Debates of Dec. 9th, 2025

Opposition Motion—Pipeline Construction

[Tim Hodgson, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know members opposite wish it were still 10 years ago, but that is not the government we are in today. This government is committed to work constructively with the Conservative Government of Alberta on a total MOU to develop and build Canada strong. That is what we will do.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am having a very hard time understanding the following. It cost $34 billion to expand a pipeline infrastructure project. What is more, not a single private proponent wanted to get involved, and not a single private proponent wants to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline. We also know that it will take more than 40 years for Trans Mountain's infrastructure to be profitable. However, some people seem to believe that a private proponent will magically show up wanting to build a new pipeline.

I know the Minister of Natural Resources is very good at math and knows the numbers. I am curious to know whether he thinks this pipeline is profitable. He needs to be honest with Albertans and tell them the truth.

Is it really likely that a private proponent is going to show up to build a new pipeline infrastructure project, seeing as no one ever came forward to expand the other one?

[Tim Hodgson, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, Alberta has said that it wants to be the proponent. It said that it will attract a private sector proponent. It is up to Alberta to do that. My understanding is that it is working with several private sector proponents. If and when that private sector proponent comes forward, we will evaluate the proposal.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a few points to discuss on the MOU regarding collaboration. The MOU states that the Government of Canada is going to collaborate with British Columbia. Under Bill C-5, the government has granted itself powers to exempt the federal government from following other existing legislation.

How is the Minister of Natural Resources going to square that with the anti-energy, anti-private property Premier of British Columbia, who does not believe in pipelines or the development of further natural resources?

[Tim Hodgson, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the member opposite. The MOU says that Alberta and the federal government will collaborate with the Province of British Columbia.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, constituents within the riding of Waterloo have been talking about this MOU. It has definitely been gaining a lot of traction. They are noticing that it is a comprehensive document, which provides some certainty for investors and provides certainty for Canadians for the economy. They were pleased to see that the federal government is wanting to work with provinces and with indigenous communities, because it is the right approach. We should all be able to be at the table.

Premier Smith has agreed that industrial carbon pricing is essential to attract investment and decarbonize production. Will the minister explain how strengthening Alberta's tier system is key to competitiveness?

[Tim Hodgson, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, a functioning industrial carbon price has attracted over $80 billion of clean tech to Canada over the last several years. Further strengthening the industrial carbon price will allow the Pathways project to proceed. The Pathways project will be the largest, single carbon capture, utilization and storage project in the history of the world. It will be done with Canadian technology, which will be exported all over the world, creating wonderful jobs and long-term careers for Canadians. That is why industrial carbon pricing is important.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House this morning. Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation, and I would like to express my gratitude for the privilege of sharing this land with them to this day.

Today, I want to talk about the future, our future, and the foundation that the Government of Canada is putting in place to build a stronger, more sustainable Canada. I am talking about a future that is not only net-zero but also full of new opportunities for clean, resilient and lasting growth. I am talking about building new industries that anchor long-term jobs in all the regions. I am talking about opportunities for workers and communities, such as thousands of skilled jobs for electricians, energy advisers, engineers and construction workers, as well as community-owned renewable energy projects that keep wealth circulating locally. I am talking about opportunities for Canadian competitiveness through selling clean aluminum, low-carbon steel and sustainable forestry products. In other words, I am talking about a Canada that is climate competitive, a Canada that takes the lead by building on its strengths.

Let me put that into perspective. Countries around the world are making the transition to clean, low-carbon energy, industries and technology. They are competing to design the cleanest technologies, produce the cleanest fuels and operate the cleanest industries. They are competing for capital, for talent and for innovation. This transition reshapes opportunities in trade, investment and jobs. It is bringing opportunities.

I see these very opportunities developing in my home city of Toronto, with more public transit running on clean power and with more walkable and bikeable communities. We have opportunities to change the way we heat and cool our homes, with heat pumps, better insulated homes and smart thermostats that learn routines and reduce wasted energy, with cleaner and more dependable electricity, solar rooftops and grids powered by wind, nuclear and storage, like I saw in Edmonton, where communities were retrofitting their homes to reduce their energy bills while at the same time reducing emissions.

This is impacting how we think about our sustainable future. It is also changing how we connect with nature, with more protected areas, more urban forests and more opportunities for outdoor recreation close to home.

A net-zero future makes the cleaner choice the cheaper choice, the smarter choice and ultimately the easier choice. That is why making the foundational changes needed to build a net-zero future is economically smart and fiscally responsible. Moreover, it is essential for protecting Canadians and the places they call home.

