“This bill cannot be fixed, and the government should scrap it completely. We can speed up building projects while still protecting the environment, consulting local people, and keeping children healthy. This bill does the opposite.”

“Madam Speaker, Bill C-39 is such a disaster from start to finish that I really cannot see how it could be improved to make it acceptable. To be perfectly honest, it should be scrapped entirely. The government should go back to the drawing board and reaffirm that, in Canada, we respect statutes and regulations. Yes, we will speed up projects, but that will include consulting local communities, protecting the environment and, above all, safeguarding our children’s health as well. That is not what the Liberals are doing. They are doing exactly the opposite. In my view, this bill should simply be sent to the shredder.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I oppose this bill. It is meant to help oil projects avoid the rules, not build clean energy. Quebec already built hydro dams and wind farms without laws like this.”

“Madam Speaker, let us be honest, we have a Prime Minister who loves oil, who always wants more oil, and who wants to produce more oil. I wonder if he takes his cereal with oil for breakfast. That is what Bill C-39 is for: to facilitate projects like these and circumvent the law. We heard the member for Madawaska—Restigouche tell us we are mistaken and that the goal is to generate clean electricity. He says that is what it is for. I would like my colleague to explain how we in Quebec managed to build the La Grande-1 projects, namely the James Bay and La Romaine hydroelectric complexes and the wind farms. How did we build Quebec’s economy around renewable energy without legislation such as Bills C-5, C-15 and C-39? Did members know that when we heat our homes in Quebec, we use renewable energy? How come we have been able to do this, but our oil-loving Prime Minister has not?”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Respect 93 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “our oil-loving Prime Minister”.

  See full analysis →

“We can build big projects the right way. Quebec works with First Nations and communities to build wind energy and protect the environment. That is the future, not letting oil and gas companies ignore the rules.”

“Madam Speaker, doing things right is possible. Quebec is one example. It may not be perfect, but it is getting better. Major wind energy projects are being developed in collaboration with first nations and communities in a way that respects the environment. That is the future, not oil and gas unfettered by the law, the way the government is proposing.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Federal and provincial rules overlap and delay new mines for years. A government minister said Quebec's environmental laws should take priority over federal laws. Does the member agree with that, or is the government ignoring provincial laws and Indigenous rights?”

“Madam Speaker, this summer, the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement said that Quebec’s legislation should take precedence over federal legislation where duplication exists. In projects of national interest, such as mines, especially in my region, this can prevent any duplication. The federal government asks for a thing, the proponent adjusts and, in the end, Quebec asks for something else that is consistent with environmental concepts but that is not the same. That is why it takes 15, 10 or seven years to build a mine, and that is a little too long. With that in mind, does my colleague agree with her colleague that Quebec’s laws should take precedence and be the only environmental law applicable? Alternatively, is the government essentially implementing what Bill C-39 contains, without the least consideration for provincial laws, environmental acceptability or the rights of first nations to be heard and to have their ancestral rights respected? What is happening now? Can the government respect the will of local communities?”

“This bill lets the government approve projects before doing an environmental review. I want to know what my colleague and her party think about that.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her contribution to this debate. I want to ask a question about something that is planned or proposed in Bill C‑39 that is, in my opinion, absolutely mind-boggling, and that is the government’s ability to pre-approve development projects. In other words, it could allow a development project to go ahead without even doing an environmental assessment. The assessment would come afterward and then we would see what happens. What do my colleague and her party think of that part of Bill C‑39?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 15 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 will let the government set up councils that do not truly speak for First Nations. This will bypass real Indigenous consultation to push projects through, like the nuclear waste site at Chalk River.”

“Madam Speaker, I was listening to my colleague’s speech, but at one point I lost focus. I wonder whether he really believes what he is saying, particularly when he mentioned that the government is going to set up an indigenous council to tell us whether the first nations deem projects to be socially acceptable. That was not the spirit of the archaic Indian Act. We do not like the name, but it did grant the right to consult with first nations. What happened with the nuclear waste storage project at Chalk River? That is an example of a recent project that has been put on hold after being challenged in the Supreme Court by first nations, including the Kebaowek First Nation in my region. They argued that they were not consulted and that the project threatened species at risk. What happened to that project? When it was built, first nations had to be consulted. The Algonquins of Ontario were consulted, but that association is not even recognized by first nations themselves. The Algonquins or Anishinabe do not recognize this association. It is associated with “pretendians”, people who identify as indigenous because they are of mixed heritage. There are no formally recognized Métis. Furthermore, Bill C-53 was dropped by the House. Is that the sort of indigenous organization that will be given the power to override first nations’ right to be consulted? This sets a dangerous precedent, and if it means that projects like the one at Chalk River get approved, I am out.”

“This bill lets projects ignore several laws in special regions, but it does not define what those regions are or list them. I want to know if the member agrees with this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his contribution to this debate. I want to hear his thoughts on a subject that really troubles me. I am talking about this step forward in Bill C‑39, or rather this major step backward, to identify regions of national interest in which several laws will not apply when the projects move forward. What is a region of national interest? That fundamental principle is not defined in Bill C‑39. There is a schedule that should list the regions, but no regions are mentioned. Does my colleague agree with that approach?”

