Debates of May 3rd, 2024

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments from my colleague.

I think I said many times that we would support the bill. We are saying that the bill is going in the right direction and, yes, we need to confirm the responsibility of our people who are working in the RCMP and in the CBSA. The issue is that we have to modernize our rules, obviously. In 2024, and in the years ahead, the challenges are far different from what we had 30 or 40 years ago because of artificial intelligence, social media and also the transfer of information. We are saying that the bill is going in the right direction. It is not as good as we expected, but at least it is in the right direction.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech as well as for pointing out that facts are facts. Speaking of facts, although the Conservatives are saying that this bill is important and that we must move forward, all we see is obstruction.

On one side, we have the Bloc Québécois; everyone knows them. On the other side, we have the “block everything party”, which is the Conservative Party. The Conservatives filibustered in committee and are now forcing us into a pointless debate. In fact, technically, we are debating the title. That is what the Conservatives are making us do today.

We are wasting our time debating the title, even though they are saying this bill is important. I do not understand the position of the Conservative Party, which is stepping on the gas and slamming on the brakes at the same time.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate to hear that from a colleague who has been in the House for 13 years and two days now, if memory serves. Yes, that is right: He was first elected on May 2, 2011. I am grateful for the day he was elected.

However, it is unfortunate to see such an experienced member lament the fact that we are having a debate. That is why we are here. We have raised issues. The other side also raised issues. That is perfectly fine.

In terms of what debates over titles are acceptable, I would like to remind the member that his party previously supported a motion, moved by another party, which sought exactly that, a debate over a title.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take the opportunity to correct something from my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois. He did use the term “military-style assault rifles” when referring to the legislation. However, there is nothing in the legislation that refers to that, so it does bother me when we hear misleading comments that confuse Canadians.

My question to my hon. colleague is specifically about the bill and why it takes so long for any legislation from this government when it comes to accountability. This was actually passed at committee last November, and here we are six months later. To give another example, I sit on the NSICOP committee, and while that act was mandated to start review a year and a half ago, the government has yet to bring legislation forward to do that necessary review.

Could the member just elaborate on the importance of actually dealing with accountability legislation, and the lack thereof, by the government?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the last time we debated this bill was back in November. For six months now, this bill should have been debated in the House, and yet for six months those members on the other side of the House found a not to debate it.

If the debate is all that urgent, why did they not put it on the agenda over the past six months, as they could have and should have done?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill for the first time. I understand I have only two minutes, so I am not going to be able to address all the concerns.

However, I just want to start. There has been a lot of commentary so far about how members should not have the opportunity to debate. It is one of my biggest observations, and I find it very frustrating when members across all parties want to have the opportunity to speak to a bill, yet we are constantly, especially with the current government in the last couple of years, met with countless time allocation motions and restrictions of the ability for members to speak to legislation here in this chamber.

Really, what is this bill all about? It renames an existing body that already exists for the RCMP. It obviously expands upon that, but most importantly, it does expand to cover the Canada Border Services Agency. This is very important, because currently the CBSA is the only public safety agency in Canada without that independent oversight body for public complaints.

Establishing this independent review body would foster and enhance public trust and confidence in Canada's law enforcement and border services institutions, something that I think all parties desperately agree is very important.

As I just mentioned in my previous comment, it is disappointing that this bill has languished for the last six months and has not been a priority for the government. I am going to address a number of concerns, recognizing I only have a few seconds left. I want to highlight the lack of consultation around this bill, specifically some other issues around potentially how the actual members of the commission would get appointed, and the lack of independence in the process.

I will get to that when this bill becomes a priority for the government once again.

The House resumed from March 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-375, an act to amend the Impact Assessment Act (federal-provincial agreements), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Impact Assessment Act

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the private member's bill before us, Bill C-375, regarding federal-provincial agreements in the Impact Assessment Act. We appreciate the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent's interest in the Impact Assessment Act, which plays an important role in sustainable development and economic prosperity in Canada.

