Mario Simard
Jonquière, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has a bad habit of saying one thing and doing another. For example, in his campaign platform, the phrase “climate change” appeared 28 times, while the word “pipeline” did not appear even once, yet it is his pipeline that takes priority.”
“There is something glaringly obvious when we look at this bill and past legislation in the context of Canadian federalism. I do not need to talk about predatory federalism, which we have often seen and involves an encroachment on areas of jurisdiction, but there is something glaringly obvious in the fact that the federal government has re…”
“It provides a direct transfer to the provinces, as we have been calling for, rather than, as is often the case with the federal government, a proliferation of top-down structures and criteria imposed by Ottawa, without Ottawa necessarily being familiar with the specific challenges faced by the provinces and municipalities.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mirabel , the one they call “the MP with the golden voice”, just like little Joselito, and whom the people of Alto call “le député du petit train de l'amour”. It is a pleasure to speak today to express the Bloc Québécois's support for Bill C-26 .”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a new one. I did not see that coming. Equalization payments must be calculated on a per capita basis, and there are more people in Quebec than in Manitoba.”
“Virtually all of the public services governments are required to provide are delivered by the provinces and Quebec, yet the federal government's tax base allows it to collect 60% of the total tax revenue.”
The complete record
Every one of 523 lines we hold for Mario Simard, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 11.
“Madam Speaker, the exchange we just witnessed is somewhat symptomatic of what we frequently see in the House. Let us just say that some people are extremely sensitive when it comes to immigration. The Bloc Québécois has spoken many times about the Roxham Road issue and the influx of asylum seekers, which was putting enormous pressure on Quebec without the federal government agreeing to pay its share. With Bill C-12 , we realize that the federal government has finally conceded the argument, at least in part. However, the reputational damage has been done. Some members of the public have picked up this rhetoric, this idea that if anyone talks about immigration in a critical way, that automatically makes them racist. Perhaps my colleague could talk to us about that.”
“Madam Speaker, I found the last question very interesting because democracy was thwarted during the committee's review of Bill C‑12 . Amendments were presented, duly voted on and supported by the majority. Unfortunately, the government used a sleight of hand to then overturn them here in the House. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this and on whether she feels that what happened was in keeping with democratic rules and the work that needs to legitimately happen in committee. Sometimes there are things we do not like. Sometimes there are proposals that are no longer in line with our political interests. At the very least, the institution must respect the work of the committees. That seems to me to be the minimum requirement. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.”
“Madam Speaker, as my colleague pointed out, there was excellent collaboration at committee on Bill C-12 . It is unfortunate that the government has decided to set aside certain amendments. What is interesting about this bill is that the government now explicitly recognizes that there was a problem with asylum seekers. For a long time, harm was being done to the reputation of the Bloc Québécois and that of all Quebeckers who were concerned about immigration. Quebeckers want a stronger immigration system that allows for integration, of course, but that also plugs the gaps. It seems like the Liberal government is finally acknowledging how cavalier it has been about asylum seekers. I would like my colleague to comment on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is shouting himself hoarse trying to pull the wool over our eyes. This might even be affecting his health. He needs to take a breath between his shrieks. I am really concerned about his personal health. He can try to pull the wool over our eyes, but what the government is doing right now is providing indecent levels of support to the greedy oil and gas sector, while people in the forestry sector are going through the worst crisis in their history. The government has made only one announcement for that sector, back in August, and people in the forestry industry are still waiting for help. Meanwhile, the Liberals are prepared to open their wallets wide and make the worst environmental compromises to benefit people in the oil and gas sector.”
“Madam Speaker, I find it rather surprising to hear the government say that all of its efforts in Alberta will ultimately enable it to free itself from the trade dispute with the Americans, or at least mitigate the effects of that dispute, when we know that 60% of all profits made by big oil go to the United States. Does my colleague not find it a bit counterproductive to put money into unproven carbon capture and sequestration strategies only to further feed the greedy oil sector, which is primarily American? Is that not counterproductive in the context of a trade dispute?”
