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 5 of 10.
“Mr. Speaker, as mentioned, the Bloc Québécois supports Motion No. 15. This motion concerns ecological gifts. Among other things, it proposes that the House recognize certain principles regarding the importance of conserving private land to protect biodiversity, and that the government consider tax measures to promote this type of conservation. The public issue that we are discussing is the preservation of biodiversity, which actually refers to the variety that exists among living organisms, including genetic, species and ecosystem diversity. One thing the motion proposes is that the House recognize the importance of voluntary conservation, which is the conservation by property owners of ecological features found on their land.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on his initiative, which we will support. I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie for acting on conviction over the past few days. He stood his ground, showed courage, and decided to resign from cabinet because of the marked retreat from, not to say abandonment of, the fight against climate change. The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie even said that it would be dishonest to say that Canada will meet its 2030 climate targets. Knowing that climate change is the greatest threat to biodiversity, I would like to know if his hon. colleagues will also stand up and denounce the government's dangerous backpedalling.”
“Mr. Speaker, despite what the minister says, Quebeckers did not vote for the Liberals so they could give up on climate action and turn Canada into global problem. They also did not vote for the Liberals to get a pipeline rammed down a province's throat. They did not vote for the Liberals to make our children live through a growing number of natural disasters. Quebeckers did not vote for that, and a lot of Liberals did not sign up for that either. Are they not fed up with drinking the Kool-Aid?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to build a single economy. He did not lie because he did build a single economy, a dirty oil economy out west. Not one inch of the pipelines he wants to impose under the pretext of standing up to Donald Trump will be built during Trump's presidency, but they will pollute for 40 years. This is a betrayal not only of Quebeckers, but also of countries that have not given up the fight against climate change. How can the Liberals look themselves in the mirror?”
“Mr. Speaker, people never even saw the current government's real oil and gas agenda. During the election campaign, the Liberals did not say a word about the fact that they were even more in favour of oil and gas than the Conservatives, who never approved a pipeline project under Stephen Harper. Yes, people were tricked.”
“I hope my colleague will say that he supports the idea that parents should be able to use their RRSPs to help young people get into the housing market, that the government should introduce low-interest or even interest-free loans to help young people get that down payment so they can buy a home, because there is a fundamental problem with access. Eliminating the GST is not enough. The problem of saving for a down payment also needs to be addressed.”
“Mr. Speaker, I completely share my colleague's concerns about how difficult it is for young families, among others, to buy a home and to save up enough money for a down payment. Obviously, we support the GST measure, but we think it needs to be complemented by other measures. The biggest obstacle to home ownership is how hard it is to save up a down payment. With house prices continuing to rise, it is becoming increasingly difficult for young people to save and to buy their first home, partly because of the cost of living.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are simply asking the question. If the government really intended to move forward with the decent measures in its budget, why is it presenting everything as a take-it-or-leave-it package? Why did it not split it up so that we could support the decent initiatives? What we are being asked to do is swallow a bitter pill in exchange for a few small, interesting measures. Looking at the budget, we are stuck with it as a whole. We had six specific demands for Quebec. The government deliberately chose to ignore them and did not want to work with the other opposition parties. As a result, we cannot support it, unfortunately. It is undemocratic to say that we must take it or leave it. We are telling the government to work constructively with the opposition and make amendments, for one.”
“We also suggested offering interest-free loans, which would cost the government next to nothing, but would allow these new families, these young people, to make the necessary down payment to buy a home. This measure would have complemented what the government has proposed. Access to home ownership is important to us. We think it is important for everyone to have access to it, not just those who can afford a down payment, which is becoming increasingly expensive.”
“Mr. Speaker, we believe that it is actually possible to grow the economy, help people cope with the rising cost of living, including insurance premiums and groceries, while also fighting climate change and developing the jobs of the future. Yes, we are concerned about the cost of living and access to home ownership. That is one of the reasons why we proposed two key measures that we wanted to see in this budget, but the government did not include them. For example, we proposed a measure for a down payment for first-time home buyers. We proposed that parents be able to use their RRSPs to help their children access the home buyers' plan. It is hard to get the money needed for a down payment.”
