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 4 of 10.
“The Conservatives are also calling on the government to do away with the federal industrial carbon tax. I am pleased to tell them that the federal government is already working on that. Alberta backed down and has not raised the carbon price for its companies. The offset price is currently $25 per tonne in Alberta, whereas the carbon price in Canada is supposed to be $95. The federal government is letting Alberta do whatever it wants and is not forcing the province to raise its price on carbon. What is more, we know full well that the MOU between Alberta and Canada will weaken industrial carbon pricing policies, so once again, that wish has already come true.”
“The other demand in the Conservative motion is to repeal the west coast Oil Tanker Moratorium Act. I could talk about how appalling it is to call for a moratorium to be repealed in order to allow oil tankers to pass through a marine conservation area. Obviously, that would be environmentally risky, but it is also a complete violation of the rights of the first nations that have called for the moratorium to be upheld, because they do not want oil tankers on their territory. However, the federal government has already committed to building an oil sands pipeline that could carry a million barrels a day to the west coast for export, and the pipeline would pass through this area. Evidently, the government is already willing to do what the Conservatives are demanding. Bill C-5 is there to make it easier.”
“I do not think our colleagues have been paying close attention to what has happened since the current government came to power. The government has passed Bill C-5 , which allows it to suspend at least 10 acts and seven regulations, including some environmental ones, which means it can circumvent environmental assessments. There is no need to even repeal the Impact Assessment Act, since it has already been partially done. The government gave itself the power to do that. Let us take a look at Bill C-15 , the budget implementation act. It allows any minister to suspend any legislation under the guise of innovation. This has already been done. What the Conservatives are asking for has already been done by the governing Liberal Party, for the benefit of oil and gas companies, as I said, to expedite approvals for this industry's projects.”
“What the Conservatives are proposing, and what the Liberals are doing, is to claim to be fighting against U.S. economic imperialism while actually rolling out the carpet for Mr. Trump's billionaire friends and goosing the profits of these largely foreign-owned companies. For them, Canadian sovereignty means making it easier to transfer money from Canada and Quebec to the U.S. to boost companies' already excessive profits. Now the Conservatives are calling for the repeal of federal measures that they say are blocking or penalizing development in Canada. Members should know that development has been picking up speed since the Liberals came to power. Let us take a closer look at what our Conservative friends are proposing. They are calling for the Impact Assessment Act to be repealed.”
“We all remember that things got off to a Trump-style start. When the Prime Minister took office, his first order was to abolish carbon pricing for individuals, which is completely contrary to the Paris Agreement. Like Mr. Trump, the government is turning its back on the Paris Agreement. After that, everything fell apart as the federal government scrapped one after another of the country's climate policies. The Conservatives were actually dismayed when the Liberal Prime Minister's platform in the last election mirrored their own playbook: slashing carbon pricing on polluters, including major polluters such as big Canadian oil and gas companies. The irony is that over 60% of Canadian oil and gas companies' assets are held by U.S. investors.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House. Unfortunately, as my colleague said, today has a real Groundhog Day feel. Clearly, the true intention of this opposition day is to pad the already overflowing coffers of Canadian oil and gas companies. Are they actually Canadian? I will get to that. The subject of the motion is something we have been talking about for ages. Essentially, it would grant oil and gas companies' every wish by completely doing away with what little remains of the previous government's already inadequate measures to fight climate change. The truth is that the Liberal Prime Minister spent a year sabotaging his own political party's feeble environmental legacy, and now there are hardly any climate policies left. Basically, what we have here is an intention to fulfill oil and gas companies' every last wish.”
“Mr. Speaker, the most generational thing about the Liberal record is Canada's climate betrayal. According to the former environment minister , the government's abandonment of all its green policies in favour of an oil deal with Alberta is a fire sale. The Liberals' shift to oil will scuttle any chance of meeting the greenhouse gas reduction targets. They are sacrificing everything older Quebeckers have done to help the climate. They are passing problems on to the next generation. When the Liberals say “generational”, is that the legacy they want to leave?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about a major problem that Bill C‑12 does not resolve. According to the union, the Canada Border Services Agency is short between 2,000 and 3,000 officers. Does my colleague have any thoughts on this?”
“Madam Speaker, I invite my colleague to read what the Assembly of First Nations of Canada very clearly said. It wants the agreement to be withdrawn. Its members unanimously opposed lifting the oil tanker ban. The Premier of British Columbia has also been very clear. He was not consulted, and he does not support a pipeline that would go through first nations territory. I think this is very clear. All the newspapers reported on this. My colleague may say what he likes, but I look at the facts, and the fact is that the Premier of British Columbia is clearly not happy with this agreement.”
