Patrick Weiler
West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, British Columbia · Liberal · Canada
“If Canada wants to build the housing, infrastructure, transportation and clean energy projects we talk about so often, we need skilled workers, and many more of them. This is why one of the most important components of the spring economic update is the investment in skilled trades and apprenticeships.”
“I want to give a special shout-out to Louis and the volunteers behind the local tax clinic on the Sunshine Coast, whose work helps over 3,000 residents each year access benefits and support they might otherwise miss.”
“Bill C-30 includes more than $160 million over five years to continue protecting Canada's whales and marine habitats on all three coasts. This would build on Canada's broader $3.8-billion nature strategy and the commitment to protect biodiversity and marine ecosystems for future generations.”
“It is also about reducing barriers by simplifying and accelerating the certification pathway so more Canadians can enter this workforce faster.”
“At all times, but especially right now, the Competition Bureau should be keeping a very close eye on anti-competitive behaviour and potential price manipulation in regional fuel markets like this one, because Canadians deserve fairness, transparency and confidence that they are not paying artificially high fuel prices.”
“On the Sunshine Coast, projects like Swiya Farms in Sechelt are focused on building large-scale, sustainable local food systems and supporting community-driven agriculture and long-term food resilience, including a large-scale greenhouse that is being planned.”
The complete record
Every one of 160 lines we hold for Patrick Weiler, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 4.
“Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the principle of restraint was established through the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence in interpreting how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should apply to bail hearings. We are very committed to making sure we would be passing legislation that is compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There has never been a federal government that has promised to invoke the notwithstanding clause pre-emptively, for legislation. It is a very dangerous idea to go down that road. It is there to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, and it is important that the highest laws of the country are respected. There is a way to do both. There is a way to make sure we are strengthening our criminal justice system while respecting those fundamental rights.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill makes good progress in the fight against organized crime. As I said in my speech, we announced the establishment of a new financial crimes agency. We have made a lot of changes to our laws in recent years, we have a new registry for companies, and I know that, if we can work together with the provinces and all members of the House, we will come up with even more ideas to better address this difficult problem.”
“Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my speech that there has been a mischaracterization of what the principle of restraint is, as well as of the impact of the inclusion of it in Bill C-75 . As I also mentioned, this is a principle that was well articulated in the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, and it simply was legislated through that legislation. The Conservatives talk about how the principle of restraint is the source of all issues, any issue we see in the commission of criminal activity across the country, but in getting rid of it, we would still have the principle that is established through the jurisprudence. Through the legislation before us, we would actually be helping to further define the principle so it could be best utilized to ensure the best and proper administration of justice at each level.”
“However, nothing in this bill will matter unless the work is done in partnership with provinces and territories, including the British Columbia government, to ensure the system is properly funded so it can be administered properly, to ensure there is proper training for all justices of peace and to ensure we have capacity in our jail system. It is critical that the prosecution service in each and every region understands the community interests that are at sake in the decisions being made at bail hearings. Bill C-14 would help give them the tools to do their jobs properly. I encourage all members of the House to support this important piece of legislation to get to committee.”
“Bill C-14 , importantly, would accomplish all of these measures in compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It would maintain judicial discretion and focus on the highest-risk patterns that affect our communities, including repeat violence, serious offences with weapons, organized criminal activity, as well as the repeat property crime that undermines community confidence. In closing, I can tell members that this legislation responds directly to the concerns I have heard in my riding. It would target repeat violence and serious property crime, support first responders and victims, and strengthen confidence in our justice system while remaining fair.”
“Conditional sentences would be restricted for sexual assault and other sexual offences, particularly those involving victims under the age of 18. The bill would also restore driving prohibitions for manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm, would increase penalties for contempt and would improve fine-enforcement tools by working with provinces and territories. Locally, the Sunshine Coast RCMP, the Sunshine Coast Community Services Society and others play key roles in prevention, early intervention and support for victims and vulnerable individuals. Their work very much complements Bill C-14 's goal of accountability by addressing the root causes of repeat offending through mental health supports, domestic violence prevention and community policing initiatives.”
