MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT
May presses the government to keep its climate commitments and its promises to Indigenous peoples, pushing to shut down open net-pen salmon farms by 2029 and to amend the online harms bill so directors of social media companies face jail time for failing to protect children. She often wanders into asides mid-argument, musing, “For any insomniacs watching CPAC,” before returning to the point.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .
Government Orders ·
In response to a question from Sébastien Lemire
“I do not trust this government to keep its promises.”
“Madam Speaker, I really have no confidence in the current government when it comes to keeping its promises. Their promises are just like everyone else’s—”
Madam Speaker, I really have no confidence in the current government when it comes to keeping its promises. Their promises are just like everyone else’s—
In response to a question from Leah Gazan
“The government must keep its promises to Indigenous peoples. Swapping this water bill for a new one breaks trust and hurts reconciliation.”
“Madam Speaker, it makes me heartsick, because I did feel that we were making a lot of progress. Obviously as leader of the Green Party, I was never in a cheering line for everything that was done under former prime minister Justin Trudeau, but I did have a sense that there was a deeper understanding of the imperative of reconciliation. Reconciliation has to be the work primarily of settler culture people. We are all treaty peoples, one way or another, but we have an obligation as settler people to actually live up to our words. The switcheroo of words between Bill C-61 and Bill C-37 will undermine any confidence indigenous peoples, first nations, Métis or Inuit have in the idea that settler culture people keep their word.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 45 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisMadam Speaker, it makes me heartsick, because I did feel that we were making a lot of progress. Obviously as leader of the Green Party, I was never in a cheering line for everything that was done under former prime minister Justin Trudeau, but I did have a sense that there was a deeper understanding of the imperative of reconciliation. Reconciliation has to be the work primarily of settler culture people. We are all treaty peoples, one way or another, but we have an obligation as settler people to actually live up to our words. The switcheroo of words between Bill C-61 and Bill C-37 will undermine any confidence indigenous peoples, first nations, Métis or Inuit have in the idea that settler culture people keep their word.
In response to a question from Billy Morin
“I do not know why the government changed its mind on this. It seems that Indigenous rights, the climate, and nature are no longer important to the government. Instead, it treats these people and the environment like obstacles to development.”
“Madam Speaker, obviously I do not know. I would love to really understand the motivations of this change in government. From all appearances, indigenous rights, climate and nature are no longer important to it. These issues, peoples and ecosystems are seen as obstacles to bulldozers.”
Reply to a debate question
Signal 42 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 analysisMadam Speaker, obviously I do not know. I would love to really understand the motivations of this change in government. From all appearances, indigenous rights, climate and nature are no longer important to it. These issues, peoples and ecosystems are seen as obstacles to bulldozers.
In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux
“Clean water is a right, not a choice. The current lack of clean water for First Nations is a scandal, and we must pass this bill to fix it.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to quote a former Liberal environment minister and former Liberal federal member of Parliament, the Hon. Clifford Lincoln, a strong Liberal who cared about rights. When he resigned his seat in the Bourassa cabinet, he gave a speech in the Assemblée Nationale du Québec, where he said, “rights are rights are rights”. This is a scandal.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 3 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisMadam Speaker, I want to quote a former Liberal environment minister and former Liberal federal member of Parliament, the Hon. Clifford Lincoln, a strong Liberal who cared about rights. When he resigned his seat in the Bourassa cabinet, he gave a speech in the Assemblée Nationale du Québec, where he said, “rights are rights are rights”. This is a scandal.
“I want this bill amended. An earlier version of it clearly said that people on First Nations land have a human right to clean drinking water. This new version waters that down to just a government goal. Clean water is a human right, and this bill needs to say so clearly.”
“Madam Speaker, it is an enormous honour for me to split my time with a member of another party, but I want to stop for a moment and just say that the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, with whom I will be splitting my time, is a champion for indigenous rights. I am honoured to share my time with her. I am rising now to speak to Bill C-37, the bill that, as we know, is under debate today, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, waste water and related infrastructure on first nations lands. If this sounds familiar and reads as a familiar piece of legislation for those of us who served before the last election, that is because it is virtually identical to what initially came before the House as Bill C-61. Bill C-61 received its last reading on December 2, 2024, and it had at that point been amended. It had gone through committee and was ready at report stage. It was ready to go, in other words. First reading was far before December 2. By December 2, it had already gone to committee and come back to us. It was one of those pieces of legislation that unfortunately, as the expression goes, although it is not an expression but the technical terminology, died on the Order Paper. That was on January 6, 2025, when former prime minister Justin Trudeau prorogued the House. All the bills, of course, as a result of that, died. Bill C-61 was so far along and so important, along with Bill C-33, on port safety and railway safety. There were a number of other bills, such as Bill C-3, which we had come back to. Bill C-33 seems to be gone forever, but we need to bring it back. I wrote a letter to the new Prime Minister to say that there were bills that died on the Order Paper that had substantial cross-party support, and asked him to please bring them back soon. One of the ones I mentioned was this one, Bill C-61, which was called the safe drinking water act for indigenous peoples and first nations, as well as Bill C-33. We put a lot of work into that, and that was also ready at report stage. It took a while, obviously. March 9, 2025, was when he became Prime Minister. I wrote and said that these bills should come back soon, and that if they came back soon, we could get back to them soon. They have already gone through committee. They have already gone through study, etc. Here we are. It is October, more than a year later, in 2026, and in many ways, an identical bill has come back to us now as Bill C-37. However, it is not entirely identical. There are some changes, and that is where I see a slipping away, an erosion, of respect from the new government toward indigenous rights, indigenous peoples and the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP. Here is the change that occurs. The other erosion of respect for indigenous rights, which we were already debating this week, is in Bill C-39, and last year, in June 2025, in Bill C-5, which fundamentally undermine indigenous rights in terms of free, prior informed consent. This bill is a little different, and it is worth noticing the only place I have found in which the two pieces of legislation differ. In Bill C-61, clause 3.1 looks very similar to what we find now in clause 3. Clause 3.1 of the former bill, which died on the Order Paper, Bill C-61, said clearly: It is recognized and affirmed that it is a human right of every individual on First Nations land to have access to clean and safe drinking water