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 9 of 9.
“Madam Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague for delivering a very important lesson to prove that Quebeckers and indigenous people are distinct. I have a feeling that June 16 will be marked as the day the Bloc Québécois said that we told them so. What is also happening in the news is that Donald Trump is leaving the G7 summit tonight, and there seems to be an understanding with Mark Carney that there will be a tariff agreement within 30 days. During the election campaign, were Quebeckers told the opposite of the truth so that they would support this government? What will the long-term consequences be?”
“Mr. Speaker, something unusual happened, namely that closure was adopted, and the official opposition agreed to have the entire House subjected to closure. I would like my colleague to comment on the consequences of his vote this morning and the precedent it sets, especially when we are talking about a bill that will give sweeping powers to the Prime Minister's committee, namely the Privy Council, the power to say that just about anything is in the national interest. This will therefore go beyond the jurisdiction of the provinces, indigenous peoples and Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Kings—Hants for his speech and his sensitivity on issues affecting indigenous peoples. He repeated the phrase we have often heard from the Liberals over the past few days, about creating one Canadian economy out of 13. This shows how little consideration was given to the indigenous economy, even in the thought process that led to this election commitment to encroach on provincial jurisdictions. Otherwise, they might have said 14 economies, or maybe even 70. Every nation has its own economic values. Every nation's economic values are different. When I hear them talking about 13 economies, I assume they are referring to the economies of the 10 provinces and three territories.”
“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Would it be possible to grant the government the same amount of time for questions as all the opposition parties get? I get the impression that the government is not following the rules.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑5 , which the government is trying to push through using closure, is an insult to indigenous peoples. The Liberals want to give themselves the power to make all energy project decisions by fiat. They are first going to approve projects in Ottawa and then, when the decision is made and cannot be undone, they are going to pretend to consult indigenous peoples. It is a charade and a direct violation of indigenous people's right to self-determination, to their territorial sovereignty and to reconciliation. Will the Liberals step back, respect first nations, Inuit and Métis and engage in meaningful dialogue?”
“Does the minister agree that a little more time should be taken in order to respect the spirit of reconciliation and consultation with first nations?”
“Mr. Speaker, in his song Les Yankees , Richard Desjardins sang the following: We come on behalf of Big Control ... The president has ordered me To bring peace to the entire world... Basically, this is what indigenous people are being told: We come as friends But enough discussion Now sign your submission... The government sends a letter and gives grand chiefs five days to relinquish their rights, so it can say that first nations have been consulted. However, I do not see that as consultation. Not every community has been consulted. The government is ignoring the fact that all nations have different ways of doing things. In my view, the government is telling first nations and the people of Quebec how things are going to be.”
“Mr. Speaker, since I enjoy debating with my colleague from Winnipeg North, I will cite another passage from the Auditor General's report. In report 4, paragraph 4.34 on page 12 states: We did not issue recommendations in this audit report. We encourage federal organizations to implement the recommendations from recent procurement audits.... This implies that the government has not done so. It has been twiddling its thumbs. It has not followed the recommendations, including those from the Auditor General of Canada's report that was tabled in Parliament, from the report on professional services contracts with GC Strategies Inc., from the first report of the Office of the Comptroller General on procurement governance—”
“We need to add some stringency to the system, but I have very little confidence in this government. Past behaviour is often a good predictor of future behaviour.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his interest in accountability. I want to raise a very important point about government contracting rules. There is a big difference between competitive and non-competitive contracts. The threshold for being on the list was raised to less than $40,000 from less than $25,000 before 2019. Under that threshold, the government can tell a firm that the firm can do whatever it wants and no questions will be asked. How many contracts have gone undetected and unaccounted for? Some very big questions deserve to be raised, especially since we know that $2.8 billion in government contracts are awarded every year. There must be many firms like GC Strategies. The case of GC Strategies was discovered somewhat by chance, because it was too conspicuous and there had been too much abuse.”
“The Auditor General is basically saying that the government has been twiddling its thumbs so much lately that she sees no point in making new recommendations until the previous ones have been followed. That is what it means.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for the member for Winnipeg North, particularly for his ability to listen during speeches. However, I do not feel like he listened to my speech, because I mentioned the points that he raised. That said, I would invite him to look at what the Auditor General actually did with regard to the recommendations. The member for Winnipeg North is usually able to read between the lines. Here is what the news release says: “There are no recommendations in this report because I don't believe the government needs more procurement rules. Rather, federal organizations need to make sure that the rules that exist are understood and followed.” In my opinion, this statement reflects a total lack of confidence.”
