Xavier Barsalou-Duval
Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I would love to have the opportunity to live in la-la land like my colleague opposite, but I think the reality is somewhat different from what he described in his speech. Let us get back to the matter at hand.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us look back on the last couple of weeks. The chair of the transport committee was the guest of honour of the Canada Truck Operators Association, or CTOA, which is a Driver Inc. lobby group. The Liberals forced the committee to go in camera to prevent any discussion about Driver Inc.”
“Mr. Speaker, for the first time in recent history, more than 100 people died on our roads last year in accidents involving heavy-duty trucks. There were 102 fatalities. That is nearly 20% higher than the average for the previous five years. What has changed recently that could explain this? The answer is, of course, Driver Inc.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix on his speech today. This week, I had the opportunity to sit with him briefly on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, of which I assume he is a full member.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. We might say that he tirelessly defends his party with all the enthusiasm he is known for. That said, although we may not agree on much, I am going to take the liberty of asking him a question.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. Today's debate on Build Canada Homes has led me to reflect on why the government created this agency. The fact is that it did so because of the current housing crisis. What caused the housing crisis?”
The complete record
Every one of 556 lines we hold for Xavier Barsalou-Duval, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 12.
“Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to answer the question that I put to you earlier. I would like to know why, as a staunch federalist, but especially as a member of the Conservative Party, which always claims to be the most decentralizing party in Canada, he is not defending the rights of his province. He has an opportunity right now to prove it. The Liberal government says that it is going to attack powers that are already in the Constitution and that allow provinces to overcome possible federal overrreach or certain constraints that the federal government could impose on the provinces. Since the member supposedly supports decentralization, why is he not defending his province's power to enact its own laws?”
“Madam Speaker, what is happening right now is really frustrating and insulting. I hope you will call my colleague to order because we are talking about an issue that is crucial for Quebec. The federal government is attacking Quebec's ability to decide its own destiny and make its own laws. My Conservative colleague, who is himself from Quebec, does not appear to have any interest in the matter and is not taking a position on today's motion, even though we have only one day to debate it. When will my colleague talk about his position on today's topic?”
“That is what the federal government is demanding. It wants to the Supreme Court to change the Constitution to further weaken Quebec. What is my colleague ultimately hiding? What Quebec legislation does she want to attack? What other legislation does she not like? How concerned should we be about her work?”
“Madam Speaker, in her speech, my colleague across the way claimed to want to defend women's rights by attacking the notwithstanding clause. I find that odd because it is well known that Quebec's state secularism law clearly indicates that the equality of men and women is non-negotiable. My colleague wants to indirectly fight against Quebec's state secularism law, which enshrines women's rights. She also says that she wants to protect workers' rights, even though her own government has intervened countless times to prevent workers from going on strike and exercising their rights. Worst of all, she also cited the Blaikie decision, which was one of the first times the Supreme Court weakened Bill 101 in Quebec. I do not understand. What she is basically saying is that she wants the Supreme Court to create a constitutional amendment.”
“The Canadian model basically trivializes and isolates communities, while, in contrast, the Quebec model seeks to promote a progressive cultural convergence through contact and exchanges between newcomers and the host society. Under the Quebec model, it is not a question of rejecting otherness, but rather of adding it to who we are. Canada treats Quebec like nothing more than an administrative entity, but we are much more than that. We are a nation that aspires to govern itself. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Bill C‑245. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑245, An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (non-application in Quebec) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to introduce a bill to exempt Quebec from the application of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. It is clear that Canadian multiculturalism is directly at odds with Quebec's integration model, interculturalism. By reducing the people of Quebec to just another minority, the Canadian doctrine takes a simplistic view of Quebec. It denies that there is a majority host society. It denies the duty to integrate. It denies the existence of the Quebec people.”
“Mr. Speaker, the other ministers do not spend thousands of dollars. They may spend $100 on a pair of boots, but not thousands of dollars. Her salary is $400,000 a year. At that rate, she can afford to buy her own shoes. In 2023 and 2024 alone, the position of Governor General and her entire royal entourage cost taxpayers $59 million. That is $59 million wasted in one year to maintain the luxurious lifestyle of a symbol that could be replaced by a stamp; $59 million for a symbol of domination by a foreign sovereign. When is the government going to put a stop to this?”
