Corey Hogan
Calgary Confederation, Alberta · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, we know that youth unemployment is uneven across the country. There will be 6,600 new youth jobs in Alberta, by the way, this year. Let us talk about the top line here. We have the second-fastest growth in the G7, the best fiscal position in the G7, 20 new trade and security deals, non-U.S.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are making historic investments in young people. My colleagues today have already mentioned a number of those major projects. I am sure we will get to hear that question and get expansions of that question many more times today.”
“Mr. Speaker, all agreements are considered through the lens of Canadian interests, and all agreements are considered in the context of our other agreements. As has already been mentioned, Mercosur is an enormous market. Since the last election, the government has reached 20 new trade and security agreements.”
“Mr. Speaker, the more precise they try to sound, the more Canadians should be deeply suspicious of their claims, because they zoom in when the world view does not actually reflect anything they are talking about here. Let us talk about the facts: 20 trade and security deals have made a 40% increase in non-U.S.”
“Mr. Speaker, $4 billion in Cold Lake will be a nice start in helping develop the kind of overall community benefits that we are talking about. I have to say we have heard a lot of the same questions from across the way. We get the point. I think they like to talk about the fact that there are prices and deficits.”
“Mr. Speaker, I almost do not know what to say. Calgarians certainly know the difference between credit card purchases and investments, such as investments in themselves. That is what we are doing with the groceries and essentials benefit. That is what we are doing with the gas tax. l will tell members something else.”
The complete record
Every one of 284 lines we hold for Corey Hogan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, I worry that the follow-up betrays a bit ignorance of Canadian jurisprudence and the operating of the oil sector. I have worked on many pipeline projects in my career, and it is not just building a pipeline; it is building the product to get into that pipeline. That is going to take some time. Those things need to be aligned. Now, Alberta will not even submit a case until the spring. It is only at that point that the federal government can respond to specifics. I will also note that in the meantime one of the things the MOU talks about is optimization of the Trans Mountain expansion, which could increase, by hundreds of thousands of barrels, our ability to get product to the coast, which is something that can be used to take up the production that is currently envisioned to be constructed.”
“Premier Eby has publicly stated there may be scenarios under which his government could be supportive of a pipeline to the west coast should those conditions be met. While it is true that ultimate jurisdiction for approving interprovincial pipelines lies with the federal government, it remains our wish to achieve a conclusion built on consensus with B.C., Alberta and first nations. This path of working together in partnership and respect, striving to achieve consensus, is the Canadian way, and it is the right way to do it.”
“Any interprovincial pipeline will require Alberta and B.C. to work closely together towards reaching a substantial agreement, grounded in the promise of shared economic benefits. Equally crucial is the need to meet commitments to indigenous peoples, including ensuring meaningful consultation on project decisions that could affect their rights and interests, while also advancing opportunities for indigenous economic participation and partnerships. There have already been several constructive conversations with B.C., recognizing that there is a pressing need for significant and sustained effort to build substantial support from both British Columbians and the indigenous peoples whose lands and livelihoods would be affected.”
“Any project that is brought forward will continue to undergo rigorous project-specific assessments, including environmental and economic due diligence, as well as rigorous consultations with indigenous peoples. That is the approach Canadians expect. They expect a balanced approach that looks at the economy and the environment and sees how we can develop them both in harmony. The potential pipeline project is still very much in its infancy, with a formal proposal expected to come from Alberta next spring. The government's objective is always to work in partnership with provinces, territories and indigenous peoples. That is the very fabric of our Confederation, a collaborative approach. Again, the MOU establishes the necessary conditions for a project to even be considered, but they are considered in a broader context.”
“On the question of British Columbia and Alberta, as we move forward, one of our next steps in implementing the MOU is for the federal government to engage, immediately, in trilateral discussions with B.C. and Alberta. This action is, of course, not just reasonable; it is laid out in the memorandum itself, the one agreed to by Alberta. The MOU also includes conditions that are necessary for the projects to be considered, but not sufficient for them to proceed as projects of national interest. To be clear, the MOU does not bind British Columbia into any predetermined outcome; rather, the MOU establishes how to coordinate regulatory and economic decisions more efficiently while ensuring environmental integrity.”
