Debates of Feb. 23rd, 2021

Criminal Code

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, again, I will relate a personal story. A very close friend chose to end her life after a terminal diagnosis. I had a very long discussion with her about MAID and about my views on it, which I have shared with the House today.

We must have compassion for individuals, but let us not go down the road of what the advocates are doing, which is setting up that situation where all protections are lost. Let us not go down the road of the most vulnerable, those who are some of the people whom we must care for in this society.

[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]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member is aware that there is an expectation from the court that later this month we will have the new law in place. If it were up to some, this debate could continue for months, if not years.

I wonder if my colleague would agree that it is important, given that we have had court extensions, that we seriously look at meeting this deadline at the end of the month and get the legislation through, recognizing that we literally have had hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of debate in the chamber and the committee rooms. Tens of thousands of Canadians have contributed in one way or another. Should we not be attempting to get this thing through to meet the court deadline?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an easy answer, absolutely not. A court such as this should not dictate to the House of Commons on a matter so important. I characterize it as the most important matter in my 13 years in Parliament. There has not been an issue that is more important than this.

Yes, let us make time of the essence at one level, but let us not bend to a Quebec court and one judge who says we must have it done on a certain time frame. We need time. Canadians need to be involved in the discussion.

Although the member says that we have had enough time, we have not had enough. In fact, I could go on about prorogation and other things his government did to delay the debate on this, but I will not. Suffice it to say, time needs to be given to this issue.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked about dignity in life and finding out about ableism.

We know an amendment has come through that will list different data which will hopefully help us better understand the impacts on this. We have heard people talk about dignity and life. I wonder if the hon. member would support or has considered class and things like access to housing and programs in life as being on foot and on par and equally important to all the other considerations he and his Conservative caucus have given.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am really confused by that question. It seems he is trying to interweave a lot of other social issues with this debate on life and death. Frankly, I do not see the connections.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to speak on Bill C-7.

The legislation illustrates the dangers that arise when a government puts blind ideology ahead of evidence-based decision-making. The nightmare of this bill and that road that has led to it today began when the Quebec Superior Court judge issued the Truchon decision. In that decision, that lower court judge determined that the most important safeguard in Canada's medical assistance in dying regime, namely that death be reasonably foreseeable, was unconstitutional.

That decision, again, was by one judge in one province. It is not binding in any other province. It does not bind the Quebec Court of Appeal. Indeed, it is a non-binding decision.

In the face of that, one would have thought that the Attorney General, whose responsibility it is to uphold laws passed by Parliament, would appeal that decision. After all, we are talking about a decision that removes the most important safeguard that was part of the legislation was passed a mere three and a half years prior to the issuance of the Truchon decision.

Instead, the Attorney General put ideology ahead of the interests of vulnerable persons, and did something that is virtually unprecedented. The Attorney General did not appeal the decision and, instead, recklessly tabled Bill C-7, which eviscerates key safeguards, including the most important safeguard, namely that death be reasonably foreseeable. In so doing, the Attorney General seeks to radically transform Canada's medical assistance in dying regime from something where such assistance is deemed appropriate to deal with or address suffering in death to now providing death to deal with suffering in life.

In seeking to so radically transform Canada's medical assistance in dying regime, the Attorney General has pre-empted a mandated parliamentary review provided for under Bill C-14. The Attorney General has preceded with completely inadequate consultation, ignoring important voices that represent vulnerable Canadians and, most importantly, that represent Canada's disabilities rights community.

When 72 national disabilities rights organizations wrote to the Attorney General and pleaded with him to appeal the Truchon decision, he ignored them. Their pleas to this Attorney General have fallen on deaf ears.

Why is the disabilities rights community so concerned with Bill C-7 and, in particular, the removal of the criterion that death be reasonably foreseeable? Very simply, when that criterion or safeguard is removed, it means that someone who suffers from a degenerative disability could be eligible for that very reason, despite the fact they may have years, if not decades, to live.

The disabilities rights community, on that basis, has said, in clear and unequivocal terms, that they believe this bill stigmatizes persons with disabilities.

As Krista Carr, the executive vice president of Inclusion Canada, said, this “is our worst nightmare”. As Catherine Frazee, disabilities rights advocate and former Ontario human rights commissioner, said to the justice committee with respect to Bill C-7, “Why us?”

