Debates of Sept. 22nd, 2025

Opposition Motion—Oil and Gas Emissions Cap

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague thinks it is time to put a cost on climate change. Everyone is trying to say that it is a need, that we need oil. Where are my 77 colleagues from Quebec when we know full well that it is in Quebec that we are going to succeed in maintaining, if not reducing, our greenhouse gas emissions? We have already proven it.

Does my colleague agree that we are going to have to provide numbers to try to get around this lobby campaign to protect their own local economy?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my Conservative and Liberal colleagues to look more at the numbers and the science. There is an agreement called the Paris Agreement. Canada is a signatory to that agreement, which requires us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. That is the baseline year. That is what the science says.

People can pretend that it does not exist, but we see what is happening today. Families, refugees and thousands of Canadians had to leave their homes this summer because of forest fires. The same goes for the rising number of deadly floods, droughts and heat waves. They cost billions of dollars annually. No one talks about that in the House. They only talk about developing the oil and gas sector.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to speak about the fact that the Quebec government is probably preparing to withdraw from the carbon exchange.

Could my colleague comment on that?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my hon. colleague, I have no idea where this information comes from. I have seen nothing to suggest Quebec would back away from the cap-and-trade system. On the contrary, according to the latest news, the Quebec government and all parties in Quebec are in favour of a cap-and-trade system. It is not perfect, but it allows us to work with California and the most progressive states to fight climate change. Quebec can be a world leader. It already is one compared to other Canadian provinces.

That is why we are concerned that the Conservatives want to remove all restrictions on oil and gas companies in Canada. If we do that, we will not be on a level playing field with the rest of the country. Quebec has nothing to gain from it.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal illusion is now on a collision course with reality. See, the Prime Minister ran an entire election campaign promising to be the opposite of who he was and to do the opposite of what he had been saying and writing and what the Liberal government had been doing for the prior 10 years. It was not just on the question of developing our resources; it was on questions of fiscal policy. He had obviously caused a massive inflation and housing crisis in the U.K. by printing nearly endless sums of money over there, and then he came back here promising that he would spend less, a promise he promptly broke.

The Prime Minister advised the then prime minister of this country, Justin Trudeau, to do likewise and then promised to do precisely the opposite. He argued not only that there should be a carbon tax, but that the tax should be raised even further, only to promise that he would get rid of it, a promise that he is already in the process of breaking. He campaigned around the world to defund the energy sector, convincing financial institutions to stop loaning and investing in Canadian energy, writing that he believed that “as much as half of oil reserves, proven reserves, need to stay in the ground if we're going to get to where we are.” He further said that it was a “sensible” decision to cancel the northern gateway pipeline, stating, “I think it's the right decision.”

Those were his positions up until about two months before he launched his campaign for prime minister, at which point he suddenly reversed them and tried to plagiarize the positions of the Conservative Party. The problem with someone pretending to believe something he clearly does not just to get elected is that after the election is over, he reverts quickly to his original course. This is what we have seen. While there have been many illusions that the Prime Minister would change course, that he would approve projects, that he would build at unimaginable speeds, none of this has materialized in any form of reality. Here we are six months into the latest Liberal term, and there is not a single new project that was not already in the works and had been given the green light, and certainly not one that is under construction. Today, we have an opportunity to find out what the Liberals' real position is on the subject of a pipeline, because, yes, this motion is about our ability to ever build a pipeline.

Let us break it down. We all agree that Canada has the most resources in the world. We all agree, at least Liberals and Conservatives agree, that the only reason we cannot build pipelines to move those resources to tidewater is federal bureaucracy and federal laws.

One might ask how the Liberals could agree with that proposition. The answer is that they passed Bill C-5, the foundation of which is that we need to go around all the Liberal laws and bureaucracies in order to get things built. The law literally allows the Prime Minister, through the stroke of the pen, to go around all of the environmental and public safety laws and associated bureaucracies, which means that he believes those laws and bureaucracies are neither necessary to protect the environment, nor possible if we want to get anything done.

