Alexandre Boulerice
Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, Quebec · Independent · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago, a man named Jack Layton won Quebec's heart and led the NDP into official opposition for the first time. I had the privilege of being part of that wave. The people of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie continued to put their trust in me in four subsequent elections. I want to thank them from the bottom of my heart.”
“Mr. Speaker, frankly, no one can believe that answer. For the first time in history, a human being is a trillionaire. Elon Musk is worth more than $1,000 billion. Even if he were to spend $1 million a day, it would take him 2,700 years to spend such an obscene amount of money.”
“I also thank my partner, Lisa, who has been incredibly patient and supportive. In this troubled and troubling world, we need progressive and humanist voices in this Parliament, in all parliaments and in all places where decisions are made. I hope that there will be many such voices in the future. Let us move forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to table a petition signed by hundreds of citizens. In light of the 70,000 Palestinians killed by bombings in Gaza, including 350 since the ceasefire, the failure to comply with several UN resolutions and the illegal boarding of several ships bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza, the petitioners call upon the Gover…”
“Mr. Speaker, the genocide in Gaza has claimed 70,000 lives, including 20,000 children. The humanitarian situation remains dire, with infrastructure in ruins. In the meantime, life for Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the West Bank is appalling. Illegal settlements are multiplying.”
“Mr. Speaker, we already knew that the cost of acquiring the F-35s had skyrocketed, going from $19 billion to $28 billion. However, we learned that, in addition to the 72 U.S. jets, the Liberals are thinking of buying another 72 fighter jets, the Gripen, for a potential fleet of 144 fighter jets. The questions are simple.”
The complete record
Every one of 123 lines we hold for Alexandre Boulerice, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 3.
“Mr. Speaker, the news came as a shock wave this morning: President Trump calls off trade negotiations with Canada. It is a blatant failure of this Prime Minister . After being elected as a master negotiator, he leaves us high and dry. He did everything to pander to Trump: border security, military spending, opening the Keystone XL pipeline and dropping the tax on web giants. He was practically on his knees in the Oval Office, as job losses mounted. When will he stand up and come up with a real strategy to protect workers?”
“Madam Speaker, I believe that Canada has obligations when it comes to taking in refugees. If there is an increase in the number of refugees around the world, it is because there is an increase in crises around the world too, caused by conflict, civil war and the climate crisis. It is not up to us to determine how many asylum seekers show up at our border. All countries face the same requirement. That is no reason to attack refugees and asylum seekers.”
“However, there is no definition of what constitutes the public interest. These are arbitrary powers that the Liberals want to give themselves so that they can tell U.S. President Donald Trump that they are strong and serious and that they too are capable of turning people away at the border or deporting them en masse.”
“Madam Speaker, criminal smugglers who exploit people trying to find a better life and a better future here must obviously be prosecuted. We need to have the tools to do that. However, what I am saying, and what the NDP is saying, is that we must do it in a way that will not affect the remedies and procedures that protect these people's rights. As it stands now, Bill C‑12 is fundamentally flawed. There are 300 organizations that are calling on us to vote against the bill, because it would allow the executive branch to suspend the processing of certain immigration applications. This does nothing to crack down on smugglers. All it does is penalize people who are trying to come here. The executive branch will be able to cancel visas, work permits or PR documents whenever it feels this is in the public interest.”
“Madam Speaker, obviously, the CBSA experienced major staffing cuts under Stephen Harper's government. However, the Liberals have done nothing to remedy that situation over the past 10 years. Giving border officers back their powers and resources would help in the fight against auto theft and against the trafficking of fentanyl, drugs and illegal weapons. That is a good thing. That said, why did it take the Liberal government 10 years to do something about this? The NDP wants to know. The other question I have today is this: Why does the Liberal plan involve attacking refugees and asylum seekers by violating their fundamental rights and taking away the recourse they may be entitled to?”
“The TCRI also calls on the federal government to respect its obligations, including the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, to which Canada is a signatory, and the 1967 Protocol, which enshrines the principle of non-refoulement. This principle prohibits returning a person to a country where their life or freedom is or would be threatened. The Supreme Court's 1985 ruling in Singh also serves as a legal benchmark. The Supreme Court found that anyone present in Canada, including asylum seekers, have access to Charter protections, including the right to a full hearing. On behalf of this organization, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and 300 other organizations, I am asking the House to think carefully and to ask the federal government to scrap Bill C‑12 .”