Why, in asking that question, is the government proceeding to discriminate against the rights of persons with disabilities by depriving them of protections against premature death afforded to all other Canadians outside of an end-of-life context? In so depriving those rights, specifically to persons with disabilities, significant questions have been raised about the constitutionality of Bill C-7 and whether it would, in fact, by discriminating against persons with disabilities, violate Section 15 of the charter. However, those questions and concerns were completely ignored by the Attorney General, who puts the ideology of ableism first.

So blinded is the Attorney General that he ignored not only concerns from the disabilities rights community, but also from the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities, who has said that this bill violates international human rights norms. So blinded by ideology is this Attorney General that he ignored the UN Commission on Human Rights, which the government is rather fond of, which has stated that this bill runs afoul of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, in particular article 10.

Just when one thought it could not get any worse, we learnt today with respect to the motion the Attorney General tabled in the House that it would, among other things, essentially accept, with some very minor tweaking, radical Senate amendments, including one that would provide that someone would be eligible for medical assistance in dying for having solely a mental illness. This is a radical change, and, despite the fact this issue has not been appropriately studied, the Attorney General has said it is now a fait accompli. This is despite the fact that we do not know how to predict irremediability in the case of mental illness; despite the fact that we do not know if someone's mental illness is the basis for their request or a symptom of their mental illness; and despite the fact that we do not know whether someone's mental health suffering could be alleviated by health and other social supports.

This bill is a reckless, dangerous piece of legislation that would put some of the most vulnerable persons in Canadian society at risk. It must be defeated.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Senate, in this case, has exceeded its mandate. It is extremely concerning. It has prejudged the review. I think it is extremely concerning for people in the disability community. People in the disability community have also expressed the point that they do not have adequate income supports. It makes this whole issue even more complex, and I am curious if the member would agree that the Senate has exceeded its mandate in this case, and that we need to have a national income program for people with disabilities, to bring them up to a livable income at this time.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I concur with the hon. member for Victoria that the Senate has exceeded its mandate in going far beyond the scope of Bill C-7.

I have to say that I am shocked that the Attorney General did not reject outright the amendment with respect to mental illness being a sole criterion for eligibility for medical assistance in dying. Despite the fact there are a lot of things we do not know, one thing we do know is that of the 4,000 Canadians each year who die of suicide, 90% of them suffer from mental illness. The question becomes: How many persons with mental illness will suffer a premature death as a result of this legislation?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have heard my colleague make many interventions on this issue. He took part in the clause by clause review of the bill and he is very eloquent.

However, the Conservatives voted against the former Bill C-14. According to my colleague, this bill contained an unbelievable safeguard, but Justice Baudoin declared it unconstitutional. The Conservatives also voted against the current Bill C-7.

Am I wrong to say that the Conservatives' position is that palliative care is the only acceptable option for end-of-life?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want recognize the contributions by the member for Montcalm to the debate and to the justice committee during the study of Bill C-7 as well bill Bill C-14.

With respect to the Conservative position, it is one of a free vote both on Bill C-14 and Bill C-7.

I did oppose Bill C-14, because I had some significant concerns at the time that it did not go far enough to protect Canadians who are at risk, and we have seen evidence of that. We heard from witnesses to that effect, including Roger Foley, who was pressured into undertaking medical assistance in dying, because his health care workers determined that he was too much of a burden. I think that case illustrates the fact that Bill C-14 did not provide sufficient safeguards to protect the vulnerable, and the legislation before us does away with them almost entirely.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, a constituent wrote to me about this situation. He had lost his mother through MAID, and while the family was thankful that they were all there when she passed, he advised me that there is a fundamental flaw in the legislation. In his case, his mother wanted to stay for Christmas but had to choose beforehand out of fear that she would not have her faculties sharp enough to get permission later; hence, Audrey Parker's fight.

Does the member agree with Audrey Parker's amendment?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, in short, I have concerns about providing for advance consent. I say that because people do change their minds. The expert working panel of the Council of Canadian Academies said there was a lack of consensus, so I think that at the very least this deserves a lot more study.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, this evening after Private Members' Business, the House shall continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering a motion respecting Senate amendments to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), and when no member rises to speak or at 12 a.m., whichever is earlier, the debate be deemed adjourned and the House deemed adjourned until the next sitting day; and during the debate tonight, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[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]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to share with members a few thoughts on the very important legislation before us.

I was pleased to see the government, through a unanimous consent motion, attempt to get the consent that would allow us to continue the debate on this legislation. I found it interesting that some members chose not to allow that to take place, and I am somewhat disappointed. If their intent was to have an ongoing debate on this very important issue, we should have seen the unanimous support necessary to allow the debate to continue. One can only imagine the real agenda of the Conservative Party.