“Mr. Speaker, nothing is too good for the monarchy. The Governor General, yes her again, billed taxpayers $1,117 for shoes and nearly $7,500 for clothing last year. Meanwhile, Quebeckers are talking to us about the cost of groceries. How are we supposed to explain to taxpayers that they have to pay for the high heels of a monarch who earns $400,000 a year while they are struggling to cope with skyrocketing inflation? The Governor General, like all of her predecessors, has a compulsive shopping problem. When will the government take away her credit card?”
“Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to put my question to one of my colleague's colleagues who spoke earlier. I did not get an answer, so I will repeat my question. As I have said several times today, a disproportionate number of asylum seekers make their claims in Quebec, which puts a lot of pressure on our resources. We already have an immigration crisis and a housing crisis, but we also have a resource crisis. Unfortunately, the government has not yet taken meaningful action to ensure the fair distribution of asylum seekers. I would like the Conservative Party's opinion. Should asylum seekers be distributed fairly among the provinces, or should Quebec alone take on these challenges and this burden?”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. I have a question for him. I was a bit taken aback during the spring parliamentary session. We were used to the Conservatives being hyper aggressive all the time, raring for a fight, when suddenly they became the muscle for the Liberal government in the context of Bill C‑5 . Closure was imposed and we barely had any time to study the bill in committee. Today, all sorts of developments and consequences have come out of adopting Bill C‑5, which has become law. Can my colleague tell me wether the Conservatives plan a repeat of what they did with Bill C‑5 or are they thinking of following the Bloc Québécois's lead and acting like responsible parliamentarians who properly study bills that fundamentally change our society, before working for the Liberals?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Jonquière on his speech. I also thank him for referring to some of the issues I am currently working on. I would like to ask him a question in relation to Bill C‑2 . My colleague referred to the immigration crisis. I think that he is absolutely right. It really is a crisis. Everyone is talking about it, and we see it in our offices. Can he tell us more about the impact this is having on our resources in Quebec and also talk to us about the unfair distribution of refugee claimants across the country? Is there anything in Bill C‑2 that would solve this crisis?”
“Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments of my colleague opposite, and I beg to disagree with some of the points she raised. Though I am far from a proponent of Bill C-2 , an analysis shows that the bill could ultimately be beneficial. That said, some significant changes may be needed. My colleague says that a 150-page bill is an omnibus bill, which surprises me a little. I think that comment may be a little over the top. However, the substance of what she is saying sort of makes sense. For example, she mentioned concerns that this bill would be passed without any substantial amendments. Is she also concerned that the Conservatives might repeat what they did last spring, when they did the Liberals' dirty work for them by preventing us from taking the time to properly study bills introduced in the House?”
“Figures for the other provinces indicate that they are not doing their part. Not long ago, an ad in Le Journal de Montréal condemned this situation, and I was surprised to see that it caused something of a scandal. After all, the real scandal is that the other provinces are not pulling their weight. Why must Quebec bear such a heavy burden? What are my colleague's thoughts on the unequal distribution of asylum seekers? Why are the other provinces not taking in more of them?”
“Madam Speaker, welcome back to the House. I listened to my colleague talk about Bill C‑2 , but there is an elephant in the room when it comes to this bill. People are reluctant to talk about it, but it is one of the reasons why we in the Bloc Québécois are inclined to be in favour of this bill. The number of asylum seekers at the border is skyrocketing. While much of this explosion in asylum claims is attributable to international events, some of it is due to irregular crossings. We believe that treating these people properly is important, but so is ensuring a fair distribution of asylum seekers across the country. We know that, unfortunately, Quebec is still receiving the greatest share. In fact, Quebec takes in nearly 50% of the asylum seekers who come to Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my Green Party colleague for her diligent work on this bill. Although she does not sit on the committee, I had the opportunity to read all the amendments she put forward, sometimes even late into the night. It is not easy to do the work when it is clear that there will be little support around the table. I had the opportunity to vote in favour of most of her amendments. I would like her to tell us whether she is proud to be Canadian knowing that her suggestions were rejected by all the parties in the House except for the sovereignists.”
