Debates of Sept. 22nd, 2025

Opposition Motion—Oil and Gas Emissions Cap

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

moved:

That the House call on the Prime Minister to immediately repeal the oil and gas emissions cap, which in effect is a production cap.

Mr. Speaker, there is breaking news today, really good news for some. TC Energy just announced that it is investing $8.5 billion in the energy sector. In fact, it said it is betting big on the energy sector. The bad news is that it will be in the United States. That will be $8.5 billion from a Canadian company investing in the United States instead of investing it here in Canada. That is $8.5 billion that will put people to work, pay royalties to state governments, create thousands of jobs in spinoffs and, of course, provide Americans with safe and secure energy sources.

I remember when TC Energy was called TransCanada Corporation. After 10 years of Liberal policies that absolutely devastated the energy sector here in Canada, it decided to take the word “Canada” out of its name, and now it is known just as TC Energy. The Commonwealth of Virginia will have a major pipeline built by Canadian companies. That could have happened here, but not now.

Before I go on, I should just mention that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk.

Let us be very clear about why the investment is not coming to Canada. It is because there is a production cap. The Liberals like to call it an emissions cap. It is, in fact, a production cap. If members take away one thing from today's debate, it should be this: If members say yes to the cap, they are saying no to a new pipeline. It is as simple as that.

Let us think back to the election campaign, when the Prime Minister was desperately trying to convince people that he was going to do things differently from the previous Liberal government, the Trudeau government, to which the Prime Minister was a senior economic adviser. When he needed Canadians' votes, he was pretending to be in favour of energy sector developments. He said all kinds of things during the campaign, but as soon as the votes were tallied, the Prime Minister showed himself to be just another Liberal. He has broken those promises and broken all those commitments. He has a long history of opposing energy developments.

The Prime Minister cheered on and congratulated the previous prime minister, Justin Trudeau, when Justin Trudeau vetoed the northern gateway project, which would have taken western Canadian energy to a deepwater port in northern British Columbia, opening up billions of dollars' worth of market access in Asian countries and growing countries with increasing demand for oil and gas, such as India, Japan and Korea. All of that was killed when Justin Trudeau vetoed the northern gateway project, and the Prime Minister cheered him on.

It is completely impossible to build another pipeline as long as the cap stays in place. If the cap stays, no new pipelines will ever be built. It is increasingly clear that the Prime Minister has performed a complete bait and switch, saying something during the election, changing the rhetoric of the Liberal Party, but delivering the exact same policy as the previous Trudeau government.

TC Energy is not the only company building in the United States. Enbridge is as well. Enbridge is building two pipelines in the U.S. Again, these are Canadian companies with strong, proud histories of getting things built in Canada that have to go offshore into the United States to get new projects built. What does that mean for Canadians? It does not just mean lost jobs. Remember, oil and gas production in western Canada fuels the entire country's economy. I should point out that this is an issue not just for western Canada; I know that other colleagues will be speaking to the motion, colleagues from Atlantic Canada too, where their hopes for economic growth are underpinned by the ability to develop their abundant natural resources.

The world is consuming more and more oil and gas. Pipelines are being built in other countries. In fact it is ironic to note, and Canadians should never forget, that while the Prime Minister was cheering on Justin Trudeau and advising him to cancel Canadian energy projects, his company, Brookfield, was investing in other countries to build pipelines in other countries and develop other countries' natural resources. Of course that was fine for his shareholders, and those projects would be even more economically viable in other countries if Canada did not produce its own natural resources.

If Canada develops its own natural resources and we build pipelines here in Canada, then Brookfield's investments in pipelines in other countries will be worth less because it will face increased competition. That is something Canadians should never forget about the conflicted Prime Minister.

It is not just the direct jobs that oil and gas production creates. Every paved road we drive on, every hospital we or our loved ones might have to visit and every school a child goes to is in some way, shape or form funded by natural resource development. When companies invest, they create jobs along the production site. Those workers support local economies, and the royalties gathered by the provincial and federal governments pay for important social services.

