Sébastien Lemire
Abitibi—Témiscamingue, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the member from downtown Toronto gave a speech on the challenge of access to housing and housing construction, because I get the impression that, for the last 30 years, the federal government has been doing nothing but building housing in downtown Toronto.”
“Mr. Speaker, five years ago, I rose in the House to note that my son, Léon, was finishing elementary school. Naturally, five years later, it is time for his high school graduation ceremony, which he will be attending on Saturday.”
“That is, of course, provided that it does not take two years to sign the agreements, meaning that inflation eats up the lion's share of the funds allocated to Quebec. The Canada housing infrastructure fund agreement was finally signed after two years.”
“As a result, it has to ask CMHC—or perhaps I should say “the agency formerly known as CMHC”—to do what it used to do: review applications. Who suffers as a result? The projects and the organizations themselves. For my region, the upshot of this is that we will often miss the construction season.”
“It is rather ironic that the Auditor General of Canada issued a report on child care services. As members know, this policy resulted in an unconditional transfer being made to Quebec. That is because, in 1997, Quebec had already created the network of early childhood centres to provide affordable child care for everyone.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wish I were wrong, but the record of the last 10 years in this Parliament shows that I am not wrong and that funding does not reach Quebec, or if it does, it is only after several years' delay. Obviously, this means there is less money in current dollars available for the construction of these homes.”
The complete record
Every one of 447 lines we hold for Sébastien Lemire, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 9.
“Mr. Speaker, it is rare that we get to ask a follow-up question. I want to keep talking about Bill C-5 , because it could have an impact on the greenhouse gas emissions cap. In that regard, indigenous people are stewards of the land, and we thank them for that. Let us talk about the process. The Indian Act has been excluded from the laws that the committee, the group of close friends of the Privy Council, can decide whether or not to consider. With that in mind, does the member for Winnipeg North commend the work of the Bloc Québécois, which was able to remove the Indian Act from schedule 2 with the support of the Assembly of First Nations and the Conservatives? Was that the right thing to do? Should that have been included in this bill, or would that have led to very serious repercussions?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his speech, in which he boasted about Canada's investments in liquefied natural gas in Canada. He has also sung the praises of major projects of national interest and defended Bill C-5 , going so far as to claim that it was drafted in collaboration with stakeholders from indigenous communities. Nearly all these communities, however, say that they were not consulted. He should have been in his riding in Winnipeg. I was there myself this summer, or near there, to attend the Assembly of First Nations' annual general assembly, where I heard them complain that they were not consulted on Bill C‑5. Last week, the Canadian Climate Institute told us that Canada was not going to meet its 2030 greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Is this government proud of that, or is it ashamed?”
“Mr. Speaker, my question for the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is pretty simple: Do the Conservatives have no shame? The same week that the Canadian Climate Institute tells us that we will not be reaching our greenhouse gas emissions targets for 2030, the Conservatives bring up a matter that will produce even more greenhouse gas emissions. Personally, I cannot help but draw a parallel to what happened in the spring. Is this the new Conservative leadership, and is this the message they got when Canadians left them on the opposition benches after they supported a gag order on Bill C‑5 ? What is the role of His Majesty's loyal opposition if they support gag orders against the environment, supported Bill C-5 and are now moving a new motion that would allow Canada to recklessly produce even more greenhouse gas emissions?”
“In closing, I condemn the Future of Sport in Canada Commission for recommending that the provincial and territorial sports associations be merged with the national federations. That is yet another example of Canada's desire to interfere in the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec. The Bloc Québécois will fight this—”
“Mr. Speaker, our U19 team showed off all its skills at the three-versus-three World Ball Hockey Championship final in Slovakia. Team Quebec won in the final with a score of 9–7. Can anyone guess who they beat? It was team Canada. The work of the Fondation Équipe-Québec and its president, Stefan Allinger-Cormier, is making a huge difference in young Quebeckers' lives by giving them the opportunity to represent the Quebec nation. Like Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Greenland, Quebec should have the right to wear its own colours at international sports competitions, especially since we are often discriminated against and our athletes are not given a place on the Canadian teams.”
“Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that this member should lecture us on the tone and volume of speech in the House. That said, it is evidently the tone and volume to be expected in the coming year. In practical terms, I believe that one question remains, a question that was raised by the member for Winnipeg North: What will be studied in committee? I need to understand the loophole because I cannot imagine that the government would not conduct any background checks. If so, then we would definitely have to clarify the legislation to make these checks mandatory. That said, mounting a fearmongering campaign by saying that it will allow in people who are going to threaten our security is a dubious conflation. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the amendments that the Conservatives are going to propose in committee.”
“We all know the Bloc Québécois will have the balance of power in committee, so we certainly need a good understanding of their amendment if we are to fix the bill they claim is so catastrophic.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from York Centre for his heartfelt remarks and for sharing his story. I appreciated hearing him talk about how proud he felt during his immigration process, but I was surprised that he expressed concern about people from other countries coming to Canada on a path similar to his own. As a lawmaker, I want to understand what the Conservatives are opposed to and, more importantly, how they want to close the loophole that could lead to so many problems. They have been talking about citizenship in perpetuity and the substantial connection test. I am trying to understand. What amendment will the Conservatives suggest to the committee to close this loophole?”
“Essentially the bill covers individuals whose past we already known and have vetted. Should I still be worried? I would like my colleague to answer that question.”
“Madam Speaker, I am listening to the Conservatives and wondering if I did the right thing in coming to Ottawa today. Will I make it home safe at the end of the week? Luckily, Bill C‑3 has not passed yet. I would like to ask my colleague how many potential terrorists are there among the Canadian women who married non-Canadians before 1947 or among the people born between February 15, 1977 and April 16, 1981 and who, at the age of 28, forgot to reapply for Canadian citizenship. What is my colleague afraid of? What is this major loophole that is being created and that I cannot see that will apparently serve as a gateway for terrorists who were children born abroad, adopted by a now-deceased parent and excluded from obtaining their citizenship? Those people already followed the process so Canada could ensure it was okay to let them in.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Niagara South for his speech. I think it is appropriate to send him my regards for the first time in this Parliament. I would like to know more about the Conservatives' position. This morning, it felt as though Niagara Falls was such a sieve that it was about to become the new Roxham Road. However, that is not what I take from this bill. I would like my colleague to clearly explain to me what the loophole is that, if I understood his previous colleague's intervention correctly, would open Canada's borders to hundreds of thousands of people for citizenship in perpetuity. What exactly are the Conservatives afraid of and, more importantly, what concrete, pragmatic and simple solutions will they propose in committee to fix this loophole?”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her debate and her tone. I would like her to expand on her question. What amendments will the Conservatives move in committee to improve the bill? Above all, when she talks about a loophole that the bill might create for some immigrants, what loophole is she referring to, exactly? I would like to better understand my colleague, and I think it is a matter of general interest.”
“Madam Speaker, I feel like the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, whom I thank, is attacking me in a power play with his questions this morning. I will answer, considering that our time is limited. Quebec has done more than its share when it comes to taking in refugees. A fair balance is missing on that score. I encourage Ottawa to set things straight and ensure that each province can do its fair share and take in the same number of refugees. I think that drawing a link between immigration and the unemployment rate is a slippery slope. I urge my Conservative colleagues to be careful in that regard.”
“We need to think about them. That being said, language is definitely something I care a lot about. People need to be able to communicate if they are going to live together.”
“Madam Speaker, it is also nice for me to see the member for Calgary Nose Hill again. She is right. The notion of fairness in a society is an important issue. We are being asked, in broad terms, what citizenship should look like. Obviously, I believe that all immigration powers should be transferred to Quebec so that Quebec can manage the language issue. This summer, the ridings were caught up in a kind of ping-pong game. I do not know whether such was the case for all members of the House, but in my riding, dozens and dozens of people, spouses from abroad and foreign students, were stuck in the system. Right now, the immigration application process is a total mess, and the wait times are horrendous. These people are not numbers. They are individuals who want to come live in Canada, settle here and live here with us.”
“members to look beyond politics and think about all Canadians and Quebeckers. How the land is used is an important consideration that is often forgotten. The same goes for—”
“Madam Speaker, it is really great to see the member for Winnipeg North again. Too bad his question is a bit off topic. However, it is customary when Parliament resumes to accept such questions. I will accept this suggestion to work collaboratively and effectively. I know we are in politics, but sometimes we have to be collaborative. I would like to note that yesterday there was a big announcement promising to build 4,000 housing units. Prefabricated houses are great, but the Liberal government is once again focusing only on large urban centres. Regions like Abitibi‑Témiscamingue are being left out. Back home we have two companies that build prefab houses and a third that contributes to the effort. We are able to provide what it takes. What is more, we have a great need for housing. I invite hon.”