“Bill C-14 would help ensure that release decisions reflect real risk and that accountability is built into every stage of the process, giving law enforcement and communities stronger tools to keep people safe. Bill C-14 would also strengthen sentencing to ensure that penalties reflect the seriousness of repeat and organized crime. It would direct courts to treat as aggravating factors repeat violent offences, crimes against first responders, organized retail theft and fraudulent return schemes, and interference with essential infrastructure. It would also introduce consecutive sentencing for repeat break and enters and violent crime offences, with clear guidance to prioritize deterrence and denunciation for repeat and organized offences.”
“To strengthen accountability for repeat offending, judges would also be required to consider both the number and the gravity of an individual's outstanding charges when determining whether detention is necessary to maintain public confidence in the justice system. The bill would also expand the circumstances under which release documents can be cancelled and would modernize arrest and review procedures for breaches of bail conditions, ensuring the justice system remains responsive, consistent and focused on protecting public safety. These changes matter for communities like Sechelt, where residents and small businesses continue to feel the effects of repeat and organized crime.”
“These updates build on reforms introduced last year through Bill C-48 , which expanded the reverse onus to include repeat violent offenders using firearms and those charged with serious offences involving weapons. Bill C-14 would extend these provisions to cover serious and organized property crimes and other offences that have caused growing concern in communities in my riding and across the country. Courts would be required to impose conditions when folks get bail for offences such as break and enters, including geographic restrictions, curfews and prohibitions on break-in tools. For violent and organized crime offences, mandatory prohibitions on firearms and other weapons would apply unless safety considerations make that inappropriate.”
“It would also direct peace officers and judges to tailor release conditions to the actual risks posed by the accused, ensuring detention remains appropriate for repeat, violent or organized offenders. This would strengthen public confidence while maintaining fairness and, importantly, charter compliance. Reverse-onus provisions would be expanded to cover a broader range of serious offences, including extortion involving violence; breaking and entering a dwelling house; human trafficking; smuggling; alleged choking, suffocation or strangulation; and when an accused faces a serious violent charge with a weapon and has been previously convicted of a similar offence within 10 years.”
“The bail and sentencing reform act would strengthen public safety by tightening how bail and release decisions are made. It would clarify that the principle of restraint does not require release when detention is justified. I can tell that this principle has been the subject of a lot of misunderstanding, particularly in this House, but it is important to clarify that this principle of restraint in bail decisions was not created by legislation. It came from Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence. A previous government codified this principle, but even if it were repealed, it would remain good law because of court decisions that have interpreted the Charter Rights and Freedoms accordingly. (1305) Bill C-14 would provide clarity by ensuring that restraint does not mean automatic release.”
“I want to acknowledge the understandable frustration when people see the same individuals cycling through the system and not seeing meaningful deterrence or accountability. People deserve to be safe and feel safe in their neighbourhoods and to know that repeat offenders are being held to account. I have personally participated in community meetings and town halls on this matter, and I want to let the community know that I hear these concerns and they are being acted on. Bill C-14 would directly respond to them by strengthening bail for repeat violent offenders and introducing tougher sentencing for serious and organized property crimes. These reforms would help ensure that those who repeatedly endanger public safety face real consequences while we maintain fairness and rehabilitation where it is due.”
“Together, these reforms would target repeat and organized offenders, strengthen deterrence and help increase public confidence in the justice system. Residents across Canada, including in West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, want a justice system that keeps people safe, supports victims and remains fair and efficient. On the Sunshine Coast, and particularly in Sechelt, concerns about crime have become one of the most pressing issues for residents. Recent RCMP reports have shown that violent crime in Sechelt has risen by 26% this quarter, with increases in uttered threats and weapons-related offences. Property crime and break and enters continue to affect families, seniors and small businesses, particularly in certain regions, and these incidents are often the subject of community meetings and local news stories.”
“They include creating tougher bail conditions, with judges having to consider both the number and the seriousness of an accused's outstanding charges when deciding when bail is appropriate, making it harder for repeat offenders to be released back into the community. The bill would also create a new reverse onus for break and enters so that the accused would have to demonstrate why they should be granted bail, rather than the current onus, which has the Crown proving why bail should be denied. The bill would also create stronger sentencing for organized property crime. Organized retail crime would be treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing, and courts would have to prioritize deterrence and denunciation when sentencing for repeat break-ins and property offences.”
