Patrick Bonin
Repentigny, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, it is official: Quebec has its own Leonardo da Vinci. I am talking about Jérôme Dupras, a researcher, professor, musician, and now, Quebec's chief scientist.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer is embarrassing. The Liberals continue to veer off course. The consultation documents for Quebeckers on the decommissioning of the Gentilly-1 nuclear reactor are in English only.”
“Mr. Speaker, the event of the year is the Liberals' climate betrayal. Their record includes the pipeline agreement with Alberta. It includes ending environmental impact assessments. It includes pipelines and offshore drilling with no regard for protected areas or endangered species.”
“This renowned scientist and influential artist is also a remarkable environmental entrepreneur and an exceptional communicator. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, and from one environmental activist to another, I wish my friend every success. May Quebec benefit from his sound advice.”
“Mr. Speaker, as the member for Repentigny, I can only echo the previous comments made by my colleague. There are three towns in the riding of Repentigny: Charlemagne, Repentigny, and L'Assomption. Saint-Sulpice used to be part of the riding. My colleague mentioned community of interest. Saint-Sulpice is part of the L'Assomption RCM.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his speech. I would also like to congratulate the minister who introduced this bill. I would like to reiterate how important it is to the Bloc Québécois that we support this bill.”
The complete record
Every one of 466 lines we hold for Patrick Bonin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 10.
“Mr. Speaker, I am tabling this supplementary report from the Bloc Québécois in the House today to try to make the main report on the study of the 2030 emissions reduction plan more ambitious. These reports are the result of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development's first study in this Parliament, a study that was proposed by the Bloc Québécois. We proposed this study to respond to the dangerous and increasingly real risk that Canada will not meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets. We proposed it because, despite what is currently happening on the international stage, the climate crisis has not gone away. It has not been put on pause because of tariff wars or armed conflicts, particularly the one in Iran.”
“I would like to know the leader of the official opposition's thoughts about what he calls corporate welfare. Are these subsidies unacceptable when they are granted to oil and gas companies?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition often talks about corporate welfare. I would like to hear him talk about the additional oil and gas subsidies provided in this economic update. The government is now spending $14.5 billion on carbon capture and sequestration and has expanded the tax credit to allow more oil production. That makes it a direct subsidy for oil production. LNG projects qualify for an accelerated capital cost allowance, which amounts to another $640 million. On top of that, the government is setting up a $25-billion sovereign wealth fund to finance major projects, but also any business or project that received government funds in the past. For example, if the government wanted to expand the Trans Mountain pipeline, the money could be provided through this sovereign wealth fund.”
“How can the government claim to be serious about combatting climate change and how can it claim it will meet its reduction targets for 2030 and 2035 when it is going full steam ahead with oil?”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, once again, nothing new is being proposed for developing renewable energy, clean energy and public transit. However, new subsidies for oil and gas are being proposed. The government is even going so far as to expand subsidies for carbon storage in order to allow oil companies to drill and produce more oil from the oil sands. The government is now providing $14.5 billion to oil and gas companies through this program. There are plans to increase the country's oil transportation capacity by 12%. A “superdeduction” is being offered for liquefied natural gas, which will cost $640 million. A $25-billion sovereign wealth fund is being created, a significant portion of which will go to oil and gas companies.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are on a catastrophic collision course when it comes to fighting climate change. They are all about “drill, baby, drill”. They just approved Enbridge's Sunrise pipeline, yet another pipeline on top of Trans Mountain, Coastal GasLink and plenty of others. It does not stop there. They even want to build another pipeline in western Canada, on top of Keystone XL. Even the Harper Conservatives did not show such contempt for the fight against climate change, and they do not even believe in climate change. Are there any environmentally conscious Liberals left? When will they take action?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources confirmed last week that he wants to invest $10 billion in government funds in a new dirty oil pipeline, on top of the $34 billion for the Trans Mountain pipeline. Today, the Liberals are announcing their plans to create a sovereign wealth fund, another gimmick for investing public money in energy and pipelines. Are there no limits to the amount of debt that the Liberals are prepared to foist on Quebeckers for the benefit of oil and gas companies?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear from my hon. colleague concerning the main point, that being our proposal to reinstate public funding for political parties. What we currently see are very high caps on financial contributions to political parties. Obviously, not everyone can afford to contribute so much. Our point is that this opens the door to the appearance of a conflict of interest or privileged access to ministers, for example, when tickets to a cocktail party cost $1,500. Reinstating public funding for political parties would allow us to cap potential political contributions at, let us say, $500. In this way, contributions would not be limited to the fortunate few. It would also make funding a lot more grassroots and more representative of the number of votes cast for each party.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' descent into an ecological abyss continues. This morning, they approved the expansion of yet another gas project in western Canada. They announced Sunrise, an Enbridge pipeline designed to export shale gas produced through hydraulic fracturing. Instead of developing clean energy and reducing dependence on dirty energy, like other countries are doing, Canada is using the war in Iran as an excuse to increase its reliance on gas. It is another giant step backward. Is there a limit to how much packpedalling on climate action the Liberals will tolerate from their Prime Minister ?”