“Everyone is paying now, and we can see that in climate change and the devastating consequences we are experiencing today, such as the forest fires that have occurred again this year.”
“Mr. Speaker, our Conservative colleagues say nothing about the roughly $10 billion in subsidies that the Canadian government gives oil and gas companies every year. They say nothing about the $10 billion it costs Quebec to purchase hydrocarbons, oil and gas each year. That is money that leaves Quebec and goes to Alberta, among other places. That represents a cost. They say nothing about the cost of insurance, which is rising because of climate change. They say nothing about how droughts, floods and the problems facing farmers are driving up the cost of groceries and food. I would like them to talk about the real issues. I would like them to tell us who will pay if we do not put a price on pollution.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has been very clear. We had six non-negotiable demands for the government and it turned them all down. It refused to pay back the $814 million that was stolen from Quebeckers. It refused to increase health transfers. It refused to help young people access home ownership, as we proposed. It turned down a wide range of requests that garnered consensus in Quebec and that cost very little. It also refused to provide assistance to seniors aged 65 to 74. That is like putting arsenic in a cake, and that is not good for Quebec. It is not something we will accept.”
“Just look at the carve-out for Alberta on the clean electricity regulations. (1730) For us, abolishing industrial carbon pricing means abandoning the fight against climate change, and that is completely irresponsible—”
“What kind of additional greenhouse gas emission reductions will it bring? In fact, we see a desire to come to an agreement with Alberta, which is currently refusing to harmonize its industrial pricing system with the Canadian system. Once again, this will likely lead to a decrease in Alberta's commitments. We cannot give a blank cheque to a government that is eliminating important measures, such as consumer carbon pricing, while giving billions of dollars more in its latest budget to increase or extend funding and subsidies to oil and gas companies, removing the cap on greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector, and striking a deal with Alberta that makes it very clear that they plan to harmonize their standards. Harmonizing with Alberta means lowering the standards.”
“It is not just one measure. If there were something to replace that and if it could be shown that there was a willingness to meet the country's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, comply with the Paris Agreement and reduce pollution, we would believe it. Unfortunately, the very first thing that the new Prime Minister did, through an order in council, was followed by several other steps backward. That is concerning from the standpoint of the fight against climate change. This is not just one major step backward. We were expecting the government to show us a climate competitiveness strategy that would highlight the government's commitment but, in reality, there is no new money to fight climate change. There is no clarity on industrial carbon pricing. How much will it cost? To what extent will it be increased?”
“Once again, this will undermine the efforts of Quebeckers, who believe it is important to diversify exports and export destinations and to ramp up trade with Europe. Obviously, Quebec's businesses, our SMEs, will find themselves at a disadvantage if the rest of Canada does not feel the same way. I would like to remind members that both the European Union and the United Kingdom have implemented exemption schemes and carbon pricing at the border. The Bloc Québécois will oppose this bill to ensure that Canada stops thwarting Quebec's efforts to diversify its markets and combat climate change. We will not allow ourselves to be distracted by the Trump effect. There is a global reality on which countries are taking action, and I mentioned several examples, but unfortunately, it is not a reality that Canada has embraced so far.”
“We need to have carbon pricing, just as we have other types of pricing. There is a price for electricity and a price for water consumption. There must be a price for pollution, because it is not free. The Conservative Party wants to abolish industrial carbon pricing. According to the Conservatives, any pricing would be bad. They never explain how we are going to combat climate change if we abolish the basic principles recognized by some of the world's most renowned economists. There is a consensus that putting a price on carbon is an effective measure, and it is a measure that the world is moving towards. For its part, Canada has chosen to return to the 20th century. It wants to abolish and reduce carbon pricing.”
“Trump as President does not change the situation. (1725) Nothing has changed, since individual states are continuing to move forward. California has even strengthened its market under the cap-and-trade system and committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions even further. This means that the fight against climate change is accelerating in certain countries, whether in the state of California or in the European Union, which, although imperfect, is continuing the fight against climate change. That is the opposite of Canada, which is bucking the global trend. Quebec could once again suffer because Canada has taken on certain responsibilities while Quebec is going to play by a different set of rules. In Quebec, we decided to put a price on pollution because, otherwise, it is passed on to society as a whole.”
