Elizabeth May

“Madam Speaker, thank you for calling me to order. You were quite right to do so. If the current government decides that this electricity transmission line project is located in a region of national interest, then itcan go ahead under Bill C-39, even if the project will jeopardize a species at risk or lead to that species’ extinction and would have normally been prohibited. Let us look at another example. Let us say that someone wants to build a liquefied gas terminal, but the construction plans involve dumping waste into the ocean. Normally, that would be prohibited under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, part of which prohibits the disposal of certain substances at sea. However, if the government of the day decides that this liquefied gas terminal is located in a region of national interest, then there is no problem. The proponent would not need to get any authorization and would be exempt from these environmental protection laws. I have one last example to illustrate my point. Let us consider a pipeline project. Unfortunately, the construction of the pipeline would release substances that are harmful to migratory birds. Normally, this is prohibited under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994. That act prohibits the release of substances harmful to migratory birds, but if the pipeline is in a region of national interest, as defined by the current government, there will be no problem. Before, there were projects of national interest, and now regions of national interest have been added. Anything inside these regions will be exempt from obtaining authorizations under the Migratory Birds Convention Act. That is a radical departure. That is why I am saying today that Bill C-39 seeks to authorize the destruction of the environment in Quebec and Canada, at cabinet’s discretion. The next question is about what constitutes a region of national interest. I have read Bill C-39, and I saw that clause 96(2) defines a region of national interest as “a region named in Schedule 3”. I found Schedule 3. It exists, but there is nothing about that in it. There is nothing in Schedule 3. There is just the heading “Regions of National Interest”. The regions have not been identified yet because the government, meaning cabinet, will decide later which regions are of national interest. Twenty-eight people will decide that in Canada, and especially in Quebec in my case, there are sectors where people will be able to do all the things I just criticized. Some people will tell me that they have to base it on something. That is sort of true, because there are some factors in the bill. The government’s ability to allow itself flexibility and discretion on a scale bigger than this chamber is admirable. The bill says that to establish whether a region is a region of national interest, the government may consider any factor it deems relevant. I want to emphasize the word “may”. It is not even required to do that. That is a loophole as big as the Earth. Still, the government is kind enough to give us certain guidelines and include certain criteria in the bill, including the one I am going to talk about because it is unbelievably broad. It is the condition requiring the project to provide economic or other benefits. The discretion this government is getting, allowing it to authorize the destruction of the environment, is mind-boggling. It is mind-boggling and disturbing. What will happen when the government decides that a region is a region of national interest? I want to point out that it is not clear what criteria the government plans to use. I also look forward to hearing government members explain why their region should be a region of national interest. I want to come back to the fact that several laws no longer apply. I mentioned the Fisheries Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, and the Canada Transportation Act, for example. It used to be that an application for authorization was necessary to build a railway, but that will no longer be the case. I talked about the Canada Marine Act, which governs public ports and the St. Lawrence Seaway. It will no longer be necessary in regions of national interest. Part 7, Division 3 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which deals with disposal at sea, is being set aside. The Species at Risk Act is being disregarded because development is the priority. The Impact Assessment Act and relevant regulations, like the migratory bird sanctuary regulations, the wildlife area regulations and the marine mammal regulations, are also being shoved aside. Clearly, these laws must have been completely useless. That is what Bill C‑39 does. We do not know what constitutes a region of national interest. What we do know is that, once a region is designated as being of national interest, all of those laws, and several others I have not mentioned, cease to apply. The bill effectively assumes that all necessary approvals and authorizations are already in place for projects located in such regions. I will conclude by saying that the irony is that 28 people will define what constitutes the national interest of Quebec and Canada, even though it will result in the destruction of the environment. I believe that Quebec’s national interest lies in ensuring that economic development does not come at the expense of the environment. We can grow our economy without compromising our habitats, fish habitats and endangered species. We can develop our economy while keeping future generations in mind. Unfortunately, Bill C-39 deviates from that. We are heading towards destructive economic development. That is why we will be voting against the bill.”