Therefore, we agree that laws and bureaucracy are the obstacle. Here is where we disagree. The Prime Minister's view is that to solve the problem of Liberal laws and Liberal bureaucracies, we need more Liberal laws and Liberal bureaucracies, which is to say he confuses the problem with the solution. We believe that if there are Liberal laws and bureaucracies roadblocking development, then get rid of those Liberal laws and bureaucracies. Put simply, get out of the way. Let investors pour the hundreds of billions of dollars of private investment into building the projects of the future, projects that will pay tax rather than take government handouts. Get out of the way. Grant fast permits so that our workers, our prodigious welders, pipefitters, industrial carpenters and labourers, can get busy earning six-figure paycheques so they can build our country and make us independent from the Americans. In other words, get out of the way.

I will split my time with the member for Edmonton West.

Liberals would retort that they could still get a pipeline built without removing all of the destructive laws and rules that are in place because their new powers would allow them to go around those laws and rules, but here is the problem: Even if the Prime Minister were to use the powers in Bill C-5 to lay out a path to build a pipe from, say, Hardisty, Alberta, the biggest tank farm in Canada, all the way to the Pacific to either Kitimat or Prince Rupert, no one would build that pipeline today because the government bans the production of the oil going into it and the shipping of the oil coming out of it. It is another illusion. We see what the Prime Minister is setting us up for here. He wants to be able to say, “Geez, we would really love to build a pipeline, but there are no proponents. No one wants to build it. There is just not a market case for it. That's too bad.”

I guess we can just move on to another money-losing corporate welfare project that will make the Prime Minister's friends fabulously wealthy and make other people poor, because no one wants to build a pipeline. I guess pipelines are just out of fashion. Forget that they are being built far and wide outside of Canada, including by Canadian companies. In Canada, they are not being built. Why is that? It turns out that nobody wants to build a pipeline when the government bans companies from producing the oil to put into it and from shipping what comes out of it. They ultimately have to get rid of the production cap that is preventing the oil from going in, and the shipping ban that is preventing the oil from coming out. These are two things that the current government has so far refused to do.

To put this into context, the production cap that the government has imposed, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, will cause over 54,000 job losses and blow a $20-billion hole in Canada's GDP. It will also make it impossible for us to get our oil to any market other than the United States of America, making us ever more dependent on the U.S., which is exactly the opposite of what the Prime Minister promised. Here we have yet another Liberal bait and switch. The Prime Minister who ran on elbows up has been elbows down. Now he prevents us from shipping to overseas markets, making us even more reliant on the Americans. It is no wonder that President Trump said it would be a lot easier for him to deal with the Liberals. He was right. He knows that the Liberals want to continue to hand over our resources to the U.S. at enormous price discounts.

That is why Conservatives propose to get rid of the production cap. We are giving the Liberals an opportunity to vote here and now. If they vote to keep the production cap in place, it will be a signal that all of the flirtations the Prime Minister has done with the possibility of building pipelines were nothing but an illusion, a tragic and extremely costly illusion.

Let us put the illusions behind us and get to the real deal. Here is what it is: We need to pass a Canadian sovereignty act that would get rid of the production cap, repeal the anti-pipeline law Bill C-69, legalize shipping oil off the northwest British Columbia coast and axe the entire carbon tax, the industrial carbon tax, the fuel standard and all of the taxes that make our energy uncompetitive. We need to replace it with a law that would allow us to approve major projects in just six months and axe the capital gains tax for any business owner or person who reinvests their money in Canada. This would be rocket fuel for our economy. That is what we need. This is a plan for stronger take-home pay with a more powerful dollar that would buy food, fuel and homes at a more affordable price for our people.

The goal in all of this is to make our people richer, to give them bigger and bolder opportunities and to make this, once again, a country that is strong and self-reliant, and that stands on its own two feet. This is a patriotic act. We call on the government to adopt it. We will work with anyone from any party to get this done because, as always, we put Canada first.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition's comments, but I do have a question for him.

