Debates of Nov. 30th, 2020

Aeronautics Act

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

moved that Bill C-225, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act and other Acts (application of provincial law), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity this morning to talk to all my colleagues about Bill C-225, especially since this bill was introduced back in 2018 as Bill C-392 by my party's passionate environmental advocate, the charming member for Repentigny. This Bill C-225 is virtually the same as that one.

I will get into more of the details a little later, but first I would like to point out what the bill might represent. It fits perfectly with my political goals, since it implies more political autonomy for Quebec. Everyone seems to be aware of the path towards self-government that Quebec has taken.

We can go back as far as Jean Lesage's famous slogan “Maîtres chez nous”, when environmental matters were perhaps not as urgent as they are today. As for Lesage, he went even further than that slogan.

I remember the early days of what was known as the Quiet Revolution, when Lesage came up with the wonderful phrase, “the Quebec state as the primary instrument for the collective emancipation of Quebeckers”. That phrase, which is also quite famous, means that what we want, perhaps above all else, is to give political substance to the Quebec nation, and I think this can only be achieved through self-government.

We know that when the federal government takes action in areas of federal legislative jurisdiction, Quebec and the provinces cannot force it to respect their laws. In our Constitution, there is a type of hierarchy and we know that federal legislation subordinates provincial legislation.

In the meantime, federal Parliament can impose strict parameters on governments in the application of the legislation it passes. If federal legislation required compliance with Quebec law and provincial law, the federal government could no longer authorize plans that violate those laws. This circumvention strategy may be the purpose of Bill C-225, which would amend seven federal statutes.

Bill C-225 would amend the Aeronautics Act, which governs airports, and the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act, which governs wharves and harbours for small watercraft. The bill also amends the National Capital Act, which governs the activities of the National Capital Commission in Ottawa and the Outaouais, and the Broadcasting Act, which governs telecommunications infrastructure, including cellular antennas.

The other laws that this bill amends include the Federal Real Property and Federal Immovables Act, which governs all federal properties; the Canada Marine Act, which, as we all know, governs ports; and the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act, which governs projects carried out through the bank. Such projects currently benefit from a form of federal immunity from provincial laws and municipal bylaws.

By passing Bill C-225, Parliament would force the federal government to ensure that it is respecting provincial laws and municipal bylaws before authorizing an activity or infrastructure project, so I believe that this bill is in keeping with Quebec's pursuit of self-government.

What would the impact of this bill be? If this bill passes, Quebec laws governing environmental protection and land management would apply to the entire province of Quebec. At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned Jean Lesage. In my opinion, this bill would be a way for Quebec to be the master of its own house when it comes to the environment.

The privileges of an airport developer would therefore cease to take precedence over the provisions of the Quebec Act Respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities or the municipal bylaws. Telecommunications companies would have to come to an agreement with the municipalities and respect the wishes of local residents when putting up their towers and antennas. Major federal infrastructure projects and any other similar projects would be subject to the assessment process of the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement du Québec. As a result, these projects would have to be given a certificate of authorization from the Government of Quebec before they could go forward.

Along the same lines, federal government property, including large tracts of the Gatineau urban area that belong to the National Capital Commission, will have to comply with development plans and municipal regulations adopted by local authorities.

In addition to providing better environmental protection and more cohesive land development, the bill will establish legal certainty in areas marked by numerous judicial disputes related to shared jurisdictions. By approving a project that contravenes a provincial law, the federal minister would be contravening a federal law. This would resolve the issue of conflicting jurisdictions once and for all.

We all know the Canadian constitutional context. Constitutionally, Quebec land belongs to Quebeckers. Its occupation, use, development and protection fall primarily under the laws and regulations of Quebec and its municipalities. The British North America Act of 1867, however, distributed legislative powers between the provinces and the federal government, which gives to Ottawa many powers that cover the environment and land.

The British North America Act was signed in 1867, at a time when telecommunications, for example, did not exist. As a result, anything that was not named directly in this legislation now falls under federal jurisdiction. Telecommunications are part of that. Other examples are navigation, wharves and ports. I could also mention public property, such as land and buildings that belong to Ottawa, as well as interprovincial transportation, including transportation infrastructure, such as pipelines.

This topic came up quite often during the last election campaign. Our Conservative colleagues had the unfortunate idea of developing an energy corridor that would have seen a pipeline built across Quebec. Judging by my colleagues' quick reaction and raised eyebrows, I can see that they are not happy about that comment, but this bill could provide a framework for similar excesses at the federal level. This is something that can be discussed later.

The Constitution does not classify environmental protection as a jurisdiction in itself. Either provincial or federal laws will apply, depending on the project. If a project is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, the provincial laws will only be enforced if they do not prevent Ottawa from exercising its own powers. There are all kinds of examples in our past that demonstrate why this bill is necessary.

For instance, Quebec or a municipality could probably adopt regulations or bylaws allowing cell towers to be painted green. That would be entirely possible, and the courts would accept it. Conversely, any laws or regulations made regarding the location of towers would be struck down, which has happened on several occasions.

What does this actually mean? It means that a provincial government's power to act is significantly reduced by the federal government's power. Just between us, I do not think the colour of a telecommunications tower really matters, but where it is located is critical, and Quebec does not have the power to decide that.

As folks will see, I am a good sport. During the 2015 election campaign, which brought the Liberal Party to power, their party platform promised to ensure that projects have social licence. The term “social licence” is on everyone's lips these days. In 2015, the Liberal Party said that social licence should be a priority for projects to be accepted and authorized.

I take no pleasure in this, but I will quote from the 2015 Liberal Party platform: “While governments grant permits for resource development, only communities can grant permission.” Being a charitable man, I thought to myself, why not support my Liberal colleagues so they can fulfill one of the election promises they made in 2015?