Maybe policies like the production cap are the reason that over $50 billion of foreign investment has fled the Canadian economy, right at a time when we need to be firing on all cylinders to respond to the unfair U.S. tariffs. We need more and more money flowing into the Canadian economy to develop our natural resources, to bolster our GDP and to put Canadians back to work when their jobs are disrupted by trade disputes, but instead the government is continuing the attack on the oil and gas sector, the attack on the natural resource sector.

Let us be clear about a few things. Not only will the emissions cap keep investment dollars out of our economy, but it also means that Canada will continue to sell at a discount to the United States. Members may have heard on CBC the Polish ambassador's explaining where Poland is getting its LNG from. When the host asked if it was buying its LNG from the United States, the ambassador had to stifle a laugh. He chuckled and said that not all LNG it is buying from the U.S. is American; some of it is Canadian. Of course, the U.S. buys it from Canada at a deep discount and then sells it to Poland at a big profit. We are literally subsidizing the American economy by means of the Liberal government's policies.

Conservatives have a better idea. Instead of pipelines being built in countries that have terrible human rights records, instead of royalties being paid to governments that do not share our values and instead of people being put to work in other countries, let us bring those dollars home. Let us bring those investment dollars to Canada so Canada can provide the world with a clean, ethical, safe and reliable source of energy. Let us put the steelworkers in Regina back to work building the pipelines. Let us put the engineers back to work. Let us put the blue-collar workers back to work, workers who tap a well and see it all the way through to completion. Let us support our hospitals, schools and roads with the royalties paid by these companies.

Greenhouse gas emissions do not need a passport to travel around the world. If oil and gas production is going to increase, Conservatives believe that we should see it increase here at home, because we know that we can extract our natural resources with the highest environmental standards and the lowest emissions intensity and that Canadians will see the benefit of that.

To conclude, Liberals have a choice. They can vote in favour of our motion and lift the emissions cap, the production cap, or they can say today that they oppose new pipelines, that there will never be a pipeline built under the Liberal government. They could at least be honest with Canadians and provincial premiers, who are desperately clinging to hope that the government might reverse the Trudeau policies. If they vote in favour of the motion today, they would effectively be saying that there will be no new pipelines in Canada under the Liberal government.

As for the list the Liberals came forward with in Bill C-5, let us be clear that giving the power to selectively enforce Canadian laws when it comes to new energy projects will not matter as long as the production cap is in place. As long as the emissions cap is in place, it does not matter what they do with the powers they have given themselves under Bill C-5, because nothing will be able to flow through any kind of project they might support.

The key to energy independence and abundance and to getting off the U.S. market and diversifying our customers and natural resources is to lift the emissions cap. The Liberals have a choice. We call on them to support the energy workers in this country and pull their emissions cap.

Official Report

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On Friday, I misspoke during question period. While answering a question, I said that emissions are 41% lower than they have been in the past, when I intended to say they are 41% lower than they would have been under a Conservative plan.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Oil and Gas Emissions Cap

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Prime Minister has actually been very clear to Canadians and to members opposite about how Canada is going to continue to build a strong economic economy that, at the end of the day, factors in energy.

I would like to contrast even just the beginning of what the current Prime Minister did with what Stephen Harper did when the member was sitting in the Speaker's chair. During that period under Stephen Harper and the Conservative government, it is important for Canadians to realize, not even one inch of pipeline was built that led to tidewaters.

[An hon. member]

That's not true.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is the reality. The member opposite might say that is not true, so then he should give us the pipeline that went directly from Alberta to B.C., Churchill or Atlantic Canada.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I know we do not debate points of order, but I think it is so telling that the first moment of this debate kicked off with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change's admitting that what he said on Friday was not true and that emissions are not going down under the Liberal government's plan but are in fact going up. He has to make up some kind of hypothetical qualifier to get away from accusations of deliberately misleading the House.