in accordance with this Act. It is the same in French. This bill still has this clause. If one were reading fast, one could say it is in there. In Bill C-37, clause 3 is in regard to the “Right to Clean and Safe Drinking Water”. Here is the little change: It is declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to further the progressive realization, for individuals on First Nation lands, of the human right to safe drinking water, as protected by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It is interesting how quickly a right can disappear. In December 2024, the government was prepared to recognize that it is a human right of every individual on first nations land to have access to clean and safe drinking water. Poof, there goes the right. Now, it would be “the policy of the Government of Canada”, and what kinds of weasel words these are, “to further the progressive realization, for individuals on First Nation lands, of the human right to safe drinking water”. It so happens that I have practised law, but I think one does not have to have practised law to notice that having a human right to something is a clear, definitive statement of a right they can exercise. It is not a teeny difference to say that we have a policy “to further the progressive realization”. Clean and safe drinking water is a fundamental human right recognized globally. For first nations people in Canada, it is part of our shameful history that we are the sole federal jurisdiction yet to ensure that indigenous people of our country have safe drinking water, and we failed abysmally. That is not a story. It is a litany of failures that I need to repeat, including those such as Grassy Narrows and northern Alberta. I remember that, before I was in the Green Party or even belonged to any political party, as a lawyer I attended the environmental assessment hearings on the extension of Jackpine Mine. I was at Fort McMurray. I will never forget hearing a first nations witness say that they used to go in the bush and were able to put a kettle in a stream, bring it back, put it on a campfire and make tea. They were not able to do that anymore, because the water did not taste good. That is a result of the oil sands operations in that region: the continual daily leak of tailings ponds and the polyaromatic hydrocarbons and other bitumen-related residues that got into not just the water but the ecosystem of that entire region. I will never forget the evidence of that witness. He also said that if a deer goes into the bush there, it has to pack a lunch. In terms of drinking water, he could not make tea from the stream on the land. I really support Bill C-61 as it then was, and I think we need to amend Bill C-37. I am sure we will hear detailed suggestions from my friend, the member for Winnipeg Centre, in a moment. How can members of the House just accept what changed between one Parliament and another? These are not slight wording changes. I am so deeply distressed by the government, which, as far as our friends in the Conservative Party see it, is an uninterrupted Liberal government that we have had for 11 years. I feel as though we have had two different parties in this place. There was something in the past that seemed to be more committed to reconciliation. Its commitment to climate action may have been performative, but I have to say I kind of miss the words. I also miss the policies. There has been a sharp difference, and perhaps the difference between Bill C-61 of 2024 and Bill C-37 of 2026 is the sharpest proof of difference with the person the hon. parliamentary secretary, the member for Winnipeg North, keeps telling us is the newly elected Prime Minister. I keep being pedantic and pointing out that we do not elect prime ministers in this country but elect individual members of Parliament. However, this is not only a different government. I think it is a different party, and I lament the difference.”
Madam Speaker, it is an enormous honour for me to split my time with a member of another party, but I want to stop for a moment and just say that the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, with whom I will be splitting my time, is a champion for indigenous rights. I am honoured to share my time with her. I am rising now to speak to Bill C-37, the bill that, as we know, is under debate today, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, waste water and related infrastructure on first nations lands. If this sounds familiar and reads as a familiar piece of legislation for those of us who served before the last election, that is because it is virtually identical to what initially came before the House as Bill C-61. Bill C-61 received its last reading on December 2, 2024, and it had at that point been amended. It had gone through committee and was ready at report stage. It was ready to go, in other words. First reading was far before December 2. By December 2, it had already gone to committee and come back to us. It was one of those pieces of legislation that unfortunately, as the expression goes, although it is not an expression but the technical terminology, died on the Order Paper. That was on January 6, 2025, when former prime minister Justin Trudeau prorogued the House. All the bills, of course, as a result of that, died. Bill C-61 was so far along and so important, along with Bill C-33, on port safety and railway safety. There were a number of other bills, such as Bill C-3, which we had come back to. Bill C-33 seems to be gone forever, but we need to bring it back. I wrote a letter to the new Prime Minister to say that there were bills that died on the Order Paper that had substantial cross-party support, and asked him to please bring them back soon. One of the ones I mentioned was this one, Bill C-61, which was called the safe drinking water act for indigenous peoples and first nations, as well as Bill C-33. We put a lot of work into that, and that was also ready at report stage. It took a while, obviously. March 9, 2025, was when he became Prime Minister. I wrote and said that these bills should come back soon, and that if they came back soon, we could get back to them soon. They have already gone through committee. They have already gone through study, etc. Here we are. It is October, more than a year later, in 2026, and in many ways, an identical bill has come back to us now as Bill C-37. However, it is not entirely identical. There are some changes, and that is where I see a slipping away, an erosion, of respect from the new government toward indigenous rights, indigenous peoples and the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP. Here is the change that occurs. The other erosion of respect for indigenous rights, which we were already debating this week, is in Bill C-39, and last year, in June 2025, in Bill C-5, which fundamentally undermine indigenous rights in terms of free, prior informed consent. This bill is a little different, and it is worth noticing the only place I have found in which the two pieces of legislation differ. In Bill C-61, clause 3.1 looks very similar to what we find now in clause 3. Clause 3.1 of the former bill, which died on the Order Paper, Bill C-61, said clearly: It is recognized and affirmed that it is a human right of every individual on First Nations land to have access to clean and safe drinking water in accordance with this Act. It is the same in French. This bill still has this clause. If one were reading fast, one could say it is in there. In Bill C-37, clause 3 is in regard to the “Right to Clean and Safe Drinking Water”. Here is the little change: It is declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to further the progressive realization, for individuals on First Nation lands, of the human right to safe drinking water, as protected by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It is interesting how quickly a right can disappear. In December 2024, the government was prepared to recognize that it is a human right of every individual on first nations land to have access to clean and safe drinking water. Poof, there goes the right. Now, it would be “the policy of the Government of Canada”, and what kinds of weasel words these are, “to further the progressive realization, for individuals on First Nation lands, of the human right to safe drinking water”. It so happens that I have practised law, but