“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39 does not have to gut the Endangered Species Act, and it does not have to gut the federal Impact Assessment Act, because Bill C-5 has already done that, and Bill C-5 is in place, allowing maximum discretion for whenever a project is dreamed up by cabinet with no guidelines or criteria. As for a project in the national interest, it is allowed to exempt that project from the application of all the other acts that are mentioned, except the specific ones that I will mention in my speech that it is not allowed to exempt. Bill C-5 and Bill C-39 together mean bulldozing through decades of progress in knowing how to plan a project to succeed. This is reckless fiscal irresponsibility.”
Statement grade
A
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity.
Average 90 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Thanks 33%Claims 40%Reasoning 27%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 46 wordsI have a lot of respect for my colleague opposite and her history of engagement on these files, including her engagement on the proposed Harper-era changes that she was involved in and that, indeed, I was involved in when I was a journalist covering that government.12ThanksClaims · 55 wordsI would submit that this is very different, that we have a coordination of approvals.We have eminent protections on either end of the process.We have an important cabinet directive that was published at the same time as the introduction of the legislation and that would prioritize the mitigation hierarchy with respect to projects.3Reasoning · 38 wordsI think there is a lot in this legislation regarding the protections we have in place, combined with those other elements of our climate policy that I described, that I would commend to the member for further consideration.