“Unfortunately, your agreement with Alberta is a betrayal of the climate cause and of Canada's targets, and it is the exact opposite of what needs to be done.”
“Madam Speaker, obviously we support electrification because we know we need to accelerate the transition to renewable energy. However, we do not believe we have to give the nuclear industry billions of dollars to generate more electricity for data centres. Perhaps my colleague misunderstood something. Our party is fully aligned with the goal of becoming a clean energy and renewable electricity superpower. However, we believe that increasing production of some of the world's dirtiest oil and gas is a step in the wrong direction and goes against what the science says. It also goes against what the public wants for Canada. Opinion polls show that the vast majority of Canadians want the government to do more to fight climate change.”
“Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague and I may indeed look a bit alike, but we certainly do not think alike. Oil and gas in Canada is going from strength to strength. Production is going up, and so are emissions. No one on the other side of the House has shut down the oil and gas industry. On the contrary, the government is rolling out the red carpet for the industry and putting billions of dollars on the table. These billions of dollars are being taken out of the pockets of Quebeckers and from other areas. We should transition and make plans to move away from oil and gas. As we know, oil and gas production will not be discontinued overnight, but we need to plan for a transition. My colleague mentioned health, but according to the World Health Organization, the biggest threat to health is climate change.”
“The Conservatives did not even manage to authorize a pipeline under Stephen Harper, who presided over some dark years in terms of the environment. This Liberal government, on the other hand, will have two to its name. It used Bill C‑5 to suspend certain laws and Bill C‑15 to trample every environmental law in order to push this oil project through. People did not vote for that. The climate crisis is still raging. Using the tariff and trade crisis to advance a Conservative agenda is completely irresponsible. (1140) The Bloc Québécois is obviously going to oppose this plan and refuse—”
“Everyone understands that if production increases, emissions will increase. The agreement also talks about carbon capture and storage, but 80% of emissions from oil come from combustion. This does nothing to address the problem of emissions. The science is very clear on this. The agreement talks about implementing carbon capture and storage technology, but at this time, the technology is still unproven. It has not been deployed at scale. It is still experimental, and it is extremely expensive. It will require billions of dollars of public funds. Canada is, of course, ready and willing to chip in 50% of those costs for the oil and gas companies. This is climate betrayal. Many people voted for the Liberals thinking they would be better than the Conservatives. However, their record is currently worse than the Conservatives'.”
“It will very likely be watered down, with less ambitious targets and with additional loopholes built in. In addition to all this, there is one final wish from the oil and gas companies: amend the Competition Act to eliminate the measures for combatting greenwashing. All of the oil and gas sector's wishes are being granted. Let us now return to the much-discussed emissions cap. In the oil and gas sector, the oil sands currently emit more greenhouse gases than all of Quebec. These emissions have risen nearly 500% since 1990. A new pipeline is obviously going to increase production and increase emissions. This is very clear. There is no such thing as a barrel of decarbonized oil or a barrel of green oil; it simply does not work that way. It is a sham. One need not be the sharpest pencil in the box to understand this.”
“In addition, the government is going to allow carbon capture and storage to be used to increase oil production through enhanced recovery, something the government said in its budget that it would not do. It is flip-flopping. Not only is it flip-flopping, it is basically walking away once again from its commitment to stop subsidizing fossil fuels. On top of that there are the methane regulations. Canada is now going to have to reach an agreement with Alberta on the methane regulations. We already know that Alberta has just been given an additional five years, meaning that this province will implement the regulations five years later than planned. What are the other provinces likely to do? British Columbia will probably demand the same thing. What kind of regulation will we end up with when all is said and done?”
“This obviously creates uncertainty, quite apart from the fact that it means we are really not moving in the direction of renewable energy. What are the other provinces likely to do? They are going to ask for the same lax standards. The agreement increases the industrial carbon price to $130 per tonne. The government had planned for a price of $170 per tonne in 2030. However, it is being scaled back for Alberta. The price is now $130 per tonne, but it is not even known when this price will go into effect. Is it in 2050, for example? What is the trajectory? There is no clarity on this. Then, of course, there is talk of constructing a carbon capture and storage megaproject at a cost of billions of dollars, for the oil and gas industry once again, for Alberta's dirty oil.”