“Mr. Speaker, it was heartening to hear the member opposite say he wants the MOU to proceed. I hope he does realize that includes strong industrial carbon pricing, moving the effective price of carbon in Alberta from approximately $25 a tonne to $130 a tonne. I welcome that kind of environmental commitment, but it is very inconsistent with what I have heard in the House before. However, this gets us into the story. It is a story of balance. The Prime Minister has been very clear that we can, we should and we must develop our energy resources, but we must do it in a responsible fashion. That responsible fashion includes an industrial price on carbon, action on methane and investments in the Pathways project, which would take carbon out of the industry in a way that has just not been considered by other oil-producing jurisdictions.”
“Mr. Speaker, I personally believe that more is required. It is not enough, and we are going to need to figure out new ways to address emissions as we move forward. Some of those technologies are in infancy, and some do not exist yet, but it will require significant investment to get us to where we need to be and, in fact, push beyond that to start taking carbon out of the air to allow us to undo the damage that we have done here. However, I believe that with an effective industrial carbon pricing system, transparent long-term price trajectories and our clean economy investment tax credits, we can supercharge affordable net-zero energy projects that turn our natural wealth into lasting prosperity while protecting this planet. That is why I believe budget 2025 deserves our support.”
“Budget 2025 provides new investment tools that will allow us to capitalize on those investments to build the green economy of tomorrow.”
“Improving the effectiveness of industrial carbon pricing will ensure that every dollar spent delivers maximum impact, because industrial carbon pricing rewards innovation and spurs investment in cleaner technologies, helping Canada's industrial sectors to grow and compete. This means that as our government moves decisively to build major nation-building projects and millions more homes, we will be doing so while reducing emissions and growing our economy. We must get to net zero. I believe budget 2025 supports durable climate action that will withstand the changing of governments and the turmoil we have in the world right now. It also identifies that it will require massive investment to get to net zero, and the old tools can only get us so far.”
“We know that Canada's natural resources, workforce and commitment to climate change adaptation will position us to surpass economies that fail to adapt, and we are moving forward on that understanding. We will build new infrastructure and capitalize on projects that further Canada's standing as a clean energy superpower. We will explore initiatives such as nuclear energy, electricity, grid interties and investments in low-carbon fuels. With the federal tax supports being delivered through our suite of clean economy investment tax credits, Canada will get the investment that will be absolutely necessary in order to build the economy that will take us to net zero. It is much more than just a slogan; it is something that is essential for ourselves, our children and our children's children.”
“Canada is well positioned to take advantage of growth opportunities. For example, our electricity grid, which is one of the cleanest in the world, guarantees access to clean power that businesses around the world are looking for in sectors ranging from aluminum and steel to AI. In conventional energy, too, Canada is one of very few large-scale suppliers committed to strong environmental, social and governance standards. We have reduced emissions intensity, but more importantly, we have reduced emissions by 6% over the last 10 years, and that was while Canada's population grew by 15%. It is not enough, but it is a significant start, and it is turning the curve in a way that other oil-producing jurisdictions simply have not been able to wrap their heads around.”
“In 2024, global investments in clean energy reached $2 trillion U.S., nearly double the level of investment in fossil fuels, and the global clean technology market is expected to triple by 2035. At the same time, the Canadian Climate Institute estimates that climate disruption, if left unchecked, could cut median Canadian household income by nearly 20% by the end of the century from where it would otherwise have been, impacting many segments of our economy, from food supply chains to financial markets. This means that to compete internationally, Canada will need to reduce its carbon intensity to meet the growing demand from global markets for products with low associated greenhouse gas emissions. Buyers of Canadian resources are increasingly looking for low-carbon sourcing.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. Of course, our government is always ready to listen to Canadians, and of course, budgets are always moment-in-time documents. We did engage with Canadians in our pre-budget consultation, and the insights gathered through these consultations and online submissions played a vital role in shaping the budget. This is a plan to build major infrastructure, homes and industries. We need to grow our economy and create lasting prosperity. It also supports durable climate action and understands that climate action is an economic necessity. As we know, the world's economy is undergoing a historic transformation towards low-carbon energy and clean technology.”
