“This bill gives the government more power to approve projects without consulting people. It harms Indigenous rights and environmental protections. Does this bill risk an authoritarian abuse of power?”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and for her staunch defence of indigenous rights. She has done so eloquently once again. As an aside, I would like to thank Idriss, the good Samaritan who came to my rescue when I got a flat tire in La Vérendrye Park. Without his help, I would not be here today. I would also like to thank the Carquest garage in Gracefield that fixed my tire. It is thanks to their help that I am able to be here today. That said, I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on the potential for authoritarian abuse of power with Bill C-39. This expression was thrown around rather freely during the election campaign, as I am sure the member will agree. At times, during the election campaign, close ties to certain individuals, their spouses or their relatives led organizations like Amnistie internationale Canada francophone to raise concerns about it based on their assumptions. However, in this case, we have an actual example. After Bill C-5, Bill C-15 and now Bill C-39, the government wants to give itself powers with no consultations required. This affects first nations, environmental laws and social licence in particular. Is there a risk of authoritarian abuse of power here?”

“Government members are supporting this 250-page bill without reading it. I think this bill weakens our democracy, and I want to know if my colleague agrees.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if parliamentarians from the governing party here are aware of this omnibus bill. Earlier, during question period, I got the impression that they were saying yes because it will save us from Donald Trump. In fact, they are not even listening to me. Perhaps it is because I am speaking in French. I get the feeling they are under a spell. As we take a closer look at the bill and focus on strengthening democracy and the rule of law, in all seriousness, I would take a moment and go read all 250 pages. No one can tell me otherwise. I want to know whether my colleague agrees that Bill C‑39 weakens democracy.”

“This bill takes away workers' rights and gives employers too much power. It also shows that the government is hiding things from the public. I want the member to say if she will vote against this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Milton East—Halton Hills South for her comments. She mentioned her concern about workers in particular. Bill C-39 creates a situation that is really a form of abuse that will take away workers’ rights. It will skew negotiations in the employer’s favour. In my view, this poses a huge risk because it could cause workers to lose the gains they have achieved over the past few decades. I will draw a parallel. Right now, the member should be at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, where a debate is taking place on the Cúram software. Mr. Ostrander is there testifying about problems caused by a computer program. Here is the connection I am making. In both cases, there has been a lack of transparency, and the government has not fulfilled its obligation to be accountable to the public. Is the member concerned about this lack of transparency? Is she really going to vote in favour of this bill?”

“This bill lets the government approve projects before studying their risks. If an assessment later shows a project is bad for public health, it will already have started. I want to know what the member thinks about this.”

“Mr. Speaker, under Bill C-39, the government can approve projects before they are even assessed. If the assessment shows that the project poses a risk to public health or that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits, it will be too late. The project will already have started. What does my colleague think about that?”

“The Prime Minister is bypassing our democratic system. He is spending taxpayer money as if it were his own. I want to know what cabinet members think about him changing the rules like this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would really like to get inside the heads of everyone in the Prime Minister’s Office to find out what they think about a system where we can unravel everything, choose whatever we want, and then, ultimately, make decisions as if it were our own money. I am an entrepreneur and a lawmaker. When I make decisions involving taxpayer money, there is a democratic process. When it comes to my private interests, though, I can do whatever I want with my money. I would like my colleague to tell me what on earth the cabinet members think of the Prime Minister overhauling and dismantling everything.”

“I oppose this bill. There is no real emergency to rush it through. It lets the government ignore local communities, the environment, Indigenous rights, and workers whenever it labels a project as a national interest.”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by the member for Edmonton Centre, and I have serious doubts about the notion of people power, particularly when looking at her title. She is the Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada, fair enough, but she is also the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience. We can all agree there is no real emergency here though, because Donald Trump’s presidency is likely to have been long over before a single drop flows from the new pipeline. As for the “community resilience” part, that really fascinates me. It is like an honoris causa for someone honourable. I do not understand the point of it, especially if the aim of the bill is to steamroll these communities, whether in terms of environmental rights, indigenous peoples’ rights, workers’ rights or the people’s right to be consulted. If a region is declared to be of national interest, the authorities can steamroll anything they want. What, then, is the point of a Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience?”