I do so purely out of the goodness of my heart. We in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean are good people. Out of the goodness of my heart, I am willing to do this for my Liberal colleagues.

We live in a democracy. Our laws and regulations are passed by the representatives of the people and reflect a certain social licence. Bill C-225 will help deliver on a Liberal election promise, in a sense.

I gave some examples earlier illustrating how the federal government's prerogative over Quebec's environmental laws can sometimes lead to unfortunate circumstances. We can come back to that.

Over the years, we have adopted several laws, regulations and institutions that have helped us protect our land and ensure its harmonious use. Examples include Quebec's environmental protection legislation, the Act Respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities, and the Act Respecting Land Use Planning and Development, which governs development plans and zoning regulations, as well as the Government of Quebec's mechanism for ensuring social licence, the BAPE, our bureau of environmental public hearings. However, certain activities and infrastructure are only partly covered by our laws, because they fall under federal jurisdiction. Wharves, harbours, airports and telecommunications infrastructure, as I was saying earlier, are all federal property.

In these cases, even though Quebec laws and municipal bylaws are not completely squeezed out, they can apply only if they do not have a substantive effect on the activity that is the federal government's responsibility. Earlier I was talking about certain cases. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the Act Respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities could not protect a parcel of agricultural land from a developer who wanted to turn it into an airport.

There was a similar case in 2016, when Rogers appealed to the Supreme Court to strike down Châteauguay's bylaw regulating the proliferation of cell towers. Also in 2016, the Quebec Superior Court ruled that a private business, IMTT-Québec Inc., which was blanketing the Limoilou neighbourhood of Quebec City with red dust, was exempt from Quebec's Environment Quality Act because the business was located on Port of Quebec land, which is under federal jurisdiction. That makes absolutely no sense.

The Alberta company behind the whole energy east saga did not feel that its ridiculous plan to build a pipeline across Quebec had to comply with Quebec laws. This piecemeal enforcement of Quebec's laws and regulations is an affront to democracy. These laws were passed by the Quebec National Assembly, which represents all Quebeckers, and these regulations were duly adopted by the representatives of the people. Furthermore, this arrangement deprives residents of the ability to make decisions about their own land. Earlier I mentioned the famous slogan “Maîtres chez nous”.

Some have pointed out that the bill does not mention municipalities, but they are included indirectly. Constitutionally, there are two levels of government: federal and provincial. Municipalities, which are not part of the constitution, are included by virtue of Government of Quebec legislation.

I am going to pick up the pace here and just say that Bill C-225 has a lot of support. Let me go back to my colleague's Bill C-392, which is essentially a copy of what is before us today. At the time, my colleague from Repentigny had the support of twenty or so municipalities whose bylaws applied to federal projects within their city limits, including airports, ports and telecommunications infrastructure. The City of Gatineau also supported the bill because it wanted the National Capital Commission to stop acting like a separate enclave outside the City's purview. The Union des producteurs agricoles wrote to all Quebec MPs, asking them to support the bill and ensure that the Act Respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities applies at all times.

Quebec's three major unions also supported the bill, as did the Quebec Environmental Law Centre. The Government of Quebec is constantly lobbying for Quebec's land use and environmental laws to apply to federal projects. When Bill C-69 was before the House, the intergovernmental affairs minister, Jean-Marc Fournier—a confirmed sovereignist, no point in denying it—published an open letter in La Presse seeking an amendment to ensure respect for Quebec's laws and assessment processes. Bill C-225 ensures that.

Lastly, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted 11 resolutions to that effect for various federal projects.

If both my Liberal and Conservative colleagues are serious when they say that they want greater recognition for Quebec, their only option is to accept this bill and vote in favour of it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the Bloc credit for being consistent. Its members often look at ways to try to weaken the national framework or the national government.

From my perspective, I see the benefits of a strong, healthy union, and I think the member might want to reflect on the great many benefits a national government could have in providing consistency across the country. It can be important in certain situations.

Would the member apply the same principles of decentralization of power toward municipalities? For example, let us say Montreal would like financial assistance from Ottawa. Would the member support the federal government's providing financial support to communities in the province of Quebec?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

My Liberal colleagues seem to have a hard time understanding that Quebec is a nation. It is important to distinguish between the demands of certain ethnocultural minorities, which generally want to be recognized, and the demands of a nation. A nation is seeking greater political autonomy, but the federal government has been saying no for 40 years.

It goes without saying that this bill may offend the sensibilities of the government members. However, if we do not get this done, the Canadian federation will remain a centralist federation that does not respect the choices of nations. The Quebec nation is not the only nation; there are also the indigenous nations. In that sense, I find this to be a significant affront to democracy.

This was actually in the 2015 Liberal platform. If they are serious about their objective of developing greater social licence, I do not see how they can reject this bill.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech, and I congratulate him on his bill. I would like to ask him a question.

If there is a jurisdictional conflict between a province and the federal government, this bill would give the province precedence. Does that mean that the federal government's power would actually be eliminated?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted if the federal government's power were actually eliminated. I do not think that is going to happen here, but it might happen one day in the Quebec National Assembly.

The bill only covers environmental issues. There is a fairly simple principle at play, and that is land use. If we support the idea of social licence, then we must first get the public's consent on major environmental issues, such as building a pipeline. I think that can only be handled by the Quebec National Assembly.

We need to invert the current system. Right now, there is a hierarchy between federal and provincial laws. We need to change that in order to strike some sort of balance when it comes to the environment. That is what this bill does.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is concerned about the environment and advancing this objective, but will passing the bill not create difficulties with the 13 different sets of laws and regulations across the province dealing with federal areas of responsibility?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

No, I do not believe so, Mr. Speaker.