“It may not be the most exciting topic, but it is perhaps one of the most important, because it forms the basis for defining our rights at a time when defining our identity and who we are is more important than ever. I would like to remind the House that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill because it restores the citizenship that Quebeckers and Canadians have lost. I hope that this debate will lead us to begin the important work of reviewing citizenship, and so much the better if we begin our work with a consensus bill, because we have had enough squabbling in the House in recent years.”
“Although some amendments were made in 1977, the fact remains that it may be time to sit down and review this important piece of legislation in order to make it clear what Canada is hoping to achieve in terms of citizenship. The definition of citizenship is at the core of what makes up a country. Canada has a responsibility to its citizens, whether they live here in Quebec or Canada or abroad. During the pandemic, my office worked day and night to bring people from Abitibi—Témiscamingue home because they were stranded in various countries around the world. Our role as MPs is, first and foremost, to help our constituents and fellow citizens. I think it is worth emphasizing how important it is for Parliament to review the Citizenship Act.”
“As a result of their efforts, we learned that, due to obscure and complex rules at the time, General Roméo Dallaire, who was a senator and one of the greatest Canadians and Quebeckers who made us so proud, did not even have Canadian citizenship. This shows the importance of the work we are doing today. Later on, numerous reforms were carried out to fix some of the problems that were being created by the Citizenship Act. These reforms, from 2005, 2009 and 2015, made it possible to resolve a number of situations. This means that the Citizenship Act, which was drafted in 1947, has not undergone a substantial review since that time. However, there is no law as important to a country as its citizenship law. The world has changed since 1947.”
“I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the work of someone with whom I used to work closely. I am talking about my former parliamentary assistant and, more importantly, the former member of Parliament for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Meili Faille. She and the Bloc Québécois undertook the enormous task of compiling an inventory of problems relating to citizenship in the 2000s. Under her leadership, the top experts from across Canada worked on those two studies, which many of my colleagues have cited during the proceedings. We must also highlight the work of Don and Brenda Chapman, whom I salute, as I am sure they are watching. Their work has been crucial in enabling many Quebec and Canadian citizens to regain their citizenship.”
“(1105) For example, in the 1947 legislation, in a clause that has since been corrected, Quebec citizens born abroad were required to spend their 24th year in Canada. In other words, if they arrived here at age 25, they lost their citizenship. The second update to this legislation was made 30 years later. Some changes have made it easier to access citizenship, but, again, some aspects of this legislation have created awful situations, including the ones I mentioned earlier, where Quebeckers and Canadians who obtained their citizenship by descent had to apply to keep their status before age 28. This part of the legislation was corrected in 2009, but only for Canadians who were not yet 28 at the time. Today, this bill will correct that major omission.”
“The last group of people to have their status corrected under Bill C‑3 are children born abroad, who were adopted but whose parent died, and who were subsequently denied citizenship. Simply put, these changes are beneficial, now and in the future, in helping to address absurd situations arising from various oversights at different points in time. This bill rectifies those situations. The Bloc Québécois believes it might be worthwhile to overhaul this legislation in the future to clarify some of its provisions, since it is still causing real headaches. I would remind the House that this is the fourth change that has been made in the past 25 years to correct the injustices against many people who have lost their citizenship because of obscure, unfair or discriminatory rules.”
“The other change introduced by this important bill is to allow Canadian women who married non-Canadian men before 1947 to regain their Canadian citizenship. In fact, these women lost their citizenship when they married. Their situation is very similar to the experience of many indigenous women, an important issue that Parliament studied in the past before restoring the status of indigenous women who decided to marry non-indigenous men. In a way, it was characteristic of the sexist policies of that time. Bill C‑3 corrects an unacceptable situation and takes a step forward toward restoring gender equality, a value that I and Bloc Québécois members in this House hold in the highest regard.”
