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 7 of 10.
“Mr. Speaker, the 250 municipal officials are reminding us that climate change is real. This summer alone, 95 communities experienced unsafe air quality, 54 were impacted by wildfires, 37 were forced to evacuate and 29 experienced extreme heat. As the mayor of Montreal said, we need to develop the economy by moving away from fossil fuel development as much as possible. Do the Liberals not understand that we need to move away from oil and gas, not promote it?”
“Mr. Speaker, people say that when the U.S. sneezes, Canada catches a cold. That is undoubtedly why, while Donald Trump rails against climate change at the UN General Assembly, Canada is turning into a climate change denier with Bill C‑5 . Some 250 elected municipal officials have formed a coalition to ask the Prime Minister to build the country instead of burning it. They are demanding that the government's major projects prioritize public transit, energy-efficient housing, to mention a few, but not oil and gas. Will the government listen to the mayors or to Donald Trump?”
“Madam Speaker, what we have seen over the past few months is that this new government is all about “drill, baby, drill”. It is open to the idea of pipelines. It is praising the oil sands, when they are already the main environmental issue in Canada. Emissions from oil sands production alone are higher than all of Quebec's greenhouse gas emissions. Given that the government is backtracking on the emissions cap for the oil and gas sector, can my colleague explain to me how it is going to force oil and gas companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions if it drops the cap, the only tool the government was planning to use to ensure that this sector takes responsibility?”
“Madam Speaker, an international report released today clearly shows that oil and gas production is currently on the rise and that, by 2030, it will be twice as high as it should be if we hope to comply with the Paris Agreement. The report ranks Canada among the six worst countries in the world when it comes to projected greenhouse gas emissions. Can the government explain to me how it intends to comply with the Paris Agreement when it is backtracking on such a vital policy as the oil and gas sector emissions cap?”
“Mr. Speaker, since the new Prime Minister took office, the message is undeniably “drill, baby, drill”. Canada is back in the oil and gas sector. Just recently, an LNG project was approved that will double exports of a gas that, let me remind members, is produced by hydraulic fracking. This technique was banned in Quebec because it is extremely harmful to the environment. The Prime Minister says he is open to the idea of a pipeline and praises the oil sands. It is clear the government is backtracking on the idea of setting a cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector. Can the government tell me how it will respect the Paris Agreement if it does not compel the sector primarily responsible for emissions, the oil and gas sector, to reduce its emissions?”
“Mr. Speaker, experts at the Canadian Climate Institute were very clear last week: Canada will not meet its greenhouse gas reduction target for 2030. This is because of oil and gas production, whose emissions increased by 83% between 1990 and 2022. Last year, they increased even more and that cancels the efforts in other sectors, including the efforts of Quebec. Will the government unequivocally commit to capping greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas sector to ensure that Alberta finally makes the efforts it needs to make?”
“Mr. Speaker, since the arrival of this new government, we have seen a competition between the Conservatives and the Liberals to see who likes oil and gas the most. This is on full display yet again today, with both sides calling to get rid of all environmental regulations. Investment credits of $5.7 billion are allocated to carbon capture and sequestration, a measure that seeks to help oil and gas companies. Do the Conservatives agree with allocating billions of dollars in this way to an industry that is already making multibillion-dollar profits?”
“Mr. Speaker, we have seen quite a bit of backtracking on several environmental issues since the new Prime Minister 's arrival, particularly with regard to carbon pricing, electric vehicles and Canada's greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Now, we sense some backtracking on the idea of capping emissions from Canada's oil and gas sector. This shift seems virtually tantamount to climate skepticism. I am wondering what my Conservative colleague thinks about global warming. Is it an established scientific fact?”
