“I will vote against this bill. It weakens environmental rules to help oil companies, which are mostly owned by Americans. Most of our oil already goes straight to the United States, and building new pipelines will not create new jobs or help the people of Quebec and Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, what a great evening we are having. I have a question in mind that we may not have addressed in our debates. We have indicated that we will be voting against the bill, but I think there is an important question to consider regarding Bill C‑39. Who benefits from this legislation? According to the bill’s title, it aims to strengthen the economy. Does the bill achieve its objective? Who does it benefit? I ask that because, this evening, I have heard some of my government colleagues talk to us about national interest and tell us that it is important to diversify our economy in the context of a tariff crisis. I would like to come back to this concept of national interest. I do not know whether my colleagues understand it very well, because it is a term that is generally used in international relations. I am drawing from my past life as a political science teacher. It is a term that is used in international relations and that is mostly based on the public interest. Domestic policy involves the public interest. Foreign policy involves the national interest. Public interest usually refers to all specific interests in a nation. That is the public interest. An effective policy, such as a health or education policy, meets the needs of the entire population. It is not meant for a tiny segment of privileged people in a society. As a rule, when we talk about public interest, we always think in terms of a rational state that works in accordance with its interests. The same goes for the national interest. When we talk about that, we are thinking of a state that wants to ensure its security, its economic development and its collective wealth. Ultimately, when we talk about the national interest, we are talking about a government that is trying to act in the best interest of its people. That is what makes me laugh, because I wonder whether the government’s nation-building projects are really in the interest the people of Canada and Quebec. I am not so sure. Let us ask ourselves a few questions. Take the Pacific link pipeline project, for instance. Is this a project of national interest aimed at the well-being or economic development of the people of Quebec? I am not so sure. Let us ask ourselves two or three fairly simple questions. If Pacific link is built, it will cost $43 billion in public funds. That is a huge amount. We also have to factor in that $36 billion has already been put into another pipeline. Let us think about that. It is a massive use of public money to feed the greedy oil and gas industry. If I were one of my Liberal colleagues, the first question I would ask myself is where these energy exports are going. If we look at this more closely, in 2024, we exported $197 billion in energy. Of that $197 billion, $147 billion came from oil alone. Roughly speaking, Canada exports between 75% and 80% of its energy to the United States each year in all forms: gas, oil and electricity. However, when we look at oil exports alone, 91% of all oil exports in 2025 went directly to the U.S. I do not understand the magical thinking that somehow by just building pipeline infrastructure, we are going to export more oil to Europe. There was even talk of Asia earlier. Certain members said that this evening. I heard the member for Halifax and the member for Guelph answering questions and saying that we are going to export more oil. I do not know how they are in a position to say that, but the president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers appeared before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources this week and said that, no, our main market will always be the U.S. The Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation said the same thing earlier. He said that if we export more oil, we will be able to sell it at a higher price because, right now, we are selling it at a discount to the Americans. No one supports that. Even the deputy minister of international trade, whom I saw this week, cannot say whether the government has a target. Does the government have a target? Does it want to reduce oil exports from 91% to 40% or 50% by diversifying our markets? No one in the government can tell us whether there is a target. Therefore, when I ask myself where our energy exports go, the answer is without question the United States. Furthermore, when it comes to oil, 91% of our exports go to the U.S. Why build a pipeline? Why undermine certain environmental regulations, as we see in section 3, to ensure the Americans’ energy security? How is it in Canada’s national interest to ensure the Americans’ energy security? I find this completely outrageous. Next, we can ask ourselves another question: Who owns the oil companies? When we look at the ownership structure of all the major players in the Canadian oil and gas industry, we see that, while 80% of these major companies are owned by foreign interests, 60% of them belong to American interests, so the major oil and gas companies are mostly American-owned. I would remind members that oil is one of the only consumer goods that we export that is not subject to tariffs. There are no tariffs on oil. Ninety per cent of Canada’s oil exports are sent to the United States tariff-free, and the owners of the major oil and gas companies are American. From 2021 to 2024, these people made $131 billion in profits. That means that they sent $80 billion in dividends outside Canada. That is a capital flight of $12.5 billion a year that leaves Canada and mainly goes to the United States. We asked ourselves two very simple questions. Where are our oil exports going? Who owns the oil companies? In both cases, I have yet to find anyone here who was able to show me that it is in Canada’s national interest to put $44 billion into a pipeline. We are certainly not the ones who will benefit from it. We are helping to keep the Americans energy secure and helping them make more profits, and it is Quebeckers and Canadians who are paying for that. I was saying that dividend profits totalled $80 billion from 2021 to 2024. The latest figures are even worse. This past summer, in July, Cenovus said it was going to post record profits in the second quarter. We are in the second quarter now. It made $2.8 billion. That is four times more than it managed to earn in 2025. When I look at this, I really do not see how anyone can argue that this legislation will strengthen the Canadian economy, when it is actually about undermining environmental laws to give Americans greater energy security and provide American companies with more revenue, even though those greedy companies have made record profits in recent years. Worse still, what is even more shocking is that the major unions that came to see us at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources told us that the increase in oil production does not come with an increase in jobs. The government often says that the oil sector is important because it supports so many jobs. The unions tell us that this does not translate into more jobs, because companies are investing in automation. They do not want to invest in their infrastructure. It is sheer idiocy. The government is destroying the environment so that, during a tariff crisis, American companies can rake in more profits on oil while ensuring American energy security. Can any Liberal member explain the logic to me? I would appreciate that. Otherwise, I would ask them to forever hold their peace. There we go.”