“Mr. Speaker, there are good things in this bill. Obviously, we want to improve it, including with regard to party financing. The Bloc Québécois once introduced a bill to reinstate public party financing and lower the limit on personal donations to ensure that parties are not funded purely by the wealthiest individuals, a practice that often grants them privileged access. Why does the government not consider reinstating this system of public funding for political parties, where each vote would be associated with a specific amount? As I recall, it was the Chrétien government that implemented this system in 2004 before it was abolished.”
“Mr. Speaker, after promising to co-operate and seek the views of opposition MPs in a fair manner, the first move by this now-majority government was to unilaterally change the rules of the game without consulting the Bloc Québécois. The Liberals are even going against parliamentary tradition, which dictates that the composition of committees should be determined by consensus. What we are seeing right now is the exact opposite. Worse still, the proposal would give Liberals 58% of the seats on parliamentary committees, whereas they hold 51% of the seats here in Parliament. I would like to know what my hon. colleague thinks of that.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' nature strategy is to build more pipelines. The rumours are so serious that, last Thursday, the MP for Laurier—Sainte-Marie said he had confidence in his government despite its backtracking on climate action. However, today he wrote: “Any further compromise...would not only undermine Canada's climate commitments...but also risk causing irreversible damage to human health, clean air, clean water and the trust of indigenous communities.” When will the Liberals stand up to stop their leader from wrecking the environment?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie wrote in La Presse that he fears his government is abandoning all of its net-zero goals. His Prime Minister is trying to impose another dirty oil pipeline in western Canada without meeting any of his own conditions. There is no increase in industrial carbon pricing and no protection for our water, and the methane and clean electricity regulations are being watered down to please the oil and gas lobby. The Liberals have no chance of meeting their climate targets. If the Liberals will not listen to the Bloc Québécois, will they listen to their colleague?”
“Mr. Speaker, today is Earth Day, and we have a message. To everyone who still believes in climate change: Do not give up; keep up the fight. We do not have to accept a new pipeline out west. We do not have to accept that Canada is giving up on reducing greenhouse gases. We certainly do not have to accept that the Liberals are giving billions of dollars of our money to the oil and gas companies, including $1 billion for Bay du Nord alone. If this Liberal government wants to stamp out the fight against climate change, does it realize that we will not let it do that?”
“We are fighting and will continue to fight against all odds to build a greener, fairer and more humane world and to remind everyone that it is time for this government to come back down to Earth, the only one we have.”
“Mr. Speaker, April 22 is Earth Day. In Quebec, Earth Day is more than a celebration: it is a day of action. In 2012, more than 250,000 people took to the streets throughout Quebec. Individuals, young people, families turned out to protect what we hold most dear: our planet. Those voices have not disappeared, but they have been ignored, just like the billions of people threatened by the climate crisis, who are being ignored by governments that are making different choices, choices that were influenced by nearly 1,000 meetings with oil and gas lobbyists in 2025. We refuse to give up. Earth Day reminds us that change comes from commitment.”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebec has everything to gain from quickly moving away from oil and gas. Over $10 billion per year is leaving Quebec on oil purchases alone. Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, the Conservatives, oil companies and auto manufacturers are all working against electrification. We hope that this government will stand up and propose measures to help Quebec break free of oil and gas, rather than continuing to help oil companies make profits.”
