Mr. Speaker, today I would like to come back to Bill C-5, a bill that has been described by Ecojustice, a recognized Canadian environmental law organization, as giving the Prime Minister sweeping powers not seen before in the history of modern Canadian environmental law. What is being presented today as a bill the Liberals claim Canadians are asking for goes much further than anything announced during the election campaign.

The government is literally overhauling the project approval system. It is overhauling the environmental assessment system. It is completely changing the laws it put in place to protect the environment and the health of Canadians. It is doing all this without any mandate. In fact, during the election campaign, the Liberals did not show Canadians any clear proposal to scrap 13 environmental laws whose scope goes far beyond the environment. That legislation includes the Indian Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994. It also includes seven regulations that the government is giving itself the right to completely ignore. It is giving itself the right to no longer have to obey laws that were democratically passed in the House.

Furthermore, how is this government currently operating? It is operating on a time allocation, at full speed. It is silencing parliamentarians to prevent us from even asking questions or hearing from witnesses. It is moving full speed ahead with a system that even Stephen Harper would have been embarrassed to introduce, a system that slavishly caves to the demands of the oil and gas sector to speed up approvals and remove barriers and environmental protections. That is what we are talking about here today.

We have a bill that has two parts. The Bloc Québécois was wise to ask that the two parts of this bill be split.

For the first part, on trade, we said that we would be able to reach a consensus, that some improvements are needed, but that it is reasonable. As the adults in the room, we figured that we would do our job as elected representatives. What Canadians expect from us is to take a close look at the bill, study it and ask questions properly, but that is not what is happening at all. We are not the only ones to notice this. First nations have spoken up and said that what is currently being presented is wrong. First nations have not been consulted. The government is rushing things through without any justification.

This is the beginning of a new term. There is currently no urgency. There are not even any projects on the table. No proponents have came forward with any projects.

The government is being utterly undemocratic. Despite what the government says, it is not true that the bill states that consensus will be required for these projects to move forward and for them to be recognized as projects of national interest. The Prime Minister said that there should certainly be consensus for the projects and no project would move forward if the provinces do not agree. In the bill, the word consensus is not mentioned once. Why did the Prime Minister not write very clearly that he would seek a consensus and ensure that the provinces and the first nations agree with the projects that will be identified as being in the national interest? He did not include that because he does not want that to happen. He intends to give himself superpowers that would allow him to impose pipeline projects despite the refusal of a province or a first nation. If the Prime Minister's intention is clear and it is to seek a consensus, then he needs to include that in his bill, but it is not there.

Then, it says that so-called projects of national interest will be selected by order. The government will decide by itself, as it sees fit, what projects will be of so-called national interest. There will be no mandatory criteria. The feds will decide on Quebec's behalf what the national projects will be, without any mandatory criteria. That is very clear.

Fighting climate change is one of the factors that may be considered, emphasis on “may”. In other words, the government may choose to disregard such factors completely, build oil pipelines, build gas pipelines, develop oil and gas expansion projects and forget about fighting climate change, as it has done since it came to power. That is what this bill will do.

People will say that the Bloc Québécois is fearmongering, but first nations have very clear concerns. That was the first nations national chief talking, after all. When I see that, I realize something is going on. The current member for Beaches—East York, a former Liberal cabinet minister, warned his colleagues about what he called economic growth at all costs during a debate on closure. He said that the government's response to Trump is leading it to sacrifice other important values. We are not the ones saying so; that was a Liberal member who is concerned that the government is moving forward without any justification by using undemocratic strategies such as closure.

As for the former environment minister and present Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, he refused today to say whether he supports the bill in its current form. Why? Because he wants amendments. The current minister refuses to say whether he supports the bill in its current form because amendments need to be made. What is the government doing? It is rushing through the consultation process, limiting the number of people who will be heard and limiting the number of questions. As a result, it is limiting opportunities to improve this bill. That is what democracy is for. Unfortunately, even within the government, I can see that there are concerns.

The member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country is a third current government member who has expressed reservations. In his opinion, Bill C‑5 gives the government extraordinary powers because of the trade war, but it is giving itself powers for five years, and that is too long. Why have those powers for five years if the free trade agreement will be settled in two? There is nothing in this bill that justifies what the government is doing.

We have witnessed bouts of anti-democratic behaviour before. The Duplessis era, for example, was no stranger to scandals involving agreements made behind closed doors. This bill is the antithesis of transparency and slams the door shut on public participation.

Proponents are going to submit their projects to the government in private, and the government is going to come to terms with them. No information will be made public. Decisions will be made and projects will be designated as being in the national interest. They will be pre-approved before environmental assessments are even done. That is unheard of. Pre-approvals will be handed out before projects are even assessed. How will we know whether these projects will impact communities if the communities have no say? In this country's history of environmental assessments, the government has never before proposed taking such a huge step backwards. Breaking one's own laws for no reason is not only a serious mistake, it is something that everyone here should oppose. It is definitely cause for concern.

What is apparent, however, is that people are are blinded by oil, gas and the fantasy of infinite growth without a second thought for future or even current generations. That is what we are witnessing.

Naturally, the Bloc Québécois will be presenting a series of amendments. We are constructive, and we hope that the government and the opposition will be reasonable and responsible. Right now, the government is using a bazooka. This bill actually looks a lot like the War Measures Act in terms of the powers the government is giving itself.

Patrick Bonin