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 3 of 10.
“When we talk about air quality and the economic impact, obviously, we are talking about billions of dollars in health care costs, but we also need to talk about deaths, premature deaths, that are directly linked to poor air quality. We also need to talk about health conditions, hospitalizations and cardiovascular disease, especially among seniors and people who are at risk. We can solve some of these issues by electrifying transportation, but if we delay electrification, as the Conservatives want to do, we will lose out from an economic standpoint, from an environmental standpoint because of the fight against climate change, from a public health standpoint and from a consumer standpoint. Consumers' pocketbooks are now captive to the oil and gas companies, the majority of which happen to be owned by U.S. investors.”
“People need to understand that oil and gas companies are strongly opposed to the electrification of transportation because, obviously, it will lead to a reduction in oil consumption in the country. When it comes to the electrification of transportation in Canada, Quebec is ahead of all the other provinces. More electric vehicles have been sold in Quebec and more charging stations have been installed in Quebec, and there is a reason for that. It is because there is a significant financial advantage to transitioning to the electrification of transportation in Quebec. From an economic standpoint, Quebeckers are still paying more than $10 billion a year for oil. That is $10 billion that is leaving the province and is therefore no longer in Quebeckers' pockets. That is in addition to the impact that burning oil and gas has on air quality.”
“Mr. Speaker, once again, our Conservative colleagues' attitude is not at all constructive, particularly when it comes to the fight against climate change. What people need to understand is that behind their motion lies a desire to do away with almost all of Canada's climate change policies, and they have been somewhat successful in accomplishing that so far. Their motion covers up the fact that they are simply opposed to the electrification of transportation and electric vehicles. I think they would be better off having the courage to say it outright. For several months, even years, we have been seeing policy proposals that are essentially those of the oil and gas companies.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge two of my colleagues, Caroline Mireault and Daniel Tessier, who are celebrating their 10th year of service in the riding. These people support us, and they are also the ones who field comments from constituents who see projects like this coming and wonder, for example, why there is no consultation in their town. Representatives of the Union des producteurs agricoles de Lanaudière came out and said, “We certainly do not intend to let a scenario like the one in Mirabel happen again.” These are agricultural producers saying this. I am wondering why my colleague is not prepared to accept our request today, to apologize for what happened in Mirabel and to ensure that there will be adequate consultations, which is clearly not the case according to the people on the ground.”
“Mr. Speaker, restoring purchase incentives for vehicles is a small step forward, but that only matters if the vehicles can actually get into the country. This does not erase the Liberals' generational setbacks on sustainable mobility. They have cut $5 billion from public transit while subsidizing oil companies to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. They are making deals with Alberta for a dirty oil pipeline at the very same time they claim to be encouraging electric transportation. When it comes to the environment, with the Liberals, why is it always one step forward and a thousand steps back?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals should never have cancelled the rebates for buying electric vehicles. It is good news, then, that they are being reinstated for vehicles manufactured here or in countries with which we have free trade agreements, such as European countries. The problem is that the federal government is blocking affordable electric cars from Europe. Ottawa has decided that these cars, which are good for everyone on the planet, are not good for Canada. Will the government offer consumers a choice and allow European electric cars in?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will turn the question back to our Liberal colleagues. Why will they not apologize? It is unbelievable. They have no reason not to. I think that they need to rise above the fray for once. What we expect from this government is respect for the people and respect for Mirabel.”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, what I have witnessed since the start of this new Parliament is that the entire Quebec contingent on the government benches always toes the government line. They are not here to defend Quebec's interests. My colleague's question is entirely hypothetical, because I doubt that even a single Quebec Liberal member will rise to support the motion calling on the government to apologize. I would be very honoured to see that happen, but sadly, I will believe it when I see it, because no one has dared to break from the party line so far. When it comes time to defend Quebec's interests, all they do is defend the interests of the government.”