If we allow our thinking to be guided by social licence, then I do not think that the environmental regulations will be fragmented or divided. Right now, the opposite is true. That is a red herring that sometimes allows Ottawa to reduce environmental protections. At times, the hierarchy set out in the Canadian Constitution enables Ottawa to reduce Quebec's environmental regulations.

It seems to me that that is the opposite of what my colleague is saying. We should look at it not as fragmentation, but rather as a way of guaranteeing better environmental protection.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-225. The bill touches upon intergovernmental relations, federalism and the paramountcy principle: matters that have been debated in both Houses of Parliament on a wide range of subjects. In essence, this bill seeks to subordinate the exercise of federal power in certain areas of provincial law and to allow provincial governments to impose restrictions on environmental protection activities and land use for projects the federal government undertakes across the country.

These same topics came up when this bill was discussed in the House on June 19, 2018, when Bill C-392 proposed similar amendments during the last Parliament. At the time, Bill C-392 sought to strengthen environmental protection and scrutiny of land use. Since then, Bill C-69, introduced by this government, positively strengthened consultation mechanisms and consideration of the environmental impact of projects under federal jurisdiction.

I congratulate the hon. member for his initiative to heighten the consideration given to land use and development, as well as to environmental protection, when projects and activities under federal jurisdiction are being considered. The government is also invested in protecting Canada's environment, and in ensuring effective consultation that accounts for local concerns related to land use and development and the environment. Canadians should know that all levels of government work in the interests of their well-being.

Every day, millions of Canadians go about their lives in an orderly and predictable way. They routinely use safe roads, drink clean water, consume food free of contaminants, rely on safe transportation systems and know that their safety and security are guarded by police, fire departments, paramedics and military personnel. Even today, while the world is facing COVID-19, Canadians can count on federal, provincial and municipal governments to continue to collaborate until the end of this challenging time so they can maintain as many of their routines as possible.

Our society depends on laws and rules to function, and each level of government is responsible for those things that fall into its jurisdiction. Education, building codes and highways, for example, are primarily provincial responsibilities. Matters such as defence, aeronautics and radio communications, for example, extend beyond provincial borders and impact the country as a whole. In these areas, it falls to the federal government to implement a nationally consistent approach that serves Canada and its people.

Over the last several years, the Liberal government has sought to promote co-operative federalism as a way to face challenges concerning more than one level of government. As we all know, there are many issues that transcend municipal and provincial boundaries, and many others where the federal government may be unaware of a local concern. For this reason, taking a co-operative approach achieves the best possible outcome for Canadians. With a country as large and diverse as Canada, we must all act in good faith and work together to achieve the best possible results for our economy and our environment.

There have been, and will continue to be, times when differences arise despite our best efforts to work together. However, there are already numerous federal statutes, particularly those implicated in Bill C-225, and regulations that accommodate provincial laws concerning land use and development and environmental protection. Efforts are ongoing to encourage co-operative federalism in ways that do not restrict core federal operation.

In order to build on its desire for co-operative federalism, the Liberal government demonstrated its commitment to consulting Canadians when it introduced Bill C-69, which strengthens Canada's environmental assessments and regulatory reviews through legislative changes and amendments. This bill explicitly reflects the consideration of environmental, social, safety, health and socio-economic issues, including gender-based impacts and economics as well as impacts on indigenous peoples. Bill C-69 also includes several provisions that enhance public participation and transparency, which provides members of the public with an opportunity to express their views during the review process.

The changes we made in Bill C-69 exceed the amendments proposed in Bill C-225. As we know, the division of powers in Canada is defined by the Constitution Act, but we also know that the division presents some ambiguity.

There are many areas and many issues where interests cross jurisdictional lines. Two or even three levels of government have stakes in issues such as the environment, health, safety and employment. Our different levels of government need to work together to discuss problems, develop strategies, leverage resources and find solutions.

To reinforce the importance of collaboration, the Supreme Court of Canada encourages all levels of government to work co-operatively. In recent decisions, the Court has indicated that provincial and municipal legislation cannot impair core matters of federal jurisdiction over aeronautics or radio communication infrastructure.

In addition, where possible, it prefers to allow valid provincial laws to apply, if they are not in conflict. While these decisions quite clearly establish federal authority on matters such as aerodromes and cellphone towers, the federal government does not rely on court decisions to impose projects on Canadian communities. Instead, it chooses to use processes for consultation, and the consideration of environmental laws and land use, to ensure that local concerns are taken into consideration regarding activities and projects that fall under federal jurisdiction. A division of powers is essential to maintaining order and predictability in our society and ensures that we avoid the scenario of too many leaders in one situation, or a leadership void when no one wants to take responsibility in another. In Canada, all jurisdictions must work together on certain issues to promote and protect the interests of all Canadians. Even when we agree to work together, we must still respect jurisdictional boundaries.

I would like to provide the House with examples of three areas of federal jurisdiction in which a co-operative approach and consultations play an essential role. First, in January of 2017, following a regulatory consultation process, Transport Canada implemented a new regulation requiring proponents of certain aerodrome projects to consult with the municipalities, citizens or other concerned stakeholders before starting work, so that local concerns could be identified and mitigated. I add that many of these projects do not move forward if there are serious doubts expressed regarding the quality of the consultations carried out by their proponents, or if these projects are deemed not to be in the public interest.

Another example under the Canada Marine Act is that there currently exist provisions for the Governor in Council to make regulations situated on a port, whether a Canadian port authority or public port facility, or on use of the seaway and its property. These provisions include development, use and environmental protections that incorporate provincial legislation by reference.

My third and final example is the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which acts as a partner in delivering federal support to infrastructure projects in the public interest alongside co-investment by the private sector, institutional investors and sponsoring governments. Projects supported by the infrastructure bank must respect all applicable laws in their relevant jurisdictions, including any applicable environmental or labour laws. Project sponsors provide assurance to the bank and other investors that applicable laws in a province have been respected.

