Jean-Denis Garon

“I want the government to show real data proving that cutting fuel taxes actually helps consumers instead of oil companies. The minister showed us only an infographic. This bill will add billions of dollars to the deficit. We should target help directly to families who need it most through sales tax credits instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Conservative colleagues for their earlier speeches. I am a little baffled because they seem to know how we are going to vote before we do. We are being thorough. We have taken part in parliamentary committees, pushed for witnesses to be called and pushed to ensure that we understand exactly what we are voting on and have all the facts before us. I must admit that I am somewhat disappointed because, beyond our ideological preconceptions—it is true that we have different values—there is a reason why, at some point, we decide to put our face on an election sign of a certain colour, whether it be pale blue, dark blue, red or whatever else. Our values inevitably shape how we interpret the facts, and that can lead us to support different policies. However, we cannot each have our own version of reality. We must begin with the same facts and the same rigorous analysis. From there, we can apply our respective principles and values and potentially arrive at different conclusions. In my view, that is precisely the purpose of parliamentary debate. It serves as a forum to express our interpretation of the facts at our disposal. The reality of this bill is that we have no facts. We know what the facts are in foreign jurisdictions. In many ways, the Americans’ situation is actually comparable to ours because we are among the two or three countries in the world that have lower taxes on gasoline and diesel. We know that when certain American states removed or reduced the excise tax, a significant portion of the tax cut did not end up in the pockets of consumers and families. We agree that the purpose of this bill is not to help the distribution chain, but to help families. That was the justification that the Minister of Finance gave. The Minister of Finance said that there are two ways to help families: the excise tax, which is temporary, and the new groceries credit, which is the GST credit that was renamed because it obviously is no longer really a GST credit. The goal is to help families. It is important to rely on facts. Personally, I am deeply convinced that no one here today is rising, as the Conservatives are saying, to say that they would like the cost of living to increase for households. No one here thinks that we should not ease the pressure on household finances. No one here thinks that we need fewer jobs, less growth and less wealth and that it should be redistributed less effectively. I do not think that view exists. The issue is the methodology. What methodology does this bill actually propose? First, it would reduce the excise tax by four cents for diesel and 10¢ for gasoline. Let us consider the four cents for diesel. A number of events have affected the retail diesel market. First, there was the crisis in Ukraine. For our farmers, there was also the issue of fertilizer that came up at the time. It was very difficult for them. Then there is the Strait of Hormuz involving our friend President Trump, as if he had not already done enough. A four-cent reduction is fairly minor when the supply chain is considered. What we are really talking about is relief for people who drive personal trucks. We voted in favour of that. At the time, the Bloc Québécois supported it. That is why, when I listen to my Conservative colleagues, I wonder if they believe that the Earth is flat. We voted for it. We believed that the situation was urgent, that the measure might not have been perfectly targeted and that we did not necessarily know the impact, but that, at that time, it could be implemented quickly and provide some relief. We voted in favour of that motion. I do not recall them applauding that or coming over to congratulate the Bloc Québécois. Nevertheless, we voted in favour of it. As the summer came to a close, we were presented with a notice of ways and means motion and told that it had to be debated in the House. I have no problem with that. It is the Minister of Finance’s prerogative to introduce a tax bill, but we said we needed witnesses to appear before the committee. We needed to know the facts of the matter. I especially wanted to hear from people at the Department of Finance, which is filled with top-notch economists, people I knew in my previous professional life, who are very familiar with the issue. Although many variables affect the price of diesel, there are statistical methods we can use to determine, possibly not very accurately, whether this fairly considerable 10¢ reduction in the excise tax is actually ending up in consumers’ pockets. We insisted on hearing from witnesses, but there have been very few. We are talking about billions of dollars in spending