“Madam Speaker, this summer, the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement said that Quebec’s legislation should take precedence over federal legislation where duplication exists. In projects of national interest, such as mines, especially in my region, this can prevent any duplication. The federal government asks for a thing, the proponent adjusts and, in the end, Quebec asks for something else that is consistent with environmental concepts but that is not the same. That is why it takes 15, 10 or seven years to build a mine, and that is a little too long. With that in mind, does my colleague agree with her colleague that Quebec’s laws should take precedence and be the only environmental law applicable? Alternatively, is the government essentially implementing what Bill C-39 contains, without the least consideration for provincial laws, environmental acceptability or the rights of first nations to be heard and to have their ancestral rights respected? What is happening now? Can the government respect the will of local communities?”
Statement grade
A
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity.
Average 94 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Claims 79%Promise 21%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Madam Speaker, Claims · 77 wordsI agree that we, as the Canadian government, through Bill C-5, removed all the red tape with respect to the federal government.1It is now the provincial government’s duty to work with the federal government and comply with that.As far as the one project, one review framework to reduce existing duplication between federal and provincial assessments, seven provinces have come on board with this agreement.2I am not sure whether Quebec is one of the provinces.Promise · 20 wordsIf it is not, then I am sure the government would keep working with it until it gets on board.Vague promise
