Greg McLean
Calgary Centre, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, today we honour the life and legacy of Philip Roderick MacAulay, a long-time president of the Royal Canadian Legion Calgary No. 1 Branch, who passed away on June 11.”
“Mr. Speaker, last week, Calgary's Royal Canadian Legion Branch No. 1 hosted and was addressed by the leader of the Conservative Party on the importance of building a strong Alberta within a united Canada. It was exactly the right place for that message.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here, and I am thankful this debate is allowed to continue. I am surprised that it has to go through this last half hour of questions for the minister , but it is an interesting bill we are debating here today.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the member if she can just tell us what the $1.7 billion would accomplish, because we have already thrown a lot of money at the situation. We have empty condos now that do not suit the market in Toronto.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister knows this because I met him when he first got elected here on the floor of the House of Commons, and when he was named the housing minister, I told him that the first thing he had to do was to get rid of the people who have led us into this trap in the first place.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my friend from Quebec a question about government spending, because an additional $1.7 billion is to be spent on housing across the country. Quebec households are paying the cost of interest on both the federal and provincial deficits.”
The complete record
Every one of 336 lines we hold for Greg McLean, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 7.
“It almost seems like a Liberal formula: to throw out a whole bunch of cheques and see how Canadians respond and if Liberals should call an election in the process. If the Liberals had a majority here, would they be proceeding with this, or would they be continuing to debase Canadians' currency in this way? Forget about those pesky Conservatives, who keep telling Canadians how their cost of living is out of control. In 2026, families are expected to spend about $1,000 more on groceries than last year. This rebate will make up about $790 of that increase and about $300 more going forward, when groceries are going to be even more expensive. Canadians are still falling far behind in feeding their families. Food, life's essential, is the very bottom layer of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.”
“This legislation was not in the budget two months ago, and the Conservatives have been pointing out the food inflation hurting Canadians across the country. It is mystifying that the economists in charge on the other side did not foresee this because inflation is not a symptom of government deficits; in fact, it is a feature. (1800) The most common way to pay back, in the future, for overspending today is currency debasement. That means Canadians' dollars buy less in the future. More food does not appear out of nowhere; it just gets more expensive. Mysteriously, the government is planning to give Canadians more this year in the rebate than next year or in the following years. Here is the problem with that. I guarantee more inflation next year and yet fewer government rebates.”
“Our economy is getting worse, and our government is spending like it has the money, which I assure members, it does not. It is borrowing from foreign bankers and paying a high price, which will get higher the more the government increases debt and misses more fiscal targets. This brings us around to another input factor. Barely two months after delivering a much-delayed budget with a prospective deficit of over $78 billion, we are now suddenly adding over $3 billion more to this year's deficit, and over $10 billion more over the five-year horizon so that people can afford to eat. That is according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Something the government overlooked when it planned its deficits and borrowing plan was the ability of people to eat.”
“If we maintain the 40% held by foreigners, 40% will go to offshore money managers, so Canadian taxpayers will be giving them a projected $132 billion over five years, if the government sticks to its spending limits, which it has not been able to do thus far. Members can think about how much money is going out of Canadian taxpayers' pockets into those of foreign money managers. In 2015, before the Liberals were elected, the amount of Canadian government debt held by foreigners was 27%. About one and a half times that amount is held in foreign accounts now. Let us acknowledge that there is not enough capital in Canada to fund the government's overspending, so it has to go offshore. The government has to pay international finance managers to fund Canadians' consumption.”
“In February 2025, one year ago, StatsCan estimated that $527 billion of that $1.3 trillion was international finance. We have to borrow from offshore to fund the debt. The problem is that the money has to come from foreigners and future taxpayers that are going to pay for today's consumption. Projected interest costs for this year in the budget were an astounding $55.6 billion, which is about $2,500 per Canadian family. I ask members to remember that 40% of that is held by foreigners, so 40% of $56 billion is about $22 billion in interest payments alone that leaves Canada and pays international money managers, but it will get worse because there is no slowdown for these interest payments. The projected interest payments over the next five years are $330 billion, so it is growing.”
