Patrick Bonin · TranslatePolitics.ca

Oral Questions

Climate Change

2026-05-07

“The Liberals are doing a bad job on pipelines and climate change. They're just trying to please Danielle Smith and Preston Manning's friends. Why don't they all just join the Conservative party instead of pretending?”

“The government is making it too easy to build pipelines. I want more restrictions, reviews and bureaucracy to stop them!”

Government Orders

2026-05-04

“I'm not happy with how the government is acting. Even though they didn't win a majority, they're taking credit for all the hard work done in committee. My Conservative friends helped make this bill better with amendments. But now the government is just ignoring all that work and acting like they have all the power. The voters wanted a government that would work with others and build consensus. The government shouldn't just throw out the amendments that were agreed on by everyone. That's not right.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to hear my colleague's thoughts on the government's attitude. The government did not win a majority in the election, yet, thanks to floor crossers, it is laying claim to all the work done over several days in committee by the members who heard from witnesses. There were amendments to which my Conservative colleagues contributed in order to improve this bill. Now we have a government that has decided to throw out all the committee's work and disregard the will of the voters, who said that they wanted a government that would not just represent a dominant majority and ignore everyone else. Instead, they voted for representation that would work through consensus in the House. Does the member agree that the committee should throw out amendments that were developed in consultation with the other parties through a consensus-building process?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Military Justice System Modernization Act

2026-05-04

“You won't listen to us anymore. The people elected us to work together. You ignore that now. You ignore the committee. You ignore amendments. You just do whatever you want.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, there is officially a new dynamic at play, and the government is being rather arrogant, or blatantly arrogant, even. There is no longer any point in speaking in committee because we are not getting any answers. There is a new government that secured a majority with the help of defectors, including an NDP MP. Among other things, this MP was one of the lawmakers who worked on amendments to this bill. Some of these amendments were very constructive and improved the bill, but the Liberals removed some of them for no reason, simply because they have given themselves the right to do whatever they want now and to disregard the will of the people who elected us to represent them and work together. I would like the government to explain to me why it refuses to respect the will of the committee and all the concerted effort that went into producing a better bill for Canadians.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The government is being arrogant. They used floor crossers to get a majority. Now they ignore the committee's amendments and work. The people gave them a minority mandate to collaborate, but they don't respect that. They're excluding other voices. Why won't the government respect the committee's work and elected MPs? The floor crossers don't represent everyone.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the government is being rather arrogant, and I think we need to call it out. The Liberals have had several of the amendments from the Standing Committee on National Defence struck down. They were important amendments. After securing a majority thanks to the floor crossers, the government decided to completely sideline all of the committee's work, even though the general election produced a minority government. For now, it is the floor crossers who are enabling the government to give itself all the power and override the will of the people, who entrusted it with a minority mandate so that it would collaborate. I do not understand why the government does not respect the idea that we must work together. It is not respecting the committee's work. I have a simple question for the government. Can it explain why it is not respecting the work of the parliamentary committees and the elected parliamentarians who represent the public? It cannot claim to represent the full spectrum of views based on the floor crossers it used to secure a majority. Democracy thrives on a multiplicity of voices. Right now, the government is completely excluding those voices.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

National Framework on the Durability of Electronic Products and Essential Home Appliances Act

