Sébastien Lemire

In response to a question from Cheryl Gallant

“The government did not properly consult First Nations about the Chalk River nuclear project. The Supreme Court agreed with them. The member who spoke before me wrongly claimed that First Nations leaders can just be bought off, and the project consulted a group that is not even recognized as First Nations. We must respect real First Nations consent.”

“Mr. Speaker, I could not disagree more with what my colleague just said. Her riding also borders a small part of my riding, because the community of Kebaowek, which she mentions, is part of my riding, and its ancestral territory borders my colleague’s riding. Obviously, indigenous peoples do not share the same understanding of the borders of Quebec and Ontario, and this is particularly true among the Anishinabe, so when my colleague speaks of consultations involving first nations, no, those consultations did not take place, and that is why the Supreme Court ruled in their favour. What my colleague wants, of course, is to strip first nations of their power to enforce their own conditions. She made a rather fascinating claim that money could buy off the chief of the Kebaowek community. The community supposedly did not have enough money, but if it were given more money, well, obviously, it would sign. On what basis is my colleague so viscerally attacking the very integrity of people who are standing up to protect the planet? As for the consent of first nations, what happened with the Chalk River project was that Canadian Nuclear Laboratories approached the Algonquins of Ontario, who are “pretendians”, people who claim to be indigenous or Métis, who are not recognized by the House and who nevertheless speak on behalf of first nations and Anishinabe people. That is a fundamental mistake that I cannot support and will never support.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Respect 87 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “What my colleague wants, of course, is to strip first nations of their power”.

  See full analysis →

“This bill weakens protections for endangered animals and their habitats. Are you not worried this will put these species at even greater risk?”

“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39, and particularly division 6 on the Species at Risk Act, adds the concept of the feasibility of the terms and conditions in respect of permits for activities that affect habitat and species. The government is weakening the conditions imposed when an activity is authorized by the government, despite the fact that it will have a negative impact on a listed species and its habitat. Is the member not concerned that endangered species could end up further threatened?”

“I oppose this bill. It ignores environmental laws and leaves out local communities. The government gives money to nearby Liberal ridings while ignoring important projects and job losses in mine.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my riding neighbour for her eloquent speech. I would like to point out that a growing number of people in our region are saying that the Liberal government is not there for them and that a bill like Bill C-39 is not going to make them feel more included. I want to give an example. In my neighbour’s riding, in Kapuskasing, the department of innovation and industry awarded funding to the paper industry, the forestry industry. My riding got no funding, so 425 jobs were lost at RYAM last weekend. That is bad. The minister, like her colleague at natural resources, is aware of the situation, and yet the government refuses to take action. There is a project of national interest in a region close to both of us. It is the Crawford nickel project proposed by Canada Nickel Company in Timmins. The federal government has recognized it. Funding has been provided for it. However, a project by Dumont Nickel in northern Abitibi, in my riding, is still waiting for recognition from the federal government. Another example is a cobalt processing plant in the Cobalt area. The municipality is clearly appropriately named. The Horne smelter in Rouyn-Noranda is still awaiting investment to the tune of $149 million. That is peanuts for the federal government, which, as we all know, is running a massive deficit. This money is needed to invest in gas capture and modernizing the plant. It would be a game-changer for air quality issues in Rouyn-Noranda. Where is the federal government, and why does it want to pass laws that will stifle community engagement and override environmental legislation?”

“I oppose this bill. It will let the government set up councils that do not truly speak for First Nations. This will bypass real Indigenous consultation to push projects through, like the nuclear waste site at Chalk River.”

“Madam Speaker, I was listening to my colleague’s speech, but at one point I lost focus. I wonder whether he really believes what he is saying, particularly when he mentioned that the government is going to set up an indigenous council to tell us whether the first nations deem projects to be socially acceptable. That was not the spirit of the archaic Indian Act. We do not like the name, but it did grant the right to consult with first nations. What happened with the nuclear waste storage project at Chalk River? That is an example of a recent project that has been put on hold after being challenged in the Supreme Court by first nations, including the Kebaowek First Nation in my region. They argued that they were not consulted and that the project threatened species at risk. What happened to that project? When it was built, first nations had to be consulted. The Algonquins of Ontario were consulted, but that association is not even recognized by first nations themselves. The Algonquins or Anishinabe do not recognize this association. It is associated with “pretendians”, people who identify as indigenous because they are of mixed heritage. There are no formally recognized Métis. Furthermore, Bill C-53 was dropped by the House. Is that the sort of indigenous organization that will be given the power to override first nations’ right to be consulted? This sets a dangerous precedent, and if it means that projects like the one at Chalk River get approved, I am out.”

