“I want the Conservatives to explain their position. They voted for a past bill to speed up big projects, which let projects bypass environmental rules for five years. This new bill lets projects bypass those rules forever, but the Conservatives say it still does not go far enough.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to understand the Conservative Party’s position on Bill C‑39 and compare that with its position on Bill C‑5. Let us keep in mind that Bill C‑5 was passed under a gag order with the Conservative Party’s support and that its purpose was to fast-track the development of major projects of national interest. Today, we are considering a bill that makes it possible to circumvent certain environmental laws, not for five years, as set out in Bill C‑5, but indefinitely. I would like my colleague to explain to me why he supported Bill C‑5, but today, he seems to think that Bill C‑39 still does not go far enough when it comes to projects of national interest.”

“This bill lets projects start without environmental reviews, and it lets a minister ignore current laws. I want the member to explain how that protects the environment.”

“Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague say in her speech that Bill C‑39 would uphold high environmental standards. Under the bill, it is possible to start a project without even conducting environmental assessments. Where are the high environmental standards? A minister can decide to circumvent all laws currently on the books. Where are the high environmental standards? Can my colleague briefly explain that?”

“The member did not answer my question. The government decides on its own which projects count as national interest and rushes their environmental reviews in less than a year. How can rushed one-year reviews protect the environment?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that my colleague has not answered my question. She spoke of high environmental standards. Project assessments must take less than a year. Regardless of the project of national interest in question, the government alone determines what constitutes national interest. Those are not high environmental standards. The simple question I am asking my colleague is this: Can she explain how conducting botched environmental assessments within a single year, regardless of the project, is consistent with the “high environmental standards” she talked about in her speech?”

“Rushing environmental reviews does not make projects better. This bill forces reviews to finish in one year, even if a project needs more time. I want the member to explain to people in Quebec why she supports this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Trois‑Rivières. She said a lot of things in her speech, but we will try to keep it simple. How does fast-tracking projects make them better projects? She says that there is no environmental risk and that there will be assessments. Imagine that it takes a year and a half to assess a project, but the bill says that is too long and it must be done within a year. I would like my colleague to simply explain to the people of Trois‑Rivières and Quebec how it is that any project that needs more than a year is not a good project. Under the bill, all projects must be approved within a year, at most, based on the minister’s decision, obviously, whether or not he takes into account the assessments that have been done.”

“This bill does not protect workers' rights or the right to strike. Unions contact me every day because they are worried about it. The government needs to consult unions, and I want to hear my colleague talk more about that.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for reminding us of the importance of consulting the union movement. I am pleased to hear him talk about the right to strike and workers’ rights. We in the Bloc Québécois were the first to raise the red flag. My colleague is right. Just yesterday, I met with people from the steelworkers union. Every day we receive comments, emails and requests for meetings from union groups that are extremely concerned about this bill. Contrary to the government’s claims that it continues to stand up for workers’ rights, every day I receive emails and calls from unions that dispute the government’s claims. Yes, it is absolutely essential to consult unions, and no, this bill does not respect the right to strike and workers’ rights. I would like to hear my colleague speak more on the importance of consulting these folks who work every day.”

“This bill speeds up pipeline construction to help American interests, not Canada. Most of our oil exports go to the United States, and most big oil companies are American-owned. We should not weaken our environmental laws to help them during a trade war. I want the member to say if she knows this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague. Her notes were very well prepared, but I wonder if she is aware that division 3 of this bill will dramatically accelerate pipeline construction. I would like to know if she is aware that 91% of our oil exports go directly to the United States. We are told it is in the public interest to build pipelines, but that only serves the interests of Americans and their energy security. We know that 60% of major oil companies are American-owned, so I find it quite surprising that we are scrapping our environmental laws to serve American interests in the context of a trade war. I wonder if my colleague is aware of that.”

“I do not want this bill to pass. It lets the government stop workers from going on strike. That goes against international rules and would make Canada look bad.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague seems obsessed with the goal of completing major projects in one year and with the idea of diversifying our international markets. However, does he realize that, even internationally, there are clear rulings on the right to strike and on what a strike is? Does he realize that if the bill were to pass, Canada would become the only G7 country where the executive branch could decide to prevent workers from exercising their legally recognized right to strike? That does not present Canada in a very favourable light on the international stage.”

