Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see you again and to be back here in the House with all my colleagues. I hope that everyone had a good summer and that we will have productive debates in the pursuit of the common good. A few years ago, I received a call from an acquaintance who was in a bit of a panic. This person was calling me because they knew I was a lawyer. They had been summoned for jury duty and wanted to know how to get out of it. They told me they did not have the time because they were working. It is true that being a juror is not an easy task. Jurors have to stop working for the duration of the trial, and it is no vacation. They make decisions of critical importance not only for the accused, but also for the victim and their loved ones. In the Gaspé in 2015, for example, 12 members of a jury sat through a trial that lasted a month and a half. It was the first trial of Johanne Johnson, who was accused of murdering her partner, James Dubé. It involved a month and a half of trial proceedings, followed by three full days of deliberations before reaching a verdict, which was subsequently overturned on appeal, meaning the trial had to start all over again. All this to say that being a juror takes time. Above all, it means accepting a heavy responsibility involving tragic events. Each juror must join with 11 other jurors in deciding another person's fate by finding him or her guilty or not guilty. They must weigh the evidence presented and judge the credibility of the testimony given. Usually, jurors are exposed to horrific accounts of crimes involving sordid facts. In our criminal system, this is the most solemn type of case and involves the most serious types of crime, like murder. Although they represent only about 1% of criminal cases, these are usually the most grave, complex and impactful cases, both for the victims and the accused. A heavy load and responsibility are therefore placed on the jurors' shoulders. Of course, while serving on a jury may be a civic duty, it comes with no training. Members of the public are randomly selected from the Quebec voters' list. This is what prompted the call from my acquaintance seeking an exemption from jury duty. Their wish for an exemption is nothing unusual. The Canadian Juries Commission conducted a national opinion poll in June 2020 that found that only 18% of Canadians expressed a willingness to participate in jury duty. There is some degree of civic disengagement in our justice system when it comes to jury duty. In fact, it is at a point where some judges are now used to issuing arrest warrants and summoning people who fail to appear in order to improve participation rates. In Quebec, the issue falls under the Jurors Act, and people are required to appear. The use of sanctions to ensure participation is a consequence of the lack of a positive culture around this obligation. Civic disengagement is not the only issue. After speaking with some Crown prosecutors, I learned that most jurors complete their service with a feeling of accomplishment and of having served justice. However, other jurors come out of the experience traumatized. The first to make this point was Mark Farrant, who was the jury foreman in an Ontario murder trial in 2014. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder after the trial. He sued the Government of Ontario and the Government of Canada, alleging a failure in the duty of care. His public testimony sparked a collective reflection and a series of reforms that led to the founding of the Canadian Juries Commission. As I understand it, it also motivated the work of Senator Lucie Moncion, which led to the introduction of the bill we are debating this afternoon, Bill S‑226, an act respecting jury duty appreciation week. We in the Bloc Québécois support this initiative. Establishing a jury duty appreciation week would recognize and value the essential work done by ordinary citizens, without whom our criminal justice system could not function. It is also a way to address civic disengagement with positive action. Jury duty is one of the few truly binding civic obligations under Canadian law. People have the right to vote, but they are not required to do so, and mandatory military service has been abolished. Jury duty, however, remains mandatory, and yet it is the only civic duty that has not been recognized with a national week of appreciation. Bill S-226 fills that gap. Some people might argue that designating jury duty appreciation week is merely symbolic. That is true, but there is value in symbolism. Parliament regularly adopts national designations. Mental Health Week, Black History Month and the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation are examples of this. The value of all these initiatives lies precisely in recognition. That said, as members of the Bloc Québécois, we are firmly devoted to defending Quebec's jurisdiction when it comes to the administration of justice. The division of powers set forth in the Constitution Act, 1867, expressly gives the provinces jurisdiction over the administration of justice. This jurisdiction unambiguously encompasses everything related to jury duty, including jury selection, compensation, conditions of service and post-trial support. Quebec exercises its jurisdiction with rigour and a consistency that deserves to be highlighted. As the only civil-law jurisdiction in North America, Quebec has developed robust judicial institutions over several centuries, rooted in the values and culture of its society—notably by increasing daily allowances for jurors to a rate that is much more generous than in most other Canadian provinces. Quebec also reimburses psychotherapy fees for jurors who are traumatized by a trial. We know full well that these advances are the result of thoughtful Quebec governance, not a federal directive. It is in this spirit that we support Bill S-226, because it recognizes without constraining, commemorates without imposing and brings people together without requiring uniformity. Any concrete action arising from this initiative must be carried out through voluntary collaboration, with full respect for the autonomy of Quebec and the provinces. Jury duty appreciation week derives its value from its simplicity. Let it therefore remain what it is: a tribute to citizens who serve justice.