“It is about increasing the production of oil and gas, including dirty oil, including gas extracted by fracking. It is about one or more oil pipelines to transport at least 1 million barrels of oil produced from Alberta bitumen, the dirtiest, or almost the dirtiest, oil in the world. It is about expanding the Trans Mountain pipeline system to add 300,000 to 400,000 barrels of dirty oil per day. It is about ending the moratorium on oil tankers on the west coast, which would allow tankers carrying crude oil to travel through a marine protected area, with all the potential risks to this very fragile ecosystem, and to all the jobs in the environmental protection sector in that part of the country. It is about increasing electricity production using gas, a fossil fuel. It is also about suspending the clean electricity regulations for Alberta.”
“He was highly critical of this agreement between his boss, the Prime Minister , and Alberta's Ms. Smith. He said this was a fire sale rather than a compromise because essentially, Canadians will get nothing in exchange for the sacrifices made for Alberta. That is also true for Quebec. Not only does Quebec have nothing to gain from this deal, it has everything to lose. The agreement has also abandoned 10 years of environmental measures that have already been implemented. While they may not have been adequate, they have now been abandoned, plain and simple. Members will recall that these are the highlights of this agreement. (1135) It is essentially about the government giving the oil and gas industry everything on its wish list, as the government has been doing since it came to power.”
“We know that he believes this pipeline must happen at any cost, but the cost for Quebeckers will once again be in the billions even though they have nothing to gain from it. This is a pipeline for western Canada and the oil and gas industry, even though we know that we should be investing in solutions to build the economy of the future. We should be thinking about clean electricity, green buildings, and the electrification of transportation, companies, and small and medium-sized businesses. We need to build this expertise. The jobs of the future are in these sectors. They are not in oil and gas. Let us turn back to the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie , who published a letter this morning. The member was very clear. He said that it would be disingenuous to say that Canada is going to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets.”
“This agreement essentially shows a blatant disregard, a denial of our institutions and a denial of due process for the presumed goal of rolling out an oil and gas business plan. Once again, the government is exploiting the trade and tariff crisis to go full steam ahead on oil and gas. That it made plans with the Premier of Alberta is understandable, obviously, but members should remember that this oil is one of the most polluting oils on earth. It is the biggest environmental issue in Canada. The Prime Minister is no longer concerned about climate change. Obviously, a private proponent has yet to come forward, so the Prime Minister is most likely willing to give the oil industry more billions.”
“He is not listening to first nations. It is the same for British Columbia. There was no consultation with British Columbia prior to this agreement. The Premier of British Columbia found out in the papers that the Prime Minister of Canada was negotiating an agreement with Alberta in secret. He was never consulted, and there is nothing in the agreement that allows British Columbia to refuse to have a pipeline forced down its throat. The agreement says only that British Columbia must be consulted. This is a clear threat to the other provinces and to Quebec, who could basically have an oil and gas fantasy forced upon them. It is one of the worst cases of predatory federalism ever documented. It is an exceptionally violent attack on the environment and on respect for the provinces, which is nowhere to be seen.”
“We have a Prime Minister who is circumventing legislation and pushing out everyone around him who cares about the environment and climate change. Whether they are ministers or experts, it is, “Thank you and good night, the Prime Minister no longer needs you.” Then he goes and signs an agreement with Alberta to produce and export 1.3 million barrels of dirty oil per day, without the consent of British Columbia and first nations. There was no discussion with first nations before the agreement was signed. There is no obligation in the agreement to respect the rights of first nations. First nations have stated unanimously that the tanker ban had to remain in place. They also very clearly stated their position that this agreement had to be revoked. What is the Prime Minister doing? He is doing absolutely nothing.”
“Madam Speaker, let us be clear. What we are talking about today is an Alberta-Canada oil and gas agreement that amounts to literal climate betrayal. Canada is abandoning its greenhouse gas reduction targets. It is abandoning all of the environmental policies it has put in place over the past 10 years. It is abandoning biodiversity by revoking measures like the west coast oil tanker ban. It is abandoning protection for indigenous lands. Simply put, the Prime Minister is rolling out a political oil and gas agenda that is moving ahead at top speed, no matter the price and whatever the cost. This is climate betrayal by the Liberals. Not only did this cause the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie to resign as a minister, it also resulted in two expert advisors to the Prime Minister walking out.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on what the government inserted on page 300 of its bill. We see it as the same thing as Bill C‑5 , but on steroids. They government slipped in a hidden amendment that allows any minister to exempt any entity from the application of any federal law but the Criminal Code for a period of three years. Does my colleague agree with that?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to hear what my hon. colleague has to say about the oil and gas subsidies set out in the latest budget. It is taxpayer money. We are talking about a multi-billion dollar increase in the amounts that will be paid to oil and gas companies for a carbon capture and storage technology that is unproven, that has not been used on a large scale and that is extremely expensive. In addition, the government is funding this technology with billions of dollars of taxpayer money that could have been invested elsewhere, including in solutions to lower greenhouse gas emissions, improve quality of life and reduce the cost of groceries. Does my colleague agree with these subsidies?”