“The federal government is making investments that exacerbate the problem, when it should be supporting the solutions that exist in Quebec, which require investments.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are currently 130,000 jobs in the electric mobility sector in this country and many of those jobs are in Quebec. That number is expected to triple by 2035. Quebec does not manufacture gas-powered vehicles. It manufactures electric buses, light-duty electric trucks, heavy-duty electric trucks, trains and streetcars. Quebec can do that and is interested in developing the components, batteries, charging station systems and the electrical system. That is where the jobs of the future are and that is where the government should be investing. Canada will not move forward by waiving environmental measures or eliminating them, as the Conservatives want to do. The federal government is currently dragging Quebec down when we could be world leaders. Obstacles are being put in our way.”
“Mr. Speaker, in our view, the Conservatives' proposal is utterly backward. Quebec is a leader in transportation electrification, and it needs the federal government's support. That means implementing ambitious measures, but the government's latest auto strategy is not ambitious, unfortunately. In terms of targets, it is not enough. There is also absolutely nothing in it about medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, even though those types of vehicles must be electrified. There is also no new money for charging stations outside of big cities, for the small charging station projects we need to ensure that charging is available everywhere. Yes, the Conservatives are backward, but we also need the Liberals to be much more ambitious. We need them to stop listening to automakers and the Ontario auto industry lobby, which are dragging us down.”
“They want to go backward at a time when the entire world is moving forward with the electrification of transportation and is taking the fight against climate change seriously. Obviously, we believe that aligning ourselves with the Trump administration is completely unacceptable. The government has already backed down on the electrification of transportation and related measures. What it should do is improve its auto strategy by setting more ambitious targets and taking action to ensure that we have more EVs from regions like Europe, not by doing less, as the Conservatives are proposing.”
“(1140) Obviously, this standard has an impact on production lines. If it is removed, manufacturers will no longer be forced to produce higher-efficiency vehicles, including electric vehicles. In the United States, this measure is estimated to save $23 billion in gas costs. These gas costs go straight into people's pockets. If manufacturers are under no obligation, we know they will not comply. We know that vehicles will use more gas and cost more. We know that households will have fewer options when it comes to small, fuel-efficient vehicles and electric vehicles. Unfortunately, once again, our Conservative friends are essentially suggesting that we go back to the Stone Age.”
“Clearly, the industry is completely behind the times and is in cahoots with the oil companies, which have every interest in ensuring that more oil is sold. Obviously, the electrification of transport threatens oil company profits. When the Conservatives propose ending EV mandates and rebates, they are also proposing to align vehicle emission reductions with those of our North American partner, the United States. In other words, they are asking for permission to pollute without limit, like Donald Trump's United States. President Trump announced the repeal of vehicle efficiency standards that extended over time the driving range of vehicles per gallon of gas. Under the current administration's plan, that amounts to 34.5 miles per gallon, compared to 50.4 miles per gallon under the Biden administration.”
“As for Canada, there has been a drop of nearly 50% in EV sales across the country. We are, I believe, the only country where sales have fallen, dropping from 18% to 9% of total vehicle sales last year. In Norway, the Netherlands, Scandinavian countries in particular, Europe in general and in China, electric vehicle sales account for over 50% of new vehicles sold. We are lagging behind here in Canada. The Conservatives are essentially proposing we slow that pace even further in order to protect the Canadian automotive industry, which has failed to adapt to the new global reality of climate change and the performance and efficiency of EVs. That is why they want to block new vehicles from entering the market and do not want to force manufacturers to produce more vehicles.”
“Our point is that if we want to diversify the market, then we need to facilitate access to these high-performance, lower-cost vehicles, which are currently being blocked by absolutely useless government measures. Mexico, for example, allows these vehicles into the country, but Canada does not, even though they are the same vehicles. If we were to let these vehicles into the country, it would help to bring down the cost and give people access to a wider variety of models, including smaller models that are virtually non-existent in Canada. The same goes for Chinese vehicles. However, there are issues related to the production of Chinese vehicles. It is important to be vigilant, particularly regarding espionage, forced labour and Chinese interference in Canada.”