“Mr. Speaker, we stand with them. We stand with them with supports that allow them to keep those jobs. We stand with them when they lose those jobs and are in those unemployment lines, with more supports there as well. We stand with the companies by investing in them heavily. We will always stand with our forestry communities. I invite the member to work with me to bring even more supports to those communities, because this is vital to Canada's culture and economy.”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously, we stand with the affected communities. It is terrible to see the job losses. The minister has talked to Domtar and the B.C. minister of forestry. We want those jobs back, and we are going to work very hard to get them back.”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously, the unjustified trade war that the United States has brought on softwood lumber is unacceptable. We are working hard to resolve it. Today, the United States Chamber of Commerce called on the Trump administration to drop tariffs on lumber. We are seeing that the pressures are beginning to build. We will continue to work at all levels to resolve this, and we will continue to provide supports. We welcome suggestions from members opposite on what supports to bring.”
“Madam Speaker, indigenous treaty rights do not need to be spelled out in MOUs; they are inherent, but I do want to talk a little about the MOU and what it allows. The MOU allows us to have a durable climate plan, one that moves the effective price of carbon in Alberta from $25 to $130. It allows us to reduce methane emissions by 75%. It allows us to take carbon out of the air through carbon capture, and it does that in a way that says that there are going to be ongoing reviews to make sure those commitments toward net zero in 2050 are maintained. This is great news for the climate, and I encourage every member of the House—”
“Madam Speaker, the far-reaching memorandum of understanding with Alberta includes a number of timelines. I invite members to read it. By July 1 of next year is when a pipeline proposal will come from the Province of Alberta. There are timelines, and we are seeing that there is not just talk about pipelines, but talks about AI data centres, nuclear energy, and many ways we can grow the Canadian economy in a clean way, in a big way and in a way that does not rely as much on the United States of America. This is a good day for Alberta. This is a good day for Canada. I invite members opposite to get on board.”
“Madam Speaker, yesterday was a great day for Canada because it got us onto a better course of action and a more common ground and confederation between Alberta and Canada, which will also lead to a better course of action across the entire country. Part of the agreement was that we would work with British Columbia, that we would work in a tripartite table, and of course, that we would all respect the indigenous rights of peoples. This is great for Canada. This expands our markets. This expands our economy, and this makes environmental action more durable.”
“Madam Speaker, tinfoil is actually made of aluminum, so I would like to thank the member for his first act in supporting that sector in the House. The fact of the matter is this: Yesterday, we announced an MOU with Alberta that increases economic prosperity for this country, increases environmental sustainability and the durability of environmental action in this country, and makes us less reliant on the United States. That is a good day for Alberta. That is a good day for Canada. I welcome the members opposite to get on board.”
“Madam Speaker, helpful ideas like “Just get a deal done” are not going to get the deal done. We need ideas. We need support for workers, the workers the member and I both care about. How about we work together to help this industry, instead of these histrionics in the House? How about that?”
“Madam Speaker, we are in a trade war. We are in a very difficult situation, and in that situation, this government is standing with affected workers. We are moving heaven and earth to help them. We just announced another $500 million of supports two days ago. The member is fully aware of this. We are open to more ideas for more supports. We had a take-note debate the other night. I asked the Conservative members for their ideas, and how many ideas did I get from them? It was zero. How about we get some ideas on the table? We are happy to support. We are happy to work with members to support. Let us get some ideas on the table.”
“Mr. Chair, I want to extend a special thanks to my colleague because of his work on the biomass ITC, which he was instrumental in helping bring forward. I want to offer a comment that I hope the member will respond to on the trade negotiations with the United States and the psychology of the U.S. President, about which I will be modest in my comments. He is a deal maker, and he does come from a deals-beget-deals environment. Given his interest in some of the other sectors, I wonder if my colleague would respond to the notion that perhaps by starting with the things that Donald Trump is most interested in discussing, we could build momentum toward a softwood lumber deal. Before I hand it over, I want to say that we will fight every day for the forestry sector.”
“Mr. Chair, my colleague touched on something we have not discussed enough so far tonight: the effects of climate change on the forestry sector. She is absolutely right; it is creating challenges in terms of the spruce budworm and the pine beetle, and of course it is making forest fires larger in areas quite far away from where we have ever managed woods, because there are drier and hotter conditions causing them. I am wondering if my colleague can expand on those thoughts, because I think they are vitally important to the conversation. Climate Change is the defining issue coming at us, and while we deal with a number of crises, we cannot lose focus on the big crisis that is slow-rolling and in front of us.”