“I oppose this bill. Fast-tracking these projects does not give us control over our own resources. Foreign companies own our oil and gas, and the government is paying for their infrastructure instead of owning it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleague to do a bit of research and take a look at the information that is out there. Where do our energy exports go? Who owns the gas and oil companies? I always find it amusing when Liberal colleagues talk about being masters in our own house. This has nothing to do with that. When Quebec decided to buy hydroelectric power to secure its future, that is when we became masters in our own house. The government is not buying our oil resources; it is leaving them in American hands and paying for the infrastructure. To me, that is being subservient in our own house, not being masters.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 33 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 →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want the government to stop focusing so much on the oil industry. Canada does not truly own these oil resources, and we develop them mainly for American profit. Relying on oil hurts our country, especially while our relationship with the United States is in trouble.”

“Mr. Speaker, I cannot fathom why. I cannot understand why the Prime Minister, who is supposedly a genius when it comes to international trade, fails to grasp the fact that we do not collectively own oil resources; we exploit them primarily for the benefit and profit of Americans. I do not understand why the government is putting all our eggs in the oil sector basket at a time when our relationship with the Americans is in crisis. As I said off the top, the national interest demands that we be aware of our own interests. Liberal Party members are clearly unaware of their interests. In that sense, they have the mindset of a colonized people.”

“This pipeline is bad for the country. It hurts workers and ignores union rights when businesses need those workers.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague did a thorough job of showing that this proposed pipeline will not benefit us and is not in the national interest. Is it also in the national interest to fight with unions and violate their rights when businesses depend on workers? How is it in the national interest to alienate workers?”

“I oppose this bill. It hurts workers and does not help the country. It will also lead to expensive lawsuits against the government when oil and gas projects are rejected for environmental reasons.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. At the beginning of my speech, I asked who will benefit from this legislation. It is certainly not the workers. Worse still, as I have said, we experienced first-hand what happens when an oil and gas project is turned down. That is what happened in Quebec with GNL Québec. When the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement said no to GNL Québec, the company turned around and sued the Canadian government. It is not hard to imagine how much trouble a piece of legislation like this could lead to. Imagine how many lawsuits will be filed against the federal government if the Pacific link project is rejected on environmental grounds. This is all completely irrational.”

“The government is rushing this bill, and it hurts workers' rights. It could stop workers from going on strike. Quebec banned replacement workers years ago, but the federal government still has not done that. I want my colleague to explain his concerns about how this bill affects workers.”

