Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑39 represents another another major step backward on environmental issues as well as on workers' rights. The government would have people believe that the bill will not result in environmental rollbacks. It says environmental assessments will not be weakened. Leading environmental organizations and environmental law groups are unanimous. Ecojustice, West Coast Environmental Law, the Centre québécois du droit de l'environnement and Equiterre have all stated explicitly and unequivocally that the bill will result in major rollbacks. The government is not only introducing major rollbacks, it is also using the tariff crisis to implement permanent measures that would allow it to circumvent legislation. These discretionary powers were unacceptable to begin with, but they were subject to a five-year limit. Can someone explain to me why the government wants to remove that provision so it can make those powers permanent and permanently circumvent the law?

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague seems to be in full agreement when it comes to the exceptional powers the government is giving itself to get around environmental laws. I would like to point out that Bill C-39 even allows for the creation of economic zones where projects will be pre-approved. Projects will be approved before they are even assessed. Obviously, we can expect companies to sue the government if, after the assessment, the government decides a project is no good. I wonder if my colleague is concerned about that. Does he not think this fits perfectly into a government strategy to deploy an oil arsenal using public funds? His party has stated that oil companies benefit from corporate welfare. The government is gearing up to invest $40 billion in a mega-pipeline project. Is my colleague in favour of giving public funds to oil companies?

