Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I think many Canadians are wondering why the Conservative Party of Canada is supporting Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who has put a moratorium on renewable energy projects in Alberta. That decision is putting $30 billion at risk, while the Conservatives say they are in favour of clean technologies and the free market. Will they do the same in Quebec? Will the Conservative Party oppose renewable energy development in Quebec, Nova Scotia and Ontario? I think Canadians want to know.

Mr. Speaker, what I cannot understand is how, in 2023, a party aspiring to form government can have no climate change plan and nothing to say to the tens of thousands of Quebeckers who have been affected by the flooding and wildfires this summer and to the people across the country, particularly in Quebec, who have been displaced. The Conservative Party is saying that what it is going to do is make pollution free and let oil companies pollute our water, air and the health of our communities even more. That is the Conservative Party of Canada's environmental plan.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to understand how it is common sense to impose a moratorium on renewable energy projects that will create tens of thousands of jobs and generate tens of billions of dollars. That is what the Conservative Party of Canada supports. That is what the Premier of Alberta is doing. My question for the Conservatives is this. Will they block renewable energy projects in Quebec? Will they block renewable energy projects in Ontario? Will they block renewable energy projects in the Atlantic provinces? That is my question for them.

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the planet, Canadians, and the world, frankly, cannot afford the Conservative Party of Canada. With the Conservative Party of Canada, gone are the programs to support more than 300 projects that are under construction for transit all across the country. For electric buses announced in Alberta, in Ontario and in Quebec, gone are the programs. Gone are the programs to help people lower their energy bills and save money so they can fight climate change and fight affordability at the same time. Those initiatives will be gone under the Conservative Party of Canada. That is what Canadians can expect from its members.

Mr. Speaker, putting a price on pollution is one of the best ways to fight climate change, and it is why our emissions are down 50 million tonnes. It is the equivalent of removing 11 million gas-powered vehicles from our roads. Next Friday, Canadians can expect to get $386 in Alberta, $264 in Manitoba, $244 in Ontario, $340 in Saskatchewan, $328 in Newfoundland and Labrador, $248 in Nova Scotia, $240 in Prince Edward Island and $368 in New Brunswick, which is a double payment. This is how we are helping Canadians fight climate change and working on affordability.

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-49, an act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. 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 remind my hon. colleague that, during the last election campaign, his party and Conservative candidates, some of whom are now MPs, campaigned in favour of a clean fuel standard. The difference between us and them is that they talk while we take action. We created that standard, and it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is resulting in lower greenhouse gas emissions in Canada and generating over $2 billion in investments across the country. That is the difference between us and them.

Mr. Speaker, what is out of touch with reality in 2023 is to be a party that hopes to form government but has nothing to say about climate change. Still today, the party's official position is to deny the very existence of climate change, while, this summer, tens of thousands of people across the country were displaced not once, not twice, but three times, in some cases because of record wildfires. There was major flooding across the country, and the Conservative Party has nothing to say about climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that Canada is the only G20 country that has eliminated fossil fuel subsidies. No one else in the G20 has done that and we have done that two years earlier than all the other G20 partners. Since 2015, we have reduced our greenhouse gas emissions by 53 million tonnes. That is the equivalent of removing, from our roads, 11 million gas-powered vehicles. We are the only country in the world that is going to put a cap on the emissions of the oil and gas sector. No one else is doing that. That is how we are fighting climate change and helping Canadians with affordability.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that the poultry association of Canada, the grain growers and the canola growers have all committed to be net zero by 2050. Interestingly enough, every time the member, who I respect, stands in the House to talk about the impacts of climate change, he never talks about the impacts on farmers, and the billions of dollars that droughts, flooding and pests are costing our farmers all across the country from coast to coast. We never hear about that. The Conservatives have no solution to help our farmers fight climate change and help them with affordability.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that Quebec is not only the first province in Canada to have put a price on pollution, but it is the first state in North America to have done so. This happened under a succession of governments of all stripes, except for the Conservatives who disagree with this. Why? According to their party's official position, they do not even believe that climate change is an issue. The difference between them and us is that we believe in climate change and we also believe that we must support Canadians during these tough times.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question, but also for her active commitment, both to reconciliation with indigenous peoples and to the conservation of our environment and nature. The guardians program is an international model. Requests have come in from all over the world seeking to know how this program could be replicated elsewhere. Thanks to the investment she and I announced last week, there are now indigenous guardians in 25% of communities across the country. Our goal is to get to 100%. We also announced that, from now on, the guardians program will be self-managed.

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. I have some really good news for her. Canada is the first G20 country to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. We did so this year, two years ahead of the 2025 deadline, and we plan to do even more. We will eliminate public funding for fossil fuels. Canada is the only G20 country to have made this commitment. Canada is fighting climate change, and it is working. In fact, we have the best record of any G7 country for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in 2019 and 2021.

Madam Speaker, I invite my hon. colleague to read our climate change plan, which was praised by the entire environmental community, by scientists and by municipalities, including the City of Montreal. The plan shows that the oil and gas industry will have to co-operate, as will every other industry in Canada. That is why we already have methane regulations to reduce emissions of this very potent greenhouse gas by at least 40% by 2025. That is one of the most ambitious targets on the planet. We already have a clean fuel standard to force gas and diesel suppliers to reduce the environmental footprint of their fuel. We are taking action to combat climate change.

