Patrick Bonin

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“I oppose this bill. We do not need it to build clean energy, because Quebec is already doing that. This bill just speeds up oil and gas pipelines to help Alberta. It will cost billions of public dollars and make climate change worse.”

“Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, that is ridiculous. It is ridiculous to say that we need to pass Bill C‑39, which is a giant setback for the environment, workers’ rights and democracy, in order to develop renewable energy projects. We are already doing that. Projects like the one in Churchill Falls are already under way in Quebec. We have been doing that for decades. We do not need superpowers. What the Liberals want to do with Bill C‑39 is essentially develop oil and gas companies and pipelines, undermine the fight against climate change and fast-track these projects. Who are they trying to please? They want to please Alberta using Quebeckers’ money. We are talking about billions of dollars to develop projects that will accomplish nothing. In fact, we are going to pay for them three times over: first, for the pipeline, which will cost $43 billion, second, for the carbon capture and storage project, which will cost $10 billion in public funds, and third, for all the costs associated with the climate impacts we are already experiencing, like droughts, heat waves and floods, not to mention the issues of rising grocery prices—”

“I oppose this bill. It lets the government ignore environmental laws and public consultations to rush oil and gas projects. It also lets ministers stop workers from striking. We should build green energy while still following the law.”

“Madam Speaker, we are once again in the House to talk about a bill that builds on an existing bill. First, there was Bill C‑5, which was unprecedented in terms of the environment. It trampled 12 laws and seven regulations and was passed here in the House, I repeat, with the support of my Conservative colleagues, because they obviously saw their national interest as being the interests of oil companies. That is exactly what we are seeing again today. There is nothing national about this bill. It is a bill that aims to fast-track this government’s oil and gas policy agenda, using the excuse that the legislative framework that has been built over decades needs to be improved. It took decades to develop a legislative framework that protects the environment and the health of our communities. Now the government is telling us that we need to set it aside because we need to act quickly, because that is in our national interest. One of the arguments being put forward by the Liberals is that we need to develop renewable energy. In their view, developing renewable energy means setting aside regulatory frameworks. We fully support efforts to accelerate the development of renewable energy. Quebec is already doing just that, while also complying with laws and regulations. Is there room to improve certain aspects of environmental assessments for renewable energy projects? Absolutely. Should that be done by disregarding laws and regulations? No, and that is not how we do things in Quebec. Should it be done by ignoring public consultations? No, and and that is not how we do things in Quebec. Should it be done without proper environmental assessments? No, yet that is what the government is proposing. It is proposing to override the views of local communities, sideline public consultations, weaken environmental assessments and set aside laws under the guise of national interest. We are entirely in favour of developing Quebec in a responsible manner, but the government is seeking to grant itself powers that are virtually unprecedented in scope. Bill C-39 is being put forward under the guise of national interest, and it goes even further. This bill allows laws and regulations to be suspended indefinitely. That means forever, if the government so wishes. The Liberals are not only going to such extremes in their oil and gas mania, but they also want to designate so-called “regions of national interest”. Who decides which regions are of national interest, and on whose behalf? It is this government, led by the Prime Minister, who, as we know all too well, is in cahoots with the oil and gas companies. The proof is that the Liberals have just approved a massive oil sands pipeline project with a capacity of one million barrels per day, under the pretext that it is in the national interest. They tell us that they followed the law, of course, and that it is clear they considered the relevant criteria. Bill C-39 follows the same logic: They set criteria for themselves that they are not required to follow. They may even decide that they will consider any factor of interest to be in the national interest, which means that, if it is of interest to them, it is in the national interest, and they can throw all the laws and regulations out the window. This is extremely concerning. When we talk about a pipeline, such as the one that was announced, the Liberals tell us that it will help fight the climate crisis. Environment Canada itself estimates that this oil sands pipeline that will produce one million barrels a day will increase greenhouse gas emissions by 27.7 million tonnes in Canada just to produce the oil that will flow through the pipeline. Those 27.7 million tonnes of greenhouse gases account for more than one-third of