“Mr. Speaker, if things were done properly, there would be a real environmental assessment, a real project and a real authority that people could trust. Then people could have their say. At this point, that is not the case. Normally, a final project is presented for people to comment on. In this case, there is only a 10-kilometre-wide route, and people are worried about that. Above all, they do not want to relive the trauma they experienced, which is still very real for the people of Mirabel. That is what worries us. Today, it is important that the government recognize this, make amends and apologize to the public. It is important that it improve its consultation process, which is tearing communities apart or, at the very least, scaring many people, and rightly so.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us go back to the reason for this opposition day. We are talking about Mirabel and the need for an apology. With all due respect to my colleague and his question, I am a bit disappointed that he did not comment on the Mirabel case. That said, we already know the answer. People want more consultations, real meetings, in more places, with more dates, not just displays, but actual, proper consultations, as is normally done in Quebec.”
“Rushing things and doing them poorly seems to be the government's modus operandi when it comes to major projects. We will certainly also refuse to allow selective use of the Impact Assessment Act, because we need impact assessments that are worthy of their name, that are comprehensive and that allow for genuine consultation. We are currently seeing exactly the opposite from the government. (1350)”
“Obviously, I would add to that Bill C-5 and Bill C-15 , among others, which will allow the government, and therefore Alto, to circumvent the provisions of the Expropriation Act. Let us come back to the 1969 experience. It has shown how deeply the federal government already traumatized an entire population, even without the excessive powers granted by these bills. Imagine what they will be able to do now with these bills. Imagine how far they will go, especially considering that Bill C-15 gives significant powers of expropriation and the right of first refusal to Alto, among other things, in order to speed up the construction of high-speed rail. By trying to move too quickly, there is a risk that things will once again go off the rails.”
“Instead of moving forward, it is backtracking. Obviously, we are calling on the government to hold serious consultations with mayors, citizens, farmers and businesses. We are talking about their lives and the place where they live, but so far, no public consultations have been held in Mirabel, or at least no meaningful consultation, and so we are waiting for some new dates and locations. There is a new new process that will increase accountability when it comes to consultations. Every consultation process must have a record of proceedings. People have the right to know what is being said and it needs to be archived somewhere. People's concerns need to be documented. It is very worrisome to see a project worth tens of billions of dollars start out like this.”
“It will therefore be free to ignore what the mayors of Mirabel and other cities, such as Terrebonne and Mascouche, are asking for. They spoke out just yesterday, demanding meaningful public consultations. Worse still, for this project, residents may be notified of expropriation by email. Imagine announcing that by email. An hon. member: That is awful. Patrick Bonin: What a shameful lack of consideration for the public. Mr. Speaker, this is very concerning. The Liberals' condescending approach is to push projects through without any real discussion. That breeds mistrust, even with respect to potentially positive initiatives to support things like the fight against climate change and transportation for Canadians, and especially for Quebeckers. What we are seeing is that the government is sabotaging its own momentum.”
“What is happening today in Mirabel demonstrates how important it is for the government to apologize, because what is happening on the ground shows how little progress the government has made, how insensitive it is to the reality of the people of Mirabel and how insensitive it is to the reality of the people of Quebec. Even in its statement on January 28, Alto's message was clear. The mistakes of the past must not be repeated here. However, if the mistakes of the past are not to be repeated, then we must remember the expropriations. The government passed the Expropriation Act to prevent this from happening again. However, the Liberal government included clauses in the current budget to suspend parts of the act, such as the obligation to hold meaningful public consultations.”
“Not listening to the local population is not only a flagrant lack of consideration, but also a recipe for disaster, undermining solutions that would enable Canada to enter the 21st century. (1345) I want to reiterate what the mayor of Mirabel, Ms. Therrien, said. She learned through the media that the proposed route would pass through her territory. She is a mayor, but she learned about it from the media. Imagine how disrespectful that is. She even had to take steps to meet with Alto, voice her concerns, and remind them, among other things, of the importance—and this is serious—of properly consulting the people of Mirabel.”
“Again, the project is important, but right now it is being poorly managed. The problem is not the project, it is the way it is being carried out. By handling a consultation in this way, they are essentially refusing to listen to the concerns of the public and of farmers. I would also add the concerns of industries, businesses and SMEs located within this 10-kilometre-wide corridor. People are wondering if they are going to be expropriated. Why consider such a large area when we know full well that a railroad track is not 10 kilometres wide? When we talk about taking the population's concerns into account, it is because the population has a socio-historical connection to the region.”