How does he explain to energy workers that he spent 10 years in cabinet and did not build one single pipeline to the coastline, which cost Canadians millions of dollars? What does he have to say to those people today?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is that we did. We approved and completed four pipelines. Then we actually approved the northern gateway pipeline, which would have shipped half a million barrels of oil from Hardisty, Alberta, to the Pacific, before the Liberal government came along and vetoed and shut down that project.

I was curious about what the now Prime Minister thought of that decision, so I hauled him before the industry committee. I asked him if he agreed with Justin Trudeau's decision to kill the northern gateway pipeline. He said that it was a sensible decision and that he agreed with it. As a result of that decision by Justin Trudeau and the present-day Prime Minister, those half-million barrels have to go at a price discount to the Americans, making us weak. That is exactly what the Prime Minister has delivered.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Conservative leader for his speech.

I would like to know what he thinks is behind the increase in forest fires, floods, climate disasters and global warming. Does he believe that there is a climate emergency?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government is grossly mismanaging our forests.

Take, for example, the massive wildfire in Jasper, Alberta, where government officials, Conservative MPs and real environmentalists and conservationists warned the government to manage the forest and remove the dead wood to avoid a major wildfire. For years, people wrote reports and letters, but the Liberal minister at the time did nothing. At the same time, she accused everyone who was against the carbon tax of being arsonists and trying set the world on fire. In reality, it was mismanagement. We need to manage our forests, we need to remove dead wood and, yes, we need the forestry industry to cut down trees to prevent major wildfires.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has the gift of abundant natural resources, yet for the last 10 years we have seen a government here in Ottawa telling this industry that it does not matter and that its jobs should not exist. While it has now started to change some of its tune and is admitting that government policies have caused this change, the reality is that we do not have proponents for pipelines because those laws still exist.

What solutions does the hon. member have for Canadians who are struggling right now? They are struggling to put food on their tables. They are struggling to find jobs in these industries because of policies by the Liberals.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking a very tough but fair question.

The member points out that the Prime Minister has changed his tune. He is plagiarizing Conservative words, but he is governing like Justin Trudeau or worse. In reality, he has not changed anything. That is the grand illusion. In reality, he has a “keep it in the ground” caucus that is rebelling against him. That is why the Liberals will never be able to get anything done over there. We need a Conservative government in order to do it.

How do we get more affordable food? One of the ways we do it, in addition to getting rid of the carbon taxes, the inflation tax and all the other Liberal taxes, is to have a stronger dollar. How do we get a stronger dollar? We grow our biggest export sector, oil and gas. That is right. If we are selling more oil and gas, we would have a stronger dollar, and everything that is priced globally would become more affordable in our domestic market. That dollar would go further and buy more. We would have more affordable food and fuel, and more affordable homes. That is all part of the Conservative plan for stronger take-home pay and a better life for our people.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat pleased and somewhat not pleased to be rising today on this opposition day motion. I have to wonder this: In what world do we have a country so blessed with natural resources, but members of Parliament must stand up to advocate for actually developing and selling the resources? Only in Canada do we have that.

I want to quote the dearly departed Rex Murphy. He was talking about a very similar bill brought forward by the Liberals. It was Bill C-50, but this applies today. He offered up a title for it. He called it, “An Act to Inspire, Lubricate, and in all other manners Facilitate the Separation of Alberta from [Canada]”. This is very much what this government seems hell-bent on doing. At a time when separatist leanings are on the rise in Alberta, along comes the Liberal government to try to make things worse.

President Reagan famously stated, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help”, but this government seems to be saying, “I am from the Liberal government and I am here to make things worse”.

I want to start by listing all the countries in the world that have an oil and gas cap. There are none. Not a single country in the world has an oil and gas production cap or an emissions cap. Just to be sure, I asked ChatGPT if it could name any, and it came back saying it could not find credible evidence that any oil-producing country has in place a regulatory cap. There are effectively no other countries that have a cap on oil and gas production or emissions. I looked far and wide, and no one else does it, so why are the Liberals the only government in the world looking to have their country commit economic suicide? That is basically what an oil and gas cap is.