We need an efficient and effective review process for clean energy, critical minerals, transportation, and other major projects to keep our economy competitive while creating good, well-paying jobs. We recognize the important role that our natural resource and clean energy sectors play in ensuring the prosperity of our country while meeting our emissions reduction targets. These targets include reducing emissions to 40% below 2005 levels by 2030, a net-zero electricity grid by 2035 and overall net-zero emissions by 2050. An efficient and robust regulatory system is essential to advancing the projects that will help achieve the net-zero targets, and the Impact Assessment Act is an important part of this system to ensure that a clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand.

While the Supreme Court of Canada provided direction on specific changes needed to the Impact Assessment Act, changes that we recently tabled as part of the budget implementation bill, the court also confirmed the role of the Parliament of Canada to enact impact assessment legislation to “minimize the risks that some major projects pose to the environment”. The court recognized the clear federal role and the clear need for federal impact assessment legislation. In its decision on the Impact Assessment Act, the court underscored the need to exercise cooperative federalism, respecting the authority of each jurisdiction.

The Government of Canada is keen to work cooperatively with every jurisdiction under the Impact Assessment Act. Bill C-375 has been introduced under the veil of provincial cooperation. However, it would result in the provincial assessment process being the only process for projects subject to an agreement. Bill C-375 aims to promote agreements between the minister and a provincial government to exempt potentially wide ranges of projects from the Impact Assessment Act.

The Impact Assessment Act already focuses only on those major projects that are most likely to have the potential for significant adverse effects in areas of federal jurisdiction. Blanket exemptions of these projects from federal assessment without appropriate safeguards does not mean they would be done in collaboration. What it means is that the federal government would no longer have the authority to manage what is clearly its responsibility, with no role in determining the potential effects of a proposed project that are within its own jurisdiction, nor be able to identify ways to mitigate those effects or even decide whether those effects within its own jurisdiction are in the best interest of Canadians. This is contrary to cooperative federalism, which the Supreme Court of Canada encouraged.

The Supreme Court of Canada was clear that we must respect each other's jurisdiction, but we also must work together. By working together in coordinating regulatory processes, we achieve our collective goal of attracting investment and projects that advance a low-carbon economy while protecting the environment and indigenous rights. Co-operation and coordination are central objectives of the Impact Assessment Act to ensure that impact assessments are done as efficiently as possible. The Impact Assessment Act already requires that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada offer to consult with other jurisdictions on project assessments, both up front during initial planning and throughout an impact assessment. By working together, we can clearly focus federal involvement on those matters that are squarely within federal jurisdiction.

This provides process certainty and reduces duplication during project reviews. The Impact Assessment Act includes tools that allow for coordinated assessments, delegation of aspects of the federal impact assessment to another jurisdiction, joint review panels and substitution, where a provincial process can replace the federal process.

These legislated tools reflect the flexibility needed for co-operation; they can be tailored to meet the needs of each jurisdiction and can include sharing information and expertise; coordinating or jointly undertaking activities, such as public comment periods, indigenous engagement and consultations, instructions to proponents and technical reviews; and substitution of a provincial process for a federal process.

We know these tools can work. We have had tremendous success under an agreement with British Columbia. Particularly, the provincial process is used as a substitution for the federal assessment process. At the same time, both orders of government retain the ability to exercise their responsibility to decide on whether effects within their jurisdiction are in the public interest.

We are keen to extend this success to other provinces and truly achieve the objective of “one project, one assessment”. To this end, and in response to the Supreme Court, the Government of Canada announced amendments to the Impact Assessment Act that would further advance this principle. This was done through budget 2024, entitled “Fairness for Every Generation”.

The amended act, as proposed through the budget implementation bill, would provide certainty for businesses and investors through measures that include increased flexibility to co-develop a harmonized approach to assessments. Here, the federal government and a province or indigenous jurisdiction can enter agreements to share responsibility for different elements of assessment. This approach would greatly reduce duplication and result in the best-placed jurisdiction undertaking the most appropriate aspects of an assessment, which would be set out in agreements.