“Strong laws, strong enforcement and strong community supports are what are needed to tackle both the causes and consequences of crime. The bill we are debating today would strengthen Canada's justice system by ensuring that repeat and violent offenders face greater accountability and would make it harder for individuals with serious or repeated charges to receive bail. It would also tighten sentencing for organized and repeat property crime and would prioritize community safety while maintaining fairness and rehabilitation. While Bill C-14 would make 80 amendments to the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act, I want to focus on a few key areas that are highly relevant to my constituents in West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.”
“Pillar one is about strengthening our legal frameworks, including the bail and sentencing reform legislation we are talking about today. Pillar two is about increasing the capacity and resourcing on our front lines by adding 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new CBSA officers and, importantly, by creating the financial crimes agency to pursue complex, financial and organized criminal offences so we can follow the money. Pillar three is about supporting a continuum of care through social and mental health supports, addiction services and supportive housing and by working with local organizations that provide prevention, outreach and rehabilitation programs to help people avoid entering or re-entering the criminal justice system.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Guelph . I rise today to speak to Bill C-14 , the bail and sentencing reform act. This bill would amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act to improve public safety, strengthen accountability for repeat violent offences and serious property crime, and modernize procedures that affect victims, police and the courts. Across the country, Canadians are calling for a justice system that better protects communities, supports victims and holds repeat and violent offenders accountable. That is why our government is acting through our three-pillar approach to strengthen public safety and confidence in the justice system.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, entitled “Acting Together to Address Derelict and Abandoned Vessels in Canada”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.”
“The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to raise the minimum age for social media use to 16 through mandatory age-verification systems and meaningful enforcement measures, similar to recent actions taken by countries like Australia, and to strengthen the privacy rights of minors under the age of 18 by ensuring that social media companies are prohibited from collecting, storing and sharing personal data from youth, including data gathered through age-verification technologies.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to present e-petition 45-1, initiated by one of my constituents, Ms. Jenny Perez, a passionate advocate for children's online safety. This petition has garnered the support of nearly 2,000 Canadians, including parents and concerned citizens from coast to coast to coast. The petitioners draw attention to the growing concern that smart phones are becoming a gateway to harmful content for Canadian youth. They note that the majority of children now own a device by the age of 12. They further raise concerns about algorithm-driven social media platforms, which are designed to maximize user engagement, often in ways that can be addictive and detrimental to the emotional and mental well-being of young people.”
“Second, it would amend the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act to require pleasure craft owners to take reasonable steps to avoid transferring their vessel to someone who is unable to maintain it, which is often a tactic used to avoid disposal costs. This would help address the growing problem of abandoned and derelict boats along our coasts. Together, these two changes would strengthen accountability and better protect Canada's marine environment and coastal communities from pollution. I urge all members of the House to support this important piece of legislation. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Bill C-244. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-244, An Act to amend The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act . He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to introduce the clean coasts act. This bill takes two important steps to better protect our coastal environment, boaters and coastal residents by proposing to amend key federal laws. First, it would amend the marine dumping provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to clarify that marine dumping is a strict liability offence. This is critical to prevent incidents such as the 2015 oil spill in English Bay, when the MV Marathassa leaked oil for nearly 24 hours, without consequence.”
“Whistler has always had a special place in my heart since I started skiing there at age three, and I am confident it will meet the next 50 years' challenges like climate change, housing and reconciliation with the same spirit that made it what it is today. Happy 50th, Whistler.”
“Mr. Speaker, this month, Whistler turns 50. What started in 1975 as a gravel road, a few cabins and the bold dream of pioneers like Nancy Greene and Franz Wilhelmsen has grown into a world-class destination. From the first gondola at Creekside to the rivalry between Whistler and Blackcomb mountains and partnering with the Squamish Nation and Líl̓wat Nation to host the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, Whistler has always been a place of possibility. If we could ski it, if we could hike it, if we could bike it or if we could build it, we did. Today, Whistler is Canada's premier year-round tourism destination and a vibrant community where visitors' energy blends with the hearts of the residents, families, workers and volunteers who make it special.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans entitled “Challenges to the Sustainability of the Yukon Salmon Stocks”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me another opportunity to speak French in the House. We do know that this is the direction that the world is heading in. There are already countries such as China where it is cheaper to produce electric vehicles than gas‑powered ones. When everyone adds to the number of vehicles produced, prices will be even lower. Technology will also improve. We have to be ready for that. We want to see these vehicles made in Canada.”