Four major pipeline projects, including access to tidewater, were built under the previous Conservative government. The current Liberal government inherited a proposal list with 18 LNG facilities that it has completely blocked or sat on. The Liberal government cancelled the northern gateway and energy east projects, which would have taken western Canadian oil to displace foreign oil imported from other countries. It is clear that if Canadians are hoping to develop the natural resource sector, it will not be with a Liberal government.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is pretty simple: Do the Conservatives have no shame?

The same week that the Canadian Climate Institute tells us that we will not be reaching our greenhouse gas emissions targets for 2030, the Conservatives bring up a matter that will produce even more greenhouse gas emissions.

Personally, I cannot help but draw a parallel to what happened in the spring. Is this the new Conservative leadership, and is this the message they got when Canadians left them on the opposition benches after they supported a gag order on Bill C‑5?

What is the role of His Majesty's loyal opposition if they support gag orders against the environment, supported Bill C-5 and are now moving a new motion that would allow Canada to recklessly produce even more greenhouse gas emissions? Where is the Conservatives' environmental vision?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear: Canada can help lower global emissions by developing our own natural resources. The two go hand in hand.

After 10 years of a Liberal government's vetoing natural resource projects and chasing away foreign investment, those investment dollars have just gone to other countries, countries that do not have anywhere near the same environmental standards as we have here in Canada. Take LNG alone; by exporting more LNG, we can help other countries get off coal-fired electrical generation. That is what the Conservative plan is all about with technology, not taxes. We can help lower global emissions while developing more of Canada's natural resources.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the recent election, at one out of every three doors I knocked on, the question I was asked was how our party was going to facilitate diversification of the economy. Our economy is totally dependent on auto sector jobs.

The hon. opposition House leader was in my riding a couple of weeks ago, and he had the opportunity to visit a company called Southwestern Manufacturing. This was a tool-and-die business; it has diversified into oil and gas and nuclear. I would like the opposition House leader to enlighten the House as to what his discussions were and what he heard from the folks at Southwestern Manufacturing.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we had a fantastic meeting, and we heard loud and clear that as long as there are not new major pipelines built in Canada, as long as there are not new major energy projects, companies will have to continue looking to the U.S. to make their products. As long as the tariffs are in place, Canada is even more vulnerable to this situation. When I tour energy facilities all over western Canada, I see parts, component pieces and heavy equipment vehicles, all manufactured in Ontario. The link between manufacturing jobs in southwestern Ontario and development in western Canada or in Atlantic Canada is obvious to everyone who is not a Liberal.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know you are newer to the chair, but the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has occupied it and even has a portrait on these walls. To use terminology such as “deliberately misleading” is him doing indirectly what he cannot do directly. I think we should have much more professionalism and order in such an important debate today.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the member for her intervention. We should all use judicious language.

The hon. member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent—Akiawenhrahk.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate today, which will set the record straight for Canadians about who we are and what we can be if we reach our full potential here in Canada.

Canada is a wealthy country, and it draws its wealth from its millions of citizens, from its hundreds of thousands of innovative businesses, and from its natural resources. The fact is we have been truly blessed here in this country. We have it all, all of the natural resources—whether it be critical minerals, minerals that we have been using for centuries, or what is rightly known as green energy, like hydroelectricity or biomass. We have everything in Canada to develop our potential and provide energy to meet all the needs of Canadians.

That is why I believe that, for as long as we need what we call fossil fuels, these fuels will have to come from Canada. Let us take advantage of this wealth we have to develop our full potential and, as my colleague so aptly stated just a few minutes ago, send Canada's natural resources to the rest of the world along with the Canadian workers whose labour creates that wealth. We need to allow these businesses and their full potential to be used how they were meant to be used.