2026-04-30

“Here's my plain-spoken paraphrase: 'Quebec is ahead. I love Quebec. Copy Quebec now. May not be perfect, but good try. Send this to committee - our framework better not make Quebec's any worse. Why so late?'”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, every day, we are reminded of the importance of doing our part to help the environment, but sometimes, in our daily lives, we can feel powerless. There was a time when a refrigerator would last three generations. I still have my dad's good old Shop-Vac, and it still works. Today, things could not be more different. A person may go through several vacuum cleaners in their lifetime, because their old one breaks down and it is cheaper to buy a new one than to have it fixed. In many cases, it is not even possible to get it fixed. Things used to be made to last. Today, things are made to break so that consumers have to keep buying more. That obviously means more waste is constantly being produced. Our relationship with consumption is at a turning point. Our economy has long been based on a totally unsustainable linear model of extraction, manufacturing, consumption and, all too soon, disposal. This throwaway cycle is not only environmentally harmful, but blatantly unfair to regular people, who are seeing their purchasing power crumble in the face of products that are designed to break. How many families end up with a huge hole in their budget because one little electronic chip, plastic part or button in their washer is not being made anymore or because their appliance can only be fixed by a licensed technician who charges exorbitant fees? Bill C‑267, which aims to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and home appliances, has arrived on our desks as a necessary, albeit belated, response to this culture of planned obsolescence. The Bloc Québécois supports sending this bill to committee. We firmly believe that durability and the right to repair are essential pillars of the green transition. However, our support should not be taken as carte blanche. Bill C‑267 includes measures to be taken, but those measures are not tangible enough. The bill does not create a national framework on the durability of products and appliances, but rather gives the Minister of Industry a mandate to establish that framework. We are wondering how this framework will align with certain provincial laws. The issue of jurisdiction and respect for jurisdictions is very important. When I say that this initiative has come a little late, it is because Quebec already has a law that essentially pursues the same objectives: An Act to protect consumers from planned obsolescence and to promote the durability, repairability and maintenance of goods, passed in 2023. Quebec was the second jurisdiction in the world to adopt such a measure, and the first in North America. This demonstrates just how much of a leader Quebec is in many respects, particularly when it comes to the environment. It could be an even more effective leader if it were not held back by the federal government. However, in this case, we are very pleased to be able to say that, once again, through its leadership Quebec has inspired the federal government to pass similar legislation. It is late in coming, but it deserves credit for having been introduced. What we are discussing today is a national framework. Yes, Quebec has led the way. In 2023, the National Assembly even unanimously adopted this ambitious framework to combat planned obsolescence. In doing so, Quebec also amended the Consumer Protection Act to, among other things, include a guarantee of availability of replacement parts and repair services. As for Bill C‑267, better late than never, but since it is short on details about the framework that will be established, a question needs to be asked: Will it lift the provincial frameworks up, or will it drag them down? Quebec's model should be used for inspiration. It represents the minimum level of ambition that the government should be aiming for. The European Union has also been very proactive on this issue. It has pushed many companies to change their ways. For instance, Apple was forced to adopt a universal connector cable, USB‑C. We need to follow suit, but we need to make it worth our while. It is also important to bear in mind that planned obsolescence is not just for objects, but for software as well. For example, it is preposterous that software can block a certain brand of coffee maker from accepting another brand's coffee pods. It is also all too common to discover that we have bought the wrong type of ink for our printer, because it does not take generic ink cartridges. If the manufacturer has stopped making the cartridges or pods, the printer or coffee maker automatically becomes technological waste. It cannot be used anymore. While studying Bill C‑267, we will have to see whether a broader investigation into competition is warranted. The abuse of copyright to lock appliances is still a major obstacle to repairs, and copyright is a federal responsibility. The problem is obvious in the case of modern vehicles, which incorporate numerous technologies and computer programs. Even an oil change requires access to the onboard computer to reset the oil change warning indicator. However, accessing the computer requires bypassing security measures, specifically technological protection measures. A garage could therefore not legally circumvent or alter the vehicle's software, without the manufacturer's authorization, on the grounds that it was protected by copyright and that bypassing it would constitute a copyright infringement. It quickly becomes clear that, with these technological protection measures, dealerships had a virtual monopoly on car repairs, maintenance and diagnostics. Bill C-244, an act to amend the Copyright Act with regard to diagnosis, maintenance and repair, was passed in the 44th Parliament to address this kind of problem. Obviously, we are wondering whether the government now thinks that Bill C-244 did not go far enough, since it is now introducing Bill C-267. We will try to examine that particular aspect in committee. The national framework will also need to directly address protection measures that create repair monopolies to the benefit of large manufacturers at the expense of small, local repair shops and the local and circular economy. Finally, we must be aware of the challenges involved in implementing this and engage in dialogue with the industry and experts. The bill provides for consultations with the provinces, which is obviously the bare minimum. The federal government must act as a partner, not a lecturer, especially when dealing with Quebec, which is already much further ahead in its legislation. Any legislative measure arising from this framework will have to rigidly respect the regime established by Quebec law. Sustainability is not optional; it is necessary. The important thing is to send a clear signal that the throwaway culture is over. Every appliance we repair means energy saved, mines that do not need to exist and landfills that do not overflow. Bill C-267 is a step in the right direction. It recognizes that consumers have the right to know what they are buying and the right to keep their goods for much longer. That is why the Bloc Québécois will support referring this bill to committee. Naturally, we will work diligently to ensure that the national framework matches the urgency of the situation and, above all, that it respects Quebec's leadership and jurisdiction in the area of consumer protection. It is time to give people back control over their own purchases. It is time to legislate for the future, not for the next quarterly report of multinational electronics companies.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-04-30