and, today, the Parliamentary Budget Officer updated her projections. She said that things were not going well and that the deficits would be even larger than expected over the next few years. We have not seen the November 5 budget yet, so we will see what happens. However, all other things being equal, the deficit forecast will be $3 billion to $4 billion more per year than previously projected. Four billion dollars is the cost of the measure we have before us, when we combine the spring version with the one we have here. I realize that, in the grand scheme of things, this is not very much money as a percentage of the government’s revenue and spending, but given the size of our deficits, it becomes marginally significant when the government is constantly adding measures. I thought it was a good idea to hear from witnesses. I thought the right place to try to find out whether the policy was working was in committee. The study was rushed through in two hours. We heard from the minister and just three witnesses. What is more, the minister showed up at the committee meeting with an infographic. I do not know whether my colleagues knew what it was, and there are people on the Hill who are watching, so I am almost embarrassed to mention it. The minister had a sheet of printer paper covered in little coloured bubbles: an infographic. We asked whether he had done any studies, whether he had checked if this was going into taxpayers’ pockets. Nothing could prove that we are in favour of helping taxpayers more than the fact that we asked the minister whether he is sure that when 10¢ is taken off the excise tax, those 10¢ go into the pocket of the person who needs to use their car to go to work in the morning. There is no way in the world we could show more consideration for the person who needs to use their car. The minister showed us an infographic with little bubbles. In a condescending tone, he told us we should include it in the householder mailings we send to our constituents and show them the measures the government is taking. He had an infographic, but we asked the minister if he had done any studies. Obviously, some portion of the excise tax cut went into people’s pockets. Retailers do not keep 100% of the excise tax. However, we want to know whether 95% went into people’s pockets or whether it was 90% or 85%. Was it two-thirds, as it is in some parts of the United States? Is it less than that, as was the case in Quebec during the Jacques Parizeau days, for example, when it did not have much of an impact? The minister’s response was that he had an infographic. Let us take a moment to reflect on what the minister thinks of the parliamentary process. He showed up with a brochure, like kids going door-to-door to sell chocolate. It was pretty much on the same level. Afterwards, I told the minister that we still needed to know that. Anyone can go watch the recording. The minister told me that the average person at home knows full well that the 10¢ savings on gas went back into consumers’ pockets, just like the four-cent savings on diesel, and that people are fully capable of doing the math with pen and paper at home. That is what Canada’s Minister of Finance, the minister of a G7 country, told us. Let me go back to my premise. No one here in the House wants consumers to not get a break. All we want is to ensure that taxpayers’ money is managed properly. If the goal is to put money back in families’ pockets, it seems logical that we should try to find out whether it is in fact ending up in families’ pockets. We made proposals. Once again, people are saying that we want to reinstate the tax, and so on. We made proposals. I said this earlier in my question. This has been going on since the war in Ukraine began. It is not the first time. First, we saw significant inflation in the supply chain during the pandemic. That took a toll. Interest rates went up for people who had bought homes. All too often, they had variable-rate mortgages even when rates could not go any lower. These people may have made a mistake, but it hit them hard. There was the war in Ukraine. That had an impact on our farmers when it came to fertilizer. At the time, the government had imposed sanctions on fertilizer coming into the country. We had to fight to ensure there would be no sanctions on fertilizer that local farmers had already purchased before the war in Ukraine broke out. We succeeded. Back then, the government was somewhat receptive to our concerns. It was a minority government. Let us hope for another. We came up with a proposal. The idea was to prevent inflation in fuel costs from working its way into the supply chain. How do we do that? We make sure it is not embedded in the inputs at every stage of production. There are special tax provisions for people who work in transportation—taxi services, para transit and freight transportation—and for farmers. Anyone who represents an agricultural riding knows that. As members know, farm diesel is a different colour. The