Patrick Bonin

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his clear remarks. We are very clearly dealing with a government that is currently exploiting the tariff crisis. Bill C-39 proposes to make it possible to circumvent environmental laws on a permanent basis. This has nothing to do with the tariff crisis. It shows very clearly that the Liberals want to make this permanent. We have laws and regulations for a reason. We have spent several decades establishing a system to protect the environment and people's health. Essentially, what Bill C-39 does is allow us, within 24 hours, to throw this entire framework for protecting the environment and people's health into the dustbin of history. There would be no need to bypass laws and regulations if the projects were sound. Clearly these are bad projects. The Liberal government is using the tariff crisis to literally engage in Trump-style politics, develop oil and gas, set aside the law and rule like a king.

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?

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that, using Bill C-5, the Prime Minister gave himself the power to suspend environmental laws for his oil projects. Luckily, the Bloc Québécois managed to limit that abuse to five years. According to the Liberals, it was all in a bid to combat Donald Trump. Bill C-39 removes this five-year limit and allows the application of environmental laws to be suspended indefinitely. Why are the Liberals using the tariff war as a pretext to exacerbate the climate crisis and line the pockets of the oil companies?

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. That is right, the bass player for the Cowboys Fringants, who is also an economic and ecological specialist and professor at the Université du Québec en Outaouais, was appointed chief scientist of Quebec. This great man, whose heart is in L'Assomption, will advise the government on scientific matters, lead the Fonds de recherche du Québec and promote science, particularly among young people. It is not just the Cowboys' music being showcased on the world stage. Jérôme Dupras's expertise has earned him two major and prestigious research chairs, including one with UNESCO. 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, 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. It includes the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie's resignation. It includes three young Canadians and two groups of ecologists suing the federal government for giving up any hope of achieving net zero. That is their record. How can the Liberals keep defending the Prime Minister?

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. If Quebeckers want to get information from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, they have to read 600 pages in English only. That is so disrespectful. In fact, I filed a complaint today with Canada's Commissioner of Official Languages. Will the government ask the CNSC to extend the consultation deadline until the consultation process is complete and conducted in French?

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?

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. I agree with my colleague on the importance of fully understanding what the repercussions might be for these communities if they become part of a different riding. However, I would like to come back to another point my colleague raised, namely the issue of proportionality. How might we reform the voting system while effectively maintaining regional representation? I would like to emphasize that, in the past, the government committed to implementing a more proportional system. Unfortunately, that commitment was set aside. We had an opportunity to bring this issue back to the table. I believe we must keep it on the agenda and keep it alive. I would like to know what my colleague suggests.

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. We continue to support it, obviously, because a number of amendments that we considered essential have been made. We acknowledge the collaborative effort in this regard. I would also like to highlight the removal of the religious exemption from the Criminal Code for the offence of inciting hatred. This was a major issue. It is important to understand that we were obviously very concerned about the fact that people were using religion to incite hatred. It is important to understand that religion is not a free pass for violating the fundamental rights of others and that this bill in no way prevents individuals from practising the religion or religions of their choice. We are therefore very pleased with this amendment. Following my hon. colleague's presentation, I would like to know what he thinks needs to be done to raise public awareness, beyond the scope of this bill. Education is a provincial jurisdiction, but my colleague seems to have given it a lot of thought.

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?

Mr. Speaker, regarding the agreement with Alberta for a new pipeline, environmental groups are pointing out that we have seen this movie before. It is called “Trans Mountain”. Taxpayers paid nearly $40 billion for a new pipeline to transport dirty oil. In return, the oil sector made absolutely zero effort to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. They actually rose sharply. Canada basically became an oil developer at Quebeckers' expense. The film was a flop. Will the Prime Minister finally acknowledge that we do not want to see that movie ever again?

Mr. Speaker, we were wondering why the Liberals did not have the courage to criticize the Prime Minister's climate record. The Toronto Star explains it. According to Liberal elected officials, the Prime Minister is literally yelling at his MPs when they tell him things he does not want to hear. They are not allowed to question him. They are not allowed to write to him either. Are the Liberal members throwing in the towel on climate change because they are afraid of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker, as wildfire season approaches, today, 300 mayors are calling the Prime Minister out on his climate record and his shift toward the oil sector. Representatives of half the population are telling the Prime Minister that if he wants to build the country, as he claims, he first has to make sure not to burn it down. We already know that the Prime Minister wants nothing to do with environmental groups and Parliament. We now know that he yells at his own members. Will he at least listen to these mayors or will he yell at them too?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals just keep backtracking on the fight against climate change, to the point where the outgoing MP for Laurier—Sainte-Marie has come to the worst possible conclusion. Speaking on QUB radio, he said: “We're going to see that, with the backtracking there's been this year, the United States under Donald Trump is doing more to tackle climate change than Canada is.” By the end of the year, he believes that Donald Trump's record will be better than that of the green banker. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister just shrugs his shoulders and says that is just how it is. How can the Liberals defend that?

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, in committee, the Liberals proved that they did not calculate how all their backtracking is affecting the achievement of their climate targets. They do not have the numbers. The so-called “green banker” did not even take the time to calculate the harm this backtracking would cause. The outgoing member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie believes that, when we look at these numbers, we will see that Canada's record will be worse than the United States' record under Donald Trump. If the minister does not agree with him, it is simple; all she has to do is show numbers that contradict him. When will we—