Moreover, it is disappointing to hear the Prime Minister claim that, in certain circumstances, there is no viable business case for fossil fuels. That is completely false, as we will see later in my speech. Let us not forget that Canadians consume 51 million litres of oil and gas per day to meet their needs. Therefore, as long as Canadians need fossil fuels, I will support Canadian oil and gas and Canadian energy.

Two troubling examples have come to light that demonstrate how this government is stifling the potential of our natural resources.

First, I would like to quote a report by Olivier Lemieux out of Quebec City, which was broadcast by Radio-Canada on March 19. According to an expert from Texas, “Canada has made bad choices” for the oil industry. The author explains how it all works. Oil leaves Alberta, goes to Texas, and then comes back to Canada—not far from my riding, in fact, in Lévis—to be refined. However, rather than having our oil go through Texas and enriching Americans along the way, things could have been done differently.

According to Jean-Paul Rodrigue, professor at the department of maritime business administration at Texas A&M University, “Canada is stuck in a situation that puts it at a disadvantage”. “Canada has made bad choices for ideological reasons”, laments the Montreal native, who has lived in the United States for 30 years. He believes that environmental considerations are preventing Canada from exploiting its vast oil resources to their full potential.

As I said, Alberta's oil goes to Texas and then comes back to Lévis. Obviously, Texans are taking advantage of this to make whatever profit they can.

The other thing is utterly embarrassing. On August 26, a CBC anchor was interviewing the Polish ambassador and informed him that Poland was buying natural gas from the United States. The ambassador was so embarrassed by the question that all he could do was laugh. He admitted that Poland was buying natural gas from the United States, but claimed it was encouraging Canada at the same time. How so? Well, that natural gas bought in the U.S. comes from Canada. That means Canadians are sending their gas to the United States, and the United States is sending it to Europe. In the meantime, countless business opportunities are being squandered.

That is what prompted commentator Mario Dumont to say the following in the Journal de Montréal:

While [the Prime Minister of Canada] was visiting his country, Poland's ambassador in Ottawa revealed during a CBC interview that the natural gas his country buys is still Canadian natural gas.

...

In a nutshell, the gas we refuse to sell to Europe ultimately ends up there anyway, minus a juicy profit margin swallowed up by an American company. The bottom line is this: there is no benefit to the environment, a major economic loss to Canada and a tidy sum being pocketed by the United States.

I am sorry, but this is ridiculous!

That is the issue we are talking about today.

Are we going to keep pretending that everything is just fine? Are we going to keep saying that we, here in Canada, are nice people and will not rock the boat even if others do? Or instead, will we seize the opportunity to achieve our full potential in every energy sector that we, as Canadians, need?

The ambassador of Poland illustrated it very well, saying there is a business case. That is contrary to what the former prime minister said during his campaign, that, sorry, there was “no business case”. What a missed shot that was, because, yes, there is a business case. As very clearly identified by the ambassador of Poland in an interview on CBC, it is time for the government to open its eyes and act correctly for the good of all Canadians.

Let us not forget that those folks have been in government for 10 years. They have stepped up only once on an oil project. Let us not forget that Bill C‑69 slowed down any momentum, but they did do one thing: They decided to buy a pipeline. First they lecture the entire planet, then they buy a pipeline. Can anyone say that it did any good? Not really, we just have to look at what happened.

When someone decides to buy something that is not for sale, they have to pay more. The Canadian government paid $4.5 billion to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline, which had not even been built yet. It paid twice what it was worth. Not only did we get ripped off a bit on the price, but then it still had to be built.

When the Liberal government bought the pipeline the estimated cost was $7.4 billion. Any idea how much it actually cost? It did not cost two, three or four times more, but five times more. The cost went from $7.4 billion to $34.2 billion. Add to that the $4.5 billion and that is almost $40 billion. That is taxpayers' money that was used to buy a pipeline and build it, when that is absolutely not the government's mandate. In our view, the government is there to ensure that everything is done properly according to the rules and not to get in the business of pipeline ownership. Today, the government is trying to sell it and all the experts agree that if it sells, it will be worth half of what it cost. Congratulations.

