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 9 of 10.
“Remedying this situation would certainly be a good starting point. We would be glad to discuss the policies that this government should or should not introduce if it seriously wants to fight climate change. Today, however, it is important that members of the House support this motion to require the federal government to remedy the situation. We, in the House, cannot accept that election goodies intended to directly influence an election and assist in electing a government should be paid for out of taxpayers' pockets, especially not the pockets of Quebeckers. In short, this is about defending the national interest and climate justice. The parties would send a clear message if they did the right thing and supported our motion.”
“Despite the fact that Canada is the world's fourth-largest oil and gas producer, in Quebec, we have decided to move away from oil and gas, and we are being penalized for that right now. It is costing Quebeckers $814 million because we are standing up and taking this climate crisis seriously. A choice has to be made. We are talking about climate justice and financial injustice. Here in the House, it is clear that the government is defending the oil and gas lobby. Now, we expect it to defend the interests and wallets of Quebeckers. The government needs to rebuild trust. It is a matter of justice and fairness for Quebeckers. We are hoping for a positive response from our colleagues to the unanimous request of elected representatives of the Quebec National Assembly. The message could not be clearer.”
“Unfortunately, the Liberals did not defend their policy well. They were unable to make people understand the urgency of the climate crisis, to stand up and implement policies to meet that challenge. Now, Quebeckers are the ones who are paying the price for their mistakes. It is a political decision, and it is clear that there has been no change in the Canadian oil monarchy's current goal of producing and exporting as much oil from the oil sands as possible. Unfortunately, the Liberals and the Conservatives, of course, like to confuse the interests of Canadian oil companies with Canada's national interests, but we have to be careful not to confuse them with Quebec's national interests, which are definitely not the interests of oil companies.”
“Beyond this specific injustice, we must recall the broader implications of eliminating this important part of carbon pricing in Canada. It does not augur well for the fight against climate change. We have seen this since the new government took office. Unfortunately, Canada is not on track to meet its international commitments. We are not the ones saying that eliminating carbon pricing was a bad idea; it is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD. The federal government, including Prime Minister Trudeau and his ministers, often said that it was a good policy for most Canadians and that close to 80% of people got back more than what they paid, especially low- and middle-income households. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer acknowledged this, and he was very clear about it.”
“He said that Quebec had chosen a different system, that this system is still in place and that this final payment would apply only to the rest of Canada. Let us tell it like it is: This is nonsense. He refuses to acknowledge the very simple fact that the final cheque was not paid by the rest of Canada, as he claims, but that it was paid by all taxpayers. His argument is flawed. It does not hold water. We have been demonstrating this since this morning and we will continue to do so throughout the day in the hope that parliamentarians will listen to reason. Our motion gives the government and all parties an opportunity to correct the situation, to be on the right side of history, and to respond appropriately to the Quebec National Assembly's unanimous request to resolve this injustice.”
“It is hitting western Canada with forest fires, the smoke from which has spread as far as England. That $814 million was taken from the pockets of Quebeckers to send cheques to Canadians. That is $814 million that will not be invested in health, education, child care, public transit or the fight against climate change, when those needs are urgent. Everyone knows that. All the parties in the Quebec National Assembly agree. They adopted a motion calling on all the federal parties to commit to returning to Quebeckers, without conditions, the $814 million that was taken from their pockets. That money belongs to them. (1300) How did the new Prime Minister respond to this demand from the Quebec National Assembly?”
“The cheques sent to Canadians ranged from about $220 to $456 per family. That $3.7 billion came out of the government coffers. It belongs to all taxpayers, including Quebeckers. Quebeckers paid for this election gift and did not get so much as a penny in return. In Quebec, we paid for this, but we got nothing. The Liberal government gave an election gift to the rest of Canada at Quebeckers' expense. I think that the situation is very clear. It is unacceptable. It is an injustice. Among other things, we are paying for the responsibilities of provinces that have not done their part. Quebec is responsible enough to have a carbon exchange with California and other states that are taking the climate crisis seriously. As we can now see, this crisis is not imaginary.”
“Yes, the Liberals did away with those environmental policies in response to pressure from the Conservatives. However, Ottawa decided to still issue a rebate for a tax that had been abolished, with the last payment going out on April 22. Oddly enough, on April 22, the election campaign was in full swing. It is important to understand that this tax was supposed to be paid. The rebate was supposed to cover what Canadians would be charged in the following three months. All Canadians, except Quebeckers and British Columbians, received cheques, which were sent out in the midst of the election campaign. It is simple. We call that giving out election goodies. The cost was $3.7 billion. It was not funded by the proceeds from the oil and gas levy. It was funded directly from the government coffers.”
