“This bill already goes too far by exempting oil and gas projects from environmental reviews. The Conservatives have wanted these changes for years, but they still say it is not enough. I want the member to explain what else they want.”

“Madam Speaker, since this is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak to you today, I would like to take the opportunity to say hello and welcome you back to Parliament. Listening to the speech by my colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, I realize how far apart the Conservatives and the Bloc are on these issues. I thought that Bill C‑39 went beyond everything the Conservatives have wanted for years, but no, it seems that it still falls short, that it still does not go far enough. According to Bill C‑39, assessments will be more flexible, particularly for oil and gas projects, which will no longer be subject to the Impact Assessment Act. It seems to me that the Conservatives should be patting themselves on the back and celebrating, but what I have been hearing all day is the complete opposite. In our opinion, the bill goes so far as to be outrageous. In my colleague’s opinion, what is missing from the bill that would make it acceptable to the Conservatives?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 38 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“Please be careful near the microphone. Dropping papers hurts the interpreters' ears.”

“Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to intervene. I simply want to tell my colleague to pay particular attention to the microphones. When he puts down his papers, it can be very unpleasant for the interpreters. I know that is not really his intent.”

“I oppose this bill because it hurts workers' rights, the environment, and democracy. It removes a rule that would have let us review the minister's powers after five years. I want the member to explain why they are taking away that review.”

“Madam Speaker, as the Bloc Québécois critic for labour, human resources and skills development, I had the opportunity to speak yesterday and clearly demonstrate how workers’ rights are being eroded. The members opposite laughed in my face, but what I read yesterday were comments from organized labour. These were initial reactions. I also talked a lot about setbacks for the environment, but I ended by talking about setbacks for democracy. What does my colleague think about that? Yesterday, I did not have time to say that we found out that in Bill C‑39, the Liberals are undoing the amendment that one of my colleagues made to Bill C‑5, which made the minister’s powers subject to a five-year sunset clause. Now there will be no way of reviewing the minister’s decisions after the fact. My colleague talked about collaboration, proposals, amendments and improvements, but this change is unacceptable from a democratic standpoint. I would like my colleague to talk a bit about that.”

“The government used to have a five-year limit on bypassing environmental laws for projects like oil. This bill removes that time limit so they can bypass the rules forever. This helps foreign oil companies while climate disasters get worse. What does the member think about that?”

“Madam Speaker, Bill C-5 allowed the government to circumvent at least 12 environmental laws and seven regulations to make it easier for certain projects, including several oil projects, to move forward. However, there was a five-year limit on that authority. With C-39, the government wants to remove that limit so that it can permanently circumvent environmental legislation. At a time when climate disasters are becoming more frequent and the cost of public services is rising, the Liberals want to circumvent environmental legislation for the benefit of oil companies whose proceeds often go abroad. What does my colleague think about that?”

“This bill goes too far. It weakens laws that protect workers, the public, and the environment. I want the Conservatives to explain why they would support it.”

“Madam Speaker, I actually get the sense that Stephen Harper was more to the left than the current Prime Minister. The more time goes by, the more the measures this Prime Minister is putting in place that make me think that the Conservatives are jealous that he is not on the right side of the House based on his political stripes. Bill C‑39, which we analyzed with our teams, as I am sure the Conservatives did as well, contains things that seek to destroy or circumvent the laws that are there to protect the public, the environment and workers. I do not know what the Conservatives find in this bill that deserves support, aside from the fact that it goes way too far. I want to hear my colleague’s thoughts on the fact that we have a government that is proposing legislation that, in my opinion, goes beyond even what Conservatives have been calling for for years.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 40 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“I oppose this bill. It weakens workers' rights and environmental laws. It also creates a new council that takes away Quebec's control over transportation. I want the member to explain why the federal government is taking over provincial powers.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, but despite what my colleagues have been saying for a while, they are trying to downplay the impact on labour rights. We are being told that environmental rights are not being rolled back. I think that environmental and labour groups will do their job and that, when we measure the scope of all this, we will truly realize that we have a government that is undermining democracy. In addition to a crushing rollback of workers’ democratic rights and environment laws, there is also an encroachment on Quebec’s jurisdictions. What is more, the government is not respecting jurisdictions. The Liberal government is creating a new and umpteenth transportation structure: the national trade corridors council. What does that mean? We in the Bloc Québécois refuse to allow the federal government to subject businesses to rules when, once again, they do not fall under its jurisdiction over transportation. In the end, we are really going backwards. What does he have to say about this jurisdictional encroachment?”