“Federal and provincial rules overlap and delay new mines for years. A government minister said Quebec's environmental laws should take priority over federal laws. Does the member agree with that, or is the government ignoring provincial laws and Indigenous rights?”

“Madam Speaker, this summer, the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement said that Quebec’s legislation should take precedence over federal legislation where duplication exists. In projects of national interest, such as mines, especially in my region, this can prevent any duplication. The federal government asks for a thing, the proponent adjusts and, in the end, Quebec asks for something else that is consistent with environmental concepts but that is not the same. That is why it takes 15, 10 or seven years to build a mine, and that is a little too long. With that in mind, does my colleague agree with her colleague that Quebec’s laws should take precedence and be the only environmental law applicable? Alternatively, is the government essentially implementing what Bill C-39 contains, without the least consideration for provincial laws, environmental acceptability or the rights of first nations to be heard and to have their ancestral rights respected? What is happening now? Can the government respect the will of local communities?”

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“I oppose this bill. It lets federal projects ignore Quebec's environmental laws and skips consulting First Nations. The government is doing this to build nuclear power and store nuclear waste near the drinking water for most people in Quebec.”

“Madam Speaker, my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche should know that I will keep going a bit too far until our voices are heard outside the House because Quebeckers’ fundamental rights, the right to live in a healthy environment, are on the line. It seems that a project of national interest is grounds for violating laws of interest to Quebec, the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement et les lois environnementales, and social acceptability laws. I will give an example. I campaigned alongside the Kebaowek community to protect their ancestral lands, because they had a right to be consulted. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission had failed to do so. I am very proud to have been able to help secure the passage of an amendment and to have helped bring about change in this regard, and I thank the Conservatives for agreeing to remove the Indian Act from Bill C-5. However, the Liberals came back with Bill C-15, and Bill C-39. Now, they no longer see any point in consulting first nations. They are disregarding that and they do not care. That sets a dangerous precedent. All of this is to introduce nuclear power and store its waste near drinking water sources, near 80% of Quebec’s population. If that is the case, then yes, I will keep going a bit too far.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 34 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Jean-Denis Garon

“The government is rushing big projects like high-speed rail without listening to local communities. This bill will cut through farmland and split towns apart, just like what happened in Mirabel. We do not even know what these projects will cost.”

“Madam Speaker, allow me to express my sincere thoughts for the people of Mirabel, whom I met last week. There was a public meeting attended by my hon. colleague, the member for Mirabel. At that meeting, there were people who were concerned. They were concerned about a government that wants to rush through projects of national interest, such as a high-speed rail line, like the Alto project, for which there is no social acceptability, but which the government intends to impose through legislation that would sacrifice farmland by cutting it in half and split communities in two. The people of Mirabel know the drill, and what happened has, quite simply, destroyed a once great community spirit. The scars are still fresh. We need to talk to the people of Mirabel. However, the situation that Mirabel experienced will repeat itself in Berthier—Maskinongé and in Rigaud, where we were just two weeks ago to hear the concerns of all stakeholders. Members will recall that no realistic cost estimate is available at this time for these projects. Is that what the national interest is all about, recklessly throwing our money out the window? I am very concerned.”

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“I oppose this bill. It gives too much power to the Prime Minister and his allies. It also hurts Quebec by supporting oil, gas, and nuclear energy instead of our clean hydroelectricity.”

“Madam Speaker, do not worry, I stand by what I said. I am very worried when I see Bill C‑39. It came after Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑15. It is now Bill C‑39’s turn. What is left of our democracy? I am very concerned. At the end of the day, who is the Privy Council? They are probably buddies of the Prime Minister or his privy councillors. Take Michael Sabia, for example. Michael Sabia knows all the secrets of Hydro-Québec and the Caisse de dépôt. He is now working for Canadian interests. What about Quebec’s interests? I am very concerned about this agreement and the impact it could have. Honestly, I am very wary of that, because Quebec’s national interest has been based on its hydroelectricity for decades. We have the cleanest energy in the world. It is a source of great pride, but it could be threatened because Canada is developing oil, gas and nuclear energy. That is one of my main concerns.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 44 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I oppose this bill. It lets the government bypass laws to rush project approvals, which hurts the environment and weakens workers' rights. We should follow proper rules and consult communities, not hand special powers to foreign ships or government friends.”