“Mr. Speaker, during the study of this bill, we spoke out about the fact that the government does not need to comply with any criteria or constraints in designating a project as being in the national interest. Yes, the bill does include certain criteria and factors, but the problem is that these criteria and factors are completely optional. It is entirely up to the minister to decide whether to follow them or not. That means, for example, that the minister could designate the pool they want to have built in their backyard as being of national interest. It is that crazy. Does my colleague think that is acceptable? I do not understand why the Conservatives decided to draft their amendment in a way that allows the government to simply issue an order in council to create its own definition.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is very interesting. Indeed, we managed to get rid of a whole bunch of extreme powers that this government wanted to give itself. Unfortunately, we had to do our work hastily on the back of a napkin in five minutes. We were adding acts in a rush, but we were unable to do a comprehensive review, which means that there are likely many other laws that are not in this bill that can still be circumvented. This country has been around for more than 150 years. Many laws have been voted on, but, unfortunately, a list of 10 or 15 laws is not enough to ensure that this bill will have the necessary framework and limitations.”
“Mr. Speaker, given how long the parliamentary secretary has been here, he should have been rewarded with a ministerial position for his good service to the Liberal Party. Essentially, he is saying that a majority of the population supports the bill. He even claims that a majority of Quebeckers support the bill, but I have not seen any figures to back that up, and I know very well that he does not have any. The government did not want to listen to the people, poll them or give them time to form an opinion because the Liberals imposed time allocation on the study of the bill, even in committee. The only majority the member is talking about is the parliamentary majority, and that is not necessarily the majority of the population, because the Liberals are muzzling Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that my Conservative colleague is asking that question, because we were able to mitigate the most extreme aspects of the bill, even though it remains every bit as problematic and troublesome. It is not quite as bad as it was, but what really disappointed me is that some of the amendments we proposed would have had an environmental impact and would have provided greater protection for biodiversity. Unfortunately, every time we mentioned the environment or biodiversity, the Conservatives were not on our side.”
“Normally, checks and balances exist in a society for good reason: to prevent the abuse of power. What we are seeing on the other side of the House is a government that wants to give itself all the power and govern like our neighbours south of the border. We are speaking out against that. I thought that this was something that we wanted to do away with in the last election, but this is what we are seeing the government do today. We should not trust a government that not only wants to govern by order in council, but also wants to govern in secret, with no accountability.”
“We have the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch, which are all independent from one another. However, what we are seeing here is the executive branch giving itself the power to bypass the legislative branch. That is unfortunate and it is really problematic to see the government being given the power to choose projects, the power to choose what projects should be designated as being in the national interest, the power to choose the conditions that will apply to projects, and the power to circumvent laws that this Parliament passed, all by order in council. The government is even being given the power to issue an order changing the project conditions midstream, if the developers do not like them. The bill that is before us is really serious, and I do not understand why members of the House do not realize that.”
“We wanted to completely eliminate the power to circumvent laws by order in council for major projects. That was also challenged and rejected by the Liberal-Conservative coalition. As we know, normally, the larger the project, the greater its impact and the more social dialogue it requires. However, in this case, we are seeing the opposite: The larger the project, the more political games there will be. The larger the project, the more people will have to suffer the consequences of something that they were not even consulted about. This opens the door to all sorts of biased applications, all sorts of arbitrary decisions and greater cronyism. One would think we are living in a banana republic. Usually, in modern democracies, it is the opposite.”
“We also proposed other amendments that sought to improve environmental oversight, but they were rejected by the Liberal-Conservative coalition, as were our amendments aimed at giving Quebec the right to say no to projects that Ottawa wants to fast-track. We proposed amendments to force the bill and the government to respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the other provinces and territories, but those amendments were also rejected by the Liberal-Conservative coalition. We introduced an amendment to stop certain projects from being fast-tracked and to give the House the power to do that. This amendment would have allowed the House to draw attention to the fact that the government was going too far when it was not happy with these fast-tracked projects. Once again, our amendment was rejected by the Liberal-Conservative coalition.”