same goes for heating oil. There are different tax rules that apply. This takes pressure off the supply chain as a whole. This increase in diesel does not influence the Bank of Canada’s decision. The inflation that the Bank of Canada uses to determine whether to raise rates excludes energy and food, for which prices are determined internationally. Monetary policy has no impact on that. The government needs to make sure that the increase does not affect grocery bills or cans of food. Incidentally, my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources talked about peas earlier, but he did not know that a combine harvester is not used to pick peas. He gave an example earlier, but someone should have told him that combine harvesters are not used to produce canned vegetables. We will forgive him for that, as he was overcome with emotion. Anyway, what we want is to make sure that this does not result in inflation. That is what the Bank of Canada is telling us. When the Governor of the Bank of Canada testified before the Standing Committee on Finance, he told us that they were waiting to see whether the oil price shock would last so long that inflation, which is not included in the index used to set monetary policy, would end up affecting food prices. There is a possibility that it might happen after this bill expires in the third quarter of 2027. There is good reason to believe that this is not the right approach and that it does not help enough people. While it may help a few people, it costs too much and misses the mark. Those are the questions we have been wondering about. We are here to vote on a bill that is going to cost billions of dollars, and its impact on redistribution is unknown. We know what impact it will have on public finances. Now people are accusing us of wanting to raise taxes. The riding I represent, Mirabel, is an agricultural riding. People know that I keep a pair of boots in the trunk of my car. They know that I visit farms and that I know our farmers by name. This proposal to take the pressure off them and ensure that diesel price increases do not end up in supply chains has a trickle-down effect and also meets a number of environmental objectives at the pump. It is important to understand how taxes work. If I ever go back to teaching economics, I am going to use my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources’s speech to show my students what not to say. Diesel and gas consumers are people who are dependent on diesel and gas in the very short term. When there is an oil crisis, people are not going to change their vehicle or heating system right away, but they might do so down the road. They are not going to replace their combine harvesters or other machinery with more fuel-efficient models. People are going to continue to buy gas and diesel because they need to get around and keep their businesses running. In the short and medium terms, oil and gas consumers are very dependent. Demand is barely affected by price. The member for Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources said as much. When it is time to harvest, it is time to harvest. Farmers need to fill up their tanks. Producers and distributors know, just as the member for Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources does, that farmers need diesel. Does the government really believe that suspending the excise tax, which amounts to a savings of just four or five cents per litre, means it can tell farmers that they are getting a gift because the price has gone down by four cents? They have no choice but to fill their tanks. Diesel suppliers will do what they have always done. They will lower prices for two or three days because they do not want to end up on the front page of the Journal de Montréal. They do not want to be seen as the bad guys. They will lower prices for two days, but once the news cycle moves on, they will raise prices again. I asked the minister if any studies had been done and if anyone knew that it was working. These are legitimate questions. The minister told me that we did know because the price dropped by 10¢ on the first day. When was this policy implemented? It was in June, 120 days ago. It seems as though the minister does not care about the other 119 days. He cares about the first day, but not the other 119 days, when it is no longer news and once the policy has been implemented. There is still some uncertainty in market signals. Prices are fluctuating. The Americans are causing trouble in the Strait of Hormuz. The price is going up. Oil companies know full well that no one can say where the price increase is coming from, so they are pocketing the savings from the excise tax. I would like someone to explain how that helps consumers. Someone will say that, basically, if the excise tax is reduced, the 10¢ can be split between consumers and retailers. Maybe retailers need a little help, too. Some fuel retailers might be having a bad year. They are business owners, and maybe they need help. If