Let us speak about the Conservative motion before us today. More importantly, let us talk about what is missing. There is no mention of climate, clean electricity grids or interties between neighbouring provinces. There is no mention of the environment and no mention of a net-zero future for Canadians. In the motion, they ignore any mention of environmental policy, environmental assessment, emissions reductions or collaboration with the Province of British Columbia. All these things were found in the MOU the Premier of Alberta signed this week with the federal government. The Conservatives have no credible policy. They have no plan on climate change.

There are two things we know for certain about the Conservative Party: It has absolutely no plan for the environment, and it has a complete inability to build responsibly for this country. Conservatives love to talk about pipelines, but they never want to talk about climate action. Instead, they are committed to being divisive and to dragging us into the past.

Let us talk about what is in the memorandum of understanding. This memorandum of understanding recognizes that both Canada and Alberta are committed to achieving a net-zero electricity grid that is affordable and reliable. It commits to interties with neighbouring provinces. This memorandum of understanding is contingent upon commitments to enhance methane regulations and to the completion of a new carbon pricing agreement to achieve a six-fold increase in carbon credit prices. All of this is to be finalized no later than April 1, 2026.

We are working with the clean electricity regulations, not around them, in collaboration with the Province of Alberta to get a net-zero grid. Each jurisdiction looks different, and we are co-operating to find an approach that works best in Alberta. As a country, we cannot move forward toward our targets and achieving climate goals if we are not doing it together. The fact is that fighting climate change is both a moral obligation to our future generations and an economic imperative.

That is why the Government of Canada released the climate competitiveness strategy in budget 2025.

The strategy positions Canada to seize the opportunities presented by the global transition to clean economies by reducing our emissions and driving investments. It creates the clarity and conditions for the investment needed to build an affordable net-zero future, a future in which Canadian businesses and industries are well positioned to compete and lead in the global economy, Canadians have the security of a strong economy and good jobs, and Canada leads in the global clean energy transition.

The climate competitiveness strategy is a central pillar of the government's plan to become the strongest economy in the G7. It is about building certainty for investors while continuing to take strong action to address climate change, building new infrastructure, and building major projects more efficiently while ensuring they contribute to a clean, competitive economy. It is about supporting clean Canadian innovation, scaling homegrown solutions and capitalizing on projects that further Canada's standing as a clean energy superpower. It is also about exploring nuclear and renewable energy, investments in low-carbon fuels and initiatives aimed at improving the emissions intensity of the oil and gas sector; expanding into emerging opportunities like critical minerals, carbon removal, resource efficiency and high-value manufacturing; training workers to participate in these opportunities; and engaging with indigenous rights holders as appropriate. All of these are investments in long-term prosperity.

However, let me be clear. Canada is not just entering the race. Canada is in this race with some of the smartest and most talented workers. That is what we bring to the table: some of the cleanest power, unique energy and resource sectors, and world-class industries. We also bring a strong domestic market where Canadians can be our own best customers. In sum, climate competitiveness strategies aim to grow our economy to build a stronger, more sustainable and more competitive Canada, and to create lasting prosperity.

Let me close with a picture of what Canada can look like if we stay the course. It is a Canada where the power in our homes and the air in our cities are clean, a Canada where jobs in our communities are future-focused and where students can look forward to working in global leading industries, a Canada where indigenous engagement is rooted in respect and responsibility and a Canada where climate action is a catalyst, sparking innovation, inspiration and investment. This is the climate-competitive economy that Canada is moving toward. We are doing it, working hand in hand with indigenous governments, with provinces and territories, with industry and all sectors, because climate action is an opportunity for everyone. This is the Canadian way.

I look forward to continuing that work.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, forgive my cynicism today, but my riding of Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford is one of the most trade-exposed regions in all of Canada. We are the breadbasket of British Columbia. We have one of the most diverse economies. Four years ago, we suffered the most disastrous natural disaster caused by climate change in the history of Canada.

Where has the Government of Canada been on securing our supply chains so goods can go through to the port of metro Vancouver? We have three rail lines. Where was the Government of Canada instead of working collaboratively with the first nations that have been calling it to the table to sit on the transboundary committees on the Nooksack River? Where has the federal government been in our time of crisis because of climate change? It has been absent.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, where have we been as a government? We have been side by side with Canadians in communities right across this country to make sure that we continue to provide the support they need, but also hand in hand to make sure that we are seizing the opportunities for the future.

