Madam Speaker, the minister spoke time and time again in his speech about getting to net zero. The Canada energy regulator under his ministry put out a report before Christmas that provided a projection of where Canadian oil production needed to go, and where pipeline capacity needed to go, under a scenario where we did something about climate action. It was not a scenario where we would meet net zero, but it was a scenario on climate action.
Under that scenario, which they called the evolving scenario, it was clear that we only needed one of the three big expansion pipelines that are on the books now: Line 3, Keystone and the Trans Mountain expansion. We only need one of those three to meet any possible capacity issues for the future. However, it seems that the sky is falling because Keystone XL would not be needed if Line 3 comes online at the end of this year. We would not need it. We would not need Trans Mountain. We would not need further oil-by-rail capacity.
Why are we getting so exercised about this project when his own department says we will not need it?