“It would go up for a family of four from $1,100 to $1,890, which would be a significant increase this year, but then it would be carved back to $1,400 next year and the years following, so that would be a reduction. That is a little strange. I will address that later in my speech. This is in response to grocery inflation rising by 6.2% year over year, and notably the highest in the G7 group of countries. It is more than double what it is in the United States, which is our nearest neighbour and a country that has the same sort of transportation network that we do as far as getting our food. I am going to deviate here a bit to talk about something that is the root cause of this, which is government debt. Right now, the government is about $1.3 trillion in debt.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is great to see my colleagues in the House of Commons, and I am happy to address the bill that is before the House, Bill C-19 , the Canada groceries and essentials benefit act. It used to be called the goods and services tax credit, but in a nice marketing move, we are going to change the name, because before this bill, Canadians have been having trouble paying for their essentials. It is one of the things that we have to get to the heart of. What the government is proposing is a one-time payment. It would be an added bonus of 50% this year for what used to be the GST rebate and would now be the Canada groceries and essentials benefit.”
“This smoke-and-mirrors show must end, and action must begin. We have introduced a motion to pass the Canadian sovereignty act. Will the government work with us and agree to support our motion to repeal the federal industrial carbon tax and the oil tanker moratorium act?”
“Mr. Speaker, announcements are easy. One can organize a press conference and tell the hungry crowd of reporters all the great things one is going to do. Getting things done requires work. Were the Liberal government to be judged by its announcements, the country would be riding a 10-year wave of success. Sadly, this is not so. For announcements to translate to results, economic activity and paycheques for Canadians, something has to be delivered. Over 10 years of not delivering has left Canada as the economic laggard of the developed world. Conservatives worked with the government to amend and pass Bill C-5 , giving the Prime Minister incredible powers to approve projects quickly. What are the outcomes? No projects have been approved, and they have not removed a single regulatory barrier.”
“Mr. Speaker, let me provide the member with a quote: “This is a failure on Canada's part, a condemnation of our regulatory environment and our inability to permit port infrastructure the private sector actually wants to pay for.” This is a government throwing money out the door while Canadian companies are walking out the back door. Will the member please acknowledge that it is Liberal policies that are pushing investment out and reverse this regulatory mess?”
“Mr. Speaker, potash is a critical mineral and a pillar of Canada's trade strategy, yet this week, Nutrien, a Canadian champion in potash, chose to put $1 billion into a U.S. port project instead of building here at home. Why? It is because the aimless regulatory environment created by the Liberal government is too complex and unpredictable. This is not just about potash; it is about Canada's ability to compete and lead in critical minerals and global trade. Why is the government letting Canada become the last choice for Canadian companies?”
“Mr. Speaker, that did not answer the question. It was a lot of fantasy, at the end of the day. The government once again has revised its so-called fiscal anchors. That is another target the Liberals keep missing. That is no problem; they just change the definition. This year's anchors are so weak that they are practically meaningless. When they change a definition to fit their narrative, they undermine trust and accountability. Canadians deserve stability, not a government that moves the goalposts whenever it suits it. Canada's fiscal position is adrift. Will the minister admit that this budget has no fiscal responsibility and that his so-called anchors are political spin?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister introduced his first budget, much more costly than Canadians had anticipated. A $78-billion deficit is a high hurdle to get over, but the fiscal year is not final yet, and the government has never set a spending target it has not blown past. Do not worry; there is more debt ahead. The next five years of forecast deficits have doubled under the Prime Minister , and I will correct the Prime Minister, because 10 years ago under the last Conservative administration, debt servicing was $28 billion and going down. It is now $55 billion and going up. Why is the Prime Minister choosing to ignore the inflation he is causing, and driving up costs for Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, last week the environment minister said that Canada must be “an energy superpower...low carbon, low risk and low cost”, but the government has deliberately chosen to ignore a proven opportunity: waste heat to power. Every day, heat from industries, such as metals, chemicals and cement, escapes unused. Industry makes up over half of Canada's energy use. Much of it lost as residual heat. That is zero-emission electricity, enough to power hundreds of thousands of homes. Other countries act. The U.S. gives a 30% tax credit. France's is up to 50%. In Canada, it is nothing. The government decided to exclude waste heat to power in its clean technology incentives. This misguided mindset must be corrected now. Conservatives would do what this government will not, which is to manage Canada's energy future with economic sense.”
“Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. I thank my colleague for arriving with the data. It is important because making announcements is something we have talked about. As I said in my speech, it is all talk and no action. It is the same with the Canadian Armed Forces and the notion of improving the Canadian Armed Forces and getting back to a base. The Liberals talk about increasing the numbers, yet recruitment does not show any increase in the numbers whatsoever. It is the same with police. The Liberals talk about having 1,000 more police and border officials at customs, yet the hiring practice does not seem to be happening at all. The government seems to want to stack a whole bunch of bureaucrats in Ottawa at the thought level without any of the people who have to deliver the services to Canadians at the ground level.”
“Madam Speaker, that is a good question. Our job is to work with all other parties to improve the bills that are presented to us. That is our job. The member is talking about another bill. It is important to take a look at it and take it under consideration.”
“Madam Speaker, that is an important question. As the member across the way will understand fully, we are co-operating very clearly on getting Bill C-12 to committee. Without the offensive parts of Bill C-2 in it, we are moving this bill forward. However, a number of issues only have half measures, and we need to make sure they fully address the problems faced by Canadians, not just those visited upon us by the new U.S. administration, which is pushing the government to act. We understand that and we are willing to get this bill to committee. Can we make changes to the drug-pushing laws? Can we make changes to the half measures, as opposed to the immigration asylum system, that are part of this bill? We would love to see this bill roundly discussed and those amendments clearly made at committee. We will be working toward that end.”
“Certain members of city council came to join me in that fight, and in the end, there was no safe consumption site opened at the drop-in centre, which serves some of the people in Calgary who need our help the most. The solution was never a solution. We need to get back to what the real solutions are. The real solution is, of course, to win at the source, and that source is the criminals who are moving this scourge upon our population: the drug pushers, organized crime and the people who are making money at the expense of society. I propose that we move the bill eventually to committee and actually make those changes that would make the laws more strict for the people who are actually causing the death and destruction in our society and that would make sure we make them pay. Crime should not be a risk-free, profit venture.”
“There are lots of nice towers with three-bedroom condos in them. During that time, families were actually leaving because they did not want to raise families on streets that were trafficked by the drug pushers and criminals looking to profit from people's addiction. Imagine one's kids in that type of area. Think about the homeless people themselves, who have to go through a gauntlet of death in order to get to a homeless shelter. This was never a solution. It was brought forward as a potential solution by the provincial UCP, the United Conservative Party government. The New Democrats, provincially, were all onside, and I will correct my colleague on the other side: The federal Liberals were onside. I was the lone opposition for some time.”
“This is about priorities, and the priorities for Canadians are very clear. There seems to be comfort in ignoring the obvious. Obviously, criminals are profiting. What is the number of car thieves considered statistically normal before society pushes back? There are higher insurance costs, higher policing costs and escalating violence; the crimes are not victimless. One of my proud moments as the member of Parliament for Calgary Centre was my opposition to a second so-called safe consumption site in downtown Calgary, at a place called the Calgary Drop-in Centre, where homeless people can go in Calgary. It is right next to Chinatown, a very important part of downtown Calgary, and to a new development called East Village. East Village is an area that was built to bring families back downtown.”
“[ Translation ] Imagine losing your sister, brother, or even one of your parents. Imagine losing a loved one with whom you will never again share a meal, a laugh, or a memory, a loved one whose dreams you will never see come true and who you will never get to see grow older. This is what thousands of Canadian families are experiencing every day as they are struck by the scourge of fentanyl. Things could be different, but the current government is failing in its primary mission, which is to protect the public. [ English ] Tent cities are growing in every major city in Canada. I represent a riding downtown. The Canadians who live in tent cities are not safe; they are not secure. This is not a future that we see for our kids. It is not a future for any Canadian. The scourge of addiction and homelessness should never have been ignored.”
“This has visited misery upon their families, upon our streets and upon our society in general. Let me share a personal story. Last January, across the street from my office, I went to pick up my dry cleaning, and there was a young man dying on the sidewalk. I was the first person on the scene. I got on my knees and did everything I could to get that man's heart beating. One thing runs through a person's mind: their kids. I have four boys, and that is what ran through my mind at that point in time, that this could be one of my sons. The situation is a scourge. I do not know the man's backstory but, for 20 minutes, I helped revive him, and I begged other people to help me. That experience does not leave a person. This is something we need to think about, as far as how it impacts all of society.”