“Madam Speaker, I think the answer is quite simple. This government, and the Prime Minister especially, is unreliable when it comes to the environment. It cannot be trusted. The backsliding that followed the last budget was straight off the oil and gas companies' wish list. The government is ticking off every item on that list like clockwork. Since this government came to power, its environmental rollbacks have been tailored to the oil and gas companies' agenda. The last—”
“Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected because he promised that he would resolve the tariff and trade crisis very quickly, but things just keep getting worse. It is extremely concerning to see that jobs are being lost in Quebec right now. We are losing jobs that might not have been lost if the government had invested in and listened to forestry companies, for example, which are asking for very simple support measures. These companies are asking for help in paying the countervailing duties by receiving the money up front. What we are seeing is a government that has hardly implemented any measures so far but that is still giving money to oil and gas companies. There are no oil and gas companies in Quebec. Perhaps other sectors of our economy could benefit from this money. As of now, negotiations with the U.S.”
“Madam Speaker, unsurprisingly, I disagree with my colleague. This budget does not meet any of the Bloc's very specific demands. We asked for assistance for seniors and an increase in health transfers to Quebec. We also asked for a measure to help young families buy their first home, particularly those who are having difficulty saving for a down payment. More than anything, we wanted the Liberals to stop giving an average of $10 billion a year to oil and gas companies. We wanted them to invest that money in the right place, but that is not what this budget does. This is climate irresponsibility of the highest order. The Bloc Québécois was prepared for the government to propose amendments and make suggestions in response to specific demands for Quebec, but it did not do so. It did not talk to any of the parties.”
“There is no new money for climate change adaptation, even though we are experiencing forest fires, floods and droughts, and the government is doing away with the ZIP program, which targets areas of prime concern in Quebec. That program cost $1 million a year. The government has just made cuts to this program and taken another completely useless step backward just to save a few bucks. (1535) This budget does not meet any of the Bloc's demands. Furthermore, it is clearly the worst budget in the history of this country in terms of environmental backsliding. Consequently, the Bloc Québécois will vote against this budget.”
“They claim they are green, that they are working. They are sort of like the Prime Minister who has talked about green oil. The government had introduced rules against greenwashing, but the budget watered them down. The government told us that it was going to review industrial carbon pricing. However, there is nothing specific in the budget about new, stronger pricing measures. The government is doing away with the program to plant two billion trees. The budget contains no new money for parks or protected areas. The government is scrapping the Canada public transit fund, which was intended to fund public transportation, and it is transferring that money to another fund. We do not know how much money, if any, remains in the fund. The same goes for the sustainable mobility fund.”
“The overall budget only has an additional $4 million over five years for the climate competitiveness strategy. If the government thinks Canada will get back on track or get on track to fight for the climate, it cleary has a ways to go. The budget does not have new investments to create a green economy. Environment and Climate Change Canada's budget has been slashed by 15%. The government has extended tax credits for oil and gas companies while simultaneously easing their emission reduction obligations and lifting their existing limits. The government is breaking its promise by continuing to subsidize oil and gas companies even though it had said it would remove subsidies. Let us turn to greenwashing rules, which the budget has watered down. As we know, oil and gas companies engage in greenwashing all the time.”
“Any federal law can be set aside now that the government has decided to sneak this into its budget. Honestly, that is worrisome. A further look at this budget shows that it goes even further, or rather further backwards. What we have seen since the new government came into office is not that new. It is environmental backsliding. Some might say there is a problem when the government offers billions of dollars in additional subsidies to oil and gas companies. The government presented its budget as a budget for a climate revolution, with a climate competitiveness strategy that would revolutionize everything and demonstrate the government's ambitions. However, the budget does not have a competitiveness strategy. It has a climate capitulation strategy.”