The Fraser Institute just came out with a report showing that, in the last five years, GDP growth per capita has been the worst since the Great Depression. That is, wealth creation has been the worst since the Great Depression in the last five years, which of course coincides with the five years the current Prime Minister was the economic adviser to Justin Trudeau. Here we have the economic adviser for the worst five-year performance of our economy and wealth creation since the Great Depression.

What is the Liberals' solution to all this? What is their solution to the issues of rising unemployment, catastrophic youth unemployment and a productivity crisis? It is to push the economy off the cliff altogether.

I want to quote some chilling numbers from the Conference Board of Canada on what would result from an oil and gas cap. We have previously heard the Parliamentary Budget Officer state some numbers, but this is from the Conference Board: “To illustrate the magnitude of these impacts, under the most likely scenario...the cumulative reduction in GDP over the 11-year forecast would be...$597 billion in nominal terms between 2030 and 2040.” That is almost a $600-billion loss in GDP.

We have a productivity crisis, as mentioned. The most productive work in the country, with the most value added, is in our oil and gas industry, and the government is bent on destroying it. The report further says, “Real GDP in the oil and gas sector alone [will be] reduced by between $14.2 and $25.7 billion”, which is “11...per cent from the baseline”. It says that in total employment there will be a loss of “151,000 [jobs] in 2030, boosting the unemployment rate...despite a modest reduction in labour force participation rates.” They are saying that even with fewer workers in our economy, unemployment will go up.

To put 151,000 jobs in context, there are about 25 million or 26 million people working in Canada out of a population of about 42 million. That would be the equivalent of every single person currently working in Burnaby being without a job. Every single person in Kitchener, Ontario, would be without a job, or in Longueuil or Windsor. It would be every single person. That is what the government would do.

Manufacturing would also take a hit and lose about 10,000 jobs by 2030. Who do Liberal members from Ontario think is buying all those Ford F-150s? It is construction workers and oil and gas workers in Alberta. Manufacturing would be wiped out.

Commercial services employment will drop by 52,000, and slackness in the labour market will contribute to a 1% reduction in nominal wages. We already have an issue right now with dropping wages. Apart from the government flooding the country with temporary foreign workers, blocking young people from being able to take jobs and suppressing wages, the Liberals want to come along and say, “Hey, I am here from the Liberal government; I am here to make things worse.”

For Alberta, I hope I will see the Liberal member for Edmonton Centre or the member for Calgary Confederation rise in the House to speak to this motion, so we hear what they have to say. I would like to see them stand and stand up for Alberta in today's debate. This is what the Conference Board says is going to happen to Alberta: “real GDP in Alberta” will decline by “$28.5 billion”. We are looking at a $6-billion deficit in Alberta this year, and the government wants to take another $28 billion. That will be about a 7% drop in our GDP “relative to the baseline in 2030.” Alberta's GDP will decline a further $31 billion “per year between 2030 and 2040 in real [dollars]”.

Thirty billion dollars is almost the total amount we spend on health care in the province right now, and the Liberal government wants to take that money away for no reason. I look forward to the members for Edmonton Centre and Calgary Confederation standing in the House and explaining why they are going to back the Liberal government in trying to shut down Alberta's economy.

The report continues, saying that employment, of course, will be shut. There will be 102,000 fewer jobs in Alberta, but the report goes on. There is some good news from the report on the Liberals' attempt to destroy our economy. Here is the great news; there is an upside: The “negative [economic] impacts” of the oil and gas production cap will be “mitigated slightly by lower interest rates and a depreciation of the Canadian dollar.” Why? It is because we will have economic collapse.

Last week, it was quite funny watching the Minister of Finance cheer that it was a great day for Canada because interest rates dropped. He does not seem to realize that interest rates are dropping because the economy is in the tank; it is collapsing. A lower economic output results in lower interest rates, but the finance minister is cheering it on. He does not seem to understand that low interest rates are a problem.

We are going to see lower interest rates because of lower economic activity and a continued depreciation of our dollar. The oil and gas industry is the main thing propping up our dollar right now. It is our largest export, and the Liberals want to crater it altogether.

