Dan Albas

In response to a question from Pauline Rochefort

“The government already created an office in 2023 to work on supply chains and data. This bill creates another council that does the exact same thing. I want the member to explain what this new council will actually add.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked a lot about the national trade corridor council that would be charged with digital tools and advising the minister, yet the national supply chain office that was created in 2023 by the government essentially has the same mandate to deal with data. I would just like to ask her what new value added the council would have that the national supply chain office does not already have. Are we not just in Groundhog Day, where the government just keeps bringing back the same tired ideas, rolling them out and expecting us to have a different result?”

“I want the member to answer my question instead of avoiding it. The bill says the one-year review only starts when the regulator decides an application is complete. Will regulators abuse this power to cause delays?”

“Mr. Speaker, in his previous answer to me, the member bypassed the question and pulled out his bill. I hope he would agree that the cover makes it quite nice to hold, but I would like him to actually answer the question. He talks about an accelerated one-year review, but it literally says that an agency, or in this case the regulatory authority, must view it as complete for the process to begin. Does he not believe this would be abused?”

“This bill says project reviews must finish in one year, but it has a big loophole. Review agencies can keep asking for more studies with no time limit before that one-year clock even starts. Why did the government leave this loophole open to be abused?”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member’s weighing in on this important topic. I just would point out to the member from Thunder Bay, though, that the greatest thing about the bill is actually the nice packaging. It has a nice cardboard outside, and it does not fall apart when I open it. Usually the bills we get are just photocopies. Proposed section 19 would essentially allow an authority, whether it be the Impact Assessment Agency, the Canadian Energy Regulator or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, to actually tell a proponent to get another study, to the point where there could be no decision made on starting the one-year clock that the government purports to support. Why would the government give an unlimited amount of time, in proposed section 19, for that completeness to happen? Is the member concerned that could be abused?”

• 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 →

“The law requires the Minister of Justice to provide a charter statement for this bill. The government has not done that yet. I want the member to join me in asking the minister to provide it, so the committee can study the bill properly.”

“Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member’s comments regarding the CTA. It does excellent work, and I agree that we should be supporting our workers. One of the things we can do is support workers by showing that the government has the balance right. Under section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act, the Minister of Justice is legally required to table a charter statement for every single government bill. The Liberals like to say that they are the party of the charter. Does the member support everyone pulling together and asking the Minister of Justice to table a simple charter statement, so that the committee that is charged with studying Bill C-39 can do its work properly?”

In response to a question from Alexis Deschênes

“This bill gives the government the power to decide what is in the national interest without defining it. The Minister of Justice is also required by law to show how this bill affects Charter rights, but has not done so. I want that report released before a committee starts studying the bill.”

“Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member’s intervention here today. He has brought a perspective that is rather refreshing. The other member from Winnipeg, on the Liberal side, was talking about section 107. In particular, he was asking what Conservatives might take issue with, saying there are lots of limiting factors. In that provision, essentially, the government gets to decide what is in the national interest without actually defining what it is. The issue I wanted to bring up is under section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act. The Minister of Justice is legally required to table a charter statement for every single government bill. I have looked on the website, and it is not there. Does the member believe the government should table it before the special legislative committee begins its work on Bill C-39 so that all Canadians can see what the justice department thinks of the changes proposed in Bill C-39 when it comes to labour?”

“The justice minister is required to explain how government bills affect our charter rights. This bill affects workers' rights and freedom of association. I want the minister to table that charter report before we set up a committee to study the bill.”

“Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the member for Vancouver East for her presentation today, being from British Columbia. She is always a thoughtful member. The Minister of Justice and the justice department have a mandatory requirement to table a charter statement on every piece of government legislation. We have seen it with other major bills, and obviously this touches on freedom of association and workers’ rights. Does the member believe that, before the special legislative committee is formed for Bill C-39, the Minister of Justice must ensure that there is tabled in the House a charter statement so we can see what the justice department believes in terms of the balance of Bill C-39, particularly when it comes to section 107?”

“Past fast reviews worked well and did not hurt the environment. This bill just adds more red tape and sets up an office with no real power. The government should create a real one-stop shop for project approvals instead of more bureaucracy.”

“Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member raising the tens of thousands of projects that were done under the Harper government’s economic action plan, considering that the environment commissioner actually did a review of all of them and found that there were no issues whatsoever environmentally. I wanted to reiterate that. The member has also spoken about the red tape and the top-down bureaucracy the Liberal government seems to always be attracted to. The national trade office, which is optional in Bill C-39, has no formal authority, yet it is supposed to somehow facilitate discussions within the same department of Transport Canada. Does the member not think this is a real lost opportunity to have a single window that can actually get things done? Are the Liberals just creating more bureaucracy?”

“The member says she wants to protect workers. If that is true, she should want the government to share a report showing how this bill affects workers' Charter rights.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite used the term “workers” several times throughout her speech and also talked about the changes to collective bargaining, particularly the need to have a transparent process. I take it that the member is in favour of Bill C-39 and the changes to the Labour Code, particularly to section 107. Does the member believe that the government should be transparent and submit to the House, through the Minister of Justice, a charter statement outlining the impacts on the charter rights of the workers she says she wants to protect?”

“This bill raises questions about the right to strike. I want to know if the member agrees that the justice minister should report on whether the bill protects Charter rights.”

“Mr. Speaker, in the member’s last answer, she talked about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and how she believes in it. The last I checked, the Liberals like to say all the time that they are the party of the charter. Given that the section 107 provision in the Canada Labour Code raises questions around the right to strike, does the member support the Minister of Justice tabling a charter statement so that we can see whether or not the justice department believes the bill has captured and balanced those rights correctly?”

“This bill will not speed up project reviews. It gives officials too much power to stop the clock and keep asking for more studies. The government will not deliver on its promise to finish reviews in one year.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Abbotsford—South Langley for his great presentation today. In his speech, he talked about the discretion given to the government and how once the clock starts, the authority or regulator can stop that clock if it is told to by the minister. However, proposed subsection 19(4) of the bill allows the authority to say that we need another study and another study, until it deems it as complete. This gives unfettered discretion to the bureaucracy, which could simply keep asking for more information and not deliver the “one year, one review” promise that the government purports to support.”

“I do not support this bill. It lets one minister decide which projects can start early without defining what is in the public interest. Businesses need clear rules, not more red tape and decisions left to one person.”

“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39 would allow the minister to allow preliminary works on a site to begin, within what the bill calls the public interest. Rather than give industry firm rules so they can clearly present their project and what they want to do for site works, the bill would give complete discretion to the minister. There is no definition of what is in the public interest, other than what the minister would decide. Does this seem fair to all those hard-working businesses: that one person gets to decide what is in the public interest and that it would just be more red tape?”

“The government is forcing labour law changes on workers without their input. Does the member support these changes? Does she support having the Justice Minister release a statement on how they affect workers' rights?”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite talked about the railway and about treating workers fairly, but some workers feel that the government is railroading them, particularly with unilateral changes to section 107 of the Labour Code. I would like to ask the member two questions. Does she support the government’s changes? Does she support the Minister of Justice tabling a Charter of Rights and Freedoms statement outlining the justice department’s views on these changes and workers’ rights?”