“The Prime Minister keeps ignoring Parliament's rules and traditions. This bill goes too far, and it hurts our democracy. My party and the Conservatives will try to fix it in committee. But I worry the government will use its majority to ignore our ideas. I want to know if my colleague shares this worry.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for his remarks, his comments and his speech. Since he was elected in 2025, we have seen this Prime Minister acting as if he could not care less about parliamentary procedure. He has his objective, so he is going ahead and trampling on just about every established procedure and tradition, and that is very worrisome. This bill raises some serious concerns about democracy. My colleagues talked about this earlier. Yes, this bill will end up in committee. Yes, the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois will make suggestions to improve this bill as much as possible, since it goes much too far in many areas. We have been pointing that out from the beginning. However, this government, with its arrogant attitude and its manufactured majority, will probably adopt the same attitude in committee. I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with me and whether he shares my concern that the work we will have to do on this very serious bill, with its far-reaching consequences, will ultimately amount to very little progress in committee because of this arrogant government.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Respect 80 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “acting as if he could not care less about parliamentary procedure”.

  See full analysis →

“This bill hurts workers' rights. It lets the minister ignore mediators and stop strikes, giving the government total control over bargaining. I want the government to promise that the committee will add strong protections for workers.”

“Madam Speaker, the government keeps trying to reassure workers, particularly on the issue of labour rights, which, quite frankly, are literally being trampled by Bill C-39. Despite the government’s attempts to sugar-coat it, Bill C-39 actually weakens protections for workers’ rights, which is a real cause for concern for trade unions across Quebec and Canada. They are trying to sugar-coat all this by saying there will be a mediator to advise the minister, but the minister will still have the right, under the bill, to disregard the mediator’s recommendations. The minister will have the right to stop a strike if he believes it is going too far and is in some way detrimental to the project at hand. Workers who hear this feel that they are losing their bargaining power and their dignity, in a sense. Their rights are truly being trampled by this bill. Despite the government’s attempts to sugar-coat things and its claims that it is putting all kinds of protections in place, at the end of the day, the minister is the one who will have the final say on matters affecting workers during bargaining and strikes. I would really like to hear my colleague from Winnipeg North do his level best to reassure me about that, but I am not sure he will be able to. I would also like him to tell the workers, unions and labour representatives watching us that he is truly committed to ensuring that, when the committee studies Bill C‑39, solid protections for workers’ rights will be added. As things stand, the bill offers no reassurance at all.”

“I am voting against this bill, and the Bloc Québécois will too. It attacks the right to strike and lets the government shut down labour disputes without taking the blame. It also lets ministers ignore environmental laws and fast-track big projects before proper reviews are finished. The government is using the trade crisis with Donald Trump as an excuse to grab too much power.”

