Blanchette-Joncas works against bills he says weaken environmental laws and challenge the jurisdiction of Quebec, while also pressing for resources and support for the Lower St. Lawrence. He challenges the government’s approach and legislative clarity by posing questions like, “Does my colleague not think that the government is doing things a bit backwards?”Written by AI from their statements. Updated .
Average grade
A–
The average grade of 55 analysed statements. 2 more were analysed but were too short to grade.
87 / 100 over 55 statements
Signal80 / 100
Relevance85 / 100
Respect99 / 100
Clarity98 / 100
Averaged over the 55 of 57 statements graded so far.
“Protecting young people is the job of Quebec and the provinces, not the federal government. This bill needs to respect that. I want to know if the member agrees that the federal government must work with the provinces on this.”
“Mr. Speaker, the issue of jurisdiction absolutely must be addressed in the bill. Matters relating to social protection and the protection of youth fall under Quebec and provincial jurisdiction. I would like to ask my colleague whether she agrees that the federal government should work in collaboration with Quebec and the provinces. Once the bill is passed, they are the ones who will be responsible for intervening directly in an area that does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, the issue of jurisdiction absolutely must be addressed in the bill. Matters relating to social protection and the protection of youth fall under Quebec and provincial jurisdiction. I would like to ask my colleague whether she agrees that the federal government should work in collaboration with Quebec and the provinces. Once the bill is passed, they are the ones who will be responsible for intervening directly in an area that does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada.
“We need rules to keep children safe online. But this bill creates a new safety group, and we do not know its powers or what platforms it will watch. I want to know what my colleague thinks about the government asking us to pass a bill without these basic details.”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on her speech. I believe we share the same point of view on the need to regulate digital safety, particularly for children. I would like to hear her thoughts on the new digital safety commission that will be established. We do not know the parameters or what powers it will have. We also do not know which platforms it will regulate. Does my colleague not think that the government is doing things a bit backwards? As legislators, we are being asked to pass a bill, but we do not have a full understanding of the parameters involved.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on her speech. I believe we share the same point of view on the need to regulate digital safety, particularly for children. I would like to hear her thoughts on the new digital safety commission that will be established. We do not know the parameters or what powers it will have. We also do not know which platforms it will regulate. Does my colleague not think that the government is doing things a bit backwards? As legislators, we are being asked to pass a bill, but we do not have a full understanding of the parameters involved.
“Protecting young people is the job of Quebec and the provinces. I want to know if the government talked to the provinces before writing this bill, and if a ban would apply the same way everywhere.”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage did a study on the effects of influencers and social media on our daily lives. Recommendations were made, including taking into consideration the context in different parts of Canada, Quebec and in the different provinces. Protecting youth is a responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. Take for example how the ban on alcohol is enforced: it varies from place to place across Canada. If the government implements a ban, will it apply equally across Canada? I would like my colleague to elaborate on this point, particularly regarding the need to consult with Canada’s other legislatures as part of the process of drafting this legislation.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage did a study on the effects of influencers and social media on our daily lives. Recommendations were made, including taking into consideration the context in different parts of Canada, Quebec and in the different provinces. Protecting youth is a responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. Take for example how the ban on alcohol is enforced: it varies from place to place across Canada. If the government implements a ban, will it apply equally across Canada? I would like my colleague to elaborate on this point, particularly regarding the need to consult with Canada’s other legislatures as part of the process of drafting this legislation.
“Protecting young people is the job of Quebec and the provinces. I want my colleague to speak more about making rules that fit local realities.”
“Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, my colleague took part in a study on the impact of influencers and social media. As part of its study, the committee made recommendations to the government, including a recommendation to take a more flexible approach. As everyone knows, youth protection is very much the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. I would like my colleague to talk a bit more about this, specifically about adopting an approach that is much more focused on the realities on the ground in every area where this phenomenon may occur. These are the issues we want to tackle today.”
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, my colleague took part in a study on the impact of influencers and social media. As part of its study, the committee made recommendations to the government, including a recommendation to take a more flexible approach. As everyone knows, youth protection is very much the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. I would like my colleague to talk a bit more about this, specifically about adopting an approach that is much more focused on the realities on the ground in every area where this phenomenon may occur. These are the issues we want to tackle today.
