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 6 of 10.
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4 eliminates pollution pricing for consumers, for individuals, but it does not propose any measures to offset the negative effects on the environment. Furthermore, members will recall that when the government eliminated the carbon tax, they sent a cheque to all Canadians outside Quebec. This little gift was sent out in the middle of the election campaign as a rebate for a tax that no longer existed. That amounts to $814 million taken out of Quebeckers' pockets. The National Assembly unanimously requested that this money be returned to Quebeckers. The Bloc Québécois raised this issue before the budget was tabled. Does the government plan to give back the $814 million that was stolen from Quebeckers?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is generally against mandatory minimum sentences because they have not been proven to deter criminals from committing crime. What is more, they have been proven to cause countless injustices with respect to sentencing. Can my hon. colleague tell me whether she has seen any studies that prove that mandatory minimum sentences have a deterrent effect on crime? Is she not concerned about the many injustices in sentencing?”
“Mr. Speaker, during the 44th Parliament, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to provide a framework for the use of the Jordan decision, and in particular to ensure that the Jordan decision cannot be invoked for primary designated offences such as sexual offences, murder, kidnapping, gun crimes or terrorism. I would like to hear what my hon. colleague thinks of this idea.”
“Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing the Liberals say that this is a visionary budget for future generations. However, the budget provides no new money for the environment, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is also no money for protecting parks. This morning, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development said that Canada was not on track to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets or its protected area targets for either 2025 or 2030. How can this budget address the climate crisis and biodiversity loss if there is not a penny for climate, parks and biodiversity?”
“Mr. Speaker, this budget is the epitome of climate capitulation. The Department of the Environment's budget is being cut by 15%. The emissions cap for the oil and gas sector is being eliminated. Oil companies are getting tax credits. That is just a short list. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development was clear this morning. He confirmed that, even before the budget, Canada was not on track to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets by 2030, and now with the elimination of carbon pricing, we are going backwards. The budget's response is fewer environmental measures and more money for oil companies. We are headed for disaster. Why are the Liberals stepping on the gas?”
“As we know, even within Quebec, and I am strictly speaking about Quebec, there are regional differences, specific ways of operating and rapid changes people are noticing that science sometimes struggles to capture. Imagine the implications if the scope is expanded to include the Atlantic region. The principle behind the bill is certainly interesting. However, in terms of how it would be applied, we question whether it is really necessary. We want to see science at the core of the process, and we want people on the ground to be involved, so we do want to collaborate with our colleagues.”
“Species are under stress because of water warming, leading them to relocate. We saw that with cod. There are also interactions with other species to consider. We firmly believe that science must be at the centre of this process. We want the precautionary principle to be applied. The right to nature is also important, so we respect and encourage the presence of fishers and other stakeholders on the ground. However, when there are too many constraints and they are applied across the board, we really have to wonder. Without question, this type of bill deserves to be studied. For now, however, we have doubts about applying one-size-fits-all measures.”
“Mr. Speaker, we in the Bloc Québécois strive to be thorough, to work based on science, traditional knowledge and local expertise. We think it would be interesting to study this bill, because it raises a number of rather important questions. For example, we believe that harmonizing fishing seasons across a large ecosystem with regional differences poses risks to some species and could be problematic. A one-size-fits-all management approach could lead to problems. Our fishers know the resources, the territory and the vulnerable points, but they also need to support and coordination across regions. We are concerned about the application of one-size-fits-all measures, particularly in areas like the Gulf of St. Lawrence, where we are seeing the ecosystem warming quickly.”
“Madam Speaker, I am somewhat surprised by the leader of the official opposition's reaction to the budget. The tax cuts should make him happy. There is also talk of extending funding for oil companies and abolishing emissions caps in the oil and gas sector. The budget talks about amending the clean electricity regulations, most likely to weaken them, and the same goes for fossil fuel regulations. There is no longer any mention of the Paris Agreement or short-term targets, even. The fight against climate change has been sidelined. It has reached the point where one Conservative member of Parliament thought the budget was so good that he decided to join the government. It makes me wonder whether the leader of the official opposition feels like crossing the floor, considering how the government—”
“Mr. Speaker, since this government came to power, the fight against climate change has experienced a lot of setbacks. Carbon pricing is gone and there is no money for electric vehicles. There are pipelines and LNG projects. We were told that we would see a climate competitiveness strategy. Looking at this budget, we see a $589-million investment in this strategy until 2030. Of the $589 million, $585 million is going to critical minerals. That leaves $4 million over five years for their climate competitiveness strategy. Are the Liberals literally giving up the fight against climate change?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals announced today that they are scrapping their program to plant two billion trees. This decision to abandon this strategy is a big deal. It was one of the only green measures left over from the Trudeau era, and this is happening on the same day as a budget full of bad news for the environment. The budget will provide details about the new federal strategy, known as climate competitiveness. If climate competitiveness means abolishing carbon pricing, EV quotas and tree planting and instead encouraging the expansion of oil and gas, should we not call it climate capitulation?”
“Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the Criminal Code, which is under federal jurisdiction. However, the administration of justice is largely Quebec's responsibility. We know that there are already problems, particularly around the fiscal imbalance. Additional transfers are needed, including for health care. Can my hon. colleague acknowledge that there is a fiscal imbalance and explain how Quebec would handle the additional costs related to this bill? Will the federal government commit to transferring money to cover the additional costs that provinces will incur? If so, how much?”
“Here are a few: Prepare people for the cost of climate change, increase the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund, protect and help people with insurance too, increase funding to prevent shoreline erosion, and ensure that the federal government makes transfers to local governments, which are in the best position to manage the consequences of climate change. When we look at all this, it does not seem as though the government is serious about climate change. We are very concerned that we are having a big debate to initiate something that we do not need, when the government could move forward quickly on its own. The Bloc Québécois is serious about this climate crisis and we are going to take the bill that is before us seriously. (1820) That said, for the moment, the Bloc Québécois is confused.”
“Dealing with floods and droughts is a priority, but is it a priority to pass a bill and create a strategy that does not seem to require a bill to exist? That is why we are essentially also asking the government to set aside some money in the next budget. What makes adaptation so challenging is the need for money, the need for help for the provinces and municipalities. Municipalities in Quebec alone currently need $2 billion a year to adapt their infrastructure to climate change. That is what we need, not a bill that leaves us feeling unconvinced. Obviously, we could stand to gain from being convinced. We always keep an open mind. However, for now, we have very specific demands. We included plenty of proposals in our election platform.”
“One thing is certain, however. The cost of inaction has skyrocketed in the meantime. Just look at the consequences of climate change. We commissioned a study on the topic. Over the past 10 years, insured disasters have cost an average of $2.5 billion per year. Last year was a record year, with $8.5 billion in insurable losses related to severe weather in Canada. The average amount paid out annually in claims for disasters in Quebec is $428 million, a number that will obviously continue to rise. We know that climate action costs much less than inaction, that every dollar invested in emissions reduction saves money, and that every dollar invested in adaptation saves $13 to $15 in avoided costs for damage. That is why adaptation is a priority for us.”
“This bill assumes that there is a need for coordination between the governments of the different provinces. However, it is not clear to us that this need is real. It is even less clear that it should be up to the federal government to oversee coordination between the provinces. They can establish relationships among themselves without the need for Ottawa's intervention. Why does this bill imply that the Meteorological Service of Canada would not be able to perform the duties referred to in the current strategy outlined in the bill? I must admit that this confuses me. If the government is truly concerned about the issue of floods and droughts, why are these revelations not included directly in the budget? Why is there a bill presenting a strategy when we do not even know if we need a bill to have this strategy?”
“Some 230 hydrometric stations are scattered across Quebec. This data enables the Government of Quebec to develop simulation models and forecast flows in certain waterways, snow melt and runoff. Quebec has been doing this for years. It is used to it. These activities obviously also provide the hydrological and hydraulic expertise required for proper water management. There is a lot of data on the ministry's website, including water levels, flows, flood zones and hydroclimatic forecasts. The Government of Quebec has the expertise necessary to protect the public from floods and droughts. It appears to us that Environment Canada already has the authority to establish partnerships, both internationally and domestically, if the objective is to improve the services and practices of the Meteorological Service of Canada.”