“Massive powers will therefore be concentrated in the hands of the executive, which will be able to cancel existing claims in a global, massive, and discriminatory manner. Confusion between migration and security issues: By conflating immigration, asylum, and the fight against organized crime, the [Liberal] bill reinforces the perception of migrants as a threat and justifies a repressive rather than humanitarian approach. This is extremely serious in the context of rising populism, the far right, hate speech, discrimination, and racism. It is this kind of conflation that Bill C‑12 continues to fuel today.”
“[It will gather the information and documents related to the asylum claim.] It will have the power to reverse the eligibility decision and to ask the IRB to determine whether the claim for refugee protection has been withdrawn. These new powers raise several concerns about access to a fair process, especially since many important aspects of the review will be determined by regulation. We do not know what that will look like yet. Increased government powers [particularly for the executive]: The bill would allow the government to suspend certain claims en masse or cancel immigration documents in the name of “public interest”, bypassing [the transparency] obligations usually associated with the adoption of government decrees. We have no idea what “public interest” means.”
“The new rules would apply as of June 3, 2025, even before the bill is officially passed. That means that people who applied legally could have their claim determined to be ineligible retroactively; That is also extremely serious. Retroactive measures may be implemented as soon as the bill is passed. People whose claim is determined to be ineligible would have access only to the PRRA, a procedure that does not provide the same guarantees as the refugee determination process and whose approval rates are very low, approximately 2% to 4%. New step in the asylum claim process: The bill introduces another review between the determination of the asylum claim's eligibility and the referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board, or IRB. [Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC] will be responsible for conducting this review.”
“The government refuses to listen to any new information. Too bad if someone arrived three years ago for the first time. Starting June 24, 2020, the one-year deadline starts at that point. It is absurd. Second, an asylum claim filed more than 14 days after an irregular entry at a land border will now be deemed inadmissible, as will claims filed less than 14 days after such entry. However, the individual will not be removed to the United States. They will only have access to the pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA). These deadlines do not take into account the realities experienced by migrants (trauma, vulnerability, lack of access to information and legal support, etc.); These deadlines are completely arbitrary. It seems that everything is being done to send these people home. That obviously makes Donald Trump happy.”
“The measures that the government is proposing could prevent vulnerable individuals from obtaining important protections. These protections existed, or still exist, but they are under threat. (1010) Restricting the right to asylum: The bill introduces two new grounds for inadmissibility. First, a claim will be deemed inadmissible if it is filed more than one year after entering Canada, effective June 24, 2020. The one-year deadline is determined from the first entry after that date, not from the date of the last entry. If someone came to Canada on a visitor visa as a journalist or a temporary worker, for example, after June 24, 2020, and returned two years later, the one-year period would begin from the first entry, even if the situation in their country has changed and returning to that country would now put them at risk.”
“There are people in this field who work for more than 300 civil society organizations and who have already spoken out against the Liberal government's Bill C‑12. I am going to quote them, and I am going to use their line of reasoning to discuss them today, because I think it is important. These are people active on the ground, who know the reality of the situation. They know exactly how this will impact the lives of certain people, including parents, families and children. In some cases, these consequences are very severe. I am going to begin with the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes, or TCRI. It has this to say: Bill...raises major concerns for migrants, especially migrants who claim asylum.”
“He is anti-migrant, anti-refugee and anti-asylum seeker, plus he is concerned about borders. He is also concerned about drug trafficking, which is entirely legitimate. Opioids and fentanyl are having devastating effects on our communities, and serious measures must be put in place at the border, particularly when it comes to the Canada Border Services Agency. However, the government is playing along with Donald Trump's game, attempting to give him guarantees so that he might eventually negotiate with us. After six months, all we are seeing is setbacks that hurt Quebeckers and Canadians and, in this case, will hurt thousands of people whose fundamental rights will be violated by the Liberal government in an attempt to pander to the American president.”
“Instead, he keeps backing down and making overtures to please the American president. Why is the Prime Minister suddenly trying to revive the Keystone XL pipeline? After promising to make web giants, GAFAM, pay their fair share, why is the Prime Minister now backtracking just because the American president does not really like the idea of taxes being imposed on these big corporations that are making billions of dollars in profits at Canadians' expense? The Prime Minister is not standing up. He does not have his elbows up, ready to lead the fight. What we are seeing today with Bill C‑12, which is a new incarnation of Bill C‑2 , is the same backpedalling and the same attempt to pander to Donald Trump's administration. That man obsesses over certain things.”
