Christine Normandin

C‑39 West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country Mr. Speaker, finally a Liberal has realized that Billis a big mistake. The member forcriticized the fact that Bill C‑39 grants the power to build pipelines while violating environmental laws. He spoke out against the fact that Bill C‑39 would limit the duration of consultations, which could be detrimental and could silence indigenous voices, [more]

West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country C-39 Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member foris right. Billis the biggest environmental setback in recent history, but that is not all. Bill C‑39 seeks to circumvent checks and balances for the benefit of American oil companies. Bill C‑39 seeks to limit workers' rights. Prime Minister Most Liberals ran for office precisely to fight this kind of [more]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will be brief, because I can already guess what your answer to my question will be. Mr. Speaker, you have previously stated that you can determine whether a question in the House is relevant, but you cannot do the same with the answer. Barrie South—Innisfil In response to a question from the member fortoday, the government responded by sharing the [more]

C-39 Prime Minister Mr. Speaker, Billis part of a pattern of serious abuse of authority by the. He is giving himself the power to suspend whatever laws he wants. He is giving himself the power to approve projects without consulting any experts, provinces or indigenous peoples. In addition to Bill C‑39, the Prime Minister is creating more and more new agencies to do his bidding in order to [more]

Prime Minister C‑39 Mr. Speaker, yesterday, thedefended Billon the grounds that it does not repeal any laws. This is true. The problem is that it allows developers to circumvent laws when they have the Prime Minister's backing, as in the case of Pacific link. The laws still exist. They simply do not apply to projects selected by the Prime Minister, whose proponents can bypass impact assessments, [more]

Mr. Speaker, I think I know what kind of answer I am going to get, but I would still like the member to share her thoughts on the impartiality of the people who will be assessing certain projects, particularly pipeline projects. We know that it will now be the Canada Energy Regulator and not the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada that will be responsible for conducting those assessments. However, [more]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that she did not have enough time to discuss the bill in its entirety. One might also wonder whether a year is enough time for scientists to properly assess the impact of any projects that might be launched, especially given that this one year allows for 300 days for assessment and reporting, and then 65 days for the minister to make a decision. That does not [more]

Mr. Speaker, I do not claim to be able to write a 249-page bill on my own, but I am willing to acknowledge that there are some good points in the bill. For example, the unions have acknowledged that there are certain positive measures, such as bargaining unit protection when contractors are replaced. There are some small positive aspects to the bill, but overall, it is a tough pill to swallow. [more]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the government is scrapping things that took years to build and that are based on values that are dear to Canadian society and to the Quebec nation: protecting the environment and protecting workers' rights. The government is undermining all that in the name of a trade crisis that is not expected to last, and it is making these measures permanent. Years of [more]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. In fact, it is something that the President of the United States has been criticized for: governing by executive order by giving himself powers that would otherwise have been counterbalanced by lawmakers. That is exactly what the government is doing with this bill. To protect ourselves from Donald Trump, we are turning into Donald Trump. That is a [more]

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, the Prime Minister announced that his new western pipeline will be a project of national interest. His concept of the “national interest” is pretty odd. He thinks that the national interest means getting taxpayers to pay for a pipeline that will cost at least $40 billion, without any impact assessments and without complying with environmental laws. That is $40 billion, [more]

C-39 Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that Billis the perfect example of a saying that often comes up in politics: Never let a good crisis go to waste. That is certainly the impression I am getting from the government side. The Liberals are using the President of the United States, Donald Trump, as a scare tactic—even though he is scary enough on his own—to justify permanent changes [more]

C-39 Mr. Speaker, one of the changes in Billis that decision-making power is being centralized in the hands of far fewer people than it was previously. For example, in some cases, a single minister may be responsible for approving a project. In other cases, it is the Governor in Council that decides. However, in the majority of cases, the expertise of several agencies is being completely [more]

Mr. Speaker, making Quebeckers pay for a pipeline is not in the national interest. Things that we do believe are in Canada's national interest are things like tackling climate change, protecting our culture from the web giants and supporting our forestry industry and our processors in the face of the tariffs. We also believe that it is not up to the Prime Minister alone to define what is in the [more]

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, October 1, 2026, representatives of the Government of Canada held a technical briefing for the media, under embargo, to provide an update on the west coast oil pipeline, now known as “Pacific Link”. Despite our request, no technical briefings were offered to members. According to multiple Speakers' rulings, when embargoed technical briefings on bills introduced in the [more]