Quebec’s emissions. How can a government claim that increasing emissions on this scale—from Canada’s most polluting sector, oil sands production—is consistent with the fight against the climate crisis? Clearly, it is not. We can already see that all the criteria used by the government are phony. There is no environmental protection in this bill, despite the government’s claims that environmental laws will be complied with. If we take a closer look, every single environmental group in Canada has spoken out against this bill. They say that it is bulldozing nature, that it is a historic setback and that it is unprecedented in terms of environmental backsliding. All the environmental rights groups and environmental lawyers are saying that this bill is a serious setback for the environment. How can the government grant itself extraordinary powers to set aside 12 laws and seven regulations, including a number of environmental laws, and claim that this will protect the environment? The government may end up respecting environmental laws, but that is certainly not what it intends to do. Why does the government need this tool that the Prime Minister can use as he sees fit? It is because the government wants to get around environmental laws. Otherwise, it would not be doing that. That much is clear. These “regions of national interest” that appear in Bill C-39 and that we have been talking about are entire regions where projects such as pipelines, for example, would be pre-approved even before an environmental assessment has taken place. Take the project of national interest involving the much-vaunted one-million-barrels-a-day pipeline, for example. Under this bill, the government would effectively pre-approve the project. The company would be able to start building its pipeline even before the project has been assessed. This could mean that, if a somewhat credible assessment were to later conclude that it is not a worthwhile project, the company may have already started work, building its pipeline and investing money. In this example, the company is actually the government. The government is prepared to invest $20 billion in federal funding, as part of a total public investment of $43 billion, in a project that it will champion for lack of private sector investment. Does anyone think the government will decide, after the project assessment, not to go ahead? That is not going to happen. If it is a private company and the government pre-approves a project and allows it to proceed with construction, the company will sue the government, arguing that it cannot stop the work. Clearly, this is literally about bulldozing their way to approving projects. When it comes to pre-approved projects, the government says it may conduct an environmental assessment. That may be the case, but what it is actually doing is dismantling the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. The agency that specializes in project assessments is being dismantled. It will no longer even be responsible for assessing pipeline projects. That responsibility will fall to the Canadian Energy Regulator, which is widely recognized as a haven for oil and gas industry lobbyists. It is a machine for approving pipeline, gas, and oil projects. I do not think the board has ever rejected an oil project in its entire history. This is part of a pattern of sidestepping laws, rushing through environmental assessments and pretending they are environmental assessments when in fact they are literally carried out by those who want these projects to move forward and have a vested interest in their development. Bill C-39 not only makes no sense from an environmental standpoint, in terms of the logic of environmental assessments, or with regard to respect for communities, but it goes even further because, within its 250 pages, it also targets workers. It was not enough to try to scrap environmental protections. Now they say they are going to scrap the right to strike as well. That means the minister will have the right to decide whether workers can go on strike or not. The minister will decide, based on his own judgment, whether a strike is in the national interest. If this is not one of the biggest setbacks in the history of workers’ rights, I do not know what is. According to the Fédération des travailleurs et des travailleuses du Québec, this is a serious setback, a serious violation of workers’ rights. We are not here to debate whether developing pipelines makes sense. We already know it does not. We are here to debate respect for democracy and respect for a regulatory and legislative framework that took decades to build and that this government is literally going to scrap in a few months. The troubling part is that we are dealing with a government acting in authoritarian ways, with power centred in the Prime Minister’s Office. It claims to want to fight against Donald Trump, and yet, to do so, it is engaging in Trumpism and developing Canada’s oil and gas interests, the majority of which are held by Americans. How does that help fight Mr. Trump? It does not help at all. What interests us in Quebec is to develop the strengths that we already possess and can build on. It is called renewable energy. It is called public transit. It is called the electrification of transportation. We can fast-track these projects, obey the law and respect people without trashing our citizens, our health and our environment for oil companies.”