“I agree we must regulate social media to protect young people. But this bill does not say which platforms it will cover or what powers the new safety commission will have. I want the government to explain what powers this commission will actually have before we support it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on her speech. I agree with her that it is necessary, and indeed urgent, to regulate access to platforms, particularly to protect young people. What worries me is the issue of transparency or, more specifically, democratic oversight. My colleague mentioned that the government wants to create a new digital safety commission, but the bill does not specify which platforms it would regulate, nor is it clear what powers this new commission will have. Can my colleague explain to us what specific new powers she wants this commission to have? We are willing to support a good idea from the government, but we do not know how this new commission will work. I get the impression that something is being created without any clear explanation as to how this will solve the problem.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on her speech. I agree with her that it is necessary, and indeed urgent, to regulate access to platforms, particularly to protect young people. What worries me is the issue of transparency or, more specifically, democratic oversight. My colleague mentioned that the government wants to create a new digital safety commission, but the bill does not specify which platforms it would regulate, nor is it clear what powers this new commission will have. Can my colleague explain to us what specific new powers she wants this commission to have? We are willing to support a good idea from the government, but we do not know how this new commission will work. I get the impression that something is being created without any clear explanation as to how this will solve the problem.
“The government says this bill gives businesses predictability, but their tariff decisions have been confusing and inconsistent. Businesses need predictability, and the only real way to give it to them is to sign a good trade deal with the United States as soon as possible.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague referred to a response he received from our colleagues on the government side. They say we need the bill so we can ensure predictability. Let me just go over what happened. During the last election, the Prime Minister said that he would resolve the tariff crisis. He imposed tariffs, then removed them, arguing that he was doing it to strengthen our negotiating position, and then he imposed retaliatory tariffs. These are the kinds of problems that do nothing to provide predictability. Does my colleague agree that, for our businesses to truly have predictability, we need to reach the best possible agreement with the U.S. as soon as possible?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, my colleague referred to a response he received from our colleagues on the government side. They say we need the bill so we can ensure predictability. Let me just go over what happened. During the last election, the Prime Minister said that he would resolve the tariff crisis. He imposed tariffs, then removed them, arguing that he was doing it to strengthen our negotiating position, and then he imposed retaliatory tariffs. These are the kinds of problems that do nothing to provide predictability. Does my colleague agree that, for our businesses to truly have predictability, we need to reach the best possible agreement with the U.S. as soon as possible?
“We do not need this bill. We should support our existing industries, like lumber, aluminum, and clean energy, and process our own resources instead of selling them off cheaply. The government claims it needs this bill to build faster, but it already bought a pipeline without it. That makes no sense.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have plenty of solutions. We can support the industries we have here, including lumber, aluminum and renewable energy. We already have that in place. We can invest in modernization. We can invest in innovation. These are all things that are possible. We can improve secondary and tertiary processing instead of selling our resources at a discount on international markets. These are all things that can be done. I understand what my colleague is trying to argue. It is quite difficult. Once again, I would like the government members to explain how they managed to buy a pipeline without having passed the bill currently before us. They want to buy another one, but they just want to do it faster. It is utter nonsense.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I have plenty of solutions. We can support the industries we have here, including lumber, aluminum and renewable energy. We already have that in place. We can invest in modernization. We can invest in innovation. These are all things that are possible. We can improve secondary and tertiary processing instead of selling our resources at a discount on international markets. These are all things that can be done. I understand what my colleague is trying to argue. It is quite difficult. Once again, I would like the government members to explain how they managed to buy a pipeline without having passed the bill currently before us. They want to buy another one, but they just want to do it faster. It is utter nonsense.
“I oppose this bill. It lets the government permanently ignore laws for major projects. The government spent $40 billion on a pipeline without skipping environmental reviews, but now it claims it must skip those reviews for a new pipeline. That is dishonest.”
