Debates of Sept. 22nd, 2025

Opposition Motion—Oil and Gas Emissions Cap

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. We share a lot of commonalities.

A lot of people from Newfoundland and Labrador end up over in Alberta. The member is exactly right. Regardless of the commentary or the narrative that gets spun around these conversations, the reality is that proponents tell us time and time again that this is the problem and that this is why the sector is not growing.

The emissions cap needs to be scrapped in order to signal that there is investment opportunity in this offshore sector, and that is exactly what needs to happen for us to prosper in this space.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Madam Speaker, former U.S. president Barack Obama said we are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it.

Does my hon. colleague agree with this statement? If so, what measures does she suggest we take, aside from eliminating the cap on greenhouse gas emissions?

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to say that those in the oil and gas sector are constantly creating technology and innovation to reduce emissions. They are leaders in this industry. We can reduce emissions in this country if we allow them to thrive and move forward in this space.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is an absolute honour to rise in the people's House yet again and to have the opportunity to speak to this, our motion on eliminating the caps on oil and gas and energy emissions, which have been to the great detriment of Canada's unbelievable and incredible potential that has yet to be fully realized.

Today I could not help, in preparation for these remarks, reflecting upon a film that was somewhat before my time. I was but an infant when it was first released, but it got re-released, I think, in the 1990s, when I was in my teen years in high school. It was a movie entitled When a Stranger Calls. There was one particular line in that movie that seemed to go viral, as it were, before “viral” was even a known word; it went quite far and wide, and it still echoes to today. That phrase was this. A young lady was receiving call after call after call of a threatening nature. She was afraid and paranoid and absolutely terrified. She was on the run and hoping to get help. Of course, the calls kept coming. She managed to get a call through to the police. Finally, the police returned her call and said, “[The call is] coming from inside the house.”

I could not help but think that perhaps the greatest threats we face are not from without; those calls and those threats are coming from within, through bad legislation, misplaced priorities and putting the boot on the proverbial neck of our producers, our workers, our energy and oil and gas sector. I think it is time that we deal with the call that is coming from within the house, and we can do that by passing our motion, which calls for the elimination of the caps on oil and gas emissions and production.

This type of policy has done more to sabotage Canada's future than any threat coming from without. If we only got out of our own way and unleashed our own potential, by allowing our workers to do what they do best, Canada could come out of the economic malaise in far better shape than we could have imagined. We could stand on our own two feet with fortitude and confidence and face any other challenge that comes from without if we got our house in order from within.

There are many, many people in our country who recognize the potential that Canada has to step into the vacuum and the void that is being created internationally. The world wants Canadian energy. It wants Canadian oil. It wants Canadian gas. We have the best regulatory regime for those sectors, and we also have the best workers for those sectors. We can have the best, most reliable and dependable energy supply to give to a vulnerable, energy-hungry world that we could ever imagine, but we have to get out of our own way. The opposition motion is a great first step to doing that, and I hope the government will join us in passing this.

It is time to unleash Canada's potential. Our greatest threats are those that have been self-inflicted, whether they are interprovincial trade barriers or emissions caps. I think that what Canadians are demanding is for us to get our own house in order. It is time for us to realize our potential. We have to get beyond the era of empty promises and grand announcements.

The government has become a master at making great announcements. It is wonderful. I love seeing all the happy talk. It is great. We have meeting after meeting and lots of happy talk, but really, when we bore down through all the noise, there have been no really substantive moves to develop the infrastructure necessary to get our resources to market. There has not been one new pipeline agreed to be built since all of the promises of becoming an energy superpower. There has not been the removal of the tanker ban so that we could export our resources to global markets. There has not been a putting in place of the infrastructure necessary to get liquefied natural gas to the markets.

The frustration of Canadians is getting high. They are wanting to know when the government will deliver on all of these promises that it is making in meeting after meeting. The best way we can deliver on those promises is to make sure we start by passing the opposition motion, to get our resources unleashed so that we can supply a world that wants Canadian energy.

The PBO came out with a report just recently, in March 2025, that talks about these threats. It says that because of the oil and gas production emissions caps, our oil and gas production will fall by nearly 5%, the national GDP will shrink by $20.5 billion every single year and 54,400 full-time jobs will disappear by 2032. These are not abstract figures; they are people's livelihoods.

This is about subsistence for many families living throughout this country, whether in Alberta, Saskatchewan or Newfoundland, and the spinoffs that affect the rest of the country. When we shut down oil and gas production, we also shut down transfer payments. I speak as an Atlantic Canadian in a province that has been the beneficiary of transfer payments that have helped us meet our budgets and keep our schools and hospitals open and our economies going through economically challenging times.