“Is there currently a problem with the law regarding hydrological and weather forecasting that prevents the government from properly fulfilling its responsibilities or from improving the quality of its activities? That is our question. Where is the problem right now? Why could these proposed services not be provided directly by Environment Canada's existing weather services? Why do we need to create a new government body and a new general bureaucracy? That is a big question mark for us. (1815) Environment Canada's Meteorological Service of Canada can get information from Quebec's environment ministry, which already oversees Quebec's regime governing bodies of water. Quebec's environment ministry already gathers data. It processes, analyzes and disseminates that data. It measures water levels and flows.”
“That is what we are currently having trouble determining with this bill, so we have doubts about its real scope. Is this a legislative firework? Is it just meant to draw people's attention away from bad news on the climate front? We hope that is not the case. Let me elaborate a little on my concerns. The bill proposes to create “a cooperative, national hydrological and water resources forecasting service and system”. Why is this bill necessary if it does not amend the existing framework legislation, which is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act? That is the enabling legislation of Environment Canada, which takes care of weather forecasting.”
“The government talks about flooding, but then it buries its head in the sand about the need to reduce GHG emissions and refuses to do more than just talk about adaptation. At present, if we want to protect the economy, we know very well that this requires drastic GHG emission reduction measures, and that is not what is being presented to us today. When I look at the purpose of this bill, it is to improve drought and flood forecasting. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois agrees that we need to do more to adapt to climate change. We have been saying for several years now that information must be more readily available and that the communities affected by the droughts and flooding we were talking about need more predictability. However, is a bill that establishes yet another strategy with no budgetary impact really necessary?”
“The government has spent $5.7 billion, but there is not even an agreement with Quebec. We now see that the Liberals are even refusing to commit to meeting the country's GHG reduction targets. This is a major step backward, and it is worrisome. I could go on. If the Liberal government really wants to prevent floods, droughts and runaway climate change, it should cut GHG emissions. That is the priority. Unfortunately, the government can announce a whole range of adaptation measures, but if it keeps moving backward the way it has been doing, it will never be able to adapt as much as it needs to. The government has gone backward for long enough. Now is the time for it to shift out of neutral and get in gear. We are talking about a climate crisis.”
“When it comes to climate action, the Liberals have taken a number of steps backward since they came to power after the last election. I could list at least a dozen examples, starting with the elimination of consumer carbon pricing and the EV incentives, which they were supposed to reinstate but did not. People are no longer buying electric vehicles because they are waiting for those incentives to come back. There was the suspension of the strategy for the sale of zero-emission vehicles. There is also the passage of Bill C‑5 , which literally allows environmental legislation to be disregarded and completely blown off, in addition to providing for the approval of LNG Canada phase 2. This is going to double LNG exports. The same goes for public transit. There is currently no agreement with Quebec for the Canada public transit fund.”
“Mr. Speaker, right now, the St. Lawrence River is at its lowest level ever. The drought currently affecting Quebec is impacting ecosystems, the local economy, maritime trade, and agriculture. Towns are bringing in drinking water from different locations. There are drought issues. We saw the forest fires in Canada; this year was the second-most devastating year for forest fires after 2023. We had catastrophic flooding after the tail end of hurricane Debby passed through. This all comes at a cost to families, to groceries and to insurance. Unfortunately, the only conclusion we can come to is that the Liberal government is not being serious about the climate crisis that is making these phenomena more intense, more frequent and more severe and causing more suffering and higher costs.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question, and I would like to congratulate her on her election. The current bill you are proposing does not amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which is the enabling legislation of the Department of the Environment. However, it is the Department of the Environment that is responsible for the current weather forecasting services. Why does the bill not amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act? Is there an issue with the current Canadian Environmental Protection Act?”
“Mr. Speaker, the federal government is not content to force us to pay so that Ontario can compete with Hydro-Québec. It goes beyond that. If Ontario develops its nuclear sector, it will generate more radioactive waste too. What might happen to that waste? Most likely, it will get stored at Chalk River, where it is stored now, on the shores of the main source of drinking water for millions of Quebeckers: the Ottawa River. The federal government is making us pay hundreds of millions of dollars to put our drinking water at risk. Does the government seriously think we will put up with that?”
