Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, I would like to explain something very important to my colleague. Bill C-5 opened the door or laid the foundation, but Bill C-39 is what puts the framework in place to help our projects move forward. That is something I wanted to clarify. I see that the members opposite want us to move on projects more quickly, to build faster and stronger. We all agree on that. My question is very simple. Can we count on them to move things along more quickly in committee too?

Mr. Speaker, on July 22, Montreal North, Montreal, Quebec and Canada lost a leading light of the musical and arts communities when Canadian jazz legend Oliver Jones passed away at the age of 91. As a friend of Oscar Peterson and an officer of the Order of Canada, he brought Montreal jazz to the world's biggest stages without ever losing his deep sense of humility. To us, Oliver Jones was first and foremost a neighbour and a friend. He lived in Montreal North for many years. Our performance hall is named after him. To honour the borough's 100th anniversary, he created a new arrangement of music written by students from the borough of Montreal North. That was the kind of person he was: a prominent artist who never forgot where he came from and never stopped giving back to his community. On behalf of his neighbours and all Canadians, I offer my deepest condolences to his family. I am sure that everyone will agree when I say that Oliver Jones' music will live on. It truly is part of us.

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Eglinton—Lawrence. Sometimes a country has to choose between watching history unfold or making history itself. Canada is at a point right now where we have to choose to be the master of our own destiny. All around us, the world is changing and shifting gears. Technology is completely transforming industries. Supply chains are being redrawn and geopolitical uncertainty weighs on every investment decision. Meanwhile, capital waits for no one. It goes where people know how to build. It goes where the rules are clear and decisions are actually made. Bill C-39 asks a simple question: Will Canada be that country? We have everything we need to succeed. We have an abundance of natural resources, one of the most skilled workforces in the world, enterprising companies and strong institutions that inspire confidence well beyond our borders. However, nothing is built on potential alone. It is like a mighty river without a power plant. Its immense power does not produce light until we learn how to harness it. A resource creates value only if we can develop it responsibly. Technology will transform the economy only if we can build the necessary infrastructure to properly support that technology. A product creates wealth only once it reaches the customer. This country was not built by waiting. It was built by people who laid rail across impossible distances, who opened ports or rugged coastal lines, who believed that connecting a nation was worth the effort. They did not have certainty. They had conviction. Today, our nation-building projects look different because we have critical minerals, clean energy, advanced manufacturing, modern port transmission lines and digital networks. The question is this: Do we still have the resolve to build? The question we must ask ourselves is the one our ancestors also asked. Do we still have the determination to build? Across the country, we are hearing the same message from workers, communities, indigenous partners and investors. Our federal approval processes are too long and too complex. The requirements—

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that comment. I certainly do not want to jeopardize the health of our interpreters, who do an excellent job. As I said earlier, our federal approval processes are too long and too complex. Requirements pile up, reviews overlap and the process drags on for years. Imagine a family wanting to renovate their home and being instructed to submit the same file to five different offices without ever being told when they can expect a decision. Eventually, they will give up. That is exactly what is happening with investments. When investors have to wait forever, capital goes elsewhere, taking jobs with it. That is why the government must modernize federal project review processes. Our goal is clear: to make federal decisions on major projects within one year while maintaining rigorous environmental standards and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples. To be clear, this is not about lowering the bar. It is about making sure projects do not get lost in a maze. Efficiency need not come at the expense of rigour. A predictable timeline does not determine the decision. It simply guarantees that there will be one, be it positive or negative. Collaboration with indigenous peoples lies at the heart of this approach. Indigenous communities must be part and parcel of the decisions affecting their lands, their rights and their social and economic future. A clearer process does not diminish their participation; it makes it more meaningful, more consistent and, above all, more frequent. We reject the idea that we must choose between economic development, environmental protection and reconciliation. A mature country knows how to make progress on all three fronts while also remaining aligned with all three at the same time. Canada is a trading nation. Our prosperity travels by rail, road, sea and air. Our ports, highways and railways are the arteries of our economy, and every bottleneck acts as an invisible tax—a tax that stifles investment before it even begins, before it is even triggered. It is paid by the farmer waiting for their grain to be shipped, by the manufacturer whose parts are not arriving and, at the end of the chain, by the family seeing prices rise at the supermarket. The bill modernizes the governance of the transportation sectors, strengthens our commercial infrastructure and consolidates our supply chains. It also takes account of a new reality. In a more unstable world, the security and resilience of our networks are no longer a luxury. They are a prerequisite for our growth. Behind every port, every rail line and every construction site, there are people. More than a million Canadians work in federally regulated sectors, keeping goods moving and communities connected. In most cases, employers and unions reach agreements at their negotiating table, and that speaks to the strength of our system. This bill builds on that strength. The bill tackles wage theft and the misclassification of workers. It improves workplace safety and supports stable and respectful labour relations. That is because an economy that forgets its workers is neither modern nor fair. I meet people every day in my riding of Bourassa, in Montreal, who are not asking for any special privileges. They are not asking for anything special because all they want is a chance: a stable job, a fair wage and a safe workplace. When we talk about major projects, trade corridors and competitiveness, these are the folks we are talking about. Growth only makes sense if it improves their lives. This bill is the result of extensive consultations with indigenous peoples, the provinces and territories, businesses, unions and members of the public. While their points of view sometimes differed, there was one common message, namely that Canadians want a more efficient government, environmentally responsible growth, robust infrastructure and good jobs. They want an ambitious Canada that remains true to its values. In closing, investment decisions are being made now. Major projects are being planned now. Tomorrow's trade partnerships are being developed today. From northern communities to the Atlantic provinces, from the Prairies to British Columbia, from Ontario to Quebec, Canadians are ready to build. It is up to us to give them a country that is ready too. Let us move forward with confidence, build responsibly and leave future generations with a stronger, fairer Canada that is more ready than ever.

Madam Speaker, first of all, members need to listen carefully to the speeches given by each of my colleagues on our side of the House. What we are saying is that we want to deliver an answer within a year, whether positive or negative. That is very important. This is no blanket approval process. We are not interested in giving out carte blanche. On the contrary, there will be some negotiation. That is very important. Now, to speed things up, we simply need to make decisions in committee faster. If people here really want to move faster, the Conservatives will have to co-operate with us so we can make decisions in committee. Once again, Bill C-5, Bill C-39's predecessor, laid a strong foundation. Now, we are setting the stage for all future projects.