“What we saw was a Liberal Prime Minister who, in Canada, takes a very strong Canadian nationalist, protectionist, elbows up line. He talks about defending our sovereignty, our jobs and our companies. However, when the Prime Minister is in the Oval Office in Washington, he completely changes tack. He no longer demonstrates the same strength, the same character, the same determination. He seems to be kowtowing, pandering. The Prime Minister seems to be doing everything he can to appease U.S. President Donald Trump. He is doing everything he can to make him happy. As we have seen on several occasions, despite the Prime Minister's tough talk when in Canada, nothing ever happens. The current Prime Minister was elected largely because of his platform to stand against U.S. President Donald Trump.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to rise in the House on behalf of the NDP to talk about this important piece of legislation, Bill C‑12 . Regrettably, while I am the third NDP member to have an opportunity to rise in the House, it is because the Liberals do not rise to talk about their own piece of legislation because they do not want to talk about it. This is good for us because it gives me an opportunity to be able to talk about it on behalf of the constituents of Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie as well as several representatives of civil society organizations who are very concerned about the impacts of this piece of legislation on asylum seekers and refugees. I will be discussing this during my speech, but first allow me to provide some background. Yesterday, the Prime Minister gave an important pre-budget speech at the University of Ottawa.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for the House. With the Liberals, we are seeing the “Trumpification” of international co-operation and international aid, which are becoming transactional. In other words, what the Liberal government is essentially telling us today is that if something does not benefit the government, it will not help. That is not what international aid is all about. The point is to lift people out of poverty, to educate girls, to improve the future of humanity with common goals. Why is the government taking such a hyper-capitalistic approach to international aid?”
“Mr. Speaker, the multinational company Newrest had an in-flight catering contract with Air Canada at the Trudeau airport. Even though the company knew that it was about to lose the contract, it still brought in temporary foreign workers on three-year closed work permits. Closed work permits are terrible things that prevent people from changing employers. Now, 50 people are left with nothing. They no longer have a job and are not allowed to find another one. Will the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship listen to the request of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux and grant them open work permits so they can find new jobs?”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder how come the Liberals have been talking and acting like Conservatives since they came to power. Asylum seekers and refugees are human beings who are entitled to dignity, respect, and a transparent and honest process. Can my colleague assure us that Bill C-12 complies with the international conventions that protect the rights of refugees and that Canada has committed to upholding?”
“Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by thousands of people who are concerned about the importation of macaques from Cambodia. In 2022, the International Union for Conservation of Nature raised the classification of long-tailed macaques from “vulnerable” to “endangered”, pointing to their exploitation by the experimentation industry as a factor in the species' plummeting numbers and heightened risk of extinction. In 2023, the U.S. stopped importing monkeys from Cambodia because authorities amassed evidence that permits were falsified. Meanwhile, imports of long-tailed macaques from Cambodia to Canada increased by 350% in just one year. These thousands of people are calling on Environment Canada and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to order an immediate suspension of all endangered monkey imports from Cambodia.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions that I would like to table in the House today. The first pertains to people who are concerned about the working and living conditions of airport workers, who earn very low wages in very precarious conditions despite their years of service. The Vancouver Airport Authority has declared that it offers a living wage and encourages all service providers to provide a living wage to their employees. The Greater Toronto Airport Authority has issued a document that states in its employment standards section that all airport employers are encouraged to provide wages that allow workers the ability to afford shelter, food and basic necessities. Hundreds of people are writing to the Government of Canada calling for an increase in the living wage for airport workers.”
“People who are eligible for EI sickness benefits are entitled to up to 26 weeks, while family caregivers, who are often women, are entitled to only 15 weeks. It is completely ridiculous that the person helping the sick person does not have access to the same number of weeks of benefits as the sick person. My bill would quickly remedy these two situations, which mainly affect women. I hope it will receive the unanimous support of the House. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Bill C‑249. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑249, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (combined weeks of benefits rule and certain benefits) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to introduce this important bill. Employment insurance has been in need of a major reform for years. The Liberals promised to reform the system but then did nothing. This bill seeks to correct two completely unacceptable situations that are easy to fix. When someone comes back from maternity leave and loses their job, they are not eligible for employment insurance benefits because their qualifying period is too short. This bill will remedy this ridiculous situation that mainly affects women. This bill will also correct another situation.”
