I'd like to defer to Karine on the granular data question, but I wanted to comment on MP Falk's remark about the regulatory system. I would argue that the reason that it was dysfunctional and that we're seeing this gridlock we're having right now is that we did not have integrated energy and climate data. When we were assessing these pipelines, there was no overarching holistic framework of aligning the greenhouse gas emissions associated with these projects with Canada's own targets.
Right now, we still have three pipelines. On Enbridge Line 3, we're looking at 565,000 barrels per day. We're looking at Keystone XL, which is 830,000 barrels per day and then Kinder Morgan, which is about 600,000 barrels per day more. We're looking at about two million barrels per day more of oil from Alberta that Canada wants to export. In what world is this possibly going to align with Canada's climate targets? In what world will there be demand for this high-cost, high-carbon oil?
Unless we actually have an energy regulator and energy information agency that provides the public with information on how you integrate these two competing interests, then we're going to have the dysfunction that we saw. A regulatory review of the pipeline should not be the forum for a debate about climate and energy data. It should be a forum like this done by an independent agency, not in the adversarial setting of a pipeline review.