Alexis Deschênes

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his contribution to this debate. I am having a hard time reconciling what my colleague and his Prime Minister are saying, namely that Bill C-39 does not lower standards. That seems completely wrong to me. Bill C-39 will make it possible to designate areas of national interest, and within those areas, about a dozen laws and seven regulations will not apply. This will allow for projects that destroy fish habitats without having to seek authorization under the Fisheries Act. How can my colleague say that we are upholding environmental standards when, for all projects in regions of national interest, we are going to set aside some 20 laws and get the required authorizations even if it means destroying the environment?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his contribution. In his speech he said that the environmental assessments were used to hold up projects. I find that fascinating and I would like him to elaborate on that. Is that what he really thinks? Does he think that environmental assessment processes were put in place to calculate the environmental impact of projects such as pipelines, not with the aim of getting answers and trying to ensure that projects are improved or that bad projects are blocked, but with the aim of slowing down projects? Is that really what he thinks?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her contribution. I have a very simple question for her: What is a region of national interest? Can she define it? That is one of the major changes that Bill C‑39 makes. When a region is determined to be of national interest, all projects in that area will be exempt from complying with 20 or so laws and obtaining authorizations. What is a region of national interest?

Madam Speaker, as fall sets in here in the House of Commons, one bill is set to authorize the destruction of the environment in Quebec and Canada, at the whim of 28 people, namely, the Carney government's cabinet. Bill C-39 does a lot of things, but I will focus on what I think is the most dangerous one: From now on, authorization will be given to destroy the environment not only for projects of national interest, but also for entire regions, regions of national interest. Some might say that I am exaggerating, but I am not. I will give some examples of what Bill C‑39 will do. Let us say that the government wants to launch a nickel mining project, a project that will destroy fish habitat. Destroying fish habitat is prohibited under section 35 of the Fisheries Act. However, if the government decides that the nickel mining project is in a region of national interest, there will be no problem, and the nickel mining project can proceed. Authorization under section 35 of the Fisheries Act will no longer be required. That is what Bill C‑39 proposes. I will give another example. Let us say that there is a proposal to launch an electricity transmission line project. The problem is that the line will jeopardize species that are already at risk. Take, for example, the Gaspé caribou, the warbler, the red knot, the lark and the plover. All of these species are currently on the list of species at risk set out in the Species at Risk Act. Well, if the electricity transmission line is located in a region of national interest, as determined by the 28 members of the Carney government's cabinet, then there is no problem. Normally, a proponent would not be permitted to move forward with such a project under the Species at Risk Act—