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 10 of 10.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“That was before the election. Since the election, the frenzy of environmentally irresponsible behaviour on the part of both the Liberals and the Conservatives has continued. Right now, severe wildfires are burning in Manitoba. There are close to 70 fires, and thousands of people have been evacuated. The government seems to be brushing that aside in favour of the development and continued expansion of Canada's oil and gas sector. The throne speech also mentions that there are major challenges with regard to climate change that are generating uncertainties across the continents. Let me stress the phrase “climate change”, because that is the only reference to climate change in the throne speech. Simply put, climate change has disappeared from Mr. Carney's narrative. To solve the climate crisis—”
“The government also sent out $3.7 billion worth of vote-buying cheques to all Canadians, except Quebeckers, despite the fact that Quebeckers had paid $800 million as compensation for abolishing a carbon tax. The tax no longer existed, but the government still wanted to compensate for it. On top of that are the oil and gas pipeline projects. The previous government had promised to eliminate oil and gas subsidies, but now the Liberals will not say a word about it. I would remind the House that $30 billion in subsidies was paid to the oil and gas industry in 2024, for a total of $75 billion over five years. The Liberals also floated the idea of eliminating the emissions cap for the oil and gas sector, the most polluting sector in the country. They also proposed to weaken environmental assessments to make it easier to get pipelines approved.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would first like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères . I would like to use my time to review the Speech from the Throne. I will not hide the fact that the Bloc Québécois is extremely concerned about the direction the Liberals are taking. They have literally abandoned the fight against climate change, when they should be doing so much more. During the election campaign, the Liberals confirmed that they planned to abandon much of the previous government's climate action plan. They abandoned consumer carbon pricing without replacing it with anything. Even the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said that it was a very bad idea to axe this tax.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech, the Liberals reiterated that only one environmental assessment per project is necessary. In other words, for a dirty oil pipeline from Alberta to Quebec to be subject to a single assessment, the federal government would impose its own and bypass Quebec and the provinces. However, Quebec is master of its own house. Quebeckers and their institutions, such as the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, or BAPE, are the ones that must decide on projects that go through Quebec. The BAPE's primacy and Quebec's sovereignty over its territory are non-negotiable. Will the government commit to respecting them?”
“Mr. Speaker, with more than $8 billion in damage reported by the Insurance Bureau of Canada, last year was, I believe, a record year in terms of catastrophic climate change impacts in Canada. Despite that, I still do not hear my colleagues in the official opposition asking any questions about what must be done to address climate change. On the contrary, I hear more about pipelines and oil and gas. I must admit that this worries me, but I will try to see if there are any points on which we might agree. I talked about the $800 million that Quebeckers paid for the Liberals to send cheques to Canadians during the election campaign. That is $800 million from which they have not received one single penny back. I would like to know whether—”
“When will it finally get the country's dirtiest industry under control and realize that it needs to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, as Quebec has done and continues to do, even though Quebec is paying for the climate change impacts caused by the country's main source of pollution, namely oil and oil sands production?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to go back to the throne speech, which mentions the issue of climate change and how it is causing global disruption. The government's proposed solution is to streamline environmental assessments and fast track projects. It talks about so-called “conventional” projects and becoming a superpower in so-called “conventional” energy. Everyone knows by now that that means oil and gas. Canada is already the world's fourth-largest oil producer and the world's fourth- or fifth-largest gas producer. My question is very simple. At what point will the current government see itself as a global superpower? Does Canada want to become the biggest oil and gas producer in the universe before it takes the fight against climate change seriously?”
“Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, we witnessed an electioneering ploy that one journalist actually described as crass. It is important to note that the consumer carbon price was scrapped by the former Liberal government. During this election campaign, even though the carbon tax had been scrapped, the government sent $3.7 billion in cheques to Canadians to offset a tax that had been scrapped. What is worse, those cheques were paid for by all Canadians, including, of course, Quebeckers. However, Quebeckers are the only ones who did not receive these rebate cheques. We are talking about nearly $800 million that came out of Quebeckers' pockets but was sent outside Quebec as a financial rebate for a tax that no longer exists. Will the Liberal government repay the $800 million that Quebeckers unfairly paid?”
“The new Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture said so himself on May 14. Furthermore, now is not the time to end federal carbon pricing, as the government did in its very first ways and means notice, tabled today. Again, these are not our words. They are the words of the OECD, the organization to which the member was formerly posted as Canada's ambassador before she entered politics. Does the member agree with her ministerial colleague and the OECD that now is not the time to build new pipelines or undermine carbon pricing?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity, my first time rising to speak, to thank the people of Repentigny who put their trust in me. I will not compromise when it comes to protecting their interests and the interests of Quebec. The throne speech confirms that Ottawa wants to replace its environmental assessment process with an oil and gas project fast-tracking office. It confirmed its intention to make Canada a conventional energy superpower, in other words, a fossil fuel superpower. It talks about respecting Canada's environmental standards without saying a word about respecting Quebec's environmental standards, particularly in land use planning. In short, the throne speech seems to allow the possibility of forcing Quebec to accept pipelines. Now is not the time to build new pipelines, however. This is not simply our opinion.”