“For 10 years, the Liberal government has been duly informed of these attacks on Canada's expectations of maintaining peace, order and good government in this country. There are problems that have been evident for a long time. Money laundering was addressed in budgets delivered by the government, but it never took any action. Dealing with organized crime and the illicit activities that go with it were always kicked down the road. It has been all talk and no action. Let me say that ignoring the avails of organized criminals is, by default, accepting the consequences of organized crime. (1140) Opioids like fentanyl are ruining the lives of Canadians. Fifty thousand Canadians have perished over the last eight years from the use of fentanyl and opioid-related drugs.”
“If the Liberal government really needs help drafting the kind of legislation that actually works, my Conservative colleagues and I are willing to write the legislation for them to make sure we get the security we need in this country, both in the immigration system, which we have seen explode in the last number of years, and in the border security realm. There are a number of things going on in the bill for me to pick from. Let us note that it is a fix for the Liberal government's first attempt at the bill, but we must go through fixes in the House at times, and we are willing and happy to do that with this legislation. I would like to speak to the issues of the illicit drug trade, organized crime, money laundering and human trafficking.”
“It started with Bill C-2 , much of which was pressed on the government by the Trump administration in the United States, which forced us to look at some of the security measures that were not happening in Canada at that point in time. We were pushed to the wall to actually accomplish some things. The bill came back to the House. The opposition, my colleagues, revisited it, and the Liberal government has taken out of the initial bill a bunch of the quite offensive parts that would really have impeded civil liberties. The government has come back with Bill C-12 , which would actually address some of the issues that have long been simmering in Canadian society and have caused significant problems. Bill C-2 was an error, a Liberal misstep, and now we need to rectify it.”
“The bill is composed of 11 parts that would amend various statutes, including the Customs Act, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Cannabis Act, the Oceans Act, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and its regulations, the Retail Payment Activities Act, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. There is a lot for me to unpack. There is an option for me to spend 10 minutes talking about a plethora of sources and what we can do with the bill going forward.”
“It is my version of job security”, or “If I did not break it first, how would anyone know how good I am at fixing it?” It is the classic Liberal playbook: They break the system then hold a press conference to announce they are fixing it. They light the fire then show up with a watering can and call it leadership. The issues we have to address in the bill are based on several parts of the bill. Bill C-12 has numerous parts to it, but a couple of objectives: security of Canada's borders, of course, and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system. For the sake of the public who may be following, I will break down further what is known as an omnibus bill.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the citizens of Calgary Centre and speak about the new bill that is before us. The actual title of the bill is an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures, but I say we should call Bill C-12 the short Liberal title, “We broke the immigration system, and we messed up public safety, border security and law enforcement, but do not worry; we are back to fix it because we know what we are doing.” In other words, it could be called “I break it then fix it.”
“Mr. Speaker, one thing my colleague mentioned in his speech was the social media posts that advertised how people could get into Canada through the asylum process. Does the member think the government has designed a system that is so easy to manipulate that there are advertisements on social media? Who might be profiting from that system?”
“Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague to the House of Commons. This is the first time I have had a chance to hear him in debate. I heard his speech, and then I heard every one of his responses, which were actually from his speech. This is called Q and A, questions and answers, where we actually engage to show how well we know the bill and what we want to do with it. This bill is a replacement for a bill that is already being withdrawn by the government. It is coming back to us, effectively asking what the Conservatives want. Would the member submit that perhaps his government is putting words on paper for him to read in the House that are not going anywhere, that are just a waste of time? Does the member know how much it costs Canadian taxpayers to waste time in the House and to waste time putting bills on paper?”
“Inflation is going to cause heartbreak and heartache in so many sectors of our economy. This is the big issue here. Will the government please get ahead of the deficit issue, because it is going to cause significant financial pain for all Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have spoken about the importance of budgets in the democratic process and in the Canadian context as well. I did not hear any response to that at all from the government side. The issue, of course, is that these are time-tested democratic instruments that we have. We are the institution, the House of Commons, that authorize this, but Canadians have to have their eyes on what their government is spending on and why the deficits are getting so large, because it has already become a large problem, and it is going to become a bigger problem. Let us accept that we have a government that is now run by a central banker, and central bankers have a penchant for solving the problem by printing money. Printing money is going to cause inflation, and we know this. It is time-tested and known around the world.”