“I oppose this bill. It removes environmental checks for pipelines and lets companies ignore environmental laws. It is the worst bill for the environment in Canadian history.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just returned from the United Nations, where Secretary-General Guterres once again implored countries to phase out fossil fuels. Meanwhile, Canada introduced Bill C‑39, which gets rid of impact assessments for pipeline projects and makes it possible to permanently circumvent environmental laws. Greenpeace and Environmental Defence called it the “Bulldoze Nature” bill. Ecojustice called the bill catastrophic. No other bill in Canadian history has been worse for the environment. How can the Liberals sleep at night after defending such a bill?”

In response to a question from Frank Caputo

“Canada should stop funding a $40-billion oil pipeline and invest in clean electricity instead. The pipeline will not lower gas prices, and more oil and gas will only worsen forest fires and heat waves.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is simple. Internationally, there are two classes of countries. There are those who are following President Trump, as the Prime Minister is doing, getting into oil and gas, and then there are those who want to break free from this dependence on foreign companies and so on. Canada should invest in the transition, plan for it and not fund a new oil sands pipeline project, to the tune of over $40 billion, that will be aimed at exports and will not change the cost at the pump for people, who will remain dependent on oil and gas. We have everything to gain from electrification, and Quebec is already doing that. My colleague talks about the fact that he has an electric vehicle. That is wonderful. He could also talk about the economic benefits it brings, both in terms of the fact that we keep our money and use Quebec hydroelectricity, and in terms of people’s wallets. Thinking that getting deeper into oil and gas is part of the solution will only worsen the climate crisis. I think he forgot about this summer’s forest fires, as well as the deadly heat waves.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Jacques Ramsay

“I oppose this bill. It hurts the environment and weakens workers' rights, including the right to strike. The government is helping American oil and gas companies instead of standing up for workers.”

“Mr. Speaker, right now, the national interest is the government’s interest, and it is the government that decides what is in the national interest. Whether the government likes it or not, it is very clear to us that these debates must take place among elected officials, particularly when it comes to the use of arbitrators, restricting the right to strike and restricting workers’ rights. It is no wonder that the FTQ, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, is speaking out against this bill. Not only is this one of the worst rollbacks for the environment, but the bill also includes some extremely worrisome rollbacks in terms of workers’ rights. We in the Bloc Québécois are here to stand up for people and for workers, not to defend the interests of oil and gas companies, which, by the way, primarily belong to American interests.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 95 of 100

  Of this reply, 94% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I oppose this bill. The government is using the trade war as an excuse to weaken environmental laws and workers' rights. The bill rushes environmental reviews by forcing them to finish in one year, and it puts industry-friendly regulators in charge of reviewing pipelines and nuclear projects. It lets big companies skip important rules and harms the environment.”