Importantly, federal obligations with respect to the consideration of indigenous knowledge and indigenous consultations would be maintained. Final decisions would remain with each jurisdiction, ensuring accountability to the public on effects within respective areas of jurisdiction.

The Impact Assessment Act also seeks to maximize leadership of indigenous peoples in impact assessment processes and enables co-operation with indigenous jurisdictions in recognition of our nation-to-nation relationships. Bill C-375 does not recognize the unique role of indigenous peoples in the Crown's assessment of impacts of major projects. The Impact Assessment Act recognizes the special constitutional relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples and the particular perspectives and interests they bring to the process.

The proposed private member's bill should not be viewed as a tool for collaboration. Instead, it would create a tool to effectively eliminate any co-operation by removing federal requirements from impact assessments altogether. The ultimate goal of the bill is to have no federal impact assessment requirements apply and to eliminate federal decision-making in assessments of major projects, even where there is clear federal jurisdiction.

We already have the tools needed to collaborate effectively with provinces under the IAA, and these would be strengthened through amendments proposed in the budget implementation bill. I encourage my colleagues to reject the proposed private member's bill and focus on supporting true co-operation under the Impact Assessment Act.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-375, introduced by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, who is one of my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

Despite the rhetoric from the member for Niagara Centre, we in the Bloc Québécois see this bill as useful. It aims to improve coordination between the federal government and the governments of Quebec and the provinces by promoting their autonomy when it comes to environmental protection.

The purpose of Bill C-375 is to amend the Impact Assessment Act so that, in certain cases, the federal impact assessment process does not apply to a designated project. More specifically, it would substitute the federal process with the provincial one in the case of designated projects. I will give an example later. This would be done in a way that fully respects the rights of the province. This is not about exempting any project from environmental assessment. In any case, that is our analysis.

Without going into too much detail, I will touch on some of the conditions that must be met and are set out in the bill. Designated projects must be the subject of a written agreement between the minister responsible, the Minister of Environment and the government of a province. The process must also “identify mitigation measures for the adverse effects of the projects”. The bill also provides for public consultation, as well as ways to break the agreement, based on specific mechanisms. There are other elements in the bill.

From the outset, it must be acknowledged that the Impact Assessment Act is not trivial. It is anything but trivial. This is therefore our opportunity to ensure that the provisions set out in Bill C-375 provide the proper framework for the process of non-application of the Impact Assessment Act. It must also ensure that the rights and prerogatives of each level of government are fully respected.

The committee will have to begin by clearly sorting out what distinguishes the proposed amendments to Bill C-375 from the provisions that already exist in the act concerning the exemption from an impact assessment or its delegation to a provincial government. In addition to the questions and necessary verifications on this aspect of the bill, which the committee's study will give us additional guidance on, the Bloc Québécois has three reasons for supporting the bill before us.

We are pushing to have all projects, including those under federal jurisdiction, respect the laws of Quebec, as well as the municipal rules of towns in Quebec. Secondly, in Quebec, as we know, when they are conducted, the environmental assessment processes are more rigorous and better tailored to public expectations than the federal process. We feel that in a Quebec context, an environmental assessment could never be less rigorous than its federal counterpart. More rigorous assessments mean that we can better protect the environment and, consequently, better meet the needs and social aspirations of all Quebeckers.

Finally, we need to avoid absurd situations. I have an example. Some projects undergo an impact assessment under federal legislation when they have already been rejected in a Quebec decision following a Quebec-led environmental assessment. The best example is the GNL Québec project. Quebec said it was over, it was settled and it was a no. The federal government then barged in and said it would do a little impact assessment.

Could Bill C‑375 really protect Quebec from this type of decision? It remains to be seen. We will discuss it in committee.

When it comes to the environment, there is an important point that bears repeating. It has to do with the constitutional issue of jurisdictions and shared jurisdictions. Those jurisdictions are unclear when it comes to the environment. First, we can all agree that any government must take responsibility and meet certain obligations, and that environmental protection is one of them. With that in mind, the Bloc Québécois is proposing that the Government of Canada take action in that regard, while being very careful never to act in a way that would contravene Quebec's environmental laws and policies.