Madam Speaker, as I understand it, the question was about strikes and unions. I would say that what we are now bringing back in this bill is the complete opposite. Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code has been used to end strikes in recent years. Its use will be clarified. I would say it will be much better monitored by the department. Today, things are vague. Tomorrow, things will be much less vague. In fact, a number of unions are starting to warm up to this amendment to section 107.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, allow me to welcome everyone back to the House. It is a privilege for me to serve in this place and represent the people of my riding, Bourassa. As I said earlier, it is an honour for me to rise on behalf of the people of Bourassa to speak to Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act. I want to describe a scene that we see every morning. Before work, a mother stops at a gas station, looks up at the posted gas price, does a quick mental calculation and decides to spend $20. She does not spend a penny more because the rest of the money has to go toward feeding her children that week. No one sees it or hears about it, but this is something that happens thousands of times a day across the country. I see this scene playing out in my riding, whether it be with a personal support worker who leaves work at dawn after their night shift, a delivery person who crisscrosses the city from morning until night, a taxi driver who is calculating how many litres they will need that day or a small business owner whose pickup truck is their livelihood. For them, the price of gas is not an economic indicator, a statistic or a quantitative indicator. It is much more than that. It is a concern that they have from the time they get into their car every morning until the end of the day. We are living in a time of global instability. Supply disruptions in the Middle East are sending shockwaves to energy markets around the world, and it is our families who are paying the price at the pump. We cannot put an end to global conflicts, but we can choose not to let Canadians deal with the consequences of those conflicts alone. That is the choice that our government is making today. Bill C-38, introduced by the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, temporarily extends the federal fuel excise tax until January 31, 2027. Then from Februrary 1 to March 31, 2027, a half-rate will apply. This tax is 10¢ per litre of gasoline and 4¢ per litre of diesel. Suspending it will save up to about $5.75 on a 50-litre fill-up of regular gasoline and up to $2.30 on a fill-up of diesel. Some members across the way might say that is not much. However, we must consider what a few extra dollars each week mean to a mother, a delivery driver who fills up three times or more a week, or a small business that relies on several vehicles for its livelihood. For these people, it is not a small amount. It is a breath of fresh air. For someone who is out of breath, a bit of breathing room makes all the difference. The gradual return to the mid-range rate also offers something valuable: predictability. Families and businesses deserve to be able to plan ahead rather than face a sudden shock overnight. I am focusing on diesel because, when diesel is cheaper, it means the trucks that deliver food, fruits and vegetables cost less to operate. It means construction sites make progress faster. It means the agricultural sector can breathe a sigh of relief. Whether we are talking about trucking, food, agriculture, housing, construction, or delivery, this measure affects what we eat, where we live, and what we receive day after day. It is one of many steps we are taking. This is not the only step the government has taken to help Canadians. Bill C-38 does not stand alone, because affordability is not something can simply be declared; it must be built, one step at a time. Since July 1, 2025, nearly 22 million Canadians have been paying less tax thanks to the reduction of the first marginal rate from 15% to 14%. That means up to $420 per person, and up to $840 for a two-income family. We have eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers purchasing a newly built home valued at up to $1 million and reduced it for new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million, because the dream of home ownership should not disappear within a single generation. We created the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. In the spring, a one-time top-up of $3.1 billion was paid to 12 million Canadians. Since July 2026, the benefit has been increased by 25% for five years and is paid quarterly so that the benefit arrives when the bills do. A family of four will receive up to $1,890 this year. It will receive $1,890 this year. I am repeating that because it is very important for the Canadians listening to us today. We want them to see this as some breathing room that can help them manage under the current circumstances. A single person, meanwhile, may receive up to $950. Upon taking office, the Prime Minister eliminated consumer carbon pricing in the provinces and territories where it applied, lowering the cost of gas by about 18¢ a litre in those regions and helping to curb inflation. We have made the national school food program permanent, feeding nearly 400,000 children every year and saving a family with two children about $800 a year. Children with full bellies in the morning are freed up to learn, stay in school and have the peace of mind they need to get the most out of their school day. There is no better investment for the country's future than to invest in our young people and children, especially when it comes to helping them go to school with full bellies. With automatic benefit payments, up to 5.5 million low-income Canadians will finally receive what they are entitled to. In a neighbourhood like mine, Bourassa, so many families are losing out on their rights because of a lack of information or missing paperwork. This is not an administrative measure; it is a matter of dignity. Finally, we are strengthening competition in telecommunications and financial services so that Canadians can switch providers more easily. In conclusion, our vision is clear: We are building a stronger economy, diversifying our trade partnerships around the world, capitalizing on our strengths and creating better jobs and higher wages. However, building for tomorrow must never make us forget the challenges we face today. No one should be left behind. It is very important to include all Canadians in our strategy and to truly keep them in mind at all times when we develop measures like the one before us today. Let us come back to the mother gassing up at the pump. Thanks to Bill C-38, maybe she will no longer have to stop at $20. Maybe she can fill the tank. Maybe she can keep a few dollars for a pair of winter boots for her children or for a family outing she has been putting off for months. This bill will not fix everything. We know that. No one here is saying that. However, it is telling millions of Canadians something essential: We see them, we hear them and we are here for them. Relief only works if it is timely, so I invite all my colleagues from all parties to quickly support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for keeping track of how long I have been here; I learn something new every day. I will circle back to my colleague's question before I wrap up. What I have learned over the past year and a half is that our government has introduced quite a few measures to help families and young people. These are targeted, temporary, one-off measures. They are designed to address the concerns that citizens have raised with us. There is a question I would like to put to my colleague on the other side. We have been implementing measures to help families for a year and a half. However, as the new MP for Bourassa, I was very surprised to see MPs on the other side of the House voting against them. That said, I would like to thank the member once again for his work.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. It gives me another opportunity today to reiterate a number of measures introduced by our government. As I said earlier, a family of four can receive up to $1,890, and a single person, up to $950. This assistance is geared to families. As I mentioned earlier, something I hold very dear deserves reiterating. I am referring to the roughly 400,000 children a year who truly benefit from Canada's national school food program. This is the kind of practical action I am talking about. There are others, but time prevents me from listing them all. What bothers me the most, however, is seeing people on the other side of the House vote against family-oriented measures aimed at helping Canadians. That disappoints me a lot.

Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to go back to the scenario I described at the beginning of my speech. Imagine a woman in my riding who is a personal support worker and who has just finished her shift at dawn. This woman decides to only pump 20 dollars' worth of gas because she cannot afford to fill up her tank. Alternatively, imagine someone who makes a lot of deliveries and whose vehicle is their livelihood. There are people like that in my riding and in my colleague's riding. We are trying to fix these issues so we can help these people day after day with concrete measures.

Mr. Speaker, people are coming out of the woodwork every day claiming to be AI experts. Some have contacted me, others have tried to meet with me and, recently, someone insisted that I read his book. I thought to myself, “Oh no, not another one!” I decided to take his advice anyway and read his book. Well, I followed his advice. The book showcases the extraordinary work of local entrepreneur Patrick Chenel, co-founder of ConqrAI and an AI strategy specialist with over 30 years of experience working with Quebec's biggest companies. In his book AI‑Driven Enterprise, he proposes a concrete framework that focuses on three key dimensions: knowledge management, knowledge sovereignty and human-centred AI governance. At a time when Canada is adopting an AI strategy, that kind of thinking needs to be highlighted. It reminds us that AI must also be human-centred. I call on the House to recognize Mr. Chenel's contribution to the public debate on AI and to encourage dialogue among the political, business and innovation communities.