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that federal carbon pricing does not apply in Quebec. For many, many years, Quebec has had its own system, a cap-and-trade system, for greenhouse gas emissions I would also like to remind him that it is certainly not common sense to ignore the impact climate change is having on our farmers across the country, especially in Quebec. I meet farmers who are experiencing the repercussions of climate change: too much water, not enough water, too much heat, not enough heat, pests. However, the Conservatives have not said a single word about what they are going to do to help our farmers deal with the consequences of climate change.

Madam Speaker, last week, during the United Nations Climate Ambition Summit in New York, I was at an event with West Kelowna's fire chief, Jason Brolund. Chief Brolund vividly described the trauma of fighting this summer's massive wildfires, of sending his team into danger, of fighting to protect homes and lives. It was a miracle that no one died in Kelowna. He called it a once-in-a-lifetime fire, but then told us it was the second once-in-a-lifetime fire he has faced in 20 years. That is the impact of climate change.

Madam Speaker, in 2023, it is incomprehensible, and I would even say immoral, that a political party aspiring to form the government has nothing to say on the issue of climate change, when tens of thousands of people were displaced by forest fires this summer. The smoke was detected as far away as New York and, even further, on the coasts of Europe. Meanwhile, the official position of the Conservative Party of Canada is that climate change does not exist, even though it is costing Canadians tens of billions of dollars. That is outrageous.

Madam Speaker, that is why the former minister of agriculture and agri-food, the former minister of health and I worked together to start implementing the reforms the hon. member is talking about. In fact, that work led to the federal government's announcement that pesticides would no longer be used on any federal lands. It is also what led to a review of the way pesticides are approved in Canada. We are allowing more independent scientists to review each of these pesticides. We are in the process of carrying out the review that our hon. colleague has asked us to do.

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that his party campaigned on putting in place a price on pollution in Canada in the 2021 election. I would like to pick up on what my colleague was saying. Why is the Conservative Party opposing the development of clean energy in Canada, like the moratorium that Premier Smith has put in place in Alberta, which is putting at risk $30 billion of investment in renewable energy in the clean technology sector? Thousands of jobs are at risk. Will the Leader of the Opposition stand in this House and explain to us whether he supports clean energy?

Madam Speaker, Fire Chief Brolund of West Kelowna said another thing that stuck with me. He said Kelowna spent more than $20 million battling the summer's wildfires and that insurance losses would triple that amount. Chief Brolund asked, “What could we have accomplished if we used that same amount of money proactively?” He said money spent fighting fires was spent on the wrong end of the problem, and he said that at an event in support of carbon pricing, a proven policy designed to reduce emissions that are driving climate change, as well as more intense wildfires and flooding all across our nation and all across the world.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Last week, we had not one, but two, very good pieces of news, as there are two new Canadian sites that will be designated as UNESCO world heritage sites. Not one, but two. This is not good news for the Bloc Québécois because one of these two sites would have been producing oil, were it not for the hard work of environmentalists, indigenous peoples and the Quebec government. Today, thanks to that work, Anticosti is a UNESCO world heritage site.

Mr. Speaker, if the Bloc Québécois was as enthusiastic about working with us to combat climate change, then things would go even better. Canada is the only major oil-producing country that was invited to the UN's Climate Ambition Summit last week. Why? That would be because we have the most ambitious targets for reducing methane emissions and we are the only G20 country that has eliminated fossil fuel subsidies. No other G20 country has done so. We did it two years earlier than planned, and the Prime Minister has announced that we are going to put a cap on greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas industry. We are the only country in the world that has made that commitment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I was honoured to accompany the Prime Minister last week at the UN Secretary General's Climate Ambition Summit, especially since Canada was the only major oil-producing country that was invited. Why is that? It is because, between 2019 and 2021, we had the best performance in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Our reduction was the equivalent of taking 11 million cars off the road. We are also the only G20 country to have eliminated fossil fuel subsidies two years earlier than planned. We are the only major oil-producing country to put a cap on greenhouse gas emissions. That is why we were invited to New York.

Mr. Speaker, I would invite my colleague to read the speech given by my colleague and friend the Minister of Natural Resources, who went to tell the oil companies that, according to International Energy Agency scenarios, if we want to fight climate change, we need to go from a world that consumes 100 million barrels a day to a carbon-neutral world in 2050 where we will consume only 25 million. We need to work together to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. That is exactly what we are doing in Canada, in collaboration with our partners around the globe.

