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. 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. 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.
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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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. 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. 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.
We are headed for a crisis that, unfortunately, will probably not be resolved today, but before the courts, unless we listen to first nations—