“However, we know why the Liberal leader at the time decided to do away with a climate policy that he originally said was important to his party. Many Liberals said that it was a good policy. The Liberal leader at the time even denied the work of his colleagues, such as the former environment minister, the current member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie , who said it was a good policy. Why did he do that? It is basically because the Conservative leader had been hammering away at the public for three years with slogans about axing the carbon tax. The Conservatives tried to demonize it in the public eye. Obviously, they wanted to take advantage of the electoral momentum. The strategy that we deplored, of course, was when the Liberal leader decided to axe this tax.”
“We must seriously commit to the Paris Agreement and participate in the global effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the face of a climate crisis that is hitting almost every corner of the planet, as we are seeing again today with the forest fires. Canada was a little behind, and in some respects, it decided to join the global trend by putting a price on carbon. However, in a blatant attempt to win votes, the new Liberal leader decided to abolish federal consumer carbon pricing by signing an order in council on March 14. Then the election was called. Ten days later, on March 23, the carbon tax was officially abolished. On April 1, in the midst of the election campaign, there was no longer a price on carbon.”
“Mr. Speaker, since I have been in the House of Commons, I have heard several Liberals and Conservatives say how proud they are to represent their Quebec constituents in the House. They thanked their constituents. However, I no longer hear this when it comes to defending Quebeckers on financial and other matters and making the voice of Quebec and this nation heard on issues that they believe are important, such as a healthy environment. The people of Quebec have developed through renewable energy. They have freed themselves from having to depend on international markets for heating. I think that we should be proud of this. We should be proud of what has been done. Quebec has positioned itself as a leader in the fight against climate change compared to many other states. It is a carbon market pioneer.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government talks a lot about consultations in connection with its bill on so-called national projects. Would first nations simply be consulted, or would the government ensure that their free, prior and informed consent is obtained for any project that may potentially be imposed on them?”
“Mr. Speaker, for the record, the member is refusing to tell me whether the government is required to respect those factors. From what I understand, and I am not alone in this, it is not. The Prime Minister used the term “decarbonized” oil. Can the minister explain what that is?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised that the minister is referring questions to the Minister responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs , because this bill affects several environmental laws and would weaken environmental protections and even the fight against climate change. That said, can the minister confirm that the current bill does not include conditions requiring any national interest projects to respect our climate commitments and the country's clean growth targets?”
“Mr. Speaker, before assuming that role, the former environment minister once said that a pipeline like energy east was incompatible with the Paris Agreement. Does the minister agree with the comments made by the current Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture ?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has become the new champion of pipelines in this country. He told the House, in English, that he was going to build pipelines. What does the Minister of Environment and Climate Change think of the idea of a pipeline that would cross Canada from coast to coast?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would almost like to call a point of order to get slightly more concise answers from the minister, if possible. I am well aware that the draft regulations were tabled last December. When will the consultations end and when will the government table its final, official draft regulations for adoption?”
“Mr. Speaker, we recently learned in the Toronto Star that the Prime Minister might abandon a cap on emissions for the oil and gas sector, among other things, in exchange for the Pathways Alliance carbon capture project. I would like to know if the minister could provide more information about that possibility.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will use my time to question the minister. I congratulate her on her appointment. It will be a pleasure to have meaningful discussions with her. My first question is on the oil and gas sector greenhouse gas emissions cap regulations that the government announced in 2021. When exactly will the government and the minister be able to implement these oil and gas emissions cap regulations?”
“Mr. Speaker, with the election six weeks behind us, let us look back at the Liberals' record on the environment. The Liberals cancelled carbon pricing for consumers. They approved exploratory oil and gas drilling off the coast of Newfoundland. The Toronto Star revealed that they are thinking of cancelling the oil and gas emissions cap. Under Bill C-5 , they want to allow fossil fuel projects to bypass environmental assessments. According to Ecojustice, never before in the history of modern environmental law has any legislation given this much power to the government. How are the Liberals any different from Pierre Poilievre?”