“I find that extremely worrying, because even the mayor of Mirabel said she does not know what is happening on the ground. She said that the government is literally ramming the project through and riding roughshod over the people. Citizens are not the only ones who will be affected; agricultural businesses will be as well. I can tell you what is happening in Lanaudière, for example, where the Union des producteurs agricoles has already mobilized. It is concerned because the government is planning a route that will break the area up over a 10-kilometre swath. People are wondering where the route will go. There is no way that consultations in Terrebonne for example, several dozen kilometres from their town, will generate genuine social support for this project. For one, these consultations will not actually be consultations.”
“However, the government must understand that, if people are not involved in the decision-making process early on, they are bound to resist, particularly in the case of the people of Mirabel, who have experienced a major collective trauma that the government is forcing them to relive by hastily imposing a process and holding consultations that are not even worthy of the name. These are not even actual consultations. They are more of a display that people can stop by to look at, a kind of happy hour consultation, when greater tact should be exercised to ensure that the people of Mirabel do not feel pressured into things. Today, we are asking the government to make amends and apologize. The government has not yet given any indication that it is willing to do so.”
“We are talking about social licence for projects. However, the government is doing exactly the opposite of what it takes to get social licence. We are talking today about a major public transit project. We often talk about all of the environmental measures that this government has backtracked on over the past year. It is a long list. One recent example is the $5 billion in cuts the government has made to the Canada public transit fund. However, with this high-speed rail project, the government may be able to show that it has not completely given up on public transit and that it can complete a project that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve people's quality of life and improve transit.”
“Mr. Speaker, today is a particularly important day for us because it reminds us, among other things, of the deep wounds we carry. After all, we are talking about nearly 2,000 families who were literally uprooted by the construction of the Mirabel airport in 1969. Those scars have not yet healed. What we are seeing today is a certain arrogance and a lack of consideration, and that is why our motion, our opposition day, is so important. Simply raising the possibility of expropriating some of these lands a second time obviously reopens a collective memory that remains very sensitive among the people of Mirabel, and even across Quebec for those who witnessed what happened in Mirabel at the time. Charging ahead like a runaway train is certainly not the way to get social licence for high-speed rail.”
“We look forward to seeing where his efforts will take him. We are proud of him. Repentigny and all of Quebec are cheering him on.”
“Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to call attention to the meteoric rise of a Repentigny resident who is redefining the limits of what is possible. His name is Thomas Fafard. Thomas has proven that even the longest-lasting records are no barrier to him; they are an invitation to excel. During his very first marathon on January 14, he beat Alain Bordeleau, the 40-year record holder. That was a first for Quebec. His was more than a timed performance; it was history-making. This is just one chapter in Thomas's epic journey. Already a Quebec half marathon record holder, Thomas has an insatiable thirst for victory. In fact, he is not about to stop there. Today, his goal is clear: to earn a spot in the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic Games marathon. Thomas's determination to push the limits makes him an outstanding ambassador.”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, my Conservative colleagues do not want to talk about it, but the fight against climate change still matters. Climate change and the climate crisis did not go away when the newly elected President of the United States took office and implemented his trade and tariff policies. We still have a crisis. How can we develop the economy without increasing oil and gas production, which is basically what caused climate change in the first place? We would have liked to talk about ways to fight climate change and inequality. We could have explored ways to address the cost of living problem through climate actions that are fair and equitable for all Canadians. Unfortunately, our Conservative colleagues want to abandon the fight against climate change, but the problem will not go away.”
“Mr. Speaker, when it comes to carbon pricing, the Canadian Climate Institute has put data on the table. It is very, very clear. These are scientific facts, and I would love to see studies that prove otherwise from our Conservative colleagues, who claim that industrial carbon pricing has an impact on food prices. That is not the case. Unfortunately, once again, this is part of their populism and demagoguery. That being said, obviously the cost of energy is a major issue. It costs Quebec more than $10 billion a year to import oil and gas. We are sending that money outside Quebec, when we could be using it to electrify transportation, buildings, industries and SMEs. If we hung onto that money, we would not be vulnerable to foreign companies whose shareholders are mostly based in the United States.”
