Martin Champoux

Mr. Speaker, Quebec has been in the midst of an election campaign these past few weeks. I spent a lot of time on the campaign trail with candidates for the Parti Québécois, the party I support, and people talked to me about federal politics and about the current Prime Minister. I asked everyone who spoke to me about what the Prime Minister has actually done since taking office to make their lives easier and improve their purchasing power. No one was able to give me an answer. No one was able to tell me how their lives have improved since this Prime Minister took office. What is more, here in Parliament, the Liberals are passing bills that undermine the work of Parliament and its relevance. Bill C-39 is a good example of that. It makes it even easier for the government to implement its major projects, and it erodes workers' rights. I will cut my question short because I am short on time. Does my colleague not think that this government is going way too far and that it should go back to showing some respect for parliamentary procedure?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Orléans, whom I hold in high regard. She and I have had the opportunity to work together on various files, including the French language file, and I appreciate her co-operation. She talked about major projects that built the country, particularly the railway. She mentioned various major projects and spoke about the vision that we must have when we want to build a great country. I completely agree with her. However, I would like to add a bit of history. Going back to the construction of the trans-Canada railway, it is important to remember that the workers were forced to endure absolutely appalling conditions. That would never fly today. It is also important to remember the development of airports like the one in Mirabel, which is making the news again because of the high-speed rail project. I will tie that in as well, because the community of Mirabel is still deeply scarred and extremely traumatized by the brutal expropriations in 1969-70. Now, the government is about to do the same thing with a high-speed rail project. We learned from news reports that Alto has signed confidentiality agreements that prevent farmers from hiring appraisal companies because they are now all tied to that project. Is that what my colleague thinks it means to go—

Mr. Speaker, I see that you are showing our colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord a great deal of generosity and understanding as he delivers his first speech, but I am sure you will have the opportunity to remind him of our customs here. I want to congratulate him on his first official speech in the House. I too would like to welcome him and congratulate him on his victory in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord in the by-election last August. I would very much like him to commit to speaking with his constituents and the workers in his riding who do not see the danger that exists in Bill C‑39 in terms of workers' rights and the right to strike, among other things. The right to strike is under threat, because the government could step in and put an end to any strike action thought to be a little too disruptive. There are many aspects of this legislation that represent a step backwards in terms of workers' rights. The Canadian Labour Congress has brought this to our attention on several occasions. I would like the new member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord to commit to telling his constituents the truth and sharing these facts with them, to see what they really think.

Madam Speaker, since this is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak to you today, I would like to take the opportunity to say hello and welcome you back to Parliament. Listening to the speech by my colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, I realize how far apart the Conservatives and the Bloc are on these issues. I thought that Bill C‑39 went beyond everything the Conservatives have wanted for years, but no, it seems that it still falls short, that it still does not go far enough. According to Bill C‑39, assessments will be more flexible, particularly for oil and gas projects, which will no longer be subject to the Impact Assessment Act. It seems to me that the Conservatives should be patting themselves on the back and celebrating, but what I have been hearing all day is the complete opposite. In our opinion, the bill goes so far as to be outrageous. In my colleague's opinion, what is missing from the bill that would make it acceptable to the Conservatives?