“Madam Speaker, this bill obviously introduces some interesting improvements. However, there is a major problem when it comes to the staffing shortage at the Canada Border Services Agency and within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or the RCMP. In its election platform, the Liberal Party promised to hire 1,000 additional RCMP officers and 1,000 additional Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, officers. The Speech from the Throne mentioned the 1,000 additional RCMP officers. However, neither the Speech from the Throne nor the government have said anything about additional CBSA officers. The customs union is saying that there is a shortage of 2,000 to 3,000 CBSA officers, so I would like to know what the government plans to do, in relation to this bill, to increase staffing at the CBSA.”
“Acting in the common good does not mean lining the already full pockets of oil and gas companies. It means leaving our children with a healthy environment, with clean air and clean water.”
“Mr. Speaker, today, we are celebrating World Environment Day, the theme of which is beating plastic pollution. Canadians throw away over three million tonnes of plastic waste every year. This waste burdens our economy and threatens the health of people and the environment, including wildlife, rivers, lakes and oceans. Over 99% of plastic is produced from fossil fuels. That means that the same people who are poisoning us with their oil and gas are filling every corner of the planet with plastic, from the bottom of our oceans to our dinner plates. Two months from today, countries around the world will meet to adopt a global treaty to finally end the plastic era. The best way to resolve this problem is simple: produce less plastic. What is more, alternatives already exist.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the member agrees that the federal government should invest more in climate change adaptation and preparedness. If so, how much funding should it provide to the provinces so that they can implement more ambitious prevention and climate change adaptation measures?”
“Mr. Speaker, I salute my hon. colleague, who must be going through quite a difficult time. It affects me deeply. We empathize with everyone on the ground. That said, I would like to know whether my colleague recognizes the role that climate change plays in the growing frequency and intensity of wildfires, and that greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas are partly responsible for climate change.”
“Madam Speaker, I stand in solidarity with my colleague with everything that is happening in his province. These are tough times. I have to wonder. We saw similar events in Fort McMurray a few years ago. We saw record wildfires in 2023 in Canada. There have been emergency debates here on the issue of wildfires. We are having one again this evening, which is important. Does my hon. colleague agree that we need to have a broader debate, a real debate, on the issue of climate change and on the role of oil and gas in fuelling this climate crisis? The reality is that this country is unfortunately not on the right path when it comes to reducing emissions. We must find ways for Canada to step up, not just with respect to adaptation, but when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We have to get away from oil and gas quickly.”
“Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is prepared to co-operate. We proved that during the election campaign. However, we want to remind this House that health is a provincial jurisdiction, so the first thing the federal government should do is increase health transfers by a lot so that Quebec can finally receive its fair share and provide better health and prevention services.”
“If we are serious about tackling these extreme climate events, we need to address the source of the problem, which means reducing emissions by a lot more and drafting a credible nationwide emissions reduction plan. Unfortunately, this has not been done. Unless they do these things, Canada and every other country in the world will unfortunately be unable to adapt to the growing number of extreme climate events, like forest fires, which are hitting Quebec and other places across the planet harder and harder.”
“Madam Speaker, despite some worthy efforts made in recent years, we find ourselves in a situation where the need for climate change prevention and adaptation is greater than ever, far exceeding current contributions, including the contributions of a federal government that should be investing much more, especially to help the provinces and indigenous nations better adapt to climate change. The responsibility and the needs involved are huge. Despite efforts made in recent years through its initial adaptation strategy, the federal government has missed the mark when it comes to providing the essential financial contributions required for short-term crisis management.”
“Otherwise, we will not be able to adapt to a world that is 2°C or 3°C warmer, which, unfortunately, is where we are currently headed.”
“Madam Speaker, I think this year is once again proving the importance of helping one another, whether that means amongst various communities in Canada or on an international scale. However, helping one another in the immediate crisis and acting quickly must also be done on another scale. It is hard to manage one crisis after another without being able to join forces internationally and ensure that the international community rises to the challenge of fighting climate change. Otherwise, all we can do is keep putting out fires. Emergencies cannot be managed on a week-to-week or month-to-month basis. We need a comprehensive game plan. This will require contributions from both Canada and other countries, and they must be much more ambitious in terms of emissions reductions.”
“In addition to managing the immediate crisis, we have a responsibility to make the necessary investments in adaptation and emissions reduction so that, one day, these disasters are no longer the norm, but, hopefully, the exception.”
“Yes, we agree that the first thing we need to do is get through this emergency. Unfortunately, just as major fires have become the norm, so have emergency debates in Parliament. Every year, we reiterate the importance of prevention, environmental protection, health and adaptation. As parliamentarians, our duty is to take the rising costs of climate change seriously and to take action. I would like to conclude by saying that we are currently witnessing solidarity on a grand scale. From other countries to local volunteers, everyone is pitching in. All kinds of help is being provided by governments, emergency services, humanitarian organizations, citizens, communities and nations. The scope of our own responsibility, however, is even greater.”