Fortunately, Canadians can rest assured because the government created the position of minister responsible for government efficiency. The minister who holds that position is the one who came up with the bright idea to buy the pipeline. That is amazing. I know that minister well. He is my neighbour. It is the member for Louis‑Hébert, whom I respect and admire. I hope he will learn from what he did and never do it again.

I am proud to be a Quebecker and proud of the extraordinary legacy that has been handed on to us thanks to the vision that Quebec politicians had in the 20th century and still have today. They have been able to develop the full potential of electricity. However, there is also potential in fossil fuels, whether it be oil or gas. Quebec makes its own choices, but here is the reality for Quebeckers. According to an annual analysis by the École des hautes études commerciales, oil accounts for 36% of Quebec's energy, whereas natural gas accounts for 13%. Last year, Quebec consumed 9.7 billion litres of oil. Although I support electrification, the reality is that we still need oil in Quebec, and as long as we need oil, then I will support Canadian oil. Transportation is on the rise, and 9.7 billion litres is a record level of consumption in Quebec. Consumption is not dropping. It is increasing. Let us not forget that the F-150 has been the best-selling vehicle in Quebec since 2016.

The current provincial government has shown some openness on the issue of gas. On July 4, Quebec's premier stated that he would be open to the idea of building a plant. He is also open to the idea of building a liquefied natural gas terminal, if Quebeckers support the idea. Even yesterday, he said that he would take a page from the federal government regarding Bill C‑5 and table a bill that he is calling Bill Q‑5. We will see. I should point out that Bill C‑5 included Bill C‑375, a bill I tabled that sought to ensure that a single assessment be undertaken for each project. However, the Liberals rejected it.

I will now happily answer my colleagues' questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the concerns the Conservatives have today with regard to the issue of pipelines. It is interesting. What we have heard from the Prime Minister are nothing but positive, encouraging signs, for the Prairies in particular, in the energy field. We have to provide the Prime Minister the opportunity to demonstrate how well he has been working with the premiers of the different provinces. We need to be a bit more optimistic. If we contrast the Prime Minister with the results that Stephen Harper had while he was prime minister, it would be best for members of the Conservative Party to co-operate a little more and maybe be a little more optimistic.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to answer questions from the member for Winnipeg North.

Obviously, the Liberals cannot do worse than what they have done in the last 10 years. The member asked me to be more co-operative. He picks up our bill and picks up our ideas, such as cancelling the carbon tax, but would he pick up my personal idea to have one project, one evaluation? A year ago, I tabled Bill C-375, and what did the member and all of his colleagues around him do? They refused it. It was never time to be good, but it is now time to be good for the energy sector and to be open to new projects as soon as possible.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the subject at hand. Those who are watching us are wondering what is going on. First, the government is buying pipelines; then, the opposition wants to repeal anything and everything related to the oil sector's emissions cap.

I do not understand.

Should we believe the Auditor General and the environment commissioner or not? Our emissions reduction targets are not being met, and we are in a climate emergency. Can my colleague explain why we are talking about this on an opposition day when the planet is burning?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very relevant question. We are talking about meeting people's needs. As long as people need oil and natural gas, why not produce it in Canada?

Nearly half of the oil we buy comes from abroad, specifically from the United States. However, a lot of that oil from the United States is actually from Canada. I know my colleague is very fond of Quebec and Quebeckers, but I also know that, like me, she recognizes that facts are facts, and that oil consumption is not declining in Quebec; it is increasing. That is the state of energy consumption in Quebec.

