Gabriel Ste-Marie

Mr. Speaker, my question concerns environmental assessments. The government is removing the task of assessing energy projects from scientists and handing it over to the Canada Energy Regulator. Let us look at who the commissioners are: The lead commissioner is the former senior legal counsel for TC Energy; the deputy lead commissioner is a former legal adviser with Royal Dutch Shell; another is a former legal adviser with the Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada Limited; another was formerly with Imperial Oil and Canadian Oil Sands Limited; and another comes from the Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada Limited. Why should oil company lobbyists be entrusted with assessments previously conducted by scientists?

Mr. Speaker, indeed, we could call it pipeline spaghetti. Bill C‑39 also undermines workers' rights. At the federal level, strikes always play out the same way. Employers allow negotiations to deteriorate while they wait for Ottawa to put an end to them using section 107. That would not change. What is changing is that Ottawa is now going to tell unions when and how to begin negotiations. It would also be able to stop negotiations by invoking vague concepts of national interest and social disruption. According to the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, Bill C‑39 would give the government the power of life or death over the right to strike. Why would anyone trust the federal government with that power?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you in the chair. My question for my colleague has to do with labour law and the right to strike. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the right to strike as a fundamental right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That was in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan. The Bloc Québécois believes this proves that in order to infringe upon a protected right, there must be a valid reason, such as protecting the life, health or safety of the public. Serving corporate interests is not a valid reason. That is why the section of Bill C-39 dealing with the right to strike may be unconstitutional. What are my hon. colleague's thoughts on that? Does he think, as I do, that the Liberals are going to tout the benefits of the notwithstanding clause to defend this part of Bill C-39?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for her speech. She spoke about the right to strike. Would she agree that the main problem is that the Canada Labour Code is outdated, especially since it allows the use of scabs during labour disputes? Quebec did away with that about 50 years ago. Because of that provision, labour disputes drag on. Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code and the amendments proposed by Bill C-39 send employers the message that if they let a labour dispute drag on, the government will step in and deal with the situation. When negotiations fail to result in new working conditions, issues that should have been resolved are instead pushed forward to the next round of bargaining, which undermines social cohesion. Does my colleague believe that we should remove the option of using scabs and modernize the Canada Labour Code?

Mr. Speaker, why remove environmental assessment processes carried out by scientists and hand them over to the Canada Energy Regulator, which is essentially an oil lobby? The CER's lead commissioner is the former senior legal counsel at TC Energy. The deputy lead commissioner is a former employee of Royal Dutch Shell. Another commissioner is a former legal adviser to Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada. Another one comes from Imperial Oil and Canadian Oil Sands Limited. Then there is one from Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada. Then, a fifth comes from Cenovus Energy. If that is not an oil lobby, what is it? Why take this away from scientists, impartial people who are carrying out a proper assessment, and hand it over to people who appear to have a conflict of interest?

Mr. Speaker, does the minister agree that the Canada Energy Regulator is effectively run by the oil companies? The lead commissioner is the former senior legal counsel at TC Energy, previously known as TransCanada Corporation, the owner of the TransCanada pipeline, which changed its name following the energy east fiasco. The deputy lead commissioner is a former executive at Royal Dutch Shell. Another commissioner is a former legal adviser to Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada Limited. Another one comes from Imperial Oil and Canadian Oil Sands Limited. Then there is one from Cenovus Energy, an oil sands company. Does my colleague agree that the Canada Energy Regulator is effectively run by oil companies and that Bill C-39 sidelines scientists and replaces them with lawyers from this industry?