“Unfortunately, my Conservative colleagues are using disinformation when they say that carbon pricing has a major impact on the cost of food.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always odd to hear the Liberals say that they feel they are still dedicated to fighting climate change after all the backtracking we have seen and after they basically abandoned the climate plan that was put in place in the previous Parliament. When it comes to carbon pricing, yes, we are concerned. Negotiations are currently under way with Alberta, and we know that Alberta is backtracking on carbon pricing. The federal government should have stepped in to ensure that the price on carbon is the same across Canada, but it did not. What is more, it could water down carbon pricing even further. To get back to the question, studies clearly show that industrial carbon pricing has no impact on the increase in the cost of living and food prices. The impact is close to zero.”
“The situation is serious, and doing less will only make the problem worse. Unfortunately, that is what my Conservative colleagues are proposing. Obviously, we will be voting against the motion.”
“An initial report by False Profits, conducted by economist Jim Stanford, showed that the spike in world oil prices in 2022 was the main factor behind the subsequent surge in inflation. The fact is that fossil fuels cause inflation and have a major impact on people's cost of living. Soaring oil prices caused by financial speculation are responsible for a significant portion of inflation and, according to this report, even cost Canadians nearly $200 billion between 2022 and 2025. That is $12,000 per household. We in the Bloc Québécois believe that the rising cost of living in Canada, and also in Quebec, is a major problem that is causing people to suffer. We need to address this issue, but to do so, we need to tackle its root causes, and climate action is not currently on the agenda. This is a major problem. We are talking about inaction.”
“That is not currently the case with the federal government's national adaptation strategy, which is underfunded and has been criticized by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, among others. Getting back to the Dalhousie University report, it states that wildfires in the west also affected transportation, such as rail lines, which has an impact on the cost of food. If we refocus the debate, one real solution would be to make the industries, including the petrochemical, oil and gas industries, pay for their pollution, their impact on climate change and the extreme weather events they are causing. There are many other problems related to the oil and gas industry.”
“According to Statistics Canada, “While activity was up in most sectors of the economy, those gains were entirely negated by the worst drought in nearly two decades”. That was about Saskatchewan, but Quebec was not spared either. In the Abitibi region, for example, hay producers received a record $6.8 million in compensation for the 2023 drought. That is more than triple the annual average. They had to bring in hay from the west because they were having a hard time producing it in Quebec, partly because of the drought conditions. The government needs to develop a climate change adaptation strategy to protect against these crop problems, among other things. Moreover, this strategy should also be concrete and sustainable.”
“That is undeniable when we look at the effects of climate change on production everywhere across Canada, even in my Conservative colleagues' ridings. We can read the following in a study on the cost of climate change conducted by the the Institut de recherche en économie contemporaine: “Droughts were an important factor in the recent dramatic increase in crop insurance payments in Canada, which surged from $890 million in 2018 to $4.887 billion in 2022.” That is nearly $5 billion in crop insurance. The value of these payments increased more than fivefold in five years. Obviously, that has an impact on the cost of food. In Canada, in practical terms, we are talking about droughts that have affected crop yields. In Saskatchewan, yields actually declined by 47% in 2021.”
“That report explains that, in 2024, cocoa prices increased because of high temperatures and extreme weather conditions in West Africa, while orange juice prices spiked because floods and droughts damaged harvests in Brazil. These are examples of international imports that have risen in price and had an impact on the household expenses of Canadians, of our constituents. In place of these products, we could develop other solutions to achieve greater food sovereignty, increase resilience in agriculture and stimulate, for example, greenhouse cultivation, processing and freezing. These are all solutions that would contribute to food sovereignty and greater resilience. One of the real reasons for rising food prices is climate change.”
“It has been scientifically proven that if we abandon the fight against climate change, as the Conservatives are proposing and as the Liberals may want to do, food prices will only continue to rise. If we abandon the fight against climate change, food prices will definitely continue to rise. Let us think about how food production, our farmers and our agricultural producers are affected by wildfires, floods and droughts, not to mention other unpredictable weather conditions that are getting stronger, more frequent and even more alarming in scale. This is for real. We also need to think about the pests and diseases that come with climate change and contribute to rising food prices. (1130) Let us look at Canada's Food Price Report 2025, which my Conservative colleagues often mention.”