“Madam Speaker, I will start with one of the parliamentary secretary’s favourite lines. At the end of the day, it boggles the mind to hear him tell us that his government believes in the right to strike, but that sometimes decisions have to be made and the right to strike will therefore be taken away. That is what he is saying. Worse than that, with Bill C-39, the Liberals not only want to undermine the right to strike, but they do not even want to take responsibility for it. The infamous provision that we have denounced repeatedly over the past few months will now be used by the Canada Industrial Relations Board. The next time we rise in the House to ask this government questions, the parliamentary secretary will tell us—since there is about a 98% chance he will be the one who answers us because he is always here—that the Canada Industrial Relations Board is independent and that it is not the government. That is what the Liberals are doing with Bill C-39. It is not off to a good start. That said, I still think the parliamentary secretary is a nice guy. I even briefly thought I was glad to see him when we shook hands this week. However, what he is telling me brings me back to the harsh reality that we do not often see eye to eye. It is appalling. They claim that Bill C-39 is intended to strengthen the economy, but the measures included in Bill C-39 are not designed to strengthen the economy. They are designed to destroy, weaken or circumvent the laws that protect the public, workers and the environment. The reason that environmental assessment standards were established over the decades and that laws were implemented to create a framework for labour negotiations is because they were necessary. The government cannot sweep that away in five minutes. However, that is what Bill C‑39 does, on the grounds that we are in a crisis, that we need to stand up to President Trump, that we need to be strong and get busy building. The government wants to get things done at lightning speed and flout every law. Since we returned to the House in 2025, the same things have been said about every bill. With every bill, some minister wins the lottery and gets the right to suspend a bunch of laws. We should come up with some kind of tally system to figure out which minister won the right to get rid of the most laws this Parliament. It is pretty mind-boggling, and “mind-boggling” is an extremely polite word choice in the circumstances, because I could come up with few others. This bill is not about the national interest. It is about the personal preferences of the Prime Minister and his friends. That is what it is about. The government is going to pick out projects that were included in Bill C‑5, so-called projects of national interest, and it is going to say that those projects do not need laws. The government is claiming to have a monopoly on the truth and deciding that such and such a project is essential and important. Too bad for workers, too bad for the environment and too bad for everything else. Worse yet, the government is even going to create energy corridors. That is completely ridiculous. The federal government will decide that it can do whatever it wants on certain land. When the Liberals rise to ask us questions later, they will say that we separatists are always looking for trouble. Why do they think we are here? We are here to defend Quebeckers and fight back against terrible bills like these. Laws are not made to be suspended, abolished or circumvented. They are made to regulate community life and protect the common good. The purpose of an environmental assessment is to determine whether a project is safe and whether the resulting drawbacks will be offset by the benefits it brings. Are the drawbacks too significant? Sometimes, of course, when the analysis is conducted by independent scientists, we may not like the answer. That is for sure. However, that is what they are there for. We are not all scientists here. We cannot make decisions like these lightly. This reminds me of how, just before the summer break, the government gave the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food the power to authorize the use of pesticides and herbicides that the agencies responsible had previously declined to approve. What did the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food study in school? How do I find out? Is he qualified to make these decisions? I hope he gets some some good advice, because that is extremely frightening. I do not want to be told 10 years, eight years, five years or even six months down the road that this product really should not have been used, that scientists warned against its use but that the minister decided that it was no big deal and said that it could be used anyway. That is the Canada we are living in. It does not make any sense. That is just one of the many reasons why Quebeckers need to leave Canada. It is because of things like this. I am really looking forward to his response. I hope he will ask me questions because this is not a matter of national interest. What is more, these projects will be exempt from the laws because they are oil and gas projects, energy projects. The next pipeline will sail through the approval process. It will be done within a year at most. We know how these bills work. The government throws hundreds of pages at us and we have just a few hours to analyze them before speaking to them. My understanding of this bill—and this is the icing on the cake—is that the minister even has the power to approve a project before it has been assessed. Not only do they want to fast-track impact assessments and complete them within a year, but they can also turn around and allow construction to begin in the meantime. Imagine a scenario where a project is launched. It is really exciting. A brand-new pipeline is being built to transport oil. The environmental assessment begins while the project is performing well, but after six months, the conclusion is that there are simply too many impacts on this or that ecosystem and that the project either has to change tack or be redesigned. By then it will be too late. The trench will already be dug. This is backwards logic. I might seem less calm than usual. I swear I am trying to stay calm, but when I read things like this, I cannot believe they are actually doing this. Is this really flying under the radar? As for Mr. Trump, everyone says that the Prime Minister is going to save us. It is all well and good to use the tariff crisis as an excuse, but we know what is going on. I want to reassure all parliamentarians here today and everyone watching us at home that we are not against efficiency, effectiveness or economic development. We simply believe that precautions need to be taken. We think that the Prime Minister is currently giving himself powers that make no sense and granting powers to the executive branch that far exceed the mandates given by the people. This is especially true since, yes, the Liberals did win some by-elections this summer, but their majority was essentially created by floor crossers and backroom deals. I feel a need to remind my colleagues of that from time to time. Some folks will tell me to stop saying that, because everyone knows it. Yes, I will continue because that is more or less what real life is all about. I heard the Prime Minister say this week that he has a mandate to do what he is doing. I disagree. My NDP colleague asked earlier where it was written in the Liberal platform. He was right to ask. I would like the parliamentary secretary to respond to that, if he would like to chat with me. Where in their platform did it say that they were going to do this? We did not see that anywhere. I briefly mentioned workers’ rights at the start, but what this bill does is crazy. It basically says that workers have the right to strike, but that the strike must not last long or cause any disruptions, that they must not make too much noise—that is specified in the bill—and that the government has the right to decide when it gets to be too much. That means that workers have no rights. If workers go on strike, it is too bad, but that is what the reality of bargaining looks like. First of all, when a strike occurs, it is usually because the employer has acted in bad faith. In any case, typically, though I do not want to generalize, there is no agreement. The parties are at a standstill. Strikes are meant to hurt the employer a little. That is called bargaining power. If there is no power, there will be no gains. The bill says that people have the right to strike, but that they no longer have any power and that they can be stopped at any time. Actually, it gets worse, because the members of the government will not even take the blame for stopping strikers; the Canada Industrial Relations Board will do it for them while they sit with their feet up by the fire and tell themselves that it is not their fault. That is the kind of government we are dealing with. Obviously, members will have guessed that the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C‑39.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Respect 99 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “the personal preferences of the Prime Minister and his friends”.