the minister’s goal is to help gas retailers, he should say so. When I am out and about in my riding, I do what everyone else does. I see businesses; I see farmers; I see people who have to travel back and forth a lot between Mirabel and Saint‑Jérôme or Mirabel and Montreal. They have to put gas in their cars. No one tells me that we should be helping the Ultramar on the corner or that we absolutely need to drive along Curé-Labelle—Highway 117—and help gas retailers. I have not heard any such thing, not once. That is the fear, though. We heard from witnesses in committee. Generally speaking, they told us that the government should help households with the cost of living. I agree, but this situation calls for more targeted measures. The witnesses told us that temporary measures like this one always become permanent. Other provinces have done it. I believe Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador have done it. I am not a big fan of Milton Friedman, but he said nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. Back then, Milton Friedman was talking about tax increases, but the same applies to tax cuts. We must not imagine that once we have lowered taxes once, twice or three times, people will not be angry when we raise them again. We cannot tell Canadians and Quebeckers that it will be temporary. That will not fly. If we want to do this, then we need to help families. How should we go about it? We should use the GST credit. It is targeted, has the same criteria as family benefits, takes into account the number of children, and is means tested. In Quebec, there is the solidarity tax credit, which is refundable. It even takes into account additional criteria, such as living in a rural or remote area. Gas retailers would have kept some of that money for themselves, but this way, it is used to help families directly. That is one way of doing it. What is more, it helps people who do not have a car. There are people who do not have cars. Some people are being hit so hard by the cost of living crisis that they no longer have a car. Will this measure help them, or would they be helped by a broader, more targeted measure? That is a question worth asking. People who do not have a car also need to eat, and they are also grappling with the rising cost of groceries. These people need help too. That is one of the things we need to think about, among many. I will say it again. I think this is the fifth speech I have given on this subject. I did two the first time. We are now at third reading. Regarding inflation, over the past 15 to 20 years, the price of gas has fluctuated a lot, but it has generally followed the same trend. When we factor in inflation, it has gone up. That is called the nominal price. We see the price going up. When we remove inflation, the price does not change, but it fluctuates a lot. Yes, it fluctuates a lot, while the purchasing power of the wealthiest 80% of Canadians has increased significantly. There are two things going on here. The wealthiest 80% of people have bigger cars. The number of cars on the road, including in Montreal, is growing faster than the population. That is what is happening. Among the bottom 20% are people on tight budgets. When the price fluctuates, when the price goes from $1.60 to $1.80, those folks stop eating. They stop taking their kids to activities. They stop going to the movies. They stop spending in other sectors of the economy. That is 20% of the population. Those are the facts. I looked at the data sets. I calculated that. That is what Luc Godbout is telling us. That is what Antoine Genest-Grégoire is telling us. That is what experience tells us needs to be done. We need to help these people. Instead of helping 100% of people with assistance, 30% of which goes into the pockets of oil companies, why not take the same amount of money and use it to help five times as many people who are genuinely struggling? In the meantime, why not implement the measures proposed by the Bloc to mitigate the impact of rising fuel prices on the entire supply chain over the longer term? That is the Bloc’s proposal. The Conservatives delivered 10-minute speeches. Maybe they should have taken 20 minutes instead. If they think the Bloc is in favour of taxing people and increasing the cost of living and against providing assistance, then I think some people are having issues hearing the interpretation. I will say it again: The government needs facts and data to back up its decision to introduce a policy like this and renew it a second time. I seriously think that the Department of Finance did the analysis, because there are some excellent people in that department. The reason we do not know what percentage of the savings was pocketed by producers is because they know the answer and did not want it published.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Respect 99 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “It seems as though the minister does not care about the other 119 days”.