Mr. Speaker, this being my first opportunity to rise since Parliament resumed, I want to offer my deepest condolences to every Canadian who has been impacted by forest fires, to the tens of thousands who have been evacuated this summer because of forest fires and floods. Thank God, tropical storm Lee did not hit as hard as it could have. With the reality of climate change, any responsible government has to invest in climate action and support Canadians in these challenging times. That is exactly what we are doing on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, considering the forest fire season we had, not to mention the storms and heat waves happening here in Canada and around the planet, I think some would say that all hope is lost. However, we must fight climate change. We must create good jobs in Canada. We must help Canadians in these difficult times. That is exactly what we on this side of the House are doing. What does the Conservative Party have to suggest? It has absolutely no suggestions to make when it comes to fighting climate change. The Conservatives want to make it free to pollute again. For a party that hopes to form government one day, that position is irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that his party's most recent election platform included a proposal for a clean fuel program. That is exactly what we introduced. The program generates thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investment across the country. The Canola Growers Association applauded the program, which will create jobs, particularly in the agricultural sector. What does the Conservative Party have to offer in the fight against climate change? Unfortunately, the only thing it has to offer is hot air.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read an extract from a press release from the Canola Growers Association. It says, “We’re pleased to see the CFR provides options that would minimize regulatory burden and allow canola to be used to reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions through biofuel production.” There is a “[r]ecognition of the sustainable production practices of Canadian growers that help sequester and store carbon”. Agriculturists are in favour of what we are doing to fight climate change and create a strong and vibrant Canadian economy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. Unlike the Conservative Party of Canada, I share her concerns about global warming. I would like to remind her that, between 2019 and 2021, Canada had the best record in the G7 in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We cut our emissions by 55 million tonnes, which is 25% of our 2030 target. However, I agree with my colleague that we need to do more, and we need to do it even faster. That is why I will be going to New York this week with the Prime Minister and several colleagues to work with all the countries in the world to speed up the fight against climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. That is why, when faced with the issue of climate change and the increase in natural disasters, we presented the first national climate change adaptation strategy in partnership with the provinces, territories, municipalities and indigenous peoples. This climate change adaptation strategy was applauded by institutions such as Impact Assurance, which said that this was one of the best strategies in the world. The Insurance Bureau of Canada said the same thing. We need to be better prepared for the impacts of climate change. Unlike the Conservative Party, which still believes that climate change does not exist, we have a plan to combat and adapt to climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and her advocacy on this issue. This summer I had the pleasure of spending time with her and citizens who are concerned about the issue of climate change, protecting and conserving our natural habitats and fighting pollution, including pollution caused by plastics. That is precisely why the Prime Minister, some of my other colleagues and I are going to New York to work with our colleagues from the international community in order to find solutions to these three major international crises. In 2023, we cannot claim to be a serious government if we do not address economic development, job creation, affordability and pollution.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the government’s calculations for nitrous oxide emissions associated with nitrogen fertilizer use are published in the National Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory Report, which is accessible at https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.506002/publication.html. With regard to (b), the government received data on fertilizer use, in agricultural markets each year, in metric tonnes of nitrogen, and at a provincial scale. There are no known nationally representative statistics available to the government that track the quantity of nitrogen fertilizers applied on farms. As a result, the provincial fertilizer statistics are used as a proxy. With regard to (i) of part (c), the government uses methodologies consistent with the 2006 guidelines from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, that use, for the most part, country-specific parameters derived from Canadian research as reported in the National GHG Inventory Report. A detailed description of the methodology is available in Annex 3.4, section A3.4.5, in Part 2 of the 1990-2021 National Inventory Report. Nitrogen from organic and inorganic sources are distributed to the landscape according to the procedure described at the beginning of section A3.4.5. Regarding direct emissions, the current approach is based on three Canadian scientific publications, namely Liang et al. 2020; Rochette et al. 2018; and Pelster et al. 2022, which summarize the research that has been carried out in Canada over the past 30 years. A base Emission Factor, or EF, for growing season and non-growing season nitrous oxide emissions is established for areas of Canada that have a unique combination of climate, landscape and soils, called ecodistricts considering multiple factors including the topography of the cropland, moisture regimes, precipitation, potential evapotranspiration, and soil texture, all of which influence how much nitrous oxide is emitted when fertilizer is applied. These base EFs are then further adjusted with factors to account for the nitrogen source, cropping system, tillage and irrigation, which are additional factors that relate to how farmers manage the land that further impact the amount of nitrous oxide that is emitted to the atmosphere. As for indirect emissions, these are estimated from volatilization and redeposition of nitrogen, and leaching and runoff losses. A country-specific method was used to estimate ammonia emissions from inorganic nitrogen application. This approach derives ammonia emission factors based on the type of inorganic nitrogen fertilizers, the degree of incorporation into soil, crop type and soil chemical properties. For leaching and runoff losses, a modified IPCC Tier 1 methodology is used to estimate nitrous oxide emissions from leaching and runoff of inorganic and organic nitrogen fertilizers, and crop residue nitrogen from agricultural soils. The fraction of nitrogen leached from the soil is determined for each ecodistrict and varies from 0.05 to 0.3, depending on the climatic characteristics of the region. More details on specific equations used in the direct and indirect emission calculations are published in the National Inventory Report Annex 3.4, ECCC, 2023. With regard to (ii) of part (c), the agriculture sector’s share of emissions are calculated based on the results reported in the National GHG Inventory Report. The fraction is based on the quantity of emissions coming from the agricultural sector, which are reported in Chapter 6 of the National Inventory Report, relative