“Mr. Speaker, backtracking on climate change has accelerated since the new Prime Minister 's arrival. Among other things, he scrapped carbon pricing and passed Bill C‑5 , which bulldozes environmental legislation and authorizes pipeline projects. In another step backward, the Prime Minister did not renew financial incentives for purchasing electric vehicles. He also backed down on the requirement to sell more electric vehicles. In addition, he refuses to commit to meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2030. Today, the next step backward is very clearly under way, as the government is backtracking on regulations to cap greenhouse gas emissions for oil and gas. Will he commit—”
“Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to be having this debate today, especially since it comes after a decade of Liberal rule. We just heard it again. The Liberals approved the Bay du Nord project. They funded the Trans Mountain oil sands pipeline at a cost of $34 billion. Climate backtracking has accelerated since Mr. Carney's arrival—”
“Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my hon. colleague, I have no idea where this information comes from. I have seen nothing to suggest Quebec would back away from the cap-and-trade system. On the contrary, according to the latest news, the Quebec government and all parties in Quebec are in favour of a cap-and-trade system. It is not perfect, but it allows us to work with California and the most progressive states to fight climate change. Quebec can be a world leader. It already is one compared to other Canadian provinces. That is why we are concerned that the Conservatives want to remove all restrictions on oil and gas companies in Canada. If we do that, we will not be on a level playing field with the rest of the country. Quebec has nothing to gain from it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like my Conservative and Liberal colleagues to look more at the numbers and the science. There is an agreement called the Paris Agreement. Canada is a signatory to that agreement, which requires us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. That is the baseline year. That is what the science says. People can pretend that it does not exist, but we see what is happening today. Families, refugees and thousands of Canadians had to leave their homes this summer because of forest fires. The same goes for the rising number of deadly floods, droughts and heat waves. They cost billions of dollars annually. No one talks about that in the House. They only talk about developing the oil and gas sector.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would love to talk about sovereignty with our colleague. I would also love to send him a cheque for the costs of climate change, which are directly related to increased emissions in Alberta. That being said, the Supreme Court was very clear. We are talking about capping greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas sector. Canada can and must do this, because Alberta is doing nothing. Emissions are increasing, and that is the main problem in Canada. Some people want to bury their heads in the sand and avoid the situation altogether. That is what Conservatives are doing. However, we will not back down on our climate commitments. We know we need to do even more. That is what we want the government to do.”
“However, that is not the only subsidy it is getting, because everyone is on the hook for the costs of climate change and its effects on health, not to mention costs related to insurance, taxes and health care. I would like to know the Conservatives' opinion on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that emissions in Canada are not falling. According to the latest inventory, emissions are stable. In some areas, including electricity generation, they are decreasing. In the oil and gas sector, emissions are increasing. There is no room for doubt. This is the science. What is also clear is that this country cannot meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets unless serious steps are taken to cap and cut emissions in the oil and gas sector, which, by the way, which is heavily subsidized. As a matter of fact, the sector is being subsidized in two ways. I would remind the House that $28.5 billion in direct funding was provided for the oil and gas industry in 2024.”
“Mr. Speaker, on the subject of amendments, yes, we are listening to Quebeckers. Yes, we said that the $814 million that the Liberals stole to send cheques to all Canadians must be repaid to Quebeckers. That is not what we heard from the Conservatives. When it comes to fighting climate change, the vast majority of Quebeckers want their government to do more, not less, as the Conservatives are proposing. Yes, we are listening to Quebeckers. Quebeckers are particularly active in the fight against climate change. Quebec has a government that has helped reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are not proposing anything, and that is worrying. They have made no proposals. All the Conservatives are proposing are to set back the fight against climate change.”
“That is worrisome. The Liberals should not be changing the subject. They should be talking about the real issues and looking at their track record, which is atrocious. The Liberals are backtracking after 10 years in office. They are taking the biggest step back we have ever—”
“Mr. Speaker, I must reiterate my serious concern about the fact that the Liberals are not saying anything about what the Conservatives are proposing today. We can see them backtracking in a big way. No one on the other side of the House, on the Liberal side, has indicated that they are committed to capping emissions in the oil and gas industry. Obviously, we could talk about other solutions. There are plenty. We are aware of them. There is the electrification of transportation, renewable energy, energy efficiency, public transportation, green building and sustainable industry. There are solutions out there. We could talk about them, but instead let us talk about how we need to stop backtracking, like the Liberals are currently doing on another key measure they had, which is the cap on emissions in the oil and gas industry.”