“Mr. Speaker, not a single young person will feel reassured by those answers. The home retrofit program is extremely popular, and rightly so. It lowers heating bills for families and it is good for the environment. People upgrade their insulation, doors and windows, install solar panels and so on. However, next week on October 1, funding for the program will dry up completely. What are the Liberals doing? Nothing. They will not renew the funding. Too bad for the environment and too bad for families who wanted to renovate. They are on their own. Will the Liberals invest in this program that helps families?”
“Mr. Speaker, things were already bad, but now they are getting worse. In July, we lost 41,000 jobs. In August, we lost 66,000 jobs. The unemployment rate among young people is close to 15%. This summer, the unemployment rate among students was 18%. With the housing crisis and the climate crisis, it is not surprising that young people have lost hope for the future. When will the Liberals finally invest in renewable energy, and when will the government wake up and create good green, unionized jobs?”
“Mr. Speaker, we are living in a troubling world where the truth and facts are slowly being buried under an onslaught of disinformation. Many experts are sounding the alarm in light of the rise in far-right ideas, the masculinist movement and fake news. All of this has an impact on democracy and public debate. With less space for reliable news, many people are a lot less informed. Bill C‑18 was supposed to require platforms like Facebook, Instagram and Google to negotiate agreements with the media for news content. Today, the widespread blocking of access to news continues, and it has been two years. This summer, in an effort to please President Trump, the Prime Minister even backed down on his commitment to tax these digital giants. They are not paying their share and are inundating us with fake news that inflames tensions and divisions.”
“Madam Speaker, the notwithstanding clause is a tool that is constitutional, legal and legitimate in many cases, including the ones that he just mentioned. However, in recent years, we have seen the notwithstanding clause being used more and more, in some cases in a heavy-handed way, especially when it is included in the bill itself. The provincial governments say that they are suspending fundamental rights and freedoms and that there is nothing the federal government and the courts can do to stop them. This has us concerned. We saw Doug Ford's Conservative government invoke the notwithstanding clause to suspend education workers' right to strike. This is a slippery slope that New Democrats do not want to go down.”
“Madam Speaker, I am honoured to table today a petition signed by hundreds of people who point out that persons with disabilities deserve to have a dignified life. Unfortunately, the new Canada disability benefit does little to address poverty. In addition, this benefit is tied to the disability tax credit. Part of the problem is that only 1.6 million Canadians have access to the disability tax credit, while there are roughly 8 million Canadians with disabilities. This is a significant discrepancy. During the COVID‑19 pandemic, a threshold of $2,000 a month was recognized as the bare minimum needed to survive. These individuals are asking that the Canada disability benefit be increased to $2,150 a month and that this benefit be decoupled from the disability tax credit in order to ensure broader accessibility.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a climate crisis. While drought, floods and forest fires are on the rise, the Conservative Party is moving a motion to say that we should pollute even more. Last week's Canadian Climate Institute report told us that we are not going to reach our greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets because of the oil and gas sector. What does my colleague have to say about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, since Monday, there have been people on the Hill reading the names of the 18,000 children of Gaza who have been killed in the genocide that is unfolding right before our eyes. Some of these children were killed by a sniper on their way to pick up food. An entire week will not be enough time to read all of these names. This tragedy requires serious action. It is time to stop the sale of weapons to the Netanyahu regime. Tough sanctions must be imposed. International law must be respected. The Liberals must act. The entire world is looking at us and our children will be asking us how we responded.”
“Mr. Speaker, on August 17, Air Canada flight attendants went on strike so they could get paid for the work they do prior to a flight. That same day, only a few hours later, the Minister of Jobs used section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to end the job action. This is a major assault on workers' rights. It is an attack on free collective bargaining. This is a handout to a company that was expecting the government to do just that. The Liberals have used this section eight times in the past two years. Will the Liberals support workers and get rid of section 107?”
“Mr. Speaker, the NDP wants to develop projects of national interest that serve communities, respect first nations and guarantee a healthy environment for everyone, everywhere. There are ways to achieve that, but this bill offers us no guarantees. It gives one minister all the power to choose the projects. Once this bill is passed, we could end up with projects that cross through communities and provinces, that increase our greenhouse gas emissions and that pose a danger to the environment. That is what the NDP fears.”