to the total sum of all nitrous oxide emissions coming from all sectors in the inventory report. In 2021, the agricultural sector emitted 54 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, or 8.1% of Canada’s total emissions, which are 670 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. Nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils were 19 megatonnes in 2021, making up 35% of the emissions from the agricultural sector. Nitrous oxide emissions increased from 15 megatonnes in 1990 to 23 megatonnes in 2021, representing an increase of 52%. In 2021, nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture, or 23 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, contributed to 75% of Canada’s total nitrous oxide emissions, or 30 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. The contribution of agricultural nitrous oxide to national nitrous oxide emissions rose from 43% in 1990 to 75% in 2021. With regard to (d), the fertilizer target was developed based on scientific literature and internal analysis that points to the potential for optimizing nitrogen fertilizer use with an accompanying reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, while maintaining or increasing yield. The reduction percentage of 30% was the result of an iterative process weighting various factors and characteristics, such as: ambitious, considering climate goals and international efforts; technically achievable, given that the technologies and know-how largely exist; economically feasible, given potential cost savings and increased yield through efficiency gains and better management; and scientifically defensible, given that it is supported by research findings relevant to Canadian context.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the black-tailed prairie dog, Cynomys ludovicianus, is listed as threatened on schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act, as recommended by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Its status is based on the threat of increased drought and sylvatic plague, which are expected to cause significant population declines if they occur frequently. Drought is expected to increase in frequency due to a changing climate. Although most of the Canadian population of the species is within Grasslands National Park, it is isolated and has no connectivity between or with other populations, all of which are in the United States. The national recovery of species at risk is determined based on whether population and distribution objectives are met as outlined in federal recovery strategies. The population and distribution objectives can be found in the Recovery Strategy and Action Plan for the Black-tailed Prairie Dog in Canada, found on the following web page: https://wildlife-species.canada.ca/species-risk-registry/virtual_sara/files/plans/Rsap-Btpd-v00-2021Aug-Eng1.pdf The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada status assessments are determined by using quantitative criteria that are based on International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List criteria. Reaching a particular population threshold alone will not reduce the level of risk for the black-tailed prairie dog in Canada in part because they are found in a single small area and are isolated from the nearest populations found in the United States, thus the entire Canadian population could be critically impacted by threats. With regard to part (b), when the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, which is an arm’s length group of experts, assesses species in Canada, it examines neighbouring populations. It considers whether the other population can “rescue” the Canadian population. Rescue can only take place if individuals from the foreign population can join the Canadian one. In this case, the nearest United States black-tailed prairie dog colony was too far away to do so. Canada applies the Species at Risk Act found at https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/s-15.3/ with the goal of maintaining our country’s biodiversity, recognizing that the rate at which wildlife disappears from our planet will only be slowed if the world’s governments take responsibility for the species within their own borders. With regard to part (c), yes, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada and the federal government considered these things before identifying that this species’ status under schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act should be changed from special concern to threatened. With regard to part (d), from April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2023, approximately $129,000 was spent. With regard to part (e), the Recovery Strategy and Action Plan for the Black-tailed Prairie Dog in Canada, posted on the Species at Risk Public Registry, found at https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/species-risk-public-registry.html in 2021, identifies the population and distribution objectives that will assist in the recovery of the species, and actions that can be taken to reach these objectives. A report on the progress towards meeting these objectives is required under section 46 of the Species at Risk Act and will be posted on the Species at Risk Registry in 2026. With regard to part (f), progress towards the recovery of black-tailed prairie dogs within Grasslands National Park, and recovery measures that were implemented from 2016 to 2021, is outlined in the Implementation Report: Multi-species Action Plan for Grasslands National Park, found at https://wildlife-species.canada.ca/species-risk-registry/virtual_sara/files/Rprdi-PnpGnp-v00-2021Dec-Eng.pdf. With regard to part (g)(i), Parks Canada is unable to comment on any adverse effects on private property in the vicinity of Grasslands National Park, in part because we do not have any information on the distribution or numbers of prairie dogs found outside the national park boundary. With regard to part (g)(ii), Black-tailed prairie dogs are a keystone species in the prairie ecosystem. Their benefits to the ecosystem are numerous, and include aerating the soil, providing habitat and burrows for other species such as burrowing owls, endangered, and prairie rattlesnake, special concern. Their burrows provide refuge for birds, amphibians and small mammals from predators and extreme seasonal temperatures. Sustainable black-tailed prairie dog populations are also critical, as identified within the Recovery Strategy for the Black-footed Ferret in Canada, as a species that is currently extirpated from Canada, listed as endangered in the United States and classified as endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Black-tailed prairie dogs are food for predators including coyotes, badgers, golden eagles, ferruginous hawks, and red-tailed hawks. Adverse impacts of black-tailed prairie dogs have not been extensively studied; however, the implementation of dusting colonies on a rotational basis to manage sylvatic plague can have negative impacts on local invertebrate and amphibian communities.