“No country in the world has abolished its carbon pricing. Canada would be the first to choose this path. Clearly, it is sinking deeper into climate irresponsibility, primarily to satisfy oil and gas companies. It should be noted that carbon pricing does not apply in Quebec. Quebec has its own cap-and-trade system for emissions. It is not the only one to have implemented such a system. It works with the Western Climate Initiative, among others, with California. There are exchanges between companies, including between Quebec and California. Together, they have a combined GDP of $4.8 trillion. That is enormous. It is a major market. There has never been carbon pricing at the federal level in the United States. The states are taking action. Washington is also taking action in this regard. Having Mr.”
“Gradually, it will be extended to include all goods. While border carbon adjustments may be a new mechanism, similar mechanisms already exist. They are completely legal and trade-rule compliant. Examples of equivalent measures include the excise tax on tobacco or alcohol, which is charged when these products leave the factory where they are made, or at the border for imported goods. This is a global trend that Canada is bucking. The World Bank compiles a list of carbon pricing mechanisms around the world. In 2023, it counted 53 countries with carbon pricing. That is five more than in 2022, 12 more than in 2021, and 69 more than 20 years ago. The trajectory is very clear. The world is waking up to the reality of climate change and is putting a price on pollution by choosing carbon pricing.”
“In 2024, the United Kingdom also adopted legislation similar to the European law. The U.K. law will come into effect on January 1, 2027. This is the direction the world is heading in. We need to keep that in mind when we talk about carbon pricing. Pollution comes at a cost, and a price has to be put on that cost. Other countries are preparing to do so, and Canada will pay a very high price if it ignores the cost of pollution. Canada intends to pass the cost on to taxpayers as a whole, forcing them to pay the cost if the companies that pollute do not. Essentially, when a product enters Europe, a levy will be charged that is equal to what the carbon price would have been in Europe. In the beginning, this levy will apply to select products, such as aluminum, iron, steel, cement, fertilizer, hydrogen and electricity.”
“Quebec is, in a way, the bridge between America and Europe. Obviously, we hope that Quebec will be able to double its trade with Europe, including, of course, the United Kingdom. Ideally, we would increase it from $42 billion to $84 billion within five years. However, Europe currently has the carbon border adjustment mechanism. In 2023, the European Union adopted legislation creating this carbon border adjustment mechanism, which is set to come into force on January 1, 2026. What Europe wants to do is prevent carbon leakage and avoid unfair competition from competitors located in places where it is free to pollute. Europe will therefore impose a tax adjustment. Again, Europe will impose a tax adjustment on imports of certain products from countries where carbon pricing is too low or non-existent. This is now the case in Canada.”
“What is the logic behind saying that we are going to develop the Canadian economy when we need to develop international trade partnerships with other countries, yet EU countries and other countries are going to impose carbon pricing at the border for non-compliant countries that do not put a price, or a high enough price, on carbon? What will the Prime Minister say to these trading partners when he himself abandons important measures? There is uncertainty in the United States, we agree, but we know that we need to strengthen trade ties outside the North American bubble. (1720) I would like to point out that Quebec accounts for one-third of trade between Canada and Europe. We receive nearly 40% of European investment in Canada. We have an advantage and we are the gateway to Europe.”
“That is why the Bloc Québécois is calling on Ottawa to unconditionally transfer the $814 million that was paid by Quebec, because those cheques were written for a carbon pricing system that no longer even existed. They were sent on Earth Day, which is truly a dark day and marked the beginning of the end of the government's fight against climate change. The Prime Minister justifies his lax approach to combatting climate change—or rather his abandonment of the fight against climate change—by invoking Canada's need for economic development.”