“It can take almost two years. Indigenous people cannot get their Indian status verified, which means they are postponing their studies and putting off getting health care. What impact does that have on individuals and communities? That is extremely unfortunate. I am also thinking of the skyrocketing costs of the F‑35A. I think that is how we will ultimately reach 2% for military spending. That sounds a bit cynical, but the way the Liberals have managed things is just as cynical under the circumstances. (1125) In closing, I support this motion, and I want to say that if no work was done, then the money paid by Quebeckers must be recovered. Doing nothing is essentially declaring that taxpayers' pockets are an all-you-can-eat buffet. Enough is enough.”
“Were the 94% of the contracts that used time sheets audited? What experience and qualifications were required? Is the government paying its contractors without evidence showing that the deliverables were received? It may be time to take a more comprehensive look at external consultants. I would even say that it is time to follow Quebec's example and have a public inquiry. This is not the only report in which the Governor General revealed things that would have been nice to know before giving a fresh vote of confidence to a government that claims to be new. However, its way of doing business is deeply ingrained. The housing report in particular talks about inaction. Since time is limited, I would like to talk about indigenous people. There are very significant delays in the registration process for indigenous people.”
“Instead of rewarding innovation and praising people for developing new ways of doing things internally, people who know the field and the federal machinery, people who are aware of the realities of their department, their community, and how to meet their needs, the government decides that their opinion is not important and it spends millions and billions of dollars elsewhere to obtain these products, without any oversight, as we now know. That is not all. To put things in perspective, the spending on GC Strategies accounts for only 0.37% of the total amount of government contracts. If we take what we learned from the Auditor General in this report, what percentage of the $2.8 billion in additional spending per year was audited? Were the security clearances and contract resources approved?”
“There must be quite a few SAAQclics in the federal government apparatus. It is 2025. Information technology is a huge part of our lives, our remote work as parliamentarians and the lives of the people of Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Quebec and Canada. How can this government develop apps if it does not respect the public service's ability to develop in-house expertise? We live in a technological world. The government should be focused on developing in-house expertise. What has using outside consultants done for us? What real contribution do these firms make? How do they improve our constituents' lives?”
“That brings me to the central and possibly the most important point of this report. Since 2015, more than $18 billion has been spent on informatics services. The bill went from $1.3 billion a year to $2.8 billion a year. The thing that amazes me is that this is not the first IT project that went off the rails. There was Phoenix, the Canadian Firearms Registry and the Canada Border Services Agency assessment and revenue management system. This is not the first time public money has been wasted on IT. In Quebec, there was SAAQclic, which cost $500 million. The government is holding a public inquiry into that. The federal government should follow its example. It may be time for Canada to set limits, considering we know that Ottawa has spent $1.5 billion every year since 2015. That is $18 billion more. The annual bill is now $2.8 billion.”
“(1120) One thing that puzzles me is that, for all of the contracts that the Office of the Auditor General of Canada analyzed, the federal organizations justified their use of subcontractors by giving reasons like acquiring specialized expertise, managing unexpected increases in workload or filling in for public servants during temporary absences. Correct me if I am wrong, but would it not make sense to make better use of our public service? Why can public servants not work overtime if there is an unexpected increase in workload or if some employees are absent? If we need specialized expertise, would it not make sense to develop that expertise in-house? It is all the more odd that the government was using subcontractors, with the consequences that we have seen, at a time when it was hiring huge numbers of public servants.”
“In the case of one $3.3‑million contract with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, the department provided time sheets for only one out of 25 contract resources. What did the government do? It put the cheque in the mail. This is our money. When GC Strategies was hired, Ottawa had no idea if the fees paid exceeded market rates. Due diligence is not the Liberals' strong suit. That is not all. I saved the best for last. In about half of the contracts, the government had little to no evidence that the work had been performed, but the cheque was sent out anyway. Basically, the government hired people without determining whether they were qualified or had the necessary security clearances. Now it does not know if the work was actually performed. That is where things stand. Wow.”
“If there is one area where subcontractors should have their security clearances, it is that one. There is more. The Auditor General tells us that, for 33% of contracts, federal organizations were not even able to demonstrate that the people had the required experience or qualifications. They either forgot or did not bother to check. There is also the whole issue of oversight. When people argued that federal employees had to go back to working in the office again, Ottawa agreed and started waging a battle against civil servants. However, when it comes to awarding contracts, Ottawa simply receives a time sheet and that is that. Someone looks at it one, two, three or maybe five times, and then it gets approved. Poorly documented descriptions of the work performed? No big deal. No time sheet? No problem.”