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), Environment and Climate Change Canada, ECCC, scientists have participated in a number of studies on the impacts of wind turbines on wildlife in Canada. In 2013, the journal Avian Conservation and Ecology published a special feature called “Quantifying Human-related Mortality of Birds in Canada”. This included nine research papers evaluating the impact of various sources of mortality to birds, together with an introductory overview and a synthesis paper. A paper in that issue by Zimmerling et al., 2013, studied the impact of wind turbines on birds. They estimated an average of 8.2 birds were killed per turbine per year after correcting for the number of carcasses that would be missed by searchers. Based on 2,955 turbines installed by the end of 2011, they estimated 23,300 birds killed per year across Canada. Based on data from the Canadian Wind Energy Association, CANWEA, website, by the end of 2022, the installed wind capacity in Canada had increased to about 15,000 megawatts. Assuming average wind turbines are now 2-3 megawatts, this corresponds to about 5,000-7,500 turbines. Thus, if mortality rates remain similar, the number of birds killed would now be estimated at about 62,000 per year. This number is much lower than the number of birds estimated by Calvert et al., 2013, to be killed by other human-related sources such as 200 million birds per year by domestic and feral cats, 25 million birds per year by power transmission lines, 22 million birds per year by collisions with windows in residential houses and 14 million birds per year by collisions with vehicles. With regard to part (a)(i), Zimmerling et al., 2013, also reported data on the species composition of birds killed at wind turbines in Canada, based on available data from carcass searches. The most frequently reported species were Horned Lark, Golden-crowned Kinglet, Red-eyed Vireo, European Starling, and Tree Swallow all of which are abundant species in Canada. There was no evidence that mortality rates for any species were high enough to cause population-level impacts. With regard to part (a)(ii), in a separate study, Zimmerling and Francis, 2016, estimated the impact of wind turbines in Canada on bats. They estimated an average of 15.5 bats killed per turbine representing about 47,000 bats per year in 2013. If mortality rates remain similar now, that would now represent 75,000-116,000 bats per year based on an estimate of 5,000-7,500 turbines. Most of this mortality occurred for only four species: Hoary Bat, 34%, Silver-haired Bat, 25%, Eastern Red Bat, 15%, and Little Brown Myotis, 13%. There is growing evidence that mortality rates of bats due to wind turbines may be high enough to be causing population declines. Davy et al., 2020, found evidence of declines in populations of some migratory bat species in Ontario. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, recently recommended that Hoary Bat, Red Bat and Silver-haired Bat should all be listed as endangered under the Species at Risk Act. The reason for designation indicated that populations were declining by more than 50% over three generations, with the major threat the high risk of mortality at wind energy facilities. Please see the following web page: https://www.cosewic.ca/index.php/en-ca/assessment-process/detailed-version-may-2023.html. Portions of the populations of all three species migrate from Canada to the southern United States so they would be exposed to risk of mortality at wind turbines in both countries. With regard to part (b)(i), ECCC has only participated in limited studies on the impact of wind turbines on wildlife habitat. Zimmerling et al., 2013, estimated habitat loss from wind turbines at about 1.2 hectares per turbine. Extrapolated to the current number of turbines, this would suggest a loss of 6,000-9,000 hectares of wildlife habitat based on estimated number of turbines in 2022. However, this study did not consider habitat loss that may be associated with new roads or transmission lines for turbines installed in remote areas, and data are not currently available on those potential impacts. With regard to part (b)(ii), ECCC has not undertaken any studies on changes to migration patterns as a result of wind turbines. Please see the following references: Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G. J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. Davy, C.M., K. Squires, and J.R. Zimmerling. 2020. Estimation of spatiotemporal trends in bat abundance from mortality data collected at wind turbines. Conservation Biology 35:227-238. Zimmerling, J. R., A. C. Pomeroy, M. V. d'Entremont, and C. M. Francis. 2013. Canadian estimate of bird mortality due to collisions and direct habitat loss associated with wind turbine developments. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 10. Zimmerling, J. R. & C. M. Francis. 2016. Bat mortality due to wind turbines in Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management, 80: 1360-1369.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), Parks Canada did not contract suppliers or consultants related to Q-1512. With regard to part (b), Parks Canada did not contract consultants related to Q-1512. With regard to part (c), Under the Canada National Parks Act, the superintendent has authority over decisions related to use of Clear Lake. While a consultation process was not required, in recognition of the high public interest and potential implications to partners and stakeholders that decisions around seasonal operations at Clear Lake could have, the park undertook an engagement process with key stakeholders including: first nations partners from the Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation and the Coalition of First Nations with interests in Riding Mountain National Park, including leadership and band members; the local member of Parliament; provincial members of the Legislative Assembly; reeves and council representatives from local municipal governments; other federal and provincial departments and ministries; watershed districts; local business owners and chambers of commerce; cottage and cabin owners; provincial and local tourism industry representatives; environmental non-governmental organizations; volunteer groups; boaters; anglers; paddlers; and private citizens. With regard to part (d), individuals and organizations invited to Parks Canada’s aquatic invasive species, AIS, information session on April 24, 2023 were the following: Coalition of First Nations with Interests in Riding Mountain National Park; Rural Municipality of Harrison-Park; Rural Municipality of Clanwilliam-Erickson; Clear Lake Cottage Owners Association; Clear Lake Cabin Owners Association; Clear Lake Country Destination Enrichment (Marketing) Organization; Clear Lake Marina operator; Wasagaming Chamber of Commerce; Erickson and District Chamber of Commerce; Travel Manitoba; Riding Mountain National Park Biosphere Reserve; Nature Conservancy of Canada; Friends of Riding Mountain National Park; former MP for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, Robert Sopuck; Sandy Lake AIS Volunteer Program; Assiniboine West Watershed District; Camp Wannacumbac; and Elkhorn Resort and Spa. With regard to part (e), three stakeholder engagement meetings were held: February 22, 2023; March 14, 2023; and April 24, 2023, at Riding Mountain National Park Visitor Centre, Wasagaming Townsite. Organizations were asked to share with their networks. The public was able to attend. The date the public was notified depended on when the organizations shared the information. With regard to part (f)(i), discussions on potential enhancements to the aquatic invasive species program began when the eDNA results were received in January 2023. The decision to implement the enhanced program was formalized in late April, after consultations with indigenous partners, stakeholders and the public. With regard to part (f)(ii), implementation of enhancements to the existing aquatic invasive species monitoring program, which consisted of boat and trailer inspections and a decontamination program prior to launching in Clear Lake. Additional measures in place for 2023 will include a tag process for trailered boats to lower the risk of transporting zebra mussels from other water bodies. With regard to part (f)(iii), implementation of an enhanced aquatic invasive species program to include a tag process for trailered boats. Program enhancements are temporary. Permanent changes to the aquatic invasive species prevention program will be subject to further engagement. With regard to part (f)(iv), interim measures for 2023 were communicated to local MPs, MLAs and municipal leaders on May 5, with information shared widely on social media on May 5 and 6.