“Mr. Speaker, sometimes I wonder whether the government thinks our roads have potholes because of the trade war. Hearing the Liberals talk, one might almost believe that the trade war is responsible for traffic and late buses. The government is blaming the trade war for a lot of things. Bill C-39 clearly shows that the government has come to the conclusion that it has to trample on workers’ rights and our environmental laws to deal with the trade war. It seems to think that it has to adopt a Trump-like approach to deal with President Trump. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it is launching the largest deregulation action in U.S. history, and the Canadian government seems to find that inspiring. In a year and a half, the government scrapped carbon pricing. It introduced Bill C‑30, which is completely anti-science and puts pesticides that were banned back into circulation. It scrapped the EV mandate. It passed Bill C‑5, which has been described as the greatest rollback of environmental law in recent times. That is on top of giving tax breaks to oil and gas companies, announcing the construction and financing of pipelines and liquefied natural gas projects, and planning to triple gas production and double oil sands production. Clearly, the government will not respect the Paris Agreement, its commitments or its greenhouse gas reduction target, which it no longer talks about in the short term. Now it is talking about net zero by 2050. However, as every independent analyst has said, we know that the rollbacks are so serious that Canada cannot possibly meet its commitments. With Bill C‑39, it seems that the government is trying to attract investors by being even more open to air pollution and the destruction of land and water than our neighbour to the south can be. The Bloc Québécois believes that there are other strategies for developing our economy while protecting the environment and without having to circumvent environmental laws. The government’s Bill C‑39 is quite literally breaking up the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. With this new bill, the government is literally compromising the independence of scientists in assessing pipelines and nuclear energy by making the Canada Energy Regulator and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission responsible for conducting assessments. This is like putting wolves in charge of the sheep. The Canada Energy Regulator is an institution that is known to support pipelines and has nothing to do with protecting the environment. That is not part of its mandate. None of these institutions talk about protecting the environment, even though they will now be responsible for assessing the environmental impact of projects with potentially dire consequences. These are oil and gas megaprojects, likely some of the largest oil and gas megaprojects we have ever seen in Canada. It remains to be seen whether they get off the ground, because we obviously intend to join others in opposing this type of bill. I must point out that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has already highlighted the issue that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is not independent from the Department of Natural Resources. The Canada Energy Regulator, formerly known as the National Energy Board, is an institution that is completely biased toward pipelines. We have seen this in Quebec. Many of its members come from the fossil fuel sector. It is like asking cigarette manufacturers to carry out their own studies on the health consequences of smoking. It is completely biased. No one should take the public for fools, yet that is exactly what the government is doing right now. Contrary to what the title of Bill C-39 would have us believe, this bill weakens Canada by bowing to the interests of the fossil fuel barons, among others. I would remind the House that the government has already passed the “no laws” law, namely Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act. The Liberals passed it in record time. We were unable to examine it properly. This act specifically allows laws to be circumvented. Even so, over the past year, not a single project has been designated under this legislation, which the government rushed through as quickly as possible with the support of, among others, the Conservatives. Not a single project has been put on the list in a year. Why was it so urgent? Now the government is introducing Bill C‑39, and it even wants environmental assessments for all projects to take no more than a year despite the fact that the government has not managed to designate a single project under its legislation in a whole year. It seems clear that environmental protection is being used as a scapegoat to mask the current government’s failure to get things done. The issue is not environmental protection; it is the government’s failure to move multiple files forward in a timely manner. I can see it already: Assessments for complex projects will inevitably be rushed, if they happen at all, and consultations will be rushed because the government wants to meet a one-year deadline. The very notion of a one-year deadline is completely arbitrary. Projects must be assessed on the basis of their complexity and scale, and the government has to take the time to do it right. The government is literally bulldozing nature. Let us consider, for example, a new pipeline project, one that the Prime Minister wants to include on the list of projects of national interest. It is a 1,000-kilometre project. How is it possible to conduct proper consultations or assessments in just one year? There is no doubt this will be rushed through, once again to the benefit of companies that will face fewer safeguards and are clearly delighted with the government’s legislation. The Liberals hope that Bill C-39 will not affect environmental protection. I hate to break it to them, but the Prime Minister is not going to grant that wish. It is misleading to tell the public that Bill C-39 does not weaken environmental protections or environmental assessments across the country. I would remind members of all the laws and regulations that can now be circumvented under Bill C-5. Bill C-39 will make that permanent and will even apply to entire regions. The Fisheries Act, the International River Improvements Act, the National Capital Act, the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, the Dominion Water Power Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, the Canada Transportation Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Species at Risk Act and the Impact Assessment Act can all be circumvented. I will now list the regulations. The migratory bird sanctuary regulations, the Dominion water power regulations, the wildlife area regulations, the port authorities operations regulations, the metal and diamond mining effluent regulations and the migratory birds regulations, 2022 can all be circumvented. Twelve laws and seven regulations can be circumvented to accommodate projects designated to be of national interest by the government. As I said, entire regions will now be able to use the this process to circumvent legislation, and the Prime Minister, like a king, will decide which are to be sacrificed. These regions will get access to projects pre-approved even before an impact assessment is done. Project pre-approval means that construction will start before projects are even assessed. Obviously, this is a new government that is promising the next gold rush by opening the territory up to development and fast-tracking projects, never mind what the law says. I would point out, however, that if we learned anything from the Wild West it is that when the law is weakened, outlaws are quick to step in. I would remind the House that legal action has been brought against the federal government for its Bill C-5 on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. To make matters worse, with Bill C-39, the government is broadening the scope of that legislation and making the exceptional powers enshrined in it permanent. Does the government expect the tariff crisis to be permanent? This tariff crisis is their excuse for everything. This is clearly a pretext for giving cabinet extraordinary powers, enabling it to sell land to foreign interests like a good deal maker. Liberal members seem to think that if they repeat often enough that Bill C‑39 will not affect environmental protections, that will become the reality. I am sorry to burst their bubble, but we were not elected to make things up. We were not elected to bow to the demands of the oil and gas companies. We were elected to make decisions that will be part of history. The bill explicitly includes serious rollbacks in environmental matters and workers’ rights. These are not just words on paper. This will have immediate and serious consequences on the land, on our ecosystems and on people’s health. That will be the legacy left to future generations. History has a long memory. Our speeches may fade, but decisions of this magnitude will not. One day, we will look back and ask ourselves who was aware of what was happening, who could have taken action and who looked the other way. The Bloc Québécois will not look the other way.”