The École des hautes études commerciales has confirmed this. It has also indicated that the F-150 truck has been the top-selling vehicle in Quebec since 2016 and that natural gas consumption is also on the rise. Another reality is that the Quebec government is now prepared to open the door to natural gas plants and a liquefied natural gas terminal, which is the complete opposite of its position just one year ago. I invite my colleague to listen to Quebeckers.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk. In Quebec, we are keenly aware of this climate reality.

However, I really want to highlight that our government is focused on making Canada an energy superpower, in both clean and conventional energy, and on improving our climate competitiveness, which reduces emissions while strengthening our economy.

Discussions about capping our emissions are not going to solve the problem. Instead, why not work together more effectively on finding solutions?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on getting elected. This is the first time that we have had a chance to engage in the House. I want to thank her.

Let us remember that auto sales in Quebec are up 13.7% compared to 8.2% for Canada as a whole. We are very open to collaboration, but we still need to make the right decisions. Prime Minister Trudeau claimed that there was no business case for exporting natural gas. That is not true. The fact is, as the Polish ambassador so embarrassingly pointed out—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun.

Once again, the Conservatives have brought forward a motion designed not to help Canadians but to divide them. Today's motion proposing an end to the oil and gas emissions cap, a regulation that has not even been finalized, is an example of this. I would like to be crystal clear as we begin debate on this motion: The government does not make policy decisions based on opposition motions. We are focused on results, not Conservative games.

Canadians elected the Liberals to make this country an energy superpower, one that leads the world in both clean and conventional energy, and one that grows our exports and reduces our emissions at the same time. That is exactly what we are doing. We are retooling Canada's economy by advancing nation-building projects, LNG terminals with indigenous partnership, carbon capture and storage, and transformative clean energy.

Just last week, we approved the Ksi Lisims LNG project in British Columbia, led by the Nisga'a Nation, which will be paired with a natural gas pipeline owned by first nations. It is the second-largest private investment in Canadian history, and it will export the cleanest LNG in the world. That is how we build an energy superpower. It is with low-cost, low-risk and low-carbon projects that get Canadian energy to market, cut emissions and create jobs from coast to coast to coast.

In Alberta, representatives from industry also agree that building a responsible, competitive oil and gas industry means advancing projects, such as Pathways. That is the core of the grand bargain, pairing transformative emissions reduction with new infrastructure that diversifies our exports. Let me remind my colleagues that we do not get these things done by negotiating in public.

Serious governments work with provinces, industry and indigenous partners. Conservatives want to blow up those discussions for their own partisan gain. It is worth asking the question, why are Conservatives so frustrated? I think the answer is that their own allies in Alberta have found common ground with the Prime Minister.

Premier Smith said, “I found more common ground with the prime minister when I met with him yesterday than I have in any meeting with a prime minister.” She encouraged Albertans to “not lose faith in the process”. I agree with the notion that we should work together on nation-building projects because we are all stronger when we work together. Premier Smith also said, “I am more optimistic than ever that the concerns of Albertans are FINALLY BEING HEARD.”

That is why the Conservatives are angry. Their whole playbook involves rage farming and division. When the Prime Minister is working productively with provinces such as Alberta, it leaves the Leader of the Opposition asking what his purpose is.

The truth is that Conservatives cannot stand the progress that is being made that they could not have made if they had won the last election. They have talked about Bill C-69, and they are now talking about the emissions cap, as being barriers to pipelines being built. I do not think there is an environmental regulation they do not think would kill the pipeline industry in Canada, but it is stronger than they think, and the Chicken Little routine is getting a little bit tiresome.

The Conservatives are desperate to derail sensitive discussions by negotiating in public, but Canadians know better. They know that co-operation is how we build projects of national interest, not through performative motions in the House. Let us be clear about what is missing in this Conservative motion. If the Conservatives want to repeal the emissions cap, then Canadians deserve to know what the plan is to reduce emissions in the oil and gas sector.