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I wonder whether the government thinks our roads have potholes because of the trade war. Hearing the Liberals talk, one might almost believe that the trade war is responsible for traffic and late buses. The government is blaming the trade war for a lot of things. Bill C-39 clearly shows that the government has come to the conclusion that it has to trample on workers' rights and our environmental laws to deal with the trade war. It seems to think that it has to adopt a Trump-like approach to deal with President Trump. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it is launching the largest deregulation action in U.S. history, and the Canadian government seems to find that inspiring. In a year and a half, the government scrapped carbon pricing. It introduced Bill C‑30, which is completely anti-science and puts pesticides that were banned back into circulation. It scrapped the EV mandate. It passed Bill C‑5, which has been described as the greatest rollback of environmental law in recent times. That is on top of giving tax breaks to oil and gas companies, announcing the construction and financing of pipelines and liquefied natural gas projects, and planning to triple gas production and double oil sands production. Clearly, the government will not respect the Paris Agreement, its commitments or its greenhouse gas reduction target, which it no longer talks about in the short term. Now it is talking about net zero by 2050. However, as every independent analyst has said, we know that the rollbacks are so serious that Canada cannot possibly meet its commitments. With Bill C‑39, it seems that the government is trying to attract investors by being even more open to air pollution and the destruction of land and water than our neighbour to the south can be. The Bloc Québécois believes that there are other strategies for developing our economy while protecting the environment and without having to circumvent environmental laws. The government's Bill C‑39 is quite literally breaking up the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. With this new bill, the government is literally compromising the independence of scientists in assessing pipelines and nuclear energy by making the Canada Energy Regulator and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission responsible for conducting assessments. This is like putting wolves in charge of the sheep. The Canada Energy Regulator is an institution that is known to support pipelines and has nothing to do with protecting the environment. That is not part of its mandate. None of these institutions talk about protecting the environment, even though they will now be responsible for assessing the environmental impact of projects with potentially dire consequences. These are oil and gas megaprojects, likely some of the largest oil and gas megaprojects we have ever seen in Canada. It remains to be seen whether they get off the ground, because we obviously intend to join others in opposing this type of bill. I must point out that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has already highlighted the issue that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is not independent from the Department of Natural Resources. The Canada Energy Regulator, formerly known as the National Energy Board, is an institution that is completely biased toward pipelines. We have seen this in Quebec. Many of its members come from the fossil fuel sector. It is like asking cigarette manufacturers to carry out their own studies on the health consequences of smoking. It is completely biased. No one should take the public for fools, yet that is exactly what the government is doing right now. Contrary to what the title of Bill C-39 would have us believe, this bill weakens Canada by bowing to the interests of the fossil fuel barons, among others. I would remind the House that the government has already passed the “no laws” law, namely Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act. The Liberals passed it in record time. We were unable to examine it properly. This act specifically allows laws to be circumvented. Even so, over the past year, not a single project has been designated under this legislation, which the government rushed through as quickly as possible with the support of, among others, the Conservatives. Not a single project has been put on the list in a year. Why was it so urgent? Now the government is introducing Bill C‑39, and it even wants environmental assessments for all projects to take no more than a year despite the fact that the government has not managed to designate a single project under its legislation in a whole year. It seems clear that environmental protection is being used as a scapegoat to mask the current government's failure to get things done. The issue is not environmental protection; it is the government's failure to move multiple files forward in a timely manner. I can see it already: Assessments for complex projects will inevitably be rushed, if they happen at all, and consultations will be rushed because the government wants to meet a one-year deadline. The very notion of a one-year deadline is completely arbitrary. Projects must be assessed on the basis of their complexity and scale, and the government has to take the time to do it right. The government is literally bulldozing nature. Let us consider, for example, a new pipeline project, one that the Prime Minister wants to include on the list of projects of national interest. It is a 1,000-kilometre project. How is it possible to conduct proper consultations or assessments in just one year? There is no doubt this will be rushed through, once again to the benefit of companies that will face fewer safeguards and are clearly delighted with the government's legislation. The Liberals hope that Bill C-39 will not affect environmental protection. I hate to break it to them, but the Prime Minister is not going to grant that wish. It is misleading to tell the public that Bill C-39 does not weaken environmental protections or environmental assessments across the country. I would remind members of all the laws and regulations that can now be circumvented under Bill C-5. Bill C-39 will make that permanent and will even apply to entire regions. The Fisheries Act, the International River Improvements Act, the National Capital Act, the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, the Dominion Water Power Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, the Canada Transportation Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Species at Risk Act and the Impact Assessment Act can all be circumvented. I will now list the regulations. The migratory bird sanctuary regulations, the Dominion water power regulations, the wildlife area regulations, the port authorities operations regulations, the metal and diamond mining effluent regulations and the migratory birds regulations, 2022 can all be circumvented. Twelve laws and seven regulations can be circumvented to accommodate projects designated to be of national interest by the government. As I said, entire regions will now be able to use the this process to circumvent legislation, and the Prime Minister, like a king, will decide which are to be sacrificed. These regions will get access to projects pre-approved even before an impact assessment is done. Project pre-approval means that construction will start before projects are even assessed. Obviously, this is a new government that is promising the next gold rush by opening the territory up to development and fast-tracking projects, never mind what the law says. I would point out, however, that if we learned anything from the Wild West it is that when the law is weakened, outlaws are quick to step in. I would remind the House that legal action has been brought against the federal government for its Bill C-5 on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. To make matters worse, with Bill C-39, the government is broadening the scope of that legislation and making the exceptional powers enshrined in it permanent. Does the government expect the tariff crisis to be permanent? This tariff crisis is their excuse for everything. This is clearly a pretext for giving cabinet extraordinary powers, enabling it to sell land to foreign interests like a good deal maker. Liberal members seem to think that if they repeat often enough that Bill C‑39 will not affect environmental protections, that will become the reality. I am sorry to burst their bubble, but we were not elected to make things up. We were not elected to bow to the demands of the oil and gas companies. We were elected to make decisions that will be part of history. The bill explicitly includes serious rollbacks in environmental matters and workers' rights. These are not just words on paper. This will have immediate and serious consequences on the land, on our ecosystems and on people's health. That will be the legacy left to future generations. History has a long memory. Our speeches may fade, but decisions of this magnitude will not. One day, we will look back and ask ourselves who was aware of what was happening, who could have taken action and who looked the other way. The Bloc Québécois will not look the other way.

Mr. Speaker, right now, the national interest is the government's interest, and it is the government that decides what is in the national interest. Whether the government likes it or not, it is very clear to us that these debates must take place among elected officials, particularly when it comes to the use of arbitrators, restricting the right to strike and restricting workers' rights. It is no wonder that the FTQ, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, is speaking out against this bill. Not only is this one of the worst rollbacks for the environment, but the bill also includes some extremely worrisome rollbacks in terms of workers' rights. We in the Bloc Québécois are here to stand up for people and for workers, not to defend the interests of oil and gas companies, which, by the way, primarily belong to American interests.

