Sébastien Lemire

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—

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.

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.

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.

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?