The problem is that the federal government has assumed the right to circumvent Quebec's laws for activities that fall under its jurisdiction. Some activities and infrastructure are only partly covered by Quebec laws because they fall under federal jurisdiction. We could mention for example wharves, ports, airports, telecommunications infrastructure, federal properties and so on. That hurts Quebec.

We demand that the federal government respect the laws of Quebec when it comes to federal activities and federal projects throughout Quebec.

In so doing, we are defending what is known as Quebec's environmental sovereignty, in accordance with the unanimously expressed will of the Quebec National Assembly. More than two years ago, on April 13, 2022, to be precise, elected officials from all political parties represented in the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion asserting the primacy of Quebec's jurisdiction in matters of the environment and opposing any intervention by the federal government in matters of the environment on Quebec territory. That is the definition of Quebec's environmental sovereignty. In 2018, I introduced a bill along the same lines in the House. The Conservatives and Liberals voted against it. I dare to hope that now, at least, the official opposition party will agree with our amendments.

I am going to talk about the port of Quebec and use it as an example of what I was saying earlier. Ports are under federal jurisdiction. The port of Quebec is emitting dust that is settling on the Limoilou neighbourhood. At one time, it was called the red dust on Limoilou, and it contained all kinds of things that my colleagues would not want to breathe. When the inspectors responsible for enforcing Quebec's environmental law visited the port to perform an inspection, they were told that it was federal land and that they had no business going there. That is the kind of decision we are challenging. That is the kind of problem we want to solve.

The Bloc Québécois's solution is the only one that would allow Quebec's environmental protection and land-use planning laws to apply throughout Quebec. We know the federal government is good at patting itself on the back and congratulating itself on its environmental actions, but at the end of the day, it is vital to recognize that regulations and legislation, which are the preferred tools for advancing environmental protection, must be respected. Too often, the federal government says one thing and does the opposite. I could give some examples, but I do not think I will have the time, which is too bad.

Perfection is not their forte, but one thing is clear: Canada has no business dictating to us or lecturing us on how to protect the environment. Quebec's legislation on environmental policy is far more stringent than Canada's. Quebec's Environment Quality Act, which has been in force since March 2018, is the primary environmental protection law in Quebec. It enables Quebec to move forward responsibly for everyone's benefit by creating a modern, clear, predictable, optimized environmental approval system that meets the highest environmental protection standards. In addition to being accompanied by other, more specific legislative measures, our law “makes it an offence to impair the quality of the environment or to emit pollutants or contaminants”. What is more, this legislation:

provides recourse to residents affected by any offence that compromises the quality of the environment, its protection and the protection of living species; requires that an environmental impact assessment be conducted to carry out an activity that could present a high risk to the environment; creates a special access to information regime; governs projects or activities that could have an impact on wetlands and bodies of water; and provides criminal penalties for individuals who contravene the law.

I think that everyone will agree that that is fairly comprehensive. The use, planning, development and protection of land all fall under the responsibility of Quebec's regulatory authorities and its municipalities. The same goes for the other provinces of Canada.

The Bloc Québécois notes that the bill before us is perhaps a bit narrow in scope. We think that there are some provisions missing. We welcome the process that will follow, but we certainly have no illusions about its potential to get the federal government to respect the laws that are in the best interests of Quebec and the provinces. In closing, such an objective, that of respecting our jurisdictions, would be a true sign of enlightenment coming from a state that is always trying to infringe on our jurisdictions with no regard for its own Constitution.

Business of the House

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the next sitting be 12 a.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, February 28, the minister's request to extend the sitting is deemed adopted.

Bill C‑64—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Impact Assessment Act (federal-provincial agreements), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Impact Assessment Act

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to this bill.

The issue of impact assessments and environmental studies is significant, given that Quebec, Canada and the entire world are going through an extremely intense environmental crisis, biodiversity crisis and climate crisis.