“Mr. Speaker, I just mentioned what a nice pass I got from my colleague, but this one is a slam dunk. I believe I summarized things quite well in my speech. The situation we are facing today is historic. First there was Bill C-5. That was the bill that allowed projects of national interest to be identified. Broadly speaking, the government, or even the minister, could bypass all laws, except the Criminal Code, for a period of five years. Then, people on the other side of the House realized that five years might not be enough, so they decided to introduce another bill to allow them to bypass laws permanently. I just gave an example. The Liberals managed to secure a pipeline using $40 billion of public funds without having to bypass environmental impact assessments. Now they want to secure a second pipeline and are trying to make us believe they need to bypass those assessments. Clearly, this is hypocrisy. They are trying to pull the wool over our eyes by claiming that, ultimately, they have our best interests at heart.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I just mentioned what a nice pass I got from my colleague, but this one is a slam dunk. I believe I summarized things quite well in my speech. The situation we are facing today is historic. First there was Bill C-5. That was the bill that allowed projects of national interest to be identified. Broadly speaking, the government, or even the minister, could bypass all laws, except the Criminal Code, for a period of five years. Then, people on the other side of the House realized that five years might not be enough, so they decided to introduce another bill to allow them to bypass laws permanently. I just gave an example. The Liberals managed to secure a pipeline using $40 billion of public funds without having to bypass environmental impact assessments. Now they want to secure a second pipeline and are trying to make us believe they need to bypass those assessments. Clearly, this is hypocrisy. They are trying to pull the wool over our eyes by claiming that, ultimately, they have our best interests at heart.
“I do not want this bill to pass. The government spent nearly $40 billion on a pipeline without needing a law to bypass rules, and it did not make life cheaper or make us richer. The government should not get to fast-track major projects without accountability.”
“Mr. Speaker, what a great pass from my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou. I will remind him. One project I completely disagreed with was the Trans Mountain pipeline, which the Liberal government under Justin Trudeau bought with nearly $40 billion in taxpayer money. Are we any richer? Are we more prosperous? Are we more independent? That is what the Prime Minister likes to claim when patting himself on the back, but the answer is no. Gas has never been as expensive as it is now. Affordability has not improved much over the past few years either. I want my colleague to think about what he just said. His government managed to buy a pipeline with taxpayer money without passing a bill that would allow it to sidestep laws or fast-track major projects of national interest. Now the government wants to buy another pipeline, but it wants to do it faster and without any accountability.”
Mr. Speaker, what a great pass from my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou. I will remind him. One project I completely disagreed with was the Trans Mountain pipeline, which the Liberal government under Justin Trudeau bought with nearly $40 billion in taxpayer money. Are we any richer? Are we more prosperous? Are we more independent? That is what the Prime Minister likes to claim when patting himself on the back, but the answer is no. Gas has never been as expensive as it is now. Affordability has not improved much over the past few years either. I want my colleague to think about what he just said. His government managed to buy a pipeline with taxpayer money without passing a bill that would allow it to sidestep laws or fast-track major projects of national interest. Now the government wants to buy another pipeline, but it wants to do it faster and without any accountability.
“I want the House to reject this bill. The government is using a temporary trade crisis to permanently give itself too much power. This bill hurts workers by weakening their right to strike. It rushes environmental reviews and lets the government approve big projects before the science is done. It also steps on the powers of Quebec and the provinces. The government needs to consult people instead of pushing this through.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening. It is quite late, and we are debating this important bill, Bill C‑39, an act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy. It will come as no surprise to learn that the Bloc Québécois strongly opposes this bill as introduced by the Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. Let me be quite clear: We are not opposing it just for the sake of it. I can confirm that we would all be happier to be able to put our energy and time into serving our constituents rather than spending another evening in the House debating this bill, before a government that refuses to listen and pushes forward as though it were free to do whatever it wants. We oppose it because the proposed changes are simply unreasonable and unjustifiable to the public and our constituents. That is what Liberal-style democracy under the Prime Minister looks like right now. The government is using a temporary trade crisis as an excuse to impose legislative changes that will be permanent. These changes are likely to follow us for decades, long after the end of the crisis that served to justify them. The government is exploiting a trade dispute to further centralize power in Ottawa. They want to allow themselves to circumvent certain environmental laws, they want to weaken workers’ rights, they want to open the door to the privatization of our ports and airports, and above all, they want to compromise independent scientific analyses, even while infringing on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces when it comes to