I previously asked one of the Conservative members about issues with the court. It has a deadline that has now been extended to, I think, February 26. It is the Superior Court in Quebec. He was asked if he felt there was any obligation for us to pass the legislation, recognizing that it has gone through first reading, second reading, report stage and third reading. This is legislation on an issue that we have been talking about primarily because Stephen Harper could not get the job done back in 2015.

As a direct result of that, since the Prime Minister was elected we have had to deal with this issue. We brought forward legislation, and various forms of consultation took place. If we were to weigh the amount of debate here and in committees and the dialogue on this, it really is incredible. We are talking about literally thousands of hours in committees of the House, the chamber, the Senate and the Senate committees. Every possible aspect of debate has happened.

My worse fear is that now we are going to see the Conservative Party play games to try to use this legislation as a tool to ultimately prevent other bills, such as Bill C-14, from coming to a vote, as the Conservative Party tries to set the House agenda. In essence, it is trying to get the government to go on its hands and knees and beg to try to get things passed through the House. The way the official opposition, the Conservative Party, continues to play an obstructive role inside the House is incredible. In some sort of twisted way, it will say that I am trying to limit debate on this important issue.

I recognize that medical assistance in dying is exceptionally complicated and is a deeply personal issue. That is the reason I believe this debate could go on indefinitely. There are some members within the Conservative caucus who would like that. They would like to see this never come to a vote. There are also some within the Conservative caucus who likely will be voting in favour of it. However, there are some who do not want it and will be voting against it. If it is left up to them, they will continue this debate indefinitely.

In a minority situation, things becomes very difficult. The Conservatives will say they want more debate and will try to justify having additional debate by noting the very significance of the issue we are debating: life and death. That is why if they were genuine in regard to the issue itself and the importance of having debate on it, they would have allowed us to continue debating the issue tonight. However, because they were not prepared to allow that to take place, I am very suspicious that, once again, we are seeing destructive games being play on the floor of the House of Commons on an important issue. This speaks volumes about the leadership of the Conservative Party and their sense of commitment to Canadians in allowing for business to be carried out in a reasonable fashion.

We have opposition days, private member's bills and all sorts of votes that are opposition-oriented. However, the government does have some responsibility too. This legislation is critically important. It is life or death. We are looking for opposition parties to recognize the importance of it and allow it to pass.

With just a few seconds left, I will express to my colleagues in the Conservative Party that if they wanted to debate the issue, they should have allowed the debate to continue tonight. I am disappointed that the Conservative Party has once again chosen the path it has chosen: a very destructive role for the proceedings of the House of Commons.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader will have 13 minutes remaining in the time for his remarks when the House next debates the question.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 30, 2020, consideration of the motion 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 a committee.

Aeronautics Act

[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, Bill C-225 is a bill that causes a great deal of concern, as it would amend certain acts to subordinate the exercise of certain powers to the applicable provincial laws concerning land use, development and environmental protections. This concerns me greatly, and I suspect it concerns anyone who feels that the Government of Canada should play a strong role in land development or anything of that nature.

The off-loading of powers is what I find interesting. I believe it is a member from the Bloc who has brought the bill forward, and I think it embodies the principle of what the Bloc is trying to do in the House of Commons, which is to decentralize the national government. In essence, it would take away anything the government does with one exception, which is, of course, to give money. If the Bloc has to participate in Canadian Confederation, it would be quite happy if the only role for the Canadian government would be to provide money to individual provinces, or at the very least to the Province of Quebec. In fairness to the people who might want to follow this debate, that would give a sense of why the Bloc has proposed the legislation before us.

In essence, the federal government does play a role, and we saw that with Bill C-69, which we introduced a couple of years back. It shows that the federal government does have a role when it comes to issues such as land, our environment and the mutual benefits of ensuring that there is a proper process in place to protect the interests of the nation.

I believe that in essence it has been working quite well. We have seen provincial governments, municipal governments and the national government working together on numerous projects, and there is a great deal of consultation that takes place. I think in terms of things like projects that are proposed for funding by Canada's infrastructure programs and provisions to incorporate provincial legislation by reference in Canada. We could talk about the Canada Marine Act. There is also a good-neighbour policy for federal real property. All of this is critically important. We need to recognize, at least from my perspective, that the national government plays a role in a wide variety of areas of jurisdiction, and there is an expectation from Canadians that we live up to our jurisdictional responsibilities.