I was a bit surprised by the speech by the member for Repentigny, who is a Bloc Québécois member. I would like to remind her that, unfortunately, pollution and greenhouse gases do not recognize provincial borders. What is happening in the Prairies, out west or up north has consequences on the lives of Quebeckers.

I would also like to take this opportunity to give a bit of background, because an important report was released by Environment and Climate Change Canada this week. The report indicated that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions increased by 10 megatonnes between 2021 and 2022. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change was very pleased about that. To quote a well-known film, I could say, “and he is happy”. That is mind-boggling, because he is saying that at least the numbers are better than they were in 2019. They are better than they were in 2019 because something happened in 2020 that had a pretty major impact on our greenhouse gas emissions. It was the pandemic. COVID-19 is saving the current environment minister's statistics. Had it not been for the pandemic, there would be no reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Let me put things in context. What we have also learned is that, from 2005 to 2022, Canada's overall emissions decreased by a measly 7%. That decrease is mainly attributable to the pandemic, which all but wiped out economic development, trade, travel and so on. The economy had to be put on pause for there to be a significant drop in greenhouse gas emissions. If we factor out the pandemic, the Liberals' plan is not working.

The Liberal government's current target is a 45% drop in emissions by 2030. Emissions have dropped 7% in 19 years. There are five and a half years left to do the rest, that is, to reduce emissions by 38%. We have barely managed to reduce emissions by 7% between 2005 and 2022, and that included the pandemic period. Now they would have us believe that we are going to cut emissions by 38% in five and a half years. This makes no sense, unless we have a pandemic every year. It is our choice. It has to be one or the other.

All this is happening while the Liberals are running hot and cold. They are incapable of really taking on the big polluters and big oil companies who are largely responsible for the current situation. That is because of all their projects, including the Trans Mountain project, the pipeline they bought with our money to the tune of $34 billion.

What we found out through the work of journalists at The Globe and Mail was that the Liberals were about to impose a special tax, a special tax on the excessive profits of oil and gas companies, but at the last minute, under lobbyist pressure, they backed down. It disappeared from the budget. That is what The Globe and Mail is reporting. It just goes to show how much sway the oil lobby has over the Conservatives or the Liberals.

Before I tackle the bill specifically, I would like to point out that the oil and gas sector has the highest share of GHG emissions, at 31%. It is the fastest-growing sector, the sector with the fastest-rising environmental impact and the heaviest polluter. We all know that the best way to stop this insanity is to cap oil and gas sector emissions.

The Liberals and the Minister of Environment, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, keep promising that they will do this, but we are still waiting. Today, during question period, we found out that they have promised to publish draft regulations. Wow, we are going to get draft regulations. We are going to get the beginnings of an outline for some regulations that may or may not materialize someday. If that is not the government dragging its feet and straining people's credulity, I do not know what is.

The issue is urgent. We need a cap on oil and gas emissions, but the environment minister thinks it can wait a while longer.

This cannot wait. The Alberta government said a few weeks ago that the forest fire season had already started. It is expected to be even worse this year than it was last year. My NDP colleague from Victoria said she never thought she would ever see forest fires start in British Columbia before winter was over. That is the new reality.

If people breathed in smoke last summer, they had better brace themselves, because this summer will be even worse. It is possible that last summer will be the best summer we will have for the next 10 years. I take no pleasure in saying that. People are getting sick and dying from air pollution, from forest fires and from fine particles in the air. That is the reality.

We need legislation on the impact assessment process for major projects to ensure that we meet our Paris Agreement targets, uphold our commitments on biodiversity and our treaties with indigenous peoples in the spirit of reconciliation, and show respect for local communities through proper consultations.