natural resource management. Let us start with a first example: workers’ rights. The bill contains amendments to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. These amendments are intended to authorize the Canada Industrial Relations Board to limit workers’ right to use necessary job action in a labour dispute. A minister would be allowed to ask the Canada Industrial Relations Board to impose a binding settlement during collective bargaining when the minister determines that a strike or lockout would have a negative national impact or cause serious social disruptions. It is a roundabout way of telling employers that they can take a hard line during negotiations, that they should not worry, that there will be no strike. That is essentially what it does legislatively. When negotiations between employers and unions break down to the point where one of the workers’ only remaining options is to exercise their right to strike, we believe the very purpose of that right is to create economic and social repercussions that will encourage the employer to return to the bargaining table. To claim that these changes do not weaken the right to strike shows a striking misunderstanding of the history of the social movements that fought to secure that right in the first place. It took decades of social struggle to make progress on workers’ rights and environmental protection, but with this bill, the government would like to be able to sweep away these gains in a matter of minutes. Then there is the issue of environmental assessments and major projects. I think that is a pretty important part of this bill. I would like to focus on division 1 of Bill C‑39, which would impose a maximum one-year time limit on the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada for completing its reviews of so-called projects of national interest. Again, it is one thing to want to speed up the assessment process, but it is quite another to not even wait for the recommendations of those assessments before approving major projects. If there is one thing I quickly understood as the Bloc Québécois critic for public accounts, it is that, when a political decision is made too quickly and needs to be reversed, the price to be paid is much higher than if the government had taken the time to do things right from the start. When it comes to the environment or biodiversity, the price is not always calculated solely in dollars. Let me give another example. Changes to the Fisheries Act would allow proponents to pay money to third parties to offset habitat loss caused by their project. The government is making decisions that could have long-term consequences on the environment without even taking the time to consult the experts within the government itself. I am referring to the chief science adviser. I have sat as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Science and Research since it was first created. The chief science adviser came to see us a few months ago when the government introduced Bill C-5. She described it as a disaster, and said that the government was circumventing laws, especially legislation related to the environment and other measures, without even consulting scientific experts. The chief science adviser confided that neither she nor the other members had been consulted in any way about the selection of major projects said to be of national interest. This is a government that simply wants to do things its own way, or listen only to people who share its views and want the same things it does. That is what we have come to. Once a decision is made, it has to be owned. Sometimes, by the time it can be reversed, it is already too late. Certain things simply cannot be repaired. Concerning Bill C‑39, we understand that the government wants to fast-track the new Alberta pipeline project. It could be approved even before environmental assessments are completed. What is the plan if we have to reverse course? The government pre-approves a project, does not even know if it will be good, and then it is too late to backtrack. If the final recommendations from the experts were negative, would it really be possible to make changes to the project when it is already under way? I think the answer is obvious. Let me give an example. We build the foundation of a house and then realize that the ground is unstable and we have to rebuild somewhere else. Imagine the cost. That is for a house, but let us draw a parallel with a pipeline. That is precisely the problem with this bill. Right now, the government before us has exhausted its political arguments to persuade the public. It says that there are major projects of national interest and that it wants to create pathways and mechanisms by concentrating power in the hands of a single minister who could, by the government’s own account, designate a project as being in the national interest, amend the Impact Assessment Act, weaken environmental policies and even permanently eliminate them. Instead of continuing discussions in a democratic manner, bringing together the relevant stakeholders and the various levels of government around one table, the government decides to introduce a bill that is over 250 pages long and imposes the vision of just one man or maybe a few people in the Prime Minister’s Office. They want to build Canada strong, and that is the slogan the Liberals keep spewing every day. I do not really agree that undermining accountability and weakening the decisions made in Parliament is the way to build Canada strong. Power is increasingly being concentrated in the hands of the executive. The government wants to limit the ability of elected officials to hold it to account. Where else in any modern, industrialized country is this kind of legislation being introduced? If the Liberals can come up with an example of this, I would be curious to know. I checked. No G7 country has brought forward this sort of legislation. They are no worse off than we are. They too face challenges when it comes to the economy and assessment processes. What we are seeing today is more of an authoritarian drift than the application of sound economic and mathematical reasoning to projects said to be in the public interest. I want to be clear for those watching at home. This government is not introducing these changes in the interest of Quebeckers and Canadians. Its goal is to concentrate power in the hands of a small group of individuals or even a single individual. Quebec’s motto is “Je me souviens” or “I remember”, and I can guarantee that we will remember this Liberal government’s authoritarian abuse for a long time to come.