be reached between 2030 and 2052, and it is only with deep reductions in greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions that global warming can be limited to below 2°C. The science is clear, accelerated efforts to reduce GHG emissions rapidly by 2030 and to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 are necessary in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. As a result, in 2021, Canada increased its 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution, its NDC under the Paris Agreement to 40-45% reductions below 2005 levels by 2030, from 439 to403 megatonnes. This target represents a reduction of GHG emissions by 293 to 329 megatonnes from 2005 levels. In 2021, Canada enshrined into legislation its commitment to being net-zero by 2050 through the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. Under the Act, the Government of Canada is required to set progressively more ambitious emissions targets for 2035, 2040, and 2045, supported by emissions reduction plans. As you know, in March 2022, the Government released the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan, the ERP, which shows a credible pathway to achieving Canada’s enhanced 2030 target. The Plan highlights the emissions reduction potential for all economic sectors to reduce emissions by 2030 and includes concrete action that the Government will take to reach our target. The 2030 ERP builds on the foundation set by Canada’s existing climate actions with a suite of new mitigation measures and strategies and $9.1 billion in additional investments. More recently, in December 2023, Canada released its first progress report for the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan. The 2023 Progress Report provides an update on progress toward the 2030 target, based on Canada’s most recent inventory of historical emissions and recently updated emissions projections. The 2023 Progress Report indicates that we are on a solid path toward our 2030 target. Canada is on pace to surpass our previous target of 30% below 2005 levels and is currently tracking to exceed our interim objective of 20% below 2005 levels by 2026. Between previously announced measures and the additional actions to be explored that are included in the Progress Report, Canada remains firmly on track to meet our ambitious but achievable 2030 target. The Government of Canada does not currently conduct the level of analysis sought in your inquiry; however, it does know that Canada is already experiencing the impacts of the changing climate, and the costs will continue to climb the longer we postpone climate action. A 2020 report by the Canadian Climate Institute found that the average cost per natural disaster has jumped 1,250% since the 1970s. Over the last decade, the average yearly cost of weather-related disasters and catastrophic losses has risen to the equivalent of 5-6% of Canada’s annual Gross Domestic Product growth. This past year is on track to being one of the costliest given the extent of climate-related disasters across Canada, including flooding and the worst wildfire year on record. The growing clean economy is building the net-zero industries of tomorrow. It will also create and maintain well-paying jobs for Canadians and businesses in Canada. Clean energy jobs are estimated to grow to 2.68 million by 2050, according to modelling by independent experts from Clean Energy Canada and Navius Research. Taking climate action now is a critical economic opportunity that will maintain and create Canadian jobs and make our economy more resilient and more competitive. The Government of Canada recognizes that affordability and cost-of-living is top of mind for many Canadians right now. Making life more affordable for Canadians is a key objective of Canada’s climate action. The 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan helps to reduce energy costs for our homes and buildings; makes it easier for Canadians to make the switch to electric vehicles; and creates good, middle-class jobs in every province in the country. Canada’s climate plans use an optimal mix of incentives and regulations to address climate change ensuring that our workers and business fully benefit from the economic opportunities as investors and consumers in Canada and around the world increasingly look for environmentally sustainable products and resources. Canada’s federal carbon pricing system is flexible and carefully designed to ensure it remains affordable. Under the federal system, the Government will continue to provide support to Canadians and businesses as the carbon price rises to ensure that carbon pricing remains affordable, and most households are better off. Any province or territory can choose the federal pricing system or can design its own pricing system tailored to local needs. The Government of Canada is committed to supporting a whole-of-government and whole-of-society effort to reduce emissions, create clean jobs and address the climate-related challenges communities are already facing, and we are working closely with industry and provinces and territories for all sectoral contributions in a way that creates economic opportunities in every sector. We will also reach those ambitions through investment, which we are doing through investments in clean technology, in the auto sector, and greener buildings, as an example. However, given the economic interdependencies and interactions within and between sectors, the exact areas for emissions reduction potential may shift in the future as Canada further decarbonizes and flexibilities will exist. For example, creating a clean electricity grid will go a long way towards supporting our zero-emission vehicles goals. The Government of Canada is always exploring new and innovative approaches to drive ambition toward its climate objectives. That is why the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan is an evergreen plan that will evolve as Canada moves toward its 2030 and 2050 targets. More information on our climate plans, our progress and our investments is available at https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange.html. The Government of Canada will continue to work tirelessly for the health and wellbeing of Canadians, and for a cleaner, more resilient, and prosperous world for this and future generations.

Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers are on the front lines of the fight against climate change and are also playing a key role as part of the climate solution. Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, has had extensive engagement with farmers and the agricultural sector while they work together in seeking solutions to combat climate change. ECCC continues to engage with agriculture stakeholders on various aspects of the Government of Canada’s climate plan, the Sustainable Agriculture Strategy, which is under development, and the broader environmental agenda. The government remains committed to helping farmers meet the world’s need for food, while safeguarding resources for future generations. Many of my cabinet colleagues and I have met and will continue to meet with Canadians and industry representatives from across the country in the fight to clean up the environment, combat climate change, reduce greenhouse gases all while maintaining a strong economy. For additional information, the Registry of Lobbyists can be found at https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/guest.

Mr. Speaker, the 2022 Reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the Parliament of Canada, specifically, Report 3—“Hydrogen’s Potential to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions”, found that Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, and Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan, had different approaches to assessing the role hydrogen should play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Environment and Climate Change Canada expected to achieve 15 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions reductions in 2030 whereas the Hydrogen Strategy for Canada, published by NRCan, projected up to 45 megatonnes. It should be noted that the difference between NRCan and ECCC’s estimated reduction potential is due to the different scope and analytical approaches used by the departments. To generate the 15 megatonnes reduction estimate, ECCC used the EC-Pro model. EC-Pro is a provincial-territorial multi-regional, multi-sector computable general equilibrium model. It covers up to 50 industries and three final demand categories across all 13 Canadian provinces and territories. It is calibrated to the most recent input-output data from Statistics Canada and energy, or emissions, data from the Energy, Emissions and Economy Model for Canada, or E3MC. ECCC focused on modelling the Hydrogen Strategy as one of the many policies and measures announced in Canada’s strengthened climate plan and used a proxy, a 7.3 percent hydrogen–natural gas blending mandate, to incorporate potential emissions reductions from hydrogen. As noted by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, NRCan looked at a transformative scenario where hydrogen could fill the gap in energy demand not met by other decarbonization means, such as electrification, biofuel, and emissions offset for fossil fuels. The Transformative Scenario was meant to represent the potential size of Canada’s hydrogen opportunity if bold action is taken in the near term. NRCan commissioned a third-party consulting firm, ZEN and the Art of Clean Energy, or ZEN, to undertake modelling for the Hydrogen Strategy for Canada. Together with the Institute for Breakthrough Energy + Emission Technologies, the modelling explored the potential role that hydrogen could play in Canada’s energy future including exploring issues such as hydrogen demand, deployment and emissions reduction potential for hydrogen use across all sectors of the economy, in the context of Canada’s net-zero climate commitments. ZEN’s modelling, which took a regional approach, considered six broad end-uses covering all aspects of the economy, namely transportation, the built environment, several industrial processes, oil and gas, clean fuels, blending with natural gas. The ZEN modelling estimated that hydrogen could contribute up to 45 megatonnes of reductions by 2030. In addition to the transformative scenario, NRCan also considered an Incremental scenario, which was based on a business-as-usual approach with lighter policy measures and a slower start to adoption of hydrogen. Under this scenario, the potential reductions from hydrogen were expected to reach 22 megatonnes.

Mr. Speaker, what many Canadians are puzzled by is the fact that, in the age of climate change, where the impacts of climate change are costing our farmers hundreds of millions of dollar every year, the Conservatives have nothing to say to them, no plans to support them in the transition that will be necessary in the 21st century, to continue being a provider of food for Canada and the world. The Conservatives have no plan to help our farmers, no plan to fight climate change and no plan to support the future of our kids and grandkids.

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic, coming from the party that voted against supporting chicken farms just last week. Is it radical to be in favour of fighting for the future of our kids and grandkids? I do not think so. Is it radical to ensure that we invest in jobs of the 21st century and our communities across the country? I do not think so. What is radical is to ignore one of the world's most defining issues of our time and have nothing to say about climate change. This is unacceptable. This is immoral.

Mr. Speaker, again, it is a bit rich to hear Conservatives talk about support for farmers when they voted against support for farmers just last week. As we support farmers in the transition so that they can reduce their dependency on fossil fuels, they can become more competitive in Canada and around the world. What are the Conservatives doing? They are voting against it. They say they are in favour of farmers but, unfortunately, their record speaks the opposite.

Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing to have a question on the reality and the importance of climate change in this House. In fact, we are picking up the pace. When we came into power, in 2015, emissions were going through the roof and now we have been able to reduce emissions levels by 7% below the 2005 level. That is like removing more than 20 million cars, in terms of climate change pollution, from our roads. We know we have more to do and that is why, in the last year alone, we have introduced six new pieces of regulation to ensure that Canada reaches its target in 2030.

Mr. Speaker, to support reliability and affordability, the draft regulations include flexibilities that allow a limited and declining ongoing role for fossil fuel generation. This flexible approach will enable provincial utilities and system operators to plan and manage their systems in accordance with relevant provincial circumstances, while creating a clear signal for reducing emissions over time. According to the regulatory impact analysis statement, RIAS, for the draft clean electricity regulations, CER, in 2035, 9% of Canada’s electricity capacity will come from emitting sources, which are expected to decline over time. This would account for approximately 19,789 megawatts of emitting electricity capacity. However, it is important to note that this value also includes biomass and waste generation, which are not considered fossil fuels. The complete breakdown of forecasted electricity capacity under the draft regulatory scenario can be seen in table 5 of the CER RIAS. Further information is available at the following link: https://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2023/2023-08-19/html/reg1-eng.html The regulations on their own would decrease annual emissions from 62 megatonnes to less than nine megatonnes remaining from grid electricity in 2035. These remaining emissions will also be exposed to the carbon price of a particular year to further bring us to net zero. The proposed CER is expected to deliver nearly 342 megatonnes of cumulative emissions reductions between 2024 and 2050. These projections are from the RIAS that accompanied the draft CER. Please note that Environment and Climate Change Canada will provide updated estimated impacts associated with the final regulations when they are published. The impacts may differ to the extent that the final regulations differ from the draft CER published in the Canada Gazette, part I.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read an extract from a news article titled “Canadian Senator Flees Home Amid Safety Concerns Following ‘Wanted Poster’ Incident”. It reads: In a disturbing turn of events, Canadian Senator Bernadette Clement was reportedly forced to leave her home due to fears for her safety. The incident came about after a provocative post, akin to a ‘wanted poster,’ was shared online by [a member of the Conservative Party of Canada]. Who is bullying whom in this House and in the Senate? It is certainly not us. We are not telling senators how to vote; the Conservative Party is.

Mr. Speaker, here is what an independent senator said about what the Conservative Party is doing in the House and in the Senate. According to this article, Senator Saint-Germain said that “Plett ‘violently’ threw his earpiece” and ‘stood before Senator Clement as we sat at our desks, yelling and berating us for proposing this routine motion”. She went on to say that the Conservative senator “‘pointed fingers’ at another ISG member” and “suggested he would block work...on the Senate's human resource subcommittee.” No matter how much the Conservative Party would like us to believe that this is about taxation, it is not; it is about bullying.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see the double standard the Conservatives are applying to the Senate, because they are not shy about using the Senate to block bills that they do not like. I would also like to remind the House that we saw in the news recently how independent senators are being intimidated by Conservative senators at the request of the Conservative Party of Canada in the House. That is not how things work. We do not tell anyone in the Senate how to vote or what to do. We have discussions, but we do not force anyone to do anything, unlike the Conservative Party of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, how odd that the Conservative Party never mentions the $1.5 billion we give farmers across the country to help them shrink their carbon footprint. How odd that they never talk about the effects of climate change, which cost farmers hundreds of millions of dollars. Those costs are going up. Speaking of the Senate, according to media reports, some Conservative senators, at the behest of the Conservative Party, engaged in violence against other senators. Some senators even had to leave their homes following the campaign of violence orchestrated by the Conservative Party of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, yes, I will be proudly representing Canada at COP28 in Dubai, and I will be in good company. The Premier of Alberta will be there. Premier Smith is leaving tomorrow for COP28 with the largest provincial delegation we have ever seen in the history of COPs. The Premier of Saskatchewan, Scott Moe, will be there as well with the largest Saskatchewan delegation we have ever seen. Quebec will be there with more than 120 representatives from civil society, business and trade unions. I will be proud to represent Canada at COP28.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Our government is tackling affordability issues and environmental issues at the same time. We are scaling up affordable housing in Canada by making it easier to access mortgage relief. We are offering Canadian families incentives to help them save thousands every year on their energy bills, and we are helping them make the switch to electric heat pumps with an investment of $500 million over four years. On this side of the House, we are delivering results for Canadians on affordability and on the environment.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party of Canada should be ashamed of asking this question in this House after they directed their MPs to bully senators who disagreed with them. One of them had to apologize for bullying some of his colleagues in the Senate. They should be ashamed of themselves. We are not telling senators how to vote. They are doing it, and they are asking them to bully other senators.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my colleague that there are no longer any Liberal senators. There are Conservative senators. Since we took office in 2015, we have appointed independent senators. Anyone who works with the Senate knows that they are independent. We do not tell the Senate what to do. The Conservative Party is the one telling Conservative senators what to do and how to vote, and it is even asking them to intimidate other senators from other Senate groups. That is unacceptable and scandalous.