“Madam Speaker, I am one of those people who waited for an electric vehicle during the pandemic, so I am very familiar with this situation. We need measures like this so that the vehicles people want to buy are actually available for purchase. Continuing to improve how these vehicles are produced in Canada is one way to accelerate the transition. What is clear is that people want these vehicles, and we must do everything we can to make them available.”
“Madam Speaker, that is a really important question that we need to consider as we see lower revenues that go to fund some of those things. There are ways that we can think of things. Perhaps, with public charging stations, there may be some of that tax that could go to fund some of those same things. Some jurisdictions have put a small tax on the registration for electric vehicles. I am thinking of Alberta. There are a lot of ways that can be done. This is an overwhelmingly positive thing for our communities that we need to find ways of supporting rather than putting up roadblocks. We do need to find ways of ensuring that the infrastructure is going to be well supported and maintained for the long term.”
“The ZEV availability standard is what is needed to make sure Canadians are able to have that choice. We see that the demand is there in metro Vancouver, where almost 70% of residents want an electric vehicle to be their next choice of vehicle. In my riding, the district of Squamish has the highest adoption rate of any metropolitan area in the country. The district of West Vancouver may have the highest adoption of any municipality. We see that the demand is there, but we need to make sure the supply is there. That is what these regulations are all about.”
“This would have the impact of ensuring that we see a lot more of those EVs on the lower-cost end, which is where we are seeing some of the biggest challenges with adoption. We have seen what happens when supply is limited: higher prices, long delays and frustration for families trying to do the right thing. The government believes Canadians deserve better. By leaning into this transition, we are securing Canada's place in the clean economy of the future while making sure that Canadians and communities benefit. Opponents of these measures often talk about freedom of choice, but what choice do Canadians have if the vehicles they want are not available? Not all Canadians have the ability to buy EVs, because they are not available in all provinces.”
“The other challenge we have is that, in Canada, we do not have a lot of the affordable models other countries have access to. We made the decision to bring in a 100% tariff on Chinese-made electric vehicles for understandable reasons, but we can also look to what other jurisdictions have done, such as the European Union, which has a smaller tariff geared more toward the specific impact of some of its unfair subsidies, as well as to protecting the nascent market it has there. There are a lot of affordable electric vehicles that are manufactured in some of our value-aligned countries but are not available right now in Canada. I think of places like Europe, Japan and South Korea. One thing we could do is find a way of harmonizing our vehicle certification standards so that vehicles approved for use there are available in Canada as well.”
“This is something for which there are opportunities from coast to coast to coast to create thousands of well-paying jobs in our country. However, we do have challenges to seeing higher adoption of electric vehicles. With the depletion of the federal incentive for electric vehicles, and with its elimination in my home province of British Columbia as well, we are seeing a slowing of that demand. Therefore, it is really important that this gap be addressed so that we are able to continue to encourage people to adopt electric vehicles. Our government has made the commitment, as we reform the industrial carbon price, to ensure that big polluters in Canada are going to pay for incentives for individual Canadians to make those greener choices.”
“Therefore, our regulations simply ensure that automakers prioritize Canada when deciding where to sell their electric vehicles so that Canadians are not left at the back of the line. I want to be very clear. These regulations do not ban gas-powered cars; they simply create a level playing field in which Canadians can choose from a wide range of affordable, high-quality electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles, many of which are now being built right here in Canada. That gets me to my next point. This transition is not only good for consumers and the environment, but it is good for our economy. Canada is increasingly becoming a global leader in electric vehicle manufacturing, battery production and clean technology. We are seeing historic investments in plants, battery factories and the mining of critical minerals.”