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening. It is quite late, and we are debating this important bill, Bill C‑39, an act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy. It will come as no surprise to learn that the Bloc Québécois strongly opposes this bill as introduced by the Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. Let me be quite clear: We are not opposing it just for the sake of it. I can confirm that we would all be happier to be able to put our energy and time into serving our constituents rather than spending another evening in the House debating this bill, before a government that refuses to listen and pushes forward as though it were free to do whatever it wants. We oppose it because the proposed changes are simply unreasonable and unjustifiable to the public and our constituents. That is what Liberal-style democracy under the Prime Minister looks like right now. The government is using a temporary trade crisis as an excuse to impose legislative changes that will be permanent. These changes are likely to follow us for decades, long after the end of the crisis that served to justify them. The government is exploiting a trade dispute to further centralize power in Ottawa. They want to allow themselves to circumvent certain environmental laws, they want to weaken workers’ rights, they want to open the door to the privatization of our ports and airports, and above all, they want to compromise independent scientific analyses, even while infringing on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces when it comes to natural resource management. Let us start with a first example: workers’ rights. The bill contains amendments to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. These amendments are intended to authorize the Canada Industrial Relations Board to limit workers’ right to use necessary job action in a labour dispute. A minister would be allowed to ask the Canada Industrial Relations Board to impose a binding settlement during collective bargaining when the minister determines that a strike or lockout would have a negative national impact or cause serious social disruptions. It is a roundabout way of telling employers that they can take a hard line during negotiations, that they should not worry, that there will be no strike. That is essentially what it does legislatively. When negotiations between employers and unions break down to the point where one of the workers’ only remaining options is to exercise their right to strike, we believe the very purpose of that right is to create economic and social repercussions that will encourage the employer to return to the bargaining table. To claim that these changes do not weaken the right to strike shows a striking misunderstanding of the history of the social movements that fought to secure that right in the first place. It took decades of social struggle to make progress on workers’ rights and environmental protection, but with this bill, the government would like to be able to sweep away these gains in a matter of minutes. Then there is the issue of environmental assessments and major projects. I think that is a pretty important part of this bill. I would like to focus on division 1 of Bill C‑39, which would impose a maximum one-year time limit on the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada for completing its reviews of so-called projects of national interest. Again, it is one thing to want to speed up the assessment process, but it is quite another to not even wait for the recommendations of those assessments before approving major projects. If there is one thing I quickly understood as the Bloc Québécois critic for public accounts, it is that, when a political decision is made too quickly and needs to be reversed, the price to be paid is much higher than if the government had taken the time to do things right from the start. When it comes to the environment or biodiversity, the price is not always calculated solely in dollars. Let me give another example. Changes to the Fisheries Act would allow proponents to pay money to third parties to offset habitat loss caused by their project. The government is making decisions that could have long-term consequences on the environment without even taking the time to consult the experts within the government itself. I am referring to the chief science adviser. I have sat as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Science and Research since it was first created. The chief science adviser came to see us a few months ago when the government introduced Bill C-5. She described it as a disaster, and said that the government was circumventing laws, especially legislation related to the environment and other measures, without even consulting scientific experts. The chief science adviser confided that neither she nor the other members had been consulted in any way about the selection of major projects said to be of national interest. This is a government that simply wants to do things its own way, or listen only to people who share its views and want the same things it does. That is what we have come to. Once a decision is made, it has to be owned. Sometimes, by the time it can be reversed, it is already too late. Certain things simply cannot be repaired. Concerning Bill C‑39, we understand that the government wants to fast-track the new Alberta pipeline project. It could be approved even before environmental assessments are completed. What is the plan if we have to reverse course? The government pre-approves a project, does not even know if it will be good, and then it is too late to backtrack. If the final recommendations from the experts were negative, would it really be