Mr. Speaker, when someone's refrigerator breaks down, they call a technician. If he says that the part is no longer available, that the documentation is missing or was never available, or that the cost of the repair exceeds the price of a new appliance, that person is forced to spend $500, $1,000, or even more, to replace something that could have been, and should have been, repaired. This is not bad luck. It is a business model. It is called “planned obsolescence”. Devices are deliberately designed not to last, not to be repairable and to force replacement. This model costs Canadian families dearly every year.

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today about Bill C-267. Someone's refrigerator breaks down. They call a technician, who says that the part is no longer available, that the repair manual is missing or was never available and that the cost of the repair exceeds the price of a new appliance. That person is then forced to spend $500, $1,000, or even more, to replace something that should have been repaired. This is not bad luck. It is a business model. It is called planned obsolescence. These appliances are deliberately designed not to last and not to be repairable in order to force people to repair them. This model costs Canadian families dearly every year. The solution is a collaborative national framework. That is what Bill C-267 proposes: a response that is both simple and ambitious—a national framework for sustainable and repairable electronic products and essential devices. It is not a rigid regulation; it is not an encroachment on provincial jurisdictions. It is a flexible framework developed in collaboration with the regions, the provinces, industry and consumer advocacy groups that would finally give Canadians the right to know, the right to choose and the right to repair. In practical terms, the bill sets minimal durability standards and requires the availability of spare parts, technical documentation for independent repair persons, and clear labelling so that consumers know what they are sinking their money into before they spend it. Through this bill, Canada is simply catching up with the rest of the world. The European Union introduced a right to repair directive in 2024. The United Kingdom passed its legislation back in 2021. In the U.S., over twenty states have taken action with bipartisan support. Apple, Samsung, LG and Whirlpool are already adapting these standards to their other markets. This means a minimal burden for Canada. The benefit for families will be substantial, tangible and real. We may wonder who is going to benefit. First, Canadian families that cannot afford to replace everything once a year will benefit; the repair shops that my colleagues mentioned earlier will benefit; local SMEs, often run by tradespeople and immigrants who are currently denied access by manufacturers to the parts and information they need to perform repairs will benefit. Most of all, the environment and our planet will benefit, because each appliance repaired rather than discarded represents a resource conserved and one less piece of trash. Repair is an integral part of Quebec and Canadian culture. I know several associations and groups in Bourassa, Montreal and elsewhere in Quebec that help people with their repair projects. Today I would like to talk about the community of activists and volunteers who help people with repairs. One example is Wai Chu Cheng in the riding of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park: She is the co-founder of Repair Café in Toronto, Ontario. This culture is not confined to Quebec or Alberta; it is across Canada. In closing, I am reaching out to my colleagues from all parties, all regions and from every province. This is not a partisan bill. It is a sensible bill. It makes a lot of sense because it provides that things can be repaired instead of merely replaced, that we can be informed instead of being unaware, and that we can work together instead of imposing anything. I think of the families in Bourassa and across the country who are watching what we do here today. The bill is not a partisan project. It is a promise to every household that deserves better: to repair, not replace, to inform, not ignore, and to collaborate, not oppose. That is what I believe, and that is what I ask the House to stand for. Let us refer this bill to committee, where we can improve it together, hear from witnesses and strengthen it. That is what Canadian families deserve, and that is what this bill delivers.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague for her eloquence and for the way she presented this bill and its various provisions. I would like to highlight a very important aspect of this bill, and that is the support it provides to municipalities and police forces. I would like to ask my colleague if she could elaborate on the issue of victims' rights, expand on her thoughts on that and, obviously, tell us how this bill will provide more protection for survivors of violence.

Madam Speaker, AI is fundamentally redefining how Canadians work, learn and build their businesses. Our students want the skills and tools to seize the jobs of tomorrow. Our SMEs want to adopt AI so they can innovate, grow and create good jobs here in Canada. Can the government explain how Canada's “AI for All” strategy will enable Canadians to take full advantage of the economic benefits of this technological revolution?

Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to Dr. Nacim Haddad, whom I welcomed today at my Hill office. Dr. Haddad is an artist, physicist and a keeper of memories. He is at the crossroads of nuclear physics, art and communication, devoting his work to promoting the musical art of Aita. Aita is a traditional musical art form from the Kingdom of Morocco. It carries a collective soul that has been passed down from generation to generation. Through his Ayta World Tour, Dr. Haddad infuses the art of Aita with a contemporary spirit that is worthy of its great history. Dr. Haddad brings together past and present, tradition and creativity. I would also like to commend Richesses culturelles Montréalaises for its invaluable support of this cultural initiative and for its commitment to supporting initiatives like these that bring various Canadian cultures closer together. I hope that Dr. Nacim Haddad receives a level of recognition that matches his talent.