  See full analysis →

“Cutting the fuel tax does not help farmers or consumers. Fuel companies just keep the extra money instead of lowering their prices. I want the government to share studies on how this tax cut actually works before we vote on it.”

“Mr. Speaker, my friend, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska—des‑Sources, is attacking the Bloc Québécois. Deep down, he is soft-hearted guy, a future grandfather, and we know that he really likes us. We all want the cost of living to improve. In committee, we asked the minister whether the reduction in the excise tax was really helping to keep money in the pockets of consumers and farmers. What was really interesting about my colleague’s speech is that he said the opposite of what is taught in economics and what actually happens in the real world. He said that a farmer cannot take a day off when they are in the middle of harvesting their crop. They have to keep their machinery running and they need to fill the tanks with fuel to do that. That is exactly the kind of situation where diesel distributors will pocket the five cents from the tax on diesel. When a farmer is in the middle of harvesting their crop and goes to get diesel, what does the diesel distributor do? He pockets the excise tax, so it does not do the farmer one bit of good. Does my colleague agree that, when the government implements and extends a measure like this, it is only reasonable to expect the Department of Finance, which has had this measures in place for several months now, to provide us with studies so that we know what we are voting on?”

“Cutting the fuel tax just lets some companies pocket the savings instead of helping consumers. The Bloc Québécois proposed targeted tax credits for farms, taxis, and shipping companies to actually keep costs down. Why do the Conservatives claim we never offer solutions?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his committee appointment. He told us that he will leave no stone unturned in determining which companies are passing these increases on to consumers and which are not. This means he acknowledges that when the excise tax is suspended, some businesses simply pocket the savings. He acknowledges that. I know that he was not a parliamentarian at the time, but I would remind him of the following: From the very outset of the war in Ukraine, the Bloc Québécois proposed significant tax credits for transportation companies, taxis and farms to ensure that these businesses would not have to bear the additional fuel costs and, more importantly, to prevent those higher costs from being passed along the entire supply chain and ultimately to consumers, as the Bank of Canada warned could happen. I would like to know why he and his colleague who spoke before him keep saying that the Bloc Québécois never puts any solutions forward. Is it possible that when we proposed this in 2021, 2022 and 2023, they were simply not around?”

“We have two different bills about military buying before us right now. One sets up a temporary system and the other sets up a permanent one. I want to know why the government is asking us to debate both of them at the same time.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, there seems to be some confusion about what the procurement system should look like, because we have two bills before the House right now. First there is Bill C‑31, which will create a Crown corporation, and then there is Bill C‑40, which proposes a completely different process. From what I understand, once Bill C‑31 is passed, much of what we are debating today will simply go out the window. Today, in committee, the secretary of state told us that the plan was always to have a temporary structure before setting up a permanent one later. I wonder if my colleague knows why the government, in this case, is presenting us with the structure that was meant to be temporary, Bill C‑40, and the structure that is meant to be permanent, Bill C‑31, and why we are debating them at the same time in the House. What is the logic behind that?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 43 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Alexis Deschênes

“I oppose this bill's plan to pre-approve projects. It creates an unstable and unfair system. Projects can be pre-approved and break laws later, while investors without special access to the government still have to follow the regular rules.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right in his analysis. The government tells us that investors are reaching out, that it wants investment, and that we need a stable regulatory environment, or so the Liberals say. However, what is being proposed here is not a stable regulatory environment. There is no regulatory environment. An investor is told that their project will be pre-approved and that, when the report comes out, at worst, it will be scrapped or parts of it will be removed, and then three or four laws will be violated just to move it forward. That is not a stable regulatory environment. There is nothing more unstable than that. It is a lack of regulation, but it is also an injustice. What happens to investors who do not have access to the Prime Minister’s Office or are not a priority to the current government? Those investors have to comply with the other laws. This is an asymmetrical and unpredictable regulatory regime, and I do not think it necessarily serves the government’s objectives.”