“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni for his speech. It is clear that the government wants to move quickly, but it is also doing things that run counter to workers’ rights. For example, the proposed amendments to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code could potentially prevent the use of strikes and job action. Quebec was an innovator. It successfully enacted anti-scab legislation. We have been waiting for years for this to happen at the federal level. I would like my colleague to explain why he is concerned about the proposed amendments to section 107 and the right of workers to use job action in a dispute with the employer.”

“I oppose this bill. It lets ministers end legal strikes without a vote in Parliament, which hurts workers. It also rushes environmental reviews, which will harm nature.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise again this evening to speak to Bill C‑39, which, I would remind the House, represents a crushing setback for workers’ rights, the environment and democracy. In short, it weakens workers’ rights, limits the right to strike and represents a major step backwards, as I said, for workers’ rights. It pre-approves projects by turning the environmental assessment process for pipelines and nuclear power into a mere afterthought. It centralizes more powers in the hands of the executive branch, that is, ministers, while diminishing the role of Parliament. In addition, regardless of what some people might say, this is a mammoth bill, a nearly 250-page omnibus bill that further weakens democracy. It feels like the Liberals are using the tariff crisis to pursue an agenda that sets society back significantly. When it comes to the environment, it is clear that these are setbacks that we will never be able to undo. However, the Bloc Québécois is resilient, and we will continue to fight for workers’ rights and ensure we can leave behind a healthy environment for future generations. I will speak more specifically about the setbacks to workers’ rights, then the environmental setbacks and, lastly, the democratic setbacks. First, I want to talk about the issue of workers’ rights, as a number of trade unions have expressed concerns. Last week, I received a letter of objection by email from the Seafarers’ International Union of Canada. Just yesterday, I met with representatives from the Progressive Contractors Association of Canada, the United Steelworkers and the Canadian Labour Congress, who are deeply concerned about workers’ rights. Today, I received confirmation that members of the Centrale des syndicats du Québec are concerned and are therefore keen to participate in the work on Bill C-39. The Liberals deny it, but a red line has been crossed regarding workers’ rights to strike and to collective bargaining. There is, in fact, a consensus among the country’s trade unions that this is an affront to workers’ rights. If the amendments set out in part 3 of Bill C-39 are implemented, the proposed section 107 of the Canada Labour Code would allow the minister to consider potential economic or even social impacts when deciding whether to intervene under a vague and unrestricted criterion known as the “national interest”. This is an entirely subjective criterion. It is worth noting that, under this bill, we would be the only G7 country in which the executive branch could bring an end to the entirely legal right to strike. For example, according to the proposed section 107 set out in Bill C-39, the same general power to encourage understanding and conflict resolution is there, but it is framed by the new subsection 107(2) for ending a work stoppage. It gives the minister the express power to make an order providing for the resumption or continuation of operations, extending the term of the collective agreement, or imposing a binding method of resolving the issues in dispute. As a trigger, yes, a legal strike or lockout in progress requires a special mediator’s report to be considered, but only the minister’s opinion of the national interest counts. The problem is that the concept of the national interest has not been defined, and certain factors are not exhaustive. There is still no prior vote, but the administrative route is now explicitly codified. Concerning any potential disputes, the text would provide an express statutory basis that could undermine challenges that are based on the current interpretation. In short, this weakens the right to settlement, and the mediator is not independent, because they are appointed by the minister. The unions have a few questions. They want to know where the balance of power is in Bill C-39 because, no, it does not contribute to social peace and economic security. Unlike in other countries, there is no longer any accountability to the House of Commons or to elected officials. The United States was even cited as an example, where Congress has a say in a strike. Basically, the bill does not abolish section 107, but it does sharpen the government’s weapon. The Minister of Jobs, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and all the Liberal members keep saying that the bill does not weaken the right to strike, but that is not true. Nothing could be further from the truth. The unions are confirming that the opposite is true and maintain that, no, there are no safeguards. I would also like to return to one provision regarding section 107, which is the worst attack on the right to strike and to bargain collectively. It is one of the most serious attempts to roll back decades of labour struggles in this country’s history. The right to