Discussion · Government Orders
Christine Normandin Bloc Québécois
“This bill has a few good parts, like protecting union workers. But overall, I cannot support it. It speeds up projects by cutting environmental protections. Climate change already makes our food and insurance cost more, and disaster costs will only go up.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not claim to be able to write a 249-page bill on my own, but I am willing to acknowledge that there are some good points in the bill. For example, the unions have acknowledged that there are certain positive measures, such as bargaining unit protection when contractors are replaced. There are some small positive aspects to the bill, but overall, it is a tough pill to swallow. Again, we are not opposed to the economy performing well or to accelerating certain projects. However, this cannot be done at any cost, and certainly not by trimming all environmental protections, especially when we know from a report by the Institut de recherche en économie contemporaine that groceries are 8.4% more expensive due to climate change, that insurance costs are much higher, that Canada is now paying $2 billion for insurance in disaster-stricken areas, and that this figure is expected to reach $15 billion in the future. Exactly whose interest are the Liberals referring to when they talk about the national interest?”
-
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 43 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysis
Mr. Speaker, I do not claim to be able to write a 249-page bill on my own, but I am willing to acknowledge that there are some good points in the bill. For example, the unions have acknowledged that there are certain positive measures, such as bargaining unit protection when contractors are replaced. There are some small positive aspects to the bill, but overall, it is a tough pill to swallow. Again, we are not opposed to the economy performing well or to accelerating certain projects. However, this cannot be done at any cost, and certainly not by trimming all environmental protections, especially when we know from a report by the Institut de recherche en économie contemporaine that groceries are 8.4% more expensive due to climate change, that insurance costs are much higher, that Canada is now paying $2 billion for insurance in disaster-stricken areas, and that this figure is expected to reach $15 billion in the future. Exactly whose interest are the Liberals referring to when they talk about the national interest?