Agriculture committee  The key point is that we, first of all, need to create incentives for technology to be adopted, and that's what a price on pollution across the economy is supposed to do, rather than carving out sector-by-sector emissions and then we don't have these various things. I think the c

Agriculture committee  For instance, electrification is one of the big opportunities that we see to support fuel switching. We recently put out a study, as I mentioned, that looks at what kinds of investments are needed across Canada to clean up our electricity supply, and then we need to make sure tha

Agriculture committee  Actually, I don't think Bill C‑234 should be passed. If the committee decided otherwise, another option would be to decrease the exemption by 10% each year. That way, there wouldn't be a shock at the end of the time frame. As an economist, I would prefer that. That said, I don't

Agriculture committee  There's no way that all farmers receive a refund of only 13% or 15%. Since all the revenue from carbon pricing is redistributed to the sector, why is it that 85% of the revenue disappears? I don't understand that. Some of the calculations presented by other witnesses don't seem v

Agriculture committee  That's precisely my argument. You create the price signal, and you support farmers. You help the technology scale, and then we see transition. There's a real risk in the proposal being debated here that we remove the price signal for 10 years, or something like that, and suddenl

Agriculture committee  The price on pollution does create an incentive to accelerate technological development and to adopt it more quickly.

Agriculture committee  I believe that would be the case.

Agriculture committee  Well, the thing is that as you put a price on pollution, things that are not financially viable today become financially viable, because you've just changed the incentives. So over time, increasingly, technology becomes viable. That's why we put a price on pollution. I appreciat

Agriculture committee  Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you again. It's always good to be here at this committee. Bill C-234, like Bill C-206 before it, proposes amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. First, I want to begin with reiterating some reasons why Canada's

Natural Resources committee  It's a little more complicated than that. I think it depends. Personally, I think regulations are needed. Otherwise, it might be worthwhile.

Natural Resources committee  Canada's 2025 methane regulation target is not likely to be met, because the regulations are looking as though they're going to come in at 29% reduction rather than the 40% to 45% that was aimed for, so there's a regulatory review process under way. Making sure that it is carried

Natural Resources committee  That's a very big question to answer in 30 seconds. One thing we have to look at, from a holistic perspective, is where the government should be putting its money, and I would agree with my colleagues from Environmental Defence. The main investment should be moving us away from f

Natural Resources committee  I think the changes that have been made are very constructive. I wouldn't be able to get into that level of detail.

Natural Resources committee  The department has worked to improve the program in response to the commissioner's result analysis. One of the key things to recognize here is that the regulations do not require the elimination of all continuous sources of intentional routine venting. I wish they did, but they

Natural Resources committee  Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today. The David Suzuki Foundation has long advocated for effective regulations to rapidly reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. Because it is a short-acting greenhouse gas with a 20-year, climate-forc