“Madam Speaker, earlier, I asked the leader of the official opposition whether he was aware that no proponents are interested in this project right now. He referred many times to the government's imaginary pipeline. His answer was to tell me that if the government gets out of the way, then a proponent will come forward. We know that this project is not viable. In order to be viable, the pipeline would have to be in use for 40 years. It seems unlikely that we will still be using oil 40 years from now. I would like my colleague, who is an engineer, to tell me how she can see any practical advantages in something that even her own leader thinks is far-fetched.”
“As I was saying, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie has publicly stated many times that the agreement is a very bad one and that removing the emissions cap and stepping back from clean electricity were harming the environment. In all sincerity, I want to ask my colleague how he can support such a measure. Earlier, I asked the Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature to explain to me how she can reconcile two things that are unreconcilable. I want my colleague to tell me how he can see this agreement as something that is good for the environment.”
“Madam Speaker, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie recently made a public statement on the television program Tout le monde en parle . He also published an open letter saying that the agreement was very bad—”
“Madam Speaker, the leader of the official opposition repeatedly called it a pipe dream during question period. The federal government announced a fantasy pipeline. This rarely happens, but I agree with what the leader of the official opposition is saying. This pipeline is indeed a pipe dream, a fantasy, because most serious investors know full well that it has no long-term profitability unless it is built with public money. Alberta is the proponent for now, but there will never be a private proponent. Can the leader of the official opposition confirm that he thinks this pipeline will never happen and that it is a fantasy?”
“Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would have liked to hear the amendment put forward by the leader of the official opposition, but I do not know what happened. There were some strange noises. I do not know if the leader of the official opposition had a digestive issue, but it was so disruptive that the interpretation stopped.”
“Madam Speaker, a number of first nations have indicated that they want the tanker moratorium to remain intact. Even if they are consulted, they can ultimately decide to maintain the tanker moratorium. Would my colleague support the government forcing them to set aside the moratorium? How do we resolve this situation?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“(1120) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“Mr. Speaker, aside from the fact that the government has obviously completely abandoned the fight against climate change, the big question that we will have to ask ourselves today is this: Is there really a proponent that is interested in building a pipeline? There do not seem to be very many people lining up to do that. The Liberals and the Conservatives are going back and forth about who has the longest pipeline, but no one is interested. There is no commercial interest in building a pipeline. Not a single proponent is interested. My Conservative friends will have to be clear about whether they are willing to put public money into this type of infrastructure. We lost $34 billion in the past. We need to know whether the Conservatives are willing to put public money into this.”
“Mr. Speaker, the last pipeline infrastructure built in Canada was the Trans Mountain expansion. It cost taxpayers $34 billion. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said in numerous analyses that this infrastructure is not profitable. It would have to operate at full capacity over the next 40 years just to break even. My Conservative friends like to talk about the Liberals' pipe dream, but I think they have a dream too. Building infrastructure is not profitable. It is all well and good to tell the government to get out of the way, but private companies will not build it because it is not profitable. I want my colleague to explain the Conservative dream of finding a proponent to build pipeline infrastructure.”
“Mr. Speaker, Radio-Canada is reporting that the “no” side is getting organized. Indeed, the Liberals are wondering how to handle a potential third referendum. I have some ideas for them. They can start by not doing the following: betraying Quebeckers by abandoning climate action, threatening a province with pipelines, dismissing all of Quebec's demands in the budget and turning the Quebec Liberal Party into a federal farm team. Before they even start coming up with arguments for the “no” side, did the Liberals, these world champions, think that maybe they should stop giving us reasons to vote “yes”?”
“Last week, the government announced that it was ready to turn on the taps for the oil sector. We know that there will be no pipeline, but billions of dollars will still be invested in tax credits for carbon capture and storage. It is shameful.”