“Some laws should be untouchable. Francophone rights should not even be up for discussion; nor should indigenous rights. We won those small victories because we got a little last-minute support on a few things from the Conservative Party. We also managed to achieve a little more transparency around the use and application of this act thanks to an oversight committee similar to the one we have for emergency measures. We also made sure that the special powers given to ministers cannot be used when Parliament is dissolved or the House is adjourned. These are small victories, but they do not change the substance of the bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, I have been in the House for about nine years now, and I have to say, Bill C‑5 is the worst bill I have ever worked on. It is the worst bill I have ever seen make its way through the House. These are strong words, but it is the truth. The government's approach reveals a thoroughly autocratic management style. Despite everything, we managed to get rid of a few irritants, a few items that were blatantly unacceptable, although many others remain. In fact, we had to twist the government's arm to get last-minute gains like having the Indian Act and the Official Languages Act removed from the list of acts that could be sidestepped under the major projects bill. It should not be a herculean task to prevent the government from bypassing every law on the books to please the Liberal Party's pals.”
“Mr. Speaker, in four short weeks, the Liberals have shown us their true face. It is Pierre Poilievre's face in a red tie. Many Quebeckers voted Liberal to be protected from the Conservatives, and yet we are faced with a government that wants to govern by decree and impose pipelines with Bill C‑5 . This government stole $814 million from Quebeckers to buy votes from Canadians. All of that was done in four weeks. That is the Liberals' true face. Do they realize that to many Quebeckers, they are two-faced?”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑5 perfectly sums up the new Liberal Prime Minister 's approach. He wants to force pipelines on Quebec, he wants to impose projects by order in council without going through Parliament and he wants to be able to bypass pretty much all laws, also by order in council, to help developers. He wants to do all this by imposing closure, without debate or witnesses, with the support of the Conservatives. Meanwhile, the 44 Liberal members from Quebec have been trying to fade into the woodwork. Do they realize that they did not vote the right way?”
“It is bad enough that the Conservatives helped them do it, but it is worse still that the Liberals did not vote in favour of one single amendment proposed in committee. They could not have cared less. Like masters, like kings on earth, they had already made all the decisions. That is how this government operates.”
“It wanted to silence them and silence their criticism. That is how this government operates. Worse still, by the time the witnesses appeared in committee, it was too late for us to move amendments. Regardless of what the witnesses had to say, we could not even listen to them or integrate their comments into the bill. That way of doing things makes no sense whatsoever. It is a disgrace, and I hope Quebec society will remember this. I actually hope Canadian society will remember it, too. I know first nations will remember, environmental groups will remember and francophone communities outside Quebec will remember. I know a lot of Quebeckers and unions will remember, too. When a government seizes all power for itself, disregards the democratic process and refuses to listen to criticism, that is a serious and dangerous situation.”
“It was a lousy way to treat these people. They were treated without respect. A lot of witnesses, including members of environmental groups, would have appreciated the opportunity to testify about Bill C‑5 . However, no witnesses from environmental groups were able to give evidence on Bill C‑5 because the Bloc Québécois was allowed only two witnesses for the duration of the study. That is absolutely ridiculous. More than 60% of the witnesses, whose names we submitted and who were supposed to testify, were ultimately told they could not, even though the clerk had already called to ask them to testify. The whole thing is unbelievable. I consider this a terrible disservice to democracy. It brings shame on this Parliament to have sunk so low. What this government was actually trying to do was to muzzle them. It wanted to deny them a voice.”
“Instead of having just two hours on Tuesday, we would have had 14 hours, which would have enabled a good number of witnesses to appear. We almost reached an agreement before going to committee. It seemed as if it was going to go ahead, but apparently there were last-minute negotiations behind the scenes, some shenanigans between the government and the Conservatives. As a result of those shenanigans, that did not come to pass, and people who had been called to testify were told by the clerk that they would not be testifying after all. Those are witnesses who had taken time off work, had planned to drive for hours or had already started driving, and could have even boarded a plane. Those witnesses were ultimately told they were not going to testify. What do you make of that, Mr. Speaker? I know you cannot answer, but it makes no sense.”