“This bill lets one minister bypass laws and cuts project review times from three years to one year. I want to know if my colleague thinks rushing these reviews really makes projects better. Projects should have to prove they are good for the public.”

“Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for his speech in which he talked about the importance of predictability, stability and transparency. I want to focus on the word “transparency”. With Bill C-5, the government introduced the concept of creating projects of national interest and giving a single minister the power to circumvent legislation. In this bill, the government takes things even further. Assessments used to take up to a maximum of three years, but now the government is reducing that to one year. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on that. Will shortening a project’s assessment period improve the project? Is it not just the opposite? If we are being transparent, should projects not have to demonstrate why they are in the public interest?”

“I am worried about this bill. It lets projects get approved before we check if they are actually safe and sound.”

“Madam Speaker, there is something rather troubling about Bill C‑39. It would allow projects to receive approval in principle, meaning a project could be authorized before any assessment has been conducted to determine whether it is actually a sound project. I would ask my colleague whether he would agree to buy a car before even taking it for a test drive.”

“This bill privatizes our ports, and the government also wants to privatize airports. Selling them off hurts the public interest. The government is using a temporary crisis to make permanent, harmful changes. I want the previous speaker to say more about this.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to say hello to the people of Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques, whom I represent with pride and dignity. There were some things I found interesting in my colleague’s speech, particularly when it came to the privatization of ports and so on. Bill C‑39 seeks to do just that. The government even announced that it wants to privatize airports. That is certainly not in our national interest. I would like my colleague to speak a bit more to the fact that the government is taking advantage of a crisis that should be temporary to implement measures that will be permanent and that will have harmful effects, particularly for the public interest.”

“This bill speeds up building pipelines by weakening our environmental laws. Almost all of our oil exports go to the United States. We should not weaken our environmental protections just to send more oil to the Americans and help their companies.”

“Madam Speaker, earlier, we were talking about infrastructure to promote international trade. I pointed out to my colleague from Halifax that division 3 accelerates pipeline construction. If we take a closer look at where our oil exports go, we see that most of them go to the United States. In fact, 91% of our oil exports go to the United States. The government is scrapping environmental laws so it can send more oil to the United States to shore up that country’s energy security despite the ongoing trade conflict. That makes no sense to me, especially since oil companies are largely owned by American interests. Does my colleague agree that it makes absolutely no sense to scrap environmental legislation in order to supply more oil to the Americans, who are the main beneficiaries?”

“The government says it wants to make Canada strong, but this bill weakens oversight. It cuts the time for project reviews from three years to one year. I want the member to explain how rushing reviews makes anything stronger.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to talk about the slogan “build Canada strong,” which the government repeats ad nauseam. Do they think they can build Canada strong by undermining accountability and weakening assessments? There is a fixed deadline for all projects, regardless of their scope. Within one year, the project developer must submit all assessments. Previously, the deadline was a maximum of three years. Now, they are cutting corners. I would like my colleague to explain this to me. Is this how they strengthen things, build something more solid, when, in reality, they just want to speed things up?”

“I want the member to answer the concerns of Indigenous communities about this bill. It could affect 100 Indigenous communities, and 14 are already fighting it in court. They say it could violate their rights.”

“Madam Speaker, maybe it is because it is getting late, but I feel as though the government members are trying to hypnotize us into believing that everything is fine, but that is not true. What does my colleague have to say to the Assembly of First Nations, which is concerned that the approval of major projects could have an impact on indigenous communities? What does she have to say about the fact that 100 indigenous communities could be affected by Bill C-39? What does she have to say about the fact that 14 indigenous communities are currently challenging this bill in court? It is not just the Bloc Québécois that is saying this. Indigenous communities themselves are speaking out against this bill and saying that if Bill C-39 becomes law, it could seriously infringe on indigenous rights.”

“This bill ruins our environmental laws. A former Liberal environment minister even said it weakens protections more than Stephen Harper ever did. I want to know if my Conservative colleague agrees with him.”

“Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. I would like to make some historical references this evening, because what we are living through is a historic moment. Bill C-39 is not anodyne. It is a bill that takes a bulldozer to environmental laws. Just a few days ago, the former minister of environment and climate change, for those in this Parliament who still believe in climate change, said that Bill C‑39 goes further than what Stephen Harper was prepared to do in his day to defy environmental laws. I would like my Conservative colleague to tell me whether he agrees with the former environment minister, former Liberal MP Steven Guilbeault, that the Liberals are currently going even further than Stephen Harper was prepared to go back when he was in power.”

“Almost all of our oil exports go to the United States. Fast-tracking the Pacific link pipeline will not help us sell oil to other countries. I want the minister to tell us why Canadian and Quebec taxpayers should pay for infrastructure that mostly helps Americans.”

“Madam Speaker, I hope to have better luck with the minister than I did with his two colleagues, the member for Halifax and the member for Guelph. I asked them earlier how fast-tracking the Pacific link pipeline was going to help us sell more oil to other countries. His colleague from Guelph told me that there would potentially be customers in Europe and Asia, which is completely false. I would like to remind the minister that 91% of our oil exports go to the United States. We are in the midst of a trade crisis. The government wants to use public money to build infrastructure that will benefit the Americans. I would like to know, once and for all, and especially from him, whether he thinks it makes sense to make Canadian and Quebec taxpayers foot the bill for infrastructure that will mainly benefit Americans.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “We are in the midst of a housing crisis.”

  Said 3 times by 2 members since May 25.

  Every time it was said →

“We added a rule to a past bill that forced Parliament to review it after five years. The government is taking that rule away in this bill. Civil liberties groups criticized that choice. What does my colleague think about the government removing this five-year review?”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke at length about the current government’s lack of transparency and less democratic approach. Thanks to work done by my colleague, the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, we included a five-year sunset clause in Bill C-5 to review the act. Strangely, the Liberals reversed that clause in Bill C‑39. This move even drew criticism from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. What does my colleague think about the fact that Bill C‑39 removes this five-year sunset clause?”

“The member across the way is not telling the truth. This bill does not respect Indigenous rights. A planned western pipeline threatens more than 100 communities, and 14 communities are already fighting this bill in court.”

“Mr. Speaker, I feel like we are playing a game of spot-the-lie tonight. How can my colleague say that this bill respects indigenous rights when over 100 communities are being threatened by the prospect of a western pipeline and when 14 communities are challenging Bill C‑39 in court? How can he say things like that and not see that his nose is growing longer?”

“This bill wipes out many laws passed by elected governments, just like an earlier bill did. What message does that send about democracy?”

“Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague. I thank her for her interesting speech. She drew a connection to Bill C-5, which, I repeat, was a massive bill that repealed other democratically enacted laws. Bill C-39 is also a bill that repeals a whole host of laws. What message does that send about democracy?”

“This bill lets the minister remove environmental rules for certain projects. The government claims it is not bypassing environmental laws. I want the member to explain why the bill allows the minister to drop these rules.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about disinformation. I would like to clarify the facts regarding Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. In division 1, which amends the Impact Assessment Act, clause 53 states: “The Minister may amend a decision statement issued by the Minister under section 65, including to add or remove a condition, to amend any condition or to modify the designated project’s description”. What this means is that if the minister designates a project as being of national interest, he can remove any conditions he wants under the Impact Assessment Act, including conditions related to the environment. My colleague says that the government is not trying to circumvent existing environmental laws. If that is the case, then why is the government creating a loophole that allows conditions under the Impact Assessment Act to be removed? I would like my colleague to explain that to us first, and then we can talk about disinformation.”

“I agree with the previous speaker and oppose this bill. It makes permanent changes that weaken environmental laws. The Prime Minister used to work for the United Nations protecting the environment. Now he is giving himself the power to bypass those protections. I want to know what my colleague thinks about this change.”

“Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands’ indignation. She provided an excellent summary of the bulldozer that is Bill C‑39. As she explained, Bill C‑5 allowed certain laws to be set aside for a period of five years. Bill C‑39 would make that change permanent. However, the Prime Minister is not just anyone: He is the former United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance. What is he doing through Bill C‑39? He is permanently repealing or amending environmental legislation. Do members see the hypocrisy? It is the same individual, but he is no longer advocating the same cause. His role has changed. I would like my colleague to explain how she sees this hypocrisy. What does she think of the fact that a person who once championed environmental protection is now granting himself extraordinary powers to circumvent environmental safeguards?”