These three specific examples were chosen because these initiatives all require consultation and consideration of local issues related to land use and the environment. These would be taken away from the very acts the private member's bill seeks to amend. There are countless other examples, in the same act and elsewhere, that demonstrate the government's commitment to hearing the concerns of Canadians, and advancing the health, safety and economic well-being of our citizens and the stewardship of our natural resources, such as our forests and waters. These duties are the responsibility of all governments, whether municipal, federal or provincial. Our best successes occur when we come together, listen to one another and work together to support policy development, new programs and effective enforcement that serves all Canadians. We have every intention of continuing to listen to and work with other levels of government.

The federal government has worked effectively with provinces, territories and municipalities over many years in response to the requirements of the communities they serve and to the needs of the country as a whole. Like our provincial and municipal partners, we take that responsibility very seriously. The Liberal government will continue to prioritize co-operative federalism and consultation with its citizens. Bill C-225 would represent a major shift in federal-provincial dynamics in Canada and would undermine the co-operative federal relationship we worked so hard to establish.

It is for these reasons the government strongly opposes Bill C-225.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Bloc Québécois member. I am sure he worked hard to draft and introduce Bill C-225.

We should ask ourselves two very important things every time we look at a piece of legislation at this point in history. First, this is a time to come together as one nation. When we review legislation, we have to consider whether the legislation promotes the good of Canada. Second, and this is very important with the fall economic statement coming out later today, this is a time to build the economy.

Every time we review a piece of legislation in the House we should be asking if it brings Canada together and if it will further Canada's economy. This is not just because of the fall economic statement, but as we emerge from the pandemic and start to consider how we will do vaccine procurement and distribution, we have to think about these things.

I want to go over Bill C-225 briefly for those listening who may not be aware of what it proposes.

The bill would amend six federal acts. It would change legislation regarding land use and development and environmental protection. The Bloc is very motivated to put forward this legislation for two reasons. First, the Supreme Court sided with the federal government in numerous court cases where federal jurisdiction overrode provincial jurisdiction. The Bloc is looking for more provincial power. Second, several of these cases actually originated in the Province of Quebec. For these two reasons, Bloc members are very motivated to change this legislation.

In my observation, Conservatives are concerned because of potential jurisdictional disputes. We think that more cases would have to go before the courts. It is not good to tie up the courts because of discrepancies between two pieces of legislation or determining which one takes precedence in which situation.

As well, we are very concerned that some sections of the bill could be considered unconstitutional. It is surprising to me that the Bloc would put something forward that would be deemed unconstitutional, considering how hard the party fights for the principle of the two founding peoples of the nation and, in particular, the province of Quebec. However, I would say how good both my leader and my colleagues from Quebec have been regarding the modernization of the Official Languages Act. I had the pleasure of sitting on the official languages committee for a brief period of time. When it comes to the Constitution, I would expect the Bloc to consider it.

For those who are not aware, my leader was on Tout le monde en parle yesterday. If members did not have an opportunity to see him, I would suggest they watch it.

Going back to my main points, it is time to come together as a nation and build the economy.

There are concerns that the bill before us could have negative economic implications, as it may deter private investment and infrastructure projects because of additional red tape. Provinces could amend their legislation on land use and environmental protection to block federal projects. Also, and this is very relevant to me as a member of Parliament from Alberta, the bill could block federal economic development projects, such as the Trans Mountain pipeline or other infrastructure projects.

In a time when we are looking to come out of the pandemic united, we really need to think about legislation that will be nation-building. I would certainly count on my colleagues from Quebec to support infrastructure projects all across Canada, as I would, as a member of Parliament from Alberta, support any projects that are in the national interest of Canada. I think it is very important that we all take this into consideration as parliamentarians for Canada. We really have to think about the effects of legislation such as Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 and the way they so negatively impacted the natural resources sector here in Alberta.

People have to put themselves in other people's shoes. If legislation such as this bill were to come across that another province could potentially have the possibility to impact an infrastructure project that would be of benefit to Quebec, I do not think that they would like to see that any more than we do, as members of Parliament from Alberta who see the potential of this happening to us. More importantly, at this time, I think we really have to question what legislation like this would do.

This is the time to build this economy. This bill would create more insecurity around investment in Canada at this time. I will hand it to the Prime Minister and his cabinet, who have done a masterful job of driving away investment from Alberta, the Prairies and the entire energy sector to the detriment of Canada. We are all suffering as we come out of this pandemic with the trillion-dollar debt that we have in front of us; the hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit that we have. We really need to come together as a nation to think about how we are economically going to respond to this. The Prime Minister and his cabinet just do not seem to get that when one part of the nation benefits, the entire nation benefits. I would ask my Bloc colleague to consider this at this time as well.

With that, I ask Canadians to really listen to the fall economic statement today. I really hope we do not see what we saw in the Speech from the Throne, which was a complete disappointment with more poor ideas based upon ideology as opposed to real, solid ideas to build the economy going forward. That is what I am expecting more of today.

When Canadians are listening to the fall economic statement today, I want them to ask themselves three questions:

Number one, will this improve the economy? Listen to what they are saying. Will it improve the economy for Canada? Goodness knows, we need that coming out of this pandemic.

Number two, will this protect my job if I have a job? Is there anything in the fall economic statement to protect my job? I am in a place where I have seen so many people lose their jobs. There is another round of layoffs coming from a major employer, Imperial, this week here in Alberta. It is terrible to hear about. Again, I completely blame the Liberal government for this, for its investment-destroying legislation. I do believe this bill will add to that.

Number three, will this fall economic statement create more jobs?

Will this improve the economy? Will this protect my job? Will this create more jobs? Those are the three things that Canadians have to be asking themselves. At the end of the day, I believe that Canadians have to ask their parliamentarian and government if they are taking actions and passing legislation to support the country and economy or taking actions and passing legislation that is destroying the economy, which is essentially destroying Canada. That is what is happening bit by bit.