  See full analysis →

“We support building things, but we must protect our modern social standards. This bill rolls those protections back. I want the member across from me to speak up about this in his party's meetings.”

“Madam Speaker, I respect my MP too. Whenever I am here for work, I stay in an apartment located in his riding. That makes him my MP. I receive his householders too. They have far too much writing for my taste, since they are in both languages, but that is his choice. I digress. He brought up the topic of railroads. No one wants to revert to using the labour involved in building that railroad or the conditions of the time. That is what we are discussing today. I was saying that we are not against progress or construction but, over the years, we have adopted standards. We have adopted social standards that must be respected. That is important. Personally, I think that the Liberal government is triggering a major rollback, but I am counting on the member who represents me when I am on the Hill to protect my interests and make my voice heard in this caucus. I know that he cannot do that here, but I ask him to do that in his caucus.”

“Cutting red tape is not the same as getting rid of legal and social protections. The government is removing these protections just to allow oil projects. Conservatives should be happy about this, because it is what they usually want.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my colleague and congratulating him on his remarkable efforts in French. It is heartwarming. I would really like to see more people doing that. It works both ways. He mentioned red tape. There is, however, a subtle difference between cutting red tape and scrapping laws and social protections. What the government is doing is scrapping laws and social protections. We generally agree that red tape is an issue when regulations overlap with other regulations again and again. I do not understand why the Conservatives are unhappy with what the Liberals are doing. I thought they would be happy: The Liberals are scrapping all the laws to allow for oil infrastructure projects. I thought they would be happy.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“We cannot support this bill as it is written because it will cause harm. I hope the committee changes it so it is better.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Waterloo. Several members in a row have been practising their French. I am delighted. We can work together. I was saying to the previous speaker that I know that the Liberals are constrained in what they can say in Parliament. However, I hope that these people, who are smart, who are listening and who seem to understand the arguments we are putting forward, will convey to their caucus that we believe the bill should be amended. I hope that the committee study will give us sufficient latitude to amend certain provisions. The bill is so significant and harmful that I struggle to envision us supporting it. I am normally very accommodating, but this bill goes pretty far.”