“Madam Speaker, with this bill, this government is once again trying to expedite projects by circumventing many laws passed by the House of Commons. I think that is the wrong approach. First, let us be clear on the principle: All of my colleagues who are here would like projects to move forward more quickly. We all agree with the one project, one assessment principle, but that assessment must be done right. It must respect the will of the provinces and Quebec, particularly when it comes to the environment. We must also not forget the principle of social licence. That is what makes the difference between a successful project and one that will face a lot of opposition. I come from a mining region. For over 100 years, we have seen mining in Abitibi—Témiscamingue change and evolve. At one time, the environmental laws were not what they are today. That is why there are over 90 abandoned mines in my region. In Quebec, there are over 335 abandoned mines, and it will cost over $1.35 billion to clean them up. That is just one example among many that shows the importance of complying with strict environmental laws. If we do not, then we will just be creating new problems that will cost even more money a few years down the road. The first nations are saying that we need to plan projects with the next seven generations in mind. We will have to deal with the environmental impacts eventually, even if we do not want to think about them today. Another example of a project that went ahead too quickly is the Malartic mine. This project, which now has some degree of social licence after more than 20 years of existence, did not get off to a very good start in the early 2000s. This mine, the largest open-pit mine in Canada, displaced homes before the mining company even had a permit to operate. What would have happened if the operating permit had been refused? This is exactly the kind of issue that could arise today as a result of Bill C-39, because the government can approve a project before its environmental assessment has been completed. It is for that very reason that we must hold consultations and comply with the law. People are counting on us to do a job: to protect our environment, our living environments and our quality of life. Basically, the key question is this: What is the national interest? If I ask the government that question, I will get an answer that focuses on economic development and the development of energy projects, mainly involving oil and gas. If I ask my Conservative opposition colleagues the same question, I will likely get the same answer. Meanwhile, an environmentalist party could decide that the fight against climate change is in the national interest and use Bill C-39 to force the closure of a pipeline for the sake of national interest. In short, the national interest is a variable and, from what the Prime Minister is proposing here, it seems to boil down to oil, gas and nuclear interests, which are at the heart of his policy and his personal economic interests related to Brookfield. The government is forgetting that our planet is in bad shape and that what it is proposing here is just going to lead us further down that path. That is dangerous. This government is using the tariff crisis with the United States as an excuse to push projects through more quickly at the discretion of the Privy Council, and that creates a major problem for democracy. The Liberals pride themselves on being the defenders of the charter. They oppose Quebec’s laws because Quebec is using the notwithstanding clause to sidestep certain legal challenges. However, these same Liberals are now in the process of voting for a notwithstanding clause for all laws passed by the House of Commons. In fact, with Bill C‑39, the government will have the power to override, circumvent or suspend the laws passed right here. What the Liberals are doing is exactly what they are speaking out against and challenging at the Supreme Court. That is without taking into account the fact that this government is creating two different systems. One system for those who are chosen by the government, which will override various laws because these people have the right connections—a buddy is a buddy, as they say—and a system for everyone else, who will have to comply with all the laws. Depending on its mining regime, a mine in Abitibi-Témiscamingue will end up with a regime that could damage its social acceptability among the public and turn even more people against it, if it is recognized to be in the national interests. On the other hand, it is important to complete the proper steps, engage in consultations and ensure that public concerns are addressed, despite the paperwork involved. That, however, is what should be encouraged. Returning to Malartic, the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue has worked with the mining industry and the public to improve the coexistence guide. Thanks to that experience and work done by researchers, best practices in consulting and in working with communities were developed in Abitibi-Témiscamingue and are now proving their worth. Mine development is much more orderly and socially acceptable. I would like to point out that, if laws unsuited to modern realities are the problem, a much more acceptable solution exists: improve the laws. All parliamentarians are going to work on changing and improving these laws. Circumventing them is not the way to move things forward. However, personally, as the transportation, infrastructure and communities critic, I would say that there are some positive aspects. Sometimes we have to be constructive. Digital trade modernization is one example, since some documents are still required on paper. Canada drew on a model law on electronic transferrable records in drafting Bill C‑39. This will facilitate international trade while bringing us into the 21st century. Today, I met with the St. Lawrence Shipowners. They emphasized that Quebec is at the forefront of marine transportation development. The industry requires significant investment, which should be seen as a catalyst for development. Quebec has a strategy to develop its marine industry, and a sense of coherence and a vision have emerged around the St. Lawrence River as a result. The marine aspects raised in the bill are interesting. We must acknowledge that there is a certain vision. However, unlike Quebec, Canada is still taking a piecemeal approach. This is yet another example of how Canada could draw inspiration from Quebec. It is possible for the federal government to provide better funding for Quebec’s strategy and to add funds to ensure that not only the major ports, but also our medium-sized ports and regional ports can develop, renovate their infrastructure and continue to meet the needs of the various stakeholders working on the river. As we know, many of them are at the end of their service life. However, amending the Coasting Trade Act is a problem with this bill. It is thanks to this act that Quebec has high-quality local marine transportation. We need only look at Australia, where local transportation is virtually non-existent because of the lack of a coasting trade act. Instead of ensuring that Transport Canada addresses its urgent needs with shipowners, it is recommending that foreign-flagged vessels be given access to the river. Furthermore, the notion of an emergency situation, a matter of utmost importance, like the concept of national interest, is left undefined, potentially opening the door to interpretations that favour foreign ships over our domestic carriers. Let us have the courage to support our local marine industry, instead of opening the door to foreign players. Is that not precisely why the Liberals keep telling us we need to support local businesses? I would be remiss if I did not talk about another key issue in this bill, specifically the attack on workers. The balance of power is under direct attack because Bill C‑39 allows employers to sit back and do nothing while waiting for the government to act, or rather for the Canada Industrial Relations Board, which is not accountable to the House of Commons for its decisions, to act. This could be called a denial of democracy, not to mention that the new criteria relating to the national interest, such as severe social disruption, are designed to encourage a return to work. A strike is a social disruption. It is workers making their voices heard. They are people just like us who are simply asking for better pay and better working conditions. In the last labour dispute in which the government intervened, the employer wasted time negotiating at every opportunity while waiting for the government to force workers back to work, all without special legislation. Once again, this is a roundabout way for the government to bypass parliamentarians. This bill is an attack on workers. We see the government giving itself an override provision to avoid labour disputes and to circumvent, override, or suspend laws. There is a lot of talk about the U.S. President signing executive orders, but this administration is following the same path. To get around a law, all it will take is a big black Sharpie and a signature. That, in my view, is what Bill C-39 is all about. That is what this government is proposing: to use underhanded tactics to push through more oil and gas projects, more nuclear projects, including a nuclear waste site located less than one kilometre from the Ottawa River, 200 kilometres from here. All of this is to maintain the way our resources are exploited. In fact, Canada currently chooses to sell its natural resources to the highest bidder without maximizing the significant returns. We are—”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Respect 98 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “his personal economic interests related to Brookfield”.

