Patrick Bonin

“The Liberals keep approving more oil and gas pipelines instead of fighting climate change. I want to know when they will actually take action to protect the environment.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are on a catastrophic collision course when it comes to fighting climate change. They are all about “drill, baby, drill”. They just approved Enbridge’s Sunrise pipeline, yet another pipeline on top of Trans Mountain, Coastal GasLink and plenty of others. It does not stop there. They even want to build another pipeline in western Canada, on top of Keystone XL. Even the Harper Conservatives did not show such contempt for the fight against climate change, and they do not even believe in climate change. Are there any environmentally conscious Liberals left? When will they take action?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Opposition question in Question Period

  Signal 36 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“I want to bring back public funding for political parties. Right now, donation limits are too high. Only wealthy people can afford them, which can give them special access to ministers. Public funding would let us lower donation limits to around $500 and base party money on how many votes they get.”

“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.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The government just approved a new gas pipeline project in western Canada. Instead of building clean energy, they are increasing our use of fossil fuels. I want to know why Liberal members let the Prime Minister back away from climate action.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals’ descent into an ecological abyss continues. This morning, they approved the expansion of yet another gas project in western Canada. They announced Sunrise, an Enbridge pipeline designed to export shale gas produced through hydraulic fracturing. Instead of developing clean energy and reducing dependence on dirty energy, like other countries are doing, Canada is using the war in Iran as an excuse to increase its reliance on gas. It is another giant step backward. Is there a limit to how much packpedalling on climate action the Liberals will tolerate from their Prime Minister?”

“I want to improve this bill. The government should bring back public funding for political parties based on the votes they get. It should also lower the limit on personal donations so rich people cannot buy special access.”

“Mr. Speaker, there are good things in this bill. Obviously, we want to improve it, including with regard to party financing. The Bloc Québécois once introduced a bill to reinstate public party financing and lower the limit on personal donations to ensure that parties are not funded purely by the wealthiest individuals, a practice that often grants them privileged access. Why does the government not consider reinstating this system of public funding for political parties, where each vote would be associated with a specific amount? As I recall, it was the Chrétien government that implemented this system in 2004 before it was abolished.”

“The Liberals changed the rules without asking us, even though they promised to work together. They want 58% of the committee seats, but they only have 51% of the seats in Parliament. I want to know what my colleague thinks about this.”

“Mr. Speaker, after promising to co-operate and seek the views of opposition MPs in a fair manner, the first move by this now-majority government was to unilaterally change the rules of the game without consulting the Bloc Québécois. The Liberals are even going against parliamentary tradition, which dictates that the composition of committees should be determined by consensus. What we are seeing right now is the exact opposite. Worse still, the proposal would give Liberals 58% of the seats on parliamentary committees, whereas they hold 51% of the seats here in Parliament. I would like to know what my hon. colleague thinks of that.”

“The Liberals want to build more pipelines, and even their own members are warning this hurts the environment. When will Liberal MPs stop their leader from damaging nature?”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals’ nature strategy is to build more pipelines. The rumours are so serious that, last Thursday, the MP for Laurier—Sainte-Marie said he had confidence in his government despite its backtracking on climate action. However, today he wrote: “Any further compromise...would not only undermine Canada’s climate commitments...but also risk causing irreversible damage to human health, clean air, clean water and the trust of indigenous communities.” When will the Liberals stand up to stop their leader from wrecking the environment?”