“It is reasonable to believe that the reason Ontario manufacturers and Doug Ford are applauding the government's backtracking is that it is moving backward and risks retreating even further. The purpose of targeted subsidies is to make vehicles more affordable from the get-go. Right now they are still needed to close the remaining gap between electric vehicles and other vehicles, while the development of charging infrastructure boosts market confidence and consumer confidence while fostering this future-oriented economy that needs to be developed. There are other key measures that concern us at this time. One of our concerns is the fact that electric vehicles manufactured in Europe do not have access to the Canadian market because the safety standards are not recognized as being equivalent.”
“That is what Canada had with the electric vehicle availability standard, which the government abolished. However, a number of studies suggest that relying solely on purchase incentives is not the best way to boost sales. More is required. What happened with the EV availability standard is another step backward by the government, which a year ago had a far more ambitious standard than what has been proposed. (1135) We do not know how what was proposed in January will translate into regulations. The government has once again lowered the bar, and it is far from certain that it will meet even this new low bar. Whereas it previously aimed for 100% of new light-duty vehicles sold by 2035 to be electric, it is now aiming for only 75%, and the regulations are still not in place.”
“In 2025, 25% of new light-duty vehicles sold worldwide were electric. There is even talk of two out of five vehicles by the end of the decade, if not more. Currently, China is continuing its conquest of this market, which is literally growing everywhere on the planet except here in Canada. Let us take a look at China. People always say that China needs to step up its efforts. Right now, it is leading the transition to electric vehicles, including with very competitive tariffs, high-performance vehicles and more affordable models. As we speak, 50% of new vehicles sold in China are electric, and that figure is likely to rise to 80% by 2030, if not sooner. Therefore, the Conservatives are mistaken. EV subsidies must not be eliminated, but the supply side needs to be addressed as well.”
“We are talking about new subsidies that have been implemented after a one-year suspension that led to a major decline in electric vehicle sales. This decline was the result of the government suspending these subsidies overnight. Yes, we need a short-term subsidy. What is interesting, however, is that this subsidy is capped for vehicles with a price tag under $50,000. Obviously, Quebeckers have everything to gain, because Quebec is where the most electric vehicles are sold in the country. When we look at the impact of subsidies, we see that a subsidy of $1,000 leads to roughly a 10% increase in electric vehicle sales, according to the Canadian Climate Institute. The International Energy Agency has confirmed that the global EV market is booming despite economic uncertainties caused, among other things, by U.S. tariffs.”
“If Ottawa begins to tax foreign vehicles through the GST and other means, but not vehicles produced here, Donald Trump will inevitably interpret that as a tariff on American vehicles. In short, while the Conservatives want to favour local production, this measure will very certainly have the opposite effect and will provide Donald Trump with the perfect pretext to impose new tariffs, or even to repudiate CUSMA and tax the entire Canadian economy, including the Quebec economy. Regarding EV subsidies, this is yet another proposal by the Conservatives to oppose the reinstatement of subsidies for the purchase of electric vehicles. This measure has proven effective in stimulating the EV market since it was introduced in 2019 here in Canada.”
“Obviously, we are skeptical about the Conservative proposal to resurrect the 1965 Auto Pact. This pact was not free trade. It was a managed trade agreement essentially designed to protect Ontario's auto industry. Quebec was never afforded such protection. Rejecting the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, in favour of a measure like this would essentially mean reverting to a model that systematically favoured Ontario at Quebec's expense. The second part of the motion asks several things of the government, including ending the EV subsidy and removing the GST on Canadian-made vehicles. Removing the GST on vehicles in the current context would be terribly counterproductive. With regard to his tariffs, Donald Trump has largely spared the sectors that are currently covered by CUSMA.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that the Bloc Québécois does not support the Conservative Party's motion. In fact, by moving yet another motion on the auto sector, the Conservatives are unfortunately confusing the interests of Ontarians with the interests of Quebeckers. They are also protecting the interests of Canadian auto manufacturers, which are lagging behind internationally compared to electric vehicle manufacturers. Once again, they are protecting the interests of oil companies. What the Conservatives are doing is trying to bring Canada in line with Donald Trump's policies. The Conservatives are proposing an alignment with U.S. positions, including positions on tariffs that target Chinese vehicles, emissions standards and rules of origin, before trade agreement negotiations even begin.”