Mr. Speaker, it is with conviction that I rise to express my clear opposition to the motion. I oppose it because I want to defend a broadcasting system that continues to invest in Canadian workers, Canadian creativity and our country's economic prosperity. Despite the rhetoric evident in the motion moved by my Conservative colleagues, this debate is not about a so-called streaming tax. It is about whether global streaming giants, which derive substantial revenue from Canadian audiences, should contribute in a fair and reasonable way to the ecosystem that they benefit from every day. There is nothing radical or new about this. For decades, companies that participate in the Canadian broadcasting system have contributed financially to the creation of Canadian programming. These contributions have helped build one of the most respected production industries in the world. The motion before us today disregards that reality. It portrays contributions to Canadian programming as a burden or penalty. However, these contributions are investments in jobs, infrastructure, intellectual property and economic activity across the country. Let us be clear: Platforms are not being asked to throw their money away. They are being asked to invest in some of the best productions in the world. They cannot claim that the programming produced here is unworthy of their services. The audiovisual production sector supports hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in Canada. These are not abstract jobs. These are good, highly skilled jobs filled by Canadians in every region of the country. These are technicians, artists, producers, actors, videographers, translators and many more. The economic impact is much broader because it goes far beyond the film set. When a production comes to a community, for example in Montreal, hotel rooms are filled, visits to local restaurants increase and local workers are hired. It also generates interest in tourism and economic development for the area. Entire local economies benefit from a vibrant production sector not just in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal, but also in rural, northern and indigenous communities. That is why the framework established by the Online Streaming Act is so important. The world has changed considerably since the original Broadcasting Act was drafted. Canadians are consuming more and more content online. This is especially true for young people. Young people tend to go directly to online content rather than broadcast content. That is a very important distinction to make, because historically, only broadcasters were required to contribute. Imposing obligations on one group but not the other was not sustainable. If Canadian broadcasters are required to contribute to Canadian programming, while foreign platforms that generate significant revenue in Canada are exempt from this requirement, the financial foundation supporting Canadian production will inevitably crumble. This framework is neither unique nor radical. In fact, we see the same thing happening all over the world. European countries have adopted similar requirements, and despite these obligations, major global platforms continue to invest heavily in these markets. It is fair to ask why that is the case. It is because businesses invest where there is talent, stability, infrastructure and opportunities, and Canada offers all of that. It offers opportunities, infrastructure and, above all, exceptional Canadian talent. The irony is that many of the voices criticizing these requirements today will celebrate the Canadian industry's success without ever acknowledging the policies that made it possible. We cannot separate our success from the public policy framework that has supported this growth. When domestic production shrinks, jobs disappear, creative workers leave the industry or leave the country altogether, and Canada becomes dependent on content produced abroad, without maintaining its own creative industrial base. This is not a recipe for long-term economic resilience. Countries that invest in domestic production develop exportable industries, and our creators develop commercial intellectual property on an international scale. Film and creative studios attract foreign investment. Canada strengthens its position in a rapidly expanding global audiovisual economy. Weakening our production ecosystem would not make Canada stronger. It would make it far more dependent, and since we are seeking cultural sovereignty, such a dependence is something to be avoided, especially when we consider the motion under discussion today. The substance of the issue before the House is simple. Should international and multinational streaming platforms, which generate significant revenue from the Canadian public, contribute to the Canadian broadcasting and production system, or should the burden continue to fall disproportionately on Canadian broadcasters and companies alone? I believe Canadians know the answer. There should not be an imbalance. It should not be disproportionate. It should be balanced. A modern broadcasting system needs to reflect a modern market. That requires fairness, sustainability and, above all, ensuring that the economic benefits of our system continue to support Canadian jobs. Canadian production and Canadian stories must also be supported. At a time when countries around the world are in fierce competition to attract production investment and creative talent, now is not the time to weaken the foundations of our domestic industry. Now is the time to modernize our framework responsibly so that it reflects the realities of the digital age, while continuing to support the creators who put Canada on the map. Canada has never built its greatness by stepping aside. Canada has never done that, and it will not start today. Before coming to Quebec and Canada, what most attracted me was Canadian and Quebec culture. How do we get to know this culture? Through what means? How do we hear about it? Who is the ambassador for this culture? We discover this culture through Quebec's cultural productions, which are exported abroad, both in English and French. If we do not fully support this industry, we will not be able to encourage, retain and develop the teams responsible for these productions. As I said, Canada never built its greatness by stepping aside. Canada will not start doing that today. For all these reasons, I urge all members of the House to reject this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, was having a hard time speaking because of all the noise. I would ask my colleague to repeat his question, because I could not really hear him, even with the interpretation. That said, if I understood correctly, he was asking whether the tax will be broadly applied. I am simply saying that what matters to us is the objective itself, that of protecting our industry, protecting out jobs and protecting our culture. That is the goal. The most important thing is not knowing who will have to pay and who will not, but ensuring a degree of fairness. Obviously, that is what we are aiming for.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his eloquence and his interest. I can say one thing: I fully agree with the objective. My colleague and I could discuss the pace we should set and how to proceed. We must also not forget that we are currently in negotiations with another country to the south. We therefore need to figure out how to move forward with our proposals and our approach. This has been said many times, and I reiterate it today: Quebec culture and its francophone identity are non-negotiable.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the objective is the same. What we want is to protect our institutions, promote the French language and protect francophone culture. In 2025, our government invested $150 million in CBC/Radio-Canada, $150 million over three years in Telefilm Canada, $127.5 million over three years in the Canada Media Fund, $26.1 million over three years in the National Film Board and $6 million over three years in the Canada Council for the Arts. Our government will defend the French language, francophone culture and the essential institutions that protect them. I came today not to orate, but to present numbers and facts.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate a bill that means a great deal to me, a bill focused on issues that transcend partisan divides. Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act, is a practical, structured and too long-awaited answer to realities that we can no longer ignore. I am rising to speak to an issue that affects the public trust, the dignity of the women and men who bravely serve their country and the very integrity of our institutions: a profound and lasting cultural transformation of the Canadian Armed Forces. For too long, members of the armed forces, especially but not exclusively women, have carried a silent burden. Courageous testimony has brought to light disturbing realities: sexual misconduct, abuse of power, a climate of fear and, at times, a sense of persistent impunity. This testimony is not an exception to the rule. It is the rule, and it points to a systemic problem. Ad hoc solutions are not enough to address a systemic problem. What it takes is a profound, thoughtful, courageous and coherent transformation enshrined in law. That is exactly what Bill C‑11 proposes, supported by recommendation 5 of the Hon. Louise Arbour, former Supreme Court justice. Bill C-11 proposes significant amendments to the National Defence Act. It aims to modernize a military justice system that, in some respects, has failed to keep pace with the changing values and expectations of Canadian society. Basically, it strengthens accountability, reinforces institutional independence and ensures compliance with the standards of fairness that Canadians expect. As introduced, Bill C-11 removes the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual assault offences and gives that jurisdiction to civilian authorities. This is not a new approach. It is in keeping with the interim directive adopted in December 2021 based on Justice Arbour's interim recommendation. Since then, all new charges of sexual offences under the Criminal Code have been shifted to the civilian justice system. The directive has proven its worth. Bill C-11 enshrines it in law and makes it permanent. Any attempt to undermine or undo the progress made over the past five years would constitute an unacceptable step backwards and a direct affront to the victims and survivors who have had the courage to speak out. The Liberal government has chosen to take action, not with symbolic gestures, but with a clear and measurable commitment to bring about lasting change. This has resulted in the strengthening of independent report mechanisms, improved support for victims, greater transparency in disciplinary processes and a renewed commitment to accountability. Let us be clear, however, that changing an institutional culture cannot be achieved through legislation alone. It requires time, consistency, and above all the political courage to challenge structures deeply rooted in an institution's history—in this case, the military. It is in this context that Justice Arbour's report marked a turning point. This report did not merely identify the flaws, it charted a course forward, a demanding but necessary one. Among its recommendations, recommendation five stands out for its scope and the clarity of the message it sends to all of Canadian society. Some might wonder why the transfer to civilian courts is so fundamental. The answer is simple, but it touches on the very essence of what we mean by justice. Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done independently and impartially. However, in a system where the chain of command plays a central role in every aspect of a service member's professional life, there exists a structural perception of a conflict of interest whether we like it or not, whether we accept it or not. For a victim, this perception alone may be enough to discourage any reporting. Imagine what it is like for someone who has to report an assault in a context where their career, performance reviews and professional future depend directly or indirectly on the very organization that is handling their complaint. This is not just a procedural matter. It is a matter of fundamental trust, and without trust, there can be no justice. By transferring these cases to the civilian system, we are introducing a crucial institutional distance and ensuring genuine independence, which strengthens the credibility of the process and sends a clear message to victims that their voices matter, their safety is a priority and their cases will be handled with all the rigour and impartiality they deserve. To those who cite the unique nature of the military context as a reason to maintain internal jurisdiction, I would say that, when it comes to serious criminal offences, especially sexual offences, the highest standards of independence and expertise must prevail. The civilian system has these capabilities. It has the necessary resources and specialized training, and, above all, it has the experience required to handle these cases with the sensitivity and rigour they require. A strong chain of command is not about absolute control. It is about trust. Trust is built on justice, actual justice and perceived justice. Transparency is also important for building trust. Above all, responsibility and accountability are essential. Enshrining recommendation five in law does not weaken our military institutions; it strengthens them. It recognizes that certain functions need to be performed outside the chain of command to ensure their integrity. Integrity is the very foundation of any trustworthy institution. I will even repeat that statement by saying that integrity is the sine qua non of any trustworthy institution. A strong military is not only defined by its ability to defend our borders; it is also defined by the respect it affords to each and every one of its members. It is also defined by its ability and, above all, its willingness to evolve. In conclusion, refusing to change means accepting that the same injustices will persist. We have a collective responsibility here to reject that. Today, we have a real opportunity, an opportunity to transcend partisan lines, an opportunity to turn our commitments into action, an opportunity to send a clear message that dignity, security and justice are non-negotiable. Behind every reform are individuals, women and men who have chosen to serve this country with courage and dedication. They deserve more than our gratitude. They deserve a safe environment, a fair system and an institution that reflects the values they uphold. That is precisely what we have a responsibility to build here.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague may not share my point of view, and our understanding of the matter differs, as he pointed out. I would like to thank him for that. In this matter, what we are saying is that someone in the same chain of command could harm a complainant's career. We want to maintain that independence. We want to give that freedom to the person who wishes to file a complaint. We want the person to have that freedom, that comfort and that peace of mind once the complaint is filed. We are always open to suggestions, but as I said, we do not necessarily share the same understanding on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I fully understand my colleague's point, but the fact remains that we do not want to remove that possibility. Once again, there is a difference in understanding on both sides of the House. I can simply say that the civilian courts have the skills, understanding and experience in this regard. Furthermore, once again, we want to work with all parties on all sides to ensure that complainants are given every opportunity to make a complaint.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North. What we presented today is completely in line with Justice Arbour's recommendations and the testimony we heard in committee. Once again, we are a responsible government. We are a government that wants to make room for anyone who wants to file a complaint. We are a government that believes every member of the military should receive equal justice for themselves and everyone who works with them and where every member should also feel that justice to be equal.