Mr. Speaker, it is simple. Internationally, there are two classes of countries. There are those who are following President Trump, as the Prime Minister is doing, getting into oil and gas, and then there are those who want to break free from this dependence on foreign companies and so on. Canada should invest in the transition, plan for it and not fund a new oil sands pipeline project, to the tune of over $40 billion, that will be aimed at exports and will not change the cost at the pump for people, who will remain dependent on oil and gas. We have everything to gain from electrification, and Quebec is already doing that. My colleague talks about the fact that he has an electric vehicle. That is wonderful. He could also talk about the economic benefits it brings, both in terms of the fact that we keep our money and use Quebec hydroelectricity, and in terms of people's wallets. Thinking that getting deeper into oil and gas is part of the solution will only worsen the climate crisis. I think he forgot about this summer's forest fires, as well as the deadly heat waves.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his clear remarks. We are very clearly dealing with a government that is currently exploiting the tariff crisis. Bill C-39 proposes to make it possible to circumvent environmental laws on a permanent basis. This has nothing to do with the tariff crisis. It shows very clearly that the Liberals want to make this permanent. We have laws and regulations for a reason. We have spent several decades establishing a system to protect the environment and people's health. Essentially, what Bill C-39 does is allow us, within 24 hours, to throw this entire framework for protecting the environment and people's health into the dustbin of history. There would be no need to bypass laws and regulations if the projects were sound. Clearly these are bad projects. The Liberal government is using the tariff crisis to literally engage in Trump-style politics, develop oil and gas, set aside the law and rule like a king.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just returned from the United Nations, where Secretary-General Guterres once again implored countries to phase out fossil fuels. Meanwhile, Canada introduced Bill C‑39, which gets rid of impact assessments for pipeline projects and makes it possible to permanently circumvent environmental laws. Greenpeace and Environmental Defence called it the “Bulldoze Nature” bill. Ecojustice called the bill catastrophic. No other bill in Canadian history has been worse for the environment. How can the Liberals sleep at night after defending such a bill?

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that, using Bill C-5, the Prime Minister gave himself the power to suspend environmental laws for his oil projects. Luckily, the Bloc Québécois managed to limit that abuse to five years. According to the Liberals, it was all in a bid to combat Donald Trump. Bill C-39 removes this five-year limit and allows the application of environmental laws to be suspended indefinitely. Why are the Liberals using the tariff war as a pretext to exacerbate the climate crisis and line the pockets of the oil companies?

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. That is right, the bass player for the Cowboys Fringants, who is also an economic and ecological specialist and professor at the Université du Québec en Outaouais, was appointed chief scientist of Quebec. This great man, whose heart is in L'Assomption, will advise the government on scientific matters, lead the Fonds de recherche du Québec and promote science, particularly among young people. It is not just the Cowboys' music being showcased on the world stage. Jérôme Dupras's expertise has earned him two major and prestigious research chairs, including one with UNESCO. 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, 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. It includes the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie's resignation. It includes three young Canadians and two groups of ecologists suing the federal government for giving up any hope of achieving net zero. That is their record. How can the Liberals keep defending the Prime Minister?

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. If Quebeckers want to get information from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, they have to read 600 pages in English only. That is so disrespectful. In fact, I filed a complaint today with Canada's Commissioner of Official Languages. Will the government ask the CNSC to extend the consultation deadline until the consultation process is complete and conducted in French?

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. I agree with my colleague on the importance of fully understanding what the repercussions might be for these communities if they become part of a different riding. However, I would like to come back to another point my colleague raised, namely the issue of proportionality. How might we reform the voting system while effectively maintaining regional representation? I would like to emphasize that, in the past, the government committed to implementing a more proportional system. Unfortunately, that commitment was set aside. We had an opportunity to bring this issue back to the table. I believe we must keep it on the agenda and keep it alive. I would like to know what my colleague suggests.

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. We continue to support it, obviously, because a number of amendments that we considered essential have been made. We acknowledge the collaborative effort in this regard. I would also like to highlight the removal of the religious exemption from the Criminal Code for the offence of inciting hatred. This was a major issue. It is important to understand that we were obviously very concerned about the fact that people were using religion to incite hatred. It is important to understand that religion is not a free pass for violating the fundamental rights of others and that this bill in no way prevents individuals from practising the religion or religions of their choice. We are therefore very pleased with this amendment. Following my hon. colleague's presentation, I would like to know what he thinks needs to be done to raise public awareness, beyond the scope of this bill. Education is a provincial jurisdiction, but my colleague seems to have given it a lot of thought.

Mr. Speaker, one week after 300 mayors, civil society is now speaking out against the Liberals' pro-oil stance. One hundred and twenty-two environmental groups, including 49 from Quebec, signed a letter today. They are here with a clear message: no new pipelines. They are saying no to any project that threatens the climate, endangered species, indigenous relations or the sovereignty of governments. It would be a betrayal of all Canadians who still believe in the fight against climate change. Will the Prime Minister end his pro-oil and gas stance?