If the member opposite thinks the motion today moves us in any way forward in working in partnership with his home province of British Columbia, I recommend he relook at its wording. Nowhere in that wording does it refer to actually working in partnership with the Province of British Columbia or respecting its agreement.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the Minister of Environment. I know she is in a difficult position today, but I would just like to point out to her that some things are irreconcilable.

Sometimes we take positions in politics, guided by our ideas and our intentions, and there comes a point when we reach a breaking point. I think that is what happened to the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

To me, building oil and gas infrastructure is irreconcilable with protecting the environment. The desire to develop a new strategy to invent low-carbon oil is irreconcilable with the energy transition.

I would like my colleague to explain how she manages to reconcile the irreconcilable.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me be very clear. We cannot achieve our environmental and climate change targets and objectives if we do not work with the provinces.

Personally, when I look at what is in this agreement, I see that we, as the federal government, are prepared to work with the Province of Alberta to have stronger industrial carbon pricing. We are working on stronger methane regulations. We are working together on clean electricity.

I think it is a big step forward if we can work with the provinces and ensure that we are making progress in the fight against climate change.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, the whole origin of the MOU came because of the pipeline, but the Liberals are now trying to paint this as Conservative opposition to climate action. We are watching the Liberals argue their own climate action plan. In fact, a minister resigned saying the Liberals flip-flopped on their climate action plan.

Does my hon. colleague agree with the minister who resigned saying the Liberals are backtracking on their climate action plan?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think on this side of the House, we would all be absolutely clear that we know that under the previous Conservative government, our emissions were going up with no plan to bring them down.

Over the past decade, we have not only flattened that trajectory; we have brought emissions down. They are at the lowest they have been in almost three decades, except for the COVID years. We have shown a continued commitment to fight climate change.

What we are united in knowing and saying is that the Conservatives have no plan. If they wanted to show something, they would have said something in the MOU today. They chose not to.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will say briefly to the minister that she must have been aware that in the budget, on page 348, there is a commitment to no fossil fuel subsidies for “enhanced oil recovery”.

Was the minister consulted before that was reversed in the MOU? I sure was not.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, when we are talking about the agreement today and the climate competitiveness strategy, we have an overarching plan to move forward in terms of how we actually put in place the pieces that we need to fight climate change. That includes industrial carbon pricing. That includes methane regulations. That includes clean electricity. The Conservatives, every time, vote against.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Repentigny.

The agreement between Alberta and the federal government is a perfect example of what I believe is wrong with Canadian politics, and frankly, today's debate is only contributing to that. It is clear that our political processes are powerless before the almighty oil and gas industry, and that is the only lens through which the politics of the Canadian economy are viewed.

Every time a crisis arises, the government's response is to have more oil and gas. My Conservative colleagues are just the same way. I remember when we were emerging from the COVID-19 crisis, and the government created an economic recovery plan. What did its recovery plan call for? It called for more oil and gas. With regard to the conflict in Ukraine, the solution that my Conservative and Liberal friends came up with was to supply more oil and gas to the Ukrainians. I say this because it confirms once again what we going through today. It is something I have been seeing since I arrived here in 2019: Oil and gas are one of the strongest symbols of Canadian identity. This very fact makes Canada's clean energy transition all but impossible.

The idea behind the agreement between the government and Alberta was that it would strengthen national unity. The government basically decided to just give in: it dropped all of the weak proposals it had for fighting climate change, in addition to losing a minister who was back in the media this morning with an open letter, all to please Alberta and defend a form of national unity that aligns with its interests, and therefore with the interests of the oil and gas sector.

As public policy-makers, we have a duty to act. We have to act responsibly, and this means that we have to recognize that the climate crisis has not gone away just because there is a trade dispute with the United States. Sadly, wildfires remind us of that every year. Sadly, climate fluctuations remind us of that every year. However, the federal government is acting as though these issues have gone away.

Furthermore, there is a whole side of this agreement that is deeply problematic, because the government is giving itself the right to negotiate with a province about building infrastructure on another province's territory without consulting that other province. We have learned that British Columbia was not consulted at any point during the federal government's negotiations. B.C. was presented with a fait accompli. The government decided to negotiate an agreement at the expense of British Columbia. That is pretty scary for many Quebeckers. Does this mean that the energy east project will be revived?

