Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this important issue. I think that we are basically dealing with two things here: what has happened in the past and what we want to do for the future. There are four related issues I would like to address. I will start with the issue of public consultations. Let us look at what happened in the past versus what is happening now.
For the past few days and weeks, the Bloc Québécois has been trying to convince us that there will be no public consultations and no environmental assessments for the high-speed rail project. I would invite them to visit Alto's website, the company leading the project, since public consultations have already begun. People can attend in person, by video conference or online. The idea that there will be no public consultation, that the past predicts the future, is false. That is absolutely false.
With regard to the issue of environmental assessment, I would humbly suggest that I have likely participated in more public hearings on the environment than any other member of this House ever has. Whether with the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement in Quebec, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada or the Canada Energy Regulator, I have participated in dozens and dozens of assessment sessions on various projects in Quebec and across Canada throughout my career. As environment minister, I defended the Impact Assessment Act all the way to the Supreme Court, so if anyone here is concerned about and very interested in these issues, it is me.
There will be an impact assessment. It has already been started by the high-speed rail consortium. I am among those who think that this is an excellent project in terms of both the economy and jobs, and, of course, in terms of the environment and the fight against climate change. It will help significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. My colleagues probably know that transportation accounts for 25% of our greenhouse gas emissions. One-quarter of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions comes from the transportation sector. By 2040 or thereabouts, 24 million people will travel this corridor. It will be one of the busiest corridors in the country. It already is, but it will be even busier, as we heard a little earlier from my colleague, the Minister of Transport, not to mention ground transportation by car and air transportation, as we have often seen. This a very important solution for reducing both air and ground traffic, but also for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Earlier we heard the Minister of Transport say that the late Marc Garneau, former transport minister in 2019, had apologized to those whose land was expropriated in Mirabel. I am not sure where the Bloc Québécois was at the time. There was compensation. The Bloc Québécois is using old political tactics. We have seen it all before. Their tactic is to muddy the waters. They being up what happened a little over 50 years ago. The government handled things terribly, everyone recognizes that. The Minister of Transport acknowledged it here in the House earlier today. My colleague acknowledged it. We all acknowledge it. That is not the way to do things, and it is not the way things are done now.
At some point, I want to hear the members of the Bloc Québécois on whether they agree with this project. It is very complicated to follow their logic. They are neither for nor against. In fact, quite the contrary. That is more or less the position of the Bloc Québécois on this project. It is one of the most promising projects in the fight against climate change. It is one of the most promising projects of Canada's history in the area of transportation. It will greatly benefit thousands of people, hundreds of businesses in Quebec and elsewhere in the country, as well as in Bloc ridings. I find it completely hard to believe that the Bloc Québécois is being so divisive with this project when it could be playing a constructive role. Honestly, I do not understand the position of the Bloc Québécois. I am very puzzled and very disappointed by the fearmongering campaign of the Bloc Québécois. In fact, they could be working with us, working with the municipalities, working with businesses and working with farmers.
People are bringing up farmers a lot. When I was at Équiterre, an organization I co-founded, farming and sustainable agriculture were one of our main causes. For many years, we ran a program called the Family Farmers Network. The network included more than 130 firms supplying food to 50,000 people.
We fought for land protection. We led a campaign on the issue of farmland protection and the Commission de protection du territoire agricole, Quebec's farmland protection commission. That cause is setting a precedent today in terms of farmland protection.
This issue is very important to me, and we obviously want to minimize the impact this project will have. Even though it is a good project, it will have an impact nonetheless, in part on farmland. Discussions have already begun.
It is true that we want to speed up the schedule. There is no hiding that, there is no doubt about it. Why do we want to speed up the schedule? I am one of those who believe that we can conduct good public consultations. They have already begun. We do not necessarily need a decade to carry out good environmental studies and good impact assessments.
I was the environment minister, so I know very well what I am talking about. The proposed process can work if everyone pulls together, which does not seem to be the case with the Bloc Québécois so far. For all these reasons, I am very much in favour of the high-speed rail project.
We have also acknowledged the wrongs of the past with regard to expropriations. In the case of high-speed rail, we are talking about a fraction of the land that was expropriated for the Mirabel airport. It is not 1% or 0.5%, it is far less. However, the Bloc Québécois is waging this campaign of fear among residents and farmers, and I find that extremely shameful.
I invite the Bloc Québécois to follow our example. Of course, we must learn from the past, and that is what we are doing, but we must also look to the future. On this side of the House of Commons, we are firmly focused on the future, on one of the most promising and important projects in the history of our country.