Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to Mr. van Koeverden for putting this very important motion in front of us.
Canada took a lead position on methane reduction at COP. I'm going to go on a converse argument that if we don't study this in our committee after our country has taken a lead position and we're the environment committee for Canada, we would be doing a disservice not only to Canadians but also to the other participants at COP.
I think this motion would give the oil and gas sector a chance to talk about what they are doing to reduce emissions. They are working on that. They were at COP, and they presented what they are doing to try to get to net zero. I think that's an important part of the discussion as well. So far, we've heard a lot of.... In fact, we've seen fewer results coming from the oil and gas sector, which, as Mr. van Koeverden said, is the reason we're not getting to the speed that we need to get to in terms of reductions overall. We need to hear from them what they're going to do, given the fact that we are putting a cap on methane to set a standard for them to follow. I think it's important for our committee to dive into that.
On the food report Mr. van Koeverden referenced, the University of Guelph was quite involved with the food report. It did show that 0.3% of the increase in food pricing was coming from the price on pollution.
The price on pollution is really what is driving us. In terms of methane reduction, the contribution of pollution from methane is significant and needs to be curtailed.
If we could get the work of the oil and gas sector onto the table to talk about why it hasn't been able to achieve the goals we've set out and how this might help it through our regulations and through the cap that we're introducing, that could maybe get us all on the same page to get out of the climate crisis we're in right now.
I would be supporting the motion. I really look forward to it as priority motion for us to study at the committee.