“Mr. Chair, something my hon. colleague just mentioned has triggered a question. One of the things this chamber needs to understand is that one of the reasons why the United States feels that it does not need Canadian software lumber right now is that lumber prices are very low by historical standards. When prices come up, that pain is going to be felt much more acutely by American consumers. Obviously, we do not want to wait for that. Does the hon. member believe we should continue to support and provide additional supports to the forestry sector?”
“Mr. Chair, I wanted to inquire about the comments around 30 by 30 and access to economic fibre. I feel that it is hard to blame 30 by 30 for a lack of fibre when, as noted, B.C.'s tenures are not being fully used. In fact, when I look at Scandinavian countries and European countries with a much smaller footprint, they tend to be quite robust in their generation of fibre. This is a very large country. Given that, can the member expand on why he thinks 30 by 30 specifically is to blame?”
“Mr. Chair, obviously both are big numbers. We know that the number in support of forestry needs to get even bigger, so stay tuned, because later this week we will have something additional to say on that. In terms of the flowing of funding from the previous announcements, we have just discussed the $700 million in liquidity, which is flowing right now. That money is making its way through. Some businesses have gotten that money, but not enough, which is exactly why the minister read the riot act to banks, to be blunt. In terms of the other money, that is both an extension of the IFIT program, which is happening right now, and additional funds that will be available in the new year. Now that the budget has passed, let us get that budget implementation act going too.”
“On the flip side, if someone has a pulp mill and the sawmill goes down, they are not going to have economic access to residuals, so we need to talk about keeping entire clusters up, and we need to be supporting the industry as a whole, not as individual pieces. I think that is an absolutely spot-on point.”
“Mr. Chair, I thank the member for his question. Yes, all that is interconnected. [ English ] The forestry sector is an ecosystem. I think the hon. member for Jonquière described it as a chain. I completely agree, and it falls apart if any part gets weak. When we talk about supports for the forestry sector, one of the things I discussed in my remarks was that we need to talk about the communities around it as well. We need to make sure that the overall ecosystem is supported. When we talk about a sawmill's economic viability, there is the dimensional lumber that comes out the other side, but there are also the residuals that need to find a market in pulp.”
“Mr. Chair, I completely agree: We need to be seized with urgency on this. In fact, when forestry executives informed the minister on Thursday that they were having trouble accessing these funds, he reached out to the major banks, which are responsible for delivering this BDC product. The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources talked with the banks last night to make sure they were as seized with the urgency as we are.”
“Mr. Chair, obviously the hearts of everybody here tonight in this take-note debate go out to anybody who is affected, and I really, truly hope that we as a chamber can come up with solutions to make their lives better, which is exactly what the purpose of this take-note debate is. We will be announcing additional supports this week. I really encourage the opposition to reach out with their ideas. I appreciate the ideas that the opposition has provided to date, because we are in this together and this country is in this together. If we want to move forward strongly, we need to move forward together.”
“Mr. Chair, my colleague's question touches on a couple of important points worth highlighting. First, any support of the forestry sector is going to require collaboration with the provinces, because it is simply not going to work otherwise. When we look at tenure in particular and at economic access to fibre, that really is in the provincial hands primarily. There are things the federal government can do to incent, but there are challenges. However, the federal government has the ability to assist with the access to new markets and new products. In particular, we have funds at NRCan, such as one called IFIT, which helps retool and allow the creation of new products that, in many cases, can avoid tariffs because they are value-add.”
“Mr. Chair, yes, it is possible. Softwood lumber exporters are clearly facing significant debt and need financial assistance in the form of cash flow. However, there are risks associated with such a program, as we have heard. That said, we are open to considering all options that could help boost cash flow and strengthen the sector's financial situation.”
“Mr. Chair, reality is obviously much more complicated. Europe has a 10% tariff, but it is quite far away and does not have the natural advantage of geography that we do. It also does not have the quality of wood we do. One of the benefits of Canadian lumber production is that it is built in an environment that is colder, so the wood becomes more dense. It also allows, because we do it in a more natural sense, more competition among trees, which again increases the density, as opposed to the plantation models that the Europeans enjoy. Therefore, we have a natural competitive advantage. That demand will still be there when we get ourselves a market, and we are going to work very hard in the meantime to support our forestry sector and make sure it is still there when that market comes back.”