strike is a fundamental right that is recognized by the courts and protected by freedom of association. The Bloc Québécois believes that this right must never depend on the political goodwill of a federal government. In May, I spoke about Bill C‑247, which would repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. We thought that bill was interesting. I would like to quote a few of the things we said about it. We said that section 107 “gives the Minister of Labour extremely broad powers to intervene in labour disputes in the federal jurisdiction. The minister can go so far as to ask the Canada Industrial Relations Board to intervene or impose any measures the minister considers necessary”. We also said that “the existence of section 107 directly alters the balance of power between employers and workers. It encourages employers to stick to their guns rather than bargaining in good faith. The Bloc Québécois believes that disputes should be resolved at the bargaining table first, not in ministerial offices”. That is what we said about the bill in May. We did not want premature political intervention. We also said that, since 2024 alone, “Ottawa has used section 107 to intervene in at least seven major labour disputes.” I will give some recent examples: WestJet, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific Kansas City, Air Canada, the Port of Montreal, the Port of Québec, the Port of Vancouver and Canada Post. What was supposed to be an exceptional power has effectively become a standard tool for managing labour disputes. More than 55,000 workers were affected by the dispute at Canada Post. Lastly, we said that “when a government limits a fundamental right, it should always do so openly, in front of Parliament. For a long time, when a government wanted to end a strike, it had to introduce special back-to-work legislation. This entailed a public debate, a vote by elected officials and political accountability. Section 107 circumvents this debate, this democratic process, by employing a much more low-key administrative mechanism.” A right that cannot be exercised is not a right. Let us get back to Bill C‑39. We said, “If the bill remains unchanged, it will harm non-unionized workers. Compromises between employers and unions establish acceptable norms and standards across many economic sectors. Stifling the unions’ right to strike is tantamount to stifling negotiated agreements and reasonable compromises”. In short, it is more of the same. All the government is doing is releasing the minister from his responsibilities. My time is running out, but I could go on for a while. I want to touch on the fact that this bill is a brutal setback for the environment. Greenpeace is even accusing the Liberal government of bulldozing nature. Last week, I attended the general meeting of Appalachian Corridor, an organization with many environmental concerns. This group needs renewed funding for land protection organizations, not a law that could lead to long-term ecological damage, higher rehabilitation costs or literally impossible repairs, and irreparable damage to our land. The government needs to stop greenwashing. If the mandatory deadline for environmental assessments is shortened to one year, it will not be possible to guarantee the quality and scientific integrity of the assessments. This is a disaster for the environment. This bill is a setback for democracy. In a liberal democracy under the rule of law, laws passed by Parliament and elected officials are essential, particularly for determining what the national interest is. In Canada, laws will now be made to be suspended and circumvented. As my colleague asked earlier, what is the national interest? We get the impression that this has become more of a personal interest for the Prime Minister. With Bill C-39, as with Bill C-5, the laws passed by Parliament over the past decades will no longer apply equally to everyone. While some development projects may continue to be subject to formal environmental assessments conducted by the Impact Assessment Agency in accordance with the Impact Assessment Act, others, such as oil, gas, or nuclear projects, will be exempt from these assessments. In conclusion, I would like those affected by the bill to have a say. Several environmental groups feel that the government has not taken their comments into account. For example, the Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement is calling for Bill C-39 to be scrapped entirely. Here are a few questions that organizations are asking. Will the one-year environmental assessments examine the impact these projects will have on greenhouse gas emissions? Will they really address climate change? I doubt it. The west coast oil pipeline could affect over 100 indigenous communities. Fourteen indigenous communities, the Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement and several unions are challenging the legislation in court because they believe that the government is infringing on the right to strike. I would like to say one last thing about democracy. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has criticized the Liberals for stripping my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères’ amendment out of Bill C-39 to get rid of the five-year sunset clause on the minister’s powers. This is starting to be a bit much. The alternative facts, disinformation and misinformation have got to stop.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Respect 98 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “has become more of a personal interest for the Prime Minister”.