“Generally, the priority is to remove most of the irritants from the bill, and we are able to say that we have at least done that. This time, that is not the case. This time, we are not in a good mood about the bill or about the work done in committee, because we did not have an opportunity to do any real work. It is particularly sad because closure is generally imposed when a bill has stagnated, when there has been no progress on a bill for months, when there is filibustering. This time, we did not even have time for it to stagnate. There was no time for a filibuster because we did not have time to talk about the bill in the first place. It is sad because not so long ago, we moved an amendment to the government's closure motion that would have granted us more hours of consideration in committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, today is the last day we will sit before summer. Usually, on the last day, everyone has a smile on their face. They are in a good mood and they are patting themselves on the back. I would suggest that such is not really the case today. That is not the case because we are finishing our work with a gag order on Bill C-5 , a gag order that, incidentally, does not have consensus. We barely had time to study the bill in committee or in the House. In fact, the gag order came in before we even started debate on Bill C‑5. Normally, when a committee study is completed and there has been some co-operation between the parties, enough amendments have been made to the bill to make it decent, or at least palatable and something we can live with.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite a question. We have studied the bill in committee. Every time we debate a bill at second reading and point out gaps or problems, we are systematically told that these matters can be cleared up when the bill is sent to committee. We are assured that the bill can be improved at that stage. However, in actual fact, when we examined this bill in committee, very few witnesses were heard. Worse still, the committee had very few hours to study the bill. Therefore, I would like to ask the member opposite a specific question. How is it that his government, which claims to be so open and so unifying, rejected every single amendment put forward in committee?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Speaker's ruling on the Bloc Québécois's motions in amendment at report stage of Bill C-5 states that Motions No. 2, 3, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 20, which I moved, seconded by the member for Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan , would not be selected by the Chair because they could have been presented in committee. In actual fact, they could not have been presented in committee because it was after midnight when we proceeded to clause-by-clause consideration. Since it was after midnight, we could no longer vote separately on the various clauses, so I could not force a vote on the clauses in question. The purpose of these motions is to identify certain clauses on which the House must hold a separate vote. I hope that you will reconsider your decision in light of this information.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister says she is speaking on behalf of workers, but perhaps she does not know that the Confédération des syndicats nationaux has spoken out against Bill C‑5 . If the Prime Minister were transparent about his assets, nobody would be asking these questions. Unfortunately, we have no other choice than to challenge the closure motion because the Prime Minister himself stands to benefit from this bill. He should be the first to demand a thorough study of Bill C-5. He should be the first to refuse to exempt developers, such as Brookfield, from laws by order in council. He should be the first to tackle any perceived conflict of interest. Will he let Parliament do its job?”
“Mr. Speaker, guess who is thrilled about Bill C-5 , apart from the Conservatives and the oil companies. Brookfield is thrilled. The Prime Minister 's former firm is getting quite the assist from the Liberals. Brookfield owns a company that produces nuclear reactors. Bill C-5 deals with that. Brookfield owns natural gas processing plants. Bill C-5 deals with that. Brookfield own pipelines and has interests in the oil sands. Bill C-5 deals with that. Is the Prime Minister imposing a gag order on Bill C-5 in order to please Brookfield shareholders of which he is one?”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 allows Ottawa to impose pipelines on Quebec, the provinces and indigenous people without their consent. Bill C-5 allows the government to breach 13 laws and to add others by order in council. Bill C-5 sets out criteria for projects of national significance, but those too can be circumvented. This is no joke. Bill C-5 even allows ministers to circumvent Bill C-5. That is why the Bloc Québécois is proposing amendments. Without our amendments, Bill C-5 is nothing more than a licence to steamroll over Quebec. Will the Liberals support that?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that he would never impose energy projects on Quebec or any province without its consent. Unfortunately, Bill C-5 states the opposite. This bill allows Ottawa to make a unilateral decision by order in council and then hold bogus consultations once the project has already been approved. The Bloc Québécois thought this must be a mistake, because that is not what the Prime Minister had promised. We are proposing an amendment in line with what the Prime Minister said. It would require him to obtain the approval of Quebec and the provinces before moving forward. Will the Prime Minister support it?”
“Madam Speaker, listening to the Conservative member, one would think that we are on the brink of apocalypse because of electric cars. He seems to believe that these cars would never sell and would be left on the lots. That is a surprise to me, because we know that Quebec's figures show that EV sales targets are surpassed every year. More EVs are sold each year than is required by the government. That is surprising. How does my Conservative colleague explain that? How does he explain the fact that 50% of EVs sold in Canada are sold in Quebec? Does it not look like there is an appetite somewhere for these vehicles?”