“Mr. Speaker, Ottawa just announced $2 billion to build a nuclear plant in Ontario. For years Quebec has been offering to sell them real clean electricity, but Ontario and Doug Ford refuse. Today, the federal government announced that it will make Quebeckers pay for a nuclear power plant in Ontario that will enable it to compete with Quebec's truly clean energy. Quebeckers are losing three times over. We are losing in terms of the environment and trade, and we are losing our tax dollars. Will the government reconsider?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my hon. colleague thinks of the government's recent announcement that it plans to hire 1,000 additional Canada Border Services Agency officers. According to the union, there is a shortage of 2,000 to 3,000 officers. Is my colleague satisfied with this announcement about hiring 1,000 additional officers? Does he think CBSA should aim more towards what the unions are calling for, which is 2,000 to 3,000 additional officers?”
“Mr. Speaker, if we want to do something about high food prices, we need to tackle the real causes of rising prices. Climate change impacts are directly related to significantly higher food prices. We need to step up the fight against climate change, accelerate greenhouse gas emissions reduction and develop well-funded strategies. We need strategies to address crop loss due to unpredictable weather, the droughts we are currently experiencing in Quebec, water shortages and flooding, which is also problematic. The government is backing down from the fight against climate change. Does my hon. colleague agree that his government is backing down from the fight against climate change? Can she tell us when we are going to see positive action, not just backtracking?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has a solution for tackling the deficit. At present, the government is still subsidizing the oil and gas industry, despite the fact that, in 2023, it announced a minor measure to phase out subsidies to that industry. In 2024, it was supposed to introduce a new measure to further phase out the subsidies, yet in 2024, the oil and gas industry received $28.5 billion in subsidies. Will my hon. colleague's government agree to simply get rid of these subsidies to the oil and gas industry?”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague would like some changes to be made to how things are handled abroad, outside Canada. Could she clarify whether the NDP intends to suggest amendments in this respect? If so, what kind of amendments would they be?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My hon. colleague seems to be saying that there are problems with the interpretation. He did not hear half of my question. Is that because he was not wearing his earpiece or because there are problems with the simultaneous interpretation?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear my Conservative colleague speak. We remember that there were very clear allegations of sexual misconduct against Jonathan Vance at the time. However, he was still appointed chief of the defence staff, even though the Canadian Armed Forces had just been criticized for their handling of sexual misconduct and sexist culture. Instead of appointing someone with an unblemished record, the government at the time chose Mr. Vance. I would like to know why this time would be any different. It is easy to say that the bill does not go far enough, but what exactly are you proposing to strengthen this bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, we have to remember how this bill came into being. Despite the extremely serious sexual allegations involved in this case, the Liberal government's former minister of national defence flatly refused to meet with the military ombudsman 12 times, refused to look at the evidence and even claimed that he wanted to avoid interfering in the investigations. My question is simple. Why should we expect the Liberals to behave responsibly this time by quickly passing a bill that they failed to pass in the last Parliament?”
“Mr. Speaker, the former prime minister's entourage clearly knew that Mr. Vance was facing allegations. There was talk about serious suspicions of sexual misconduct cases. This matter is extremely serious and outrageous. I have young daughters and I feel disgusted. The bill introduced in the previous Parliament was the same as this one and it failed to pass. Does the government truly intend to pass this bill quickly, as the gravity of the situation demands?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the very essence of this bill. One of the recommendations in the Arbour report is recommendation 5, which I mentioned earlier. It proposes completely removing from CAF jurisdiction the investigation and prosecution of Criminal Code sexual offences committed within Canada. As I understand it, that was the only recommendation that required legislation. Does my colleague believe that the bill fully responds to recommendation 5 of the Arbour report?”
“Mr. Speaker, this bill responds to the recommendations in the Arbour report, including recommendation 5, which essentially proposed completely removing from CAF jurisdiction the investigation and prosecution of Criminal Code sexual offences committed within Canada. I would like to know whether my hon. colleague agrees with this recommendation, which is central to this bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has several proposals for cracking down on criminal organizations. I would like my hon. colleague to talk about the idea of prohibiting criminal organizations from openly displaying their emblems or patches. We are currently seeing criminal organizations wearing them with impunity and promoting their criminal activities completely legally. To us, that is a problem. It emboldens this type of organization. I would like my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a relatively simple question and I would like a relatively simple answer. There is currently an exemption in the Criminal Code known as the religious exemption. Does my colleague agree with that exemption?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would basically like to come back to the issue of the religious exemption. It seems to me that the government has shown a willingness to potentially study it if the opposition parties bring it to committee. I would like to know whether my Conservative colleagues share our point of view on the importance of debating this issue, which is happening on the streets of Quebec.”