I think one does not have to have practised law to notice that having a human right to something is a clear, definitive statement of a right they can exercise. It is not a teeny difference to say that we have a policy “to further the progressive realization”. Clean and safe drinking water is a fundamental human right recognized globally. For first nations people in Canada, it is part of our shameful history that we are the sole federal jurisdiction yet to ensure that indigenous people of our country have safe drinking water, and we failed abysmally. That is not a story. It is a litany of failures that I need to repeat, including those such as Grassy Narrows and northern Alberta. I remember that, before I was in the Green Party or even belonged to any political party, as a lawyer I attended the environmental assessment hearings on the extension of Jackpine Mine. I was at Fort McMurray. I will never forget hearing a first nations witness say that they used to go in the bush and were able to put a kettle in a stream, bring it back, put it on a campfire and make tea. They were not able to do that anymore, because the water did not taste good. That is a result of the oil sands operations in that region: the continual daily leak of tailings ponds and the polyaromatic hydrocarbons and other bitumen-related residues that got into not just the water but the ecosystem of that entire region. I will never forget the evidence of that witness. He also said that if a deer goes into the bush there, it has to pack a lunch. In terms of drinking water, he could not make tea from the stream on the land. I really support Bill C-61 as it then was, and I think we need to amend Bill C-37. I am sure we will hear detailed suggestions from my friend, the member for Winnipeg Centre, in a moment. How can members of the House just accept what changed between one Parliament and another? These are not slight wording changes. I am so deeply distressed by the government, which, as far as our friends in the Conservative Party see it, is an uninterrupted Liberal government that we have had for 11 years. I feel as though we have had two different parties in this place. There was something in the past that seemed to be more committed to reconciliation. Its commitment to climate action may have been performative, but I have to say I kind of miss the words. I also miss the policies. There has been a sharp difference, and perhaps the difference between Bill C-61 of 2024 and Bill C-37 of 2026 is the sharpest proof of difference with the person the hon. parliamentary secretary, the member for Winnipeg North, keeps telling us is the newly elected Prime Minister. I keep being pedantic and pointing out that we do not elect prime ministers in this country but elect individual members of Parliament. However, this is not only a different government. I think it is a different party, and I lament the difference.
Oral Questions ·
“The government promised to shut down open net-pen salmon farms, but delayed the deadline from 2025 to 2029. Many First Nations and fishing groups want these harmful farms closed. I want the minister to promise to shut them down by 2029.”
“Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of Fisheries. In 2019, the federal government committed to shutting down what are sometimes called open net-pen salmon farms. In my riding, my constituents asked me to call them toxic fish factories, which is what they are. The government promised to shut them down by 2025, but in 2024, it extended that to 2029. Now the First Nation Wild Salmon Alliance is demanding to know, on behalf of 37 first nations in B.C., the wild salmon fishery organizations, the salmon foundation and the sport fishers, if the government will commit to keeping its promise and shut down these toxic fish factories by 2029.”
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of Fisheries. In 2019, the federal government committed to shutting down what are sometimes called open net-pen salmon farms. In my riding, my constituents asked me to call them toxic fish factories, which is what they are. The government promised to shut them down by 2025, but in 2024, it extended that to 2029. Now the First Nation Wild Salmon Alliance is demanding to know, on behalf of 37 first nations in B.C., the wild salmon fishery organizations, the salmon foundation and the sport fishers, if the government will commit to keeping its promise and shut down these toxic fish factories by 2029.
Government Orders ·
“LNG Canada is not a good Canadian investment. It is owned by foreign companies, uses steel and parts made in China, and increases greenhouse gas emissions. Both the federal government and British Columbia gave it public money while running up huge deficits.”
“Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary keeps mentioning LNG Canada as a great investment. Yes, it is a $33-billion project, and it is true that the Prime Minister stood side by side with David Eby, Premier of B.C. He has so much in common with the Prime Minister. David Eby inherited a surplus of $1 billion in 2022 when he took office. He is a miracle worker. In four years, he has converted it to a deficit of $14 billion. His government has subsidized LNG Canada, and so has the federal government. The federal government deficit went from $48 billion under the Prime Minister to over $78 billion. Canada’s debt is now over $1 trillion. At the same time, these two wonderful leaders, who claim to be climate champions, are driving up greenhouse gas emissions. The only Canadian thing about LNG Canada is its name. It is no surprise that it is buying its steel from China; it is owned by PetroChina. From the get-go, the parts for the LNG plant have been fabricated in China. They are all foreign companies. There is not one Canadian owner of LNG Canada.”
Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary keeps mentioning LNG Canada as a great investment. Yes, it is a $33-billion project, and it is true that the Prime Minister stood side by side with David Eby, Premier of B.C. He has so much in common with the Prime Minister. David Eby inherited a surplus of $1 billion in 2022 when he took office. He is a miracle worker. In four years, he has converted it to a deficit of $14 billion. His government has subsidized LNG Canada, and so has the federal government. The federal government deficit went from $48 billion under the Prime Minister to over $78 billion. Canada’s debt is now over $1 trillion. At the same time, these two wonderful leaders, who claim to be climate champions, are driving up greenhouse gas emissions. The only Canadian thing about LNG Canada is its name. It is no surprise that it is buying its steel from China; it is owned by PetroChina. From the get-go, the parts for the LNG plant have been fabricated in China. They are all foreign companies. There is not one Canadian owner of LNG Canada.
“I agree with the motion. If we are going to waste a day debating, we should debate holding Elon Musk accountable instead. He said three Canadian provinces should separate. Since he wants to live on Mars, we should vote to send him there.”
“Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni that there is nothing to vote against in the motion. I wonder, if we are going to have a day spent debating something foolish, if the member for King—Vaughan would agree with me that since we have more billionaires in Canada than ever, we should hold the world’s first trillionaire to account. Elon Musk said yesterday that Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec should separate. I wonder if we could get a day’s debate, thanks to the Conservatives, that since Elon Musk wants to live on Mars, we pass a resolution that we send him there as soon as possible.”
Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni that there is nothing to vote against in the motion. I wonder, if we are going to have a day spent debating something foolish, if the member for King—Vaughan would agree with me that since we have more billionaires in Canada than ever, we should hold the world’s first trillionaire to account. Elon Musk said yesterday that Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec should separate. I wonder if we could get a day’s debate, thanks to the Conservatives, that since Elon Musk wants to live on Mars, we pass a resolution that we send him there as soon as possible.
