“We worked with the Conservatives before to put time limits on the government's emergency powers. Now the government is trying to remove those limits. I want the Conservatives to help us stop them again.”

“Mr. Speaker, as part of Bill C-5, the building Canada act, the Bloc Québécois was able to secure the co-operation and support of the Conservatives for an amendment that I myself introduced, which sought to include a sunset clause in Bill C-5. The goal was to at least provide a framework for and limit the extraordinary and exceptional powers that the bill was creating in response to the exceptional circumstances arising from the American threat across the border. The Conservatives agreed with us that these were indeed exceptional powers. Even constitutional experts agreed with us. Some said that Bill C-5 was similar or almost similar to the Emergency Measures Act. In Bill C-39, the Liberals are trying to undo all the measures that we put in place in Bill C-5 with the Conservatives’ co-operation, including the five-year sunset clause. I am wondering if we can count on the Conservatives’ support once again to prevent this abuse of power.”

“The government is taking environmental reviews away from scientists and giving them to the Canada Energy Regulator. Many of the regulator's leaders used to work for big oil companies. Oil industry insiders should not be in charge of these assessments.”

“Mr. Speaker, my question concerns environmental assessments. The government is removing the task of assessing energy projects from scientists and handing it over to the Canada Energy Regulator. Let us look at who the commissioners are: The lead commissioner is the former senior legal counsel for TC Energy; the deputy lead commissioner is a former legal adviser with Royal Dutch Shell; another is a former legal adviser with the Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada Limited; another was formerly with Imperial Oil and Canadian Oil Sands Limited; and another comes from the Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada Limited. Why should oil company lobbyists be entrusted with assessments previously conducted by scientists?”

“I do not agree with this bill because it removes environmental protections and Indigenous rights. It gives pipeline reviews to an energy regulator instead of an environmental agency. I want the Conservative member to explain why he thinks this does not go fast enough.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised that my colleague seems unhappy and is saying that things are not moving fast enough. The changes being made with Bill C-39 are quite extraordinary. The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada is being stripped of its mandate to protect the environment, uphold the rights of indigenous peoples and emphasize collaboration, and the role of assessing pipeline projects is being transferred to the Canada Energy Regulator. The CER’s mandate is to keep energy moving safely and efficiently through pipelines. What does my Conservative colleague not like about that? It appears rather contradictory to me. We, on this side, do not agree with that, because we believe that it removes all environmental protections. I would like to hear his thoughts on that.”

“The government used Donald Trump as an excuse to pass laws that bypass environmental rules and fast-track big projects. We agreed to those rules only because they would end in five years. Now the government wants to make them permanent. I do not think that is right, and I want to know why the member supports it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. The fact is that the federal government has been using Donald Trump to justify imposing its legislative agenda, particularly Bill C‑5, which fast-tracks major projects and sidesteps environmental laws and other laws that they do not like and that get in the way. During the study in committee, we agreed that it looked like a national emergency, as the Liberals were saying, but that President Trump would no longer be here in five years. We therefore included a sunset clause in Bill C‑5 so that we can return to the normal process in five years, but the Liberals want to get rid of that in Bill C‑39. Why is it that, essentially, the justification is becoming permanent? This is not normal. Do they want the rollbacks to be permanent when it comes to the environment, labour laws and decisions made behind closed doors between a future minister and project proponents? I do not think that is right. Why does the member agree with that?”