Luc Thériault

Madam Speaker, I have been a member of the House of Commons for some time now, and I have to say that, at times, I get the impression that my Conservative colleagues are lobbying for the oil industry. At the same time, they frequently condemn waste. Like me, they also stand up for people who are struggling. However, they never denounce the humongous subsidies to the oil industry, which rakes in eye-watering profits every year. They would like us to throw even more money at this industry, even though 66% of the oil companies in western Canada are American and we are in a tariff dispute. The Bloc Québécois proposed something at one point. Every tax expert and finance minister I have spoken to in my life told me that the best thing to do was not to lower the price at the pump. The best thing for the government to do in the event of an increase or inflation was to hold on to that money and redistribute it in a targeted way to the sectors that actually need that oil and diesel to be able to continue production in the supply chain, for example. Why does my colleague not support this type of measure when we know full well that there has been a drop in the price at the pump recently? Can he tell me whether this trickled down to taxpayers?

Mr. Speaker, democracy is a daily challenge involving a delicate balance between the executive and legislative branches. However, Bill C-5 and especially Bill C-39 represent a step backwards not only for the environment and workers' rights, but also for democracy. The tariff war is being exploited to quietly push through permanent rollbacks that will have no effect for the remainder of Donald Trump's term of office. The cornerstone of democracy is the legislative branch, namely, the people's representatives, and we are part of that branch. Is the member aware that, despite his good intentions, there are sometimes changes in government and that we are setting a historical precedent by granting extraordinary powers to the executive branch?

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary democracy is a daily challenge. It involves a delicate balance between the executive and legislative branches. Bill C-39 is a step backwards for democracy. It further centralizes power in favour of the executive branch by reducing the role we play here in Parliament. The Prime Minister is exploiting the tariff crisis to impose permanent rollbacks that will have no impact during Donald Trump's presidency. Does the member not think that Bill C‑39 sets a dangerous precedent?

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 contained a discretionary provision that gave the minister absolute authority to identify and make decisions about projects of national interest. Bill C-39 renders that discretionary authority permanent, thereby setting a dangerous precedent modelled after the Trump administration's contempt for officials elected by the people. Someday, when the member is sitting on this side of the House, with the opposition, will she will feel the same enthusiasm at the prospect of having the government use a procedure that gives the executive branch absolute authority over the legislative, the bedrock of parliamentary democracy?

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 contained a discretionary provision that gave the minister absolute power to determine which projects are of national interest. Bill C-39 gives even more power to the executive branch by diminishing Parliament's role. That is a subversion of parliamentary democracy. The Liberals are exploiting the tariff crisis to impose permanent rollbacks that will have no effect during what is left of Donald Trump's term in office. The member is very enthusiastic about this dangerous precedent, but will he be just as enthusiastic and happy about this bill when he winds up on this side of the House facing a new government and that government starts trampling on democracy and our legislative power?