I have not heard anyone in my political career talk about what the Bloc would hope to accomplish with this piece of legislation. However, I often hear from constituents who talk to me about how the federal government should be fulfilling its responsibilities in the many areas where we have jurisdictional control, and the best example I can use is health care.

Often we will talk about the federal government having a role in health care. There is some irony here. If we take a look at it, the Bloc will say that it does not want Ottawa in this but the province, and yet it is Ottawa's jurisdictional responsibility. The Bloc will say that it does not want Ottawa there, but on the other hand, when it is a provincial jurisdiction, it will again say that it does not want Ottawa to interfere because it is a provincial jurisdiction.

There are areas of cooperation where Ottawa may have the primary jurisdiction but there still is an obligation, at least in part, to work with other jurisdictions, whether provincial, municipal or indigenous. There are all sorts of ways in which Ottawa can cooperate with the areas in which it ultimately has jurisdictional responsibility.

Equally, I think, the reverse applies, with the best example being health care. There are a couple of debates we have been having during the pandemic and the bill we just finished discussing. Both of them are related to health care and the importance of the national government playing a role. One of them was with regard to long-term standards, while the other was with regard to assisted dying legislation and that area of mental health. I can talk about what I believe the majority of my constituents would like to see: a national pharmacare program.

All of those things I just cited can only be done to the benefit of all Canadians, no matter where they live, if we have the two levels of government prepared to work together. It is important that we recognize jurisdictional responsibility, as this government has done. When it comes to health care, we will do that. When it comes to the issue of land usage and our environment, we do not tell the provinces or the municipalities that that aspect is completely or 100% federal jurisdiction and that we do not need to hear from them at all on it. We continue to work with the different levels of government because we are in a confederation. Canadians expect us to be working in partnership with the different levels of government.

I would not say that the Bloc has a hidden agenda, but it is an agenda that is not healthy for the Canadian confederation, for those who see the value of living in the best country in the world, and those who are so proud of the French factor that we really identify with and have a great deal of pride about, like I especially do. We are appealing for governments to work together on the important issues that Canadians want us to work cooperatively on. Even if a government has primary jurisdictional responsibility, it should still work with the different levels of government for the benefit of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, despite your optimistic introduction, I do not have a French text prepared today. In future I will, but I will be speaking in my first language tonight.

I always appreciate the opportunity to speak to the private members' bills that come forward from members of the Bloc. Even though I am not supporting this one, they provide a good opportunity to reflect on these questions of centralization versus decentralization, and the appropriate competence and balance of different orders of government. That appropriate balance has been a defining question in our national life since Confederation, and is as much alive today as it has ever been.

I think we see some parties in the House with reflexive tendencies one way or the other. We see the Conservative Party trying to strike a thoughtful and principled balance that integrates a recognition of the value of an engaged national government and the engagement of other orders of government as well.

What we see clearly from the government, and the Liberals in general, is the tendency toward hyper-centralization: a general lack of respect for the competence of the provinces and the sense that they want to assume for themselves control over areas that are properly in the sphere of the province or even the municipality, the community, the individual or so forth. A strong centralizing tendency is part of the approach of the Liberal Party of Canada.

With the Bloc, we see a kind of centralization in provincial capitals as its objective. It is not advocating for complete decentralization. In fact, we see various cases where its members advocate for provincial governments to be able to significantly interfere in people's personal lives in a way I would personally see as crossing the appropriate bounds of individual autonomy, but theirs is certainly a decentralization away from Ottawa.

Where do we stand as Conservatives? Our approach is to emphasize a balance characterized best by the principle of subsidiarity. I looked up various definitions online before speaking to try to capture what others have said about it. One definition I found said, “Subsidiarity is a principle of social organization that holds that social and political issues should be dealt with at the most immediate or local level that is consistent with their resolution.” There is an implied tendency toward decentralization, but it is not a limitless call for decentralization. It calls for social and political issues to be resolved at a level most immediate or local that is consistent with the effective resolution of those problems. Calling for municipal militaries as opposed to a national military, for example, would not be consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, but on issues where it is practical and effective to find those solutions there is a tendency, in embodying that principle of subsidiarity, to call for a more localized solution.