“What is more, Bill C-3 also rights injustices for other lost Canadians, such as those born between February 15, 1977, and April 16, 1981. At that time, as a result of amendments made to the Citizenship Act in 1977, individuals who wished to obtain Canadian citizenship by descent had to apply for it before the age of 28. Whoever failed to apply would lose their citizenship. This little-known requirement meant that some individuals lost their citizenship. Imagine how a person would feel if they went to apply for a passport only to find out that they were no longer a Canadian citizen, even though their family has been living here for generations. Of course, that is a rather dramatic example, but these individuals became stateless and had to go through a complicated process to prove that they are, in fact, Canadian.”
“The law says that even if Caroline grows up in Canada, if she gets a job abroad and has a child, that child cannot be a Canadian citizen. The situation is a bit complicated and it does not need to be. However, it shows that even though these situations are quite rare, they are still possible. It is not right, and it needs to be corrected. This bill rectifies that situation by allowing the transfer of citizenship if the parent can demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada, in other words, that they have lived in Canada continuously or intermittently for a period of 1,095 days, or three years. This type of change is helpful, particularly for many diplomats who may have to live abroad while representing Quebec or Canada. This bill corrects an injustice that could have affected them down the road.”
“There was also the great painter Norbert Lemire, my great-uncle, who was a significant figure in my life. If my colleagues ever have the opportunity to see one of his paintings, I think they will find his style very unique. I am very pleased to be back in the House to speak to Bill C-3 , which aims to correct an injustice affecting many children born abroad to Quebec and Canadian parents. This is one bill that makes sense to me. It will enable these lost Quebeckers and Canadians to regain their citizenship. This bill reponds a ruling by the Ontario Superior Court, which invalidated provisions of the Citizenship Act that violated certain sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Say, for example, that a Canadian couple works for the government abroad and has a child in another country. Let us say they name her Caroline.”
“Mr. Speaker, of course it would be hard to begin this new parliamentary session without wishing everyone, including those watching at home, a warm welcome back. The summer was particularly beautiful in Abitibi—Témiscamingue. I think it was important for many of us to practice self-care after the year we had. That did not prevent some family trips, including to the Quebec Games, and a trip to the north shore for us. I think it was important to do some self-care and I hope everyone was able to do that. I would be remiss if I did not mention the passing this summer of two of our icons. Léandre Bergeron is known for his bread, but also for the whole encyclopedia representing the core values of Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Quebec. I want to pay tribute to him.”
“Today, we will find out whether the Bloc Québécois's amendment will make it possible to correct the situation at the last minute because we want to remove the Indian Act from schedule 2 of the bill. Bill C-5 shows how indigenous peoples, but also all Quebeckers and Canadians who care about—”
“Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, June 21, is National Indigenous Peoples Day. Let us draw inspiration from the summer solstice and celebrate the cultures, languages, and contributions of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples from time immemorial to the present day, and especially to tomorrow and for the next seven generations. This is also an opportunity to build relationships and talk about mutual respect, a conversation that was ignored with Bill C-5 . This bill was designed so that Ottawa can impose energy projects on indigenous peoples and then inform them of already irreversible decisions through bogus consultations. In Bill C-5, the Liberals have replicated the condescending and colonialist attitude that the federal government had toward the first peoples in the last century.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Lakeland a question. First, we can all agree that supporting a closure motion is absolutely stupid and unreasonable. We can also agree that, in terms of the environment, the Conservatives are once again lagging behind. I would, however, like to point out a way in which the member was able to play an important role at report stage. The Indian Act was removed from schedule 2, so the government can no longer override the act or remove fundamental rights. We can agree that we are not talking about free, prior and informed consent, and we would have liked Bill C‑5 to address that, which it does not. An important step was made in committee, however, and indigenous stakeholders themselves have recognized it. I want to thank my colleague and the Conservatives for their co-operation on this.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for my hon. colleague from Repentigny because I know he is an expert in the environment. What the consequences might this bill have for Quebec specifically? Could the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, which is highly respected and is a competitive advantage for Quebec projects, be tangibly threatened by this bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague, with whom I serve on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. Since he was reappointed to that committee, I will have the pleasure of working with him again. I would like to know what questions he would ask first nations representatives if Bill C-5 were to be studied by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. Would he be interested in the issue of free, prior and informed consent? What responses would he expect from first nations representatives? Does he think that Bill C‑5 has met the expectations of first nations?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her question and her sincere interest in this subject. Of course I would like that. The work will continue, because we need to have this ongoing dialogue. Unfortunately, if Bill C-5 is passed as quickly as is planned, the repercussions of this bill will be dealt with in the courts for the next few years, if not decades.”