“His strategy basically involves continuing to demonize public policy, especially climate and environmental policy, of course, rather than putting forward real proposals that could help people deal with today's serious cost of living crisis. I would even go so far as to say that it is completely out of touch to manipulate households' financial concerns to advance the oil and gas agenda and further line the pockets of shareholders of oil and gas companies in Canada, which are mostly foreign-owned. These profits, not to mention the subsidies, even increase grocery bills. It does not help to tell lies or half-truths to those who are suffering right now, those who cannot afford to put enough food on the table and who have to choose between paying for their housing and paying for groceries. I think it is important that we review the facts.”
“Regardless of what my Conservative colleagues are saying today, we know that particular carbon price has no impact on food prices. The impact is too small to be measurable, according to the Canadian Climate Institute. The impact is almost nil. The motion is a manifestation of the populism we have come to expect from the Conservative Party over the past few years. The Conservatives are touching on a real issue that people are angry and worried about. We too are worried about the rising cost of living, but meaningless slogans will not make things better. Giving people real, concrete solutions will. The Conservative leader does not seem to have learned anything over the past year.”
“Not only are the Conservatives once again blaming the government for the meagre measures it introduced to fight climate change, most of which have already been shelved, but they are also calling for even more backpedalling on the environment and the oil and gas issue. Based on this line of reasoning, now that the Liberals have essentially co-opted the Conservative agenda, caved to oil and gas companies on pretty much everything they want and abolished consumer carbon pricing, we would expect food prices to go down, but that has not happened. Carbon pricing is gone, and it has not happened. It has not happened because carbon pricing did not drive up food prices and the cost of living. The Conservatives are back at it, and this time they want to repeal a crucial regulation on industrial carbon pricing.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thought that yesterday was Groundhog Day, but it seems to be happening again today. Everyone is probably familiar with the movie where the same day repeats itself over and over again. Once again, we have a Conservative Party motion that, unfortunately, exploits the hardship of Canadians who are struggling to put food on the table to serve the interests of the Conservatives' beloved petrochemical, oil and gas industry. The Conservatives have spent almost all of their opposition days in the last two Parliaments saying that carbon pricing is to blame for the rising cost of living and the rising cost of food, and now here they are again today spreading false and inaccurate information. Their failure to address the real root causes of the increase in grocery costs demonstrates a blatant lack of diligence and compassion.”
“Madam Speaker, I think that the message is very clear, from both the Conservatives and the Liberals: They want to impose as few regulations and constraints as possible on oil and gas companies. They want to increase oil and gas production, and they want more new pipelines. The idea of abolishing or weakening industrial carbon pricing would be a major setback. It flies in the face of what we should be doing and what economists are telling us. If the big polluters are not going to pay for pollution-related impacts, then the cost will be passed on to consumers, to Canadians and to Quebeckers. That is what they really want: the oil and gas companies spending less and the public spending more.”
“Instead of doing that, we could be electrifying our transportation, sending the money to Hydro-Québec and generating profits that could be invested in health care, education, roads and improved public transit, for example. There are plenty of solutions out there, but the Conservatives would rather turn a blind eye.”
“Madam Speaker, unlike the Conservatives, we believe that it is possible to grow the economy, improve people's quality of life and fight climate change. What they want is to get rid of all climate measures. This attitude is completely irresponsible and worthy of the biggest climate deniers, given that we know full well that climate change still exists. Instead of saying that we need to scrap all environmental protections, what I want to hear them say is what we could do to break free from oil and gas and improve the financial situation of Quebeckers, who spend more than $10 billion a year on oil and gas that needs to be imported.”
“That is the real scandal, and it is yet another major setback from a climate perspective that has a huge impact on the economy and on consumers' wallets.”