“However, federal organizations are required to assess whether there would be benefits to calling for bids. Two-thirds of the $200,000 awarded to GC Strategies for this type of contract was not subject to this critical assessment. Who is accountable for that? It should be the Liberal government. Let us go further. Thirty-three of the contracts awarded to GC Strategies required a security clearance. I want to emphasize the word “security”. For 50% of these contracts, the federal government cannot even show that the necessary authorizations were granted. For 21% of the contracts with security requirements, people worked on projects without ever getting their security clearance. That is more than one in five people. The report mentions a contract awarded by National Defence.”
“The total cost of this app, which two Canadian firms managed to recreate in a single weekend, was $64.5 million. This cost was clearly excessive. I would remind the House that the update was initially supposed to cost only $80,000. What is more, GC Strategies employed only two people and did not provide any IT services. Paying over $60 million to two people with an idea so they could recruit qualified people is not what I would call efficient management of resources. I hope the Liberal government will agree with me on that. Let us go back to the Auditor General's report on all the other contracts examined. For contracts under $40,000, the government can dispense with a call for bids. If we want things to change, we need to give that some thought. These are contracts that are deemed non-competitive.”
“Mr. Speaker, this week, the Auditor General of Canada released four important reports. It is too bad that these facts are only coming to light today, after the election campaign. I think it would have been in the public interest for Canadians to have access to this information sooner. It might have changed they way they viewed this old Liberal government. After all, this is exactly what we need to fight political cynicism. Today's Conservative motion focuses primarily on the revelations made by the Auditor General of Canada in her report on professional services contracts with GC Strategies. Her report is devastating to this government. It reflects a culture that fails to prioritize accountability. First, it is important to review the facts. This company was awarded contracts to create the ArriveCAN app, which was developed in 2020.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for mentioning the importance of respect for provincial jurisdictions. We have not always felt that same level of respect from the Conservatives on this specific issue over the years, but that was in a previous Parliament. The government is coming in with a new attitude, but there is indeed one issue that has been overplayed. Seeing the consequences this can have on farmers, it is obvious that they are playing politics in an area that should not be politicized. It took the Conservatives a long time to recognize that Quebec has a carbon exchange and that the carbon tax did not apply in Quebec.”
“Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge that different places in Canada have different visions and that Quebec's policy works. What is the point of penalizing a government for taking bold action that works and that allows for cap and trade with California? There is a return to be made there. If we do the math, we easily come up with $814 million that could be invested in a variety of programs in Quebec. It does not necessarily need to be sent to individuals. Because of its negligence, especially in governance matters, the federal government suspended funding to SDTC. We are aware of the scandal that occurred, but the impact of this is damaging to Quebec and to technological innovation in this area. Ultimately, who benefits? Once again, it is the oil companies.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would really like the member for Winnipeg North to tell us, following his intervention, what he thinks about the environment commissioner's report, which says that Canada's climate change adaptation strategy is missing essential elements and is progressing slowly. The government got rid of the carbon tax, a coercive measure that was working. Everyone got money, except Quebec. The principle of one economy does not include Quebec, I guess. There is no vision. There is noise, but no results and little meaningful action. I would like to know what he thinks of his colleague from Laval—Les Îles , who comes here full of arrogance, and the response from the Minister of Environment and Climate Change , who says that because we in Quebec want an equitable measure, we are trying to have it both ways. We are the victims in this system.”
“By penalizing Quebeckers, who contributed to this rebate, Ottawa is sending the message that being at the forefront of climate action is not a good thing. This debate is not just a matter of fairness; it is a matter of respect for the Quebec nation and its choices.”
“Canada's willingness to abandon its climate policies will also have an impact on market diversification. While we are told that our dependence on the United States is harmful, Europe is moving toward greener policies and carbon pricing. The European Union plans to impose a carbon adjustment mechanism starting in 2026 and 2027. This policy will allow certain products from countries with no or low industrial carbon pricing to be taxed at the border, similar to customs duties. As a result, Quebec products such as aluminum, iron and steel could be slapped with new customs duties because of Canada's inaction. In conclusion, we need a climate policy that recognizes and respects Quebec's efforts.”
“Basically, some challenges demand adaptation. We have to do it with an awareness of where we are going. Climate change is no joke. It is real. Building more pipelines and relying more on natural gas will not improve the fate of our planet. Quebec has been a pioneer. We set up a cap‑and‑trade system for greenhouse gas emissions to fight climate change in 2013. This system was then linked to California's system in 2014 to create North America's largest carbon market. Not everything is perfect, but we are steadily moving in the right direction. This carbon market has helped Quebec show that it is possible to cut greenhouse gas emissions while having minimal impact on consumers' wallets. However, instead of being rewarded, Quebec is now being punished for adopting a forward‑thinking and responsible climate policy.”