“Mr. Speaker, free, prior and informed consent is given by the person in question. It is not something that is imposed on someone else. Basically, it is when the person feels ready to give it, because they have the sovereignty to make the decision and to say when they feel ready to give free, prior and informed consent. It is not up to Parliament to dictate when first nations feel ready to do so. This is where the nuance lies. It must be done through ongoing dialogue, while giving the other party time to get ready to give their consent. Otherwise, it is what we would call a violation of rights.”
“Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, this is the same fundamental problem. Indigenous peoples are being put in a box. They get offered something so that it can be said that they were given a little sandbox to play in. They will then be told that they have been consulted. This is not reconciliation. This is not ongoing dialogue with first nations. Action needs to be taken right from the start. The way that this government is acting is irresponsible.”
“Mr. Speaker, what the member for La Prairie—Atateken just said demonstrates a flagrant lack of respect for first nations. The whole problem with this government is that it promises consultations at a later date. First nations are being asked to sign everything over, and then the government will walk away. It wants to take away first nations' established rights and then trample on them. I am taking a stand against this kind of behaviour on behalf of first nations.”
“Indigenous leaders in Quebec spoke out against an act to strip them of their land. AFNQL Chief Francis Verreault-Paul says we need to protect biodiversity and our way of life. Respecting the ancestral rights of first nations is not optional for governments. Chiefs in Ontario have made it clear that they completely reject Bill C‑5 . They maintain and defend their position, as Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict mentioned. First nations rights holders must be at the table and the government must uphold its constitutional and treaty obligations. (2135) We are headed for a crisis that, unfortunately, will probably not be resolved today, but before the courts, unless we listen to first nations—”
“Consultation comes down to consulting rights holders about how to respect wildlife and the hunting and fishing rights that will be affected by the project. That would be the essence of the consultation. Rights holders should determine who should be consulted. That is meaningful consultation. It is a matter of trusting others. I say that because in the meantime, we are seeing the provincial legislative assemblies mobilize the first nations, as though there were agreements in the different provinces of Canada. B.C.'s Bill 15, Ontario's Bill 5, Nova Scotia's Bill 6 and Quebec's bills 67 and 97 all include the duty to consult indigenous peoples. Right now, there is a movement afoot to refuse to respect first nations' rights, which will likely create a crisis in Canada.”
“It has been repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada and reaffirmed in Canada's commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This bill does not demonstrate legislative reconciliation. It demonstrates indifference. In her appearance before the Senate earlier, Julie McGregor, the legal counsel for the Assembly of First Nations, raised a very interesting point. She said that the duty to consult and the standard of free and informed consent are not operationalized in Bill C‑5. It is interpretive, not included in a concrete way. With more consultation, it would be possible to meet those requirements. Amendments would be required, but we did not take the time to consult first nations.”
“This is a heartfelt cry from the national chief of the first nations. Her position is shared by the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, AFNQL, which strongly and unequivocally opposes Bill C‑5 . This is a bill that, under the guise of reducing red tape and building the nation, threatens the very foundations of Canada's constitutional order, the rights of first nations and their shared journey toward reconciliation. The obligation to consult and accommodate first nations is not a procedural hurdle. It is not an inconvenience to be dealt with or a box to be checked off. It is a constitutional imperative that is recognized and guaranteed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”
“She recommends slowing down, taking the summer, getting out and talking to people, talking to Canadians and talking to first nations. First nations know how it feels to have Trump at their borders. She recommends not having Trump-like policies here, but rather taking our time and doing things properly. Later, she recommended taking the summer, taking the fall, taking the time to go through this bill carefully, talk through it and talk with first nations about it. Nothing is off the table. First nations are thinking about it already. They have had some conversations, but the grand chief was not in a position to tell us what those were. The chiefs will talk it over and decide on a position. She said that we have an opportunity to do things differently and to work together, and she recommended getting everyone to the table.”