“Adaptation measures are essential, but it is critical to stress that they will not suffice on their own. To be truly effective, adaptation must be tied to new mitigation measures, meaning reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The less we reduce emissions, the greater the impacts will be. The less we adapt, the higher the costs will be and the more we will suffer. Reduction efforts and adaptation measures must be seen as complementary and essential investments. Unfortunately, under the current policies, we are headed for very dangerous levels of warming. Only significant and immediate efforts will limit the risks. That is why it is crucial to take a two-pronged approach by reducing CO 2 emissions while investing in climate change adaptation. We understand the need to debate these issues.”
“The acute health impacts of forest fire smoke cost an estimated $410 million to $1.8 billion per year, while the chronic health impacts cost up to $19 billion per year. To reduce the human, economic and environmental costs, we need to invest heavily in reducing greenhouse gases and adapting to climate change. (2020) According to a Canadian Climate Institute report, for every $1 spent on adaptation, $13 to $15 will be saved on future costs. Over the last decade, the average yearly cost of weather-related disasters and catastrophic losses has risen to the equivalent of 5% to 6% of Canada's GDP growth. There are many adaptation measures, including more resilient infrastructure, ecosystem protection and, of course, innovation. Other measures include nature-based solutions, such as techniques using traditional and indigenous knowledge.”
“Frankly, it is disheartening that the fires of the past few years, including record forest fires in 2023, have not led to enough meaningful action in Canada. After countless studies and testimony from experts, scientists, specialists and forest firefighters, we know very clearly that action must be taken and that solutions exist. The Bloc Québécois has proposed real measures not only to limit the impact of climate change, but also to prevent risks and reduce the high cost of damage. In addition to serious human costs, Quebec and Canadian households are already absorbing the economic costs out of their own pockets. It is important to remember that, according to past estimates, from 2013 to 2018, between 620 and 2,700 premature deaths occurred because of the short- and long-term effects of forest fire smoke.”
“Unless we address the root cause by cutting greenhouse gas emissions in Canada and rapidly transitioning away from oil and gas, emergency debates like this one will continue to recur and pile up, because crises like this will only become more frequent. Climate change is causing more intense and frequent devastation, exacerbating the already unacceptably high human, environmental and economic costs. Climate action is not an expense; it is a necessity and an investment to improve the quality of life of current and future generations. As we said during the election campaign, and reality has confirmed it, the climate crisis is creating human suffering and increasing the cost of living. The strain on our public finances from the increasing number of natural disasters is a striking example.”
“Adding fuel to the fire by opening the door to oil and gas pipelines, when fossil fuels are the main cause of the climate crisis, is not prioritizing people's health and safety. Indeed, as my hon. colleague said, people's health and safety are at stake. Canadian health associations are raising the alarm: Climate change is a health emergency. Just this morning, the Canadian Lung Association and its U.S. counterpart banded together to raise public awareness about the health risks associated with smoke from fires and forest fires. Rising temperatures and changing precipitation patterns are contributing to longer and more severe droughts. This is creating the conditions for wildfires and prairie fires to start and quickly spread.”
“It is so important to have these kinds of debates, but when we have to keep doing it, maybe it is because Parliament needs to have a discussion and a debate about the root of the problem. It is time for us to have a real emergency debate on the climate crisis, which is hitting people around the world harder and harder, and Quebec and Canada are no exception. At this time, it is completely irresponsible not to consider the fight against climate change to be in the national interest. However, the words “climate change” were not uttered once at the first ministers meeting in Saskatchewan yesterday. Worse, the government is looking at weakening environmental assessments to make it easier to approve oil and gas pipeline projects.”