A great comment from the past Liberal minister of energy, who is probably going off with his tail between his legs to a posting overseas, was that “oil [and gas] is probably peaking this year”. That was in 2024.

A year later, the International Energy Agency releases a report. The IEA is probably one of the most ideologically captured international organizations. It is no longer a friend to the oil and gas industry. It says that demand is going to increase to a record high this year, not a record drop. OPEC and Goldman Sachs say that we will have growing demand to 2050.

Canada is the third-largest surplus producer in the world. By surplus, I mean that there is a difference between what we produce and what we consume. Higher than us are Russia and Saudi Arabia. Shutting down our oil and gas does not mean the world reduces oil and gas consumption. It moves on to the next producers, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Probably, in the Kremlin's cafeteria right now, they are changing the employee of the month picture to show the Liberal caucus, because all it is going to do is drive jobs and money from Canada to put in the pockets of dictators.

We need to reverse that. We need to grow jobs and revenue in Canada, not send them away to foreign dictators.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the member using ChatGPT is that the member is not the only one who has it. I asked the same question as he did. I asked what countries have regulatory emissions caps, to which the response was the European Union, the United Kingdom, South Korea, China, Canada and some states in the United States. Then I said, “I bet he asked a really specific question.” I asked what countries had oil and gas caps, and the reply was Canada and some of the United States.

The member is selectively choosing information. In reality, according to ChatGPT, his source, jurisdictions with economy-wide caps, which include oil and gas, are the EU, the United Kingdom, South Korea, China, Vietnam and Indonesia. In addition to that, other countries, such as China, Vietnam and Indonesia, are currently exploring them.

Would the member like to apologize for his misinformation?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we can certainly always count on the member for Kingston and the Islands to stand up and blabber mistruths in the House. If he actually looked at it, he would see the information says that no one has anything similar to what Canada is proposing. It also says these are oil and gas-producing countries. There is not a single major oil and gas-producing country in this world that is wilfully planning economic suicide as the Liberal government is. The government should wake up and look at reality.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer says it will crater our economy. The Conference Board of Canada says it will crater our economy.

We are in a crisis right now. We have a looming deficit and a productivity and unemployment crisis. It is time for the Liberals to get on board, stop their virtue signalling and support Canada.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel like I have stepped decades back in time. It hardly even seems like 2025 anymore.

Nowadays, the topic of our discussion is outdated. The 21st century is supposed to be a time for a big energy transition. Here we are, however, still talking about pipelines, oil and relaxed regulations. Do members talk to their constituents on the weekend? The public is against those things.

Why is the Bloc Québécois the one saying that we are moving backwards and that we need to act now?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that oil and gas demand is going to continue to rise for the foreseeable future. It will be sold to the world by an ethical, lower-emission country such as Canada; it will be filled in by a higher-emission oil producer from Russia, putting money toward dictators promoting war; or it will go to a country like Saudi Arabia that has higher flaring than Canada.

Perhaps in 20 or 30 years, when oil production lowers a bit, it might be a proper conversation, but for the foreseeable future, the world is going to need oil and gas. Canada should be the one to provide it, not dictators.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Edmonton West for a very enlightened speech on an ill-conceived Liberal idea that is going to ruin our oil and gas sector, the emissions production cap.

I have a question about another ill-conceived Liberal idea, and that is the north coast tanker ban. This is what the CEO of the National Coalition of Chiefs says, talking about the tanker ban: “No proponent is going to look at investing in a pipeline to the north coast with that kind of legislation in place”.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on what a productive oil and gas sector could do for indigenous reconciliation in British Columbia and throughout Canada.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. The oil and gas industry is probably the largest private employer of indigenous people in Canada, the largest wealth creator for first nations. We need economic reconciliation with first nations to build up jobs and prosperity. We need economic reconciliation, not just the virtue signalling about reconciliation that the Liberals offer.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to a very important issue. Being from the Prairies, having grown up or lived in all three of our prairie provinces, I understand the importance of our commodities, such as oil, and their potential. I am actually fairly excited about the future. I look forward to seeing how Canada will continue to evolve to be an energy superpower.