moved that Bill C-267, An Act to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and essential home appliances, be read the second time and referred to a committee. Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that I have the support of the member for Carleton. It is with a great sense of responsibility and much hope for the future that I rise today at second reading of my first bill here in the House of Commons, Bill C-267, which seeks to establish a national framework on the durability and repairability of electronic products and home appliances. This the first bill I am introducing in the house, as I just said, and I am proud to table it on behalf of families in Bourassa and Montreal and all Canadians, who deserve better when it comes to their appliances. Let me start with a simple image. Someone comes home and their dishwasher no longer works. They call a technician who says that the part is no longer available or that the cost of the repair exceeds that of a new device. They are then forced to pay $500 or $1,000, sometimes more, to replace a device that technically could have been repaired. Millions of Canadians experience this situation every year. This is not an accident. It is the result of an economic model that favours replacement over repair and leaves consumers without information, without choice and often without recourse. This bill seeks to change that. In the example I just gave, maybe the part simply no longer exists, or the information or the repair procedure is not available. It is very unclear. It is getting very difficult for the repair person to do the repair. As I said, sometimes it costs more to repair an appliance than to replace it even if a person would technically prefer to keep it running rather than throw it out and buy another. This bill would change that. This bill is about giving consumers more transparency, more durability and more repairability. This bill is important because today, too many Canadian consumers buy appliances and electronic devices without knowing how long they will last, whether spare parts will be available or how long software support will be provided. This state of affairs is costing our families dearly. It forces people to replace appliances prematurely when they could otherwise be repaired. It also increases the amount of electronic waste, one of the fastest-growing waste streams in the world. Right now too many Canadians are forced to replace products that could and should be repaired. That also contributes to increased electronic waste, which is one of the fastest growing waste streams in the world. As I said, this bill would make a real difference because it calls on the federal government to establish a national framework to inform consumers and improve the durability and repairability of appliances sold here in Canada. This approach is economical, environmentally friendly and pro-consumer. It is economical because an appliance that lasts longer costs less over time. It is environmentally friendly because repairing something rather than throwing it out reduces waste and conserves resources. Lastly, this approach is pro-consumer because it restores a better balance between manufacturers on the one hand and people on the other. This is good for families, good for the environment and good for a more responsible economy. I want to talk numbers. I want to talk hard facts. Electronic waste is the fastest-growing waste stream in the world. Every year, millions of tonnes of devices that are still functional or repairable are thrown away. In Canada, it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of tonnes of electronic equipment are thrown away annually, a significant proportion of which could and should have been repaired had the parts, information and support been available. The problem is not just environmental, nor is it merely an economic issue; it is also a question of fairness. When I say fairness, I am obviously referring to fairness between the manufacturer on one side and the consumer on the other. It is also a matter of purchasing power. At a time when the cost of living is the number one concern for Canadian households and families are struggling to make ends meet, the forced replacement of appliances represents an unfair burden. This is not a luxury. A fridge is essential. A dishwasher, a stove, a television, a computer, a smart phone—all these appliances are now essential to daily life. Our digital economy has also become essential. Anyone who buys one of these devices today never knows how long it will last. No one knows whether replacement parts will be available in five years' time. No one knows whether the manufacturer will provide the software support after two years. There is a fundamental asymmetry of information between manufacturers, who know everything, and consumers, who know almost nothing. This asymmetry comes at a high cost to Canadian families. On top of that is a phenomenon that experts refer to as planned obsolescence. It means that devices are deliberately designed to not last and to not be repaired, in order to force consumers to replace them. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a well-documented reality, recognized by regulators around the world, one that is currently being addressed through legislation in Europe, the United States and the United Kingdom. Canada must act, and that is exactly what Bill C-267 proposes. In addition, there is a phenomenon that specialists call planned obsolescence, with devices deliberately designed not to last and not to be repairable, to force replacement. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented reality recognized by regulators around the world. I want to be clear about the nature of this bill, what it is proposing and what it is not proposing. This is not a rigid set of regulations being imposed on the industry from the top down. This is not a government telling manufacturers what to do in minute detail. It is certainly not an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. This bill establishes a national framework that is flexible, progressive, collaborative and based on extensive consultation with the provinces and territories, industry and consumer advocacy groups. Specifically, here is what the bill provides. It mandates the Minister of Industry to develop a national framework, in consultation with his provincial and territorial counterparts, that includes measures focused on minimal product durability, ensuring that appliances last a reasonable amount of time; repairability, so that consumers can have their appliances repaired using readily available parts, tools and information; the availability of spare parts, to ensure that manufacturers do not stop making them prematurely; access to technical documentation, so that independent repair technicians can work their trade; software support, so that updates are not used to render appliances that are still in perfectly good working order obsolete; informative labelling, so that consumers know how long their appliances will last before they buy them. This national framework will have to be tabled in both chambers of Parliament within the next few months. Five years later, its effectiveness will be reviewed and a report will be submitted to Parliament. It is a measured, transparent approach that respects parliamentary processes and would give the government the tools to act without presuming solutions before consulting all stakeholders and parties. Canada is not starting from scratch, as I mentioned earlier. It is part of a global movement that has been gaining momentum over the past few years. In June 2024, the European Union adopted a directive on the right to repair, which covers a wide variety of appliances, including smart phones, tablets, washing machines, dishwashers and refrigerators. This EU directive requires manufacturers to make spare parts available, to provide technical documentation to independent repair people and to not impede repairs through software updates. Since 2021, the United Kingdom has been imposing similar requirements regarding the availability of spare parts for several categories of household appliances. In the United States, more than 20 states have passed or are in the process of passing laws on the right to repair with remarkable bipartisan support. Both Republicans and Democrats see this as a matter of consumer freedom and local economic competitiveness. In practical terms, this means that large international manufacturers that sell their goods in Canada are already adapting to these new standards in their other markets. I am talking here about major manufacturers like Samsung, LG, Whirlpool and Apple. They have all announced programs to provide access to spare parts under international regulatory pressure. That means that adapting would impose very little burden on these large manufacturers here in Canada, since they are already meeting these requirements elsewhere. This bill is not ahead of its time; it is catching up. I want to be very clear: This bill is not an end in itself. It is not an objective we want to achieve. It is a serious starting point. It provides a legislative foundation that will help move the debate forward and that will allow us to hear from experts, consumer groups and industry stakeholders so that the bill can be strengthened in committee. Who will benefit from this bill? First and foremost, it will benefit Canadian families. Second, it will benefit small repair businesses, those local shops that are often run by immigrants who come to this country. They are often craftspeople or tradespeople who are currently being deprived of access to parts. Third, it will benefit the environment. For every device that is repaired instead of replaced, a natural resource is preserved. Fourth, it will benefit the industry itself. This framework will deliver a more transparent market, clear standards and a level playing field for all manufacturers. I will end where I began, by talking about Canadian families. Every day, in the riding of Bourassa, in the streets of Montreal North or Ahuntsic, I meet ordinary folks who are facing tough choices: seniors who have to choose between getting their fridge repaired and buying a new one; young families going into debt to replace a phone that could have been repaired; small business owners losing contracts because they cannot get the parts they need. This bill sends them the message that we see them, we hear them and we are taking action. This is not a partisan or ideologically motivated bill. It is a common-sense bill that is based on the reality of Canadian families, supported by a global movement and built on collaboration. I am reaching out to my colleagues in the House, from all political parties and all regions, and asking them to vote to send this bill to committee, where we will be able to study it, improve it, hear from witnesses and make it stronger together. Repairing instead of replacing, informing instead of ignoring, collaborating instead of imposing: that is the spirit behind this bill. That is the spirit I am bringing to the House today. This should not be a partisan issue—