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “Particularly when it comes to the environment.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since April 30.

  Every time it was said →

“I oppose this bill. There is no real emergency to rush it through. It lets the government ignore local communities, the environment, Indigenous rights, and workers whenever it labels a project as a national interest.”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by the member for Edmonton Centre, and I have serious doubts about the notion of people power, particularly when looking at her title. She is the Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada, fair enough, but she is also the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience. We can all agree there is no real emergency here though, because Donald Trump’s presidency is likely to have been long over before a single drop flows from the new pipeline. As for the “community resilience” part, that really fascinates me. It is like an honoris causa for someone honourable. I do not understand the point of it, especially if the aim of the bill is to steamroll these communities, whether in terms of environmental rights, indigenous peoples’ rights, workers’ rights or the people’s right to be consulted. If a region is declared to be of national interest, the authorities can steamroll anything they want. What, then, is the point of a Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience?”

“This bill takes away workers' rights and gives employers too much power. It also shows that the government is hiding things from the public. I want the member to say if she will vote against this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Milton East—Halton Hills South for her comments. She mentioned her concern about workers in particular. Bill C-39 creates a situation that is really a form of abuse that will take away workers’ rights. It will skew negotiations in the employer’s favour. In my view, this poses a huge risk because it could cause workers to lose the gains they have achieved over the past few decades. I will draw a parallel. Right now, the member should be at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, where a debate is taking place on the Cúram software. Mr. Ostrander is there testifying about problems caused by a computer program. Here is the connection I am making. In both cases, there has been a lack of transparency, and the government has not fulfilled its obligation to be accountable to the public. Is the member concerned about this lack of transparency? Is she really going to vote in favour of this bill?”