I understand where the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent is coming from when he says that we need to avoid redundancy. One process is better than two. I am just saying that we need to be careful. The federal government has specific responsibilities, particularly when it comes to biodiversity and wildlife. I think that it is important to have a process for ensuring that projects comply with our international treaty obligations, particularly the Paris Agreement, and that we meet our specific responsibilities toward indigenous peoples and species at risk, in terms of biodiversity. If the government steps back from the process as this bill suggests, it will give some provinces the opportunity to unilaterally approve projects that will have a major impact on all Canadians. The NDP is worried provinces may rubber-stamp projects, speeding up the approval process to say yes to everything, which will increase the negative impacts on our environment and ecosystems. This is an important issue for us. We voted against Bill C-69 because we did not think that it went far enough, because it did not have enough teeth and because we were concerned that it gave the minister far too much discretion.

However, it has already been used. This law was used to delay an expansion of the Vista coal mine in central Alberta after civil society groups and activists fought hard for an environmental assessment of the project and for a number of their concerns to be addressed.

Given the ongoing environmental and climate crisis, the NDP is very reluctant to give up a tool that can effect change. We cannot simply say that if the province is doing it, everything is okay, without taking a look. As we see it, this would mean certain Conservative provincial governments could approve some projects that will have a major impact on everyone and that will not comply with our international agreements. We believe in strong, firm measures. The federal government needs to be present, watchful, and capable of shouldering its environmental protection role and going after big polluters like the oil and gas sector.

The Impact Assessment Act is an important tool for keeping our air and water clean and ensuring a healthy environment and healthy surroundings for everyone.

In closing, I would say that we cannot overlook the fact that, as far as greenhouse gas emissions and pollution are concerned, borders, provinces and countries do not exist. We believe in taking responsibility and keeping watch for the sake of our future and our children's future.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to support my dear friend, the Conservative MP for Louis-Saint-Laurent. His private member's bill is timely and would inject some badly needed common sense into how we conduct environmental impact assessments in this country.

The goal of this legislation is rather straightforward. It would allow for a single environmental impact assessment for each project, to avoid unnecessary duplication. It would make the system more efficient, more co-operative and more predictable, all things that no one in Canada could ever possibly say about the current environmental assessment process.

The legislation proposes the creation of a mechanism of agreement between the federal and provincial governments to reduce duplication of federal and provincial environmental assessments. It speaks volumes that a prairie boy from Manitoba and a distinguished parliamentarian from Quebec can see eye to eye on such an important issue facing our country.

In our Conservative caucus, we work together on ways to bring our country together rather than tear us apart. We understand that a rising tide lifts all boats. We do not go looking for fights with premiers or infringe on provincial jurisdiction. Now, under the Liberal government, of course, that has not always been the case. We have seen ministers, and even the Prime Minister, pit east versus west and rural versus urban. It should not be this way. It is dangerous and it is short-sighted. No wonder there is more division and anger than at any moment in my life in this country.

I view this legislation as a first step in rebuilding that trust and respect among our regions and our provinces. It would provide a pathway for all levels of government to sit down and work together to actually get projects off the ground. As the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent so eloquently said during his speech, the bill strives for “collaboration, not confrontation”.

The “Ottawa knows best” approach is what is dividing our country. We only have to look at the Supreme Court's decision on Bill C-69, which found certain elements to be unconstitutional. It was a naked federal power grab that infringed on provincial jurisdiction. While it was unfortunate that it took the Supreme Court to determine this once and for all, it provides all of us a reminder that even the federal government can be humbled. Even the most powerful and sanctimonious are not exempt from the Constitution.

There was once a time in this country when we got things built: the railway, which forged a nation together and connected east and west; the St. Lawrence Seaway, which opened the country to the Atlantic Ocean; the TransCanada pipeline, where western energy fuelled the major cities of eastern Canada. These projects provided the foundation of our economy, and without them, we could not get our products to market. I simply cannot imagine what our economy would look like today without them, and they are still contributing. They are still contributing wealth and prosperity to our country. They create countless jobs and contribute the taxes that pay for our schools, our health care and our highways.

This brings us to the bill we have in front of us today.

