Dan Albas

“I am tired. I want the Bloc Québécois member to attack the government for me.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am very tired. Could the Bloc Québécois member attack the government for me, please?”

“Past laws gave Alto the power to take private land. This bill gives the government power to help the Alto project. I want the Bloc Québécois to tell us if they support or oppose these powers.”

“Mr. Speaker, in Bill C‑15, the government granted Alto new powers to expropriate privately owned land. In Bill C‑39, the government is granting itself new powers to allow preliminary work to benefit the Alto project. What does the Bloc Québécois member think about that? Did the Bloc Québécois support these proposed new powers for Alto, or did it oppose them?”

“The law requires the government to explain how every bill respects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unions are worried this bill hurts workers' rights. I want to know if the committee studying this bill should get that Charter explanation before they start their work.”

“Mr. Speaker, it feels like quality time with other British Columbians tonight because I get to ask the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni a question. I know that the NDP members, as well as many labour unions, have raised issues with Bill C-39 when it comes to workers’ rights. The government likes to claim that it is the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Liberals constantly talk about how they respect the charter. They could start by respecting the charter and by respecting this place, because under subsection 4.2(1) of the Department of Justice Act, the Minister of Justice is legally required to table a charter statement for every single government bill. That means that the Department of Justice would give its legal opinion on the constitutionality vis à vis the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(d). Does he believe that the committee that will be studying this should have that document before its study begins?”

“I oppose part of this bill because it gives the government too much power forever. An older bill let the government ignore almost any law during an emergency, but that power was supposed to end after five years. This bill removes that end date. I want to know if the member agrees that this hurts Parliament.”

“Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate my fellow British Columbian, the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands, and her intervention today. I know she is very passionate. She is a parliamentarian because she cares about this place. Part of the tradition of this place is making sure that there are reasonable expectations on the executive and she talked about the massive powers the Liberals justified in Bill C-5 that gave them essentially the ability to exempt almost any law. At the time, they justified it under an emergency, so Parliament set a five-year sunset clause on it. Clause 102 in Bill C-39 removes that stop, giving future governments complete access to all of those powers from there on in. What does she have to say about those expanded powers for the executive at the expense of Parliament?”

“The government originally said its emergency power to exempt projects from laws would only last five years. Now this bill makes that power permanent, letting them bypass almost any law forever. I oppose this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands’ comment when it comes to Bill C-5. In Bill C-39, proposed section 102 would effectively make the powers that were given to the executive, to exempt under Bill C-5’s framework, absolutely permanent. The Liberals said, when they came under fire for seizing such tremendous powers that have been well written about, that they could originally exempt any project from almost any law that we have on the books, but now, it would essentially take that away. The Liberals originally said, “Trust us. Give us a five-year sunset because of the emergency.” Now they would be taking that power and making it permanent. What—”

“This bill pretends to speed up projects, but it will not. The government takes credit for projects moving forward when it did not actually approve them. The new transportation office in this bill has no real power and no deadlines.”

“Mr. Speaker, the room did not all jump up at once, but what a great speech that was. The member has really brought some things to mind. I know that the Prime Minister tweeted the other day, “In September last year, we referred LNG Canada Phase 2 in Kitimat, B.C., to the Major Projects Office. Now, it’s moving forward”. This points out what the member has said. This was a final investment decision by the proponent. The Major Projects Office the Prime Minister talks about did not approve or advance the project. It is a form of regulatory Kabuki theatre. In the bill, the Liberals like to talk about creating a transportation project office, saying that this thing would help get projects done. The funny thing is that it would have no authority. It would be completely discretionary and optional for the minister. He could choose not to go ahead with it. Worse than that, unlike part 1 of the bill, which actually says that we would have a timeline, for which, of course, there are exemptions, it does not have any timelines for transportation projects. Does the member feel, as I do, that there is so much regulatory Kabuki theatre going on?”

“I want the minister to explain why transportation projects do not have the same one-year deadline as other projects under this bill. This creates two different sets of rules.”

“Madam Speaker, the Liberals keep talking about one year, one review, but it is not consistent, it is not predictable and it is not certain in Bill C-39. I have asked Liberal members time and time again why major transportation projects are not subject to a statutory deadline of 12 months, as is purported for projects under the Impact Assessment Agency, the Canada Energy Regulator or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Some have said that transportation is too difficult. That is ridiculous. If we can require the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to come up with a reasonable result, a yes or a no within 12 months, we can imagine that it would go for it. This creates a lot of questions, because someone could get a writ of mandamus and force a regulator to come to a decision if it went past the statutory deadline. Can the minister take a look at his notes, maybe fire up Copilot and answer the question: Why is it two-tier, and why is transportation not getting the same treatment as other types of projects?”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “The Canada Energy Regulator or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.”

  Said 3 times by 2 members since October 6.

  Every time it was said →

“Kelowna has had Canada's highest unemployment rate for four months, and many young people cannot find jobs. The member recently met with students there. I want him to share what they told him and what would help them and our economy.”

“Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate what the Conservative shadow minister for employment has done, not just in this speech but across Canada, where he has been speaking to young people. In our discussions, I mentioned to him that Kelowna has had the highest unemployment rate in the country for four months standing. He was recently at UBC Okanagan speaking to young Canadians who want to participate in the economy. I was wondering if he would enlighten the House a bit about what some of the students are thinking, because youth unemployment is much higher. I would like to hear what he believes would be good for not just these students, but for this great country.”

“This bill does not actually speed up trade projects. The new transportation office it talks about does not exist yet, the minister does not have to create it, and it will have no power to issue permits or make officials work faster. The bill also sets no deadlines to finish these big projects. I want to know why the government is pretending this office will get things done.”