Adjournment Proceedings ·
“The government is breaking its promises on climate change. It approved a pipeline and is missing its own targets to cut emissions. We are running out of time, and the government must keep its climate commitments.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is no indication of urgency whatsoever except the urgency with which the Liberal government is turning its back on climate commitments. As Steven Guilbeault said before he left the House, the platform on which all the Liberal members ran mentioned climate change 28 times but did not mention pipelines once, and in approving the pipeline recently, the Prime Minister claimed that the increase in greenhouse gases would not be material. My God, we are on track to be well above the Harper target that was selected in May 2015. We are miles from reaching the targets that are legally binding under the Paris Agreement, and we are running out of time that really matters. I will not turn my back on future generations, and shame on anyone on the other side of the House who does.”
Mr. Speaker, there is no indication of urgency whatsoever except the urgency with which the Liberal government is turning its back on climate commitments. As Steven Guilbeault said before he left the House, the platform on which all the Liberal members ran mentioned climate change 28 times but did not mention pipelines once, and in approving the pipeline recently, the Prime Minister claimed that the increase in greenhouse gases would not be material. My God, we are on track to be well above the Harper target that was selected in May 2015. We are miles from reaching the targets that are legally binding under the Paris Agreement, and we are running out of time that really matters. I will not turn my back on future generations, and shame on anyone on the other side of the House who does.
“The government needs to listen to climate science and cut emissions quickly. Key ocean currents like the Gulf Stream are slowing down and could collapse by mid-century. Waiting until 2050 to reach net-zero emissions is too slow to stop irreversible damage.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am returning to a question I asked on May 1. It relates to the science around the climate crisis. I am very concerned that we do not actually talk about the position we are in as humanity on a planet that is undergoing dramatic, irreversible changes due to our own conduct. Too often in this place, it is a throwaway line, or someone stands up and says, “Well, we could talk about climate change years ago, but that’s over now.” My question at the time was to say, “alarm bells are ringing of imminent global collapse of key climate systems, but the alarms are being drowned out by the cheering of Liberals and Conservatives for new and more climate-killing projects.” Key experts say that there is a 50-50 chance of the collapse of the massive and complex Atlantic Ocean current system with devastating catastrophic results. I asked: “When will the government stop shutting off the alarms and try to act before we pass the tipping points?” At that moment, I was referring to the publication of a recent scientific report at the time, back last spring. For any insomniacs watching CPAC, it could not have a worse name than the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Its acronym is, appropriately perhaps, AMOC, because we might be running amok. It is the the major current, which people will know intuitively or from their science classes as the Gulf Stream. The ocean currents are vast conveyor belts throughout the oceans of the world. All the sea water anywhere around the world will eventually make the full circuit, which takes many years, all around the planet. However, what is happening is that with the shifting of temperatures with the overheating of the oceans in some parts of the ocean and the cooler water entering the system as we have ice melting in the Arctic, the cooler water depresses the warmer water so that the Gulf Stream is being depressed and slowed down. I have been working on issues around climate science since I was a senior policy adviser to the federal minister of environment back in 1986, and so I had a lot of brilliant climate scientists explain things like this to me. I am not as good at explaining them after midnight, but it is critical that Canadians, particularly the cabinet of this country, understand the science, because we are running out of time. There are tipping points, such as if we lose the Gulf Stream, if it stalls, if it stops, and it is very clearly slowing down. We used to think, back in 1986, that this was very unlikely to ever happen, but the most recent reports to which I was referring in this question said we are now at a 50-50 chance that it could happen by mid-century. If that happens, the effects are catastrophic and enormous. This is directly related to the fiction that net zero by 2050 has anything to do with our Paris commitments. That is an invention for public relations purposes to avoid the fact that in order to avoid very significant tipping points that are irreversible, creating unstoppable changes, our emissions need to come down sharply. Last advice from the IPCC was, at the latest, before 2025. Here we are, it is 2026, and we are ignoring the alarm bells.”
Mr. Speaker, I am returning to a question I asked on May 1. It relates to the science around the climate crisis. I am very concerned that we do not actually talk about the position we are in as humanity on a planet that is undergoing dramatic, irreversible changes due to our own conduct. Too often in this place, it is a throwaway line, or someone stands up and says, “Well, we could talk about climate change years ago, but that’s over now.” My question at the time was to say, “alarm bells are ringing of imminent global collapse of key climate systems, but the alarms are being drowned out by the cheering of Liberals and Conservatives for new and more climate-killing projects.” Key experts say that there is a 50-50 chance of the collapse of the massive and complex Atlantic Ocean current system with devastating catastrophic results. I asked: “When will the government stop shutting off the alarms and try to act before we pass the tipping points?” At that moment, I was referring to the publication of a recent scientific report at the time, back last spring. For any insomniacs watching CPAC, it could not have a worse name than the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Its acronym is, appropriately perhaps, AMOC, because we might be running amok. It is the the major current, which people will know intuitively or from their science classes as the Gulf Stream. The ocean currents are vast conveyor belts throughout the oceans of the world. All the sea water anywhere around the world will eventually make the full circuit, which takes many years, all around the planet. However, what is happening is that with the shifting of temperatures with the overheating of the oceans in some parts of the ocean and the cooler water entering the system as we have ice melting in the Arctic, the cooler water depresses the warmer water so that the Gulf Stream is being depressed and slowed down. I have been working on issues around climate science since I was a senior policy adviser to the federal minister of environment back in 1986, and so I had a lot of brilliant climate scientists explain things like this to me. I am not as good at explaining them after midnight, but it is critical that Canadians, particularly the cabinet of this country, understand the science, because we are running out of time. There are tipping points, such as if we lose the Gulf Stream, if it stalls, if it stops, and it is very clearly slowing down. We used to think, back in 1986, that this was very unlikely to ever happen, but the most recent reports to which I was referring in this question said we are now at a 50-50 chance that it could happen by mid-century. If that happens, the effects are catastrophic and enormous. This is directly related to the fiction that net zero by 2050 has anything to do with our Paris commitments. That is an invention for public relations purposes to avoid the fact that in order to avoid very significant tipping points that are irreversible, creating unstoppable changes, our emissions need to come down sharply. Last advice from the IPCC was, at the latest, before 2025. Here we are, it is 2026, and we are ignoring the alarm bells.