This is the time to come together as a nation. This is the time to build the economy. The Liberal government has not done this and Bill C-225 does not do this either.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to participate in the debate on a bill that we have already seen in virtually the same form, as the member for Jonquière noted. It is almost identical to the bill introduced by the member for Repentigny in the previous Parliament. I will come back to the “almost” part because there is something important hidden here.

I would stress that the NDP was among those who supported that bill. We certainly intend to continue doing so because we recognize that Quebec is a nation, which should have a direct and practical impact on the decision-making process. Moreover, we believe that this bill will support a better decision-making process and greater respect for local communities, regional perspectives and decisions that have already been made by democratic institutions and organizations, such as the provinces and municipalities too.

As we have seen in the past, when a project does not have social licence—the Liberals talked about this in 2015 but have never done anything about it—it causes tremendous tensions within certain regions and certain communities, which end up quite angry that they did not have a say on a tower being erected, the use of an airport, or the activities of a company in a fishing harbour or a commercial harbour, for example.

We want a process that is more harmonious and respectful of all the players in the regions and that is why we in the NDP fully support the spirit of the bill introduced today. We represent people at the federal level, but these very people are also citizens of the provinces and municipalities.

Today's bill would ensure that the federal government complies with provincial legislation and, accordingly, with municipal regulations. We think this co-operative approach between the different levels of government will bring about better decisions that will better serve people instead of steamrolling over them. We call that multilateral decision-making.

I think that this bill needs to be seen from the perspective of working together, of having a dialogue and listening. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader was also talking about listening, dialogue and collaboration. However, he then said that the Liberals are completely against this bill. That is entirely contradictory of the Liberals.

The Conservatives also opposed a similar bill in the last Parliament. I am close to falling off my chair here because it appears that the Conservatives, who claim to champion respect for the provinces and autonomy, once again oppose this bill. I do not understand. The Leader of the Opposition will have to explain to Quebeckers why he refuses to take into account provincial legislation or decisions made by certain municipalities. It is too bad, because doing so would reduce a lot of the tension we have seen in the past in relation to certain decisions and projects.

There are still some things about the bill I want to explain, so I will talk quickly. Incorporating provincial laws into federal laws can be done through the technique of incorporation by reference. This has been used in the past, so it can be done. There is a real possibility that this bill could be used and applied, but how this incorporation will be interpreted is not yet clear. What will be the actual consequences? If this bill is studied in committee, as we hope it will be, those are the kinds of questions we in the NDP would want clarification on, as there are still some grey areas.

That said, the member for Jonquière is quite right to point out that this bill is almost identical to the previous bill introduced by his colleague from Repentigny.

I am shocked by that because it goes completely against the Bloc Québécois's claims that they are champions of the environment, as the member for Jonquière said in his speech a few minutes ago.

The previous bill, which was introduced by the member for Repentigny, made very clear reference to the National Energy Board Act. That law was amended and is now called the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, but there is no mention of it in Bill C-225, which was introduced by the member for Jonquière. Why, all of a sudden, does the Bloc Québécois no longer seem to want provincial laws or municipal decisions to apply to oil and gas pipelines?

People in British Columbia and Quebec are very concerned about various projects. I am thinking of Trans Mountain, Energy East and GNL Québec's gas pipeline project in Saguenay.

I would like to know whether the member for Jonquière simply forgot about GNL Québec's project. I, too, will be very generous. Either the Bloc members did not copy and paste properly and dropped the ball, or they left that part out on purpose because it is in their interest to not say too much about GNL Québec's gas pipeline project. Is this a way for the Bloc Québécois to dismiss this issue and continue to quietly support a gas pipeline project like GNL Québec's while giving the company a little wink and a nod?

The NDP is extremely concerned about this. We do not think that this was an oversight. We believe that this might have been intentional for various reasons and that is worrisome because GNL Québec's gas pipeline project will produce massive amounts of greenhouse gas emissions and methane, which is 83 or 84 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That is extremely problematic.

Over the past five to 10 years, we have seen that there is a consensus against shale gas production in Quebec. When development projects were proposed in Quebec, there was a public outcry against them.

In short, this bill proposes greater citizen engagement in granting projects social licence, except for anything to do with oil and gas pipelines. The NDP finds that a little troubling, because we feel that the Bloc Québécois is talking out of both sides of its mouth and is double-dealing.

Shale gas extraction in the west or northern Ontario contributes to our production of carbon and our collective carbon footprint, and this runs counter to our Paris Agreement targets.

If the bill goes to committee, I hope we will be able to make this amendment and go back to the bill introduced by the member for Repentigny, which included all regulations concerning pipelines. These regulations have now suddenly disappeared. I also hope that the Bloc Québécois will admit that the GNL Québec project is a bad project. It is smoke and mirrors. It would increase our carbon footprint and also create a tremendous amount of marine traffic in the Saguenay River Fjord, a habitat of the belugas, which is currently an endangered species. This will have very important repercussions for their ability to continue to survive in this environment.

I think we need structuring projects that create jobs, but in light of the crisis we have been facing for many years, we must ensure that everything is done through a climate accountability lens. Greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise in spite of the pandemic. This was reported in Le Devoir this week or recently.

The right thing to do is to make job-creating investments, but in renewable energy projects. I think there is huge potential there, in Quebec, or in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, especially with respect to forestry waste. Biomass can have many uses, and these are some very exciting projects.

We find this very exciting and we will support Bill C-225 at second reading. However, we have a lot of questions about the disappearance of the pipeline provision.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie should not worry. The Bloc Québécois is still against the pipelines that are being shoved down our throats. We were unable to do so in January, so we are waiting for committee stage to insert that missing part back into Bill C-225.

