Madam Speaker, if you permit, let us talk about fear. I will quote from the Refus global manifesto, published in 1948: “The reign of fear in all its forms is over.” However, to be quite clear, made-in-Canada fear has always been the only tool of the Ottawa bigwigs and the regime. Today, the bogeyman has a new name: Donald Trump. I am not trying to downplay the genuine tariff threat, but there is also the real-life fairy tale of Canada as the 51st state. We were well aware of the Liberals' total opportunism during the election campaign, which was not surprising in itself. However, we are also aware that fear is now being used as leverage for a new phase of centralization, as per usual, no surprise there. It goes by a different name: Bill C‑5.
Let us take a brief historical detour. Crisis breeds fear. However, Ottawa has always taken advantage of crises to push its unitary agenda and centralize power even further, to the detriment of the provinces and especially to the detriment of the only one among them that aspires to be home to a distinct nation, Quebec. Politics is, of course, about power dynamics, and the government knows how to use favourable circumstances to grow its sprawling apparatus. That is what happened in 1840, when the British took advantage of the crushing of the Patriotes rebellion to force the union of the two Canadas. That is what happened after the two world wars, when income tax, which was supposed to be a temporary measure, became permanent. It has never gone away. That is also what happened after René Lévesque's sovereignty-association option was defeated in 1980, when Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Jean Chrétien seized the opportunity to unilaterally patriate the Canadian Constitution without the agreement of Quebec, removing its right of veto. Quebec is still not a signatory to this day. That is also what happened after the 1995 referendum, when what was known as plan B was rolled out, a manoeuvre involving a fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces through reduced transfers, mainly for health care and employment insurance, and the use of new budget surpluses to create federal programs that encroached on provincial jurisdictions. That is also what happened during the COVID‑19 health crisis, when the creation of sprawling new structures was announced.
Bill C‑5 is a new form of governance based on arbitrary measures and possibly even cronyism. It was only natural that Ottawa take advantage of this American smokescreen to launch yet another centralizing offensive. Today, the Trump threat is enabling Ottawa to once again pursue the approach of forced unification and attack Quebec's distinct identity, all in the name of the need for “one Canadian economy, not 13”. We should not be swayed by the motion the elected members of Quebec's National Assembly adopted unanimously, the one denouncing this call for unification. That will certainly not be discussed or mentioned in government circles, and the 44 Quebec members in the ruling party shall remain completely silent on the issue, regardless of what the National Assembly would like. Bill C-5 will in all likelihood be passed thanks to a gag order supported by the Liberal-Conservative coalition of proud Canadians, in defiance of any democratic process. A bill with such far-reaching implications deserves to be debated, studied and rigorously analyzed; every detail should be weighed. It should not be fast-tracked like this.
Bill C‑5 is anything but a half measure. As a political plan, I would go so far as to call it radical. It is profound. It creates an arbitrary form of governance potentially based on back-room cronyism that ignores the legal underpinnings that are normally in force in a country governed by the rule of law. We already know that pipelines took over where railroads left off as markers of identity, as a cross-Canada unification measure no less contrived and colonial a construct than Canada itself. However, Bill C‑5 creates an oil monarchy on steroids, with a time allocation motion that both the government and the official opposition will be voting for, which is a rare thing in itself, so much so that we may well wonder whether the Conservatives might be thinking of suing the Liberals for plagiarism.
The Liberals came to power with their T-shirts emblazoned with their one real selling point—the fact that they were not Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives. They then proceeded to serve up a stunning example of how they will ape the Conservatives now that they are in power.
Bill C‑5 establishes an opaque process whereby developers secretly propose projects that will be confidentially reviewed by Ottawa, which will then arbitrarily determine whether they fall within the definition of the national interest, without even clearly indicating the criteria for this concept. All of this remains very vague in the bill.
Once a given project has been deemed to be in the national interest, it may be exempted from environmental impact assessements, from the usual consultations with affected citizens and from respecting the provinces and indigenous peoples.
As soon as the minister responsible for major projects declares that a project is of national interest, it will be pre-approved, provided that it meets the conditions imposed by the approval. After that, the rest is just a formality; there is no turning back. All the consultations and impact assessments that normally take place will be useless. It is a done deal, ciao, bye, because the decision is considered irrevocable. Ultimately, these processes will be nothing more than theatre.
Those projects typically take years to complete. By deciding that a project is in the national interest and must be carried out at all costs, Ottawa is going to tie the hands of future generations.
That is not the end of the bleak picture painted by Bill C‑5. When Ottawa designates a project as being in the national interest, the sponsor can be exempted from any federal law or regulation. The Liberals tried to turn the last election into a referendum on Donald Trump, and now they are trying to institutionalize governance by order, on par with what we are currently seeing in the White House.
Unlike statutory instruments that have to be published in the Canada Gazette for consultation for at least 45 business days before they can come into force, the decision to designate a project as being of national interest is not subject to consultation and can take effect as soon as the order is published. There are no guidelines outlining how the minister will have to assess the project, no criteria for assessing the impact and no deadline for consultations. Using orders in council to decide which law will apply to which entity, depending on the circumstances, is the type of abuse that is about to be established in Liberal-Conservative Canada.