Canada is now a place where undertaking a project has become so risky that companies would rather take their money elsewhere, anywhere for that matter, and the proof is in the pudding. The number of natural resource projects completed between 2015 and 2024 has declined by 36.4%. According to the government's own numbers in its annual inventory, it shows a steep decline in major projects that are under construction or planned in the next 10 years. In 2015, the inventory held $711 billion in major projects, but by 2023, that had dropped to just $572 billion.

The reality is that, over the years, governments have made it so incredibly complicated, layered with various departments and agencies, that navigating the environmental assessment process is simply too daunting for people and companies to want to do. Now, I would be remiss not to point out that various politicians, such as the current Minister of Environment and Climate Change, view this regulatory nightmare as a success, because it stops certain projects from ever getting off the ground in our country. However, do not take my word for it. In a previous lifetime as an environmental activist, with a bit of a penchant for getting arrested every now and then, our Minister of Environment was quite proud of his efforts to derail the energy east pipeline.

The reality is that activists will never agree to certain projects, regardless of the process, the conditions or even their purpose. There is no lithium mine that could be used to build electric batteries in this country that would good enough for these activists. They will move on from one argument to the next until something sticks. They believe that if they could bog down the entire process, inevitably it will scare off the proponent of that project.

It is disingenuous, as almost all of these activist organizations, many of them, if not most of them, being foreign-funded, have no intention of trying to make sure certain projects are built in the most environmentally conscious way. They want them stopped, no matter what and at all costs.

Now, unfortunately, the fox is in the henhouse, running the Department of Environment and Climate Change Canada. It is no wonder Canada cannot get anything built any more.

The truth is that these activists will use every tool at their disposal, including hijacking the environmental assessment process, to advance their own ideological goals. That is their right. We do live in a democracy. People are entitled to their opinions, and they are entitled to speak out as they see fit.

What people are not allowed to do is to violently attack pipeline workers, like what has happened in British Columbia. The fact that radicals, armed with axes, attacked their fellow citizens just because they were working on an approved pipeline speaks volumes to how radicalized some people have become in this country, with no thanks to the Prime Minister and to the current government.

How did we end up in a place where extremists threatened fellow Canadians, vandalized and destroyed property and defied court orders? How did we become a place where activists can just barge into a room and violently disrupt an energy board hearing?

The reality is that even when governments think they are creating the conditions to get a social license, it will never appease these activists. They are not interested in the facts. They do not care about the evidence. They just want to stop projects from being built in this country.

I challenge any one of my fellow MPs to ponder these questions: In the year 2024, could we have built the Canadian Pacific Railway through the Rocky Mountains? Let us think about it. Does anybody believe that we could have actually built that railway in this current process? Could we have built the TransCanada pipeline through the Canadian Shield if this project started in 2024?

It is a frightening thought experiment, but it underscores how precarious our situation is, currently. Whoever would have thought that the federal government would have spent billions of dollars to nationalize a pipeline just to get it built in this country?

As we look to the future and to the incredible deposits and the wealth of natural resources and critical minerals that our nation has been blessed with, will Canada seize the moment, or will it just be yet another wasted opportunity?

Sadly, under the current Liberal government, it has not only failed to capitalize on that opportunity, but it has made it that much more difficult to get a mine up and running. In fact, under its watch, we have seen a decline of 36.4% of completed mines and a 55% drop in total value of proposed mining projects. At the time when these critical minerals are needed to build our electronics, our batteries and our solar panels, do we have an impact assessment process that will get these mines operational?

At a time when the Beijing regime has cornered the critical minerals market, which puts our manufacturers and our entire supply chains at risk, do we have an impact assessment process to free ourselves from the whims of a dictatorial country and to become a reliable supplier to our allies in an increasingly volatile world? At a time when our European allies are desperate to rid themselves of Russian energy, do we have an assessment process to build infrastructure to get our LNG to port?

These are the questions that we need to be asking ourselves. Do we want to be a nation that not only upholds stringent environmental standards but also excels in actually getting things built, or do we want to be a nation that stifles every opportunity at every turn while our adversaries and other nations around the world take advantage of their wealth of natural resources?