  See full analysis →

“This bill is not the way to fix the housing crisis. The government should spend money to build homes and support homeless people instead of passing laws that weaken other laws.”

“Mr. Speaker, as far as tackling the housing crisis is concerned, quite frankly, there are other solutions than those set out in Bill C-39. There are more options than simply passing laws that will undermine other laws. My colleague from Joliette—Manawan asked some excellent questions today about the homelessness crisis. I would like to draw a connection to another question raised by the Bloc Québécois today: What is the national interest? Frankly, investing money in programs that will help build housing and support organizations working with people experiencing homelessness would be a social project that would do far more to advance the national interest.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“This bill gives the government too much power and cuts out debate. The government cares more about rushing projects and taking control than listening to communities or protecting workers' rights.”

“Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague for making an effort to ask his question in French. When it comes to the government giving itself new powers, that is exactly what it is doing with Bill C‑39. That is also what it did with Bill C‑5. As I have shown, power is being centralized within the executive branch. The government is giving itself new powers. There is no longer any accountability. We see this in the government’s approach to workers’ rights, for instance. The government is effectively eliminating the opportunity for debate. Too often, in the interest of expediting projects, it is clear that the government is more interested in giving itself new powers than in genuinely consulting communities.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The government wants to cut rules for big projects, but the only example they give is a pipeline costing at least $44 billion. We should spend that money helping people who are struggling, like raising pensions for seniors.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been telling us all evening that we might need to reduce the impact of regulatory constraints to promote trade corridors and infrastructure projects. However, the only infrastructure project they have mentioned so far is a pipeline that would cost at least $44 billion. I am sure my colleague can tell us everything we could do with $44 billion to help people who are struggling with an affordability crisis and perhaps even seniors who are having trouble making ends meet. Increasing the old age security pension might be a good idea.”

“We should not spend $44 billion on a pipeline that helps the United States. We should spend that money here on housing, helping homeless people, and giving a 10% pension boost to seniors aged 65 to 74.”

