I'd like to make a couple more points.
I think what's interesting is that we had the food professor here, Sylvain Charlebois. I remember very specifically what he said when he was here, that for those who have agricultural-producing regions.... My region is Durham region. We actually produce lots of agricultural goods and products, and I know that farmers are definitely concerned about climate change. I know that Sylvain Charlebois came here and said that climate change is actually the biggest challenge that our agri-food industry faces, and that we need to address it. That's a direct quote. If the guy whom the Conservatives like to quote all the time is saying that climate change is actually the biggest challenge that our agri-food industry has, then why wouldn't they want to study the impacts of climate change and understand how we can help ensure that our agricultural industry and our producers, whom we all value, can continue to feed Canada and the world, and prosper in the future? It seems a little strange to me that the Conservatives would want to take out the specific reference to the industries that were in the motion.
Anyway, I could say more about that, but I'll just say that it seems a little strange, when farmers are at the front lines of the impacts of climate change, as we know, and we've heard this. I was on the agri-food standing committee for quite a while, and we heard about this as being a major concern for our food producers across Canada. I know that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada projected net revenue losses of 49.2% in 2023 for Quebec farmers, and 86.5% in 2024. I referenced that when Mr. Charlebois was here, and he agreed that the costs of climate change were real, that they were very concerning, and that we needed to address it. He certainly disagreed with some portions of how to address it—I will say that—but he definitely agreed that this was a major threat to the agri-food industry.
Mr. Patzer said something about trade policy, and I think that's another major consideration here. The EU is Canada's second-largest trading partner, after the U.S., accounting for more than $180 billion in bilateral trade in 2023. They have carbon border adjustments that will come into effect in 2026, which means that all of our exports will be subjected to tariffs if we don't abide by the same standard and bring ourselves up to the standard they've set. More than 70% of Canada's exports are either a variety of fossil fuels or goods resulting from emissions-intensive trade-exposed sectors. We're talking about energy, transportation, manufacturing and agriculture. Canada's most trade-exposed sectors are iron and steel. That's pretty significant when you think about the kinds of things that I think should appeal to all of us in our respective jurisdictions, in the ridings we represent. Those industries are part of the backbone of our economy, and we should all be concerned with the fact that they are trade-exposed in the European market as those carbon border adjustment mechanisms come into force in 2026.
I'll also just mention quickly that there are labour market impacts. I noticed that Mr. Perkins, when he proposed to gut this motion and take everything out of it, is taking out the specific references to labour markets. Those are real jobs, employment and wages for our workers, and in particular the most vulnerable workers in Canada, who I think would be most exposed to the risks of climate change, the natural disasters that affect their ability to go to work every day.
We've had conversations about climate justice. I know the Conservatives don't even believe in climate change, so they don't really participate in these conversations very often. We know that the most vulnerable people in Canada who would be most exposed to the risks or impacts of climate change are often the people who are already the most vulnerable and live in the areas that, through no fault of their own, would be impacted by the damages done by climate change.
For example, the Canadian Climate Institute finds that, due to climate change, “All households will lose income, and low-income households will suffer the most.” Low-income households could see income losses of 19% in high-emissions scenarios by the end of this century.
Climate change is a job killer. It leads to job losses that could double by mid-century, and increase to 2.9 million by the end of the century. That's a really significant number of job losses in this country. For those of us who care about Canadians' jobs or pretend to care.... I hope most of us actually do care. It seems strange to me that the Conservatives would rip out that portion of the motion because they're not interested in understanding the impacts on labour markets and real people's jobs.
Perhaps I'll leave it there for the moment, Chair. I just wanted to add those points to my arguments.