“This bill permanently lets the government bypass environmental laws and regulations. We are in a climate emergency. Does my colleague agree that this bill will cause more climate disasters and cost the public more money?”

“Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑5 allowed the government to circumvent at least 12 laws and seven environmental regulations. It had discretionary power to do so, which was limited to five years. Bill C‑39 removes that limit and makes permanent the ability to circumvent environmental laws. Does my colleague not agree that, at this stage, given that we are experiencing a climate emergency, this would lead to even more climate disasters, which would bring with it an enormous cost for public services?”

“I want to know if the member sees any value in studying a project's impact on the environment, or if he thinks it only delays projects.”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague’s remarks. I wonder, does he see any value in environmental assessments or does he think it is just a way of delaying projects?”

“This bill rushes environmental reviews, especially for oil projects. It gives the work to agencies that lack the right expertise instead of giving the main agency more resources. This will lead to sloppy reviews, more pollution, and environmental disasters.”

“Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-39, the Liberal government wants to shorten the time frames for environmental assessments, particularly for oil projects. To achieve that, we either have to provide these agencies with more resources so they can conduct their assessments more quickly, or change their mandate. Rather than working with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, this task is being entrusted to other agencies that lack the same expertise and have different objectives. Ultimately, will we not end up with sloppy assessments? Will we not be contributing to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions? Who will pay for the environmental disasters we are going to face?”

“Most members here do not care about the environment or climate change. They only care about winning the next election or their local economy. We need to protect the environment for our children's future.”

“Mr. Speaker, when I listen to some of my colleagues, I get the impression that there are only a few members of Parliament, including those from the Bloc Québécois, who are concerned about the environment and who want to keep the safeguards. Right now, it seems like no one is listening to anyone else. Obviously, that is because we are talking about the environment. No one cares, since they do not believe in climate change. We are definitely not looking at the same science. My colleagues should be ashamed because when we go back home, our children and grandchildren ask us what tomorrow holds for them. My colleagues think only about the next election or their region’s economy. For heaven’s sake, let us think about the future.”

“I want the Conservatives to explain why they are angry about this bill. It bypasses environmental reviews to build pipelines, which is what they have always wanted.”

“Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I do not understand. I do not understand why the Conservatives seem so angry. We can hear it. It is palpable. They are angry. Why are they angry? They seem angry that the government wants to bypass environmental assessments in order to build pipelines. However, I always thought that was the main objective of their political agenda. I would like to hear an explanation.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 32 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 do not want this bill to pass. It gives the government too much power to ignore laws, hurt the environment, weaken workers' right to strike, and sell off airports. It lets ministers make big decisions in secret with no oversight from Parliament.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to start by making a brief comment on the speech given by the member who spoke before me, as I tried to listen to it. I sometimes like to practise my English, so I listen to speeches in the original language. I must say that I really sympathize with the interpreters, because I had a lot of trouble understanding everything that was said. However, I did understand a few things, because I tried to keep track of the number of times the word “pipeline” came up in the speech. I ended up losing count because it came up so often. At least I understood that my colleague was talking about a pipeline. Since we are talking about Bill C‑39, I gather that she wants more pipelines. It is not a good time to be a Conservative right now, because the Liberals are building more pipelines than the Conservatives ever built, more than they ever would have dreamed of and more than they ever wanted. Unfortunately, this is not a good time for the planet either. That is what I want to talk about in my speech on Bill C‑39. The government decided to call this bill the “building Canada act”. That is what it says at the bottom of the screen for anyone watching this debate on Bill C-39 in the House. That kind of title always surprises me. Anyone who reads the bill will soon realize that it is not a law designed to build Canada. Rather, it is a law designed to give the government even more arbitrary powers to override existing laws, to gut environmental protections, to trample on workers’ rights and to sell off our airports to the highest bidders. That sums up the bill. It is sad to see the government, which already had an authoritarian flavour when it was a minority, go even further now that it has a majority. Earlier, one of my Conservative colleagues mentioned something that we have already reported a number of times in the House. I think it bears repeating, because the Liberals apparently fail to grasp the magnitude of what they are doing. We already passed Bill C-5, one of the worst bills I have ever had the misfortune of studying and debating in the House. Unfortunately, they are now proposing Bill C-39. Apparently, they had it in them to come up with something even worse. Bill C‑5 contained limitations imposed by the opposition because, in committee, we heard from a number of witnesses who essentially told us that Bill C‑5 was similar to the Emergencies Act. The government could claim there was an emergency, like the tariff emergency or the economic threat emergency, as an excuse to gain extraordinary powers that would let it override some laws and tailor others to suit specific projects that it decided were in the national interest. At least we managed to impose some limits, such as the creation of a special committee to oversee the enforcement of Bill C-5. We also managed to include a sunset clause in the bill so that the measures would expire after five years, because an emergency is not a permanent state. It is temporary. What is more, those powers could not be used when the House was not in session, when Parliament was prorogued. That is basically all just common sense. In short, when the government is granted extraordinary powers, it must be held to account for how they were used. Unfortunately, it seems that was not enough power for the government. The Liberals seem truly power-hungry right now. They have decided to get rid of the provision that ensured Bill C-5 would no longer be in effect after five years. That is mind-boggling. In five years’ time, Donald Trump will not be U.S. President anymore. The emergency is now. If it is still an emergency in five years, then it is not really an emergency at all. It is a situation that has become permanent. An emergency cannot be permanent. Clearly, the government wanted to use the emergency as an excuse to secure concessions and permanently weaken the rule of law. I have a real problem with that. Bill C-39 clearly reveals the Liberal government’s true intentions. The Liberals must be held accountable. Worse still, there are all sorts of other provisions in Bill C‑39 that weaken protections, particularly when it comes to workers’ rights. I was the Bloc Québécois transportation critic, and I saw all kinds of lobbying for years. Every year, it was the same old tune. Representatives of ports, airports and all types of federally regulated businesses would come to my office and tell me that we really needed to find a way to prevent workers from striking. They would tell me that the government should declare that the national interest is too important for workers in pretty much every federally regulated sector to be able to exercise their rights. Of course, we know that the only leverage that workers have against their employers, aside from quitting, is to go on strike, to have everyone stand up and refuse to work in inappropriate conditions. Unfortunately, workers who are unhappy with their conditions are now left with only one option: to quit and leave other workers in the same situation. The option of striking at least enables these people to demonstrate their solidarity collectively and build up their bargaining power. Individual workers have very little power. Sometimes they are not motivated to retrain in another field. There is a certain hypocrisy here, in saying that the government is going to give people time, appoint an arbitrator, allow time for negotiations and then refer the matter to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. As we all know, the reality is that the government does not want to bear the burden anymore. It does not want to have to justify its actions before Parliament anymore. Up until now, special legislation was required. The government wants to do away with that. It wants to decide everything by decree, behind closed doors, as was the case with Bill C-5. We can see how similar these two measures are in spirit. It is also clear why these two measures are both included in Bill C-39. In a way, these measures are both meant to undermine transparency. The government wants to make decisions behind closed doors, without consulting anyone and without being held accountable. This is very problematic for democracy. It seems to me that the Liberals do not realize what they are doing. In its speeches and promises, the Liberal Party generally claims to stand for virtue, good faith and ideals. As I listen to my Liberal colleagues speak, I hear only naive optimism. They have nothing negative to say about what they are doing. However, when we actually read the bills, they are frightening. I do not know if the Liberals realize what they are doing or if they are just blindly taking their leader at his word because they are completely mesmerized, have no idea what they are voting on on a daily basis and simply accept the message. I do not know if they are actually capable of thinking critically, if they read the bills and if they ask themselves questions. I wonder if, in caucus, they actually ask the ministers and the Prime Minister questions. Personally, I am troubled b y the parliamentary dynamic that is taking shape. We saw debate cut short in the case of Bill C‑5. I hope we will not see that again with Bill C‑39. It seems that the government is interested not in democracy, but in power. The Liberals are going to realize that at some point. I cannot believe that they will not listen to their constituents who will be experiencing difficult situations or when there will be protests in their ridings in the future against projects that will have been unilaterally imposed before an environmental assessment has even been completed. It is madness, but that is where we are headed. What a sad prospect. I have a lot more to say, but my time is up.”