That is something we hear a lot of coming from the Prime Minister of Canada today. I believe he truly understands the needs of western Canada and the desire of people living in the Prairies and beyond; we want to see our commodities and energy being developed in an environmentally responsible fashion.

It has been interesting to follow this debate over the years. My colleague, the deputy House leader, put a question to the leader of the Conservative Party, challenging him to say what pipeline he actually built. We can remember that the current leader of the Conservative Party sat in the Stephen Harper cabinet. Reflecting on the Harper days, we can see that they were unable to build an inch of pipeline that was direct to coastal waters. As much as the Conservatives like to jump up and down, saying all these wonderful words about the development and promotion of our energy, I question the degree to which they were actually effective at doing so in the past.

The most recent generational pipeline to coastal waters, if I can put it that way, was in fact the Trans Mountain pipeline. I remind members opposite that this was not a Stephen Harper initiative, but a Justin Trudeau initiative. The Conservatives cannot take credit for that.

Being from the Prairies, I understand that in Manitoba, my home province, hydro development is the best energy source we have, which we are promoting. We still have oil and so forth, but there is no doubt that it is about hydro development. We have other resources there that we want to see being utilized in one fashion or another.

I lived in Saskatchewan. When I think of Saskatchewan, it is in terms of everything from potash to oil, copper and so much more.

When I was serving in the military, I was actually posted in Edmonton. I think of Strathcona, the oil sands and the opportunities there.

We can talk about LNG out in British Columbia.

We can talk about nuclear in the province of Ontario. Many of my Ontario colleagues talk a great deal about that.

We can talk about Atlantic Canada and how, in particular, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are looking at offshore wind.

Do members remember the Atlantic accords, in which two provinces worked with Ottawa to have mirror legislation that would ultimately advance green energy? I recall it for the simple reason that not only was it good for their respective economies, but the federal government was working with provincial governments on an idea and legislation that was going to have a seriously positive impact on renewable energy in Atlantic Canada. I was shocked to see Conservative members of Parliament vote against it, as many of my Atlantic colleagues were.

I am hopeful about the way our new Prime Minister talks about making Canada an energy superpower, as opposed to taking the negative side of things, as the Conservatives have continuously done over the years. They have actually ramped that up. We have a Prime Minister who is going out to make a special extra effort for our Prairies, yet I have seen prairie MPs standing up to criticize the approach he has brought forward.

Whether it is discussions in meetings with the Prime Minister and other ministers in Calgary and Edmonton or our national caucus going to Edmonton and reaching out, we want to better understand the needs not only of Albertans but of all Canadians so that we can get this right.

Five or six months ago, we had a national election. The Prime Minister made it very clear that we want to build one Canadian economy as a way to have more independence as a nation and be more sovereign, in good part because of what we are witnessing south of the border. One of the very first initiatives we brought forward was legislation to build major projects in Canada. The Prime Minister met and had discussions with premiers of all political stripes, with territorial leaders and indigenous community members, to talk about identifying projects together and getting behind some projects that will ultimately help advance Canada's one economy. That was the big push. What we saw was a great sense of co-operation, and that is what we need to see.

However, it is not only government that needs to play the role; we have to look for other stakeholders. When we think of the big projects that are out there, we must think of the investments. For the first five projects, if memory serves me correctly, it is around 60 billion dollars' worth of investment. For those five projects, there was a consensus; different levels of government came together to say this is what we need as a nation, to build these projects.

We brought in the legislation in a very short time frame. Earlier, we were criticized by the Bloc because we brought in time allocation on it, but believe me, had we not brought in time allocation on it, and not gotten some support from the Conservatives, that legislation never would have passed. The economy matters. The Prime Minister wants to see action. That is why we had to bring in time allocation on that legislation, so that we could get those projects on the table. They are substantial projects. We know the private sector has money and is prepared to invest.