Mr. Speaker, regarding the agreement with Alberta for a new pipeline, environmental groups are pointing out that we have seen this movie before. It is called “Trans Mountain”. Taxpayers paid nearly $40 billion for a new pipeline to transport dirty oil. In return, the oil sector made absolutely zero effort to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. They actually rose sharply. Canada basically became an oil developer at Quebeckers' expense. The film was a flop. Will the Prime Minister finally acknowledge that we do not want to see that movie ever again?

Mr. Speaker, we were wondering why the Liberals did not have the courage to criticize the Prime Minister's climate record. The Toronto Star explains it. According to Liberal elected officials, the Prime Minister is literally yelling at his MPs when they tell him things he does not want to hear. They are not allowed to question him. They are not allowed to write to him either. Are the Liberal members throwing in the towel on climate change because they are afraid of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker, as wildfire season approaches, today, 300 mayors are calling the Prime Minister out on his climate record and his shift toward the oil sector. Representatives of half the population are telling the Prime Minister that if he wants to build the country, as he claims, he first has to make sure not to burn it down. We already know that the Prime Minister wants nothing to do with environmental groups and Parliament. We now know that he yells at his own members. Will he at least listen to these mayors or will he yell at them too?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals just keep backtracking on the fight against climate change, to the point where the outgoing MP for Laurier—Sainte-Marie has come to the worst possible conclusion. Speaking on QUB radio, he said: “We're going to see that, with the backtracking there's been this year, the United States under Donald Trump is doing more to tackle climate change than Canada is.” By the end of the year, he believes that Donald Trump's record will be better than that of the green banker. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister just shrugs his shoulders and says that is just how it is. How can the Liberals defend that?

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, in committee, the Liberals proved that they did not calculate how all their backtracking is affecting the achievement of their climate targets. They do not have the numbers. The so-called “green banker” did not even take the time to calculate the harm this backtracking would cause. The outgoing member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie believes that, when we look at these numbers, we will see that Canada's record will be worse than the United States' record under Donald Trump. If the minister does not agree with him, it is simple; all she has to do is show numbers that contradict him. When will we—

Mr. Speaker, today I want to heartily commend the member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie, the former minister of environment and heritage, for his public service. I am even taking the unusual liberty of addressing him by name, Steven, this one last time. He and I have known each other for 25 years. Back then, he was with Greenpeace. He had long hair and a longer beard, but with fewer grey hairs. He enjoyed climbing towers and installing solar panels on premiers' homes. Some people even called him “Jesus of Montreal”. We crossed paths for years within the Quebec, Canadian and international environmental movements, and at over 30 international climate conferences, or COPs, which he participated in and excelled at, including a number which he attended as environment minister. Without a doubt, one of his greatest achievements was the Kunming-Montreal agreement on biodiversity, a resounding success that would not have been possible without him. His accomplishments also and obviously include the climate change plan, which may not have been perfect or ambitious enough, but was by far the most ambitious in Canada's history. We have certainly had our differences when it comes to the best way to serve the environmental cause. We did not always agree on the best strategy to take. We were sometimes critical of one another, but I never doubted his commitment to fighting climate change. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois and myself, I want to wish him all the best going forward. I know that he will continue to advocate for the environment and climate in other forums and other groups, and I would be pleased to be able to work with him again one day. It is unfortunate that he is leaving, but it is a consequence and an illustration of a fundamental divide in Canada. He was by far the most ambitious environment minister in the history of this country, the one who did the most. He is, without a doubt, the best environment minister this country has ever known. However, it was too much for Canada, and yet despite always being between a rock and a hard place, he truly did everything that he could. For that, I sincerely thank you, Steven. Now that he might have more free time on his hands this summer, I heard that, if he wants to have a bit of fun and if he wants to send a clear message to the government about climate change, he can always visit the CN tower. The question that I want to ask him today and the one that is on everyone's mind is this: Will he take this opportunity to give us a sneak peek at what he plans to do next?