Mr. Speaker, I think a lot of people watching at home might be thinking about the record floods in recent months, the record tropical storms and now the record forest fires we have been having, and they might be wondering why the Conservative Party of Canada continues to be so stubbornly silent on climate change. The Conservatives have not said a word in the House about climate change and the tens of thousands of people who have been displaced. Where is the Conservative plan to fight climate change? Where is the Conservative plan to help Canadians adapt to the impacts of climate change? It is nowhere to be found.

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, Atlantic premiers asked us to delay by two years the implementation of our clean fuel regulations, which was something the Conservative Party campaigned on during the last campaign. We did exactly that. We listened to the Atlantic premiers. We delayed the implementation of that important piece of regulation to ensure that Canadians would have access to cleaner fuels all across the country. It is already generating billions of dollars of investment throughout the country.

Mr. Speaker, our thoughts are certainly with the tens of thousands of people who have been displaced as a result of the wildfires. We are deeply grateful to all of the workers and other individuals who are on the ground to assist them. I would like to remind my hon. colleague that Canada's last greenhouse gas inventory showed that our country's greenhouse gas emissions dropped by over 50 million tonnes. We had the best record of all the G7 countries from 2019 to 2021. I would remind my hon. colleague that COVID-19 was a worldwide pandemic. In spite of that, we still managed to have the best record in the G7.

Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is the most important issue of our time, which is why we have invested billions of dollars, which is why we are deploying regulations. When we talk about the national adaptation strategy, this is what Climate Proof Canada had to say about it, “Climate Proof Canada applauds the Government of Canada on world-leading national adaptation strategy.” Let us talk about the Insurance Bureau of Canada. It said, “Canada's first National Adaptation Strategy is brave and ambitious. No other country has proposed such a comprehensive suite of adaptation targets.” We are working to help Canadians prepare for the impacts of climate change.

Mr. Speaker, in a recent poll, we can see that 83% of Canadians think that the forest fires we are seeing right now are linked to climate change and that the situation is only going to get worse. The Conservative Party has nothing to say about climate change. I would like to hear my opposition colleague's outrage over the fact that between 2019 and 2021, the profit margins at the refineries increased by nearly 30¢. Will the member rise in the House to oppose these incredibly high prices?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the record. Our pollution levels have gone down by 50 million tonnes between 2019 and 2021. That is the equivalent of removing from our roads 11 million vehicles. Despite what they are saying, we have the best performance in terms of cutting pollution among all G7 countries now. If the Conservative Party members believed in climate change, they would have something to say about it. There is no light switch to fight climate change. There is no fairy dust that will make climate change go away. There is no magic wand. Only hard work will make this possible. That is what we are doing on this side of the House. Unfortunately, they have nothing to say on that on the Conservatives' side.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that the Conservative Party of Canada campaigned on a platform to implement a clean fuel standard, except that party is all words while we are all action. We have worked with companies across the country to ensure we can have lower carbon-emitting fuels in Canada. We are creating investments across the country in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and Newfoundland of more than $2 billion in the last year alone in clean fuel. We will continue ensuring that we can create good jobs, have a good economy and tackle climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for all his work as chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, as well as all the members of the committee. I would also like to thank the Senate, since Bill S‑5 was passed last night. For the first time ever in Canadian law, we have enshrined in law the right to a healthy environment for all Canadians. This is a first for our country. We will be working hard over the coming months to determine how this right will be implemented in Canadian law.

Mr. Speaker, I think that more and more people who are watching at home are totally mystified at the fact that the Conservatives have nothing to say about the climate crisis. Over the past year, we have experienced the worst tropical storm on the east coast of Canada and the most severe flooding in the history of our country, and now we are dealing with the largest wildfires in Canadian history. What do the Conservatives say about climate change? They say that they do not believe in it or that we can make it all go away with a wave of some magic wand. That is not how it works. On this side of the House, we believe that the climate crisis is real and we are working—