In fact, the schedule to the bill lists 13 acts and seven regulations that proponents will no longer be required to adhere to, as though the oil companies' power exempts them from basic accountability in a country governed by the rule of law. These acts and regulations have been listed several times, but I will list them again: the Fisheries Act; the Indian Act; the International River Improvements Act; the National Capital Act; the Canadian Navigable Waters Act; the Dominion Water Power Act; the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994; the Canada Transportation Act; the Canada Marine Act; the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999; the Species at Risk Act; the Canadian Energy Regulator Act; the Impact Assessment Act; the migratory bird sanctuary regulations; the Dominion water power regulations; the wildlife area regulations; the marine mammal regulations; the port authorities operations regulations; the metal and diamond mining effluent regulations; and the migratory birds regulations.
It goes even further, beyond the acts and regulations I just mentioned, because proposed section 21 in the bill states that the government may, by order, exempt proponents from the application of any act, not only those I just mentioned. On paper, oil companies could be exempted from the Official Languages Act, the Income Tax Act, the Canada Labour Code and even the Criminal Code. That would set a precedent that is both vague and dangerous. Is a government that can shield its friends from the law not starting to look a lot like what is happening in Washington? This is coming from people who committed to doing things very differently from what is happening in Washington.
It seems that they are in fact building the 51st U.S. state on the quiet, under time allocation, with no regard for the serious studies conducted by parliamentary institutions such as committees, and on the pretext of a bogus emergency.
It should be noted that the Canadian parliamentary system already has a rather poor record when viewed as part of the long history of democracies. In addition to being a monarchy, Canada has a parliamentary system that is not proportional. It allows a government to be formed without having received a majority of the votes. The system also grants veto power to a Senate that is made up of unelected members appointed by the Prime Minister who are free to prevent legislation from being passed even though it has passed all the stages of the House of Commons. There is also a trend towards an increasing concentration of power within the Prime Minister's office and among a few key ministers, but not too many, to the detriment of the institution of Parliament. Bill C-5 is yet another step towards radicalizing this aristocratic form of governance, which is already deeply rooted in Canadian political culture.
On top of that, we are seeing a new phase of predatory and rampant mutation of the system wrongly referred to as federalism. When Bill C-5 was introduced on June 6, the Prime Minister was asked by journalists whether the bill would make way for a pipeline to be built on Quebec territory if Quebec refuses. The Prime Minister said no, since there needs to be a consensus. The Prime Minister's word is good. However, if this were set out in the legislation, that would be even better.
When we read clause 5(7) of the new building Canada act in Bill C-5, it states:
Before recommending that an order be made...the Minister must consult with any other federal minister and any provincial or territorial government that the Minister considers appropriate and with Indigenous peoples whose rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 may be adversely affected by the carrying out of the project to which the order relates.
It says “that the Minister considers”. This means that a minister is free to consult or not consult Quebec, the provinces, first nations or another minister on a project that would be located in Quebec. He can choose to do so, but it is not a requirement. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the minister says he will pick up the phone and make a call. If that consultation does not yield a positive result, the legislation still allows the minister to proceed. This does not even remotely resemble a veto right, far from it.
Today, the term “oil monarchy” is taking on its full meaning. Canadian oil dependency crosses party lines, as was made clear again today. However, scientists agree that 80% of oil must remain underground if we want to show some modicum of responsibility. What is more, 96% of Canadian oil comes from oil sands, meaning that the portion that does not come from oil sands is marginal. However, the oil sands are among the dirtiest sources of oil in the world.
The focus on exporting such raw materials has a major impact on public policy. Politicians believe that they need to constantly provide infrastructure and adjust environmental and health regulations in order to maintain national competitiveness. We have more proof of that today. The resources dedicated to supporting exports are set to grow indefinitely. It is a never‑ending cycle.
The railway that led to the creation of Canada was supposed to be made profitable by the transportation of commodities. That halted the exploration of new technological avenues. The result was an even greater dependence on raw commodities. There is a consistent, self-reinforcing pattern. The increased reliance on raw material exports will require increased investments in transportation infrastructure. That is money that will not be invested elsewhere in the economy. Is that a wise bet?
Oil shareholders are mainly foreign, since their profit centre is offshore. This shows how ridiculous Canadian oil patriotism is. Despite this, the share of foreign companies investing in Canadian oil has been steadily declining for several years. It generates very little in royalties.
Let us talk about shale oil. This is a particularly poor development opportunity in which Canada appears to be trapped.
One of Canada's biggest disappointments is that, in the global marketplace, in the midst of the great geopolitical struggle around oil, Canada is ultimately a minor player with basically no influence. In any event, it persists in trying to unify around this single basis because, as an artificial country, it needs to have something to build a common identity around.
After its post-national torpor, Canada is now looking to speed up construction from coast to coast to coast to the detriment of Quebec and the first nations. We have seen this movie many times before, and we think it is time for something new. We thank the Liberals and Conservatives for giving us this umpteenth demonstration of why Quebeckers need to have an independent country, a country of their own. We are not short on reasons, but this gives us one more, to add urgency to our argument.