“In the spring, I thought it would be $80 billion. Then the C. D. Howe Institute came out and said it was going to be $92 billion, yet the government continues its spending. The solution, according to the Prime Minister , is to restate the way we report this budget. This is not a solution. We have to get back to balanced budgets.”
“One of the main problems with running budget deficits is it creates inflation, particularly when the budget deficits are financed by a central bank that is printing money. That causes inflation. There is no question about that. The thing about inflation, to define what it is for people, is that it reduces their buying power for what they can purchase in society. That is the problem. It means that our rent or food costs more in real dollars. It is a tax. It means less disposable income for Canadians. It means they have to play catch-up every year. The government can inflate the dollars it is collecting and try to debase the dollars it is actually spending. However, it is about choices at the end of the day. This year, what is the deficit going to be? We do not know. It was going to be $50 billion, then $60 billion.”
“That is a diminution of the role that democracy plays in Canada. The House was prorogued for almost four months. We had an election. In the meantime, billions of dollars were issued through what we call government awards. They were not approved by Parliament. There was no vetting of what was going on here. There was just money going out the door through the last fiscal year and into this fiscal year. Now we are into a budget process in which we are effectively seven months behind. This is as a result of complete incompetence and a disregard for the tools of democracy that are time-tested in Canada about what we are supposed to do, how we are supposed to perform and how we are supposed to report that to Canadians. There is a consequence to this.”
“Furthermore, this shows a complete disregard for other people's money. That is the money of the taxpayers of Canada, who are not getting a view of where the government is going to spend the money that they trust it with to run the services that are provided to Canadians. That is a problem. If the public does not have its eyes on exactly what the government is doing and exactly how it is going to measure its performance, then we are missing one of the key attributes of a democratic society that has an accountable and responsible government. One of the roles of the House of Commons is to approve not just the budget but the actual spending that goes out. It is called the estimates process. This past year, the House was prorogued for much of the year. In the last year, we sat in this House as a Parliament for less than five months.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is October 1, 2025. The government's fiscal year is April 1 to March 31 every year. We are now seven months behind in having a budget presented to this House of Commons on how the government is going to choose what it is spending money on this year. Budgets are important documents. I was in a synagogue in Calgary some time ago, and the rabbi and I had a discussion about the importance of budgets in religious organizations and also in governments. They are important documents because they represent choices. They represent priorities and they represent respect for other people's money. This budget is not showing any of those. There has been no priority listed for seven months now into this fiscal year. Nobody knows what the government's priorities and choices are going to be.”
“Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of Liberal mismanagement, food bank usage in Canada is up 142%. In Calgary, demand for emergency hampers rose another 17% this past year. The Prime Minister said that Canadians would judge him by the cost at the grocery store. Well, they are. They are lining up at food banks. This is not about inflation; it is about a government that has lost control of affordability, employment and, in the end, human dignity. When will the Prime Minister stop grading himself on promises and start delivering real, tangible results for Canadians?”
“Instead of addressing these mounting issues, the Prime Minister is wedging Canadians and creating an aimless diversion. Canadians deserve solutions, not more distractions.”
“Mr. Speaker, our Constitution is the highest law in Canada. Every other law must conform to it. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a cornerstone of our Constitution, and the notwithstanding clause is central to it. It is a deliberate and essential part of the 1982 compromise that made the charter possible. It reflects the will of Canadians to allow elected legislatures, not courts alone, to make final decisions in exceptional cases. However, the government is asking the court to rewrite our Constitution. That is a reckless overreach with grave consequences, or perhaps it is a calculated distraction. What is it a distraction from? It is a distraction from the real challenges facing Canadians: high inflation, escalating debt, ever-increasing crime, and economic and trade uncertainty.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the report my colleague is referring to, but I know that the greenhouse gases coming from Canadian natural gas are much cleaner than the coal that is currently being burned in China and the rest of Asia. It is very important to export Canada's natural gas around the world.”