“Mr. Speaker, in any case, that $44 billion would not be used to enrich U.S. interests or bolster U.S. energy security. Instead it would be used for projects that are truly in the national interest here. With $44 billion, we could easily increase old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74 so that they get the same 10% increase as seniors aged 75 and older. Someone was just talking to me about construction. I think that with $44 billion, without violating any other laws, we could easily invest more in organizations working on social housing and homelessness, in projects that are much more promising and much more helpful to the people here. That would also help people. Everyone is talking about inflation—all the more reason to help the people here get through this difficult time. There are countless examples we could give.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to reject this bill. The government is using a temporary trade crisis to permanently give itself too much power. This bill hurts workers by weakening their right to strike. It rushes environmental reviews and lets the government approve big projects before the science is done. It also steps on the powers of Quebec and the provinces. The government needs to consult people instead of pushing this through.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening. It is quite late, and we are debating this important bill, Bill C‑39, an act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy. It will come as no surprise to learn that the Bloc Québécois strongly opposes this bill as introduced by the Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. Let me be quite clear: We are not opposing it just for the sake of it. I can confirm that we would all be happier to be able to put our energy and time into serving our constituents rather than spending another evening in the House debating this bill, before a government that refuses to listen and pushes forward as though it were free to do whatever it wants. We oppose it because the proposed changes are simply unreasonable and unjustifiable to the public and our constituents. That is what Liberal-style democracy under the Prime Minister looks like right now. The government is using a temporary trade crisis as an excuse to impose legislative changes that will be permanent. These changes are likely to follow us for decades, long after the end of the crisis that served to justify them. The government is exploiting a trade dispute to further centralize power in Ottawa. They want to allow themselves to circumvent certain environmental laws, they want to weaken workers’ rights, they want to open the door to the privatization of our ports and airports, and above all, they want to compromise independent scientific analyses, even while infringing on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces when it comes to natural resource management. Let us start with a first example: workers’ rights. The bill contains amendments to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. These amendments are intended to authorize the Canada Industrial Relations Board to limit workers’ right to use necessary job action in a labour dispute. A minister would be allowed to ask the Canada Industrial Relations Board to impose a binding settlement during collective bargaining when the minister determines that a strike or lockout would have a negative national impact or cause serious social disruptions. It is a roundabout way of telling employers that they can take a hard line during negotiations, that they should not worry, that there will be no strike. That is essentially what it does legislatively. When negotiations between employers and unions break down to the point where one of the workers’ only remaining options is to exercise their right to strike, we believe the very purpose of that right is to create economic and social repercussions that will encourage the employer to return to the bargaining table. To claim that these changes do not weaken the right to strike shows a striking misunderstanding of the history of the social movements that fought to secure that right in the first place. It took decades of social struggle to make progress on workers’ rights and environmental protection, but with this bill, the government would like to be able to sweep away these gains in a matter of minutes. Then there is the issue of environmental assessments and major projects. I think that is a pretty important part of this bill. I would like to focus on division 1 of Bill C‑39, which would impose a maximum one-year time limit on the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada for completing its reviews of so-called projects of national interest. Again, it is one thing to want to speed up the assessment process, but it is quite another to not even wait for the recommendations of those assessments before approving major projects. If there is one thing I quickly understood as the Bloc Québécois critic for public accounts, it is that, when a political decision is made too quickly and needs to be reversed, the price to be paid is much higher than if the government had taken the time to do things right from the start. When it comes to the environment or biodiversity, the price is not always calculated solely in dollars. Let me give another example. Changes to the Fisheries Act would allow proponents to pay money to third parties to offset habitat loss caused by their project. The government is making decisions that could have long-term consequences on the environment without even taking the time to consult the experts within the government itself. I am referring to the chief science adviser. I have sat as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Science and Research since it was first created. The chief science adviser came to see us a few months ago when the government introduced Bill C-5. She described it as a disaster, and said that the government was circumventing laws, especially legislation related to the environment and other measures, without even consulting scientific experts. The chief science adviser confided that neither she nor the other members had been consulted in any way about the selection of major projects said to be of national interest. This is a government that simply wants to do things its own way, or listen only to people who share its views and want the same things it does. That is what we have come to. Once a decision is made, it has to be owned. Sometimes, by the time it can be reversed, it is already too late. Certain things simply cannot be repaired. Concerning Bill C‑39, we understand that the government wants to fast-track the new Alberta pipeline project. It could be approved even before environmental assessments are completed. What is the plan if we have to reverse course? The government pre-approves a project, does not even know if it will be good, and then it is too late to backtrack. If the final recommendations from the experts were negative, would it really be possible to make changes to the project when it is already under way? I think the answer is obvious. Let me give an example. We build the foundation of a house and then realize that the ground is unstable and we have to rebuild somewhere else. Imagine the cost. That is for a house, but let us draw a parallel with a pipeline. That is precisely the problem with this bill. Right now, the government before us has exhausted its political arguments to persuade the public. It says that there are major projects of national interest and that it wants to create pathways and mechanisms by concentrating power in the hands of a single minister who could, by the government’s own account, designate a project as being in the national interest, amend the Impact Assessment Act, weaken environmental policies and even permanently eliminate them. Instead of continuing discussions in a democratic manner, bringing together the relevant stakeholders and the various levels of government around one table, the government decides to introduce a bill that is over 250 pages long and imposes the vision of just one man or maybe a few people in the Prime Minister’s Office. They want to build Canada strong, and that is the slogan the Liberals keep spewing every day. I do not really agree that undermining accountability and weakening the decisions made in Parliament is the way to build Canada strong. Power is increasingly being concentrated in the hands of the executive. The government wants to limit the ability of elected officials to hold it to account. Where else in any modern, industrialized country is this kind of legislation being introduced? If the Liberals can come up with an example of this, I would be curious to know. I checked. No G7 country has brought forward this sort of legislation. They are no worse off than we are. They too face challenges when it comes to the economy and assessment processes. What we are seeing today is more of an authoritarian drift than the application of sound economic and mathematical reasoning to projects said to be in the public interest. I want to be clear for those watching at home. This government is not introducing these changes in the interest of Quebeckers and Canadians. Its goal is to concentrate power in the hands of a small group of individuals or even a single individual. Quebec’s motto is “Je me souviens” or “I remember”, and I can guarantee that we will remember this Liberal government’s authoritarian abuse for a long time to come.”