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very interesting question. Yes, we want a bill that will help combat planned obsolescence, but that is not all. We also want it to be mandatory to provide consumers with information. When a consumer wants to make a purchase, they should be able to choose between two devices: the one that comes with the most warranties or the one whose replacement parts will be available for the longest time, the one that can be repaired for the longest time. What he says is true, then, but it is not the extent of it. There are other provisions in the bill.

Madam Speaker, that is not a good question; it is a great question. Quebec's legislation is inspiring. It prohibits planned obsolescence, but it goes even further. It creates a warranty of good working order, requires replacement parts to be available and also provides for penalties. That is great, but Quebec is acting as a province, within its areas of jurisdiction. We are acting within ours. Let me be clear: Bill C-267 is not an end point; it is a starting point that we have to work from to ensure that all of Canada, not only Quebec, can enjoy the same standards everywhere, be it Alberta or Quebec. The goal is to have the federal government work within its areas of jurisdiction and offer this option to the other provinces.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to see the support of my colleagues today. I can say that not only do I have the government's support, but I also worked with the government on creating this bill. I would add that it will be studied in committee. There are other stakeholders that I have met with, including Option consommateurs, Protégez-Vous and other people who want to work in committee to make this bill stronger for families, the environment, our SMEs and our industry.

Madam Speaker, with my remaining 25 seconds, I would like to start by thanking my colleague, the member for Carleton. Yes, I met with several stakeholders, including Option consommateurs. People want to go further with this bill. It is great that people want to collaborate and work together. I encourage those people to participate in the study of the bill in committee in order to make the bill stronger.

Mr. Speaker, over the past year, Canadians have had to adapt to a rapidly changing world, one that is unpredictable, more complex, more unstable and, for many, more expensive. Last fall, on this side of the House, we responded to these changes with a solid budget, budget 2025. It is a plan to build a stronger and more resilient economy, leading to lower costs for Canadians. Yesterday's economic update is the next step. It is the next step in really continuing the work. I have a question for the Minister of Government Transformation. Could he explain—