I said that oil is a strong symbol of Canadian identity, so let me explain. Members will recall that the federal government agreed to purchase a pipeline for $34 billion. I have also lost count of the number of times since I first came here in 2019 that the Liberals have invested billions of taxpayer dollars in chasing pipe dreams under the guise of fighting climate change. They are still doing that. They are talking about carbon capture and storage. They claim that Canada will produce clean oil, net-zero oil, while in reality, the sole objective is to once again shamelessly support the oil and gas sector. I also remember that during the COVID‑19 crisis, the infamous emissions reduction fund was supposed to reduce oil and gas emissions. Ultimately, it became clear that the only thing it did was to increase the sector's production. In my opinion, it is clear that Canada has become captive to its own energy policy and it cannot find a way out.

I spoke about the COVID-19 crisis, the post-pandemic recovery and the economic plan that was tabled. Well, now the pretext has changed. Now it is the trade war. Under the pretext that Canada is caught in a trade war, the government has decided to take prompt action on one of Canada's biggest sectors: the fossil fuel industry. Meanwhile, we are still waiting for action on the forestry industry. I will come back to that later.

Speaking as an outside observer, I do not think the pipeline will be built. Albertans deserve to know the truth. Why do I say that there will never be a pipeline? I say it because there will never be a proponent, unless the Government of Alberta agrees to foot the bill in full. That would be a disaster because the project might end up like Churchill Falls, where the federal government ended up paying for a province's energy infrastructure. I see a disaster in the making. Otherwise, there will never be a proponent.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has prepared many reports and has told the Standing Committee on Natural Resources over and over that Trans Mountain is not profitable. When this infrastructure was expected to cost $21 billion, before the price tag went up to $34 billion, the Parliamentary Budget Officer appeared before the committee and told us that the infrastructure would never be profitable. It would have to operate at full capacity for 40 years and with very high prices in order to break even. No private business would want to do that. This infrastructure will not break even for 40 years, so by building it, we are making ourselves captive to the gas and oil sector for the next 40 years. So much for the energy transition. That will not exist any more. New low-carbon technologies will not be developed. We are captive to the oil and gas sector. That is the message we are getting from the government.

I would like to get back to the issue of the day. While the pipeline may never exist, carbon capture and storage may. The federal government wants to invest in that as a solution to the trade war. Let us take a good look at this technology. The four members of the Pathways Alliance, which account for 80% of oil sands production, are Canadian Natural Resources, Cenovus Energy, Imperial Oil and Suncor. They represent 80% of the real force behind the oil sector, and they are 73% foreign‑owned and 60% American‑owned. The oil lobby wants to energize the Canadian economy, but it is doing so to serve American interests. I could not make this up.

This means the federal government is prepared to spend billions of dollars on infrastructure in response to a trade dispute, but who will actually benefit? American interests will benefit: 60% of all dividends paid by the oil sector between 2021 and 2024 went to American interests. We are paying for infrastructure in response to a trade dispute so that they can get even richer. From 2021 to 2024, these companies made record profits of $131 billion. The message the government is sending them today is that it is perfectly happy to pay for infrastructure and make their lives easier by passing a bill like Bill C‑5. The energy transition no longer exists. Environmental regulations no longer exist. All that profit can flow straight to the United States. It is utterly obscene.

Worse still, the Conservatives are adding fuel to the fire by saying that this is how we will combat inflation. What creates the most inflation is when the oil and gas sector boosts its refining margins. In 2008, refining margins were 9.4¢. The last time we studied this issue, in 2022, they were 48¢. This is a transfer of wealth from the general population to the greedy oil and gas industry, and both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party are complicit.

Today they are trying to convince us that this is part of the trade war we are waging against the Americans. It is a scam.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree that we should not be sending our money to the United States. However, we obviously need a pipeline in western Canada and another one in eastern Canada. Furthermore, 60% of Quebeckers support the idea of a pipeline project.

Will the Bloc Québécois support the construction of an eastern pipeline, particularly in Quebec?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find it hard to believe that 60% of Quebeckers support a pipeline. The question should be asked again more clearly, with specifics on the number of waterways that the pipeline is going to cross. I should also point out that we are not just a corridor for moving western energy.

Quebec needs structural investments. The forestry sector is in the throes of an unprecedented crisis. Even though the government announced funding in August, no one has seen a cent of that money. Under the false pretext of national unity, Alberta is going to get its way while Quebec is left behind.

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc is a separatist party. Its members love it when there is conflict in the nation. They have demonstrated that on numerous occasions.