“There is something else we discovered in this budget. We did not catch it at first because it is buried on page 300. The government has decided to allow major project developers to circumvent the law. We were not happy this spring when the government joined forces with the Conservatives to pass Bill C-5 under a gag order. That was a completely undemocratic move. We were concerned about Bill C-5 because it allowed the government to completely set aside 12 laws and seven regulations, including several on the environment. Now, we see that the government hid a measure in the middle of this omnibus budget implementation bill, on page 300, that allows any minister to exempt any company from the application of any federal law for a period of three years.”
“Those are credits for clean electricity, but nuclear energy produces nuclear waste. Just two hours from here, in Chalk River, nuclear waste is being stored next to the Ottawa River. There are 100 municipalities in Quebec that are opposed to that project. First nations are opposed to that project. This week, 85 groups from across Canada made a public statement about how it is not right that highly radioactive waste is being stored next to the Ottawa River. We are talking about carcinogens that stay radioactive for thousands of years. (1530) If that is clean electricity, then I think people need to start asking some serious questions about the government's greenwashing. There are additional tax credits for nuclear power. The same applies to gas-fired power plants, as if it were clean to generate electricity from gas.”
“The former heritage minister made that promise, and the budget said that tax credits for carbon capture and sequestration will not be used to allow oil companies to produce more oil. However, last week, in an agreement between the Prime Minister and Alberta, the Liberals completely contradicted their budget. They betrayed the Green Party member, who voted with them, just to keep the oil and gas companies happy. Not only is the government giving money to oil companies, but we can see that the Prime Minister is unreliable when it comes to the environment. We cannot trust what he says because he goes back on his word. Obviously, we have other concerns about this budget. From now on, nuclear companies will be able to receive money for small modular nuclear reactors through clean electricity tax credits.”
“The government will increase and extend tax credits for businesses, meaning that it will be paying to capture and sequester their carbon. Businesses should be the ones paying for their own pollution. They should be paying to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Quebeckers and taxpayers in general should not be subsidizing the companies that are largely responsible for climate change. In this budget, the government is providing subsidies. Interestingly, the former heritage minister, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie , met with the Green Party representative to promise action on the environment. He promised her that the tax credits would not enable oil companies to produce more oil just because they intend to capture carbon.”
“Still, we made it clear that the purpose of these demands was to represent and defend the interests of Quebec. These demands included support for seniors, support for young families in accessing home ownership, support on climate action and increases to health transfers. None of these measures are in this budget, which projects a deficit of almost $80 billion. In fact, our demands would have made it possible to generate significant benefits across Canada, beyond Quebec, which was of course our priority. It gets worse. When we look at this budget, we see that fossil fuel companies, oil and gas companies, will be swimming in billions of dollars' worth of additional subsidies. The government decided to give even more money to oil and gas companies, which are already raking in record profits.”
“Mr. Speaker, it should come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois will not be supporting Bill C‑15 , the budget implementation bill. We were very clear during the vote. The Bloc Québécois is the only party that stood firm. We had a number of reasons for rejecting this budget. Obviously, it is a big bill. It is 650 pages long, contains 80 legislative measures, and amends 49 laws. What we have is a mixed bag. The government can say that there are good projects in this bill, projects that the Bloc Québécois has been calling for. I am thinking of projects for the Magdalen Islands, Charlevoix and the Gaspé region, among others. However, when we look at the bill as a whole, we see that the six priority demands of the Bloc Québécois were completely dismissed by the government. There were no negotiations, not with anyone.”
“On the contrary, we are seeing rollbacks, while the Liberals have billions of dollars set aside for oil companies. True, today's motion is a good initiative, but let us not forget that this government has a disastrous record when it comes to the environment, as stated by the former minister of Canadian identity and culture, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie .”
“Areas are being opened up to more oil and gas development, regardless of the consequences. There are plans for new pipelines that would have serious repercussions. There is even talk of lifting the west coast oil tanker ban that has been in place since 1972, which would allow oil tankers to enter this ecologically valuable territory. We want to move forward and see more measures like this being proposed. The government needs to enshrine this into law, if possible, to facilitate ecological donations. However, we cannot ignore the elephant in the room. It is the government's failure to protect biodiversity. It is the lack of a plan. It is the zero dollars in the latest budget for the protection of territory, biodiversity and parks.”
“Quebec is a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity and managed to protect 17% of its territory by 2024. By way of comparison, Ontario has protected 10.9%. Quebec is doing its part and contributing to the goal of protecting 30% of the territory. Once again, Quebec has invested nearly $908 million in its nature plan, while the federal government has contributed only $100 million. We need to look at the big picture, and what we see now are other significant rollbacks from the federal government that would more than cancel out its initiatives, including the initiative in Motion No. 15, which is important and which we support, as I said. How can Canada hope to meet its targets when what we are seeing now is a rollback of environmental protections?”