Another definition I found is, “The principle of subsidiarity is a teaching according to which a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need.” That definition of subsidiarity implies an important link with the principle of solidarity. A belief in subsidiarity, localized solutions to problems, should not lead us to lose sight of the importance of a universal kind of solidarity. Solidarity is the universal principle that we are concerned about the well-being of all people everywhere. Subsidiarity is a recognition that as much as we might be concerned with solving problems and seeing problems solved in other places, most practically the best solutions that are responsive to local needs are developed locally.

We should think about these principles as we define the balance that should be struck within our country. We want a national government that operates effectively within its areas of jurisdiction, and within areas where it is uniquely placed to solve problems. That should be informed by the sense of solidarity that we share as Canadians: a common concern for each other in every part of the country and a desire for Canadians to do well wherever they live.

At the same time, we need to appreciate the fact that people in the national government, people in another region, may not be in the best position to think through the particular solutions that are required in response to a local situation.

We are not trying to find the Goldilocks-inspired middle path. We are trying to find a principled balance between the tendencies of the Liberals and the tendencies of the Bloc to one that emphasizes principles of national and beyond that universal solidarity, but also operationalizing the principle of subsidiarity, recognizing that smaller organizations, local communities are often better placed to understand and respond to problems that are particular to their own areas.

We have in front of us a private member's bill that effectively seeks to give provincial governments vetos over national infrastructure that would otherwise fall within federal jurisdiction. As colleagues of mine have said, the need for the federal government to respect provincial jurisdiction exists in tandem with the need for provincial governments to respect federal jurisdiction.

When we look at big national questions around building infrastructure projects, around how we develop our country, how we build ourselves up collectively, those are questions on which our nation as a whole has to consider and come to conclusions. We cannot create a situation in which individual provinces or communities can veto the collective decisions that we make together.

The impact on all people has to be considered, but it seems proper to me, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, that some issues do require a national government to think in the national interest and to aggregate the feedback that different people provide from different perspectives and different regions. That is why some things fall within federal jurisdiction.

We are talking about natural resource projects. Members can imagine a range of other examples where that national leadership is important. We cannot have provincial governments controlling their own international borders. We do have some engagement of provincial governments in immigration and that has generally been worthwhile, such as the provincial nominee programs. However, there still obviously has to be a federal role in immigration, because we are one country. Once people are in Canada, they are in Canada and they can move around between regions.

Some members of the House, especially in the Bloc, would like us to move in this direction, but we are not and should not become divided into separate nations. We are one nation and we have one common national interest, and that has to be realized through a federal government that can think about that in certain cases in areas of federal jurisdiction. That is why, fundamentally, I do not support this bill.

On so many other individual questions of practical policy, of responses to social and community challenges, the federal government should be willing to work more with provinces, with local communities, with individuals and organizations outside of government. We, generally speaking, deliver better services and develop better policy if we are respecting this principle of subsidiarity and respecting local communities.

While we see a loss of balance on these questions from both the Liberals and the Bloc, a tendency to move to one extreme in the one case and to move to the other extreme in the other case, the Conservatives are committed to articulating this principled balance that tries to operationalize both subsidiarity and solidarity as guiding principles for our policy. This bill does not strike that balance.

There have been other cases, such as a Bloc private member's bill allowing Quebeckers to file a single tax return, where we have supported what they are putting forward, but in this case we will be voting against it.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-225, introduced by the member for Jonquière. A similar bill, Bill C-392, was put forward by the Bloc in a previous Parliament by the member for Repentigny.

Bill C-225 would amend seven acts to require infrastructure projects currently within federal jurisdiction to be subject to provincial laws and municipal bylaws concerning land use and environmental protection. This would affect infrastructure ranging from airports, ports and harbours through to telecommunications infrastructure such as radio masts and cell towers. It would also impact any project funded through the Canada Infrastructure Bank and federal property administered by the National Capital Commission in Ottawa and Gatineau.

The NDP supports co-operative federalism. We believe that decision-making should be multilateral, reflecting the unique values and perspectives of provinces and local communities. We made it clear to Canadians in the last election that we would work to limit the federal government's unilateralism and promote mutual respect between levels of government. When it comes to big infrastructure projects, we believe that social licence must be a key requirement before projects proceed. A co-operative approach between different levels of government would mean better policies. Canadians are better served when the federal government is listening and respecting provinces and municipalities.

This bill raises other important questions concerning federalism in Canada. While there will always be projects that are in the national interest, federal jurisdiction over areas such as airports, ports and communications towers too often means that local values and concerns are not given adequate weight in federal assessment and decision-making. At worst, these processes can be perceived as a rubber stamp for projects the federal government already intends to approve, projects that overlook the work of community leaders who seek to protect the environment or conserve important aspects of a community or region.