“This bill gives the government more power to approve projects without consulting people. It harms Indigenous rights and environmental protections. Does this bill risk an authoritarian abuse of power?”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and for her staunch defence of indigenous rights. She has done so eloquently once again. As an aside, I would like to thank Idriss, the good Samaritan who came to my rescue when I got a flat tire in La Vérendrye Park. Without his help, I would not be here today. I would also like to thank the Carquest garage in Gracefield that fixed my tire. It is thanks to their help that I am able to be here today. That said, I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on the potential for authoritarian abuse of power with Bill C-39. This expression was thrown around rather freely during the election campaign, as I am sure the member will agree. At times, during the election campaign, close ties to certain individuals, their spouses or their relatives led organizations like Amnistie internationale Canada francophone to raise concerns about it based on their assumptions. However, in this case, we have an actual example. After Bill C-5, Bill C-15 and now Bill C-39, the government wants to give itself powers with no consultations required. This affects first nations, environmental laws and social licence in particular. Is there a risk of authoritarian abuse of power here?”

“We need this bill because past governments failed to follow through on treaties with First Nations. I want to know if the government will actually listen to this new commissioner. How will my colleague make sure ministers follow the commissioner's recommendations?”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint‑Boniface—Saint-Vital for her speech. Having served with her on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, I find her presence reassuring. She is all about conciliation and listening, which are so important in the relationship with first nations. However, the reason this bill exists today is that, for decades, governments failed to carry out the follow-up required by modern treaties and expected by the first nations who signed agreements with the government. That is how we have gotten to this point decades later. I want to commend the Land Claims Agreement Coalition for its leadership. It championed these claims and helped to co-develop this bill. Ultimately, this bill exists is because the follow-up measures were not carried out. As a member of the government, will my colleague ensure that action is taken on the recommendations that the commissioner will submit? How can we ensure that the government and the ministers responsible will take the data and recommendations set out in these reports seriously, as it does the recommendations of the Auditor General or the Parliamentary Budget Officer? What responsibility does she intend to take internally to ensure that the government complies with these recommendations?”

“I support this bill. The government has failed for decades to keep its promises in modern treaties with Indigenous peoples. This bill creates a commissioner to watch over the government and warn us about problems. I want the member for Winnipeg North to admit the government failed to keep its word.”

“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you again, and the member for Winnipeg North as well. Bill C‑10 is important to me. In my capacity as critic for indigenous relations, I met with people from the Land Claims Agreements Coalition. I remember meeting Jim Aldridge, who has unfortunately passed away, and seeing how much he contributed for the groups. In committee, I interviewed Chief John Jack, who also appreciates this heritage. It is important to remember that this bill was co-developed, which means that we, as parliamentarians, must also be sensitive to the outcomes of this bill. Why are we here? We are here because the government has failed, year after year, decade after decade, to uphold its commitments to indigenous signatories to modern treaties and ensure the implementation of those modern treaties. Of course, program funding is an important issue. The Auditor General has produced many reports and follow-up reports on the government’s inaction. What will creating a commissioner position achieve? It will allow us, as parliamentarians, to take note of any red flags, so we know what to ask questions about. Personally, I see that as a good thing. Does the member for Winnipeg North see it as a sign of the government’s failure to keep its word to indigenous signatories to modern treaties?”

“I want the House to pass this bill quickly. It creates an office that holds the government accountable on modern treaties. It does not cost much, and it will help the government work better and save money.”

“Madam Speaker, there is something important to bear in mind about the current situation. In the course of our work as parliamentarians, I was tasked, as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, with creating an advisory committee, a body that tells us what questions to ask, where to look and where the government is going wrong. That is very useful. Let us look at what the bill proposes. We need to keep in mind that the bill was a collaborative effort that included the Land Claims Agreements Coalition. The process was a long-term undertaking. The funds to be invested in it are modest compared to the savings it could generate, especially in terms of government efficiency. As parliamentarians, we could use this office to get some accountability. Is accountability important to the member? If so, why not support passing the bill quickly?”