“This bill lets the government bypass environmental laws and approve projects before they are even checked. Companies will sue if those projects are stopped later. The government is also spending billions on a huge oil pipeline. I want the member to say if he supports giving public money to oil companies.”

“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague seems to be in full agreement when it comes to the exceptional powers the government is giving itself to get around environmental laws. I would like to point out that Bill C-39 even allows for the creation of economic zones where projects will be pre-approved. Projects will be approved before they are even assessed. Obviously, we can expect companies to sue the government if, after the assessment, the government decides a project is no good. I wonder if my colleague is concerned about that. Does he not think this fits perfectly into a government strategy to deploy an oil arsenal using public funds? His party has stated that oil companies benefit from corporate welfare. The government is gearing up to invest $40 billion in a mega-pipeline project. Is my colleague in favour of giving public funds to oil companies?”

“I oppose this bill. Environmental groups agree that it weakens environmental protections and hurts workers' rights. It also removes a five-year limit on special government powers, letting the government bypass laws permanently. I want the government to explain why it wants these permanent powers.”

“Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑39 represents another another major step backward on environmental issues as well as on workers’ rights. The government would have people believe that the bill will not result in environmental rollbacks. It says environmental assessments will not be weakened. Leading environmental organizations and environmental law groups are unanimous. Ecojustice, West Coast Environmental Law, the Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement and Equiterre have all stated explicitly and unequivocally that the bill will result in major rollbacks. The government is not only introducing major rollbacks, it is also using the tariff crisis to implement permanent measures that would allow it to circumvent legislation. These discretionary powers were unacceptable to begin with, but they were subject to a five-year limit. Can someone explain to me why the government wants to remove that provision so it can make those powers permanent and permanently circumvent the law?”

In response to a question from Mario Simard

“Public funding for political parties is important. Quebec uses it, but Canada stopped. I want the member to explain what Canada can learn from Quebec.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. The idea of public funding is really important. He said that Quebec does it. Canada did it at one time but does not do it now. Can he explain again how Canada could learn from what Quebec is doing in terms of public funding?”

“Over a hundred environmental groups signed a letter saying no to new pipelines. Pipelines harm the climate, wildlife, and Indigenous relations. Will the Prime Minister stop supporting oil and gas?”

“Mr. Speaker, one week after 300 mayors, civil society is now speaking out against the Liberals’ pro-oil stance. One hundred and twenty-two environmental groups, including 49 from Quebec, signed a letter today. They are here with a clear message: no new pipelines. They are saying no to any project that threatens the climate, endangered species, indigenous relations or the sovereignty of governments. It would be a betrayal of all Canadians who still believe in the fight against climate change. Will the Prime Minister end his pro-oil and gas stance?”