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech. I would like to discuss the erosion of workers' rights in this bill. The government is giving itself powers to end disputes and issue an order. This change merely kicks the problem down the road. It does not make it go away. On top of that, the problems between employers and unions remain unaffected, and this has a snowball effect. The problem, in my view, is that the Canada Labour Code has not been reviewed in a very long time. This has led to the problems we are seeing. They will not be resolved by passing special legislation, like the provisions in Bill C‑39, but rather by amending the Canada Labour Code and, as a first step, introducing anti-scab legislation and prohibiting the use of scabs, as Quebec did roughly 50 years ago. This would help resolve labour disputes. What does my hon. colleague and friend think about that?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by telling a little story. Ten years ago, almost to the day, on August 29, 2016, the National Energy Board arrived in Montreal. The board's commissioners were there to hold public hearings on the energy east pipeline project. People in Quebec wanted nothing to do with that pipeline. It would do nothing to improve our energy security. It was just a big oil pipeline going from one side of Quebec to the other. It would cross 800 waterways that provide drinking water to most of Quebec's population. Over 130 municipalities, accounting for 70% of Quebec's population, opposed the pipeline. I have to say that the proponent, TransCanada Pipeline, did nothing to help its cause. It was full of contempt and kept telling anyone who would listen that Quebec had no say in the matter, that it did not recognize the authority of the Quebec government and that Ottawa, and Ottawa alone, would decide. It was against this tense backdrop that the commissioners of the National Energy Board left Calgary and went to Montreal to listen to the little people. Things got off to a bad start. Half of the commissioners did not speak a word of French, and things only got worse from there. The public realized that the consultations were a sham, that most of the commissioners were from the oil industry and that the board was basically an extension of the American oil companies. Needless to say, tempers flared, and the whole thing almost turned into a riot. It reminds me of the Félix Leclerc song L'alouette en colère, in which he talks about how he became a separatist because of Canada's contempt. He sings about how “the big neighbour from across the street came over” and how this stranger's rude behaviour filled him with rage. That sums up what happened at the government's sham consultations. In the end, the commissioners shut down the hearings. The energy east pipeline was scrapped, the commissioners got on a plane back to Calgary, and we never saw them again. Ottawa realized that stacking the deck in the oil companies' favour only stoked more opposition. The National Energy Board was too toxic, so it was rebranded as the Canada Energy Regulator, which sounded better. Most importantly, its mandate was confined to energy-related matters. Public consultations and impact assessments would no longer be conducted by former oil company lobbyists. Now, they would be done by neutral, objective, serious-minded people, scientists working together at an impact assessment agency. That was a big step forward. Thanks to Quebeckers, Canada was making progress. That is what the government wants to destroy with the stroke of a pen. Bill C-39 is even worse than the process that angered Quebeckers 10 years ago. This bill rolls out the red carpet for American oil companies, as if the way to resist Donald Trump is to copy him. Forget about impact assessments; the Canada Energy Regulator will be in charge of reviewing projects. What is the Canada Energy Regulator? Simple: It is oil companies. There is no making this stuff up. There are seven commissioners. The lead commissioner is the former senior legal counsel for TransCanada Energy, formerly known as TransCanada Pipeline, which changed its name after the energy east fiasco. The deputy lead commissioner is a former executive of Royal Dutch Shell. Another commissioner served as legal counsel for the Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada Limited. Another one is from Imperial Oil and Canadian Oil Sands Limited. Yet another is from Cenovus Energy, the oil sands company. That is the Canada Energy Regulator in a nutshell. Bill C‑39 sidelines scientists and replaces them with oil company lawyers. It basically hands the fox the keys to the henhouse. In the energy east saga, Quebeckers helped Canada move forward. Today, Canada is setting Quebec back. We will remember that. Even if the structure of the energy regulator could be completely changed, even if oil lobbyists could be removed and replaced by genuinely neutral individuals, that would not do much. The regulator could ask that the pipeline be painted green, but that would be the extent of its authority. Regardless of what the regulator says, the projects will already have been approved. The regulator will not be able to say that the projects are bad, and if it did, it would not change anything. The projects are all pre-approved. The entire process is tainted. In fact, the process does not even really exist anymore. Now projects will be approved at the Prime Minister's whim. The emperor's word is final. I do not know of any government that has rolled back environmental protections so much, except Donald Trump, perhaps, and we are told that he is a fool. Stephen Harper would not have dared gut environmental protections so brutally. He would not have dared tell the public that he did not want to hear their opinions because he had decided everything on his own. He knew that would not go down well. Why is the government so distrustful of the public that it does not want to hear from them? Apparently, it has to act this way because Donald Trump is a fool. Go figure. As children, we were told to go inside or the bogeyman would get us. It was a trick to keep us quiet. Today, the bogeyman wears orange makeup and has yellow hair, but it is the same thing. We are being told, “Hide and stay quiet or the bogeyman will