In response to a question from Steeve Lavoie

“I do not want this bill passed as it is written. The government is taking away people's land for projects without proper studies, plans, or costs. The Liberals write the bills, and they need to write a better one that we can change.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows that I respect him, but clearly, spending 20 years in banking does not nurture logical thinking. My colleague is new here; he has not been here long. He needs to understand that the Liberals have a majority and that when they introduce bills, those are government orders. My colleague is talking about the status quo. This bill will be passed. We are engaging in constructive discussion to ensure that initiatives that have value for society—a net positive value—move forward. We are studying the bill, but they are the ones drafting the bills. Government orders are written by them. We spend our days studying what they give us. My colleague is talking about Lac‑Mégantic, and he is starting to scare people. This process will result in expropriations. Speaking of trains, they are also in the process of expropriating land in Mirabel without an assessment, without a project, and without any financial details. They are walking around private property in my riding and announcing that they want to expropriate precisely for this reason, precisely because of this way of doing things. They have a bulldozer approach. They are running roughshod over people without being prepared. My colleague speaks of maintaining the status quo. They should introduce better legislation, legislation that is open to amendment. I have been here for more than five years, and we have tabled amendments before. The process worked well. My colleague should know that government orders are written by the ministers. They should write better ones.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 12 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I oppose this bill. It weakens environmental protections by giving the minister too much power to skip environmental laws and ignore assessment findings. Rushing these reviews and letting regulators approve their own industries will harm the environment.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will start over. With all due respect to the minister, it is important to stay focused, particularly as this bill is so significant. It is a very substantial bill. Last night, we sat until midnight. I listened to the debate. I did my best to listen to as much of it as possible. What my colleagues who spoke said, and what I have also said, is essentially that Bill C-39 represents a drastic step backwards for the environment, workers’ rights and democracy. It pre-approves projects by reducing environmental assessments to a mere formality, weakens workers’ rights, further concentrates power in the executive branch and opens the door to the privatization of ports, airports and other public infrastructure. This is very strong language; it stems from an analysis we carried out, which I believe was thorough. Yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources spoke to the bill. He sat through a significant portion of the debates and listened. We really appreciate that. We debated, and he looked at us. My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue was an energetic participant during the debate. The parliamentary secretary laughed at us. He made fun of us. He looked at us as if we were aliens, and when he rose to speak, he told us that we had our facts wrong. He tried to teach us a lesson, to correct us, saying we had misunderstood the bill. He seems like such a credible person. After all, he comes from the company that sold us Phoenix and Cúram. Surely there is no way he could be mistaken. I decided that I should read the bill again, so I did, together with my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, a lawyer and former bar association president. We spent a lot of time rereading it yesterday evening and today. What we ultimately discovered was that we had been right all along. It really does weaken environmental regulations—and workers’ rights too, but I am focusing on the environment today—in such a pernicious way that it gives the impression that the government is still conducting environmental assessments after all. That is the problem. The bill gives a lot of discretion for circumventing legislation, and it is hard to understand for ordinary people who are not used to reading laws and who are not part of a provincial bar. Here is how it works. Right now, it is true that when all sorts of environmental assessments have to be conducted, files get passed from agency to agency. There are a lot of processes involved. It is true that it follows a specific sequence, that it can take a long time, cause hassles and harm certain types of investment. We agree that that is true. We can understand the principle of taking the laws related to impact assessments and creating a one-stop shop to maintain the same due diligence while eliminating some of the hassle. We can see things from the investors’ perspective. However, that is not what this bill does. Here is what the bill says, and my colleague mentioned this several times: Before creating a region of national interest for a project, the minister will have to conduct regional assessments. Let us look at the case law and the way in which the laws are written. Under sections 92 to 96 of the Impact Assessment Act, the assessment examines the “effects of existing or future physical activities carried out in a region”. It does not specify that all of the activities must be assessed. The minister has a lot of leeway to define what is included in the assessment. We took another look at the Impact Assessment Act. We realized that the minister had the power to determine what would be assessed, what the criteria would be, how much time the committee would have and who would sit on the committee. That means he can fast-track the process and ask for things to be done quickly. He can appoint a few friends to the committee or appoint people with a vested interest. He might not