This bill is close to my heart, and I thank the member for Jonquière for introducing it.

The Bloc Québécois has introduced this bill, which is at the heart of our political commitments here, because we believe it is imperative that Quebeckers feel at home on the land that is historically and constitutionally ours. Sovereignty certainly does factor into our objective as a nation, as a people, but it also refers to a power that trumps all others.

When federal laws contradict Quebec's legislative provisions and run counter to our collective interests, to the detriment of the population and the environment we need to protect, we have the duty to act. Quebec belongs to its citizens. Land occupancy, use, development and protection are essentially governed by Quebec and municipal laws and regulations. No one can argue that, and it applies to both Quebec and the other provinces. We, the elected members of the Bloc Québécois, represent Quebecers’ interests, and that is why we are debating Bill C-225 today.

The current legal structure gives the federal government precedence over the legal and regulatory framework of Quebec and its municipalities. This precedence is unjustified, and it undermines the legal powers and responsibilities of the Quebec government, which is working tirelessly to support land development and environmental issues. There is a great deal of infrastructure and many activities under federal jurisdiction. As my colleague said, those include wharves, ports, airports, telecommunications, federal properties and railways. The Department of Transport is anything but a model in this respect. They would be unable to deal with any of these sectors without the help of the Quebec government.

Our body of laws and regulations is being undermined in these sectors, and our people truly understand why Bill C-225 is so important. What it addresses has an impact on their quality of life, their physical environment and their perception of what it means to live together in a democratic space such as ours, and that is what is so sorely lacking. Companies under federal jurisdiction encounter few obstacles. In the last Parliament, I took a good look at the projects that people were unhappy with, and the situation is no better now. By maintaining its provisions, the federal legislator is showing its contempt for the people of Quebec and their laws, through which they want to have a say on what happens in Quebec.

Although the Quebec Act Respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities, the Union des producteurs agricoles and the municipalities were against the construction of aerodromes, the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that such projects could go ahead. We could also talk about the construction of telecommunications towers in some municipalities. No one can make me believe that mayors and other elected officials did not contact several members of the House to tell them that building a telecommunications tower in such a location was ridiculous and to ask them to intervene. I am certain that almost everyone here got a call like that.

There are also projects, including the one in the Port of Quebec, that pollute and have a measurable negative impact on air quality. That impact is being felt by the population of Limoilou. These projects can go ahead. In every case, a superior or supreme court rules in favour of federal legislation. In the case of IMTT-Québec, the company in the Port of Quebec, the Superior Court ruled that Quebec's environmental protection act did not apply. When a company runs afoul of Quebec law, it does not worry too much about the fine because the courts are there to protect it. In every case, the rulings are handed down in federal courts by judges appointed by the federal government.

Given everything surrounding the appointment of federal judges, I will simply say that it is not enough to render a decision under the law. There must be the appearance of justice.

With respect to the provisions addressed in Bill C-225, it is clear that the shared jurisdiction over environment and land development is never even considered by federal courts.

The Quebec government has fought a number of battles over the years, because every citizens group that tried to mobilize was stonewalled by the federal government. We need to put a stop to companies under federal jurisdiction being allowed to do whatever they want without complying with Quebec's laws and regulations. Land development is an arduous task. It does not always turn out perfectly, but the people who devote their time to it do so within a framework that takes our population and our laws into account. Quebec has all the necessary mechanisms to oversee, guide and evaluate every aspect of a given project.

However, when these mechanisms are treated with contempt, when municipal bylaws, for example, become ineffective and legislation is called into question, people can become cynical, disinterested and even angry. Yes, people get angry. Fortunately, this anger is often channelled into mobilization, where protest becomes a force for change. In different regions of Canada, especially in Quebec, people have protested against many projects that threatened and are still threatening their land and their environment.

We are close enough to the people to know what affects them the most, and the laws are miles away from what the people want. The federal government needs to review the imposed hierarchy so that activities under its jurisdiction take into account what Quebeckers want and need. Quebeckers certainly do not need to see Ottawa's imperialist policy giving carte blanche to projects that break our laws and regulations.

On this subject, as spokesperson for the environment, I must point out that the Quebec government believes that its environmental and land development laws must apply at all times. Quebec's National Assembly has unanimously called for this many times. In Quebec, this issue is not only a political one. Municipalities, environmental groups, unions, the Union des producteurs agricoles and many more want the same thing: projects that obey the laws at every level. This will strengthen our democracy, and certainly better protect the environment.

This is 2020. The climate emergency motion was voted on in the last Parliament. The motion was tabled by the Liberal government. I think we need to review the order of priorities. We spoke earlier of 1867 and 1982. I will say it again: This is the 21st century and the climate emergency requires that we change our focus.

Land management and development and environmental protection must become the factors on which decisions to authorize projects under federal jurisdiction are based. I have often said that environmental protection is a cross-cutting issue. It affects all sectors.

The government with the most stringent legislation should have precedence. This should satisfy the parliamentary secretary, who was saying that federal laws would no longer hold. Effectively, the toughest law would prevail. In this case, Quebec's environmental protection laws are stricter than those of the federal government. In fact, federal laws are too permissive. Restrictive legislation can protect the common good.

Instead of strengthening its legislation, the federal government is catering to the private sector, and these companies can do whatever they want. There is no community building, and corporate individualism is encouraged.

We want to protect our people, our land, our living environments, our industrial, social and cultural fabric, and our environment. Members from Quebec, regardless of their affiliation, will see that there is a consensus on Bill C-225.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 27, 2020, consideration of Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last took up the motion before the House, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan had three minutes remaining in his time for debate. He will also have five minutes for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to conclude my remarks on Bill C-7, I will speak to the way the bill would enshrine discrimination against people living with disabilities. I will explain how that is.