“Madam Speaker, the member is a member of the transportation, infrastructure and communities committee with me, so it is wonderful to see my colleague here today. She talked a lot about trade infrastructure and the need to get things done, yet the Minister of Transport and her colleagues keep talking about this transportation projects office as though it is a real thing. Bill C-39 would only give the minister discretion to start an office. I may not be opposed to a single window, as I think that might be a helpful introduction, but this particular new project office would have no formal authority, meaning that it could not grant a permit or force another part of Transport Canada to speed it up. Why is there all this rhetoric about getting trade infrastructure done when they have an office that does not exist, is discretionary by the minister and does not have any authority? While I am on this topic, why the heck is there not a deadline, as there is in section one of the bills, to force these big transportation projects to get done quickly?”

“The law requires the government to explain how this bill affects people's Charter rights. The government has not shared that explanation with the public or the committee studying the bill. It needs to follow the law and release it.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking about how the government tries to distract from core issues. The member spoke a lot about workers’ rights and the fact that in Bill C-39, the government has proposed a number of changes that seem to be running roughshod over many workers’ concerns. Under section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act, the Minister of Justice is legally required to table a Charter of Rights and Freedoms statement for every single government bill. This means the Department of Justice should weigh in and tell Parliament and the Canadian people exactly what its legal opinion is of the measures that are in Bill C-39. We have not seen that published on the government’s website. The special committee that is organizing very soon to study this legislation has not received it. Does the member believe the government needs to start being transparent with Canadians as to what its plans are in regard to the Charter of Rights and fulfilling its responsibilities under the law to Parliament?”

“This bill only helps rail shippers get competition for four years. It should be permanent. The bill also creates an office with no real power that the minister might not even open. I want the member to explain how these temporary and weak fixes give our transportation system any real certainty.”

“Madam Speaker, in regard to the interswitching provisions of part 2 of Bill C-39, the whole idea is to give certainty and predictability, yet farmers and shippers, particularly in the natural resource sector, who would depend on that competition created by the interswitching measures, would have it for only 48 months. Does the member believe this should be made permanent? This has been tried under the Harper government. It has been tried under the Trudeau government. Why would we not be putting that and making it a permanent program? Second to that, many Liberals have talked about the transportation project office as if it were something that would add to this, but like the Major Projects Office, it would not have any authority. In fact, the minister of transport would be given the discretion to open said office. Does the member think that putting forward offices that may or may not happen and putting forward provisions that are simply temporary and, again, subject to good U.S. relations, would be creating certainty and predictability in the transportation sector?”

“This bill sets a one-year deadline to review some big projects, but not transportation projects. It also creates loopholes that could delay reviews over and over. I want the member to explain why transportation projects do not get the same one-year deadline as other projects.”

“Madam Speaker, I know that the Liberals like to say that they are against two-tier anything, but Bill C-39 would create a statutory authority for the regulator, or in this case the responsible authority, that would give the one year, one review. There would be exemptions. Obviously, there is proposed section 19(4), which would force a completeness sign-off that could be like Groundhog Day for someone. In addition to the loopholes in the bill, there would be no statutory deadline for transportation projects. I would like to ask the member why transportation projects would have no statutory one year, one review equivalent like the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the Impact Assessment Agency or the Canadian Energy Regulator have. Why would there be a two-tier approach to big projects?”

“Farmers need long-term rail competition rules to have real certainty. This bill only brings them back for 48 months. I want to know if the member agrees that these rail rules should be made permanent.”

“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the member. He is a farmer and is a very hard-working MP, and I give a lot of credibility to what he says. He talked about the certainty and predictability that farmers need from the interswitching provisions, but the government is only suggesting to bring them back for 48 months. Rather than putting in place a regime that has been proven to be successful under both the Harper and the Trudeau governments, the government is simply giving a bit of durable competition for a very short period of time. Does he support making the provisions permanent? Would that bring some certainty and predictability to farmers like him?”

“This bill affects workers' rights, which are protected by the Charter. By law, the Minister of Justice must give us a report on how this bill affects Charter rights, but we have not seen it yet. I want to know if the member agrees that the government must give us this report before the committee studies the bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, I know this is an issue that the member cares deeply about, and so should we all, because we are talking about workers’ rights. Last I checked, workers’ rights fall under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in section 2(d). Another section that is particularly relevant to this conversation tonight is section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act, which says that the Minister of Justice is legally required to table a charter statement for every single government bill. Liberals like to say they are the party of the charter. So many Liberal members have said they are all about workers’ rights, yet the House and the special legislative committee that is going to be set up to examine Bill C-39 have not yet seen this. Does the member believe that the government has the obligation to give the people that charter statement before we start deliberating this at committee, yes or no?”

“This bill lets ministers approve early construction work on projects even when local communities are against them. The government has already given the Alto train project the power to take people's land. I want the member to say if he thinks rural communities in Quebec and Ontario are being respected, and if the government should explain why it needs these powers.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Essex for not only his speech but also his constant steadiness at the transport committee. His community is well served by him. I would like to ask him about something that is causing a lot of ruckus in Ontario: the Alto project. Bill C-39 would allow ministers to authorize early works. We saw in the Liberals’ last omnibus bill that they basically gave expropriation powers, incredible bulldozing ability, to the Alto project to expropriate lands. Now they are going to have it where a minister can direct early works so they can get a project started, despite opposition in the communities, particularly in the rural areas of both Quebec and Ontario. Could the member comment on whether he feels those people are being respected and whether the government could be more transparent about what it wants these powers for?”