We have a memorandum of understanding that clearly shows how well federalism works. Not only is it good for the environment, but it is good for the economy. It shows the degree to which the federal government continues to work in supporting Canadians, the lumber industry, the steel industry and the aluminum industry. These are all important achievements.

Will the Bloc party not recognize that federalism does work and that all Canadians benefit by this memorandum of understanding?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North just realized that we are a separatist party. Well done, it is about time. As for the rest of his question, we are not at all the kind of people who seek out conflict. All we are doing is defending Quebec's interests, which are very poorly served here.

Forty-four Liberal Party members were elected in Quebec. I do not see any of them standing up for the forestry industry, which is collapsing. The member for Winnipeg North has never been able to tell us why his government is ignoring that sector. As I just said, the government announced support measures for the forestry sector in August. It is now December and no one has seen a penny of that money. The forestry sector is being hit with 45% tariffs, and you are washing your hands of it.

The oil and gas sector is making record profits that are going to the United States, and still, you are letting Alberta get its way.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I would like to remind the hon. member that I am doing no such thing from my chair.

The hon. member for Waterloo.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, the motion before the House today was moved by the Conservatives, who picked out a few parts of the agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta. In my opinion, the full agreement is a document that gives the federal government, the provinces and indigenous communities a way of working together.

Does the member agree that it is important for all levels of government and indigenous communities to work together and to have important discussions so that we can build a better future for all Canadians?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Absolutely, Madam Speaker. More co-operation and consultation are needed. That is why the first thing that the government should have done when negotiating its agreement was to go and see the people of British Columbia to tell them what it was doing. Unfortunately, the government did not do that. The government negotiated behind British Columbia's back regarding infrastructure that may pass through its territory and significantly change its political future.

Now, the government is talking about the importance of co-operation and consultation. That is rather rich.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, let us be clear. What we are talking about today is an Alberta-Canada oil and gas agreement that amounts to literal climate betrayal. Canada is abandoning its greenhouse gas reduction targets. It is abandoning all of the environmental policies it has put in place over the past 10 years. It is abandoning biodiversity by revoking measures like the west coast oil tanker ban. It is abandoning protection for indigenous lands. Simply put, the Prime Minister is rolling out a political oil and gas agenda that is moving ahead at top speed, no matter the price and whatever the cost. This is climate betrayal by the Liberals.

Not only did this cause the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie to resign as a minister, it also resulted in two expert advisors to the Prime Minister walking out. We have a Prime Minister who is circumventing legislation and pushing out everyone around him who cares about the environment and climate change. Whether they are ministers or experts, it is, “Thank you and good night, the Prime Minister no longer needs you.”

Then he goes and signs an agreement with Alberta to produce and export 1.3 million barrels of dirty oil per day, without the consent of British Columbia and first nations. There was no discussion with first nations before the agreement was signed. There is no obligation in the agreement to respect the rights of first nations. First nations have stated unanimously that the tanker ban had to remain in place. They also very clearly stated their position that this agreement had to be revoked. What is the Prime Minister doing? He is doing absolutely nothing. He is not listening to first nations.

It is the same for British Columbia. There was no consultation with British Columbia prior to this agreement. The Premier of British Columbia found out in the papers that the Prime Minister of Canada was negotiating an agreement with Alberta in secret. He was never consulted, and there is nothing in the agreement that allows British Columbia to refuse to have a pipeline forced down its throat. The agreement says only that British Columbia must be consulted.

This is a clear threat to the other provinces and to Quebec, who could basically have an oil and gas fantasy forced upon them. It is one of the worst cases of predatory federalism ever documented. It is an exceptionally violent attack on the environment and on respect for the provinces, which is nowhere to be seen. This agreement essentially shows a blatant disregard, a denial of our institutions and a denial of due process for the presumed goal of rolling out an oil and gas business plan. Once again, the government is exploiting the trade and tariff crisis to go full steam ahead on oil and gas.

That it made plans with the Premier of Alberta is understandable, obviously, but members should remember that this oil is one of the most polluting oils on earth. It is the biggest environmental issue in Canada. The Prime Minister is no longer concerned about climate change. Obviously, a private proponent has yet to come forward, so the Prime Minister is most likely willing to give the oil industry more billions. We know that he believes this pipeline must happen at any cost, but the cost for Quebeckers will once again be in the billions even though they have nothing to gain from it. This is a pipeline for western Canada and the oil and gas industry, even though we know that we should be investing in solutions to build the economy of the future. We should be thinking about clean electricity, green buildings, and the electrification of transportation, companies, and small and medium-sized businesses. We need to build this expertise. The jobs of the future are in these sectors. They are not in oil and gas.