“Madam Speaker, intimidation-related offences are probably one of the most urgent issues right now. We see that with online bullying. Bill C‑9 is relatively weak. We in the Bloc believe it could go further in that regard. Obviously, we will be proposing amendments to that effect in committee. I would like to know why the government seems to have limited its own ability to intervene in order to prevent offences, particularly with regard to online bullying and intimidation.”
“Madam Speaker, we have often said that we want to move this bill forward and work on it in committee. However, it is important for us to remind the House that we have concerns, particularly with respect to the right to protest. In Quebec, we have a long history of peaceful protests. I would like my colleague to tell us at what point he thinks it could become a crime to obstruct access to a place. We see it as a slippery slope. Does my colleague have the same concerns? Where do we draw the line? At what point is someone obstructing access to a place?”
“The Prime Minister called for such regulations 10 years ago, he promised to bring them in during the election campaign, and now he needs to take action.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present this petition signed by Canadians who are concerned about the Prime Minister 's inaction on sustainable finance. These petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that 10 years ago, in a speech, the Prime Minister referred to what he himself called the “tragedy of the horizon”. Among other things, he called for climate risk to be integrated into the global financial system, while denouncing politicians who make short-term economic decisions without considering the more severe and costly consequences of climate change. Ten years later, Canada still has not taken the steps needed to hold the financial sector accountable in the face of the climate crisis. The petitioners, much like 65% of Canadians and 73% of Quebeckers, are in favour of climate regulations.”
“Madam Speaker, it is simple. If we really want to tackle high food prices, we need to tackle the real causes. The main cause in North America, the main factor driving up prices, is climate disruption, droughts, floods and crop losses. We are having problems again this year. We are now witnessing a competition between the Conservatives and the Liberals over which one is the more pro-oil and pro-gas. I have heard not one single proposal or measure about fighting climate change and adapting to it. Can my colleague tell me a single measure that the Conservatives support?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada, the undisputed authority on inflation, estimated that the planned increase in the carbon tax this year would have raised prices by 0.1% in Canada in the provinces where the tax applied. I would remind the House that it did not apply in Quebec. In Quebec, the projected increase was 0.01%, which is marginal. That is one-hundredth of 1%, or one cent per $100 purchase. We are talking about groceries here. I would like to know if my hon. colleague has the same figures, since the Bank of Canada had been very clear that this was not a big deal.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear my colleague talk about climate change. I am pleased to hear her make the connection between the cost of food and extreme weather events such as heat waves and droughts, which have a major influence on inflation and the price of food. We in the Bloc Québécois are offering solutions. The government once pledged to abolish some of the oil and gas subsidies, but that did not happen. In 2024, the oil and gas companies were given a total of $28.5 billion in subsidies. That money could be used to help people combat the rising cost of living. Does my hon. colleague think would be a good solution?”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand that my Conservative colleagues have some concerns about this bill, including with respect to freedom of expression and the right to protest. To us, the new provision criminalizing the act of obstructing or even interfering with people's access to a place is somewhat more concerning. Obviously we will look into this more and work on the bill in committee. However, I would like to know whether the Conservatives think this offence interferes with the right to protest. Are they also concerned that this may infringe on the right to protest?”
“Mr. Speaker, in our view, the offence of intimidation is probably the one that represents a truly important need. Among other things, it will make it easier to crack down on online hate speech. Does my hon. colleague think that the current provisions on intimidation are sufficient? In his opinion, do police forces and prosecutors need more tools than what is being proposed?”
“Mr. Speaker, as we have already mentioned, we want to retain some flexibility to amend or remove certain provisions of the bill, particularly those that could unreasonably restrict freedom of expression or the right to protest. Among the provisions currently proposed, the Bloc is particularly concerned about the ones that would criminalize obstructing or interfering with people's access to certain places. We are going to take the time to review all of this, but we wonder whether this offence might conflict with the right to protest. I would like to know whether the Liberals share our concerns in this regard.”
“Madam Speaker, we said that we were open to studying this bill in committee in order to amend it. The Bloc Québécois will definitely move amendments to have the religious exemption for hate crimes abolished. The Minister of Justice has said several times that he is open to this idea. He said it again here in the House. I would like to know whether the Conservatives are prepared to support an amendment to abolish the religious exemption for hate crimes.”