As a New Brunswicker, I am thankful for western energy production, the oil and gas sector in Newfoundland and the oil and gas sector generally. It has kept Canada rolling and kept us, our schools and our services functioning in difficult economic times. If the Liberals want national unity and want to unleash Canada's potential and pull us together as a country, they should stand on the side of Canadian energy, which is responsibly developed and responsibly sourced. It is a good news-story, and we need to stand on the side of Canadian producers.

These types of policies have a devastating impact on rural Canada. Much of our natural resource and energy are based in rural Canada, along with our agriculture. It is these two sectors that have helped build this country, and these two sectors will be key to our country's comeback. It is time we stop the anti-rural Canadian approach to governance and recognize that it was rural Canada that built this country and that rural Canada will be key to our country's comeback. We can do that through unleashing our natural resource and energy sectors, getting off their backs and lifting off the punitive measures that keep our resources in the ground while allowing other countries that do not have the regulation or human rights to advance their economies at our expense. It is time to get our own house in order.

The globe is calling for it. How many missed opportunities have we had as a country? Japan wanted our natural gas. We said there was no business case, so it signed a $550-billion liquefied natural gas contract with the U.S. Europe wanted to do business and buy Canadian energy. We said there was no business case for that and that we were moving beyond the old sources of energy, and guess what. It signed a $750-billion contract with the United States. Germany came here wanting to do business with us and sign contracts, but the previous government, which is the current government, said there was no case for that. I am sorry, but there is a great case for it, and we have watched over 1 trillion dollars' worth of economic productivity and opportunity slip through our fingers because we have been putting the boot on the very sectors that could lead to our prosperity.

I could not help but think of a famous old story as I was preparing for this. It is an ancient story, and I know I am down to one minute, so I have to do this quickly. There was a lady who was in real trouble in ancient times. Her husband had died. She was left with two sons, and the collectors came and said, “We are going to take your two sons and put them in slavery to pay off your debts.” She said, “I do not know what I am going to do. I do not know where I am going to turn.”

She went to a wise elder in the community, and the wise elder said, “What do you have left?” She said, “I have just a little bit of oil, sir.” He said, “Go back, close the door, get your sons to borrow all the vessels they can and use that little bit of oil. Pour it out.” They kept pouring out the oil into the empty vessels, and guess what. They kept filling and filling those vessels. She went back to the wise man and said, “We have filled all the vessels.” He said, “Now go sell that oil to take care of your debts, and it will take care of your family.”

I think there is a truth in that ancient story. It is time we release the oil and allow it to get us out of the economic malaise we are in. The answer is in the house; we just have to release it.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member for Victoria, and he talked about witnessing oil exports going out of Burnaby as a result of a pipeline that was built by the Trudeau government. That was a very strong and positive thing. The Conservatives opposed it.

I can look at Bill C-49. The member, I am sure, is familiar with Bill C-49. It allowed for additional energy development in Newfoundland and Labrador, along with Nova Scotia. Both premiers were onside, yet the Conservatives voted against it.

It seems to me that the Conservatives are good at talking, but when it comes time to actually do things, to support good ideas and vote for things that will help the industries where the member feels we are falling short, the Conservatives have been found wanting.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is always good to see my hon. colleague. He is a workhorse here in the House, but I must say that I think he has been sorely misled on this matter.

The only ideas the Liberals think make successful projects when it comes to oil and gas are ones they stretch out over 10 years, regulate and strangle to death, and pump billions of dollars of taxpayer funds into, without really incorporating the private sector because the private sector has long left the scene. The private sector realizes that Canada is not a secure place in which to invest for energy purposes under the current regime. It wants stability and predictability. We believe on this side of the House that government needs to get out of the way, stop over-regulating and allow the private sector to come in and do what it does best.

Let us partner with the private sector. The Conservatives have done that in the past, four times under a previous administration, and we built four pipelines.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the debate since this afternoon. On one side, we have the Liberals engaging in wilful hypocrisy, and on the other, the Conservatives engaging in wilful blindness.

The arguments we are hearing in today's debate in the House are arguments we have been hearing for the past 30 years. Economic interests are being promoted over environmental interests.