“What the Conservatives and Liberals are once again proposing today would mean backsliding in the industry that is contributing the most to climate change in Canada, the oil and gas industry. That is very worrisome.”
“In Quebec, buying oil costs us more than $10 billion every year. Instead of doing that, we could electrify our transportation through Hydro‑Québec, a source of national pride. We could electrify heating systems in buildings and industries. We could electrify our SMEs instead of further developing oil and gas. Quebec said that it would not develop oil and gas. It was one of the first nations in the world to make that statement. Of all the places in the world, we are better placed than most to make this shift, this transition, but we are currently being held back by Canada, which only has an pro-oil agenda that is funded to the tune of billions of dollars. The Liberals have not spoken out in favour of going ahead with the emissions cap, and we are concerned about that.”
“If everyone looked at every climate measure as just an expense and failed to consider the cost of the repercussions of climate change, then everyone would vote for the Conservative Party. The Liberals are going to sit down with the Conservatives and develop their game plan. They are already doing it. However, I can assure the House that the Bloc Québécois will stand up and demand that the government meet its 2030 greenhouse gas reduction target. Canada is a rich country because it developed with oil and gas, among other things. Globally, that is no longer what is being developed. Instead, electric vehicles, solar energy, wind energy, energy efficiency, thermal energy storage and public transit are being developed. These projects have economic and environmental benefits. Quebec has everything to gain from changing course.”
“Seniors in my riding are experiencing heat waves described as deadly. This means that people are dying. It means that people are ending up in the emergency room. It means that people with cardiovascular problems are facing a reality that is unlikely to get better. That is the reality. We also need to look at the cost of climate change. This includes health care costs, as well as human tragedies. This includes the record insurance costs incurred last year because of the climate crisis. According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, these costs amounted to $8.4 billion. That is just the beginning. On top of that, the current droughts are causing more and more stress for our farmers.”
“I do not hear the Conservatives speaking up in the House to say that it is unacceptable that, during the election campaign, the government sent Canadians $4-billion worth of cheques for a price on pollution that no longer existed and that Quebeckers had to cover $800 million of that cost. Not a single Conservative or Liberal from Quebec complained that it was unacceptable for Quebeckers to have to pay $800 million to send cheques to everyone across Canada except Quebeckers. That is the kind of constructive debate that we would like to have with the Conservatives. We do not want to take part in debates on lifting non-existent regulations in the oil and gas sector. When we look at the health impacts, it is pretty clear that what is happening right now is not fiction. It is reality.”
“However, there are others who are able to move forward, to stand up and look children in the eye and tell them that yes, there are ways to fight climate change and grow the economy. That is what we are asking of the House. We are asking it to take responsibility. We want to be able to go back to our ridings and look our constituents in the eye and tell them that we are taking our role seriously, that we are fighting climate change and that we are doing so by improving the cost of living, improving health and improving the overall quality of life. I do not hear the Conservatives talking about the need to develop public transit. I do not see them tearing their hair out because $5.3 billion has already been spent through the Canada public transit fund and not one penny went to Quebec.”
“Now, is the government going to backtrack even more and get rid of the target altogether because that is what the oil companies want? That is what we are afraid of. Worse still, when we look closely at the details of the draft regulations, we see possible offsets as well. Oil and gas companies could buy carbon credits, probably for things they would have done anyway. (1210) It was completely insufficient in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, the Conservatives' magic solution is to get rid of that insufficient measure. The same goes for the Liberals. Not only are they doing away with measures, but they are also ignoring the climate crisis. It no longer exists, simply because Mr. Trump is the President of the United States or simply because certain governments, such as the United States, are backing down.”
“Even what they proposed was too limited in scope. The Bloc Québécois members were not pleased. Obviously, we reject the idea of forgoing a cap on oil and gas emissions, as the Conservatives are proposing. We would rather go even further than what the government proposed. The government proposed watering down its climate action yet again for oil and gas companies. It proposed that the oil and gas sector not be required to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions as much as other sectors in Canada. It proposed that the oil and gas sector not contribute as much to meet our greenhouse gas reduction target. We have a target in Canada that the government is abandoning, and that concerns us a lot, but what the government proposed was to lower this target for the oil and gas sector.”