Let us work with our provincial counterparts to make government efficiency the standard practice rather than the occasional experience. Let us respect the Constitution and provincial jurisdiction. Let us stop the adversarial legal and political battles preferred by the high-priced lobbyists and lawyers. Let us transform Canada into a place where the foremost talent in environmental sciences, engineering, biology and scientific research actually works together, rather than at odds.

Let us get Canada working again.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for his right of reply.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all my colleagues who took part in this debate. When legislation is introduced to move things forward for the country, it is quite moving to see so many people working together. I am very honoured.

I would like to briefly address some of the comments made by my colleagues from the other parties. First, my colleagues in the Liberal Party oppose this. That is unfortunate. This bill is about collaboration, not confrontation, and is meant to speed up the process, because we need green energy now more than ever. Unfortunately, the current process slows things down by requiring two studies to be done for every project. There should be only one study per project. My Liberal colleague pointed out that there was no mention of first nations in the bill. My understanding is that, since it falls under federal jurisdiction, the legislation included first nations when it was drafted. If, by some mistake, that is not the case, I would welcome an amendment from anyone, whether from the Liberal government or another party, to ensure that first nations are treated fairly in this bill. That is how I understood the bill when it was drafted. If that is not the case, we will gladly correct it.

Now, I also want to thank my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois for their support. I want to thank the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia for the speech she delivered a few weeks ago, as well as the member for Repentigny who spoke earlier. In my haste, I did not properly identify a colleague for whom I have a great deal of respect, the member for Rivière-du-Nord. I quoted a statement made at a committee meeting. He said that amendment G-4 seemed like something the Bloc Québécois would write.

I have a great deal of respect for the member for Rivière-du-Nord. In this specific case, however, he made a mistake and we all know what happened next. I also want to say that the members of the Bloc Québécois had concerns about who would ultimately make the decision. Let us not forget that an environmental assessment is a scientific assessment and that science has no political affiliation. Science relies on facts and realities. However, jurisdictions apply, but then again, jurisdictions would have to be respected, and environmental assessments would have to be done.

Why am I bringing that up? My friends at the Bloc Québécois will be mad at me, but what can I say, facts are stubborn. The most polluting project in the history of Quebec, McInnis Cement, was authorized by the most polluting environment minister in the history of Quebec, the current member for Beloeil—Chambly. He did not even get an environmental assessment for that project. He went around the BAPE, the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement. Those are the facts.

By the way, I want to thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his comment. Unfortunately, the NDP has politicized and branded science. Again, environmental studies are scientific studies and should not be politicized. When my colleague says that he is almost afraid that a Conservative government will move quickly on this, I disagree. Edmonton's scientists are just as good under Ms. Smith as they were under Ms. Notley. Scientists in Quebec City are just as good under the current premier as they were under previous ones. Ottawa scientists are as good under the current Prime Minister as they will be under the next prime minister, which will be very soon, we hope.

Science is science. It has no political affiliation and is partisanship-free. Ultimately, it is the government that gives the green light or not. Ultimately, it is a government that will decide whether to go ahead or not, but all matters that fall under federal jurisdiction will be analyzed in the process as planned. That is why I want to reiterate that we want to give green energy the green light, as our leader so eloquently put it in his speech in Quebec City last September. To meet the challenges of climate change, as he so eloquently put it, we need to speed up the process. We need to give green energy the green light. If we really want to tackle climate change, that means, among other things, acting pragmatically, not dogmatically, with concrete solutions.

Yes, we need to conduct environmental assessments. Yes, science needs to do its job. Yes, we must assess all situations, whether they fall under federal or provincial jurisdiction. However, there should be just one assessment for each project. The world needs Canadian energy and Canada's natural resources now more than ever. We cannot start delaying green energy projects by requiring two environmental assessments that may contradict each other. We want to work together, and this bill proposes a collaborative approach rather than a confrontational one. Let us hope that this bill is passed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 8, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

It being 2:16 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, May 6, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:16 p.m.)