“Then they can vote against part 2 and come back here for a real discussion, a real study and a real debate with parliamentarians, as well as with first nations, experts and environmental groups.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question. Advocating for the people of Nunavut, the Inuit, is always her top priority, as is defending the rights of indigenous peoples. During the short amount of time we had for discussions, the Conservatives touted the importance of reconciliation, working with the indigenous peoples and respecting treaties and their rights. Indeed, we can now all vote together on part 1, which will reduce trade barriers between the provinces and stimulate the economy and labour mobility. If the Conservatives want to prove that they are consistent and willing to put their money where their mouths are, they now have the opportunity to keep part 1 and move forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, I respect the mandate that the people of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie gave me, which is to defend their interests, good jobs, the environment and the rights of indigenous peoples. That is what I am doing here today. The second thing I would like to say is that this bill does something absolutely unprecedented and extraordinary. It allows projects of national interest to not comply with existing federal laws, especially environmental protection laws. Équiterre is clear on this: Schedule 2...identifies which laws the government may choose to ignore, such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations and the Marine Mammal Regulations. Schedule 2 to Bill C‑5 makes it possible to circumvent federal environmental protection laws. What is going on here?”
“That is why we are seeing this Conservative-Liberal alliance in the House right now, not only to pass this dangerous bill but also to do so by imposing closure and trampling on the rights of the members here. We are here to represent the people who elected us. We have serious work to do. What we in the NDP are saying is that the government should have taken the time to do things right. This shoddy work is not going to create jobs; it is going to create lawsuits. It will create litigation. It will end up in the courts, and the only ones who will benefit from the situation are the lawyers who will be raking in their fees.”
“We are stuck with the project, regardless of the consequences, regardless of whether the consultations were done properly or not, regardless of whether the issue was properly studied or not, regardless of whether the groups were heard or not, and regardless of whether the rights of first nations are respected or not. The Liberal Party is giving the government and the minister who will be responsible the power to do this. In fact, what we are witnessing today are Stephen Harper's and Pierre Poilievre's wildest dreams coming true. What we are seeing today is the Prime Minister of Canada taking his mask off, lifting it over his head, and declaring that he had been a Conservative all along and had simply not told us.”
“They are telling us that the Liberals have been dragging their feet for 10 years and have embarked on all sorts of contradictory policies, and as a result, no one takes them seriously. What must be understood is that we have been told time and again that the minister's power is excessive and discretionary. He relies on the criteria I just read. Once a project is on the list, it is not a matter of if the project will be carried out, but when and how. All of society's checks and balances are muzzled—a reality we are familiar with—and can no longer do anything. By then it is too late, and the game is over.”
“What does advancing their interests mean if we fail to uphold treaties, abide by the Constitution or respect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? That is not what was written down, so we have to be extremely cautious. The fifth criterion is to “contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada's objectives with respect to climate change”. I do not see how far-fetched notions like decarbonized oil can be considered clean growth. There is no such thing. Increasing oil and gas production, particularly in the oil sands, is completely incompatible with the Paris Agreement, with meeting our 2030 targets and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. On the contrary, all of the reports from the environment commissioners tell us that we are on the wrong track and will not meet our targets.”
“It gives one minister and one office the authority to unilaterally decide whether projects should be put on the list of projects of national interest. What are these criteria? The first is to “strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security”. That is fine. The second is to “provide economic or other benefits to Canada”. Putting the term “or other” in a bill means the sky is the limit. The third criterion is to “have a high likelihood of successful execution”. The bill ensures that, once a project makes the list, it is guaranteed to move forward. The fourth criterion is to “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples”. That is interesting. What does advancing the interests of indigenous peoples mean if their rights are not respected?”
“The member for Winnipeg-Centre was able to get an amendment passed to indicate the importance of unionized jobs. That is crucial to us in the NDP. Many infrastructure projects, especially those relating to transportation, could be very beneficial to various communities. High-speed rail in Canada would be a very good thing. In our opinion, building truly affordable housing, social housing and co-operative housing while we are in the midst of a housing crisis is a project of national interest. There are also the intercity transportation projects in the regions. All those projects would create jobs and help all of our communities. However, the proposals in this bill are a bit vague and hazy. It is a bit of a catch-all.”