“We will hear them talk about this topic all day. No doubt we will hear them talk about it for the next few weeks as well. However, what we are asking is for the government to stand up for Canadians, not for the oil and gas companies, to stop listening to the Conservatives and co-operating with them, and to present a real and credible plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This includes dealing with the most polluting sector, that is, the oil and gas sector. The Liberal government had proposed regulations. Again, it could have adopted these regulations. However, the government is turning its back on its former environment minister, who proposed these regulations. Today, the government has made a 180-degree turn. In fact, let me go back to those draft regulations that should have been adopted long ago.”
“They are proposing fewer regulations and fewer restrictions on oil and gas companies. We are not hearing them say that the government should stop subsidizing oil and gas companies. It has been a long time since I have heard the Conservatives speak out on this issue. The Liberal government had proposed a half measure in terms of eliminating subsidies to oil and gas companies. This half measure was supposed to be followed by a more ambitious and essential measure, which would have eliminated subsidies to oil and gas companies once and for all. However, we have not heard anything more about this other measure that was supposed to be implemented. This troubles us. We know what is going on. The Conservatives are campaigning on behalf of oil and gas companies to get the government to back off its plan to implement an oil and gas emissions cap.”
“However, none of these proposals are in the Conservatives' playbook, and so far we have not seen the government take any positive measures in this regard since it returned to office. All we have been seeing is the government backtracking on environment and climate change measures and doing nothing to make up for that. We have reason to be concerned. We have reason to be concerned because we are talking about our children's future. We are talking about our future today, right now. When we see that cities like Montreal and Toronto are among the top 10, or even top five, most polluted cities because of forest fires, that people are closing their windows and that people in Montreal are being affected by the poor air quality even with their windows closed, that is a problem. What are the Conservatives proposing in this regard?”
“Oil production leads to oil consumption. That is obvious. They have an interest in doing that, unfortunately. This is the type of vision and backtracking we are seeing from this government, which has been unable to defend its policies and regulations. Unfortunately, that is what we are also seeing from the official opposition party, which is not being constructive, not proposing anything to fight climate change, and only proposing to go backward and to respond to the agenda that the oil companies want to impose on this petro-state called Canada. We see that there are things being done right in this country that are good for the environment. There are regulations that are good for the economy, for people's wallets and for people's health.”
“(1205) If there are good projects, they should be carried out in a way that respects the environment and the environmental protections that have been put in place over the past few decades. However, that is not what the Liberals are proposing. They are proposing to take things even further, or in other words they are proposing to eliminate other environmental protections outside of Bill C-5 . What we are seeing here, and we are seeing the same thing with zero-emission vehicles, is a new cabal among our Conservative friends. What are they doing? They are determined to listen to the oil and gas companies and the manufacturers that have been dragging their feet and to remove every constraint so as not to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in the transportation sector, the second largest sector. Obviously, the two are related.”
“These include the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Species at Risk Act and the Marine Mammal Regulations. We are talking about a whole range of laws and seven regulations that are being set aside, which is unprecedented. Why is the government doing this? It is because some projects are bad, and the only way to move bad projects forward is to get rid of the laws that would prevent them from going ahead. The Bloc Québécois's position is clear. We support development, but not just any development and not done willy-nilly. Oil and gas development is incompatible with human health and with our greenhouse gas reduction targets. This is clearly not the kind of project we support.”
“This stunt made it possible to roll out the red carpet for oil and gas companies, which asked pretty much for everything that was included in Bill C‑5. Bill C-5 is fundamentally undemocratic. Not only did this bill pass under a gag order thanks to an alliance between the Conservatives and the Liberals, but it also means that many projects could now escape the scrutiny of environmental assessment. Bill C-5 represents one of the biggest setbacks in environmental law in modern Canadian history. I am not the one saying this. That is the opinion of Ecojustice, a group of environmental law experts. The reason is that Bill C-5 amends 12 statutes, many of which were put in place to protect the environment, and now the government no longer has to comply with them.”