possible to make changes to the project when it is already under way? I think the answer is obvious. Let me give an example. We build the foundation of a house and then realize that the ground is unstable and we have to rebuild somewhere else. Imagine the cost. That is for a house, but let us draw a parallel with a pipeline. That is precisely the problem with this bill. Right now, the government before us has exhausted its political arguments to persuade the public. It says that there are major projects of national interest and that it wants to create pathways and mechanisms by concentrating power in the hands of a single minister who could, by the government’s own account, designate a project as being in the national interest, amend the Impact Assessment Act, weaken environmental policies and even permanently eliminate them. Instead of continuing discussions in a democratic manner, bringing together the relevant stakeholders and the various levels of government around one table, the government decides to introduce a bill that is over 250 pages long and imposes the vision of just one man or maybe a few people in the Prime Minister’s Office. They want to build Canada strong, and that is the slogan the Liberals keep spewing every day. I do not really agree that undermining accountability and weakening the decisions made in Parliament is the way to build Canada strong. Power is increasingly being concentrated in the hands of the executive. The government wants to limit the ability of elected officials to hold it to account. Where else in any modern, industrialized country is this kind of legislation being introduced? If the Liberals can come up with an example of this, I would be curious to know. I checked. No G7 country has brought forward this sort of legislation. They are no worse off than we are. They too face challenges when it comes to the economy and assessment processes. What we are seeing today is more of an authoritarian drift than the application of sound economic and mathematical reasoning to projects said to be in the public interest. I want to be clear for those watching at home. This government is not introducing these changes in the interest of Quebeckers and Canadians. Its goal is to concentrate power in the hands of a small group of individuals or even a single individual. Quebec’s motto is “Je me souviens” or “I remember”, and I can guarantee that we will remember this Liberal government’s authoritarian abuse for a long time to come.
“The government is rushing this bill, and it hurts workers' rights. It could stop workers from going on strike. Quebec banned replacement workers years ago, but the federal government still has not done that. I want my colleague to explain his concerns about how this bill affects workers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni for his speech. It is clear that the government wants to move quickly, but it is also doing things that run counter to workers’ rights. For example, the proposed amendments to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code could potentially prevent the use of strikes and job action. Quebec was an innovator. It successfully enacted anti-scab legislation. We have been waiting for years for this to happen at the federal level. I would like my colleague to explain why he is concerned about the proposed amendments to section 107 and the right of workers to use job action in a dispute with the employer.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni for his speech. It is clear that the government wants to move quickly, but it is also doing things that run counter to workers’ rights. For example, the proposed amendments to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code could potentially prevent the use of strikes and job action. Quebec was an innovator. It successfully enacted anti-scab legislation. We have been waiting for years for this to happen at the federal level. I would like my colleague to explain why he is concerned about the proposed amendments to section 107 and the right of workers to use job action in a dispute with the employer.
“I agree with the previous speaker and oppose this bill. It makes permanent changes that weaken environmental laws. The Prime Minister used to work for the United Nations protecting the environment. Now he is giving himself the power to bypass those protections. I want to know what my colleague thinks about this change.”
“Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands’ indignation. She provided an excellent summary of the bulldozer that is Bill C‑39. As she explained, Bill C‑5 allowed certain laws to be set aside for a period of five years. Bill C‑39 would make that change permanent. However, the Prime Minister is not just anyone: He is the former United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance. What is he doing through Bill C‑39? He is permanently repealing or amending environmental legislation. Do members see the hypocrisy? It is the same individual, but he is no longer advocating the same cause. His role has changed. I would like my colleague to explain how she sees this hypocrisy. What does she think of the fact that a person who once championed environmental protection is now granting himself extraordinary powers to circumvent environmental safeguards?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands’ indignation. She provided an excellent summary of the bulldozer that is Bill C‑39. As she explained, Bill C‑5 allowed certain laws to be set aside for a period of five years. Bill C‑39 would make that change permanent. However, the Prime Minister is not just anyone: He is the former United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance. What is he doing through Bill C‑39? He is permanently repealing or amending environmental legislation. Do members see the hypocrisy? It is the same individual, but he is no longer advocating the same cause. His role has changed. I would like my colleague to explain how she sees this hypocrisy. What does she think of the fact that a person who once championed environmental protection is now granting himself extraordinary powers to circumvent environmental safeguards?