Mr. Speaker, timelines for project decisions are predictable based on the requirements in the Impact Assessment Act. The act indicates that the impact statement phase conducted by proponents is up to three years. Government planning and decision-making is approximately one and a half years, which includes the planning phase, impact assessment phase and decision-making. Project timelines are often contingent upon the timing, quality and sufficiency of the information and studies provided by proponents throughout an assessment process, including the project descriptions and the impact statement. It is possible for the entire process to be closer to three years, and experience has shown that when proponents invest in the front end, in the pre-planning and the planning phase, it helps save time later. The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada has searched its records since June 21, 2019. With regard to part (a), the Impact Assessment Act, IAA, came into force on August 28, 2019, and since that date the Impact Assessment Agency has accepted initial project descriptions from proponents for 17 natural resource projects, mining or oil and gas. With regard to part (b), one natural resource project has completed the impact assessment process under the Impact Assessment Act since coming into force. On March 15, the government announced that the project was determined to be in the public interest by the minister and is allowed to proceed. With regard to part (c), one natural resource project was terminated by the proponent. With regard to part (d), zero. With regard to part (e), zero. With regard to part (f), 1273 days, or 3.5 years. With regard to part (g), 1273 days, or 3.5 years.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this important issue today. I thank my hon. colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and commend them for their activism on this issue. I do not doubt their commitment to the issue of climate change for a single second. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for all the members of the House. Forests all over Canada are burning. We are facing what will very likely be the worst forest fire season in the history of our country. Families have lost everything, thousands of people are risking their lives to keep Quebeckers and Canadians safe, and I would like to tell everyone affected by the wildfires that our thoughts and the government's thoughts are with them. Climate change is real, and we are seeing and living its impact every day. In the last year alone, we have seen record-level atmospheric rivers creating havoc in British Columbia; Fiona, the most powerful hurricane we have seen in the Atlantic Ocean; and now, fires raging from the east coast to the west coast and all the way to the Northwest Territories. Everyone in the House needs to acknowledge that. Canadians are concerned about the impact of climate change. Tens of thousands of people have been displaced this year, sometimes twice or even three times. Some families have lost everything. Millions of people, both young and not so young, cannot go outside because of the poor air quality. People are worried and so are we. Across the country, the public can see how climate change is exacerbating the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. As U.S. President Joe Biden recently said to the House, these days, a good plan for the economy is also a good plan for climate change and a good plan for security. The deterioration in air quality due to the forest fires is so bad that smoke plumes can be seen and smelled as far away as New York. The air quality index was worse in our national capital this week than in cities like Mexico City, Jakarta or even Kolkata. We know that this is the worst fire season on record for Nova Scotia and Quebec, and in Alberta, 2023 is about to surpass the summer of 2016, one of the worst seasons in the history of that province. There are currently more than 2,000 forest fires burning across Canada, and nearly four million hectares have burned, which is 10 times the Canadian average for the same date. Now I would like to talk about Parks Canada's role in this issue. Parks Canada is the only federal organization that can provide firefighting equipment and trained professionals in response to requests from provinces, territories and international partners when they need help fighting wildfires. Parks Canada has a dedicated team of firefighters across the country. It also maintains national incident-management teams composed of personnel from field and business units across the country. These teams are dispatched to manage complex fire situations and other incidents. Parks Canada has many wildfire mutual aid resource-sharing agreements in place at the local, provincial, national and international level, such as with the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico and South Africa. It also works with communities and partners within or near national parks on initiatives to reduce wildfire risks. Its fire management program is focused on prevention and response measures for wildfires that originate in, traverse through or otherwise threaten lands administered by Parks Canada, as well as adjacent communities. I would like to thank the team at Parks Canada for all its work and for its amazing services to the public. Last weekend, the Quebec government asked the federal government for help to deal with the catastrophic wildfire situation in the province, and we instantly said yes. We are working in close collaboration with all provincial and territorial governments, as well as with indigenous peoples. Non-governmental organizations, like the Canadian Red Cross and the United Way, are also providing support to evacuees and other people affected by the forest fires. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces have been deployed to areas across the country, particularly in Quebec, to keep our communities safe. Climate change is already here, and its effects will continue to be felt. The impact is very real. Climate change is taking a major toll on our communities. That is why our government, unlike the official opposition, is committed to doing more and doing it faster, both to reduce our climate pollution and to better prepare Canada and Canadians to deal with the consequences of climate change. Let me give a few examples. A little over two years ago, we enacted the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, which requires the Government of Canada to set emission reduction targets for 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045 in order to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. The act provides for consultations with the provinces, territories and indigenous communities, as well as public participation when the government is establishing or amending targets or plans. This must be done openly and transparently. The act requires governments to plan to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 at the latest, to table their plans in the House and to make any corrections necessary. It also establishes the net-zero advisory body, which is responsible for providing independent advice with respect to achieving this goal. The government's role is to create incentives and to make regulations that send clear, long-term signals to the markets to foster the reduction of emissions in a flexible and economical manner. That is also why we implemented carbon pricing in 2019. Our approach is recognized worldwide. It is flexible, because it allows the provinces and territories, including Quebec, to develop their own system or to opt in to the federal system. It also sets minimum national standards that must be met to ensure that all the provinces and territories are comparable and that they contribute equitably to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Our approach is one of consistency and fairness for all Canadians. It also aims to cover a wide range of emissions and to ensure the effectiveness of the carbon markets. Its goal is both to reduce pollution and to support Canadians in the transition toward a cleaner and greener economy, which is why all direct proceeds from the federal system remain in the province or territory they came from and are used to keep life affordable while taking aim at climate pollution. Wherever federal fuel charge proceeds are returned directly to households, eight out of 10 families get more money back through the climate action incentive rebates than they faced in increased fuel costs. This is particularly true for low-income households, which come out significantly ahead. Households can use these funds however they see fit. As households take actions to reduce their energy use, they will come out even farther ahead because they will still receive the same amount in climate incentive rebate. If any members of the House of Commons have not yet read the 2030 emissions reduction plan released last year, they should. It is the most comprehensive, detailed, and transparent plan in our country's history. It charts a course to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45% by 2030. It continues and enhances support for the deployment of market-ready renewable energy technologies to drive the decarbonization of electricity grids. It sets an interim