“I worked on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources on the issue of capping greenhouse gas emissions. Instead of actually capping emissions, the government is using carbon capture and storage strategies to try to reduce the footprint of a sector that could have produced more. This half-measure did not achieve consensus, and many environmental groups said that it was insufficient. Well, last week, the government completely scrapped this measure, to put it mildly. We are dealing with a government that is prepared to stoop to new lows for the oil and gas sector while being unwilling to implement robust measures to protect the environment, at a time when other economic sectors with a much lower carbon footprint than the oil and gas sector are being shut out.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is not very generous, but it will be enough. I would like to congratulate my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi on his motion. When it comes to the environment and protecting biodiversity, every little bit counts. It is essential. However, I only have two minutes to point out the irony of the situation. Last week, the former environment minister stepped down. This minister, who I believe had a key cabinet role, quit for environmental reasons. While it is true that every little bit counts when it comes to the environment, last week, the government unfortunately demonstrated that it did not have the courage to uphold regulations, ones that I already think are flawed, in order to leave a somewhat cleaner and healthier environment for future generations. Now that is saying something.”
“Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague, who spoke at length about the government's mismanagement, especially when it comes to softwood lumber. However, there is a proposal that has been going around for some time that would give the forestry sector some much-needed relief. It would involve buying back up to 50% of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties at the end of each month. However, I have never heard a Conservative member speak to that. I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that this is a good idea to help the forestry sector stay afloat until an agreement is signed.”
“Mr. Speaker, I asked my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong a question earlier about carbon capture and storage and the outrageous amounts of tax credits that will be handed out to the greedy oil industry in the budget. She told me that she was personally against that. I wonder if that is the official position of my Conservative colleagues. I respectfully submit the following question to my colleague: Does he also oppose the tax credits for carbon capture and storage in the budget?”
“Madam Speaker, in her speech, my colleague talked about the government's frivolous budget spending at a time when Canadians are paying a lot more for food and other consumer goods because of inflation. One of those frivolous expenses is the carbon capture, utilization and storage investment tax credit. Alberta's major oil companies made record profits from 2022 to 2024, and 60% of those profits went to shareholders in the United States. Now, we are going to pay to produce net-zero oil, which is a total pipe dream. Would my colleague go so far as to say that it is foolish to continue to financially support the greedy oil and gas industry in the budget?”
“Mr. Speaker, he is calling oil a renewable energy source. Quebeckers did not vote for a climate betrayal. Many of them even voted Liberal out of fear of the Conservatives. Today, the Liberals are betraying them with a conservative oil deal with Alberta. Quebeckers elected 44 Liberal MPs and got betrayed. Alberta elected two, and all its wildest oil dreams are coming true. What is the point of electing members from Quebec who do not stand up for the interests of Quebeckers?”
“Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his bill and his very interesting speech, and I am pleased to know that he is willing to work together to improve his bill. I know that one aspect was particularly important to my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean , namely the fact that the bill introduces the concept of transnational repression. The Bloc Québécois had been calling for this. However, we do have some concerns. One thing that comes to mind is the request to publish the names and status of political prisoners, which could evidently have an impact on their immediate family members for a number of reasons. I would like my colleague to talk about that aspect.”
“Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question. We have been getting ripped off since 2017. The American government uses every trick in the book to avoid the outcomes of the rulings from trade tribunals. No one in the Canadian government has the courage to stand up to it. That is what is disappointing. I would really like to see this change in the future.”
“Madam Speaker, the first part of my colleague's question had to do with the death of one of his constituents. I offer my sympathies even though I do not know what this has to do with my speech. For the rest, I will simply say that I was criticizing the government, but I can also criticize the leader of the official opposition . In his speech yesterday, the leader of the official opposition was unwilling to take a position on a legitimate request from Quebec's forestry sector. He would not say whether he was willing to support a program to buy back 50% of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties. He stayed mum. Honestly, what I want is for the entire House to take the situation in the forestry sector seriously and help us work toward a potential solution that would be viable for everyone and that would not cost the government one cent.”
“Madam Speaker, I assume there will be a committee study of Bill C‑15 . The Bloc Québécois believes that it gives ministers far too much power. Now, there is a lot of hype in this bill. What I expect from the government is not to announce its intentions that will only have an impact 10, 15 or 20 years down the road. I expect it to do for the forestry industry what it is doing for the oil and gas industry. What the government is proposing to the forestry industry is to go into debt. What it is offering the oil and gas industry are unprecedented tax breaks. I hope that my colleague, who is from Quebec, understands that there is a double standard. When it comes to oil and gas, our government is there. When it comes to the forestry sector, it is nowhere to be found.”
