Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate that Mr. Falk started with a bit of historical context because, when we talk about issues that are important today, such as energy, our economy and climate change, it's important to talk about historical context too.
The historical context I want to start with is this: Under the previous Conservative government, there was no climate plan. There was no path to reduce emissions. Emissions were tracking up. In fact, if we had stayed under the previous Conservative government's plans, estimates say we would have seen emissions track up by 2030. They would have gone up by 41%.
It's important to keep that context in play when we talk about the work we've been doing as a government. We had to turn a big ship around, and we did that. We put in place a climate plan that includes carbon pricing as a very central and important part—I'll be getting back to that in a bit—as well as investments to support clean energy, investment tax credits and the like. It has been working.
I also think it's very important, when we're talking with people, to highlight that it was a huge ship we turned around. Like I said, 41% would have been where we are now. It would have been going higher. We're actually tracking emissions down. We're seeing that our emissions, at this current point, are dropping. They're at the lowest they have been in three decades, and that's as our population has been going up. It's as our economy is growing that we're seeing this. I'm basing this on two things: the inventory report we provided to the UN and the latest Canadian Climate Institute review.
I'll go to the Canadian Climate Institute piece. They pointed out that a lot of the reductions we saw were through electricity. One of the things I found interesting—and I'll get to this in my questions to our witnesses—is that our emissions would have been so much lower had it not been for the increases we've seen in emissions from oil and gas. That's why the oil and gas cap we're going to put in place on emissions from that industry is so important.
I find this fascinating: I thought the industry has been saying, until recently, anyway—and I'm going to ask them about this—that they are working to get to net zero by 2050. Actually, what we're seeing right now, when we look at our inventory reports on emissions, is that emissions are tracking up from the industry. That's a bit of framing for where my question will come from.
I also want to point out that the largest single tool we have to reduce emissions is carbon pricing. It's about a third of the reduction. It's considered the most efficient way to do this. It's the least expensive.
Look, I'm not surprised the Conservatives oppose carbon pricing, because that fits with their track record. Frankly, it also fits with what members of this committee have done in the past when they've talked about how they don't really believe in human-caused climate change. I think it's important to say, given that we have him joining us today, that I was surprised to see the leader of the NDP follow the Conservatives down that path and choose to step away from carbon pricing, since that alone could lead to 80 million tonnes of reductions by 2030. It is one of our most effective tools.
Welcome, Mr. Singh, to our committee.
However, I'm curious about whether he's coming here to say that he's going to hold oil and gas to account. His party has stepped away from the strongest tool we have in place.