I was talking with the Minister of Agriculture a couple of hours ago. He was telling me about Imperial Oil and what it, as a private company, is doing. I printed off a few things I was able to pick up from the Internet about what Imperial Oil is doing. This year, over the summer, it completed a $720-million Strathcona renewable diesel facility. That is an incredible project. It is Canada's largest renewable diesel facility. It will produce somewhere in the neighbourhood of a billion litres of fuel. That is virtually on an annual basis. It is converting biofuel feedstock-type stuff, like canola as an example. It is investing in carbon capture and storage. It is investing $16.5 billion as part of a consortium of oil sands companies.

This year, Imperial Oil donated a $37-million research lab facility to the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology in Calgary, establishing the Imperial Energy Innovation Centre. This is the largest corporate gift ever to an Alberta post-secondary institution, and it aims to advance energy research. Further, the company's Cold Lake operation is piloting next-generation solvent technologies to improve production and reduce emissions. This is one corporation, albeit a very important corporation, that is contributing to the larger picture. As Imperial Oil makes these types of investments, it is looking for certain types of returns. It is trying to please its board and its investors.

I can say that the Prime Minister and the entire Liberal caucus see Canadians as our board members, and we are committed to working hard to deliver for our board members. That is what those five major projects are all about in terms of Bill C-5. I will go through those projects. There will be another coming out just before the Grey Cup game, or in and around that time. I will expand on that because I have some things I would like to see as part of the grander national plan.

I have heard many Conservatives stand in the chamber and talk about LNG and how important LNG is to the nation. The first project listed was the expansion of LNG. We are looking at doubling Canada's production of LNG. Canada's LNG is world-class liquefied gas that is going to make a difference and make our environment, in the long run, that much better. Again, we are talking about billions of dollars' worth of investment.

In that particular project that the Prime Minister has highlighted, indigenous people are directly involved, the province is directly involved, and obviously, Ottawa is directly involved, as well as many other different stakeholders. Many jobs will be created. A natural resource here in Canada will be utilized around the world because we have a system in place through the passage of Bill C-5, which was a priority piece of legislation from the Prime Minister, to ensure that it actually happens.

We have even established an office, which happens to be located in Calgary. I see that as a positive thing. When we think of all the national projects we are talking about, where is that head office going to be? It will be in Calgary, Alberta. I think it is the appropriate place. I could not think of a better place. I might have suggested Winnipeg, had I been asked, but that is for another debate. The bottom line is that the office is there to facilitate, ensure and support quick action so that we see that project get off the ground in a very tangible way and get finalized, doubling production. It is a very incredible project.

Let us talk about the Darlington nuclear project. When we talk about energy and the issue of emissions, my Ontario colleagues are very proactive on this particular file because they see the value of nuclear energy. The commitment that is being made here will have an impact around the world. Let me give members an example.

Last year, I happened to be in the Philippines as part of a government mission. I sat around the table with individuals from the nuclear industry in the Philippines, and they talked about how Canada might be able to contribute to the development of nuclear energy in the Philippines. There are all types of opportunities. I would encourage Doug Ford, along with the Prime Minister, to take a look at that. When we think of the nuclear industry and how we can export our expertise, we should not forget about the Philippines. There is a wonderful, special relationship between our two nations, and I think we can look at this as one industry in which we can have some back and forth. I was especially pleased to hear about that. Canada needs to be, and can be, a world leader when it comes to the development of nuclear energy, and this investment is going to ensure that Canada remains a world leader.

We are talking about energy. I also want to make reference to the third project, indirectly. The expansion of the Port of Montreal is another one of those major projects that is going to be incredible, and I look forward to seeing that materialize. Not only will the people in the area around the Port of Montreal benefit by it, but all Canadians will benefit, whether directly or indirectly, through that project.

Going back to the prairies, we can take a look at the fourth project to be reviewed. The copper mine project in Saskatchewan is a major project; again, we are going into the billions of dollars. We can then go back to the west coast, where we have the Red Chris mine, which is copper and other metals. Over there, with that mine and the others, the LNG and all those projects that I just listed off, we can run the total and it is $60 billion, and that is just part one. We are going to be getting another announcement.