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 40th anniversary of the Centre d'action bénévole de Montréal‑Nord. For four decades, the Centre d'action bénévole de Montréal‑Nord has been the heart and soul of our neighbourhood. It supports our seniors, helps newcomers integrate, mobilizes volunteers and builds the bonds of solidarity that make the riding of Bourassa stronger and more inclusive. The Centre d'action bénévole de Montréal-Nord embodies the very best of civic engagement: people who choose to get involved, not out of obligation, but by choice and based on their convictions. Without these volunteers, without these men and women, many cultural and sports activities simply could not take place. On behalf of the residents of Bourassa, I sincerely thank them for their commitment, and I wish the Centre d'action bénévole de Montréal-Nord a happy 40th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, seniors are the living memory of our communities, our families and our society. They are an invaluable asset and a source of wisdom, and we can never thank them enough. However, far too often, isolation and loneliness cast a shadow over seniors' daily lives. That is why, today, I want to commend La Voix des Aînés for the extraordinary work that it does in giving seniors back the place they deserve with kindness, compassion and generosity. Through its presence, its willingness to listen and its initiatives, this organization combats isolation, forges ties and reminds our seniors that they matter, that they have a place and that they help to enrich our society. I also want to mention the recognition and engagement brunch that was held on April 12 in Montreal, an important event designed to promote this wonderful mission. I want to thank everyone involved in the organization for their caring and hard work, as well as for coming here to Ottawa. Congratulations and continued success to La Voix des Aînés.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a profound sense of responsibility that I rise today to speak at the report stage of Bill C-9. This bill seeks to combat hate. It is an essential bill that is urgently needed to protect Canadians. We have all observed a troubling reality across the country, namely the increase in hate-motivated crime. These acts are not abstract. These acts inflict harm, cause trauma and, above all, divide Canadian society. Just think about the attacks on synagogues in the Toronto area. Just think about the father who was assaulted in my Montreal riding because of his identity, beliefs and background. These acts are not trivial. They are an attack on who we are and on Canadian values. They are an attack against us as a society. However, in response to this urgent problem, what are we seeing? We are seeing stalling tactics, filibustering and procedural stunts that put partisan calculations above Canadians' safety. In politics, wasting time is a luxury we cannot afford when communities are living in fear. Hate crimes are on the rise, yet the opposition is responding by contriving procedural delays and would rather post clips on YouTube than provide our constituents with meaningful protection. I have watched people rise in the House just to get sound bites and spread lies about the bill, instead of prioritizing and promoting meaningful protection for our constituents. That is why I decided to speak today. We need to go even further, because even the alarming figures cited by my colleagues on this side of the House do not tell the whole story. The reality is even more serious. Hate crimes are vastly under-reported. An estimated four out of five victims do not file a complaint. I repeat: four out of five victims. That means that behind every statistic, there are untold stories. Behind every statistic, there are fears that kill and, of course, invisible wounds. Those are the voices we have to answer to today. Bill C‑9 as amended provides a clear, firm and responsible response. I invite everyone to read the amendments. It strengthens the tools available to law enforcement, protects our communities' public spaces, and sends a clear message that there is no place for hate in Canada. I want to commend the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for its hard work. Thanks to its efforts, this bill is now more specific, more balanced and more respectful of our fundamental rights. Let us be quite clear: Fighting hate does not mean giving up our freedoms. On the contrary, our approach has been guided from the start by one fundamental principle: We must protect Canadians while fully upholding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and all of our fundamental rights. That is why Bill C‑9 is built on solid guarantees and high thresholds. Consider the provisions targeting certain hate or terrorist symbols, for example. These are not vague or random measures. On the contrary, they take aim at very specific symbols, Nazi symbols, symbols associated with known terrorist organizations recognized by Canada. These symbols are not harmless. They embody hate, glorify violence and are designed to intimidate. The communities concerned have clearly told us that they want protection and do not want to be taken hostage by politicians' debates ever again. I would now like to address some other fundamental issues. One of them is the requirement for Attorney General consent. I want to spend some time on this, because it is very important. This is a fundamental issue that really needs to be clarified, and it is important not to spread lies about it. This is a really important aspect because it is not merely incidental. It provides essential protection against abuse. It ensures that only legitimate prosecutions will go forward, thereby preventing any abuse or exploitation of the justice system. Once again, the committee was thorough and judicious in reinforcing this requirement. The bill also provides a crucial clarification of the very definition of hatred. It is based on Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, including the Keegstra decision. Hatred is defined as an emotion of extreme intensity, a deep loathing that goes far beyond mere offence or disagreement. Let me be clear. Criticizing, debating and expressing an opinion, however vigorously, remains protected and remains a right. However, inciting hatred, dehumanizing others and calling for violence are unacceptable. These acts have no place in our democracy and no place in Canada. The bill also introduces a major step forward: the explicit recognition of hate crimes. Hate crimes are not like other offences. Yes, they target individuals, but they also target their identity and their entire community. When a synagogue or mosque is vandalized, it is not just the building that is under attack. The perpetrator is sending a message of fear to an entire population or group. When a person is attacked because of their religion, because of their hijab or kippah or because of their ethnic origin, it is not an isolated act. On the contrary, it is an attempt to undermine societal harmony. This bill clearly affirms that such acts will be recognized for what they are: serious attacks on Canada's social fabric. Some have said that this is excessive. I am hearing members on the other side of the House saying that this goes too far. However, those who are living in fear do not feel the same way. They think that this bill is necessary. They think that it is crucial for their dignity and safety, for living together in harmony and upholding people's fundamental right to live without fear. Bill C‑9 also contains measures to protect access to places of worship, schools and community centres. Again, let us be very clear. The goal is not to restrict the right to peaceful protest. It is to prevent intimidation, obstruction and fear campaigns. I served on Montreal's city council for eight years. I was the vice-chair of Montreal's public safety commission for eight years. I worked with the Montreal police for almost five years. This bill is critical for law enforcement and the police because it will allow them to take action and provide protection. I am speaking from personal experience. I know that police officers face this limitation because they do not have any power to take action. Incidentally, municipalities are on the front lines of these realities, and they have expressed support for our bill. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has made it clear that our legislative framework needs to be strengthened to combat hate, including hate speech and hate symbols. Municipalities witness the concrete impact of these acts on social cohesion every single day. We should listen to what they have to say. This debate should not be partisan. It is about the safety of Canadians. It is about human dignity and our country's core values. Our government is committed to taking action, to protecting Canadians and to ensuring that everyone, no matter who they are, can live freely and practise their faith without fear. I urge all members of the House to rise to the occasion, support Bill C-9 and ensure it passes third reading because, in the face of hatred, inaction is not an option.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify two points that need to be understood when asking this sort of question. Protecting freedoms does not mean tolerating hatred. On our side of the House, we do not want to tolerate hatred. We do not want to, nor can we, tolerate violence against any place of worship. We do not want to prevent anyone from exercising their right to free speech, regardless of their religious or non-religious beliefs. We think it is very important to make that clear. Once again, I would like to mention my experience with the police and public safety services in Montreal. Yes, we need this lever. Yes, we need this regulation. We must take preventive action, rather than wondering whether there will actually be shootings as a result of this regulation. We must give the police the tools they need.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate something that my colleague mentioned and elaborate on it. It is important to remember that this bill does not target opinions; it targets acts of hatred and hate crimes. I will give a very simple example. Let us remember what happened at the Quebec City mosque. The young man who opened fire on the people in that mosque had posted hate messages on social media. When the police asked him whether anyone had ever told him that that was illegal and that it was not right, he said that he had been doing it for years and that no one had ever tried to stop him. No one had ever talked to him about it. That is very important. Horrific hate crimes and terrorist acts are born from hate that is, unfortunately, nourished by hate speech on social media. This bill seeks to destroy and eliminate this type of speech.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again clarify something. The bill has been amended, and I hope that my colleagues opposite have read the amendments. I talked about Montreal, which is a large urban centre, but I could just as easily have been talking about Toronto or any other big city. The issue is that the police need this regulatory power so that they can take preventive action, so that they can eliminate the problems, the crime and the threats against these places of worship at their source.

Mr. Speaker, every year on March 20, we mark the International Day of La Francophonie. With over 320 million speakers worldwide, the French language serves as a bridge between communities, a source of cultural wealth and a driving force for international co-operation. In Canada, and Quebec in particular, French lies at the heart of our identity. It shapes our culture, our history and our ability to live together in harmony. As the member of Parliament for Bourassa, I am proud to represent an area with a vibrant, diverse francophone community made up of active citizens from all sorts of backgrounds. Today, let us celebrate the French language, but let us also remember our collective responsibility to protect, promote and showcase it both here and abroad. Preserving French means defending more than just words. It means protecting a way of thinking, living and laughing, with nuance, dignity and humanity.