“The government wants to spend $25 billion of your money on oil and gas projects. I think that's bad because of climate change. The other guy didn't answer me. Do you think that's okay?”

“I want the government to spend less money on oil and gas. I don't like the new fund. I think it's a trick to let government spend even more on oil and gas projects. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for Trans Mountain. Government should let taxpayers keep their money. Government should spend less on oil and gas, not more. That would reduce our dependence on oil and gas. Instead, government wants to spend on expensive oil and gas projects. I think that's bad.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this new fund is clearly a federal gimmick to take public money and invest it in projects such as major LNG projects. The government has already identified some projects. There is also a major pipeline project that the government wants to pursue. However, the investments would not be limited to major projects, but would also go towards all the companies and projects that have already received federal support. This means, for example, that the planned expansion of the Trans Mountain project, which has already cost us $34 billion, could be financed by this fund. I would like to know what my colleague from Nova Scotia thinks, as his region is being hit by rising sea levels due to climate change. Is he concerned that Canada is giving itself a way to take taxpayers' money and invest even more of it in oil and gas, while cutting funding for public transit and other measures that would actually enable us to reduce our dependence on oil and gas?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Oil and Gas Industry

2026-04-30

“I want to attack the other party's green spending as wasteful corporate welfare. I hope voters won't notice my party's own expensive plans to spend and control more too.”

Oral Questions

Oil and Gas Industry

2026-04-27

“The Liberals are bad. The Liberals like oil and gas. The Liberals are worse than the Conservatives. The Liberals don't care about the environment.”

“I want to make the government look bad. I think spending on pipelines is bad. I think this plan spends too much money. I think it will hurt my riding. Are there no limits to how much you will spend on oil companies?”

Government Orders

Strong and Free Elections Act

2026-04-24

“I want taxpayers to fund political parties. I don't want parties to get money from only rich people like at cocktail parties. My plan is to make donations smaller so parties need taxpayer money. The poor can't give as much so give them taxpayer money for parties.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear from my hon. colleague concerning the main point, that being our proposal to reinstate public funding for political parties. What we currently see are very high caps on financial contributions to political parties. Obviously, not everyone can afford to contribute so much. Our point is that this opens the door to the appearance of a conflict of interest or privileged access to ministers, for example, when tickets to a cocktail party cost $1,500. Reinstating public funding for political parties would allow us to cap potential political contributions at, let us say, $500. In this way, contributions would not be limited to the fortunate few. It would also make funding a lot more grassroots and more representative of the number of votes cast for each party.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Natural Resources

2026-04-24

“The Liberals are making bad choices about the environment. They should use less gas.”

Government Orders

Strong and Free Elections Act

2026-04-24

“I want parties to get more public funding per vote. I want to limit the amount any one person can give. I want to prevent wealthy people from donating too much.”

Government Orders

Government Business No. 9—Changes to Standing Orders

2026-04-23

“Liberals are changing committee rules to give themselves more power than they earned in the election. This betrays earlier promises to cooperate with opposition parties.”

Oral Questions

Climate Change

2026-04-23

“I want to attack the government. Pipelines are bad. The environment is good. I don't like what's happening.”

“A Liberal MP wrote some mean things about his own party. I think his party is bad. I want the Liberals to change their whole energy policy. I don't like pipelines. I definitely don't like pipelines. I say the Liberals are hurting the environment to help oil companies. I want to criticize the Liberals. I want to make the Liberals look bad. I want the Liberals to listen to me.”