“I do not want this bill to pass. The government spent nearly $40 billion on a pipeline without needing a law to bypass rules, and it did not make life cheaper or make us richer. The government should not get to fast-track major projects without accountability.”

“Mr. Speaker, what a great pass from my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou. I will remind him. One project I completely disagreed with was the Trans Mountain pipeline, which the Liberal government under Justin Trudeau bought with nearly $40 billion in taxpayer money. Are we any richer? Are we more prosperous? Are we more independent? That is what the Prime Minister likes to claim when patting himself on the back, but the answer is no. Gas has never been as expensive as it is now. Affordability has not improved much over the past few years either. I want my colleague to think about what he just said. His government managed to buy a pipeline with taxpayer money without passing a bill that would allow it to sidestep laws or fast-track major projects of national interest. Now the government wants to buy another pipeline, but it wants to do it faster and without any accountability.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 44 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I oppose this bill. It lets the government permanently ignore laws for major projects. The government spent $40 billion on a pipeline without skipping environmental reviews, but now it claims it must skip those reviews for a new pipeline. That is dishonest.”

“Mr. Speaker, I just mentioned what a nice pass I got from my colleague, but this one is a slam dunk. I believe I summarized things quite well in my speech. The situation we are facing today is historic. First there was Bill C-5. That was the bill that allowed projects of national interest to be identified. Broadly speaking, the government, or even the minister, could bypass all laws, except the Criminal Code, for a period of five years. Then, people on the other side of the House realized that five years might not be enough, so they decided to introduce another bill to allow them to bypass laws permanently. I just gave an example. The Liberals managed to secure a pipeline using $40 billion of public funds without having to bypass environmental impact assessments. Now they want to secure a second pipeline and are trying to make us believe they need to bypass those assessments. Clearly, this is hypocrisy. They are trying to pull the wool over our eyes by claiming that, ultimately, they have our best interests at heart.”

“We do not need this bill. We should support our existing industries, like lumber, aluminum, and clean energy, and process our own resources instead of selling them off cheaply. The government claims it needs this bill to build faster, but it already bought a pipeline without it. That makes no sense.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have plenty of solutions. We can support the industries we have here, including lumber, aluminum and renewable energy. We already have that in place. We can invest in modernization. We can invest in innovation. These are all things that are possible. We can improve secondary and tertiary processing instead of selling our resources at a discount on international markets. These are all things that can be done. I understand what my colleague is trying to argue. It is quite difficult. Once again, I would like the government members to explain how they managed to buy a pipeline without having passed the bill currently before us. They want to buy another one, but they just want to do it faster. It is utter nonsense.”

“The government says this bill gives businesses predictability, but their tariff decisions have been confusing and inconsistent. Businesses need predictability, and the only real way to give it to them is to sign a good trade deal with the United States as soon as possible.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague referred to a response he received from our colleagues on the government side. They say we need the bill so we can ensure predictability. Let me just go over what happened. During the last election, the Prime Minister said that he would resolve the tariff crisis. He imposed tariffs, then removed them, arguing that he was doing it to strengthen our negotiating position, and then he imposed retaliatory tariffs. These are the kinds of problems that do nothing to provide predictability. Does my colleague agree that, for our businesses to truly have predictability, we need to reach the best possible agreement with the U.S. as soon as possible?”