moved for leave to introduce C-267, An Act to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and essential home appliances. Mr. Speaker, I feel a great sense of responsibility as I rise today to introduce my very first bill as a member of Parliament. This bill seeks to establish a national framework on the durability and repairability of electronic products and essential home appliances. Every year, millions of Canadians have to replace appliances that could be repaired. This is very expensive for families and contributes to the rapid growth of electronic waste. The purpose of this bill is to better inform consumers, encourage manufacturers to design more durable products, and promote a more transparent and responsible marketplace. By working with the provinces, territories, manufacturers and consumer advocacy groups, we can promote products that are designed to last and easier to repair. This will help reduce household expenses, support the circular economy, and encourage more sustainable consumption. I invite my colleagues to support this initiative. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands. Over the past few years, we have all seen the importance of good public governance. Canadians expect their government to manage public funds responsibly, but never at the expense of our values. Canadians' values are reflected in the values of our government. These are our core values, our humanity and our sense of justice. This is precisely the balance we seek to maintain in managing the interim federal health program. Generally speaking, finding balance is the most difficult aspect of governing. Governments must avoid going to one extreme or the other. Sometimes, finding a balance is extremely complex and difficult. Despite this, our government is ready to take on this challenge and is ready to seek this balance and implement it. This program exists for one very simple reason: to ensure that those who are most vulnerable, including asylum seekers, have access to basic health care during a transitional period, and I emphasize the word “transitional”, until they become eligible for provincial and territorial health insurance. Let us also be clear: This program must be managed rigorously. It must be managed transparently and, most of all, sustainably. Certain figures are being used today to stoke fear and concern, particularly with regard to the increase in the program costs. This makes it important to go over the facts once again. The increase in costs is not due to an expansion of benefits. This really needs to be stated so that Canadians listening today clearly understand the cause and do not draw simplistic correlations such as the one that was just heard. The increase is not the result of a change in the program's purpose, either. That is not the reason. This increase in costs is due mainly to a significant increase in the number of refugee claims in recent years and to longer processing times for these claims. In practical terms, this means that some people stay in the system longer and therefore continue to be covered temporarily by the federal program before being transferred to provincial and territorial plans. In response to these pressures, our government has not stood idly by. As I said earlier, our government has worked very hard to maintain equilibrium within this program. We have taken targeted measures, responsible measures and, above all, concrete measures. First, we introduced a copayment model for certain supplemental benefits as of 2025. Recipients now contribute a portion of the cost of drugs, the cost of dental care, the cost of vision care and especially the cost of counselling services and assistive devices. Basic care such as medical consultations, hospitalization and tests remain fully covered. This change makes the IFHP more consistent with the experience of many Canadians who also have to contribute to their supplemental plan. Second, we suspended certain updates to the IFHP that would have resulted in an automatic spending increase, while maintaining coverage comparable to that offered by the provinces and territories to people on welfare. Third, we introduced and advanced legislative reforms, including Bill C‑12, to reduce abuse, improve processing times and reduce the length of time people rely on temporary federal support. I would like to digress for a moment. When we speak of temporary situations, we are not talking about people who take advantage of the system, on the contrary. No one on the path to immigration wants to remain in a temporary situation, to remain in uncertainty or to abuse our program. On the contrary, these people want a reply so that they can become part of society, enter the workforce, and integrate into Canadian society with their family. This is very important, because sometimes in our speeches we draw parallels that can create false perceptions or misunderstandings. Fewer delays mean lower costs. Fewer delays mean a much fairer system for everyone. Fourth, we ended the use of federally funded hotel accommodations for asylum seekers, and we refocused our efforts on more permanent, sustainable and community-based solutions. These decisions lower costs and promote more stable integration pathways, as I said earlier. It is also important to remember a fundamental principle: Cutting health care does not make health care needs disappear. On the contrary, delaying essential care until entering into a provincial plan would only shift costs to the provinces and territories and would often only increase them, since health problems do not improve. Instead, they become worse and more expensive to treat. Our government's approach aims to prevent these situations, protect public health and ensure an orderly transition to the provincial and territorial systems. Furthermore, the program is rigorously monitored. Claims are analyzed, audited and administered through a structured network of health care providers, with clear mechanisms to ensure the integrity of expenditures and the proper use of public funds. We also continue to assess benefits to avoid duplication and maintain fairness across governments. It should also be said that some financial projections have not yet included the savings generated by the new quotas or the impact of the ongoing legislative reforms. These measures will have a direct impact on how long the program is used and on overall costs. In fact, we can already see some results: In 2025, the number of asylum claims dropped by about one-third from the previous year. This shows that the government's measures are working and are helping to reduce pressure on the system. Canadians want a well-managed, compassionate and credible immigration system. They want us to protect the vulnerable, address abuse and ensure that every taxpayer dollar is used wisely. That is exactly what our government is doing. We are aligning benefits with provincial plans, introducing cost-sharing mechanisms, strengthening oversight and transparency, reforming the system to improve efficiency, and continuously monitoring, assessing and adjusting the program to ensure its long-term viability. The interim federal health program is not a privilege. It is a temporary safety net, a public health tool and a transition mechanism. It is a reflection of our values. As we proceed with the reforms, including those in Bill C‑12, we will continue to reduce financial pressures, improve efficiency and ensure that this program remains responsible, fair and sustainable. That is why I encourage the House to support these reforms and continue building a system that is rigorous, compassionate and true to Canadian values.

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question, and it is an opportunity to get back to the issue of correlation. Making simplistic correlations between immigration, asylum seekers, vulnerable people and the health care system is nothing but two-bit politics. We really need to work very hard to make sure that Canadians truly understand the real impact indicators that are causing problems and longer wait times. I think that the parliamentary secretary was clear in his explanation earlier that it is, in fact, a very small percentage of people who benefit from this.

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question but I think the comments are very clear. We must be careful. We are talking about the health care system. Once again, a correlation is being made with an immigration issue, which we agree on. During that time, I was a city councillor in Montreal. We did indeed welcome these people. I am the member for Bourassa, and I work very hard to strike that balance I talked about: being a country that is welcoming and that offers services while also ensuring there are no abuses or cost increases. We all have to work very hard to that end. I think that going back on a particular issue and creating yet another simplistic correlation between immigration, asylum seekers and the problems with the health care system is unacceptable in the House.

Mr. Speaker, that is one way to ask the question. Is there an issue? The answer is clearly yes. Have there been problems? Are there things that need to be corrected? In fact, my introduction was along those lines. Are the delays really long? Yes, but what has the government done? I have identified four important measures that the government is working on to reduce costs and delays, so that immigrants are treated humanely and with the dignity that Canadians can truly offer.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague wants to know whether I am aware of climate and environmental issues and whether our government is also aware them. The answer is obviously yes. Now, to answer the part of the question where my colleague talked about, or rather made inferences about economic ambitions, the answer is once again yes. However, our economic ambitions and development also come with a certain responsibility. This is a responsible development that will protect workers and aim to truly electrify transportation. Quebec will also benefit from it, since everyone in Quebec who charges their car will be using electricity from Hydro-Québec, a Crown corporation. We are both economically ambitious and very environmentally responsible.

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I would say that charging stations play a role in many ways. First, everyone knows that Quebec covers a very large area, so for EV users, the more charging stations there are, the better. Second, it is important to note that Quebec has exceptional expertise in designing, developing and installing these charging stations. Once again, Quebec is not only a leader in manufacturing cars and batteries, but also in developing these stations, and other workers will benefit from this. In closing, the more charging stations there are, the more people will be encouraged to buy EVs and the more they will enjoy driving them. As a result, the number of vehicles running solely on gasoline will decrease, which will obviously help us meet our targets.