“The bill contains some extremely vague definitions and I will quote the bill directly so that everyone understands: "The purpose of this Act is to enhance Canada’s prosperity, national security, economic security, national defence and national autonomy by ensuring that projects that are in the national interest are advanced through an accelerated process that enhances regulatory certainty and investor confidence". It seems that, ultimately, what is important to the Liberals is investor confidence. We all agree on the part before that. We in the NDP agree that there should be infrastructure projects. We agree that projects should be carried out and that there should be development. We agree on creating good jobs, especially good unionized jobs.”
“Equiterre says that the bill is vague about definitions, the nature of projects and their impact on communities, and that it is problematic with respect to circumventing environmental statutes and regulations, weakening accountability mechanisms and public participation, potentially infringing on provincial powers, and concentrating powers in the hands of the executive branch, particularly one minister. (1325) That is extremely worrisome and all of those points are problematic for us.”
“As for the second part of the bill, which is causing a lot of talk in society, we have many concerns about it too. Many people are writing to our offices, and many groups want to contact us. They say we need to proceed with caution, because it is dangerous. The government is putting things in the bill that have never been done before. The consequences could be serious and irreversible. I think the word “irreversible” is especially important. We are stepping onto a slippery slope, and there will be no way to climb back up. There are a number of problems. Equiterre, a well-known environmental organization in Quebec, wrote us to raise quite a few points that deserved to be debated here.”
“The conversation about reducing non-tariff barriers is something we generally agree on, if it can help interprovincial trade and make life easier for our entrepreneurs. Labour mobility is obviously something we have been calling for, as have unions and workers. As we see it, the fact that we can support that part is a good thing. However, we will still be extremely cautious when the time comes to adopt regulations and see how this is going to be implemented. Reducing non-tariff barriers between the provinces must not trigger a race to the bottom, to lowest-common-denominator standards and regulations that could make certain occupational health and safety situations more dangerous or pose a danger to the public. We agree in principle, but we will have to see how they intend to implement this.”
“The government, however, is ramming this bill down our throats in just a few days. One committee meeting was held to discuss and adopt amendments. I have never seen the likes of it. It is Stephen Harper all over again but on steroids. I do not know what has gotten into the Liberals. There was absolutely no national emergency to justify passing this bill so quickly. It opens the door to mistakes that could have serious and very long-term consequences. This bill has two parts. It so clearly has two parts that I want to congratulate my NDP colleague from Vancouver East on successfully splitting the bill so we can have two votes. Indeed, the two parts cover two completely different subjects. My colleague did some excellent work here, and I want to congratulate her again.”
“There are even people, notably those at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, who say that this is a way of circumventing democracy. It is a way of bypassing parliamentarians and bypassing the normal process of studying a bill, which would have allowed us to improve it and determine all its consequences and implications. For fast-tracked approvals involving huge national infrastructure projects whose content, scope and nature is not entirely clear, we should be sitting down with communities across the country and listening to what they have to say. We should be hearing from experts, scientists and first nations, who have constitutionally recognized rights. We should also be hearing from municipalities, the provinces and Canadians, who have concerns of their own.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to discuss Bill C-5 , which is a monster of a bill. Unfortunately, I am also a little disappointed in our parliamentary institutions, because our rights as parliamentarians are being trampled on. We have not had much opportunity to discuss this bill, even though it has very wide-ranging implications and far-reaching consequences that will persist for years to come, perhaps even for decades to come. I want to talk about both the form and the substance of the bill. However, before addressing the substance, I would like to point out that this week, we are witnessing a kind of parliamentary power grab by the Liberal government, which is quite damaging and sad.”
“Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, we have various concerns about the form and the substance. I will get back to that in a speech in a few minutes. In my colleague's opinion, what happens when bills are put forward that have so many implications and consequences for the future and the time isn't taken to listen to citizens, municipalities, the provinces, scientists, environmentalists and first nations?”
“Mr. Speaker, today is World Refugee Day. That is the sad reality of 43 million people around the world. These people deserve our solidarity, but the Liberal government is moving in the opposite direction by proposing Trump-style militarization and border control. The Liberal rhetoric is dangerous. The NDP is clear: Anyone who shows up at our border seeking safety must be taken in and heard with respect and compassion. The Prime Minister was elected as the anti-Trump, so why is he copying Trump's worst ideas and attacking refugees' right to seek asylum?”