Government Orders ·
“The digital trade law should not be hidden inside this huge bill. It should be its own bill so we have time to study it properly.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from York—Durham very much for drawing attention to division 8. I am going to put this to him bluntly. As I see it, in a couple of pages in an omnibus budget bill, not just a section of Bill C-39, they have created a separate piece of new legislation, the enabling digital trade act. Can the member see any reason we would not have had a separate piece of government legislation called the enabling digital trade act, with time to study it as a stand-alone piece of work, not part of an omnibus bill?”
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from York—Durham very much for drawing attention to division 8. I am going to put this to him bluntly. As I see it, in a couple of pages in an omnibus budget bill, not just a section of Bill C-39, they have created a separate piece of new legislation, the enabling digital trade act. Can the member see any reason we would not have had a separate piece of government legislation called the enabling digital trade act, with time to study it as a stand-alone piece of work, not part of an omnibus bill?
“I agree with my colleague. Canada does not control its own energy. American companies own our oil sector, and 90 percent of our fossil fuel exports go to the United States. We serve American companies instead of owning our own resources.”
“Mr. Speaker, my Bloc Québécois colleague made an excellent point in closing. We are not masters in our own house because, as he said, U.S. companies own the oil sector. The market is in the U.S. The latest spring economic statement indicated that 90% of our fossil fuel exports go to the United States. We have no market diversification. Why does he suppose the Liberals are unaware of this reality, of our role? We are not owners; we are serving U.S. companies.”
Mr. Speaker, my Bloc Québécois colleague made an excellent point in closing. We are not masters in our own house because, as he said, U.S. companies own the oil sector. The market is in the U.S. The latest spring economic statement indicated that 90% of our fossil fuel exports go to the United States. We have no market diversification. Why does he suppose the Liberals are unaware of this reality, of our role? We are not owners; we are serving U.S. companies.
In response to a question from Karim Bardeesy
“I oppose this bill. The first project it supports is an oil pipeline through sensitive areas in my riding that local First Nations do not want. I support clean energy, but not if it harms the Salish Sea, wild salmon, and killer whales.”
“Mr. Speaker, as the first project recommended to proceed being a dilbit pipeline running through the most sensitive ecological areas of my riding, with objections from indigenous nations throughout coastal British Columbia, I would love to see some wind-powered projects, but not at the expense of destroying the Salish Sea, the wild salmon and the southern resident killer whales. No way.”
Mr. Speaker, as the first project recommended to proceed being a dilbit pipeline running through the most sensitive ecological areas of my riding, with objections from indigenous nations throughout coastal British Columbia, I would love to see some wind-powered projects, but not at the expense of destroying the Salish Sea, the wild salmon and the southern resident killer whales. No way.
In response to a question from Maxime Blanchette-Joncas
“I oppose this bill. It gives the Prime Minister and cabinet special powers to ignore environmental laws forever, instead of ending after five years. The Liberals used to warn that another government could abuse these exact powers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. I would add that the word “hypocrisy” may actually be a little too kind. There is one thing that troubles me. During last year’s debates, Liberal members argued that the five-year sunset clause could be problematic because a future Conservative government might use these extraordinary powers improperly. At the time, the bill contained a provision that would have limited those powers to five years. Under this bill, however, these powers would remain in the hands of the Prime Minister and cabinet indefinitely, regardless of which party forms government.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. I would add that the word “hypocrisy” may actually be a little too kind. There is one thing that troubles me. During last year’s debates, Liberal members argued that the five-year sunset clause could be problematic because a future Conservative government might use these extraordinary powers improperly. At the time, the bill contained a provision that would have limited those powers to five years. Under this bill, however, these powers would remain in the hands of the Prime Minister and cabinet indefinitely, regardless of which party forms government.
In response to a question from Dan Albas
“This bill is poorly and dishonestly written. The summary hides the fact that it removes an expiry date on special government powers.”
“Mr. Speaker, honestly, I was shocked because not only is this bill is badly drafted, it is also deceitfully drafted. Usually when we look at the summary of a bill and what it says it is going to do in the front few pages it would say that it is amending Bill C-5, although it is not called Bill C-5 anymore, the Building Canada Act, in the “following ways” or “including the following”. We would think the important things are going to be listed when we do A, B, C, D, but the Liberals forgot to mention repealing section 5.1 of the Building Canada Act, which is the exact point my friend has raised, which is repealing the sunset clause without any effort to draw anyone’s attention to it. It is absolutely shocking.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, honestly, I was shocked because not only is this bill is badly drafted, it is also deceitfully drafted. Usually when we look at the summary of a bill and what it says it is going to do in the front few pages it would say that it is amending Bill C-5, although it is not called Bill C-5 anymore, the Building Canada Act, in the “following ways” or “including the following”. We would think the important things are going to be listed when we do A, B, C, D, but the Liberals forgot to mention repealing section 5.1 of the Building Canada Act, which is the exact point my friend has raised, which is repealing the sunset clause without any effort to draw anyone’s attention to it. It is absolutely shocking.