New Democrats believe in empowering local communities to have a stronger say concerning development that affects them. After all, communities and residents live with the long-term impacts of infrastructure projects. It is only right that we ensure their voices are heard in the decision-making process. By putting the onus on the federal government to meet the bar set by provincial laws and local bylaws, this bill would give a greater voice to the orders of government closest to the people and, as such, we believe it deserves further study at committee.

This bill would not render federal projects impossible. Rather, it would set a high standard for the government to prove that there was a true national interest required to override local laws. It is not reasonable to assume that, because the federal government is the proponent, a project is automatically in the national interest.

For projects that truly are essential to Canada's interests as a country, the well-established legal principle of paramountcy, which holds that when federal and provincial laws are found to be in conflict federal law prevails, could be used as a last resort. It should not be assumed that local people cannot understand or appreciate the national interest. After all, it is local people who make up our country. Likewise, both local and provincial governments have an interest in the well-being and prosperity of the nation as a whole and are able to consider these factors when crafting their laws and bylaws.

We have seen that the Liberal government's centralizing approach to major infrastructure decisions fails to account for regional perspectives and has furthered divisions between provinces. Too often we see federal decisions imposed on communities without giving them a say. From cellphone towers to new aerodromes on farm land, we need a government that engages with communities in a more meaningful way.

The Liberals keep saying that we need to respect the division of powers in Canada, but perhaps we should better think of federalism as a balance of powers and not a division, one in which the voices and ideas of local leaders are just as valid as the views of Ottawa. This bill could help resolve these tensions by ensuring that development plans and municipal regulations adopted by local authorities are better respected by the federal government.

I must say it is a bit unclear why this bill includes reference to all projects funded by the Canada Infrastructure Bank, since it seems that the vast majority of the projects funded by the CIB should already be subject to provincial and local legislation and regulations. Perhaps this is something that could be clarified should this bill make it to committee.

It is not that we do not have serious concerns about the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Of particular relevance to this discussion about respecting local needs is the CIB’s insistence on public-private partnerships that emphasize the returns of private investors over the long-term needs of communities. We support the notion that CIB-funded projects should respect local and provincial legislation; however, it is unclear why this would not otherwise be the case.

Just as the rationale for including CIB-funded projects is somewhat unclear in this Bill, so is the exclusion of pipelines, which were included in the bill’s previous iteration. Recent pipeline proposals clearly demonstrate the failure of the federal government to adequately address the concerns and values of other orders of government. The federal government can hardly claim that Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain were approved through a harmonious process that respected all three orders of government. The government approved Northern Gateway despite opposition from over a dozen local governments in British Columbia and many first nations up and down the B.C. coast.

The Trans Mountain Expansion project was thrown out by the Federal Court of Appeal, because it found that the federal government’s consultations were woefully inadequate and that it failed to consider the environmental impact of increased marine traffic in the Salish Sea. Not only did a second run at consultation fail to meet the expectations of many communities and first nations, the federal government then fought in court B.C.'s attempts to legislate environmental protections that would prevent oil spills from damaging the environment. It is indeed difficult for the government to claim it has satisfied local and provincial concerns regarding TMX.

In the cases of both Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain, the federal government announced its support for what it claimed were projects in the national interest before the assessment processes were finalized. With the federal government acting as both booster and arbiter, the concerns of communities, first nations and even provincial governments did not stand a chance of influencing the inevitable outcome.

To conclude, Bill C-225 poses interesting ideas that would help rebalance federalism to better reflect the perspectives of regions and provinces. It would empower local communities by giving them a say on infrastructure projects that would have been unilaterally imposed on them in the past, and it would force the federal government to do a better job of considering the environmental impacts of infrastructure projects before it approved them.

There remain some outstanding questions raised by this legislation that deserve further study. Analysis from the Library of Parliament suggests that this bill would be legally viable as the courts would likely interpret it as incorporating, by reference, provincial laws into federal statutes. This is a legislative technique that is frequently used and accepted in jurisprudence, and we believe this idea merits further study at committee.

I look forward to debating these ideas in the future, and I thank the member for Jonquière for bringing forward this bill.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to speak in the House today to the bill introduced by my colleague and friend the hon. member for Jonquière.

Almost everyone thinks the environment is important. In fact, the environment means as much to people as apple pie. I think everyone likes apple pie, therefore everyone likes the environment.

