The agreement concluded at the G20 Pittsburgh Summit in 2009 involved eliminating what is known as inefficient subsidies. What is considered inefficient? The WTO proposed a definition when talking about subsidies granted to a single sector that give it a comparative advantage, meaning compared to other sectors. In this case, it was government funding. That does not include funding from Crown corporations like EDC or the BDC, for example. What we committed to eliminating this year, in 2024, no other G20 country committed to eliminating.
You said that the fossil fuel sector is being asked to reduce fewer emissions than the transportation sector, as well as other sectors. But you might find that we identified GHG reduction opportunities for each sector. In terms of emissions reductions, you can see that we're asking for very little effort from the agricultural sector until 2030, for example. In fact, we understand that implementation will take a certain amount of time. In this context, you could say that the efforts being asked of the oil and gas sector are much more significant than those being asked of the agricultural sector, specifically.
You asked whether the time has come to cut production. I think that the representative of a sovereignist party like yours understands full well that the use of natural resources falls under provincial jurisdiction in Canada. Pollution, methane, CO2 and so on are what we can act on as the federal government, and that's exactly what we're doing by setting up a clean fuel standard. It's being done for the first time in the country's history. We're talking about a regulation to set a 40% reduction of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 2025, and at least a 75% reduction by 2030. That's one of the most ambitious objectives on the planet. The cap on greenhouse gas emissions…