“I do not want this bill to pass. It rushes huge projects through without checking if they make sense or will waste billions of tax dollars. It weakens environmental rules and hurts workers' rights.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wish I had more than 10 minutes to deal with this. I will do my best, but this omnibus bill, Bill C-39, represents an extremely large threat to this country and to our economy, because it would allow billions of dollars of tax money to be thrown at projects that would not have to clear even the most basic cost-benefit analysis before being declared projects of national interest. I want to first of all clarify that this bill is enormous and I will not be able to give equal attention to all parts of it. In terms of part 3 and the threat it represents to collective bargaining and respect for the trade union movement, I want to make it clear that the Green Party completely supports the concerns of the Canadian Labour Congress, and wants to work hard to see part 3 substantially amended. Part 1 of Bill C-39 and part 2 of Bill C-5, the so-called Building Canada Act, are built on fallacies without evidence. This is a fundamentally important point, because all our debate takes place in a dream world where everyone accepts a bunch of fallacies without evidence. The primary fallacy is that moving fast is desirable and smart. Sometimes old truisms are actually true. Haste makes waste. If we want something that is not built on fallacies but has abundant evidence, I recommend to government members a book by Bent Flyvbjerg and Dan Gardner called How Big Things Get Done. They had a database of, believe it or not, 16,000 megaprojects that they studied, and most of them failed. Why did they fail? Small projects often succeeded. Bigger projects failed. When I say “failed”, I mean that they were not just a little bit over budget but something like 300% and 400% over budget and years late. I will just very quickly summarize what the book tells us: Most projects fail because people rush into execution with weak plans, optimism bias and political pressures. Does that ring any bells around here? The authors’ advice is “Think slow, act fast.” What we have here is a rush to get things done, without examining how and why. As a matter of fact, if anyone looks at How Big Things Get Done, they would look at Bill C-5 and Bill C-39 and say we had better pull the plug on those before we make massive mistakes that will leave us deeper in debt and without getting progress for our economy, while certainly leaving the environment and indigenous rights in tatters. The fallacies are really important to at least talk about before we once again rush through a process to pass a piece of legislation that, like Bill C-5, is based on massive political discretion, decisions made in cabinet with no transparency and without even the kind of evidence one would need for a business case or a cost-benefit analysis. In the case of Treasury Board guidelines before regulations, the cabinet directive for cost-benefit analysis for regulations would give the government a template one would need to know. We have, in our first example of a project referred to the Major Projects Office, as designated by cabinet as the first since Bill C-5 passed in late June of last year, the first time cabinet has said this is a project in the national interest. There were not any criteria in the legislation to guide them, and then they said they would let us know what the criteria were later, but they have approved the project with no cost-benefit analysis and no information. I mentioned earlier tonight that in the Canada Gazette, the government actually mis-characterizes the project in the description, which is not long. The description the government put on the Gazette website for Canadians to respond to claimed that the project is a pipeline to deliver crude oil. It may not matter to people in the PMO what the difference between crude oil and diluted bitumen is, but in fact, they have very different markets in different countries. Some refineries can handle some, but most cannot. In any case, there is a very significant difference in the kind of hazard that diluted bitumen represents. If the Liberals cannot describe it right when they put it out for public consultation, it does not inspire a lot of confidence that they know what they are doing at all. On top of that, we had no cost-benefit analysis, no further information as to why the project is in the national interest. I remember that on the floor of the House in June last year, the Minister of Energy said it would not be politicians deciding what projects are in the national interest. There would have to be a private sector proponent. If there is a private sector proponent, the projects are going to make money. There is no private sector proponent for the first project the government picked out of Bill C-5. It is the Government of Canada, the Government of Alberta and a company called Pembina Pipeline, which is willing to maybe stake 10% of the whole project. We are on the hook for this, and it is going to plow through and bulldoze through some of the most sensitive marine ecosystems on the coast of British Columbia, but that is okay, because the Prime Minister’s Office press release says that we are avoiding ecologically sensitive areas. Again, this provides no confidence whatsoever that the government even understands the basics of what it is supposed to do as a responsible government. I am going to go back to Bill C-5, because it is really important to understand. Again, to point to my friend, the member for Taiaiako’n—Parkdale—High Park, go back to Bill C-5 and look at the exemptions that are listed in subsection 21(2). I know I do not have a lot of time, but I have to read them so the public understands that cabinet is not authorized to make exemptions under the following acts: Access to Information Act, the Canada Elections Act, the Canada Labour Code, the Conflict of Interest Act, the Criminal Code, the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act, the Investment Canada Act, the Lobbying Act, the Official Languages Act, the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, the Indian Act, the Auditor General Act, the Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Trade Unions Act, the Explosives Act and the Hazardous Products Act. Guess what laws are not on the list that the government cannot make exemptions to. It is the laws that would also be amended in C-39, and I will tell members how they would be amended. They are the laws that I specifically tried to have added as amendments to Bill C-5, which were rejected by the Liberals and the Conservatives, to add that exemptions could not be made under the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act and others of that nature. We absolutely know that the Liberals thought about it and decided no, that they wanted to be able to run through those with a bulldozer. That is okay. They are going to do that, because they have done that in Bill C-5, and I sometimes feel like I am watching a soap opera and everyone forgot season one. Season one was Bill C-5. We are now in a Möbius loop, where we are still talking the same fallacies with no evidence, but we are in season two. In season two, it is more of the same, only worse, because they are really hoping that people were so bedazzled by the drama of season one of the soap opera that they are not keeping track of the cumulative impact of two omnibus bills with so radically different titles that we should be able to keep them straight: the Building Canada Act and the build Canada strong act. What the Liberals have done in Bill C-39 with the Species at Risk Act, the Impact Assessment Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Fisheries Act and others, is to add for the first time that governments, when adding conditions to approvals of projects, would have to consider whether these conditions are economic, feasible or practical. The previous transport minister, my friend whose name I will say because it gives the time context, was Omar Alghabra. When the government did the wrong thing and approved Roberts Bank, he said not to worry because they had 320 binding conditions that will protect the environment. Everyone knew they would not protect species at risk, but they were supposedly binding conditions. With Bill C-39, if it passes, there would be no such thing as binding conditions because the proponent could come back and say, “Wait a minute. I don’t see evidence that the minister considered that we can’t afford to live up to your conditions.” They cannot be managed. That is why Bill C-39 would further erode laws that the government has already done in Bill C-5 as discretionary if they are in the way of building some big thing with no evidence it is going to make sense. I really do think that deep geological disposal of nuclear waste actually happens to be one of the projects that the government has talked about, which is actually specifically referenced in the book I mentioned, How Big Things Get Done, as where we never want to be: developing a prototype for something that has never been done, such as, for instance, deep geological disposal of nuclear waste. My God, are the Liberals not embarrassed? Can they read legislation? I am sorry, but I can. I went to law school. I learned legislative drafting and statutory interpretation. They would get an F on this in law school if they submitted it as a term paper. It cannot be tracked. It cannot be read. We cannot keep track of what one goes to the other. Is anything defined? It is a pile of political discretion and spin. It is fiscal recklessness disguised as economic wisdom. I suppose it is something that only the current Prime Minister could get away with.”