target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% below 2005 levels by 2026. This plan has been welcomed by organizations such as Greenpeace, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Climate Institute of Canada. We also introduced the clean fuel regulations, which are part of a very significant approach to reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. These regulations replace the former renewable fuels regulations. They seek to drive innovation in clean technologies and expand the use of cleaner fuels throughout the economy. The regulations are based on initiatives in other jurisdictions, such as British Columbia and California, that have directly contributed to the growth of the clean-tech sector and the supply of cleaner fuels. These regulations will reduce the carbon footprint of gasoline and diesel sold in Canada. They will also encourage investment in clean energy, thereby helping to reduce the country's greenhouse gas emissions by at least 26 megatonnes by 2030. Following the announcement of these regulations, more than $2 billion in investments have been announced over the past few months in the hydrogen and renewable fuels sectors in Alberta, Quebec, and Newfoundland. I would now like to talk about faster and further: Canada's methane strategy. This strategy relies on Canada's progress and current commitments, including the 2030 emissions reduction plan. It provides a path for further reducing methane emissions, a very powerful greenhouse gas, throughout the entire economy. I will give a few examples. The oil company Cenovus reduced its methane emissions by 40% over the past two years. Saskatchewan reduced the methane emissions of its oil sector by 60% between 2015 and 2021. Still, we need to bear in mind that all the initiatives I have mentioned so far are just the highlights and do not exist in a vacuum. It is the combination of initiatives that changes everything and our plan is beginning to bear fruit. Between 2019 and 2021, our greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 53 million tonnes in the country. That is the equivalent of removing 11 million cars from the roads in Canada, or more than half of all the emissions in Quebec. In 2020 and 2021, Canada had the best performance in the G7 when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Many environmental groups have said that they are seeing overwhelming evidence of progress. For example, Climate Action Network Canada says, “The [report] released...by the federal government shows that...greenhouse gas emissions fell by 8.4% below 2005 levels”. That is what economists call a decoupling of emissions from the country's gross domestic product, with emissions intensity from the entire economy down by 42% since 1990. Since 2015, our government has committed over $200 billion to implementing more than 100 measures to support climate action. Canada has bent the curve downward even as our economy continues to grow, creating well-paying jobs. Earlier, the leader of the Bloc Québécois talked about fossil fuel subsidies. Here are a few encouraging facts about this issue. The federal government is hard at work on delivering its G20 commitment to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. We are preparing a rigorous framework to identify what is a fossil fuel subsidy. This will apply across all departments in the government. We are proud to lead ambition on the global movement of fossil fuel subsidies. Canada has accelerated its G20 commitment, from 2025 to 2023, and we are on track to deliver on this accelerated timeline. We are also calling on peer countries to accelerate their timeline. When we come forward with the fossil fuel subsidies framework, this will be a first-of-its-kind approach to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. No other country has published its methodology for so transparently identifying fossil fuel subsidies. This is the second of a three-part commitment on the financing of the fossil fuel sector. The first was international financing of the fossil fuel subsidy, which we delivered on last December, with widespread acclaim from think tanks and environmental organizations. The second commitment is on domestic fossil fuel subsidies, which we are on track to complete shortly, and the third one is on domestic public financing of fossil fuel subsidies. Several organizations, such as Equiterre and Environmental Defence, have publicly highlighted the progress made on this issue while indicating that there is still work to be done. The NGO Oil Change International has published a report showing that, among G7 countries, Canada and Great Britain are at the forefront on issues of international funding of fossil fuels. We also need to be better prepared to face the impacts of climate change. We must ensure the health, security and well-being of the population and communities across the country. A good adaptation strategy is also a good economic strategy and will help minimize the costs of the impacts of climate change, which have already been assessed at several billions of dollars per year. Those are our main objectives in collaborating with the population to develop Canada's first national adaptation strategy. Part of this work focused on the approach needed to build resilience to the impacts of climate change. This approach includes, among others, a framework to measure progress made across the country so we ensure that our measures remain effective as the climate continues to change. The following are a few reactions to the release of the Government of Canada adaptation action plan. The Insurance Bureau of Canada said, “Canada's first National Adaptation Strategy is brave and ambitious. No other country has proposed such a comprehensive suite of adaptation targets.” The Federation of Canadian Municipalities said that the National Adaptation Strategy is “a critical framework that will help to better protect Canadian communities from the effects of extreme weather events made more severe by a changing climate.” Finally, Climate Proof Canada said, “Climate Proof Canada applauds the Government of Canada on world-leading National Adaptation Strategy", and that this “represents a bold step forward by delivering a strategy with world-leading targets and clear goals that will drive necessary progress on adapting to the worst impacts of climate change.” Climate change is a global problem, and Canadians want real climate action. The government owes it to them to be responsible and bring in policies that are known to be the most efficient and cost effective, which is what we are doing. However, it is important to remember that the federal government cannot meet Canada's objectives for climate change and adaptation on its own. A concerted effort is needed from all governments, economic stakeholders and Canadian society as a whole. Each sector has a role to play and a responsibility to reduce climate pollution. Action on climate change has become the driving force for economic opportunity in the 21st century. Countries and businesses across the world are moving rapidly toward net-zero emissions. With the initiatives we have already introduced, and many others that are still to come, we are taking action today to ensure not only that Canada is not left behind, but that we actually become a leader in the global low-carbon economy. We must continue to fight climate change. We recognize that we need to do more to tackle climate change, prevent its impacts and support communities affected by natural disasters. We must continue to work together and do more. However, in order to do more, we need the support of all parties. It is unfortunate to see that, in 2023, we are still having to try and convince the Conservative Party of Canada that climate change is real, that it is happening now and that it is costing Canadian lives and dramatically impacting our society. There are forest fires burning all across Canada right now. People are risking their lives to ensure Canadians' safety and protect the environment. However, the Conservatives are trying to block everything we try to do to fight pollution. Last week, we saw the member for Red Deer—Mountain View rise in the House and tell Canadians that climate change is normal. Pretending it is normal is irresponsible and it is disrespectful to Quebeckers or Canadians who are fighting for their lives against raging wildfires. It has been 271 days since the leader of the Conservative Party was named leader and still no plan to fight pollution, no plan to support the economy of the 21st century and no plan to support Canadians. The Leader of the Opposition spoke for four hours last night in the House, but did he talk about the linkages between the devastating forest fires and climate change? Did he talk about his plan to fight the climate crisis or even how he would work to help Canadians face those impacts? He did none of those things, because, like his party, he denies the very existence of climate change. Rather than investing their time in debating carbon pricing or blocking everything we are trying to put in place to fight pollution, perhaps the Conservatives should invest that time toward writing a real plan for our environment, for the future of our kids and grandkids, and for the future of the economy of this country.