Mr. Speaker, I blame my inexperience. I will not make this mistake again. Please forgive me.

To solve the climate crisis, the government is proposing to fast-track what it calls “projects of national significance”, projects that are in the national interest. It is announcing these projects now, but without naming them. However, everyone knows full well that the government is talking about things like pipelines, oil and gas.

According to the Speech from the Throne, removing barriers will enable Canada to build an industrial strategy that will make it a “leading energy superpower in both clean and conventional energy”. Conventional energy, as we now know, refers to oil and gas. This approach is totally inconsistent with the fight against climate change.

As we saw during the election, the government wants to keep supporting the growth of oil extraction from the oil sands, oil in general, gas, and pipelines. We see right through the government's game. This very day, before the Prime Minister met with the provincial premiers, he sat down with oil and gas CEOs and Danielle Smith, the Premier of Alberta.

Canada is the fourth-largest producer of oil and gas worldwide. It already is an energy superpower. Let us be clear, right now, we are experiencing the devastating effects of wildfires. They should remind us that it is not in the national interest to exacerbate the climate crisis and build new oil and gas pipelines. What we need to do instead is get away from fossil fuel energy as fast as possible.

This government is doing the exact opposite. It wants to reduce approval times for major federal projects from five years to two by creating a major federal project office. Of course, we expect environmental assessments to suffer. What will this office's role be in relation to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada's role? It seems to us that, from now on, projects will be approved before they are assessed.

The government wants to create an energy corridor free from regulatory obstacles by watering down environmental assessment rules in order to make projects happen faster. The environment and the environmental and territorial sovereignty of Quebec and the provinces could end up paying the price. The Bloc Québécois believes that it is essential that all major infrastructure projects, especially oil and gas projects, undergo a complete and thorough environmental assessment and that they be approved by Quebec and the provinces. Obviously, we will not allow the government to build a pipeline through Quebec.

The government's current attitude to the fight against climate change is completely irresponsible. It claims that these projects are for the common good, but I would remind members that it has not even assessed them yet. The government needs to understand that there is no fast lane to social acceptability. The government needs to take the time to conduct free and informed consultations. To do that, it needs to carry out a proper environmental impact assessment to identify the projects' environmental, social and economic impacts, as well as any climate impacts. Before it can establish that a project is in the national interest, it needs to assess its climate impact. Obviously, all of this needs to be done in collaboration with indigenous people, the provinces and affected communities.

Now we keep hearing about the “one project, one review” approach. We in the Bloc Québécois called on the federal government to stop duplicating Quebec's environmental assessments, as it did for GNL Québec's Énergie Saguenay project, when Ottawa continued its assessment after Quebec had rejected the project.

Of course the federal government must fulfill its responsibilities, but only in the very specific areas under its purview, as defined by the Impact Assessment Act, and when projects fall under federal jurisdiction. It must not interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

When the government says it wants to adopt a “one project, one review” approach, we have to wonder how it plans to achieve that goal, because Quebec has very clear laws. Any pipeline more than two kilometres long is subject to Quebec's environmental assessment process and must be assessed by Quebec's Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, or BAPE. That is one review already. We are wondering how the federal government will manage to achieve “one review“ if Quebec is already responsible for doing it.

As for protecting the land, the government reiterated its commitment to protecting 30% of the land and seas by 2030. If Ottawa wants to be taken seriously, however, it must immediately stop encouraging the development of offshore drilling, which threatens marine biodiversity. The Prime Minister recently supported a call for bids for offshore oil exploration licences covering 85,000 square kilometres off the coast of Newfoundland. Ottawa seems to think this move to expand fossil fuel development somehow fits into the fight against the climate crisis, yet some of these licences actually encroach on a marine biodiversity protection zone.

If the federal government wants to help protect land that does not belong to it, it should try increasing the money it transfers under the Canada-Quebec nature agreement from $100 million to $300 million, as the Bloc Québécois suggested in its 2025 platform.

The government cannot claim that a project is in the national interest if the public has not been consulted and voiced an opinion. What does it take for a project to be in the national interest? Why should a major oil and gas project be prioritized over projects with far broader benefits, such as large-scale electricity, green energy and public transportation development projects?

The money that the federal government is probably going to invest in the oil and gas industry could instead be used to develop, consolidate and strengthen public transportation assets and services, such as the Quebec City tramway, Montreal's blue line, trains to the Gaspé or intercity networks. These projects need considerable support, and they are truly in the national interest and would help meet the challenges of the 21st century. In its platform, the Bloc Québécois proposed making public transportation a priority.

When the government talks about a pipeline to the east to diversify markets, it is not unreasonable to ask what markets it is talking about, since no European countries have offered to purchase the oil, which would not be available for years in any case. The market for oil is shrinking anyway.

Obviously, we are in favour of developing green energy, energy efficiency, public transportation, transportation electrification, energy sobriety and green buildings. We are not in favour of using public funds to develop fossil fuel energy, pipelines, oil sands or natural gas.

What we are proposing is a vision. We hope that the government will strive to regain its credibility, because, unfortunately, when it comes to the fight against climate change, it is not at all credible. Right now, wildfires are raging across Canada and people are being evacuated from their homes. We are asking the government to be responsible. The Bloc Québécois will stand firm to make sure that the government finally takes the climate crisis seriously.

Patrick Bonin

Transcript

Speech from the Throne

Discussions (0)