Discussion · Government Orders
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Québécois
“This bill lets one minister bypass laws and cuts project review times from three years to one year. I want to know if my colleague thinks rushing these reviews really makes projects better. Projects should have to prove they are good for the public.”
“Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for his speech in which he talked about the importance of predictability, stability and transparency. I want to focus on the word “transparency”. With Bill C-5, the government introduced the concept of creating projects of national interest and giving a single minister the power to circumvent legislation. In this bill, the government takes things even further. Assessments used to take up to a maximum of three years, but now the government is reducing that to one year. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on that. Will shortening a project’s assessment period improve the project? Is it not just the opposite? If we are being transparent, should projects not have to demonstrate why they are in the public interest?”
Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for his speech in which he talked about the importance of predictability, stability and transparency. I want to focus on the word “transparency”. With Bill C-5, the government introduced the concept of creating projects of national interest and giving a single minister the power to circumvent legislation. In this bill, the government takes things even further. Assessments used to take up to a maximum of three years, but now the government is reducing that to one year. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on that. Will shortening a project’s assessment period improve the project? Is it not just the opposite? If we are being transparent, should projects not have to demonstrate why they are in the public interest?