“It goes without saying that sales are falling and oil consumption continues. The government is going even further. It said that some car manufacturers in Canada had asked it not to force them to sell more electric vehicles. As a result, the government backtracked on the zero-emission law, which was supposed to force manufacturers to offer more electric vehicles for sale to the public. More electric vehicles means more choice and cheaper prices. The government backtracked on that, too. Another thing we saw was a partnership between the Liberals and the Conservatives to push through Bill C‑5 under a gag order. This bill focused on building pipelines, among other things. The official opposition actually muzzled itself by not asking the government any questions because it was happy with the bill.”
“This is a good policy because, if oil and gas companies are not paying, then everyone has to pay for the consequences of climate change. The government's current proposal is extremely concerning. The Canadian Climate Institute has made it very clear that Canada is not on track to meet its targets and that it will miss its 2030 greenhouse gas reduction target. In response, the government is backtracking. It backtracked on carbon pricing. It backtracked on the EV incentive program that it had promised to reinstate. It also told people not to buy electric vehicles, on the pretext that they should wait for the incentives to return. Everyone understands that. Who is going to buy an electric vehicle today when the government says to wait until the rebates are brought back? Consequently, almost no one is buying EVs anymore.”
“However, the Conservatives are spending yet another day trying to dismantle the only measure we have in the fight against climate change, which, by the way, has not even been implemented yet. It has gotten to the point where the Liberals across the way seem to be adopting exactly the same game plan as the Conservatives and the oil companies. The first thing the Liberals did when they came to power was scrap consumer carbon pricing. That will result in fewer greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Why did they do that? It is because the Conservatives spent years saying that it was not a good policy, even though economists were all very clear that we need to put a price on pollution and that it was an effective policy to send that message.”
“The main reason is that the emissions from the oil and gas industry are not under control but are increasing. The government should take no pride in the fact that greenhouse gas emissions dropped by 0.1% in one year. Yes, I said 0.1%. These emissions should be dropping dramatically. (1200) If this government were serious about its own greenhouse gas reduction targets, if it were serious about the Paris Agreement and what science requires, and if it were serious about the people and families who are currently suffering the consequences of wildfires, it would be taking a different approach. We are seeing more frequent and more devastating wildfires because of climate change, which is directly related to oil and gas production. We are talking about human lives, health problems and the need for a serious response to the climate crisis.”
“The oil sands alone produce more greenhouse gas emissions than every economic sector in Quebec combined. While Quebec is making an effort to reduce emissions—not quickly enough, I agree—Alberta and Saskatchewan are increasing their emissions without any constraints. Today, our Conservative friends are asking us to repeal an emissions cap that does not exist. What is going to happen in this country if a province like Quebec is making an effort to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, but the other provinces are not doing their part? It will become completely impossible to meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets. That is why, last week, the Canadian Climate Institute published a report clearly indicating for the first time that, according to its experts, it will be impossible to meet the country's greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2030.”
“Yes, the government invested money in addition to Trans Mountain. In 2024, it allocated $28.5 billion in funding for fossil fuels. I repeat, $28.5 billion in 2024 alone was put on the table by the Liberals for the oil and gas sector. If we go back further, we quickly get to $75 billion. Their budget earmarks $81 billion in potential funding for the oil and gas sector, including $5.7 billion for carbon capture and storage. They love this technology, but it is highly problematic because it does not work very well, it requires a tremendous amount of public money and creates a loophole that allows oil companies to increase production and do exactly what the government is doing, namely claim that their oil will be green oil. That is the biggest joke of the year, in my opinion. Canada's oil and gas industry has greatly expanded.”
“As I mentioned before, the greenhouse gas emissions generated by the oil and gas sector, the worst polluter of them all, are a major problem in Canada. The sector is growing quickly because the Liberals encouraged the expansion of oil sands production in different ways, starting with their $34‑billion Canadian investment in the construction of the Trans Mountain oil sands pipeline. Obviously, increased transportation and export capacity means increased oil sands production. Between 1990 and 2022, greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector, the production of oil and gas, increased by 83%. I repeat, 83% since 1990. Again, if we are serious about fighting climate change, we need to lower emissions, not increase them. Yes, emissions have gone up. Yes, the government bought an oil sands pipeline.”