get you”. By fearmongering about Donald Trump, the government is trying to make us accept things that we would never put up with otherwise. Donald Trump will not be around forever. Two months from now, he should already have less power. Two years from now, he will be gone. However, the setbacks and damage from Bill C‑39 will remain. The Liberal members who are bragging here today will likely have a hard time hiding their shame in two years. Democratic processes are not the only thing that Bill C‑39 throws out the window. It does not just sacrifice the fight against climate change in a complete betrayal of our children and grandchildren. It also attacks workers' rights. In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to strike is a fundamental right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that there must be a very good reason for infringing on a protected right. Protecting the life, health or safety of the public is a good reason. However, protecting the interests of large companies is not. That is essentially what the Supreme Court wrote in its ruling in the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour case. As a result, it is possible that this part of Bill C-39 may be unconstitutional. I cannot wait to hear the Liberals extol the virtues of using the notwithstanding clause to defend Bill C-39. It will be quite the sight, watching them twist themselves into knots. The Canada Labour Code is outdated. It allows for the use of replacement workers, a practice that has been abolished in Quebec for almost 50 years. That is why disputes at the federal level drag on. When that happens, the government ends the strike through special legislation or stops negotiations and imposes working conditions by invoking section 107 of the federal labour code, which amounts to the same thing, but without the democratic debate. We need to be aware of what this means. Since the negotiations never reach a conclusion, the disagreements are never resolved. They are swept under the rug, but the thorny issues remain. Invariably, they resurface as even bigger problems in the next round of bargaining, and the cycle begins all over again. The dispute becomes harder to resolve and eventually drags on indefinitely. The government ends the strike. The issues are put off until later, but nothing is ever actually resolved. Bill C-39 makes the situation even worse. It will make it easier to end strikes. It will ensure that disputes and disagreements are never resolved. It will only postpone them until later, when they will be even bigger. It will undermine bargaining and the work environment, because employers will know full well that it is better for them if things come to a standstill. Thanks to the bill, they will know in advance that the government will be there, ready to end the strike and impose working conditions that benefit employers, of course. What is great about democratic societies is that they allow for peaceful resolution of disagreements. That is what makes life in a democratic society better and easier. There are built-in conflict resolution mechanisms, places where people can go to and be heard, knowing that their voices count. Parties can negotiate in good faith in an environment where everyone's rights are respected. However, when consultations take place after the decision has been made, when an emperor's decree replaces social licence, when the interests of the powerful replace scientific facts and serious analyses, and when negotiations are rigged in favour of companies, the social contract starts to fall apart. When the only choice for people to be heard is to take to the streets, social peace is in jeopardy. Bill C-39 is a downward spiral and a democratic, environmental and social step backward. When the social contract starts to get ripped apart, who knows where we can end up. Gilles Vigneault put it best when he had his character Ti-Cul Lachance say these words to a corrupt politician:That's a lot of hot air you've been sowingBut it seems like you're obliviousTo the great whirlwind you'll end up reaping We in the Bloc Québécois are not oblivious and we will firmly oppose Bill C-39.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague the following question. What is the environment worth to his government? The impact assessments that used to be carried out by scientists are being taken away and handed over to the Canada Energy Regulator, which is an oil lobby. It will have the power to approve everything, and even if it does not approve a project, projects are authorized before they have even been assessed. That is why I want to know what the environment is worth to this government. What are workers' rights worth when the rules can be changed to make it easier to pass special legislation ending labour disputes and the right to use scabs stays intact? What are workers' rights worth? What is this government's goal? Is it to serve large foreign interests or to defend the public's interests? The public cares about the environment and workers' rights. That is precisely what Bill C‑39 is trampling on, and it is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, that already happened with Bill C-5. As soon as a project is designated as being in the national interest, a whole host of environmental protection laws no longer apply. In this case, rather than maintain the consultation process involving scientists, a gain achieved under the Liberals in 2015—I do not know where the hon. member was at the time—the government is now proposing to have the Canada Energy Regulator take care of that process. A quick look at the list of commissioners shows that they are all oil industry lobbyists. Even if the regulator were to oppose a project, it would be pre-approved anyway, so the regulator would no longer have any power. That is what the government is doing. It is trampling on the environment and workers' rights. I could take a highlighter to the 250 pages of the bill and show him every place where this bill clearly undermines workers' rights and the environment for the benefit of big international investors. Is that what standing up for the public means to this government? Does it mean favouring big international investors? I think the government should have tried to strike a balance.