“Fourth is the talent, and we have centuries of talent spread across hundreds of forest communities. Canada, working with all jurisdictions and indigenous peoples, needs to consciously build and maintain our capacity in all four. [ Translation ] The Canadian forestry industry will ultimately succeed because of our strong foundations. We have high-quality wood, we have trade relationships around the world and we have the talent. With the support of this government and the House, we can succeed faster. We can get through this period and lay the groundwork for a forestry sector that can thrive for countless generations. [ English ] Let us get all ideas on the table, maybe beyond “we should just try harder”, and work collaboratively to support an industry that means so much to so many of us and is so integral to the story of Canada.”
“simply does not have the wood. In this lose-lose scenario, our hundreds of forestry communities are feeling it more. If we want to increase our leverage, we need to shift exports away from the United States. We do not need to shift all or even most; even a few percentage points of diversification increases our leverage relative to that of the U.S. and makes sustaining a deal, a good deal that benefits both sides, more likely in the future. As I close, I want to say that a healthy forestry sector requires four things. First is access to economic inputs, timber or residuals, depending on the part of the business. Second is access to the capital required to be competitive in this sophisticated and mechanized business. Third is access to markets, product lines and geographies, much of which require the right infrastructure.”
“We have had softwood lumber agreements before. If we do not want to be at the mercy of some future junior senator from Oregon, we must diversify our forestry sector. We must diversify our markets and we must diversify our products. [ English ] I want to be clear: We cannot replace U.S. demand in any reasonable time frame. It is our largest market, and the U.S. already builds houses out of wood. Our mills are tooled to their products and our continent and existing infrastructure make north-south transportation easy and cheap, but the U.S. market needs us too. We used to provide 32% of its softwood lumber, and after all the hostile policy we still provide 25% of its softwood lumber, but the share of its domestic production that has increased over time is negligible. The share is made up by new imports. The U.S.”
“It is my sincere hope that we will use tonight's take-note debate to elevate a conversation and to talk about other ways to support the softwood lumber industry in Canada in the short term, as we look to get a deal and as we look to reorient in the long term. Therefore, I ask, what other supports could be considered for workers in mill communities to keep workers employed if possible and financially supported when necessary, and to keep communities vibrant? What other supports could be considered for companies in the sector to keep balance sheets strong, to keep mills open and to support diversification? (2100) [ Translation ] On that note, I would like to talk about our future, the future of Canada's forestry sector. It would be naive to believe that a softwood lumber agreement will solve all our problems once and for all.”
“We are strengthening our domestic and export markets. These investments and policies are in addition to a $5-billion strategic fund that will help companies affected by tariffs pivot, adapt and innovate. [ English ] We have also expanded eligibility for the existing investment tax credits to include systems that generate electricity, heat or both from waste biomass through budget 2025. This helps sawmills struggling with tariffs and duties by incentivizing new clean energy uses for residuals. I want to thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for his advocacy on this file. It supports meaningful investment in our forestry sector. There is more to do, and this government will do more.”
“Forest roads that support mining exploration are not built. Unharvested timber rots in tenures, and that can create fire risk. Rural hubs lose the vital services that are no longer able to be sustained. [ Translation ] We have discussed these measures to support the forestry sector several times in the House. I will briefly review them. First, there is $50 million for workers. However, even though this is necessary and important, forestry workers do not want employment insurance benefits. They want to work. They want a future for their industry. That is why we are also providing $700 million in liquidity supports, $500 million to increase local processing and value-added production, as well as strict rules under the buy Canadian policy that require the use of Canadian lumber in general and for the Build Canada Homes program in particular.”
“As good as our product is and as talented as our forestry workers are, diversifying away from a market that was built up over centuries will take time. Both we and the Americans need a softwood lumber deal. We realize this, and they will. We will work at every level to get this deal. In the meantime, we must support our forestry communities: the companies, the workers, the families and the businesses that rely on the mills being open. Many mills are closing or curtailing. As good as the Canadian product is and as much as American demand remains, having 45% combined tariffs and duties is very difficult. As I said, combatting this decline is not only a moral imperative; it is an economic one. When workers and their families leave these communities, they do not always come back. Expertise is lost that takes decades to rebuild.”