“(2130) Taking their interests into account means more than just writing “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples” in a bill, especially since this bill targets 13 laws and seven regulations that seek to protect the environment, fauna and flora. One of these laws is the Indian Act. Among first nations, there are certain principles that guide chiefs and indigenous communities in considering future generations. They think about the next seven generations. That is why, among first nations, the turtle is the symbol of the Earth's creation. In addition to representing America in its shape, it is also a symbol of prudence and longevity. Today, I went to the Senate to hear what Grand Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak had to say. She said that many of her colleagues could not be there today, as some were dealing with forest fires.”
“Consultation means meeting with people, sitting down, listening, discussing problems and finding solutions. Consultation does not mean agreeing on everything. It means having a real, ongoing dialogue. Furthermore, while the federal government recognizes the provinces to some extent—I am being generous—the rights of first nations should be given more consideration. This bill violates the most basic criteria of their rights. My presence on the ground among the first nations stems from an unequivocal desire to work on reconciliation and ensure that our indigenous communities have the resources to fulfill their ambitions. Bill C‑5 is a serious barrier to reconciliation.”
“When the time comes to make a decision on a project, Quebec must always have the last word on its own projects. Proposed section 21 in Bill C‑5 even gives the federal government the right to issue an order to exempt a proponent from the application of any law. It makes no sense. The government will sacrifice everything just to make things go faster. This is like back when big business used to make the government follow its rules. That is exactly how this government is behaving toward first nations. Enough talk; now, sign here. In drafting this bill, the government fulfilled none of its obligations to first nations. Sending a short letter asking for input in the form of a two- or three-page letter within five or seven days does not count as consultation. Consultation is not just ticking a box.”
“In no way does this bill respect this important philosophy, because the government's bill is fundamentally flawed. Ottawa is going to commit everyone to major projects that will take years to complete, with lifespans measured in decades, meaning future generations will be involved. That is precisely why it is necessary to act like the tortoise. We need to identify the subtleties and provide answers. We must ensure that our bills respond to what we want. Do we want mining permits to be issued more quickly? Yes, but not by sacrificing key aspects and the necessary environmental assessments. The environmental studies that Quebec requires could very well be the “one review”. The Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement is fully qualified to do this.”
“According to Janique Lambert, Quebec's commissioner of sustainable development, there are currently more than 36 former mining sites that will cost close to $600 million to remediate. As I said, the mining industry has changed. It is a lot more responsible now. For example, to avoid the mistakes of the past, financial guarantees are provided for the redevelopment and remediation of mining sites. Innovative technologies, including those used by businesses in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, also make it possible to do better. Take, for example, the Dumont Nickel project, which has had an agreement with the Abitibiwinni First Nation since 2007. The Dumont Nickel project will begin in the next year. This proves that agreements can be reached with first nations when they are involved in discussions from the start of a project.”
“The President used the national interest as a pretext to impose tariffs. The response proposed in this legislation is for the government to have essentially the same powers. Yes, a project of national interest will make it possible to override federal laws, and especially the laws of Quebec and the Canadian provinces. It is the Canadian version of “drill, baby, drill”. I come from Abitibi—Témiscamingue, a mining region. Laws and regulations exist for a reason. The number of abandoned mining sites in our area is unbelievable. Yes, in the past, the mining industry was a bit careless. Things have changed since then because attitudes have changed, but also because Quebec has passed strong environmental laws.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we debate Bill C‑5 , I think we should all be inspired by La Fontaine's fable, The Tortoise and the Hare . The federal government is behaving like the hare; it wants to make everything happen fast. It is not taking the time to do things properly. It wants to act right now and thinks everything is a matter of life and death. That is just not the case. The tortoise, in contrast, moves slowly. It analyzes everything. It thinks, it ponders and it assesses the situation. It makes sure to do its job properly and it gets to the finish line on time. “To win a race, the swiftness of a dart availeth not without a timely start.” Here in the House, we are doing the exact opposite of what that famous fable teaches us. Bill C‑5 is the top of a slippery slope. People invoke the U.S. President every day to justify the need for haste.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question about this bill, which some might see as a declaration of war against first nations. Earlier on, I made a little pilgrimage to the Senate to hear what National Chief Woodhouse Nepinak had to say. One of the things she mentioned was how important and urgent it is to respect the obligation to conduct advance consultations in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This process was clearly botched. The government did not obtain the free, prior and informed consent of first nations. Will the minister commit to responding to the national chief's request by extending consultations with indigenous peoples? She is asking that this be done over the summer or in the fall. Will the minister give her a timely answer?”