Mr. Speaker, I rise with deep sadness. As I see it, this debate on Bill C‑5 is a huge tragedy.
While the Liberals say they achieved the mandate in an election, we worked together, the leaders of the opposition parties, previously, with Justin Trudeau. We said we were team Canada, that we would to work together, push back on what Trump wants to do and defend Canada's economic sovereignty. However, grabbing that and claiming that Bill C-5 is a response to how Canadians and all of us in the opposition parties feel about protecting our economy from Trump and pretending that this unprecedented power grab was ever discussed in the election is a sham. We can add an “e” to that: It is a shame.
What we have done here is create the impression, and certainly the Liberals are saying it over and over again, that passing Bill C-5 would be a response to Trump and that it would protect our economy, by railroading the act through, passing it, and then saying that cabinet alone can decide whether a project is in the national interest, and then its approval process would take two years. We do not know what projects are under consideration, but large projects generally take a long time to build or put in place, eight to 10 years, and five years minimum.
There is massive pressure that it needs to be done now, when there is so much more we could do to protect our economy. We could create strategic reserves of Canadian natural resources. We could ensure that Canadian industries and Canadian workers are protected.
However, what the Liberals have done has, honestly, shocked me, because I did not expect this. I really thought we would have a government that understood the need to proclaim Canadian sovereignty and protect our economy but not trample on democracy to do it. I noted that the media said that the bill “sailed through committee”. That is an interesting turn of phrase from our national public broadcaster. I support the CBC, but this kind of thing makes me think of Pierre Poilievre's points. Never mind; I support the CBC. However, the bill did not sail through committee; the bill was forced through committee.
It went through what we call a guillotine process.
We have had a guillotine process at every stage: abbreviated debate at second reading and definitely massively abbreviated opportunity to hear witnesses, so many experts in environmental law and experts in indigenous rights and title holders. All of the aspects of the legislation that are controversial have never been properly aired or discussed.
The process used to pass Bill C‑5 is problematic. It is being rushed to an unprecedented degree, unlike any other time that a bill was forced through Parliament since I first had the great honour of serving as member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I have never seen anything like it.
It is a twofold concern I have at report stage. Yes, we have made some amendments in committee, but they do not touch on the major concerns that people have about the legislation. I do appreciate the Speaker's ruling that part 1 and part 2 will be separated, but how can we have a vote on a bill that would give unprecedented powers to a prime minister and cabinet to choose projects that would be accelerated and expedited to such an extent that they could ignore other pieces of legislation?
There are experts, and I will hold up Jody Wilson-Raybould, our former minister of justice, as an example. She is not just someone who has a sharp legal mind and to whose advice we should be listening; she is also someone who spent her life following in her father's footsteps in protecting indigenous rights and understanding them.
While the preamble to the bill says that free, prior and informed consent is important, the way the law would operate would not allow for that. That is where I am deeply concerned that we are running roughshod over things that we care about in this country, things that we have passed in our Parliament, such as support for the respect for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which, in the bill before us, are now found inconvenient because we want to build things fast.
What things? We will find out later. How fast? Who knows? What laws will we push out of the way? What indigenous rights concerns do we think will take second place?
What happens if they take last place?
What can we do with a bill like this and with a process like the one we are seeing today in the House of Commons?
This is a moment. We have some good amendments before us at report stage to reduce the extent of unaccountability in cabinet's deciding what projects are going to be considered in this expedited process. We have an opportunity. I ask the members of the governing party to consider that this is not an electoral college. We are Parliament. We are a Westminster parliamentary democracy where each member of Parliament is to vote for how they believe their constituents would want to see them vote.
If this was a question, as the government seems to want us to believe, of voting up or down on Canada's economy, there is no question that, of course, Canadian parliamentarians would want our economy to do well. Will this law take us there? There are so many other options, but we have not had any chance to discuss them, nor have we had a chance to adequately review this bill.
I completely agree with what the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said in his speech, because this is irreversible.
Once we take the step, we cannot go back without going back to Parliament and changing the law.
These are unprecedented powers. With the decision that they will remain in effect for five years, we have a problem.
We have a real problem of this bill creating not an opportunity to build our economy, but a potential for the expansion of powers of the Prime Minister and cabinet that we have never seen in this country before, with the least amount of debate I have ever seen on a bill.
As everyone now understands, it is an omnibus bill that will have enormous consequences. The decisions may reduce the opportunities for projects that are important to our nation.
If we end up, as often haste makes waste, pulled back into court, we will definitely see challenges. I particularly note the maiden speech of the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, a Conservative who said that when projects are built in his territory, the environmental assessments help build better projects, with the time it takes to study, the time it takes to reflect and the engagement of people. Indigenous peoples, Canadians, communities, territories, provinces and local governments need to be engaged to have successful projects.
The factors that are listed are not requirements, and no matter what has been said over and over again in this place about passing this bill to protect our economy, I urge the thoughtful members of the Liberal Party in this place to think twice and vote for the amendments at report stage that improve this act and reduce the chances that it will be abused, not just in the future, but in the very near future.
A section like subclause 6(1) says that in the future, we will just deem that all these decisions have been made in favour of advancing a project. We will not worry about it, because we will decide ahead of time. It will be verdict first, evidence later. This is not the way that Canadian Parliament behaves, reflects or engages in democracy in this country.
I deeply hope that we will see support from government members for the amendments that have been put forward at report stage from the Bloc and the Greens. We hope to see improvements.