Mr. Speaker, CTV News reported that the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie is considering leaving the Liberals this week, and the Minister of Industry is giving him a reason to do so. She is defending the Liberal's shift to oil by saying that we are in a global energy crisis that is affecting gas prices. First, a new pipeline ten years from now will have no impact on the price of gas today. Second, does she realize that she is confirming what the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie has been clearly saying, that the Liberals are abandoning the environment to sell more oil?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature is clearly no stranger to greenwashing. The Prime Minister's climate betrayal will cost him the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. However, there are still about 15 Liberals who believe the Prime Minister is concerned about the environment. They wrote him a short letter saying they are concerned about the pipeline deal. The reality is actually what the Prime Minister said to the media. He made it clear that there are 160 other MPs in the caucus. With a response like that, there will soon be one fewer MP. What are the other 15 waiting for to follow him out the door?

Mr. Speaker, it is official: The Prime Minister is an environmental sellout. It has been announced that a new dirty oil pipeline will be built as early as 2027. This is a pipeline that could violate environmental laws and endanger species at risk. The environmental assessment for this pipeline will be carried out by the Canada Energy Regulator in Calgary, and the Prime Minister will even be able to change the criteria as time goes on. Furthermore, construction may begin before the assessment has even been completed. This is an environmental sellout that will have a ripple effect for generations. Are there any Liberals who will refuse to be complicit?

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to selling out on the environment, the Prime Minister is taking things farther than Stephen Harper. We are not the ones saying it. The Liberal member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie says it, and he is not alone. About 15 Liberals have written to the Prime Minister to express their uneasiness with the shift to oil and gas. About 15 Liberals reminded him that climate change is the most serious threat of our time. If this is the most serious threat of our time, what is stopping them from standing up and leaving their party?

Mr. Speaker, Radio-Canada reports that the Liberals are set to dismantle the entire regulatory framework governing pipelines. They had already passed Bill C-5, which suspends nearly all existing laws, but that was not enough. Now, they are going to limit environmental assessments to a single federal review, which always says yes. Now, they are going to restrict consultations as well. We are saying goodbye to BAPE, Quebec's office of public hearings on the environment, goodbye to citizens, but above all, hello to climate change. Are there really Quebec liberals who entered politics for this?

Mr. Speaker, it is ridiculous that the Liberals are using pipelines to fight climate change. According to Radio-Canada, later this week, the Liberals will be announcing that they intend to scrap the regulatory framework for pipelines. That is good timing, given that Danielle Smith will be in town tomorrow for a far-right convention. Who would have thought that the Liberals would get a standing ovation from a think tank founded by Preston Manning? Strangely enough, for months now, the Liberals have been trying to cobble together a majority, one floor crosser at a time. Would it not have been easier for them all to just cross over to the Conservative side?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just mentioned Alto's high-speed train project. The government has given itself the power to disregard expropriation laws, which is clearly a big problem. People are being threatened with expropriation. The issue we are talking about today, the court decision at least, seems to touch on home values and project funding. Can my hon. colleague go into more detail about why she seems to say that, from what I understand, there are really no issues in this respect?

Mr. Speaker, ever since the Liberals secured a new majority, thanks in part to Conservative floor crossers, their attitude has changed in committee. They have been holding in camera meetings, shutting down debate and refusing to allow for a thorough study of the issues. This is truly the antithesis of the parliamentary co-operation that our constituents expect. Our Conservative colleagues have mentioned that the Liberals refused to even discuss this issue in committee. The two parties clearly have very different positions on this matter. I am by no means an expert, and B.C. is far from Quebec, but could my colleague explain why the Liberals did not want to bring this matter before the committee to examine it in depth, shed light on it and have a genuine debate on the matter?