do that, but from the public’s perspective, there is always justice and the appearance of justice, the independence of the process and the appearance of the process. We are losing that here. The minister conducts his assessment. Under the legislation before us today, the minister must take into account the rules and laws in effect. He cannot ignore them. He will tell the assessment committee to take such and such applicable laws and include them in its report. However, after that, the minister is free to ignore the conclusions of that regional assessment. That is what the Impact Assessment Act says. What is more, the minister can justify putting species at risk or infringing on a certain number of rights on the grounds of economic benefit or any other reason that the minister deems relevant. The minister can also list a region of national interest in schedule 2 to the act, list a project and list the acts covered by the bill, parts of which will be suspended. The project proponents will then be exempt from complying with those acts. He has the power to allow them to circumvent the law. That is how Bill C-39 is written. Of course the party in government would say that assessments will still take place, that it is just creating a one-stop shop. When a member of the public reads a 250-page bill like this one, they are bound to get the impression that this is what is happening. The minister has the power to allow project proponents to circumvent a number of federal acts, including the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds in the United States and Canada, the Canada Transportation Act, the Canada Marine Act, certain sections of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Impact Assessment Act, as well as seven regulations, including the migratory bird sanctuary regulations, the wildlife area regulations, the marine mammal regulations, the metal and diamond mining effluent regulations, and the migratory birds regulations. The consequences are real. Now we have a minister who has the power to create a different regulatory regime for projects approved by, let us be honest, the Prime Minister’s Office. Anyone can see what these ministers are doing. We saw how they operated before, under Justin Trudeau. Now they are unrecognizable. They do not even look like the same people. Everyone knows that the PMO makes all the decisions and that the PMO is full of yes-men. We know that the Prime Minister selects the projects, the decision is passed down and then it moves forward. A two-tier regulatory regime seems to be taking hold. There are the projects selected by the Prime Minister, where everything will be processed quickly. Then there are the projects proposed by ordinary Canadians, who have to obey all the laws simply because they are not best buddies with the Prime Minister or a minister. That is the reality. There is also the whole issue of time limits, because the bill now enshrines them in law. We are being told that, for a pipeline, everything will have to be done within a year. I agree that there should be a one-stop shop. I agree that the process should be more efficient and our laws should be implemented more quickly and efficiently. However, when we look at what is being done elsewhere in the world, for pipelines that cross hundreds or even thousands of kilometres, a one-year deadline is below the legal minimum. What this tells us is that the government has already decided that it wants the pipeline and then it will work out the laws to get there. That is what the Prime Minister is telling us. The bill would provide for mandatory fast-tracking of assessment timelines. There are problems with this legislation. We are not making this up. We spent half the night reading the bill. It allows projects to be approved before they have been assessed. The government says to start the project and the assessment will come later. Even if the assessment ultimately concludes that the project is too harmful, that its benefits do not outweigh the cost, and that it should not move forward, the project will already have begun. The regional assessment will be conducted, then the minister will exercise his discretion, and the project will go ahead anyway. The government says assessments will still be done. If they end up being thrown out anyway, what difference does it make? What is even the point of doing assessments? Why do them at all? Why spend public funds on them? The government wants to take responsibility for conducting impact assessments away from the agency. It should just create a one-stop shop and get someone to run it. Why not ask the Canadian Impact Assessment Agency, since it has independent scientists? Why not establish the one-stop shop within a department that already has the necessary expertise, skills and resources? Why make the Canada Energy Regulator act as the one-stop shop, when its objective and mission are to deliver oil? Why get the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to serve as the one-stop shop for nuclear projects? The government is simply telling Canadians that assessments are nothing more than window dressing, a mere formality dressed up in a Halloween costume to look like an assessment. In reality, the assessment is toothless and pointless. That is the problem. The government looks at the opposition, and sometimes government members walk out of the room while we are talking. They look at us as though all we want to do is complain and stir up trouble. However, we are doing our job as legislators with very limited resources. We are telling them that we are concerned about democracy, the concentration of power, the loss of expertise and the environment. We might have been able to come to an agreement on the principle of this bill, but the government is telling us that it has a majority. It is just going to continue to push this through however it can. That is a bad way of crafting legislation. I know that this bill will pass because the government has a majority, but, given the facts, it is clear that all of the concerns raised by the opposition yesterday evening are valid and people have good reason to be concerned.”