“This bill lets the minister remove environmental rules for certain projects. The government claims it is not bypassing environmental laws. I want the member to explain why the bill allows the minister to drop these rules.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about disinformation. I would like to clarify the facts regarding Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. In division 1, which amends the Impact Assessment Act, clause 53 states: “The Minister may amend a decision statement issued by the Minister under section 65, including to add or remove a condition, to amend any condition or to modify the designated project’s description”. What this means is that if the minister designates a project as being of national interest, he can remove any conditions he wants under the Impact Assessment Act, including conditions related to the environment. My colleague says that the government is not trying to circumvent existing environmental laws. If that is the case, then why is the government creating a loophole that allows conditions under the Impact Assessment Act to be removed? I would like my colleague to explain that to us first, and then we can talk about disinformation.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about disinformation. I would like to clarify the facts regarding Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. In division 1, which amends the Impact Assessment Act, clause 53 states: “The Minister may amend a decision statement issued by the Minister under section 65, including to add or remove a condition, to amend any condition or to modify the designated project’s description”. What this means is that if the minister designates a project as being of national interest, he can remove any conditions he wants under the Impact Assessment Act, including conditions related to the environment. My colleague says that the government is not trying to circumvent existing environmental laws. If that is the case, then why is the government creating a loophole that allows conditions under the Impact Assessment Act to be removed? I would like my colleague to explain that to us first, and then we can talk about disinformation.
“This bill ruins our environmental laws. A former Liberal environment minister even said it weakens protections more than Stephen Harper ever did. I want to know if my Conservative colleague agrees with him.”
“Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. I would like to make some historical references this evening, because what we are living through is a historic moment. Bill C-39 is not anodyne. It is a bill that takes a bulldozer to environmental laws. Just a few days ago, the former minister of environment and climate change, for those in this Parliament who still believe in climate change, said that Bill C‑39 goes further than what Stephen Harper was prepared to do in his day to defy environmental laws. I would like my Conservative colleague to tell me whether he agrees with the former environment minister, former Liberal MP Steven Guilbeault, that the Liberals are currently going even further than Stephen Harper was prepared to go back when he was in power.”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. I would like to make some historical references this evening, because what we are living through is a historic moment. Bill C-39 is not anodyne. It is a bill that takes a bulldozer to environmental laws. Just a few days ago, the former minister of environment and climate change, for those in this Parliament who still believe in climate change, said that Bill C‑39 goes further than what Stephen Harper was prepared to do in his day to defy environmental laws. I would like my Conservative colleague to tell me whether he agrees with the former environment minister, former Liberal MP Steven Guilbeault, that the Liberals are currently going even further than Stephen Harper was prepared to go back when he was in power.
“The government says it wants to make Canada strong, but this bill weakens oversight. It cuts the time for project reviews from three years to one year. I want the member to explain how rushing reviews makes anything stronger.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to talk about the slogan “build Canada strong,” which the government repeats ad nauseam. Do they think they can build Canada strong by undermining accountability and weakening assessments? There is a fixed deadline for all projects, regardless of their scope. Within one year, the project developer must submit all assessments. Previously, the deadline was a maximum of three years. Now, they are cutting corners. I would like my colleague to explain this to me. Is this how they strengthen things, build something more solid, when, in reality, they just want to speed things up?”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to talk about the slogan “build Canada strong,” which the government repeats ad nauseam. Do they think they can build Canada strong by undermining accountability and weakening assessments? There is a fixed deadline for all projects, regardless of their scope. Within one year, the project developer must submit all assessments. Previously, the deadline was a maximum of three years. Now, they are cutting corners. I would like my colleague to explain this to me. Is this how they strengthen things, build something more solid, when, in reality, they just want to speed things up?
“This bill privatizes our ports, and the government also wants to privatize airports. Selling them off hurts the public interest. The government is using a temporary crisis to make permanent, harmful changes. I want the previous speaker to say more about this.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to say hello to the people of Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques, whom I represent with pride and dignity. There were some things I found interesting in my colleague’s speech, particularly when it came to the privatization of ports and so on. Bill C‑39 seeks to do just that. The government even announced that it wants to privatize airports. That is certainly not in our national interest. I would like my colleague to speak a bit more to the fact that the government is taking advantage of a crisis that should be temporary to implement measures that will be permanent and that will have harmful effects, particularly for the public interest.”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, I want to say hello to the people of Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques, whom I represent with pride and dignity. There were some things I found interesting in my colleague’s speech, particularly when it came to the privatization of ports and so on. Bill C‑39 seeks to do just that. The government even announced that it wants to privatize airports. That is certainly not in our national interest. I would like my colleague to speak a bit more to the fact that the government is taking advantage of a crisis that should be temporary to implement measures that will be permanent and that will have harmful effects, particularly for the public interest.