“Madam Speaker, it is clear today that the Conservatives are on a crusade against electric vehicles. Looking back a few years, during the pandemic and even more recently, people could be waiting a year or two, maybe even three, to get the vehicle they wanted to buy. Does my colleague agree that if we go back to saying that there is no need to force dealerships to sell electric vehicles, we risk ending up in the same situation where customers are sold what dealers want to sell, not what consumers want to buy, and that we will once again delay the necessary energy transition?”
“Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that my Liberal colleague intends to vote against the Conservative motion. I would have been very concerned if she had decided to vote with the Conservatives. While she seems to be saying that we need to transition to electric vehicles, which is a great, her government is introducing more and more pro-oil industry policies. I am thinking in particular of Bill C‑5 , the fact that they buy pipelines and the fact that they support carbon storage. Will my colleague commit to trying to get her government to stop constantly working in favour of the oil companies? We cannot have it both ways. We need to choose a direction and follow it. We cannot keep moving in opposite directions.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Repentigny on his speech. We know that the transportation electrification strategy is essential for reaching greenhouse gas reduction targets and that the Liberal government suddenly stopped funding electric vehicles. What does my colleague think about the fact that we are still waiting and that the government has stopped helping to electrify transportation?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am relieved to see that my Liberal colleague intends to vote against the Conservative motion, but I would still like to ask him about something else related to this motion. Fewer electric vehicles are currently being sold than in the past. This is specifically due to the sabotage by his government, which, in a completely unexpected and unannounced manner, decided to cut subsidies for electric vehicles. People do not know whether the subsidy will come back or not. The government was reelected, but has yet to make any commitments regarding the return of these subsidies, which is creating a great deal of uncertainty in the market. I would like to know when the government will put an end to this uncertainty so that sales will pick up again.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member is aware, but there is a very strong transport electrification hub in Quebec. An entire industry has developed there. There are a lot of people who are excited about working on the energy of the future and clean technologies. Is my colleague trying to attack a strong industry in Quebec that generates thousands of jobs by declaring war on electric vehicles?”
“Many Canadians, along with nine out of 10 Quebeckers, reject the monarchy, the living embodiment of old British oppression. This is therefore a test and an opportunity for Canada to show that it is as inclusive and open as it often claims to be. Everyone knows that an oath to the King is nothing more than a remnant of colonialism, and it is time to free ourselves from that. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Bill C‑210. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑210, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (oath of office) . He said: Mr. Speaker, it is not every day that a bill to amend the Canadian Constitution is introduced. Today, I am pleased to introduce in the House a bill to amend section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867, to eliminate the obligation to swear an oath to the King. Under this bill, the oath to the King would be replaced with an oath of office similar to the ones sworn by judges and some senior government officials. An MP who is elected by the people officially takes office once they have sworn an oath. However, what should be a moment of pride and celebration becomes a painful, humiliating experience that besmirches our honour and undermines the credibility of our institutions.”
“Mr. Speaker, I see that my Conservative colleagues are not very satisfied with Bill C‑5 . It is an understatement to say that we are not either, because we are more than dissatisfied. We are deeply concerned about what is in this bill. Given that the Conservatives themselves are dissatisfied, why are they in favour of fast-tracking a bill that will make major changes to the way projects are approved? More importantly, will we have the time to do things properly, since closure will not allow us to carry out a serious study?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my Conservative colleague a question. Since I became a member of this House, I have often seen the Conservatives get all worked up about Liberal corruption and collusion scandals, whether real or imagined. I will not hide the fact that I do not necessarily have the highest regard for the work ethic of the government and the Liberal Party. However, proposed section 21 in Bill C‑5 allows any major national project to be exempt from any law in Canada. Is my colleague not concerned that the government could circumvent crime and ethics laws to save its own skin?”
“Mr. Speaker, history has shown that, whether the Liberals or the Conservatives are in power, they are constantly beholden to oil companies and always work in their interests. It is pretty clear that this bill was most likely drafted in close consultation with oil companies. The other issue with this bill is that it goes far beyond environmental rules. It encroaches on provincial sovereignty and first nations' rights. It could even suspend all existing laws in Canada that are not constitutional laws. That is what is in this bill. Significant amendments are absolutely essential. Under the circumstances, it cannot be passed under a gag order.”