In a world where the climate is changing, where our forests are burning and our lands are drying up, where flash floods are causing our vegetables to rot in the fields, which is a huge problem for our farmers, and considering that climate change will impact the cost of living, how much longer can we remain wilfully blind to environmental interests?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, sometimes, it is better to answer a question with a question. As my hon. colleagues feel that oil and gas and energy development are dirty, bad for the planet and not good for the environment, are they willing to turn down all future transfer payments coming from the oil and gas sector and say they do not want dirty oil and gas money anymore? Do they want all of it reallocated? We could put that money into better forest management practices and the purchase of water bombers to help with forest fires. Maybe a productive use of the energy of this House would be reallocating transfer payments to provinces that appreciate the oil and gas sector.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, what I heard from my colleague tonight was that words really matter. The government plays a great deal with words. As an example, quickly, a young person told me that the Prime Minister said into the camera that he would build homes people can afford. I said that was an open-ended sentence and asked if he heard “homes you can afford to buy” or “homes you can only afford to rent”.

He said he is going to make Canada the wealthiest in the G7 with government investment, but what is government investment? It is taking our tax dollars and depleting them. What is private investment? It is creating more tax dollars. What is an emissions cap? It is to get rid of oil. However, really, it is a production cap.

What is the difference in the use of those words in regard to this topic of emissions versus production?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, Canadians are demanding a whole lot less talk and a whole lot more action, and it is time we end the era of Canadian self-sabotage, get out of our way and start to unleash the potential. We have unlimited potential in this country. We just have to—

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

We have to resume debate. The hon. member for Victoria has the floor.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion submitted by the member for Battle River—Crowfoot. To succeed in a more competitive world, Canada must define and invest in its competitive strengths. This includes our energy sector, which remains a major driver of our economy and jobs across the country.

In 2023, oil and gas accounted for 7.7% of Canada's GDP and $160 billion in exports. We also have proven reserves of over 1.7 billion barrels of oil, most of which are found in Canada's oil sands.

At the same time, for Canada to prosper we must find ways to reduce emissions from oil and gas and lay the foundation for a low-carbon economy. Building a competitive low-carbon economy is not just an environmental imperative; it is an economic one. The global energy system is changing at an unprecedented speed, and countries that can produce energy while driving down emissions will be the ones that succeed in the decades ahead.

While Canada's energy resources have helped support our economic prosperity, oil and gas production accounts for 30% of our overall greenhouse gas emissions as a nation. While Canada's emissions across the economy have fallen by 8.5% since 2005, emissions from oil and gas have increased by nearly 7% over the same period of time. This contrast underscores the scale of this challenge. If other sectors are doing their part, Canada's biggest-emitting industry must do so as well.

The good news is that Canadian companies are stepping up, with innovative clean technology companies working with the energy sector through initiatives like the Clean Resource Innovation Network, which received $227 million from the strategic innovation fund. These collaborations help make our energy sector more sustainable by decreasing emissions.

Clean technologies will be central to that effort, providing solutions that reduce environmental impact, boost resource efficiency and support economic growth. Adopting clean technology is a strategic choice that, when commercialized and adopted at scale, will enable our industries to support the achievement of Canada's climate targets.

No single solution will deliver all the reductions we need, but taken together, they can lower emissions, improve efficiency and support good jobs.

Canada is a world leader in clean tech and is home to several companies developing innovative clean technology solutions that are important for decreasing emissions from the oil and gas sector. This includes methane detection and measurement, nuclear fusion, geothermal energy, long-duration energy storage, and carbon capture and storage. These and other technologies have the potential to better manage our resources while working to eliminate scope 1 and scope 2 emissions.

Canada's strengths position us to lead in developing, deploying and exporting the solutions needed to reduce emissions not just from oil and gas but across all heavy industries. The government is committed to becoming a world leader in carbon removal and sequestration technology, but industry itself recognizes what is at stake and has committed to developing carbon capture utilization and storage technologies as a key tool for reducing the environmental impacts of the energy sector and meeting its obligations.

The Pathways Alliance was recently identified by the government as being on track for consideration as a project of national interest. This industry group represents 95% of Canada's oil sands production and has proposed a vast carbon transportation and storage network to cut its emissions by 22 million tonnes per year by 2030. This reflects the scale of change required and represents an opportunity to lower emissions and grow Canada's clean tech sector.

Another area in which the oil and gas sector must curb its emissions is with respect to methane. In 2023, 45% of Canada's total methane emissions originated from the oil and gas sector. Methane mitigation is one of the fastest, most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions. Canadian companies are already global leaders in this space, from designing sensors and satellites to detect emissions to developing the software and analytical methods to process the data, providing the service to repair leaks, and designing and manufacturing the equipment to reduce or capture vented and flared gas.