“That was $3.7 billion to buy votes in an election campaign. Obviously, it is important to remember how carbon pricing works. It is a rebate that has always been paid in advance. It was therefore an advance payment to households. This money was not being reimbursed. In other words, Canadians received a cheque for money they had never actually paid. I repeat that Quebeckers did not receive any, but they did pay for it. We believe that this amounts to funding the environmentally irresponsible behaviour of the Canadian provinces at the expense of Quebeckers. Quebec is being penalized because it has made efforts to fight climate change. The government stole money from the pockets of Quebeckers to reward Canada for not making an effort.”
“It is important to remember that nearly 90% of the money collected by the government was returned to citizens outside Quebec. This rebate allowed 80% of the population, or the majority of households, to receive more money than they paid in carbon pricing. The former environment minister said very clearly that this was a very good measure to combat climate change. However, what was the first thing we saw the new Prime Minister do? He took a big pen and, like Donald Trump, signed an executive order to proudly abolish carbon pricing, which the previous government and the previous environment minister considered to be a good environmental measure. The Liberals even dared to abolish this measure on April 1. What did they do on April 22, which is Earth Day? On Earth Day, they decided to send Canadians cheques totalling $3.7 billion.”
“We are not alone in calling for this; the Quebec National Assembly is calling for it too. Every one of the parties in Quebec City is unanimously calling for the federal government to return that money to us. What has the government and its 44 Liberal members from Quebec done? They have shown us that they are utterly incapable of supporting the Quebec National Assembly's unanimous demand. They are ignoring Quebeckers and condoning the fact that Quebeckers were just robbed of $814 million to send out vote-buying cheques. (1715) When we talk about carbon pricing, it is worth remembering that Quebec has a price on carbon. Quebec established a carbon market; it has taken action. However, by removing carbon pricing in the rest of Canada, the government is obviously putting Quebec at a disadvantage.”
“market is becoming more difficult, it is clear that this would be the worst time to close our doors to the European market. This is especially true given that the consumer carbon price is being removed in Canada and we do not yet know what will happen to industrial carbon pricing. I want to remind the House that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development believes that carbon pricing is one of the few effective aspects of the federal greenhouse gas reduction plan. By ending carbon pricing, however, the government is not only giving up the fight against climate change, it is also leaving Quebec in the lurch after it has once again been cheated, literally robbed. The Bloc Québécois has repeatedly demanded that the government acknowledge this situation in its budget and return the $814 million in question to Quebeckers.”
“That means that money from Quebec was taken out of Quebeckers' pockets and sent as election goodies in the form of cheques worth $814 million in the middle of an election campaign. Once again, that money came out of Quebeckers' pockets. The government told us that it was going to increase industrial carbon pricing, but this bill does not mention that at all. If we look at what is happening abroad, in the rest of the world, on January 1, the European Union will be imposing a tariff on the import of products and goods from other countries. If there is no price on pollution in those other countries, Europe will put a price on carbon at the border. Right now, given the uncertainty in the United States under Mr. Trump and given that access to the U.S.”
“In the end, the oil companies will have gotten everything on their wish list, courtesy of the government. Added to this, more recently, is the climate capitulation budget. The icing on the cake is a new oil sands pipeline. Getting back to Bill C-4, it is the elimination of the carbon pricing rebate. Let us be clear. This spells the end of any possibility of meeting Canada's greenhouse gas reduction targets. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois strongly opposes this environmentally irresponsible behaviour. This shows that the government has no intention of fighting climate change. It also highlights a major injustice for Quebeckers. I am talking about the elimination of the carbon rebate that came with a cheque for Canadians outside Quebec, but was paid for with Quebeckers' money. They were not entitled to a cheque.”
“Madam Speaker, the third part of Bill C-4 reflects what could be called the Prime Minister 's environmental fiasco. Actually, what we are witnessing with the abandonment of consumer carbon pricing is the beginning of the official end of the fight against climate change. This step back was taken on April 1, before the people had even given him an electoral mandate. Instead of countering the Conservatives' carbon pricing disinformation, the Prime Minister simply starting chanting from their slogan sheet by eliminating one of the flagship measures for achieving the country's greenhouse gas reduction target. Since then, it has been one step back after another, back to the Stone Age, which happens to be exactly what the Leader of the Opposition wanted. That is what we are seeing.”