“The situation is bad for American consumers and American builders and bad for the Canadian forestry sector. It is bad for forestry towns and bad for forestry workers and their families. [ English ] The American action only harms; it does not help. It harms the Americans, of course. They do not have the lumber production to meet their domestic demand. They do not have the foresters, the mill workers or the supply chains. There is no reasonable time frame in which the United States will become self-sufficient in lumber. Instead, it will pay more to buy from us, the Europeans or the South Americans, and it will get less: lower-quality timber and smaller lumber. Of course, the American action also badly harms Canada. We do not have another market of the U.S.'s size or as close.”
“Canada has more forests than almost any other country in the world, and the quality of the wood we produce is exceptional thanks to the natural advantages of our climate and our forestry industry's role as a global leader in forest stewardship. High quality creates high demand, especially from the United States. However, the industry is going through a period of crisis. Our long-standing softwood lumber trade dispute with the Americans has reached a point where combined tariffs and duties now average 45%. The United States is not just our number one export market. At 85%, it basically is the market. The market is one we built and earned based on the quality and accessibility of our products. Now, however, we are being shut out of that market because of protectionist policies.”
“[ English ] My family owes an enormous debt to the good jobs that the forestry sector provided then, provides now, and will provide well into the future. In fact, this entire country owes that debt. To make good on it, we must secure and protect this industry, and ensure for it and those who work within it a growing and prosperous future. [ Translation ] This is a moral obligation, but it also makes sound economic and environmental sense. The sector is increasingly recognized as a key aspect of greener construction and a more sustainable lifestyle. Lumber is a renewable resource, a carbon sink and a competitive advantage.”
“Mr. Chair, our government is there and will continue to be there to help the Canadian softwood lumber industry. The forestry sector is core to our economy and our Canadian identity. My own family's story has been interwoven with Canadian forestry for centuries. My father David Hogan grew up in mill towns and worked summers at the newsprint mill. My grandfather John Hogan was a career pulp worker who worked at mills in Baie-Comeau, Masson-Angers, Chandler and Port Hawkesbury. His father spent his career in forestry. While it was not an unbroken line, as it was sometimes uncles, brothers or cousins, that is the way it was for generations in my family, back to when Antoine Bouchard married Marie-Madeleine Simard in Saguenay in the early 1700s. (2055) [ Translation ] It is true, the member for Jonquière and I are eighth cousins.”
“Madam Chair, we have already talked about the fact that, with negotiations, we cannot just magically wish them to go better, but I certainly welcome any suggestions on how to deal with Donald Trump. I wanted to turn to a comment that was made about B.C. and the fact that not all the tenures are being used, which I think is true. The forestry sector, of course, to be successful needs four things. It needs economic access to imports, specifically timber for sawmills. It needs access to capital. It needs access to markets. It needs the talent. Does the member opposite have any opinions as to which of those levers would be best pulled in order to expand the B.C. forestry sector?”
“Madam Speaker, it is an excellent point. The reality is that finance is much more nuanced than that. Conversations about the size of a spend entirely miss the point if we are not talking about what is being spent. In the case of the CPP, which is the example that was put in front of me, it is not even a government investment; it is an investment made on behalf of all Canadians in their future. It has created one of the largest pools of capital in the western world and has been a great source of strength for this country.”
“They are part of an overall plan that would increase access to markets, which is good for forestry; increase tax credits for the forest sector, which is good for forestry; and increase the size of the domestic market, which is good for forestry.”
“Madam Speaker, of course, the situation the forestry sector faces is absolutely untenable and unjustified, and it is based on long-standing trade disputes with the United States. Budget 2025 offers a number of supports for the forestry sector, including a new biomass ITC that would now be retroactive to 2023, which would allow investments in plants that use residuals, making sawmills more economical. It also very firmly plants a flag that we will buy Canadian and that Canadian products will be first and foremost when we are building Canadian homes. Very explicitly, that is also Canadian lumber. These are no silver bullets.”
“Madam Speaker, it is true that pipelines are the safest, most environmentally responsible way to move oil products, and they are also the cheapest way. There are a lot of benefits to them. Of course, if we are going to continue to build oil infrastructure, we need to do it in a way that is still consistent with our goals to be net zero in 2050, which is exactly what the Prime Minister has said. He has said that if we can make progress on things such as the Pathways project to sequester carbon, there are lots of opportunities for additional take-away capacity. That is oil sector speak for additional pipelines, which would allow us to increase our export opportunities.”