Many of these reductions can generate revenues that help fund GHG mitigation efforts. This creates good jobs at home and gives us an edge in international markets from Europe to Asia that demand cleaner energy. Failure to meet evolving international standards could severely restrict Canada's access to these crucial markets in future. By acting swiftly and effectively to reduce methane emissions, Canada's energy industry can enhance its competitiveness, secure access to global markets and diversify its energy exports from traditional reliance on the United States. This strategic shift is vital from both an economic and an environmental perspective.

The government is committed to helping the oil and gas sector succeed in its commitments to decarbonize. Our actions include methane regulations implemented by the federal and provincial governments, which have spurred an internationally recognized ecosystem of innovation and a robust methane mitigation industry here at home. Leading Canadian clean technology firms have gained international success because of our government's efforts on methane.

Federal, provincial and territorial carbon pricing systems for industry play a key role in driving clean technology. The government is committed to improving the federal system and actively working with provincial and territorial governments to ensure that carbon markets continue to function well and to ensure that they establish a long-term signal to lock in future investments.

The Canada growth fund plays a pivotal role in accelerating emissions reduction in Canada's oil and gas sector by addressing one of the main barriers to large-scale investment: market and policy uncertainty around future carbon prices through carbon contracts for difference.

The clean technology, clean hydrogen, clean electricity, and carbon capture, utilization and storage investment tax credits implemented by our government will play an important role in driving investments, including in the oil and gas sector. To further support this goal, the government will ensure that the full value of the CCUS investment tax credit is extended to 2035.

In short, clean tech is the key to unlocking emissions reduction in the oil and gas sector. It will allow us to reconcile two vital imperatives: cutting our emissions and sustaining our prosperity. Our government will continue to work with industry, provinces, territories, indigenous partners and communities to drive down emissions, foster innovation and build a low-carbon economy that is competitive, resilient and sustainable.

Canada can position itself as a global leader in responsible energy production and clean technology development. We can and we must. This is not just about reducing emissions; it is also about building the economy of the future, one that sustains prosperity, meets our climate commitments and ensures that Canadian workers, communities and businesses have the tools they need to thrive.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was in trouble at school all the time. I was sent to the office so many times, and I knew where the office was. It was unbelievable.

I listened to the member for Carleton earlier, and he said “the Major Projects Office” 14 times. The Major Projects Office that the supposed new government has under way, that the Liberals are going to move at lightning speed on, is unprecedented. However, I just Googled it, and I will ask my colleague a simple question: Could he give me the address, telephone number and email address for the Major Projects Office, and how many employees it has in the budget? I Googled it, and there is no address and there is no telephone number. Could he help us out?

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure that the hon. member directed a question to me in his remarks. He referred to the member for Carleton.

I was an excellent student and never spent any time in the principal's office. I will defer to my hon. colleague for his time in detention, which undoubtedly exceeds my own.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, what we have seen over the past few months is that this new government is all about “drill, baby, drill”. It is open to the idea of pipelines. It is praising the oil sands, when they are already the main environmental issue in Canada. Emissions from oil sands production alone are higher than all of Quebec's greenhouse gas emissions.

Given that the government is backtracking on the emissions cap for the oil and gas sector, can my colleague explain to me how it is going to force oil and gas companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions if it drops the cap, the only tool the government was planning to use to ensure that this sector takes responsibility?

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of tools that the Government of Canada has introduced to ensure that people in the business and industry sectors have the signals and the regulatory framework necessary to drive down their emissions. One of the most important tools is the industrial price on carbon. This is the cornerstone of how it is that heavy emitters in this country, very much including the oil and gas sector, would have the price incentive to clean up their business model to reduce how much pollution they produce in the course of their operations. This government and the Prime Minister have committed to maintaining and strengthening the industrial price on carbon alongside new measures that will be introduced in the coming session.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague across the way as he gave his speech. I wonder if he realizes that his own province exports a tremendous amount of metallurgical coal. In fact, it is the largest export for British Columbia. All experts agree that converting coal burning to using natural gas reduces emissions by 50%. In Newfoundland and Labrador, we are up against our emissions cap, which means that we are going to leave all that clean natural gas sitting under the Grand Banks. Does the member agree with stranding resources that are able to cut emissions in half, or does he agree with pumping out more coal?

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, as the member for Carleton said earlier in his remarks, the world is in the midst of a clean-energy transition. This is a revolution in the way human beings produce the energy that we need to live our lives, and it is well under way across this planet.