Mr. Speaker, a Conservative government would never have gotten away with backtracking so much on the environment. There would have been an outcry from across society. Now people are afraid of our American neighbours, with good reason, so they are giving this Prime Minister carte blanche. For all his green promises, never has the environment suffered so many setbacks as it has under the current Prime Minister, including with Bill C-39. It is unprecedented. As the Bloc Québécois leader said, it takes decades to put measures in place to protect the environment and only five minutes to tear them down. That is what this government is doing.

Mr. Speaker, Amnesty International has launched a campaign to denounce the glaring underfunding of housing in indigenous communities. The organization focused on the situation in the Atikamekw community of Manawan. Isolated and dependent on federal funding, Manawan is facing a severe housing crisis. Housing is inadequate, often unsanitary, overcrowded and poorly maintained: conditions that violate the right to adequate housing. The consequences are serious: the spread of disease, lack of privacy, increased violence, poverty and homelessness. Despite the council's efforts, the lack of funding remains. Amnesty International and the community are calling for urgent action, and we are echoing their demands: invest heavily and sustainably, work in partnership with communities, adapt policies to guarantee dignified living conditions and put an end to discrimination. Chief Sipi Flamand took these requests directly to the Prime Minister. We are calling on the Prime Minister to act now.

Mr. Speaker, Amnesty International has denounced the inhumane housing crisis that the Atikamekw nation of Manawan is experiencing. In Manawan, as many as 23 people may be crammed into housing that is often unsanitary. These conditions contribute to the spread of respiratory illnesses. They hinder children's development, their academic success, and even their basic needs. They exacerbate domestic violence. In short, these are unacceptable living conditions that would never be tolerated anywhere else. Why does the government continue to allow the underfunding of indigenous housing to leave communities in these conditions?

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing an important bill. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the Barreau du Québec's response to this bill. The Barreau du Québec agrees with the principles, but it has some reservations. It describes the objectives of protecting against gender-based violence, improving evidentiary procedures and modernizing criminal law as commendable. However, the Barreau du Québec believes that incorporating them into a single piece of legislation creates regulatory complexity that could hinder their analysis, review and practical application. Could the member comment on that?

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely concerned about the number of femicides committed each year in Quebec and across Canada. There have already been 10 in Quebec this year. This bill will take a step toward reducing them, but I feel it is insufficient. What does my hon. colleague and friend think?

Mr. Speaker, we support Bill C-16, as does the Barreau du Québec. However, in a statement, it indicated that while it feels the bill's objectives are laudable, it believes that “incorporating them into a single piece of legislation creates regulatory complexity that will hinder the analysis, review and practical application of these provisions”. What are my hon. colleague's thoughts on that?

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague believe that the Liberals improperly broadened the scope of the provisions on bail conditions and other procedural safeguards that are applicable to intimate partner offences? This raises serious concerns in our view. The amendments I am referring to simply remove the violence criterion from the procedural safeguards for crimes committed between intimate partners, without replacing it with a targeted alternative criterion. What does my colleague think?

Mr. Speaker, the tariff crisis has just forced Matawinie's biggest employer to seek protection under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. The Saint-Michel sawmill and its 250 jobs need immediate, debt-free liquidity, otherwise it is all over. The Bloc Québécois warned the government that its support measures for the forestry sector would not be enough. Ottawa needs to buy back 50% of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties paid by our companies. This measure would cost the government nothing, but it could save businesses like the Saint-Michel sawmill. When will the government understand that urgent action is needed?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals announced on Thursday that they were eliminating the Canadian consumer protection initiative. That is a fund that supported research into things like the cost of living and competition. It would have gotten $7 million between 2025 and 2027. That is peanuts to a government that is handing out tens of billions of dollars to oil companies. However, losing that funding reduces our organizations' ability to work. When it comes to consumer protection, why is the minister standing up for big business instead of Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I hope that is the case, because eliminating the Canadian consumer protection initiative will have no impact on public finances. It is a drop in the bucket. Then again, eliminating it is quite a gift for large corporations that cut corners. The Liberals are preventing consumer protection agencies from investigating things like shrinkflation in grocery stores, contracts in the telecommunications and banking sectors, airline pricing practices, and the list goes on. They are literally helping large companies protect themselves from consumers who are well informed about their rights. How can the minister justify that?