“It also means fewer respiratory illnesses, fewer hospital visits and a better quality of life for our kids and grandkids, so this is also about public health. None of those benefits actually matters if Canadians cannot access electric vehicles in the first place. That is why the government introduced these regulations, to ensure that manufacturers actually bring EVs to the Canadian market. For too long, Canada was a dumping ground for gas vehicles while EVs were shipped elsewhere. Canadian consumers were left with long wait times. I can speak personally. I waited over a year and a half to be able to purchase an electric vehicle. There are limited options, and we have inflated prices.”
“We know that transportation accounts for about a quarter of Canada's emissions, so if we are serious about reducing our emissions in Canada and protecting our communities, then transportation, particularly light-duty vehicles, has to be part of the equation. (1225) We know that electric vehicles emit about 80% less over the lifetime of the car than gas-powered alternatives do, even when we account for such things as battery manufacturing and Canada's current electrical grid. As our grid gets cleaner and we find more sustainable ways of mining and processing minerals and manufacturing vehicles, those emissions reductions are going to grow even more significantly. We also know that less pollution means healthier communities.”
“I can speak to this very personally as someone who was able to purchase an electric vehicle just under two years ago. It is a very nice feeling knowing that I do not have to worry about what the prices at the pump are going to be, whether this is the time that the summer gasoline blend comes in, or whether whatever type of conflict is happening in the Middle East could jack up the prices. I know I can charge my vehicle in the comfort of my home rather than having to plan for those types of stops. I can do just about any round trip in my 13,000-square-kilometre riding in one charge on my car. The other reason that it is important to move forward with this is that we are living in a climate crisis. Just in one community in my riding alone, the district of Squamish, has had three wildfires so far this year, and we are only in mid-June.”
“The same distance in an EV costs about $500 in electricity, so that is a saving of over $2,000 every year. That is before we even talk about maintenance. Anyone who owns a gas-powered car knows the cost of oil changes, engine repairs, exhaust systems and transmission issues, none of which actually apply to electric vehicles. Studies show that electric vehicles cost 40% less to maintain and repair than their gas-powered counterparts. When we combine the fuel and maintenance savings, a typical Canadian family can expect to save about $20,000 over the lifetime of their vehicle. The PBO just released a report that confirmed that over the first three years of ownership, the higher initial purchase price of an electric vehicle, even without any incentives, will be made up on the operational savings.”
“If the standard is not there, they are going to prefer to have things on their lot like gas-powered cars, particularly SUVs, where we know the margins are much higher for them. However, we also hear opponents of electric vehicles suggest that they are somehow a luxury product, but the facts again show otherwise. Over the lifetime of ownership of an electric vehicle, they will actually be much cheaper, because a Canadian driver today will save thousands of dollars each year at the pump. While gas prices will fluctuate, sometimes very wildly due to global instability, which is entirely outside of Canada's control, EV drivers are charging at a fraction of the cost. To put it into context, at today's prices, the average Canadian driving 20,000 kilometres per year spends about $2,800 on gas.”
“What they fail to mention is that there are exemptions built in that allow for the purchase of plug-in hybrid vehicles for those parts of our country where electric vehicles are not as well suited. Why do we have the regulation in the first place? Contrary to what Conservatives say, it is actually about choice. It is about having the choice to find an electric vehicle if someone wants one. It is no mistake that the provinces that have the highest adoption rate of electric vehicles are the ones that have had a standard for the purchase of electric vehicles, including Quebec and British Columbia, where sales were over 30% and 22%, respectively, last year. With those types of regulations, car dealerships will actually show the models on the floor to meet the demand that is there.”
“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak in opposition to the opposition day motion today, which, at the heart of it, is simply disinformation: disinformation about climate policy and disinformation about an affordability policy that, quite frankly, gives me flashbacks to the last government, where it seemed that week after week, the Conservatives would have a similar type of motion that they would bring forward. Here the Conservatives are making the claim that Canada has a plan to completely ban gas-powered cars and that this would somehow drive up the cost of vehicles by $20,000. That is simply untrue. It is about a regulation that will progressively increase the number of light-duty cars that dealerships sell, which are zero-emissions vehicles in Canada: to 20% in 2026, 30% in 2030 and then up to 100% in 2035.”