“I oppose this bill. It ignores environmental laws and leaves out local communities. The government gives money to nearby Liberal ridings while ignoring important projects and job losses in mine.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my riding neighbour for her eloquent speech. I would like to point out that a growing number of people in our region are saying that the Liberal government is not there for them and that a bill like Bill C-39 is not going to make them feel more included. I want to give an example. In my neighbour’s riding, in Kapuskasing, the department of innovation and industry awarded funding to the paper industry, the forestry industry. My riding got no funding, so 425 jobs were lost at RYAM last weekend. That is bad. The minister, like her colleague at natural resources, is aware of the situation, and yet the government refuses to take action. There is a project of national interest in a region close to both of us. It is the Crawford nickel project proposed by Canada Nickel Company in Timmins. The federal government has recognized it. Funding has been provided for it. However, a project by Dumont Nickel in northern Abitibi, in my riding, is still waiting for recognition from the federal government. Another example is a cobalt processing plant in the Cobalt area. The municipality is clearly appropriately named. The Horne smelter in Rouyn-Noranda is still awaiting investment to the tune of $149 million. That is peanuts for the federal government, which, as we all know, is running a massive deficit. This money is needed to invest in gas capture and modernizing the plant. It would be a game-changer for air quality issues in Rouyn-Noranda. Where is the federal government, and why does it want to pass laws that will stifle community engagement and override environmental legislation?”

“The government claims this bill does not lower environmental standards, but it does. It removes rules about fishing and dumping waste at sea in certain areas. About 20 laws and rules will no longer apply in regions that the cabinet will pick later. I want the member to explain how the government can say standards are being kept.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his contribution. I get the impression that they are trying to sell us apple pie, but that is not what is on offer in Bill C-39. The government tells us that the bill does not lower standards, but that is not what Bill C-39 says. Bill C-39 says a lot of things, but among other things, it states that regions of national interest are now being established and that, within these regions of national interest, projects will no longer need to get approvals in order to comply with the Fisheries Act or with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act provisions governing the disposal of waste at sea. Several protections are being set aside. I need to hear my colleague’s opinion because I do not understand how the government can tell us that it is maintaining environmental standards when some 20 regulations and laws will no longer apply in regions that have not yet been defined and that will be defined by cabinet following the bill’s predictable and unfortunate passage.”

“This bill says the minister can only put conditions on a project if they are feasible. The minister already has the power to set conditions. I want to know if my colleague agrees this new rule just helps project developers.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his contribution to the debate. I am interested to hear his thoughts on something that comes up a lot in Bill C-39. I am referring to the message being sent to the minister. The minister is told that he will have the authority to impose conditions determining whether a project moves forward, yet he already has that authority. The new spin with Bill C‑39 is that the minister has to consider the feasibility of any conditions he adds on. That comes up in several places. I saw that as a message for the minister that he is expected to facilitate things for the proponents. How does my colleague see that?”

“This bill weakens protections for endangered animals and their habitats. Are you not worried this will put these species at even greater risk?”

“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39, and particularly division 6 on the Species at Risk Act, adds the concept of the feasibility of the terms and conditions in respect of permits for activities that affect habitat and species. The government is weakening the conditions imposed when an activity is authorized by the government, despite the fact that it will have a negative impact on a listed species and its habitat. Is the member not concerned that endangered species could end up further threatened?”

“The government did not properly consult First Nations about the Chalk River nuclear project. The Supreme Court agreed with them. The member who spoke before me wrongly claimed that First Nations leaders can just be bought off, and the project consulted a group that is not even recognized as First Nations. We must respect real First Nations consent.”

“Mr. Speaker, I could not disagree more with what my colleague just said. Her riding also borders a small part of my riding, because the community of Kebaowek, which she mentions, is part of my riding, and its ancestral territory borders my colleague’s riding. Obviously, indigenous peoples do not share the same understanding of the borders of Quebec and Ontario, and this is particularly true among the Anishinabe, so when my colleague speaks of consultations involving first nations, no, those consultations did not take place, and that is why the Supreme Court ruled in their favour. What my colleague wants, of course, is to strip first nations of their power to enforce their own conditions. She made a rather fascinating claim that money could buy off the chief of the Kebaowek community. The community supposedly did not have enough money, but if it were given more money, well, obviously, it would sign. On what basis is my colleague so viscerally attacking the very integrity of people who are standing up to protect the planet? As for the consent of first nations, what happened with the Chalk River project was that Canadian Nuclear Laboratories approached the Algonquins of Ontario, who are “pretendians”, people who claim to be indigenous or Métis, who are not recognized by the House and who nevertheless speak on behalf of first nations and Anishinabe people. That is a fundamental mistake that I cannot support and will never support.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Respect 87 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “What my colleague wants, of course, is to strip first nations of their power”.

  See full analysis →

“Does the member really think it is safe to put nuclear waste near the Ottawa River? Runoff could put millions of people in Ottawa, Gatineau, and Montreal at risk. Ontario should keep its own nuclear waste risks inside its borders instead of threatening Quebec.”

“Mr. Speaker, does my colleague seriously believe that it would be a good idea to set up a nuclear waste dump on a mountain top, knowing that the runoff would fall into the Ottawa River, 200 kilometres from here? The consequences could impact a population centre of 1.6 million here in the Gatineau-Ottawa region. The impact could then extend another 200 kilometres downstream to the Montreal area, affecting 80% or more of Quebec’s population. Spent nuclear waste has to be stored somewhere. There may be suitable locations in the Canadian Shield. If Ontario wants to assume those risks, it can manage them within its own borders, but they should not be imposed on Quebec.”