“Mr. Speaker, once again, the Liberals are ashamed and are talking about everything except their dirty oil pipeline from the oil sands. They are ashamed to admit that they are no longer fighting against climate change and that they are abandoning their greenhouse gas reduction targets. They are ashamed to admit that they are even going to make climate change worse by producing an additional 1.4 million barrels of dirty oil a day. How can the ministers agree to that? They are ashamed to talk about it. They should go hide under their desks.”
“Mr. Speaker, the oil deal between Canada and Alberta amounts to climate betrayal. Canada is scrapping its greenhouse gas reduction targets, abandoning all of its environmental policies from the last 10 years, giving up on biodiversity by revoking the moratorium on oil tankers and even giving up on protecting indigenous lands. At this rate, will there be anything left in the Minister of Environment and Climate Change 's mandate, or will she just rubber-stamp the Prime Minister 's oil deal?”
“Mr. Speaker, the environment minister is defending pipelines. Now we have seen it all. Let us take a look at our new so-called green Prime Minister 's new record: He scrapped carbon pricing, abandoned targets for zero-emission vehicles, sabotaged oil and gas emissions caps, offered billions of dollars in tax credits for fossil fuels and boycotted COP30. He is exempting oil projects from environmental assessments with Bill C-5 and he is building another pipeline that will violate the west coast moratorium on tanker traffic in a marine protected area. Is this the Liberal record, or Donald Trump's?”
“Mr. Speaker, this morning's announcement of yet another dirty oil pipeline has cracked the Prime Minister 's green veneer. Beneath that veneer, he is bitumen-black, just like the Conservatives, and maybe even blacker, because Stephen Harper himself could not get a pipeline through. The Liberals announced a second one this morning. There may even be others. They have given up all hope of meeting the greenhouse gas reduction targets. On environmental issues, are they worse than the Conservatives, or is this a pot-kettle situation?”
“Mr. Speaker, clearly, they are ashamed. Every time we raise their new pipeline for dirty oil with the Liberals, all they do is talk around the subject. They know it is catastrophic for the climate. They know it is disastrous for biodiversity. They also know that it has the potential to become an economic and financial fiasco, like Trans Mountain. Tomorrow, they are going to watch their Prime Minister grin alongside Danielle Smith as they announce a pipeline that no one on their side wants to defend. We can see their shame. The real question is this: Do they know that they are right to feel ashamed?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals want a second dirty oil pipeline in western Canada. Even after Trans Mountain, they still want more. This has nothing to do with Donald Trump. They want to sell more dirty oil to Asia. Thanks to Bill C-5 , this pipeline will circumvent environmental laws. The pipeline would fill oil tankers that would illegally pass through the heart of a marine protected area. If there is a single Liberal who still has a shred of conscience, when will he or she stand up and admit that this is nonsense?”
“Mr. Speaker, on May 14, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture said that now is not the time to build pipelines. Well, his party thinks anytime is the right time to build pipelines. First came Trans Mountain, and now the Liberals are announcing a second pipeline to transport dirty oil from the west. We remember the Harper years as a dark time for the environment, but even Stephen Harper did not approve a single pipeline. The Liberals, including the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, will have approved two. Why is he still sitting over there?”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the Prime Minister wants to hear this. It is official: Canada is giving up the fight against climate change. On Thursday, the Liberals are going to announce a new pipeline for dirty oil from western Canada, on top of Trans Mountain, which has cost taxpayers $34 billion and which will cost us even more in climate disruptions. It is a dark day, as dark as the dirty oil that the Liberals are rolling in. Do they still believe in clean energy at all? They clearly do not.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is official: Canada is giving up the fight against climate change. The Prime Minister will announce it on Thursday by launching a brand new pipeline for dirty oil from western Canada, on top of Trans Mountain, which has cost taxpayers $34 billion and which will cost us even more in climate disruptions. Thanks to Bill C-5 and Bill C-15 , this new pipeline will be exempt from environmental assessments and laws— Some hon. members : Oh, oh!”