“This is a far cry from the 25% and 30% targets that would need to be met to halt and reverse biodiversity loss and to respect Canada's international biodiversity protection commitments. When we look at Canada's 2030 nature strategy, we realize how fortunate it is that Quebec itself made commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity. It is not waiting for the rest of Canada to develop and implement strategies, because Canada is still way behind. It is important to understand that Quebec territory does not belong to the federal government, but to Quebeckers. Quebec assumes its own responsibilities for protecting its territory and protecting the natural environment. The environment is protected by Quebec's environmental legislation, not the federal government.”
“The previous government used to say that the goal of protecting 25% of Canada's land and waters would be met by 2025, but the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development was very clear in his latest report: As with the fight against climate change, Canada is not on track to achieve its area-based conservation targets, and there is currently no plan, road map or pathway for reaching its target of protecting 30% of its territory by 2030. It is now 2025, and it is obvious that the Liberal government has missed its target. Today's figures show that 13.8% of Canada's terrestrial area, including land and freshwater, is protected and 15.5% of its marine territory is protected.”
“It eventually led to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, ratified in Montreal in 2022, which set ambitious targets and was signed by the Canadian government. The most ambitious of the 23 targets is to protect 30% of Canada's land, inland waters and coastal and marine areas by 2030. This means protecting 30% of our territory by 2030. That is Canada's goal. The Canadian government needs to get to work, because Canada set a target of protecting 25% of its territory by 2025. This target will obviously not be met.”
“Even the World Economic Forum has identified biodiversity protection or biodiversity loss as the third most pressing global risk along with disinformation and misinformation, the return of state-based armed conflict and the climate change crisis. (1830) The loss of biodiversity is a crisis. Additional measures need to be taken to protect biodiversity from threats posed by habitat and ecosystem loss and degradation resulting from human activiy. This is why it is so important to protect private lands and encourage protection by individuals and organizations. Obviously, urban sprawl and industrial overdevelopment come at a cost. The problem extends across the globe. That is why the Convention on Biological Diversity, a global convention, was put in place in 1992.”
“There were zero additional dollars in the latest budget for the protection of nature, for the protection of biodiversity, even though the government has committed to reaching some fairly ambitious targets by 2030. Action is in fact urgently needed. In our view, the government has to show some consistency here, because humans are dependent on biodiversity in many respects. We depend on what it does for us, whether that is in terms of food, medications, air quality improvement, water quality improvement, or mitigation of the effects of climate change, such as droughts and floods. The loss of biodiversity is one of the most urgent global emergencies, along with pollution, climate change and others.”
“Another avenue to consider, and the one we feel is the most important, is for the federal government to plan to take concrete action to protect nature, particularly by enhancing the nature agreements between the provinces and the federal government. That is one of the reasons why the Bloc Québécois proposed, during the 2025 election campaign, that the federal government triple its share of the funding for the Canada-Quebec nature agreement, increasing it from $100 million to at least $300 million, in order to help Quebec, which is taking action to protect nature. Unfortunately, what we see in the latest budget is that the protection of nature has been completely left out, even though it is a recurring theme with this government.”
“These areas have some of the richest and most diverse natural environments. The southern regions have unique ecosystems, but they also have some of the most significant interactions between people and nature. By supporting Motion No. 15, we wish to renew our commitment in favour of legal conservation measures, like tax breaks, because we should work toward encouraging donations of land to conservation organizations so they are able to protect more land. In southern Quebec in particular, it is important to do this and to protect this land in perpetuity. This would result in significant benefits for the ecosystems in question, as well as for the people who get to enjoy these ecosystems.”
“These may include waterways, marshes, buffer strips, wetlands, habitats, vulnerable species and endangered species. It must be noted that the federal government does not have jurisdiction over land that it does not own. It is important to keep that in mind. Supporting private conservation initiatives is a valuable tool that the federal government can use to promote land-based conservation, and the Bloc Québécois supports that. The Bloc Québécois would also like to point out that, currently, conservation organizations play a key role on the ground. These are stakeholders who often work on a voluntary basis and are involved in the conservation of private lands, particularly in Quebec. Members should keep in mind that we are talking about 8% of our land that is private, primarily in southern Quebec.”