Building the strongest economy in the G7 means unlocking us as a conventional and renewable energy superpower with high environmental standards. Members opposite need to stop treating that as a conflict. In the last 10 years, we increased oil and gas production as a country by 34% compared to it being up globally by 6%. The population grew 15%, yet total GHG emissions declined 6.5%. Strong environmental protections and indigenous support are increasingly becoming table stakes for our trading partners.

Where are the Conservatives' ideas to ensure we remain competitive in a world that is demanding cleaner energy? Will they support Canada's enhanced methane regulations, which are some of the most economically efficient emissions reductions possible in the oil and gas sector? Will they support Canada's industrial carbon pricing system, which has already attracted more than $57 billion in investments and is a key reason our allies see us as a responsible supplier? Is their plan simply to do nothing, to walk away from progress, and to make Canada less competitive?

The silence from the other side is telling. The Conservatives rail against the Liberals' plan, but they have nothing to replace it with. They have no creditable path to reduce emissions, no plan to attract investment and no strategy to strengthen Canada's energy sector in a world where climate competitiveness matters more every day.

Let us also place this debate in its global context. The evolving geopolitical landscape is directly impacting Canada's economic and climate ambitions. We are in the midst of an unprompted trade war. Investors are weighing Canada against our peers and asking whether we will remain attractive compared to other markets.

The reality is that the world is moving fast. We need to meet the federal government's goal of attracting $500 billion of private capital into clean and conventional energy to build the projects that will secure our future. That is why the Prime Minister has made it clear that our government is working on a climate competitiveness strategy. It is about results, not rhetoric. We are strengthening our economy while reducing emissions, securing investment and ensuring Canada wins in the global race for energy competitiveness.

Rage farming just does not work anymore. Canadians want solutions.

The House leader on the other side talked about selling oil and gas at a discount. The last I checked, the WTI-WCS differential was $14, which is actually pretty low when we consider the quality differences and the fact that the spot price and transportation costs are involved. I am curious what the member thinks an appropriate differential would be. He talked about Canadian oil and gas being sold to the U.S. and then to Europe. The Conservatives act as though they have never heard of a swap market before. The fact is that this is a very integrated economy, just as the auto sector is.

Let me close with this: Our government is delivering real results. We are increasing exports of Canadian LNG off the west coast, approving transformative projects like Ksi Lisims LNG and advancing the Pathways project as part of a grand bargain that cuts emissions and grows jobs. By developing a climate competitiveness strategy that will allow us to attract $500 billion in investment, we will make Canada the strongest, most competitive economy in the G7.

We offer a plan to build Canada into an energy superpower while reducing emissions and fighting climate change. That is a test the Conservatives failed to meet during the last election and a test this motion fails to meet. It would do nothing to advance Canada's interests and fails to acknowledge the fact that Canada is in a trade war. For these reasons and more, I do not believe I will be supporting this motion, which seems unserious.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the parliamentary secretary for natural resources talk about how the Liberals want to make Canada a natural resources superpower. I wonder if he knows that Newfoundland and Labrador's oil and gas is already at tidewater? The Bay du Nord project is going to be the very last project in Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore, by the looks of it, because it will put us up against the emissions cap.

Just a few weeks ago, Energy Fermeuse announced a $14-billion or $15-billion project to liquefy natural gas. I wonder how that could happen if we are going to be up against our emissions cap. Was that announcement by Energy Fermeuse just election fodder for the provincial Liberals, or will the government lift the cap?

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite underestimates the ingenuity of our oil and gas sector. Certainly, we have seen that it has done an exceptionally good job of reducing emissions intensity over the years. That said, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and I think this is a pragmatic government that is keen to talk to partners about how we can best meet our global climate ambitions while still developing the strongest economy in the G7.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite all the Liberals' promises and good intentions, pretty much all experts agree that Canada is not meeting its greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Year after year, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development keeps challenging the government's action on climate change and confirming that it is failing. Year after year, the conclusion is the same. We are witnessing a climate failure. What does my colleague have to say about that?