Mr. Speaker, I wish I had more than 10 minutes to deal with this. I will do my best, but this omnibus bill, Bill C-39, represents an extremely large threat to this country and to our economy, because it would allow billions of dollars of tax money to be thrown at projects that would not have to clear even the most basic cost-benefit analysis before being declared projects of national interest. I want to first of all clarify that this bill is enormous and I will not be able to give equal attention to all parts of it. In terms of part 3 and the threat it represents to collective bargaining and respect for the trade union movement, I want to make it clear that the Green Party completely supports the concerns of the Canadian Labour Congress, and wants to work hard to see part 3 substantially amended. Part 1 of Bill C-39 and part 2 of Bill C-5, the so-called Building Canada Act, are built on fallacies without evidence. This is a fundamentally important point, because all our debate takes place in a dream world where everyone accepts a bunch of fallacies without evidence. The primary fallacy is that moving fast is desirable and smart. Sometimes old truisms are actually true. Haste makes waste. If we want something that is not built on fallacies but has abundant evidence, I recommend to government members a book by Bent Flyvbjerg and Dan Gardner called How Big Things Get Done. They had a database of, believe it or not, 16,000 megaprojects that they studied, and most of them failed. Why did they fail? Small projects often succeeded. Bigger projects failed. When I say “failed”, I mean that they were not just a little bit over budget but something like 300% and 400% over budget and years late. I will just very quickly summarize what the book tells us: Most projects fail because people rush into execution with weak plans, optimism bias and political pressures. Does that ring any bells around here? The authors’ advice is “Think slow, act fast.” What we have here is a rush to get things done, without examining how and why. As a matter of fact, if anyone looks at How Big Things Get Done, they would look at Bill C-5 and Bill C-39 and say we had better pull the plug on those before we make massive mistakes that will leave us deeper in debt and without getting progress for our economy, while certainly leaving the environment and indigenous rights in tatters. The fallacies are really important to at least talk about before we once again rush through a process to pass a piece of legislation that, like Bill C-5, is based on massive political discretion, decisions made in cabinet with no transparency and without even the kind of evidence one would need for a business case or a cost-benefit analysis. In the case of Treasury Board guidelines before regulations, the cabinet directive for cost-benefit analysis for regulations would give the government a template one would need to know. We have, in our first example of a project referred to the Major Projects Office, as designated by cabinet as the first since Bill C-5 passed in late June of last year, the first time cabinet has said this is a project in the national interest. There were not any criteria in the legislation to guide them, and then they said they would let us know what the criteria were later, but they have approved the project with no cost-benefit analysis and no information. I mentioned earlier tonight that in the Canada Gazette, the government actually mis-characterizes the project in the description, which is not long. The description the government put on the Gazette website for Canadians to respond to claimed that the project is a pipeline to deliver crude oil. It may not matter to people in the PMO what the difference between crude oil and diluted bitumen is, but in fact, they have very different markets in different countries. Some refineries can handle some, but most cannot. In any case, there is a very significant difference in the kind of hazard that diluted bitumen represents. If the Liberals cannot describe it right when they put it out for public consultation, it does not inspire a lot of confidence that they know what they are doing at all. On top of that, we had no cost-benefit analysis, no further information as to why the project is in the national interest. I remember that on the floor of the House in June last year, the Minister of Energy said it would not be politicians deciding what projects are in the national interest. There would have to be a private sector proponent. If there is a private sector proponent, the projects are going to make money. There is no private sector proponent for the first project the government picked out of Bill C-5. It is the Government of Canada, the Government of Alberta and a company called Pembina Pipeline, which is willing to maybe stake 10% of the whole project. We are on the hook for this, and it is going to plow through and bulldoze through some of the most sensitive marine ecosystems on the coast of British Columbia, but that is okay, because the Prime Minister’s Office press release says that we are avoiding ecologically sensitive areas. Again, this provides no confidence whatsoever that the government even understands the basics of what it is supposed to do as a responsible government. I am going to go back to Bill C-5, because it is really important to understand. Again, to point to my friend, the member for Taiaiako’n—Parkdale—High Park, go back to Bill C-5 and look at the exemptions that are listed in subsection 21(2). I know I do not have a lot of time, but I have to read them so the public understands that cabinet is not authorized to make exemptions under the following acts: Access to Information Act, the Canada Elections Act, the Canada Labour Code, the Conflict of Interest Act, the Criminal Code, the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act, the Investment Canada Act, the Lobbying Act, the Official Languages Act, the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, the Indian Act, the Auditor General Act, the Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Trade Unions Act, the Explosives Act and the Hazardous Products Act. Guess what laws are not on the list that the government cannot make exemptions to. It is the laws that would also be amended in C-39, and I will tell members how they would be amended. They are the laws that I specifically tried to have added as amendments to Bill C-5, which were rejected by the Liberals and the Conservatives, to add that exemptions could not be made under the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act and others of that nature. We absolutely know that the Liberals thought about it and decided no, that they wanted to be able to run through those with a bulldozer. That is okay. They are going to do that, because they have done that in Bill C-5, and I sometimes feel like I am watching a soap opera and everyone forgot season one. Season one was Bill C-5. We are now in a Möbius loop, where we are still talking the same fallacies with no evidence, but we are in season two. In season two, it is more of the same, only worse, because they are really hoping that people were so bedazzled by the drama of season one of the soap opera that they are not keeping track of the cumulative impact of two omnibus bills with so radically different titles that we should be able to keep them straight: the Building Canada Act and the build Canada strong act. What the Liberals have done in Bill C-39 with the Species at Risk Act, the Impact Assessment Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Fisheries Act and others, is to add for the first time that governments, when adding conditions to approvals of projects, would have to consider whether these conditions are economic, feasible or practical. The previous transport minister, my friend whose name I will say because it gives the time context, was Omar Alghabra. When the government did the wrong thing and approved Roberts Bank, he said not to worry because they had 320 binding conditions that will protect the environment. Everyone knew they would not protect species at risk, but they were supposedly binding conditions. With Bill C-39, if it passes, there would be no such thing as binding conditions because the proponent could come back and say, “Wait a minute. I don’t see evidence that the minister considered that we can’t afford to live up to your conditions.” They cannot be managed. That is why Bill C-39 would further erode laws that the government has already done in Bill C-5 as discretionary if they are in the way of building some big thing with no evidence it is going to make sense. I really do think that deep geological disposal of nuclear waste actually happens to be one of the projects that the government has talked about, which is actually specifically referenced in the book I mentioned, How Big Things Get Done, as where we never want to be: developing a prototype for something that has never been done, such as, for instance, deep geological disposal of nuclear waste. My God, are the Liberals not embarrassed? Can they read legislation? I am sorry, but I can. I went to law school. I learned legislative drafting and statutory interpretation. They would get an F on this in law school if they submitted it as a term paper. It cannot be tracked. It cannot be read. We cannot keep track of what one goes to the other. Is anything defined? It is a pile of political discretion and spin. It is fiscal recklessness disguised as economic wisdom. I suppose it is something that only the current Prime Minister could get away with.
