Caroline Desrochers

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening. It is quite late, and we are debating this important bill, Bill C‑39, an act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy. It will come as no surprise to learn that the Bloc Québécois strongly opposes this bill as introduced by the Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. Let me be quite clear: We are not opposing it just for the sake of it. I can confirm that we would all be happier to be able to put our energy and time into serving our constituents rather than spending another evening in the House debating this bill, before a government that refuses to listen and pushes forward as though it were free to do whatever it wants. We oppose it because the proposed changes are simply unreasonable and unjustifiable to the public and our constituents. That is what Liberal-style democracy under the Prime Minister looks like right now. The government is using a temporary trade crisis as an excuse to impose legislative changes that will be permanent. These changes are likely to follow us for decades, long after the end of the crisis that served to justify them. The government is exploiting a trade dispute to further centralize power in Ottawa. They want to allow themselves to circumvent certain environmental laws, they want to weaken workers’ rights, they want to open the door to the privatization of our ports and airports, and above all, they want to compromise independent scientific analyses, even while infringing on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces when it comes to natural resource management. Let us start with a first example: workers’ rights. The bill contains amendments to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. These amendments are intended to authorize the Canada Industrial Relations Board to limit workers’ right to use necessary job action in a labour dispute. A minister would be allowed to ask the Canada Industrial Relations Board to impose a binding settlement during collective bargaining when the minister determines that a strike or lockout would have a negative national impact or cause serious social disruptions. It is a roundabout way of telling employers that they can take a hard line during negotiations, that they should not worry, that there will be no strike. That is essentially what it does legislatively. When negotiations between employers and unions break down to the point where one of the workers’ only remaining options is to exercise their right to strike, we believe the very purpose of that right is to create economic and social repercussions that will encourage the employer to return to the bargaining table. To claim that these changes do not weaken the right to strike shows a striking misunderstanding of the history of the social movements that fought to secure that right in the first place. It took decades of social struggle to make progress on workers’ rights and environmental protection, but with this bill, the government would like to be able to sweep away these gains in a matter of minutes. Then there is the issue of environmental assessments and major projects. I think that is a pretty important part of this bill. I would like to focus on division 1 of Bill C‑39, which would impose a maximum one-year time limit on the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada for completing its reviews of so-called projects of national interest. Again, it is one thing to want to speed up the assessment process, but it is quite another to not even wait for the recommendations of those assessments before approving major projects. If there is one thing I quickly understood as the Bloc Québécois critic for public accounts, it is that, when a political decision is made too quickly and needs to be reversed, the price to be paid is much higher than if the government had taken the time to do things right from the start. When it comes to the environment or biodiversity, the price is not always calculated solely in dollars. Let me give another example. Changes to the Fisheries Act would allow proponents to pay money to third parties to offset habitat loss caused by their project. The government is making decisions that could have long-term consequences on the environment without even taking the time to consult the experts within the government itself. I am referring to the chief science adviser. I have sat as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Science and Research since it was first created. The chief science adviser came to see us a few months ago when the government introduced Bill C-5. She described it as a disaster, and said that the government was circumventing laws, especially legislation related to the environment and other measures, without even consulting scientific experts. The chief science adviser confided that neither she nor the other members had been consulted in any way about the selection of major projects said to be of national interest. This is a government that simply wants to do things its own way, or listen only to people who share its views and want the same things it does. That is what we have come to. Once a decision is made, it has to be owned. Sometimes, by the time it can be reversed, it is already too late. Certain things simply cannot be repaired. Concerning Bill C‑39, we understand that the government wants to fast-track the new Alberta pipeline project. It could be approved even before environmental assessments are completed. What is the plan if we have to reverse course? The government pre-approves a project, does not even know if it will be good, and then it is too late to backtrack. If the final recommendations from the experts were negative, would it really be possible to make changes to the project when it is already under way? I think the answer is obvious. Let me give an example. We build the foundation of a house and then realize that the ground is unstable and we have to rebuild somewhere else. Imagine the cost. That is for a house, but let us draw a parallel with a pipeline. That is precisely the problem with this bill. Right now, the government before us has exhausted its political arguments to persuade the public. It says that there are major projects of national interest and that it wants to create pathways and mechanisms by concentrating power in the hands of a single minister who could, by the government’s own account, designate a project as being in the national interest, amend the Impact Assessment Act, weaken environmental policies and even permanently eliminate them. Instead of continuing discussions in a democratic manner, bringing together the relevant stakeholders and the various levels of government around one table, the government decides to introduce a bill that is over 250 pages long and imposes the vision of just one man or maybe a few people in the Prime Minister’s Office. They want to build Canada strong, and that is the slogan the Liberals keep spewing every day. I do not really agree that undermining accountability and weakening the decisions made in Parliament is the way to build Canada strong. Power is increasingly being concentrated in the hands of the executive. The government wants to limit the ability of elected officials to hold it to account. Where else in any modern, industrialized country is this kind of legislation being introduced? If the Liberals can come up with an example of this, I would be curious to know. I checked. No G7 country has brought forward this sort of legislation. They are no worse off than we are. They too face challenges when it comes to the economy and assessment processes. What we are seeing today is more of an authoritarian drift than the application of sound economic and mathematical reasoning to projects said to be in the public interest. I want to be clear for those watching at home. This government is not introducing these changes in the interest of Quebeckers and Canadians. Its goal is to concentrate power in the hands of a small group of individuals or even a single individual. Quebec’s motto is “Je me souviens” or “I remember”, and I can guarantee that we will remember this Liberal government’s authoritarian abuse for a long time to come.”