“This bill is terrible. It lets cabinet pick projects or regions of national interest without rules, studies, or proof that they make business sense. Will the minister promise to show this House the facts before naming any of these projects or regions?”

“Mr. Speaker, this bill is an abomination. I want to go back to Bill C-5 along with Bill C-39. All of the language in these statutes rests on the assumption that cabinet can pick a project of national interest or a region of national interest without any criteria and without any cost-benefit analysis or proof of a business case. Will the minister commit that before naming any such project or any such region, we actually have some facts presented to this House?”

“I want to know if the Conservative leader is also worried about the government making new agencies that are not transparent or accountable.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question about, not just how much bureaucracy, but whether it troubles him as it troubles me that the government creates new agencies that are not transparent. Rather than creating Crown corporations or entities within departments, we are looking at special operating agencies, like the Major Projects Office, that are not as accountable as other types of bureaucracy. I wonder if the leader of the official opposition has any comment.”

“I agree with the member from the Bloc Québécois. This bill hurts the environment and workers' rights. The Prime Minister used to care about climate change. Why is he walking away from those values now?”

“Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. She gave an excellent speech. She clearly outlined the democratic setbacks regarding the environment and workers’ rights. What does she now think of this government and the Prime Minister, who, in the past, presented himself as someone concerned about climate issues and the threat of climate change? Why is he moving so far away from those values?”

“I oppose this bill. It weakens long-standing environmental laws by putting business costs ahead of protecting waters, fish, and endangered species. I want the member to explain how he can support this bill while ignoring an Indigenous court case against dredging that destroys protected habitat.”

“Mr. Speaker, I also welcome the member for North Vancouver—Capilano to the House. I suppose I could also welcome him to North Vancouver. I also was up and down the hills of North Vancouver quite a lot through the by-election, and I may have heard different things from the voters there. I do want to help the hon. member. This question was asked to my friend the member for Joliette—Manawan by the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer: Where in the bill do we find retrenchments and abandonment of endangered species? It is riddled throughout the bill. It is changes in the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, it is changes in the Fisheries Act and it is changes in the Species at Risk Act all around the idea that before conditions can be set, they would have to be examined for their practical feasibility and economic impact. This bill is nothing but a disgraceful abandonment of environmental regulation across Canada and decades of work. Since the hon. member references the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, how can he ignore, and does he ignore, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation court case against the dredging of Burrard Inlet, which would destroy habitat that the federal government committed to protect?”