“I am worried about this bill. It lets projects get approved before we check if they are actually safe and sound.”
“Madam Speaker, there is something rather troubling about Bill C‑39. It would allow projects to receive approval in principle, meaning a project could be authorized before any assessment has been conducted to determine whether it is actually a sound project. I would ask my colleague whether he would agree to buy a car before even taking it for a test drive.”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, there is something rather troubling about Bill C‑39. It would allow projects to receive approval in principle, meaning a project could be authorized before any assessment has been conducted to determine whether it is actually a sound project. I would ask my colleague whether he would agree to buy a car before even taking it for a test drive.
“This bill lets one minister bypass laws and cuts project review times from three years to one year. I want to know if my colleague thinks rushing these reviews really makes projects better. Projects should have to prove they are good for the public.”
“Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for his speech in which he talked about the importance of predictability, stability and transparency. I want to focus on the word “transparency”. With Bill C-5, the government introduced the concept of creating projects of national interest and giving a single minister the power to circumvent legislation. In this bill, the government takes things even further. Assessments used to take up to a maximum of three years, but now the government is reducing that to one year. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on that. Will shortening a project’s assessment period improve the project? Is it not just the opposite? If we are being transparent, should projects not have to demonstrate why they are in the public interest?”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for his speech in which he talked about the importance of predictability, stability and transparency. I want to focus on the word “transparency”. With Bill C-5, the government introduced the concept of creating projects of national interest and giving a single minister the power to circumvent legislation. In this bill, the government takes things even further. Assessments used to take up to a maximum of three years, but now the government is reducing that to one year. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on that. Will shortening a project’s assessment period improve the project? Is it not just the opposite? If we are being transparent, should projects not have to demonstrate why they are in the public interest?
“Rushing environmental reviews does not make projects better. This bill forces reviews to finish in one year, even if a project needs more time. I want the member to explain to people in Quebec why she supports this.”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Trois‑Rivières. She said a lot of things in her speech, but we will try to keep it simple. How does fast-tracking projects make them better projects? She says that there is no environmental risk and that there will be assessments. Imagine that it takes a year and a half to assess a project, but the bill says that is too long and it must be done within a year. I would like my colleague to simply explain to the people of Trois‑Rivières and Quebec how it is that any project that needs more than a year is not a good project. Under the bill, all projects must be approved within a year, at most, based on the minister’s decision, obviously, whether or not he takes into account the assessments that have been done.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Trois‑Rivières. She said a lot of things in her speech, but we will try to keep it simple. How does fast-tracking projects make them better projects? She says that there is no environmental risk and that there will be assessments. Imagine that it takes a year and a half to assess a project, but the bill says that is too long and it must be done within a year. I would like my colleague to simply explain to the people of Trois‑Rivières and Quebec how it is that any project that needs more than a year is not a good project. Under the bill, all projects must be approved within a year, at most, based on the minister’s decision, obviously, whether or not he takes into account the assessments that have been done.
“The member did not answer my question. The government decides on its own which projects count as national interest and rushes their environmental reviews in less than a year. How can rushed one-year reviews protect the environment?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that my colleague has not answered my question. She spoke of high environmental standards. Project assessments must take less than a year. Regardless of the project of national interest in question, the government alone determines what constitutes national interest. Those are not high environmental standards. The simple question I am asking my colleague is this: Can she explain how conducting botched environmental assessments within a single year, regardless of the project, is consistent with the “high environmental standards” she talked about in her speech?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that my colleague has not answered my question. She spoke of high environmental standards. Project assessments must take less than a year. Regardless of the project of national interest in question, the government alone determines what constitutes national interest. Those are not high environmental standards. The simple question I am asking my colleague is this: Can she explain how conducting botched environmental assessments within a single year, regardless of the project, is consistent with the “high environmental standards” she talked about in her speech?