“I would like my colleague to explain why he agrees with giving more power to multinational corporations and limiting government action and intervention, when there are already international tribunals, including the World Trade Organization, that can resolve these disputes.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to talk about the investor-state dispute settlement, which, among other things, allows investors to sue states directly before an international tribunal. In the North American Free Trade Agreement, there was a provision in Chapter 11 that was removed when the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement was renewed in 2020. This chapter was abolished so that multinational corporations and large institutions would not have a disproportionate amount of power to sue countries and make it more difficult for them to legislate in their own jurisdiction. The World Trade Organization already exists to allow countries to settle such disputes among themselves.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to what my colleague said earlier. We share some concerns about things like agriculture and meat. My Bloc Québécois colleague proposed an amendment in committee that would essentially have required the bill to be conditional on a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the U.K. to ensure that Canadian meat can get into the U.K. Can my colleague explain why his party voted against this amendment even though he says he wants to open up these markets to Canadian meat?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with the carbon capture and sequestration tax credit increase and extension for oil and gas companies. Our Conservative colleagues often object to spending public funds this way or handing out subsidies. However, do they consider this direct subsidy to oil companies, owned in large part by Americans already making billions in profits, to be acceptable?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's comments on scrapping the Digital Services Tax Act, which made it possible to tax large digital companies with sales figures greater than $750 million. That was supposed to bring in about $1.5 billion a year for culture and regional media. Does my colleague agree that this much-discussed digital services tax should be reinstated?”
“Mr. Speaker, the $5-billion cut to the Canada public transit fund is unacceptable. Alliance TRANSIT denounced it this morning, and the cities have too. A coalition of organizations such as Équiterre, Trajectoire Québec, Vivre en Ville and many others is accusing the federal government of causing harm to users, to public transit, to mobility and to the government's own climate objectives. Worse still, Quebec has yet to receive a penny from this fund, while Ontario and Vancouver are raking in money. Are the Liberals going to cancel their budget cut and make sure that Quebec finally receives its share?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to understand what our Conservative colleagues are trying to accomplish. The government backed down on consumer carbon pricing. It introduced Bill C‑5 to suspend environmental laws and build pipelines. It added more money for oil and gas subsidies in the last budget. There was a pipeline project for a million barrels a day and an additional 300,000 barrels a day for Trans Mountain. The greenhouse gas emissions cap for the oil and gas sector was scrapped. Now the Conservatives are attacking transportation electrification. Does my colleague realize that the government has done almost everything the oil industry wanted? What are his ideas for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector? Does he think climate change does not exist?”
“Mr. Speaker, as we have seen in several respects, we need a comprehensive vision. For example, the government is saying that it is going to invest in the electrification of transport, but it is backtracking on the goals it had a year ago. It has cut $5 billion in funding for public transit and removed the oil and gas emissions cap. It is proposing a new pipeline that would carry a million barrels of oil per day, it is delaying the methane and clean energy regulations, it abandoned consumer carbon pricing, and it is now proposing to scale back industrial carbon pricing. The government is backtracking in these areas and not taking any real action to make up for it and to bring Canada closer to its target. On the contrary, the federal government has abandoned the fight against climate change, and that is worrisome.”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously there are some parts required in the manufacturing of EVs that are made in the United States. The question is, why are they not staying in Canada and why are they not being used to assemble EVs in Canada? Once again, the answer is because the government refuses to put real pressure on manufacturers. Billions of dollars are being handed out. We hope that their new strategy will yield results. However, the fact remains that they are backtracking on the targets for zero-emission vehicles, among other things, which only gives the industry more opportunity to drag its feet. We have already lost jobs. Quebec has everything to gain from electrifying transportation. Unfortunately, the money is going to Ontario and with no accountability.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we speak, there are 130,000 jobs in Canada in what is known as the electromobility sector, which is everything related to electric mobility. Obviously, in Quebec, we manufacture batteries, we have exemplary electrification and we have charging stations, so jobs could increase to more than 300,000 by 2035. If the automotive industry insists on clinging to a model from the last century, it will likely die off on its own. Electrifying transportation and producing more electric vehicles is not a fad. It is happening all over the world. Unfortunately, if the industry is facing threats and closures, it only has itself to blame for not investing in the future. That is why it is important to regulate the sector, because it clearly does not understand that the world is going in a different direction economically speaking.”