“I want to restart my speech. The room is too loud, and I cannot hear myself speak.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to start again. I understand that the minister is excited, but I cannot hear myself speak.”

“This is a big bill, and it is hard to understand.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to say hello to all my colleagues here today. This is a substantial bill. It is certainly quite a challenge to try to understand it and to try to understand the— An hon. member: Oh, oh!”

“This bill would let the government sell off our airports to private companies, including the Mirabel airport. The federal government took that land unfairly in the past. The airport must stay public to help the local community and the economy. I want to know if my colleague shares my concern.”

“Madam Speaker, I am concerned because under Bill C-39, the government is getting set to privatize our airports. That includes the Mirabel airport. The Mirabel airport was built on land that was expropriated, desecrated and stolen. That came as a result of crimes committed by the federal government, as recognized in a motion recently adopted by the House. This asset should serve the community, remain public and be a tool for economic development. I wonder if my colleague shares my concerns, particularly with regard to the Mirabel airport.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I want to know if it is against our rules to call another member's words an exaggeration. I ask the Speaker to decide if saying that is impolite.”

“Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether it is appropriate, from a parliamentary point of view and in the light of the Standing Orders, to describe a colleague’s analysis of a bill as an exaggeration. I wonder whether such remarks do not go beyond what should be considered acceptable standards of civility here in the House.”

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“This bill lets the government choose projects that cause too much pollution and exempt them from environmental laws. The Prime Minister controls everything himself, and his cabinet will not stop him. He will just approve projects that help private interests.”

“Madam Speaker, my colleague’s speech made it clear what is happening. The government is going to select a project. Evidently, the project will create a lot of pollution, exceeding the levels set out in environmental laws. The government will then decide to designate a region around it to exempt that project from environmental laws. I think my colleague is being very kind to the government. I think he is being magnanimous toward the government. He is talking about a 28‑person cabinet. Since the arrival of the new Prime Minister, we have seen that this government is a one-man show. We are talking about 28 ministers whom the Prime Minister can fire at will. Does my colleague really think that 28 ministers will be consulted, or does he think that, at the end of the day, it will be the private interests that have a voice in the Prime Minister’s Office that will ultimately get projects approved?”

“I oppose this bill. It lets the government approve projects before environmental reviews are finished. Building projects like pipelines before we check them puts health, safety, and the environment at risk.”

“Madam Speaker, we can understand the need to sometimes conduct multiple simultaneous reviews to speed up projects, as long as the reviews are being done. However, that is not what we are seeing with this bill. Instead, the government can pre-approve a project, and the project can move forward while the reviews are being carried out, which means that a pipeline can be built even though the reviews have not been completed. That is crazy. How can the government tell us that it is important for reviews to be done more efficiently, while at the same time pre-approving projects that will cause significant harm to health, human safety and the environment, and allowing the project to go ahead without a review?”

In response to a question from Jacques Gourde

“The government misled people about the Alto train project. It will cost far more than they said, and it will take money away from local transit that Quebeckers need. The government should admit that we were right about this from the start.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Quebec government’s position will become clearer. I think we can see where it is heading on this issue. I think we are seeing a consensus emerge. One thing is certain: The government has been spreading disinformation on this matter from the start. We have the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s assessment. We are being told that the costs provided were off by at least 30%, and we do not even have the analysis of the request yet. We do not know about passenger-kilometre subsidies, but we do know that the project will not finance itself. When it reaches $140 billion, $150 billion, $160 billion or $170 billion, knowing that infrastructure budgets are interconnected, who is going to pay for that? It will be Quebeckers, when it comes to paratransit, public transit and east-west mobility in the Laurentians, which we need in the Laurentians. When budgets exceed that amount, it does not show up anywhere. We have been sounding the alarm from the very beginning. I am saying that we were right too soon. Every new fact that comes to light—independent facts from people who are not paid by Alto to invent studies and facts—proves that we were right. I think the government should recognize that and give us more credibility.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 42 of 100

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

  See full analysis →