When I hear concerns about stranded assets and when I hear concerns about making poor investments, what my mind goes to and what the conversation in my province of British Columbia goes to is the risk of sinking billions and billions of dollars of investment into what is ultimately the 20th century's form of energy, which will not be profitable over the long term in this century. When the government is supporting major projects or other projects, it is doing so not with a vision to the energy future of the past but with its eyes clearly set on the horizon of the clean energy future of tomorrow.

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

Madam Speaker, I will begin by welcoming my hon. friend from the neighbouring riding of Victoria to this place as a new member of Parliament.

I am going to start, actually, by answering a question that was directed to the hon. member for Victoria just moments ago, and that is to clear up some misconceptions. As a matter of fact, having been in the House all day through the debates, I would like to dedicate the time I have to cleaning up misconceptions.

The first one concerns British Columbia's exports of coal, and 95% of the coal produced in British Columbia, which is 95% of the exports, is metallurgical coal. It is designed for purposes that do not include direct burning, do not produce electricity, and have an entirely different kind of greenhouse gas footprint from thermal coal.

It is an interesting story about thermal coal exports, although they are relatively minor. I think there are, off the top of my head, $12 billion in exports in metallurgical coal to $2 billion in exports of thermal coal. The thermal coal exported from B.C. is kind of an interesting story. It comes from the United States. It is shipped up through and over the roadways through I think South Surrey—White Rock and over to the port of Vancouver.

There is tremendous concern locally because the coal dust contaminates the air, so it is an air pollution problem and a health issue. For those and other reasons, I suppose, the Liberal Party platform in 2021 promised to end the exports of thermal coal through the port of Vancouver.

Members might have wondered, as I explained the situation, why it is that thermal coal comes up by road from the U.S. just to go to the port of Vancouver for export. This is because, all down the western coast of the United States, shipping thermal coal to Asia has been banned for climate reasons. However, Canada is very accommodating. It takes the thermal coal from across the United States, takes it to the port of Vancouver and ships it to China.

We did have a bill before this place, Bill C-33, which was at the point of third reading when it died on the Order Paper January 6, and it would have lived up to the Liberal election promise of 2021 to ban the export of thermal coal from the port of Vancouver.

I hope to see this bill reintroduced at some point. It had a lot of other measures that were important for coastal communities in British Columbia, as well as for rail safety. Again, Bill C-33, as it stood, ready to be passed at third reading, would have ended the practice of bringing in U.S. coal for purposes of burning for electricity. As a number of speakers have mentioned, it would be best not to burn any thermal coal for electricity anywhere on the planet.

It still, until recently, was the cheapest way. It certainly is the cheapest of the fossil fuels. It used to be the cheapest way to produce electricity, but that is no longer the case. Solar panels produce energy and electricity far more cheaply than coal and without the side effects of global warming and immediate health effects. As a matter of fact, the reason the Province of Ontario took the steps years ago to ban burning coal for electricity was for reasons of human health, to reduce hospital visits for people who suffered from asthma and hospital spikes that occurred during smog days.

Another area to clear up a misconception, and this one is more complicated, is what the difference is between exporting natural gas when found in pockets, pools of actual natural gas, versus fracking for unconventional natural gas. When we go unconventional, there are more emissions.

Let us imagine The Beverly Hillbillies for a moment, the shooting up of oil out of the ground and how happy Jed Clampett was. We do not have oil like that anymore. It is harder to get to oil, so there is that return on investment on oil that has to do with the energy invested to get the oil, and we are down to the place of diminishing returns.

By the time we get to bitumen, we have to put a tremendous amount of effort into getting the bitumen out of the ground, and that has been done in the oil sands. Another place where we see unconventional oil is what blew up in Lac-Mégantic, getting crude oil out of Bakken shale.

Again, once we have to get fossil fuels out of layers of geological formation, it takes more energy to get it, costs more and involves more pollution.

Going back to natural gas, in British Columbia, our natural gas comes from fracking. In the areas where there is fracking, we have earthquakes caused by fracking. We also have water contamination from the composition of the water that is injected deep into breaking up the fractured gas that occurs in areas of British Columbia, as well as other areas where fracking produces natural gas. It does not have the same impact on climate as the natural gas that was found in pooled natural gas. Fracked natural gas, because it is fracturing different layers geologically, has a tremendous volume of what are called fugitive methane emissions. Methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas unit for unit than carbon dioxide.