“As we know, the most effective means are coercive means, and the carbon tax was another way to make people think about tomorrow, the future and our planet. Are all environmental policies perfect? The answer is no, and that is normal. However, the Quebec government's carbon exchange has been going on for a dozen years now. That means it is a success; it must be rewarded. Some progress depends on developing technology, so it makes sense to revisit our policies. Decisions can change or evolve. I am from a remote region, so I understand the challenges of electric vehicles. Keeping hybrid vehicles around a little longer makes sense to me. That is one of the adjustments we can look at. Expanding our network of charging stations and working on making them available everywhere is certainly part of the solution.”
“Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that, for first nations, decisions must be made with the next seven generations in mind. This idea motivates young people. With all due respect, I would like to suggest this: Perhaps we should replace you in your role as Speaker with an 18-year-old man or woman to remind us of the importance of this mindset. That would be an important symbol. In addressing the Chair, we would also be addressing the next seven generations. Perhaps this would make us aware of how important it is to think about the future, about the young people of tomorrow. In committing this injustice, the government also made a decision. It decided to axe a tax program that was designed to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels.”
“The Quebec government could grant this amount as a rebate on gasoline taxes for the next year, which would reduce the price gap between Quebec and Ontario, for example. Quebec has already taken a step in this direction by eliminating the minimum price for gasoline. The Quebec government could also do more by investing those funds in the environment and energy transition. (1355) I was recently in Amos for an event hosted by the Abitibi—Témiscamingue Youth Forum to encourage young people to participate in municipal elections. These young people are motivated by a desire for change. They are thinking about the future. They are not thinking about short‑term gains. They are concerned about the future of our planet. In first nations communities, decisions must be made with the next seven generations in mind.”
“I would also like to point out that the Quebec National Assembly adopted a motion on April 23 calling on the federal government to give Quebec its fair share of the carbon rebate. This was not a partisan request. It represented the voice of all parties in the Quebec National Assembly. What was the federal government's response? It was basically an outright refusal. To make it easier for the federal government to correct this injustice toward Quebeckers, there is no need to send cheques directly to them. The federal government could instead pay the Quebec government its fair share. The Quebec government could then decide how best to redistribute this money to Quebeckers. Perhaps this money could be go toward other measures to promote innovation and the fight against climate change and carbon emissions.”
“What is more, I congratulate Quebec because that system yields the best results worldwide. Our system still exists more than 10 years later, proving how robust and effective it is. This final rebate applies only to residents of the rest of Canada, but that is the problem: The residents of the rest of Canada did not pay for this rebate. All taxpayers paid for it, contrary to what the Prime Minister says. I am not here to create division, but to point out that this injustice needs to be corrected. Quebec is not asking for special treatment. It is simply asking that Quebeckers be treated the same way Canadians are. We want to receive our fair share of what we paid since we have made commendable and much more effective efforts than other people in Canada have.”
“As such, the April rebate was paid for with government funds. In other words, it was everyone's money, including Quebeckers' money, that paid for the rebate. That is what is so unfair about this. Quebeckers and British Columbians did not receive any federal carbon rebate at all. They did not get a single cheque. In total, those payments cost taxpayers $3.75 billion, including a substantial portion, estimated at more than $800 million, that should have gone to Quebec in accordance with the rule of three. Why should the people of Quebec be excluded from a program that they contributed to financially? That is the question. What is the justification for excluding them like this? The answer we got is that federal pricing is of no concern to Quebec since it has had its own carbon market in partnership with California since 2013.”
“The tax did not apply to Quebec because of Quebec's carbon market. Four times a year, Canadian consumers received the Canada carbon rebate, which ranged from $200 to $450. The rebate was not a big deal for the Bloc Québécois. However, the same cannot be said of the cheque sent out during the election campaign. Why is that? The thing is, this particular rebate cheque was funded by all Quebeckers and all Canadians, and that is the crux of the problem. According to columnist Hélène Buzzetti, the rebate has always been prospective, not retroactive, meaning that it was meant to cover what people were going to pay in tax over the next three months. She reported that, according to the Finance Canada website, “Payments delivered to Canadians in April would thus return the fuel charge proceeds collected during the April-June quarter”.”
“Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your appointment to the chair. This is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak to you inyour new role. I am very happy for you. I also want to use my first official speech to thank the people of Abitibi—Témiscamingue for their trust in me. Despite some headwinds, that trust remains strong. I was able to hold on to roughly the same amount of support from the voters in my riding, and I am very grateful to them. I especially want to thank to my campaign team, starting with Gérard, Benjamin, Lynda, Christian, Jean-François, and anyone else I may have forgotten to mention. They have my sincere thanks. Allow me to set the stage a little. A few months ago, the federal government scrapped the carbon tax. Canadian consumers were paying something called the federal fuel charge.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kings—Hants for his speech, and congratulate him on his appointment as parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. I would imagine that this position will give him access to some important figures. I would like to apply the rule of three. At the end of December, we knew that there was a $50‑billion deficit for last year so far. If we apply the rule of three and there were four months left, that gives us a $75‑billion deficit for the previous year. Do I have my numbers right? I would like to know what my colleague thinks.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which was particularly sensitive to the reality facing our families. However, I wonder if she could talk about this government's position. On the one hand, spending is clearly increasing. On the other hand, revenues are being reduced because taxes are being cut. Spending is going up and revenues are going down. Back in December, in a disastrous situation during which the finance minister resigned, a $50-billion deficit had already been announced for the previous fiscal year. Last year, the deficit was $61.9 billion. Could my colleague estimate how much the deficit would be if the government were to table a budget? I would estimate it at about $75 billion.”
“We already had a $50‑billion deficit at that time. I would like to throw out a number based on the rule of three: Have we reached about $75 billion in debt?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is not hard to put together a budget. It is a matter of determining where the revenue will come from, where it will be spent and how much is in the account. That is essentially what it boils down to. What will the government spend money on? We have heard quite a lot about that. The Liberals told us about it during the election campaign and in the Speech from the Throne. What will the government's revenue sources be? We know that the government is going to cut taxes, so there will be less revenue coming in. However, we do not know anything about the state of the government's finances. I think that after 10 years, and given that the Minister of Finance has been here for three months, we should have that figure. We all remember the fiasco in December when the former Minister of Finance resigned.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech and the answers he gave, and I have a very simple question for him. Is transparency an important value for this government? I really do not get the impression that it is.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Edmonton Riverbend talked a lot about Alberta's economy, how proud he is to represent his riding and how proud he is of the Oilers. Obviously, I wish him all the best in the finals. He also talked about the Albertan economy and the province's entrepreneurial spirit. Does he actually appreciate what the Prime Minister and other Liberals are saying about creating one economy? They are ignoring economic differences between the regions as well as the need to intervene differently in Alberta, Quebec or elsewhere in Ontario. Does he support the idea of one Canadian economy?”
“Mr. Speaker, I was moved by my colleague from Peterborough's intervention. I also lost my father, in 2011. He loved his cigars, too, Panters if memory serves me correctly. I thank her for this duty to remember. It is important in the House. Remembering where we come from gives a great deal of meaning to our actions here in the House. We are here to debate an issue on which an agricultural producer or someone who has worked in the agricultural sector would like a stand to be taken: supply management. I think it goes without saying that everyone wants to keep supply management. However, are we going to keep the entire system or are parts of it going to be sacrificed again? Could my colleague from Peterborough be an ally and support the Bloc Québécois bill to fully protect supply management?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his remarks and for reminding us once again of our moral obligation. I actually want to ask him about morality. Does he think that his colleague from Terrebonne has a legitimate right to be here in the House? We know that Elections Canada screwed up some mail-in ballots. We also know that, in the judicial recount, four ballots on which only Tatiana's first name appeared were allowed. I would remind the House that the Bloc Québécois lost by a single vote. Four votes would have changed the outcome. Does he think that is legitimate? The Elections Canada website clearly states that the candidate's first and last names must appear. Had those ballots been rejected, Nathalie Sinclair‑Desgagné would be the one sitting here. Does he think his colleague's presence in the House is legitimate?”
“Mr. Speaker, Elections Canada stripped Inuit people of their right to vote, the most fundamental right in a democracy. That is completely unacceptable, yet it is accepted. No one is talking about it. We have no right to condone the harm done to the Inuit by Elections Canada, whether through incompetence or negligence. What will the minister do to ensure that Elections Canada discloses everything that happened? What measures will she put in place to ensure that this never happens again in her riding or anywhere else?”
“Mr. Speaker, the election proved that the federal government treats indigenous people like second-class citizens. In Abitibi—Baie‑James—Nunavik—Eeyou, Inuit people were unable to vote. Reports indicate that polling station hours were not respected in at least six communities. The polling station in Ivujivik did not even open at all. No one was able to vote. If this happened in Toronto, it would be a scandal, but it is tolerated in the north. Does the Minister of Indigenous Services think it is right that Inuit people were thus denied their right to vote?”