At this point, I would like to give my personal plug, and I join the member for Winnipeg South and other colleagues. The member for Winnipeg South, a good friend for several decades now, has been a very strong advocate, as has our minister in Manitoba, for the community of Churchill in developing the Churchill port. To me, that is one of Canada's hidden treasures. We need to look at the Port of Churchill. From a personal perspective, I very much want to see some sort of a potential pipeline going to that port. I want to see that port developed, and I know politicians at all levels of government want to see that developed. The Prime Minister is currently at least looking at that project through his established review and recommendation of projects, but we will have to wait and see.

The bottom line is that we have a Prime Minister who is committed to making Canada an energy superpower while at the same time being sensitive to the needs of our environment. He is a Prime Minister who is listening to what Canadians have been saying. We have a Liberal caucus determined to generate the jobs that are necessary not only for today but also for tomorrow. To not look at the energy needs of the world, our own energy needs and the exports of our many commodities would be irresponsible, which is why it is such a high priority for this government. Hopefully, unlike what the Conservatives did on the Atlantic accord, they will see the benefits of what we are talking about and get onside. I think it can make a great difference.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question, but I want first off to state something from the PBO. He estimates that oil and gas production caps will lower real gross domestic product in Canada by 0.39% by 2032, reducing nominal GDP by $20.5 billion.

Here is the other part that concerns the people of Canada. The PBO estimates that achieving the legal upper bound will reduce economy-wide employment. The employment numbers, by 2032, in terms of full-time equivalency, will be down 54,400 jobs. How do we explain that to the Canadians who are relying on jobs in order to feed their family and support their home?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what I would suggest is that the member look at the actions that are currently being taken. The Prime Minister is working very closely with the premiers of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia, where many of the resources are. Doug Ford, on the nuclear file, is working with the federal government. There is a high sense of co-operation. All those politicians combined understand the importance of the environment and emissions, but they also understand what it is going to take in order to make Canada an energy superpower. I believe that is the end goal. That is what I am going to continue to advocate for.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his speech, in which he boasted about Canada's investments in liquefied natural gas in Canada.

He has also sung the praises of major projects of national interest and defended Bill C-5, going so far as to claim that it was drafted in collaboration with stakeholders from indigenous communities. Nearly all these communities, however, say that they were not consulted. He should have been in his riding in Winnipeg. I was there myself this summer, or near there, to attend the Assembly of First Nations' annual general assembly, where I heard them complain that they were not consulted on Bill C‑5.

Last week, the Canadian Climate Institute told us that Canada was not going to meet its 2030 greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Is this government proud of that, or is it ashamed? I wonder.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what I said is that the Prime Minister and, in essence, the leadership of the government have in fact been working with indigenous community leaders because we cannot advance energy projects without doing so. At the end of the day, it is a solemn commitment that has been made. If we take a look at the projects that have been approved, we will see a very strong indigenous influence, to the degree that it also includes some form of ownership.

In terms of Bill C-5, that is totally different from what I am referencing. I indicated that Bill C-5 was an important piece of legislation. It was with the support of the Conservative Party that we were able to get it passed through the House. Otherwise, we still would not have it passed. It was critical to have it passed in order for us to continue to have negotiations with indigenous leaders, premiers and others.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about co-operation. I think we can all agree that Canada has the potential to be an energy superpower in the world, in both traditional and clean energy. The Major Projects Office is something he talked about. This is a place where stakeholders, projects, federal government, provincial and territorial governments and indigenous nations, anyone, can come together and work together to expedite projects.

Can the member expand on how important the Major Projects Office is going to be in this process?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just to amplify, from a Prairies perspective, as a member of Parliament, I was really pleased. I think it sends a very strong message to the Prairies that the office was, in fact, located in Calgary. Having said that, I believe that no matter where we are in Canada, any stakeholder will have access to that particular office to ensure that the projects being designated will in fact materialize.

The nuclear industry is an example I cited extensively in my comments. I believe in the nuclear industry. Canada plays a strong world leadership role in nuclear development, and this will further enhance it.