Historically, when people experience extreme existential angst or suicidal ideation and present at a professional environment, perhaps an emergency department, they receive suicide prevention care. The intervention the system provides to them is trying to prevent them from acting on their suicidal ideation.

This is done out of a sense that suicide prevention is good for the person involved. It has been, and still is by many people, seen as consistent with small-l liberalism or a belief in autonomy more generally. When people experience these kinds of feelings, they are counselled and advised in a way that affirms the idea that life for them is very much worth living. This is the standard practice of suicide prevention as it has been practised for most of our history, and as it is practised for most people.

Based on what we have already heard regarding the experiences of people with disabilities, what they are sometimes presently experiencing when interacting with the health care system is that, when they come forward with the same kinds of feelings, they do not receive suicide prevention. Instead they receive suicide facilitation.

In other words, if I, as an able-bodied person, were to come to an emergency department with the same feelings as a friend of mine, who happens to be a person with disabilities, this friend would be much more likely to be offered suicide facilitation, whereas I would be offered suicide prevention. That is discrimination by definition.

The question for this House to consider is this: Who should get suicide prevention, and who should get suicide facilitation? This is an important question that people with disabilities are raising and have been raising at committee, that they would experience something different from the health care system than people who are able-bodied.

The direction in which members want to resolve that discrimination, according to their values, is an open question, but the fact is that people will now be treated differently if they have a disability compared with if they do not. That is very clear from this legislation and the fact that, overwhelmingly, all of the organizations representing people with disabilities that testified before the committee expressed grave concerns about the implications this would have.

I think we want to be the kind of country that treats people fairly and equally, and affirms the life and dignity of all people, regardless of whether or not they are living with a disability. This is one of many concerns that was top of mind and presented at the committee discussion on Bill C-7. I hope members will listen to it, take it seriously and think about it as they proceed to vote on these amendments at report stage.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, one thing the member left out of the equation is the incredible efforts provided by our medical profession, individuals who, I believe, would provide proper and consistent advice. I do not think anyone would encourage the type of behaviour the member is implying in his comments.

I wonder if, upon reflecting of some of his comments, he might take this opportunity to recognize the sense of professionalism provided by the the health care workers in our health care system today.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to some of the comments I have raised about the committee testimony, which already shows concern for people with disabilities being treated differently in the system, even being pushed toward euthanasia or assisted suicide, and the need for safeguards against that.

I agree that the vast majority of our health care workers are well intentioned and do great work. Three out of four of my siblings, as well as my wife and my father, all work in health care, so I probably have more direct familial contact with people in health care than many other members.

There are hundreds of thousands of people in this country working in health care. The reason we have safeguards is not because most of those people might make problematic decisions; it is because there is always a risk, and we have already heard from people in the disability community that people are having these negative experiences, of being encouraged toward medical assistance in dying.

One person testified about being called selfish for not wanting this option. That is why we have safeguards in place. It is not for the general cases; it is for the exceptional cases, because life and death are still involved in exceptional cases.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a concern about the removal of the reflection period for people who might be suffering from mental challenges if they might qualify under what is understood as a reasonably foreseeable death. We know not all doctors are equipped to assess those challenges.

Therefore, could the member talk about the possible risks of removing the reflection period for people with mental challenges and how we could see some very dangerous consequences from that?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague's work on this issue. The reflection period is one of the amendments in front of us to vote on. It is important for members to understand the reflection period can already be waived in certain circumstance. For any argument that the reflection period might not be appropriate in certain circumstance, it can already be waived. However, the reflection period creates a default, a sense that we should not have same-day death.

A person may be experiencing an extensive set of challenges on a particular day that may be very real but very transient. The reflection period is designed to ensure that the choice people make reflects considered exercise of autonomy over time, not a momentary place of darkness.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke eloquently about some of the shortcomings of the legislation. I want to give him a chance to talk about any particular amendments with respect to helping persons with disabilities and strengthening the legislation.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, many great amendments were proposed at committee that would have helped the situation. Some of those amendments will be considered in the House. I am hopeful that those considering this bill in the other place will also take a look at some of the amendments.

One amendment that would make a big difference to people living with disabilities is the requirement that a doctor or a nurse practitioner not be the one to initiate the conversation. If people come forward and say that they would like more information about MAID, then at that point the doctor or the nurse practitioner would engage and provide that information.

It should be clearly established in the law that people cannot have it suggested to them that they should consider it. If it is not something they want brought up and suddenly they are told by the system that they should really think about dying, it completely changes their engagement with the system.

Why not have in place an amendment that says that the first person to bring it up should be patient, not the doctor? We put that forward at committee. Unfortunately it was voted down, but I am hopeful people in the other place will consider this as something to maybe put in the legislation.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I last rose in the House to speak to the matter of physician-assisted death in 2016, I noted that the legislation then before us, Bill C-14, was neither the alpha nor the omega in the continuing conversations on the topic that Canadians have had for decades.

The Supreme Court had forced that legislative moment on reluctant politicians with the Carter decision, although the conversation had been simmering across society from the last century into this one.

However, in 2016, Bill C-14 brought us nowhere near where the Supreme Court had ruled Parliament must go. It was an interim step. It was a very cautious first step that was driven home with the Truchon-Gladu ruling in Quebec, which ordered that a class of people denied eligibility for medical assistance in dying by Bill C-14 were indeed entitled to access medical assistance in accordance with the Carter ruling.

The legislation before us now, Bill C-7, as amended in committee, under-amended I believe, and I will get to that in a moment, goes considerably beyond Truchon-Gladu. That said, the past five years of medically assisted death has brought Canadian society to a much more accepting place than in 2016; that increased acceptance of the practice justifies the additional provisions included in Bill C-7.