“These policies need to be strengthened, fast, rather than diminished and weakened as the government is doing. Obviously, we will oppose the Conservatives' motion. We clearly see their intentions: They are carrying out the oil and gas companies' agenda under the pretext of wanting to defend ordinary folks.”
“Not only did the Liberals suspend the incentives for a year, but what they have announced now is that the mandate that would have forced manufacturers to produce and sell more EVs has been set aside, much to the satisfaction of Ontario and the automotive manufacturers. What people need to understand is that manufacturers will not do it unless they are forced. The government is proposing an alternative: Instead of requiring 100% of all vehicles sold to be electric by 2035, Canada will only require 75%. It is backtracking again. This will delay electrification, at a time when states like California are staying the course. Europe is also being more ambitious. In China, 60% of new vehicles sold are electric. Today, as we speak, Canada is at 9%.”
“Opening the borders to allow vehicles in is a major issue, but we should not open them while burying our heads in the sand and acting as if there are no problems related to vehicle manufacturing in China, for example, where there have been documented reports of blatant forced child labour and human rights violations. We introduced a bill aimed at reversing the burden of proof so it is up to exporters to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that their products, including those from China, are not violating human rights and contributing to forced labour. There are solutions. We need to implement them. The Bloc Québécois has proposed several. Obviously, we are concerned to see the government constantly backpedalling.”
“Yes, we need incentives in the short term, and we think they should be geared to household income. What I mean is that rich people are obviously not the ones who need financial help to buy electric vehicles. We should also limit the number of subsidies because it makes no sense to give away that much money. That said, manufacturers should be forced to ramp up production of affordable EVs. Currently, the biggest lobby hindering electrification in Canada is made up of certain automakers that have fallen so far behind in Canada that they are struggling to compete with other vehicle manufacturers around the world, which is why these vehicles face barriers to entry to Canada.”
“As they see it, giving money to oil and gas companies is fine, but helping people buy electric vehicles is not. One of our major concerns is, of course, the affordability of vehicles. They are extremely expensive right now, especially electric vehicles. That is in part because there are currently barriers to entry and to competition from electric vehicles manufactured overseas in places like Europe that could come to Canada. There are plenty of models that would be much more affordable and much more economical for people, but the government is not allowing these vehicles into Canada, even though they are allowed into Mexico. The excuse is that European vehicles are not safe and do not meet Canadian standards. We do not have those vehicles here. What we need is access to affordable vehicles.”
“(1335) Unfortunately, when we look at what is going on with the electrification of transportation, we realize that a whole year has gone to waste. Last year, the government suspended the EV purchase incentives, causing EV sales in Canada to drop by nearly 50% in one year. While the whole world is ramping up EV sales, Canada is going backwards. The United States is about the only country that has stagnated. Canada is about the only country that has gone backwards. That is shameful, and the government is directly responsible. Now, the Liberals are coming back to us with some incentives, and the Conservatives are getting all fired up. They have never said a word about the roughly $10 billion a year in subsidies granted to oil and gas companies. The Conservatives have never moved a motion to take that away.”
“Unfortunately, what we are seeing now is that continued pressure from the oil and gas companies, backed up by our Conservative colleagues, has forced the government into submission since it came to power. Ever since this new government took office, we have seen more backtracking on the fight against climate change than ever before. It got so bad that the former environment minister stepped down from his position as Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture because he disagreed with all the federal government's backtracking, including the increased funding for oil and gas companies in the latest budget, Bill C-5 allowing the suspension of certain laws, including some environmental laws, and the regulations to accelerate the construction of fossil fuel and pipeline infrastructure, including liquefied natural gas facilities.”
“People are talking about Canadian nationalism and Canadian sovereignty, but it is important to keep in mind that over 50% of Canadian oil companies' shareholders are in the U.S. Nearly half of the gas imported to Quebec also comes from the U.S. We all stand to benefit if we take our money and invest it in the electrification of transportation. We also stand to benefit in terms of economic development and job retention. Every litre of gas Quebeckers replace with electrons means money for Hydro-Québec. That money stays in Quebec to be reinvested in our services, including health services, social services, schools, roads, infrastructure and public transit. This is a win-win situation.”