“Mr. Speaker, I alluded to that a bit in my speech, but we have an industry that the government has held back for nine years. It has done its best to punish the Canadian economy by punishing the oil and gas industry. After nine years, it has found out that it has not worked. The rest of Canada is slavishly now deeper and deeper in debt, and we have to address that as quickly as possible. The Liberals talk about the crises in housing and productivity. One crisis follows another. The fact of the matter is, the most productive industry we have in Canada by dollars per job is the energy industry. We have to make sure we are contributing to the world. By contributing to the world's needs, we are contributing to ourselves as well. The energy industry provides the most taxes for Canadians' benefits of any industry across this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, we deal with greenhouse gases better here in Canada than they do in many other countries around the world. The situation is better here than in other countries, but we also need to produce energy for the whole world. Coal-fired energy in Asia is not as clean as what we produce here in Canada. Liquefied natural gas from Canada is very important to the world when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is interesting because clean energy is defined differently by different people. For the member on the other side of the House, I think it might mean solar and wind energy. However, I am not sure that they are as clean as the energy we have now. Natural gas, LNG, is a source of clean energy for the world. It is currently the cleanest form of electricity generation in the world. It is important and necessary that we lead the way in exporting natural gas around the world.”
“We have to make sure that we have the ability to produce and get products to the world market, which is demanding product from Canada. We must get clean, dependable, safe, environmentally friendly energy to the world so we can develop better, develop our country, develop the environment around the world and make sure we are a security partner for all our partners around the world. Step one is that we have to remove the emissions cap.”
“OPEC just increased its target for production by 137,000 barrels per day. That is a significant increase, and of course, people think it will have an impact on the price of oil around the world. They are probably right, but the fact of the matter is, OPEC would not be increasing oil production if it did not see that there is a demand for oil, which we do not seem to recognize in Canada. We have to get out of our own way to make this work for Canadians, work for the environment and work for our partners in security around the world. It is eminently important that we get this cap off. This cap on emissions is a cap on production. Why bother with the LNG expansion the Prime Minister reported when we cannot do that without increasing our emissions? It is the cart before the horse.”
“Let us also look at oil and what is happening in the oil markets right now. For years, we have been hearing that oil has peaked. Right away, I will say that this year will be another peak, and there will be another. The peak that should have happened 20 years ago, according to some of my colleagues on the other side in their reading of partial and prejudicial information, has not happened. There will be over 102 million barrels a day of production this year. That tells us that we will continue to consume oil around the world. Why are we not contributing more to that? It is because we have a cap on production. What is the point of exporting energy if we cannot produce it? We have to make sure we produce energy with better environmental standards than anybody else around the world.”
“That is a significant contribution to the emissions reductions in this country as a whole. In fact, it is the largest contribution. The tough part is the industry is actually measuring it. We can take a look at the environment commissioner hearing in Canada. Canada's emissions reductions are largely determined by Environment Canada, which keeps changing the formula year by year, very opaquely. The environment commissioner has condemned Environment Canada for the opacity in not showing the real numbers to Canadians and in how it calculates the reductions in CO2 emissions. The oil and gas industry in Canada knows those numbers and has done a great job in reducing the CO2 impacts associated with oil and gas production in Canada. Coal, as I said, has gone up. It has record production around the world.”
“As a result, higher-cost, higher CO2-intensity natural gas is being distributed from the United States to allies in developing countries around the world, while we in Canada have sat on our hands because we are trying to limit our potential and limit our contribution to the world from an energy, environmental and security perspective. This has to change. The first way to make that change is to undo the cap on emissions, because the cap on emissions is a cap on production. There is no other formula that equates to how we reduce emissions. However, let us talk about what we have succeeded at in emissions in Canada. Many organizations have looked at the emissions reductions we have in our oil and gas industry across Canada. We had have a 32% reduction in the CO2 associated with our oil sands production over the last 16 years in Alberta.”
“(1330) A lot goes on with liquefied natural gas, and I noted the Prime Minister 's statement on the first five fast-tracks of his major projects office, which he announced from Calgary, the city I am from. He announced a major projects office, and then he announced the first five projects he is going to fast-track. One of those projects, of course, is LNG Canada, the only liquefied natural gas export facility built in Canada over the last 15 years. Why has this taken so long to do in Canada, when at the same time as we built one in Canada, the United States built 14 and is exporting natural gas around the world?”