Mr. Speaker, the government is being rather arrogant, and I think we need to call it out. The Liberals have had several of the amendments from the Standing Committee on National Defence struck down. They were important amendments. After securing a majority thanks to the floor crossers, the government decided to completely sideline all of the committee's work, even though the general election produced a minority government. For now, it is the floor crossers who are enabling the government to give itself all the power and override the will of the people, who entrusted it with a minority mandate so that it would collaborate. I do not understand why the government does not respect the idea that we must work together. It is not respecting the committee's work. I have a simple question for the government. Can it explain why it is not respecting the work of the parliamentary committees and the elected parliamentarians who represent the public? It cannot claim to represent the full spectrum of views based on the floor crossers it used to secure a majority. Democracy thrives on a multiplicity of voices. Right now, the government is completely excluding those voices.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, there is officially a new dynamic at play, and the government is being rather arrogant, or blatantly arrogant, even. There is no longer any point in speaking in committee because we are not getting any answers. There is a new government that secured a majority with the help of defectors, including an NDP MP. Among other things, this MP was one of the lawmakers who worked on amendments to this bill. Some of these amendments were very constructive and improved the bill, but the Liberals removed some of them for no reason, simply because they have given themselves the right to do whatever they want now and to disregard the will of the people who elected us to represent them and work together. I would like the government to explain to me why it refuses to respect the will of the committee and all the concerted effort that went into producing a better bill for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I want to hear my colleague's thoughts on the government's attitude. The government did not win a majority in the election, yet, thanks to floor crossers, it is laying claim to all the work done over several days in committee by the members who heard from witnesses. There were amendments to which my Conservative colleagues contributed in order to improve this bill. Now we have a government that has decided to throw out all the committee's work and disregard the will of the voters, who said that they wanted a government that would not just represent a dominant majority and ignore everyone else. Instead, they voted for representation that would work through consensus in the House. Does the member agree that the committee should throw out amendments that were developed in consultation with the other parties through a consensus-building process?

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. On the contrary, these tensions are happening at a time when extreme climate events are on the rise and they only serve to emphasize the urgent need to take action here and now to end our dependence on oil. The Bloc is pleased to see that the main report recommends that the federal government update its climate action plan by the end of June to clearly demonstrate that it intends to meet the 2030 target. That is essential. Solutions exist. What is lacking is political will. The government needs to get its act together after having abandoned and even gutted many of its climate measures. In this supplemental report, the Bloc Québécois recommends an immediate moratorium on all new oil and gas projects, an end to fossil fuel subsidies, and 11 concrete measures that the government can and must implement. Canada and Quebec have everything to gain from quickly moving away from fossil fuels—in terms of the environment, society, the economy, public health and future job creation. The transition must happen now, not in 2050.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals claim that producing more oil will have no environmental impact thanks to carbon capture and storage. In their economic update, however, they have transformed their miracle solution into a new problem. They are expanding their carbon storage tax credit to include enhanced oil recovery. That means injecting CO2 into the ground to pump more dirty oil out. They want us to pay for that with a $14.5-billion tax credit, to boot. How can they justify that?

Mr. Speaker, this new fund is clearly a federal gimmick to take public money and invest it in projects such as major LNG projects. The government has already identified some projects. There is also a major pipeline project that the government wants to pursue. However, the investments would not be limited to major projects, but would also go towards all the companies and projects that have already received federal support. This means, for example, that the planned expansion of the Trans Mountain project, which has already cost us $34 billion, could be financed by this fund. I would like to know what my colleague from Nova Scotia thinks, as his region is being hit by rising sea levels due to climate change. Is he concerned that Canada is giving itself a way to take taxpayers' money and invest even more of it in oil and gas, while cutting funding for public transit and other measures that would actually enable us to reduce our dependence on oil and gas?

Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. member for Kings—Hants a question about the fact that this fund will finance oil and gas projects, even as we face challenges related to climate change. Climate change does not really worry him, though. He says it does, but he did not answer the question. My question was clear. Does my hon. colleague agree with the government taking $25 billion of public money and using it to fund projects involving liquefied natural gas, pipelines or oil sands, or other projects that would increase production? Is it acceptable to use public funds for that, given that these projects contribute to climate change, among other things?