“Still, we believe that bringing in these vehicles without considering the risks associated with espionage, the fact that China is engaging in foreign interference, the fact that China uses forced child labour and a type of modern slavery and that China does not respect human rights means that Canada is signing an agreement without taking any action against forced labour, for example, as the Bloc Québécois had proposed in a bill. It is important to be careful about that. We have to wonder why the government did not act first by allowing European EVs into North America. These vehicles are less expensive and more technologically advanced than those of Canadian manufacturers. This would also help lower the cost for consumers who are interested in these vehicles. However, the federal government is not allowing them to enter the country.”
“Madam Speaker, it is important to understand that any discussion about bringing Chinese electric vehicles into Canada is really about distracting from the fact that Canada is backsliding when it comes to vehicle regulations and incentives for purchasing electric vehicles. The government no longer wants to force Canadian manufacturers to produce more EVs. When it comes to Chinese electric vehicles, it is important to understand that the technology is much more advanced, that Canada is lagging behind, that Canadian manufacturers are lagging behind and that 50% of all new vehicles sold in China are electric.”
“Unfortunately, this day is completely pointless. This is, yet again, what oil and gas companies want. They have gotten almost everything they want. When are we going to talk about real solutions to get off fossil fuels, which cause climate change, underwrite war, destabilize Quebec's economy, drain our wallets and escalate extreme weather events that are extremely costly to Quebeckers, their health and their economy?”
“Once again, the government is granting oil and gas companies' wishes before my Conservative colleagues even realize that it is doing exactly what those companies want. The other thing my Conservative colleagues want is the removal of federal regulatory restrictions that impede communication and advocacy by Canadian companies. Basically, they want to eliminate rules that prohibit greenwashing by oil and gas companies. Once again, I am pleased to inform my Conservative colleagues that, in the latest budget, the government made it clear that it intends to soften anti-greenwashing laws, even though those laws protect consumers and ensure that they get the truth about how oil and gas companies are performing. Everyone knows they are among the world's worst offenders when it comes to telling the truth.”
“Of course, 99% of plastic is produced from oil and gas. This is a potential market for oil and gas companies. It is easy to see why our Conservative colleagues are pushing for plastic production bans to be lifted, even though the world is heading in that direction and even though the international community is working toward a global agreement to get rid of plastic. Plastic poses serious risks to human health and the environment, and it is one of the world's fastest-growing sources of greenhouse gas pollution. Plastics are what oil and gas companies are counting on to keep making profits. Well, I am pleased to inform my Conservative colleagues that the government is already backtracking on this. Canada was supposed to implement an international export ban on single-use plastics in December, but the government backtracked in the fall.”
“The government is already on track to fulfill the oil and gas companies' entire wish list, but my Conservative colleagues have failed to realize that almost all the climate architecture and measures put in place by the government have been dismantled since the Prime Minister took office. Of course, I will not even mention the fact that Canada is still not allowed to import European electric vehicles under the pretext of safety. This puts these far less expensive and more technologically advanced vehicles out of reach, and it enables the government to shield Canadian manufacturers, which rank among the worst in the world when it comes to electrification and which are slowing the adoption of electric vehicles across this country. My Conservative colleagues are also calling for the federal plastics ban to be lifted.”
“The federal government suspended that EV sales quota just last fall. It is no longer forcing Canadian manufacturers to offer the public EVs or to offer a bigger supply of more affordable vehicles that would free them from the need to use gas. It has already suspended this quota, with no indication as to when it will be reinstated. We do not know for sure, but we strongly suspect that it could be significantly watered down, because Ontario is unequivocally demanding an end to measures like this. Western Canada's oil companies are calling on the government to drop such measures. As we have seen, the federal government has even abandoned the EV buyer incentives.”
“(1130) Our Conservative friends are calling on the government to do away with the cap on oil and gas companies' polluting greenhouse gas emissions, but the government has already promised to do so under the Canada-Alberta MOU. That wish has already been granted. Is it a responsible thing to do? Does it make sense? From a climate perspective, it does not make any sense to impose zero constraints on the biggest polluters in the country, on the sector that is the largest polluter in the country, such as the oil sands, which emit as much greenhouse gas emissions as all of Quebec. The government repealed those regulations, but the Conservatives have obviously not realized it yet, because they are asking again for it to be repealed. They are also calling on the government to remove the federal EV sales quota.”