Let us turn back to the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who published a letter this morning. The member was very clear. He said that it would be disingenuous to say that Canada is going to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets. He was highly critical of this agreement between his boss, the Prime Minister, and Alberta's Ms. Smith. He said this was a fire sale rather than a compromise because essentially, Canadians will get nothing in exchange for the sacrifices made for Alberta. That is also true for Quebec. Not only does Quebec have nothing to gain from this deal, it has everything to lose. The agreement has also abandoned 10 years of environmental measures that have already been implemented. While they may not have been adequate, they have now been abandoned, plain and simple.

Members will recall that these are the highlights of this agreement.

It is essentially about the government giving the oil and gas industry everything on its wish list, as the government has been doing since it came to power. It is about increasing the production of oil and gas, including dirty oil, including gas extracted by fracking. It is about one or more oil pipelines to transport at least 1 million barrels of oil produced from Alberta bitumen, the dirtiest, or almost the dirtiest, oil in the world. It is about expanding the Trans Mountain pipeline system to add 300,000 to 400,000 barrels of dirty oil per day. It is about ending the moratorium on oil tankers on the west coast, which would allow tankers carrying crude oil to travel through a marine protected area, with all the potential risks to this very fragile ecosystem, and to all the jobs in the environmental protection sector in that part of the country. It is about increasing electricity production using gas, a fossil fuel. It is also about suspending the clean electricity regulations for Alberta. This obviously creates uncertainty, quite apart from the fact that it means we are really not moving in the direction of renewable energy. What are the other provinces likely to do? They are going to ask for the same lax standards.

The agreement increases the industrial carbon price to $130 per tonne. The government had planned for a price of $170 per tonne in 2030. However, it is being scaled back for Alberta. The price is now $130 per tonne, but it is not even known when this price will go into effect. Is it in 2050, for example? What is the trajectory? There is no clarity on this. Then, of course, there is talk of constructing a carbon capture and storage megaproject at a cost of billions of dollars, for the oil and gas industry once again, for Alberta's dirty oil. In addition, the government is going to allow carbon capture and storage to be used to increase oil production through enhanced recovery, something the government said in its budget that it would not do. It is flip-flopping. Not only is it flip-flopping, it is basically walking away once again from its commitment to stop subsidizing fossil fuels.

On top of that there are the methane regulations. Canada is now going to have to reach an agreement with Alberta on the methane regulations. We already know that Alberta has just been given an additional five years, meaning that this province will implement the regulations five years later than planned. What are the other provinces likely to do? British Columbia will probably demand the same thing. What kind of regulation will we end up with when all is said and done? It will very likely be watered down, with less ambitious targets and with additional loopholes built in. In addition to all this, there is one final wish from the oil and gas companies: amend the Competition Act to eliminate the measures for combatting greenwashing.

All of the oil and gas sector's wishes are being granted. Let us now return to the much-discussed emissions cap. In the oil and gas sector, the oil sands currently emit more greenhouse gases than all of Quebec. These emissions have risen nearly 500% since 1990. A new pipeline is obviously going to increase production and increase emissions. This is very clear. There is no such thing as a barrel of decarbonized oil or a barrel of green oil; it simply does not work that way. It is a sham. One need not be the sharpest pencil in the box to understand this. Everyone understands that if production increases, emissions will increase.

The agreement also talks about carbon capture and storage, but 80% of emissions from oil come from combustion. This does nothing to address the problem of emissions. The science is very clear on this. The agreement talks about implementing carbon capture and storage technology, but at this time, the technology is still unproven. It has not been deployed at scale. It is still experimental, and it is extremely expensive. It will require billions of dollars of public funds. Canada is, of course, ready and willing to chip in 50% of those costs for the oil and gas companies.

This is climate betrayal. Many people voted for the Liberals thinking they would be better than the Conservatives. However, their record is currently worse than the Conservatives'. The Conservatives did not even manage to authorize a pipeline under Stephen Harper, who presided over some dark years in terms of the environment. This Liberal government, on the other hand, will have two to its name. It used Bill C‑5 to suspend certain laws and Bill C‑15 to trample every environmental law in order to push this oil project through. People did not vote for that. The climate crisis is still raging. Using the tariff and trade crisis to advance a Conservative agenda is completely irresponsible.

The Bloc Québécois is obviously going to oppose this plan and refuse—