Yes, absolutely.
If you talk to oil and gas producers, you will hear that it's no longer a theoretical. They see these regulations. I've looked at them. We're doing some research that we plan to publish in mid-April, which we will submit to this committee as well.
When they do the math, it's pretty sobering. To put it in perspective, thermal producers that are using steam-assisted gravity drainage, SAGD—and that accounts for about 75% to 80% of in situ bitumen production in Canada.... I have heard from a number of them that, with the current schedule that's been published, at a certain point it becomes more economically rational for them to turn off the steam and pull as much oil out as they can, as fast as possible, while the reservoir is still hot. Then they will get out of Dodge and deploy that capital to a jurisdiction that doesn't have comparable carbon costs—which, for the record, is most jurisdictions.
Most jurisdictions don't do what Canada is doing, certainly not energy producers. The ones that I'm speaking of aren't marginal producers. These are, as we know, some of the lowest emissions intensity producers globally. Their liabilities are fully funded, so they can get out whenever they want. Then we lose those jobs, and we lose those opportunities. Most crucially, those emissions do not stop; they just go somewhere else.