Since we have limited time to debate I will get to the point. The environment is a jurisdiction that is exclusive to Quebec and the provinces. Again, I want to reiterate that time is limited because it seems clear to me that the government would rather waste time than take action while we still can. Our window of time to deal with the environment is getting smaller by the day. Instead of taking real action, the government is still wondering about the possibility of a pan-Canadian framework. In fact, however, the governments of Quebec and most of the provinces are already taking action.

The federal government, regardless of its political stripe, has a poor track record in this regard. For example, rather than analyzing the risks associated with offshore oil drilling, the Liberal government chose to approve such activity. The same is true of a large number of other projects. However, we are not fooled. If the Liberals really cared about the environment and thought it was important to act, they would have done so a long time ago.

It is crystal clear to me that we need to protect the environment, but the best way of doing that is not to greenwash the government's record with lip service. Instead, we need to take the tools that exist in Quebec and the provinces and apply them to federal projects. We also need to listen to scientists, the very people that the Liberals keep saying over and over that they rely on when making decisions.

It is 2021. We are past the point of asking all these questions that scientists have already asked and answered. My colleagues who are listening may have good intentions and may still believe their government's claims of environmentalism. However, I am telling the House that, if there were oil in Lac Saint-Jean, the government would surely come up with a good reason to extract it.

That is why it is especially true that no one is better placed than Quebec and the provinces to deal with environmental issues. Not only does each province have its own environmental ministry with competent expert scientists, but they are also responsible for managing natural resources, water resources and other resources within their borders. That is why the federal government should start by respecting Quebec and provincial environmental laws. It needs to respect the jurisdictions set out in our Constitution, which have been clear for over 150 years.

It is significant that a sovereignist is the one reminding the government of the basics of federalism.

With the House's permission, I would like to make a suggestion. A few weeks ago, during the debate on the Canada water agency, I pointed out that the Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C-225, sponsored by the eminent member for Jonquière, on Quebec's environmental sovereignty. What I am saying today is practically copy-paste, because instead of analyzing federal laws, Bill C-225 would amend them and make them more effective. I will therefore vote in favour.

Let us be pragmatic for a minute. If we admit that it is important to protect the environment, we also have to admit that it is urgent. If it is urgent, let us choose the fastest, most effective way possible. In our case, that is the rules made by Quebec and the provinces because they are the toughest and they already exist.

Logically, if my colleagues behave in accordance with their desire to protect the environment, they will agree with me that the federal government should make sure its own infrastructure and laws respect the provinces' and municipalities' rules instead of squabbling with them over jurisdiction and always trying to decide who should be making the laws. It is simple: Provincial legislators should be responsible for everything related to the environment because that is what they are there for.

There is another question we must ask ourselves: Who do we work for? I want to remind the House who I work for and why I am here. I work for my constituents, for the people of Lac-Saint-Jean. When it comes to the environment, I work for my children's generation in particular. I work for young people who, as recently as a few weeks ago, were telling me that they are sick of the bureaucratic quagmire and tired of the federal government stalling on everything and accomplishing nothing. What is the point of sitting around a table wondering how to put out a fire when the firefighters are outside with the hoses and nozzles?

Being responsible parliamentarians also means delegating certain aspects to our Quebec provincial counterparts when the time is right, instead of always ignoring their existence or considering them inferior. Now is the time.

Where is the federal government's credibility in relation to multinationals when it authorizes offshore drilling? Where is the federal government's credibility in relation to riverside communities when it allows pipelines and trains to spill into those rivers? Where is the federal government's credibility in relation to municipalities struggling to provide safe drinking water to their residents when the feds cannot provide safe drinking water to indigenous communities? Where is the federal government's credibility in relation to endangered marine mammals when it allows the marine industry to regulate itself? Where is the federal government's credibility, full stop? We are still looking for an answer.

In North America and around the world, there is only one government that is looking after its environment properly and that has credibility, and that is Quebec. Quebec is committed to preserving its collective treasures. It does not do so by waffling, but by taking action. For example, integrated watershed-based management allows Quebec to plan measures for the protection and use of water resources. The Government of Quebec achieved that by focusing on collaboration between all decision-makers, users and civil society. This did not happen by holding a brainstorming session 25 years later about how to delegate jurisdictions that do not belong to us.

The proof that Quebec and the provinces are managing very well without the federal government is that when watersheds straddle the Canada or U.S. border, Quebec collaborates and establishes agreements, such as the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement. The federal government should respect that.