“We must all follow FireSmart guidelines and sign up for local emergency alerts. Everyone who fought the fire, supported neighbours and stood together showed us what Squamish is truly made of.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize all those who put themselves in harm's way to fight the Dryden Creek wildfire in Squamish and keep the community safe. Despite dangerous conditions, thanks to the skill and determination of Fire Chief Aaron Foote, Squamish Fire Rescue, Whistler Fire Rescue, BC wildfire crews, Mayor Armand Hurford, the district of Squamish Emergency Operations Centre and the Squamish Nation, the fire is now being held, and the evacuation alert has been lifted. Beyond the fire lines, the community came together. Businesses offered help, students delivered meals and neighbours supported one another, so much so that officials paused donations due to overwhelming generosity. This wildfire, the third in Squamish this year, reminds us of the growing risks of climate change and the need to be prepared.”
“Mr. Speaker, the things that are within the federal jurisdiction are the things that are covered in the act. The federal government cannot force the provincial governments to reduce the internal trade barriers, but it has to act as a facilitator to do everything it can to do that. The first thing we can do is get rid of those federal barriers and do what we can to encourage the provinces to remove provincial barriers, and I think we are seeing a lot of progress, from what I mentioned in my speech.”
“Mr. Speaker, yes, these measures will be a tremendous boon to entrepreneurs in my riding. In my speech, I mentioned Backcountry Brewing, a brewery based in Squamish. Its beers are amazing, but they are not sold anywhere in Ontario. I could think of more examples. I know other companies that manufacture highly specialized materials for buildings. They will be able to sell their services and products here. I hope that this—”
“Mr. Speaker, these are not normal times right now. We are in an economic crisis, and we need to do things faster. I also think the legislation will protect the environment, but we need to put measures in place to make sure of that. I hope that when this bill is referred to committee, these aspects will be studied further.”
“Mr. Speaker, I always enjoyed working with my colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes on the indigenous and northern affairs committee. What I can say is that these are interprovincial trade barriers that have long been a drag on our economy. I think it was in 2017 when the free trade within Canada act was put forward, which dealt with a lot of those ones. Frankly, there are constituencies within each province that have prevented future action on this. Maybe one of the only benefits we can think of from the threat from Donald Trump is that it has led, finally, to provinces starting to reduce their trade barriers, and it is an incredibly important role for the federal government to support that and do everything within our power to reduce them as well.”
“When a small business in Squamish wants to ship products across the country, it should be able to do that without running into arbitrary provincial rules, likewise if a health care worker wants to practise in Sechelt. I can see my time is running out. I thank all members for their consideration. I look forward to questions.”
“Third, the powers this legislation proposes are due to be valid for five full years. We are currently living in a crisis, an extraordinary circumstance brought on by the illegal and unjustified tariffs from President Trump. I absolutely believe that if we talk to steel and aluminum workers or workers in the automotive sector, they will confirm just that. However, this legislation is due to be in effect beyond that, beyond what will be at least one more federal election, and we need to consider how this legislation could be used in bad faith by a future government. Where there are issues with existing environmental laws causing undue and unacceptable delays in permitting projects in our country, I believe they can be fully reviewed and amended, hopefully obviating the need for these measures in the future.”
“However, I would like to point out a few aspects of the bill that should be studied at committee if it passes second reading. First, while it is hard to think it was not that long ago, the first ministers' meeting from just a week and a half ago produced a rigorous list of criteria that would inform whether a project can be declared in the national interest. However, the way the legislation is written would allow for unnamed factors to also drive decision-making. This should be carefully scrutinized at committee. Second, the legislation would give a minister the ability to exempt any national interest project from an existing law or regulation based on the advice of a minister. If this type of power is to be in the hands of a minister, it is important that there be disclosure and transparency in how that power is going to be used.”
“We need to seize the incredible opportunities at our disposal and build nation-building projects, such as interprovincial electrical grid interties, to better trade within Canada, and invest in ports to diversify our trade away from the United States. The proposed mechanism to do that is the building Canada act. This new act would allow a single minister, after consulting with the provinces and indigenous peoples, to declare projects in the national interest and pre-approve them subject to conditions geared to protecting the environment. The Prime Minister further declared that projects would not be declared in the national interest and imposed upon provinces that are not willing. Make no mistake. Bill C-5 proposes extraordinary powers that are only justified in an extraordinary time. Many would agree we are in that situation today.”