Madam Speaker, every day, we are reminded of the importance of doing our part to help the environment, but sometimes, in our daily lives, we can feel powerless. There was a time when a refrigerator would last three generations. I still have my dad's good old Shop-Vac, and it still works. Today, things could not be more different. A person may go through several vacuum cleaners in their lifetime, because their old one breaks down and it is cheaper to buy a new one than to have it fixed. In many cases, it is not even possible to get it fixed. Things used to be made to last. Today, things are made to break so that consumers have to keep buying more. That obviously means more waste is constantly being produced. Our relationship with consumption is at a turning point. Our economy has long been based on a totally unsustainable linear model of extraction, manufacturing, consumption and, all too soon, disposal. This throwaway cycle is not only environmentally harmful, but blatantly unfair to regular people, who are seeing their purchasing power crumble in the face of products that are designed to break. How many families end up with a huge hole in their budget because one little electronic chip, plastic part or button in their washer is not being made anymore or because their appliance can only be fixed by a licensed technician who charges exorbitant fees? Bill C‑267, which aims to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and home appliances, has arrived on our desks as a necessary, albeit belated, response to this culture of planned obsolescence. The Bloc Québécois supports sending this bill to committee. We firmly believe that durability and the right to repair are essential pillars of the green transition. However, our support should not be taken as carte blanche. Bill C‑267 includes measures to be taken, but those measures are not tangible enough. The bill does not create a national framework on the durability of products and appliances, but rather gives the Minister of Industry a mandate to establish that framework. We are wondering how this framework will align with certain provincial laws. The issue of jurisdiction and respect for jurisdictions is very important. When I say that this initiative has come a little late, it is because Quebec already has a law that essentially pursues the same objectives: An Act to protect consumers from planned obsolescence and to promote the durability, repairability and maintenance of goods, passed in 2023. Quebec was the second jurisdiction in the world to adopt such a measure, and the first in North America. This demonstrates just how much of a leader Quebec is in many respects, particularly when it comes to the environment. It could be an even more effective leader if it were not held back by the federal government. However, in this case, we are very pleased to be able to say that, once again, through its leadership Quebec has inspired the federal government to pass similar legislation. It is late in coming, but it deserves credit for having been introduced. What we are discussing today is a national framework. Yes, Quebec has led the way. In 2023, the National Assembly even unanimously adopted this ambitious framework to combat planned obsolescence. In doing so, Quebec also amended the Consumer Protection Act to, among other things, include a guarantee of availability of replacement parts and repair services. As for Bill C‑267, better late than never, but since it is short on details about the framework that will be established, a question needs to be asked: Will it lift the provincial frameworks up, or will it drag them down? Quebec's model should be used for inspiration. It represents the minimum level of ambition that the government should be aiming for. The European Union has also been very proactive on this issue. It has pushed many companies to change their ways. For instance, Apple was forced to adopt a universal connector cable, USB‑C. We need to follow suit, but we need to make it worth our while. It is also important to bear in mind that planned obsolescence is not just for objects, but for software as well. For example, it is preposterous that software can block a certain brand of coffee maker from accepting another brand's coffee pods. It is also all too common to discover that we have bought the wrong type of ink for our printer, because it does not take generic ink cartridges. If the manufacturer has stopped making the cartridges or pods, the printer or coffee maker automatically becomes technological waste. It cannot be used anymore. While studying Bill C‑267, we will have to see whether a broader investigation into competition is warranted. The abuse of copyright to lock appliances is still a major obstacle to repairs, and copyright is a federal responsibility. The problem is obvious in the case of modern vehicles, which incorporate numerous technologies and computer programs. Even an oil change requires access to the onboard computer to reset the oil change warning indicator. However, accessing the computer requires bypassing security measures, specifically technological protection measures. A garage could therefore not legally circumvent or alter the vehicle's software, without the manufacturer's authorization, on the grounds that it was protected by copyright and that bypassing it would constitute a copyright infringement. It quickly becomes clear that, with these technological protection measures, dealerships had a virtual monopoly on car repairs, maintenance and diagnostics. Bill C-244, an act to amend the Copyright Act with regard to diagnosis, maintenance and repair, was passed in the 44th Parliament to address this kind of problem. Obviously, we are wondering whether the government now thinks that Bill C-244 did not go far enough, since it is now introducing Bill C-267. We will try to examine that particular aspect in committee. The national framework will also need to directly address protection measures that create repair monopolies to the benefit of large manufacturers at the expense of small, local repair shops and the local and circular economy. Finally, we must be aware of the challenges involved in implementing this and engage in dialogue with the industry and experts. The bill provides for consultations with the provinces, which is obviously the bare minimum. The federal government must act as a partner, not a lecturer, especially when dealing with Quebec, which is already much further ahead in its legislation. Any legislative measure arising from this framework will have to rigidly respect the regime established by Quebec law. Sustainability is not optional; it is necessary. The important thing is to send a clear signal that the throwaway culture is over. Every appliance we repair means energy saved, mines that do not need to exist and landfills that do not overflow. Bill C-267 is a step in the right direction. It recognizes that consumers have the right to know what they are buying and the right to keep their goods for much longer. That is why the Bloc Québécois will support referring this bill to committee. Naturally, we will work diligently to ensure that the national framework matches the urgency of the situation and, above all, that it respects Quebec's leadership and jurisdiction in the area of consumer protection. It is time to give people back control over their own purchases. It is time to legislate for the future, not for the next quarterly report of multinational electronics companies.

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. 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, 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. 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 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, 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, 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, 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, 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 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, 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, 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.