“Mr. Speaker, it hardly makes sense that we should be having a debate and an opposition day today on eliminating an oil and gas emissions cap when no such cap even exists. In fact, the only thing on the table are draft regulations to cap emissions in the oil and gas sector, a sector that is not only growing, but that ranks number one as the worst polluter in the country. There is no cap right now because the Liberals failed to pass regulations, even though they were in power for 10 years and even though, as I would remind members, the government can make regulations whenever it wants. Instead, the government dragged its feet, delayed and wavered, and because of that, no cap exists today. Why is a cap needed?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the Bloc Québécois is against the Conservative motion, because these are rather populist positions imported directly from the United States that have already been shown to be ineffective. My colleague talked about that. Personally, I have not seen any studies proving that the Conservatives' proposal would have any positive effect on the fight against crime. I would like to know if my colleague has any information or scientific studies that might show that the Conservatives' proposal would have a positive impact, because for now, we are seeing absolutely nothing.”
“Mr. Speaker, as my colleague demonstrated, the Conservative proposal we are debating is literally in direct opposition to what we are promoting, particularly in Quebec, by focusing on rehabilitation. What is being proposed does not involve restorative justice; quite the contrary. I would like to know what my hon. colleague thinks about the importance of rehabilitation and restorative justice, when it comes to youth criminal justice, for example.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are abandoning the fight against climate change to sell more oil and gas. They are abandoning carbon pricing and incentives for zero-emissions vehicles. They are imposing their Bill C-5 to circumvent environmental legislation and impose energy projects. They are backtracking on capping greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas sector. In short, they are acting as though promoting oil and gas is part of Canada's identity. Are they undermining the fight against climate change? Is that the legacy they want to leave?”
“Mr. Speaker, an expert report released today by the Canadian Climate Institute confirms that Canada will not meet its 2030 greenhouse gas reduction targets. It is the Liberals' fault. By abandoning policies such as carbon pricing and continuing to encourage increased oil production in the oil sands, the Liberals are standing in the way of reaching their own target. That is what the experts are saying. What is even more alarming is that the Prime Minister is not committing to respecting his 2030 target. Will the Liberals respect the 2030 target or not?”
“Mr. Speaker, could my hon. colleague share with us his understanding of why, after more than 10 years in power, the Liberals are only now presenting us with Bill C‑2 , a bill will require a great deal of work in committee, because it clearly has major shortcomings?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be back in the House, especially after a very busy summer as a new member. I think it is important to go back to basics and acknowledge my constituents in Repentigny, because I am here to work for them. My question is this. We have seen Chinese drones being used in the past to patrol the border, among other things, which was problematic. The big issue with border surveillance is the number of officers on the ground. We have asked about this over and over, but we have not received a response. The Customs and Immigration Union has been very clear about the fact that nearly 3,000 more officers are needed. How will these additional officers be paid, and when will they be hired? Can we get an answer to those questions?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the major government projects that Bill C‑5 covers. Bill C‑5 takes an inappropriately top-down approach that sullies projects, even good ones. Good projects do not need to bypass environmental assessments. They do not need to be able to break 12 federal laws. They do not need to spurn social acceptability. If they really need to do all those things, they are not actually good projects. Will the government promise that all these major projects will abide by environmental assessments, laws and the will of Quebeckers?”
“Mr. Speaker, in just one summer, 10 years of progress on the environment has been wiped out. The Prime Minister adopted Bill C‑5 to approve projects that disregard legislation and social acceptability. He says he is open to pipelines circumventing environmental assessments. He has not renewed the incentives for purchasing zero-emission vehicles. He even backtracked on the mandatory sales targets for those vehicles. Last week, he went even further, refusing to commit to meeting his greenhouse gas reduction targets. Will the government meet its own reduction targets for 2030 in the middle of a climate crisis?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will go back to the question that I asked our hon. colleague, because I unfortunately did not get an answer. The Customs and Immigration Union says that there is a shortage of 2,000 to 3,000 officers and that the government will clearly not be able to properly inspect all exports to combat auto theft. I would like to know what my hon. colleague thinks.”