To my point that Bill C-7 was under-amended by the justice committee, the Conservatives hold that, for a variety of reasons, not least of which the WE scandal prorogation that wasted six valuable weeks in the summer, Bill C-7 has been indecently rushed through committee with not nearly adequate consultation. In the shadow of time allocation, signalled by the Liberal House leader last Thursday, it seems it will be denied adequate debate now during report stage.

This flawed process makes even more important the separate full and comprehensive parliamentary review of medically assisted death demanded by Bill C-14.

At committee, the Conservatives proposed nine amendments to better protect vulnerable groups, reasonable amendments, all rejected by the Liberals, but amendments which I hope Senate colleagues will consider in the upper house. I say that with some expectation of that actually happening as a result of testimony before the Senate's legal affairs committee last week by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion. In fact, the minister endorsed exactly the same point as was proposed by one of the Conservative amendments, which was voted down by Liberal members of the House justice committee. She said, unambiguously, that health practitioners should not be allowed to discuss the issue of assisted dying until a patient asked.

Admittedly, this is a particularly difficult issue and one of context. I understand why anyone, but particularly a person with disabilities might feel improperly, even terrifyingly pressured, depending on how the matter is raised by a doctor. There is quite a difference between a physician informing of a range of choices facing a seriously ill patient and directly recommending assisted death.

The Canadian Nurses Association advised the Senate committee that the law should explicitly allow doctors to raise the issue with patients, as did the Canadian Association of Medical Assistance in Death Assessors and Providers. Dr. Stefanie Green told the committee that it would be unprofessional not to lay all the options on the table. I am sure we will all follow Senate dealings on this question very closely.

The disability inclusion minister testified as well before the Senate committee that she was open to considering an amendment to Bill C-7 that would impose a 12-month sunset clause on the proposed ban on individuals suffering solely from mental illnesses to seek an assisted death. Legal experts have made it abundantly clear that if that clause remains in Bill C-7, it is destined, almost certainly, to return to the Supreme Court where it will almost certainly be found to be unconstitutional. This is another consideration to watch closely.

Over the years since Bill C-14 was passed, and now as Bill C-7 is being rushed to law, a dark cloud has hung over discussion and debate, and that is the government's still unkept promise, a broken promise actually, to better provide choice, a meaningful alternative to physician-assisted death.

In 2015, the Liberals made a campaign commitment to invest $3 billion in long-term care, including palliative care. In fact, the importance of access to palliative care and end-of-life decision-making was one of the few unanimous points of agreement in the special joint committee's report to Parliament in February, 2016.

The government promised to expand the availability of accessible, affordable, acceptable palliative care for all those who for reason of conscience, faith or choice decided not to avail themselves of physician-assisted death. The Liberals' inconsistency in the matter of choice in other circumstances aside, this is a promise that must be fulfilled. It is essential that hospice and palliative care capacity in the country be vastly expanded to provide for those who would choose a meaningful alternative to MAID.

As I said in the House four years ago, my personal decision, which will determine my vote on this legislation, is a product of three individuals and their experiences and my own.

In my previous life as a journalist, I followed closely the unsuccessful legal crusade of Sue Rodriguez, as ALS steadily increased its smothering, deadly grip on her. I was seized by her rhetorical question posed to all Canadians, “If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?”

When I first came to Parliament 12 years ago, I became close to another thoughtful, courageous Canadian, a fellow MP, the Hon. Steven Fletcher, Canada's first quadriplegic MP, re-elected three times. Steven did not give up after a life-changing accident. He met immense challenges and he overcame them.

However, in two private members' bills tabled several years ago, which I seconded, and in testimony before the justice committee in January 2016, Steven made a powerfully convincing argument for self-determination to one day make a final decision. Steven argued for a law by which an individual could make one's own decision based on one's own morals and ethics, but under guarantee there would be no pressure on that person from society, family, friends, or the facility in which he or she might be.

I was also powerfully persuaded by the tragically tortuous passing of my brother-in-law, a brilliant academic, by Alzheimer's. I informed the House during debate on Bill C-14 that should such an end one day face me, I would surely compose an advance directive and that one way or the other it would be fulfilled.

Finally, as a cancer survivor, I have had many hours of reflection during treatment and since to personally ponder the issues involved in medically assisted death and Sue Rodriguez' quite powerful rhetorical question: Who owns my life?

I am honoured to participate in this debate on Bill C-7 as I was with Bill C-14. Bill C-7 would correct the major deficiencies of the original legislation, but it is still deficient. Whatever happens in the Senate, I hope the parliamentary review, which should have occurred before consideration and passage of Bill C-7, will now more thoroughly examine this evolving law and properly lead to eventual amendments, chief among them measures to better ensure protection of Canada's most vulnerable.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the beginning and the end of this issue, I suspect we will still not be at the end, that ongoing discussions will take place both formally and informally among parliamentarians going forward.

I respect the member's belief in Parliament. If an amendment is brought forward that has already been voted on and defeated in the House by elected parliamentarians, does the member support that very same amendment being brought forward in the Senate chamber where the Senate would pass something on which a clear decision was by members of Parliament?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in many instances that has been the parliamentary practice and tradition. However, the testimony of the Minister of Disability Inclusion last week before the Senate committee's pre-study of Bill C-7, and her unambiguous comments on two amendments that she would, in fact, support, demonstrate that the government either did not ask her or did not include her in the process, and that the Senate is well within its realm to consider those specific amendments proposed and send them back to this place for proper consideration.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in the House before about my experience with MAID, where I was with a very beloved and dear family member. It was a very beautiful but sad day. I will always be grateful for that experience.

One of the things that is so important to me is the use of language. I want to be very clear that it is important that we do not use the word “suicide” in this. This is about a human being managing their own life journey. They are looking at a foreseeable death and they want to die in the best way they possibly can.

Could the member talk about the importance of language and making sure that, as we go through this process, we are very respectful of the people who have to make decisions about how they choose to leave?