“Madam Speaker, we are taking part in an emergency debate this evening because of a very serious situation that has unfortunately become far too common. At this time, our thoughts are obviously with the people who are affected by the fires, as well as with the authorities and workers who are fighting them. I am particularly attuned to this kind of human tragedy, which turns people's lives upside down and leaves an indelible mark on them. The current situation is a stark reminder that the scale and frequency of natural disasters are on the rise and that these incidents are no longer exceptions. Today, we are taking part in an important emergency debate on wildfires, yet another one. Do not get me wrong.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the cost of living and economic issues. I would like to know where my hon. colleague stands on the $3.7 billion in election goodies that the Liberal government handed out in the middle of an election campaign at a cost of $800 million to Quebeckers, even though Quebeckers never received any cheques. The compensation was paid out after the carbon rebate was scrapped. Does my hon. colleague agree that Quebeckers should get back the $800 million it cost them when the government sent cheques out across Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, it seems that the only vision being put forward in Canada is to eliminate carbon pricing. However, if the government eliminates carbon pricing, the entire population will have to bear the costs associated with the impacts of climate change, oil and gas. The Bloc Québécois believes that industries should bear the costs of climate change, because if large emitters and polluters do not pay, the bill will be passed on to citizens. We are talking about major economic, social, environmental and health costs. The government must take responsibility.”
“Oil and gas pipeline projects that pass through Quebec have already been rejected because there was no social licence for them and because, according to governments, these projects threaten the global energy transition and biodiversity. We would like the official opposition to tell us what they would do to fight climate change and what they are proposing in terms of projects and transition measures to support workers. Hiding our heads in the sand and extracting more oil and gas is not in the best interests of workers and—”
“Mr. Speaker, when we look at what the largest international agencies, including the International Energy Agency, are proposing in terms of net-zero emissions, it is very clear that governments around the world are being irresponsible. They are continuing to increase their investments in oil and gas and approve more of these projects around the world, but we need to take the fight against climate change seriously if we want to uphold the agreements, including the Paris climate agreement. For the Bloc Québécois, the issue is not about whether there are enough oil and gas or pipelines in Canada. We already have plenty of those. In fact, Canada currently produces twice as much oil as it consumes.”
“If the government wants to present a budget, we will evaluate its proposals. For now, we feel that it is being fiscally irresponsible.”
“Mr. Speaker, what I know for certain is that the people of Repentigny are having money taken directly out their pockets, partly due to the increase in extreme climate events, and they are not the only ones. The Insurance Bureau of Canada said that last year set a record in terms of the financial impact of weather conditions across Canada, including flooding. That affects the cost of groceries and the cost of health care. It affects everything. The Bloc Québécois absolutely agrees that the government needs to get serious about fighting climate change and ensure that people stop paying for the consequences of oil- and gas-related climate events. That said, we have been clear about how important it is for the government to present a budget before increasing its already exorbitant spending while keeping us all in the dark.”
“Obviously, we are in favour of developing green energy, energy efficiency, public transportation, transportation electrification, energy sobriety and green buildings. We are not in favour of using public funds to develop fossil fuel energy, pipelines, oil sands or natural gas. What we are proposing is a vision. We hope that the government will strive to regain its credibility, because, unfortunately, when it comes to the fight against climate change, it is not at all credible. Right now, wildfires are raging across Canada and people are being evacuated from their homes. We are asking the government to be responsible. The Bloc Québécois will stand firm to make sure that the government finally takes the climate crisis seriously.”
“The money that the federal government is probably going to invest in the oil and gas industry could instead be used to develop, consolidate and strengthen public transportation assets and services, such as the Quebec City tramway, Montreal's blue line, trains to the Gaspé or intercity networks. These projects need considerable support, and they are truly in the national interest and would help meet the challenges of the 21st century. In its platform, the Bloc Québécois proposed making public transportation a priority. When the government talks about a pipeline to the east to diversify markets, it is not unreasonable to ask what markets it is talking about, since no European countries have offered to purchase the oil, which would not be available for years in any case. The market for oil is shrinking anyway.”
“(1310) If the federal government wants to help protect land that does not belong to it, it should try increasing the money it transfers under the Canada-Quebec nature agreement from $100 million to $300 million, as the Bloc Québécois suggested in its 2025 platform. The government cannot claim that a project is in the national interest if the public has not been consulted and voiced an opinion. What does it take for a project to be in the national interest? Why should a major oil and gas project be prioritized over projects with far broader benefits, such as large-scale electricity, green energy and public transportation development projects?”
“As for protecting the land, the government reiterated its commitment to protecting 30% of the land and seas by 2030. If Ottawa wants to be taken seriously, however, it must immediately stop encouraging the development of offshore drilling, which threatens marine biodiversity. The Prime Minister recently supported a call for bids for offshore oil exploration licences covering 85,000 square kilometres off the coast of Newfoundland. Ottawa seems to think this move to expand fossil fuel development somehow fits into the fight against the climate crisis, yet some of these licences actually encroach on a marine biodiversity protection zone.”