To tackle climate change, Quebec includes measures to foster the conservation and protection of water resources and the resilience of ecosystems and associated species. The federal government should respect that.

When other countries want to build a dam, they turn to Hydro-Québec and its expertise. The federal government should respect that.

We should look to the provinces for inspiration. As federal legislators, we should be creating legislation that reinforces provincial jurisdictions.

If the House passes the bill introduced by my colleague from Jonquière, Quebec's laws concerning land development and environmental protection will apply across all of Quebec, regardless of jurisdiction. This means that airport developers' privileges will not be put ahead of Quebec's Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities or municipal bylaws. It also means that telecommunications giants will have to come to an agreement with municipalities and respect the wishes of local residents when putting up their towers and antennas. As with all other similar projects, infrastructure under federal jurisdiction will be subject to the assessment process of the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement du Québec, or BAPE, and other provincial assessment processes. Developers will require a certificate of authorization from these governments before going ahead. Federal government property will have to comply with development plans and municipal bylaws adopted by local authorities, on top of providing better environmental protections and more cohesive land development.

Bill C-225 will establish legal certainty for developers, residents and environmental protection groups. It will settle the many legal disputes over shared jurisdictions. If the federal minister authorized a project that violated a provincial law, the minister would be violating a federal law. This would resolve the issue of jurisdictional disputes and it would save time and money.

I hope this helped clear things up for many a member of the House. Once again, I thank the member for Jonquière for this very important bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Jonquière has five minutes for his right of reply.

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a disappointment that I saw coming.

I would like to come back to what the parliamentary secretary said earlier. He wanted to know what the Bloc Québécois is trying to accomplish with this bill. What we are trying to accomplish with this bill is political autonomy. Obviously, there is not a party in the House, with the exception of my own, that understands what political autonomy means.

Two days ago, on Tout le monde en parle, a fairly popular show in Quebec, we heard the Minister of Official Languages recognize that Quebec is a nation.

What does a nation require? It requires political autonomy. Back in the day, the Conservatives recognized, by means of a motion, that Quebec was a nation. Once again, what a nation requires is political autonomy.

I would like to quickly respond to the parliamentary secretary, who went so far as to give an analogy about health care, which is in a disastrous situation. I do not know whether transfer payments and fiscal imbalance mean anything to him, but this is a disaster created by the Canadian federation. He has the nerve to make a comparison with the health care system and say that we are never happy. That is beyond insulting.

The bill I introduced touched on two of Quebec's biggest concerns. I just talked about political autonomy, but there is the environmental issue too. As a young student, I learned about Quebec's social and economic development. There is an expression that has stuck with me ever since: “maîtres chez nous”, or masters in our own house.

In the 1960s, Quebec nationalized electricity, which until then had been owned by big American corporations. That was one element that drove its emancipation. My father's generation accomplished that. Today, I am convinced that my son's generation will one day liberate us from the Canadian federation, which tells us what we should do on our own land. To me, that is insulting. If the government recognizes that Quebec is a nation, it cannot also tell us that we will never have the means to liberate ourselves and grow the way we would like.

I also made note of the intervention by my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who talked about the Liberal government's centralization on the one hand and a kind of centralization from the Bloc on the other. I suppose that would make us the centralists of the province of Quebec.

That is just the same old empty rhetoric. Let me repeat that no one in the House, except for the people in my party, understands what political autonomy entails. It is deeply disappointing.

Every nation, whether it is an indigenous nation or the Quebec nation, is calling for this political autonomy. What I am seeing this evening is a kind of contempt. The government should just be honest and say that it is not prepared to grant Quebec political autonomy. Enough with the pretences and excuses.

This was a missed opportunity, but Quebec is used to that. We saw it with the development of multiculturalism. At first, there was talk of biculturalism and bilingualism. The federal parties got scared. They were scared to give Quebec any power or autonomy by acknowledging that this country was formed by two nations. They threw us aside, and biculturalism was rejected in favour of multiculturalism.

The same thing happened with the Clarity Act. We were not allowed to decide our political future for ourselves; it was up to them. Time and again, the federalist parties have tried to crush us to validate a political system that has been imposed on us. I would like to point out that we never signed the Canadian Constitution.

Huge problems with oil and gas are now going to emerge, and we will never get to have our say because the government is not prepared to give even one iota of credence to this important principle of political autonomy.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion.

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

The hon. member for Jonquière.