“The only solution available to the government is one that I have been talking about for three days now. The only solution is the proposal made by the forestry sector itself to buy back the countervailing and anti-dumping duties to enable it to survive. When I look at the budget, the government seems to be far more interested in the oil and gas sector than in the forestry sector. That evidently explains why the Bloc Québécois voted against this budget.”
“This project is supposed to be the centrepiece of the government's plan to break away from the United States by developing Canada's own energy infrastructure. I do not know if any of that is the least bit coherent to anyone else, but I am having a hard time understanding it. Meanwhile, the forestry sector is going through some very tough times. We had a debate on this yesterday. The government announced a $700-million liquidity support program in August. Today, it increased that amount to $1.2 billion. However, people in the forestry sector are saying that more loans are not what they need. What they need is a plan to help save the forestry sector. Clearly, what the government announced does not address this issue. It cannot even reach an agreement with the big banks to implement this process.”
“They gave almost $80 billion in dividends to their shareholders. Three-quarters of the profits made by the oil and gas sector went to the United States. Today, the government is telling us that three-quarters of $80 billion is not enough. It is going to try to help them a little more and pay for their infrastructure too. Tomorrow, the government is going to announce a pipeline project. The budget talks about the infamous pathways plus project, under which we will collectively pay for carbon capture strategies only to watch six-tenths of the money from the oil sector's profits slip right through our fingers. It will not be reinvested in our health care system or our education system. No, it is going straight to the United States.”
“Whose interests will these funds serve? They will serve 60% American interests. Worse still, even my Conservative friends are talking about the affordability crisis. Everyone knows that it is the cost of energy that is putting pressure on inflation. We know that the cost of energy has been rising sharply since the pandemic. Why? It is because the cost of refining fossil fuels is rising because the industry's margins are appallingly high. When we take a closer look at this, we realize that—I am warning my colleagues, their hair might stand on end—from 2021 to 2024, the big oil and gas companies made $131 billion in profits. That is a record. These companies did not use their profits to buy infrastructure with. They did not use it pay for carbon capture or storage. What they did was give dividends to their shareholders.”
“It bothers me because the purpose of this budget is ostensibly to develop infrastructure so Canada can break away from the United States. The government has repeatedly said that there will be trade corridors and infrastructure that will allow us to develop more trade with Europe. That is how we are going to sustain our economy and break away from the United States. However, if we look at the energy sector, particularly the gas and oil sector, we see that the four members of the Pathways Alliance represent 80% of all oil sands companies. They are Canadian Natural Resources, Cenovus, Imperial Oil and Suncor Energy. These companies are 73% foreign-owned and 60% American-owned. There will be investments in carbon capture strategies. The government may announce a new pipeline project tomorrow. We have already paid $34 billion for one.”
“In the end, low-carbon oil will never be produced, and Quebec taxpayers' money will once again have been used to support the greedy oil and gas sector. There is a precedent. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, I remember the government saying that we had to keep our economic sectors going, so it launched the infamous emissions reduction fund. This fund was intended to reduce emissions from the oil and gas sector. After a year and a half, we realized that this was far from being the case. Production was allowed to increase, but emissions were never reduced. An unequivocal report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer demonstrated, with supporting evidence, that the government had not accomplished its mission. It was another fossil fuel subsidy in disguise. I am afraid that history could repeat itself today. (1730) Why does that bother me?”
“The thing that bothers me the most is what the budget says about pathways plus, which is a project of national interest, according to the government. I will come back to the oil companies that make up the Pathways Alliance. The purpose of the pathways plus project is to capture and store all emissions from the oil sector in order to achieve, as I was saying earlier, the infamous pipe dream known as low-carbon oil. The best analogy I can think of to explain what low-carbon oil means is as follows. Trying to make oil low-carbon is like going on a diet. Everyone knows not to eat poutine when dieting. There is no such thing as low-calorie poutine. There is no such thing as low-carbon oil either. This government pipe dream has found its way into the budget as a way to indirectly support the oil and gas sector.”