Mr. Speaker, after the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle posted a photo of the female senators who opposed Bill C‑234, the Senate and the police had to launch an investigation in response to the threats these independent senators received. We do not tell senators how to vote, unlike the Conservative Party, which not only tells them how to vote, but encourages them to bully other senators who do not think like them. It is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his advocacy. We will, as the Prime Minister has said, publish before the end of the year the framework to put a cap on the emissions of the oil and gas sector, because he is right. These emissions have continued to rise over the year, while other sectors like agriculture, electricity and buildings have reduced their emissions. The oil and gas sector must do its part to fight climate change in Canada and to help Canadians with affordability. This framework will come before the end of the year.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that we are the only G20 country to have eliminated fossil fuel subsidies two years ahead of schedule. Not only has no one else done this, but we did it two years ahead of schedule. We have already introduced regulations to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by at least 40% by 2025. We have implemented carbon pricing and, as I mentioned to his colleague earlier, by the end of the year we will be announcing the framework for a cap on greenhouse gas emissions for the oil and gas sector.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to read a few extracts from a CBC article from last week that reads: “Three independent senators say they were bullied by Conservative Leader [in the Senate] Don Plett”. It says, “Police and the Senate security team are also now investigating outside threats directed at [Senator] Clement”. It continues: “threatening phone calls and online harassment directed at Clement after her confrontation with Plett on Nov. 9 ‘got so out of control’ that she feared for her physical safety ‘and was forced to leave her private residence and spend her weekend elsewhere in a secure location.’” That is what they are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member that putting a price on pollution is what enables us to reduce emissions by the equivalent of removing 11 million vehicles from our roads. In Canada right now, there are 26 million vehicles on our roads. We can imagine, if we added 11 million vehicles, the pollution that we would see in our cities and the level of asthma that our kids would have to go through. This is not happening, because we have put a plan in place to help fight pollution, to help fight climate change and to support Canadians in the process.

Mr. Speaker, I think facts matter in this conversation. According to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, putting a price on pollution has contributed 0.15% to inflation, and not 15%, as the Conservatives are saying. Economists agree across the country that our pollution pricing system puts more money back into eight out of 10 households in Canada. If we take that away, we will take money away from Canadians, which is no surprise coming from the Conservative Party. They are simply not there for Canadians, and they are not worth the risk.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her question and reassure her. Indeed, my former colleagues, who are still my friends, from the environmental community were on the Hill. I speak with them regularly. Over the past few years, we have taken a number of steps to tackle pollution from the oil and gas sector, such as pollution pricing and methane emissions regulations. Furthermore, as the Prime Minister pledged to do in New York a few months ago, we will present a framework for capping greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector by the end of the year.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to everything I said earlier, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that we have a plan to fight climate change that has been praised by Equiterre, Greenpeace, Environmental Defence and the David Suzuki Foundation, and we are the only country in the G20 that has ended fossil fuel subsidies, two years ahead of schedule no less. We are the only country in the G20 that is committed to ending its public support of fossil fuels. As I said, we are going to present our framework for capping greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas sector by the end of the year.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the record. The Harper government did not meet any of the environment targets it had. We are on track and are 85% of the way to meeting our 2030 targets. We have six years left to get there, and we will meet the interim 2026 targets. We are meeting our targets when it comes to climate change, protecting nature and phasing out plastic pollution. Conservatives do not believe in any of this. They want to increase pollution in Canada, but not us on this side of the House. We are working for Canadians, for the health of Canadians, and for the future of our kids and our grandkids.

Mr. Speaker, what is disappointing for many of the people watching us right now is the fact that the opposition member, who was part of a government that supported carbon pricing and who advocated in favour of fighting climate change, is now flip-flopping. Gone is her belief in climate change. Gone is her belief that it is important to fight to protect the environment our children and grandchildren will live in. That is what Canadians find disappointing.

Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition is saying in the House is factually incorrect. The facts are as follows: We have had the best performance in greenhouse gas reductions since 2019. We have a plan that has been applauded by environmental organizations, research organizations and municipalities. Even the oil companies have applauded our climate plan. This morning, at the environment committee, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development said that not only is pollution pricing working, but it is responsible for 30% of the emissions reduced in Canada since 2019.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, what the Leader of the Opposition is saying is still factually incorrect. We have not missed any of our targets. The only target we have is for 2030. Canada has missed many targets because, for 10 years, the Conservative Party did nothing to fight climate change. It did nothing to support clean energy. It did nothing to support the electrification of transportation. It did nothing on adaptation. That is why Canada has been missing our targets. With the current government and Prime Minister, we will meet our targets. We are at 85% of our 2030 target already.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and dignity to stand behind the promises we made to Canadians in the last election. We promised to continue putting a price on pollution. That is what we are doing. The Conservative Party made the same promise, but now it is reneging. We promised to institute a clean fuel standard. That is what we did. The Conservative Party made the same promise, but now it is reneging. I do not see why Canadians should believe anything the Conservative Party says. It cannot be trusted on the environment, it cannot be trusted on the economy, and it cannot be trusted on affordability.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to reply to my hon. colleague, through you, that I am proud to be part of a government that not only believes in climate change, but that has been fighting to put measures in place for eight years. It is working. We have gone from a more than 12% increase in greenhouse gases to 8% below 2005 levels. I am certainly not thanking the Conservative Party, because it did not do anything for 10 years. Our plan is working. We are 85% of the way to meeting our 2030 targets. I agree with the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development that there is still work to be done. That is why Canadians must continue to support us so that we can make progress in the fight against climate change and not let the Conservatives take us back to the Stone Age.

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite ironic that the member campaigned for the leadership of his party on a carbon taxing platform. Now, all of a sudden, it does not work and he does not believe in it. This morning, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development was at the environment committee. He said that pollution pricing not only is working, but it is also responsible for up to 30% of emissions reduced in Canada since 2019. The Conservatives do not want to talk about climate change, because they do not want to talk about the fact that they are buddying up with their friends in the big oil companies. God forbid that we would do anything to affect their profits. We want to fight climate change, and we want to help Canadians in the process.

Mr. Speaker, we are getting there. We are 85% of the way to meeting our 2030 targets. Do members know what is worse than not even trying? It is not even being willing to admit that climate change exists. Last week, the Leader of the Opposition was asked in a scrum, right over there, whether he would meet the Paris targets. He was like a deer in front of headlights. He could not even answer the question. He would not even answer the question. On this side of the House, we are doing everything we can to achieve our 2030 targets, as opposed to the Conservative Party that wants to bring us back to the Stone Age.

Mr. Speaker, I would invite my colleague to actually watch the proceedings from the environment committee this morning where the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development said that not only was carbon pricing working, but it was responsible for 30% of the emissions we have seen in Canada since we took office. Nothing would have happened under the Conservative Party. It has no plan to fight climate change. It has no plan to develop the economy. It has no plan for renewable energy, for clean electricity, for electrification of transportation. That is why Canada is lagging so far behind other countries. We are playing catch-up, but thanks to all our efforts, we are getting there, no thanks to the Conservative Party.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct my colleague. What he said is inaccurate. Carbon pricing works, and the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development confirmed it this morning at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I invite my colleague to take a look at the transcript of that meeting. Not only does carbon pricing work, it is responsible for 30% of emissions reductions. That is the equivalent of taking 11 million vehicles off our roads. Our plan is working. We are on track to meet our targets. There is still work to be done, but it is certainly not the Conservative Party that will get us there.

Mr. Speaker, sadly, what my colleague is saying in the House is again false. Since we took office, wind power production in Canada has increased by 60%. The GM, Stellantis, Volkswagen and Northvolt projects are all projects that the Conservative Party opposes. They also oppose battery manufacturing in Quebec and the investments in Ontario. We are here to create a sustainable economy for generations of Canadians while fighting climate change, unlike the Conservatives, who have no plan for the economy, no plan for fighting climate change, and no plan for affordability.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see my colleague in the House. I agree with the findings of the commissioner. We need to do more. Our plan shows that we are at 34%, towards a 40% emissions reduction target. Since the environment commissioner did the study, we have put up a number of new measures to help fight climate change and accelerate the reduction of climate pollution, including a zero-emission vehicle mandate and new methane regulations. By the end of the year, as the Prime Minister announced in New York, we will also have a framework to cap the emissions of the oil and gas sector.