“I oppose this bill. Between this bill and an earlier one, the government is gutting environmental laws and letting cabinet approve projects without proper rules. It throws away decades of progress on how to plan projects properly, and it wastes money.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39 does not have to gut the Endangered Species Act, and it does not have to gut the federal Impact Assessment Act, because Bill C-5 has already done that, and Bill C-5 is in place, allowing maximum discretion for whenever a project is dreamed up by cabinet with no guidelines or criteria. As for a project in the national interest, it is allowed to exempt that project from the application of all the other acts that are mentioned, except the specific ones that I will mention in my speech that it is not allowed to exempt. Bill C-5 and Bill C-39 together mean bulldozing through decades of progress in knowing how to plan a project to succeed. This is reckless fiscal irresponsibility.”
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39 does not have to gut the Endangered Species Act, and it does not have to gut the federal Impact Assessment Act, because Bill C-5 has already done that, and Bill C-5 is in place, allowing maximum discretion for whenever a project is dreamed up by cabinet with no guidelines or criteria. As for a project in the national interest, it is allowed to exempt that project from the application of all the other acts that are mentioned, except the specific ones that I will mention in my speech that it is not allowed to exempt. Bill C-5 and Bill C-39 together mean bulldozing through decades of progress in knowing how to plan a project to succeed. This is reckless fiscal irresponsibility.
In response to a question from Helena Konanz
“The government rushed to pass an earlier major projects bill in just one week without any study. After more than a year of doing nothing with it, they finally named one pipeline project. I want the member to share her thoughts on how rushed and pointless that was.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague does us a great favour. I would ask the member if she can remember the rush that everybody was in, in June 2025, that Bill C-5 had to be passed before we rose for the summer. We went from second reading to royal assent between a Monday and a Friday. There was no time to study it, and no time to think. It was just important to get it passed, because we were in such a hurry, and exactly as she said, not one single project was listed under Bill C-5 until about two weeks ago when the Liberals decided, in cabinet, to say that what they are now calling the Pacific link is the first project. After more than a year, after the rush to pass the bill we could not study, they have now put forward a pipeline, which they could not even accurately describe in the Canada Gazette. Does the member have any thoughts on this?”
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague does us a great favour. I would ask the member if she can remember the rush that everybody was in, in June 2025, that Bill C-5 had to be passed before we rose for the summer. We went from second reading to royal assent between a Monday and a Friday. There was no time to study it, and no time to think. It was just important to get it passed, because we were in such a hurry, and exactly as she said, not one single project was listed under Bill C-5 until about two weeks ago when the Liberals decided, in cabinet, to say that what they are now calling the Pacific link is the first project. After more than a year, after the rush to pass the bill we could not study, they have now put forward a pipeline, which they could not even accurately describe in the Canada Gazette. Does the member have any thoughts on this?
“I oppose this bill. Rushing environmental reviews does not make projects happen faster. In 2012, the government set tight deadlines and rushed reviews for the Kinder Morgan pipeline. The review was done poorly, the courts stopped it, and the project took longer. Rushing causes waste.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member’s bringing us back to spring 2012, when the Harper government brought in the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-38, which repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, fast-tracked a new act, set time limits on every single phase of environmental review and passed the whole thing over for the first time to the National Energy Board. The Kinder Morgan project was a prime example of something that took longer because of the haste with which the omnibus bill was pushed through and the fact that the National Energy Board, a quasi-judicial body that was exempted from operating as quasi-judicial body, could not meet the timelines. As a result of all that, the project went off the rails, and the federal court found that it had not followed due process. Haste makes waste.”
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member’s bringing us back to spring 2012, when the Harper government brought in the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-38, which repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, fast-tracked a new act, set time limits on every single phase of environmental review and passed the whole thing over for the first time to the National Energy Board. The Kinder Morgan project was a prime example of something that took longer because of the haste with which the omnibus bill was pushed through and the fact that the National Energy Board, a quasi-judicial body that was exempted from operating as quasi-judicial body, could not meet the timelines. As a result of all that, the project went off the rails, and the federal court found that it had not followed due process. Haste makes waste.
“I tried to join the committee studying this bill, but my request was rejected. I want other members to help push for changes to this bill at the committee stage. Specifically, I want to make sure the government cannot exempt certain laws.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciated my hon. colleague’s speech very much, particularly the commitment to address this bill and to make amendments in committee. I do not know if the hon. member is aware, but I did contact all party whip offices, PROC and the Speaker’s office to ask to be added to the special legislative committee that will be studying the bill. That request has been rejected, but I would appreciate any support from any member in this place to assist in pressing for amendments when it does get to committee. I appreciate the hon. member’s concern for labour rights. Would he also agree to try to add to the list that is in former Bill C-5 acts that they are not allowed to exempt?”
Madam Speaker, I appreciated my hon. colleague’s speech very much, particularly the commitment to address this bill and to make amendments in committee. I do not know if the hon. member is aware, but I did contact all party whip offices, PROC and the Speaker’s office to ask to be added to the special legislative committee that will be studying the bill. That request has been rejected, but I would appreciate any support from any member in this place to assist in pressing for amendments when it does get to committee. I appreciate the hon. member’s concern for labour rights. Would he also agree to try to add to the list that is in former Bill C-5 acts that they are not allowed to exempt?