While some people here, well-meaning I know, have referred to fracked natural gas as a transition fuel, it is conventional natural gas that could be called a transition fuel. Unconventional natural gas, as in fracked gas, is not a transition fuel when examined by experts like David Hughes and others in looking at the carbon footprint for the whole cycle of producing fracked natural gas. It has the same carbon footprint as coal through its whole life cycle because of the fugitive emissions, the methane that is released by the fracking.

The liquefied natural gas project that the Prime Minister has announced is on the government's short list for a project of national significance, as other members have pointed out, has already gone through all stages of approval, so we can hardly say it is being fast-tracked. However, we cannot say it is Canadian either. It is a consortium of a number of companies from around the world: Petronas of Malaysia, PetroChina of the People's Republic of China, one company from Japan, one company from Korea, and a very progressive alliance with the Haisla Nation. It is not Canadian.

Going back to other misconceptions, there has always been great talk of the east-west pipeline, if only it had gone ahead. The difficulty there is that an east-west pipeline for dilbit, dilbit being diluted bitumen, because bitumen is a solid, would only succeed if we diluted the bitumen. The only reason we are doing that is to get it to flow through a pipeline.

Another misconception is about, as I mentioned, the explosion of Lac-Mégantic. That was when Bakken shale blew up. It is appalling how negligent the shippers were. Nobody even realized when putting it on board a train that Bakken shale, if it blew up, would create a fireball and kill many people. Bitumen put on a train is 100% safe. Solid bitumen, when loaded into a train car, could fall off a high cliff and crash onto the cliff below and would lie there like a lump. We could not set it on fire with a blowtorch because it is a solid. It is a tar.

Now that we have built the pipeline, which the Canadian public paid $34 billion and counting for, there is this great argument, speaking of misconceptions, that if we could only get our bitumen to tidewater, we could get rid of the price differential because it is so unfair. It is because the bitumen is landlocked, so the story goes, that we cannot get a fair price for our bitumen compared to West Texas Intermediate. If anyone has looked at the price lately, they will find, having gotten bitumen to tidewater, we are not getting paid more for it. That is because bitumen is not even synthetic crude. It cannot go right into a refinery. Therefore, wherever the shipped dilbit goes, when it gets to its destination, the diluent has to be removed, the “dil” part, which means fossil fuel condensates like naphthalene or even benzene. Then we have the solid lump of tar again. Then we have to put that through an upgrader. Once we have put it through an upgrader, we can refine it.

With respect to the east-west pipeline, the Irving refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick, made it very clear that it had no intention of ever building an upgrader. Therefore, at its end-point destination, when that project was a live one and had a private sector proponent, it was to go on tankers and leave the port of Saint John, New Brunswick, to go somewhere else.

What is happening now that we have the port at what was the Kinder Morgan pipeline? We now have the port of Burnaby shipping out dilbit, and some of it is going to China. As I said, it is a solid, and an astonishing reality is that one of the reasons we do not get more money for it now that it reaches tidewater is it is still a product of inherently low value and is very expensive to produce. To get all the way over to China, about a third of what—

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

I have been trying to signal the hon. member. Time is up.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Madam Speaker, does the member of the Green Party know what her own carbon footprint is in travelling from British Columbia to this place in a year? How much of that could she save? Would she consider travelling by horseback or even walking from British Columbia to here?

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

Madam Speaker, I am very aware of my carbon footprint. That is why I buy carbon offsets, and I have not flown on a vacation or travelled on an airplane for any personal reason for the last 15 years.

It is grievous to me, but I find that I am able to be more effective as an MP here and not by staying at home on Zoom, but I thank the member for raising the point.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank our Green Party colleague for her speech. I know she is an expert in this field.

There is one thing I would like to hear her thoughts on. We could decide to continue along the same path and abolish the cap on greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, we could decide to just sit back, stay on the same path we followed in previous years and forget about the Paris targets. If we do all that, what will happen?

In my colleague's opinion, what will be the consequence on all Quebeckers and all Canadians of the laxity the Liberals are proposing?

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

Madam Speaker, the consequences would be dire. Scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, issued a clear and unanimous warning.

Human civilization is at risk of extinction if all of humanity and all of the planet's economies continue to ignore the threat. We must act. We are running out of time, but it is not too late.

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

Madam Speaker, I am interested in getting the leader of the Green Party's opinion on two things.

The first is that she has talked in the past about the decommissioning of pipelines. The second is with respect to the consequences of Canada not having pipelines, and the impact, not only in terms of the current ones but also what may come in the future. I am thinking specifically about jobs and government revenues, whether federal or provincial.