“Madam Speaker, it is really something to hear the government say what a fantastic budget this is for the environment when, internationally, nearly 2,000 NGOs gathered at the UN climate conference gave it the fossil of the day award, an environmental booby prize, for its constant backsliding, including in this budget. Funds for electric vehicle incentives, the tree-planting initiative and the emissions cap in the oil and gas sector are gone, gone, gone. The government has no plan to meet its 2030 greenhouse gas reduction target either. How can my colleague say that this budget is an environmental winner when it is being roundly described as a very alarming step backward?”
“colleague to explain to me how he can support and praise a budget that surrenders to climate change, that is criticized by NGOs, that is criticized internationally, and that gives money to oil and gas companies. It is shameful.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Honoré-Mercier really surprises me. He formed an environment and climate change committee within the government out of concern that the government is completely giving up on the fight against climate change. Today, he shows up in the House and delivers a speech that is literally greenwashing, where he brags about a budget that has been so harshly criticized that Canada won a fossil award, an international booby prize. That budget cuts Environment and Climate Change Canada's spending, abandons important measures, gives billions of dollars to oil companies and abandons the emissions cap for the oil and gas sector. I would like my hon.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is a climate capitulation budget. It cuts Environment Canada's budget by 15%, ends the electric vehicle incentive program for light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and eliminates green renovation programs. However, something else is very much a part of this budget. Subsidies for oil and gas companies are being increased and extended. Can my hon. colleague tell me how many more billions of dollars are being made available to oil and gas companies in the form of tax credits for the carbon capture and sequestration program? Is it $3 billion, $6 billion or $10 billion? I want to know.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is in good company having brushed off the COP summit to meet with oil monarchies, because Canada is an oil monarchy. That is its identity. It received a fossil award at COP, just like the oil monarchies. It ranks 61 out of 67 countries in the climate performance index, alongside the oil monarchies. Today, the Liberals want to take another step backward. They want to reach an agreement with Alberta to build a new dirty oil pipeline. That is the Canadian identity. The Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture did not defend this before. How can he defend it now?”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is proud to talk about eliminating carbon pricing. I would remind the House that this was one of the marquee policies of this government, which boasted that 80% of people were receiving more money than they paid. The government scrapped it without putting any other measures in place. Here is what interests me as a member from Quebec. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the fact that Quebec has its own system and that the federal government took $814 million out of Quebeckers' pockets to send vote-buying cheques to Canadians during the election campaign. As a member from Quebec, does he agree with this decision to steal $814 million directly out of Quebeckers' pockets to send vote-buying cheques?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments, including his remark about the GST break on new homes. In my riding, however, the problem is that people are unable to save up enough money to buy a new home. Rents are rising and house prices keep going up, making the situation all the more difficult. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about our proposals for people who have not saved up a down payment yet. We have two proposals and both are simple. The first is to allow parents to use their RRSPs to help their children put together a down payment. The second is to offer interest-free government loans to help young people and new homebuyers with their down payment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand that my hon. colleague has little or no interest in measures to fight climate change. The Conservatives do not want a carbon tax. Pollution should be free. That is fine. His colleagues have the right to think that. However, does my colleague agree that, in the midst of the election campaign, the government took $814 million from Quebeckers to send election cheques everywhere outside Quebec to essentially buy votes? We are calling on the government to return the $814 million that was stolen from Quebeckers. Does the member agree with us?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois fully supports part 2 of the bill, but when it comes to measures like the GST exemption for first-time homebuyers, we think that it does not go far enough. We know that saving for a down payment is one of the biggest barriers to accessing home ownership. Obviously, there is also the fact that rent and housing prices have skyrocketed and that it is hard to save up. The Bloc Québécois made two specific proposals. The first proposal was to allow parents to cash out their RRSPs and to put that towards the home buyers' plan for their children. This is a zero-cost measure. The second proposal was to provide an interest-free loan for first-time homebuyers. This would cost next to nothing. I would like to know what my hon. colleague thinks about those measures.”