Madam Speaker, in the drafting of Bill C‑9, some interpretive clauses were added that, in my opinion, address the concerns of my Conservative colleagues. I am going to read them, and I want my Conservative colleagues to tell me what is missing from these clauses so I can reassure them. The goal is not to prevent individuals from worshipping in accordance with the religions they wish to follow. There are two interpretive clauses that say pretty much the same thing. Here is the first one: 11.1(1) For greater certainty, nothing in subsection 319(2) or (2.2) of the Criminal Code shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement made in the course of a discussion, publication or debate, if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement. That includes people who make religious statements. The second clarification uses more or less the same wording, but states the following at the end: ...if they do not wilfully promote antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust. Why are my Conservative colleagues not reassured by these interpretive clauses?

Madam Speaker, my colleague has provided an accurate description of the turmoil and concerns that Bill C-9 has caused among the people. Does he not acknowledge that the government may have failed to explain Bill C‑9 properly, allowing the situation to escalate because of what appears to be incorrect information? What will the government do differently next time to explain its legislative initiatives more effectively?

Madam Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague the same question I asked earlier. I hope I get an answer by the end of the debate. Bill C-9 contains interpretive clauses specifically intended to ensure that under no circumstances are individuals prevented from practising the religion of their choice or communicating the contents of a biblical text. The following involves subsections 319(2) and 319(2.2): For greater certainty, nothing in subsection 319(2) or (2.‍2) of the Criminal Code shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement made in the course of a discussion, publication or debate, if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement. Why is my colleague not reassured by Bill C-9's interpretive clauses?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my riding neighbour for his speech. My colleague represents a riding on the other side of our beautiful Chaleur Bay. I want to ask him a question. He brought up remarks made yesterday in the House. I was there. It was about 11:50 p.m. He spoke on the importance of not repeating remarks that might be hurtful to others, yet by taking a few minutes of his speech to go over these remarks again, is he not contradicting himself?

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague's remarks and would like to hear him speak to the issue of Canadian sovereignty, since he brought it up again. From the Bloc Québécois's perspective, we feel that this amounts to Canadian subservience to Donald Trump's demands, particularly in the cultural sector. One of our expectations regarding the latest economic statement was that the government would reintroduce the digital services tax. Not only did the government fail to reintroduce this tax, but we saw last week that it even gave up on forcing big tech companies to contribute their share to funding culture. Would funding culture and ensuring that American multinationals pay for media content not have been a way to strengthen Canadian sovereignty?

Mr. Speaker, behind the economic update lies an economic situation that is strongly affected by the trade war with the United States. I would like to ask my colleague for his insights. I would like him to tell us what he has heard from his contacts in the United States regarding the next steps in the renegotiation of CUSMA. Also, what is his view of how the Liberal government is currently conducting the negotiations?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great speech. I heard all of his demands for his province of Saskatchewan that Ottawa has not listened to. I heard him list the things that Saskatchewan is asking for and not getting. I have a serious question for him about something that is bothering me. The Conservatives often talk about reducing the deficit, as my colleague mentioned, and being responsible with public funds. Our party is constantly condemning the subsidies for oil and gas companies. We see these companies raking in huge profits these days, practically record profits. Why are my colleague and his party not speaking out about the public funds going into the oil and gas companies' pockets? Could that money not be put to better use addressing Saskatchewanians' needs?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for all of the work he did during the study of this bill, which required a lot of effort, listening and compromise. I personally was pleased to be here to listen to his speech from beginning to end. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the amendments that the Bloc Québécois managed to get adopted during the study of Bill C-9, particularly the one aimed at restoring the consent of the Attorney General to lay charges for the crime of promoting hatred. Why was it important to secure that win?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the National Assembly of Quebec passed a law to protect certain ridings in my region, the Gaspé Peninsula, as well as one in Montreal. With every electoral redistribution exercise comes tension between, on the one hand, population growth and the need to ensure that each vote carries similar relative weight, and, on the other hand, the importance of ensuring that ridings do not become too large. The Quebec National Assembly chose to protect certain ridings. Similar situations exist at the federal level. My riding, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, now covers 23,000 square kilometres. That is larger than the area of Djibouti. Several of my colleagues have even larger ridings. What does my colleague think we can do to better balance these two requirements?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his kind words about Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine, which is an absolutely wonderful place. I would like to ask him another question. The action that the Quebec National Assembly took to reconcile these two principles, or in other words to guarantee equality of voting power and ensure that the ridings are not too big, led to an increased number of MNAs. The number of members of the Quebec National Assembly is going to increase from 125 to 127. Is my colleague prepared to consider that type of solution to ensure that federal ridings remain manageable in size so that citizens truly have access to their MP?

Mr. Speaker, one of the major challenges of the fast pace of modern life is to avoid living in a bubble. It is important to understand what happens before consuming a product and what happens after. The lemon in my glass grew somewhere, and it will end up somewhere. In the case of my phone, people had to work in mines to extract the material needed to produce it, and it will eventually end up somewhere. Sometimes we forget that, but we must not forget it. We need to be aware of that, for the sake of the planet. Last weekend, I was in the Magdalen Islands. We were hauling lobster traps. For six hours, we were at sea off Havre-aux-Maisons, catching lobster after lobster. Later when I sat down to a lobster dinner, I knew where it came from and what it took to put it on the plate. I think that gave me a broader perspective on things. The image that I want to start my speech with is that of a mine. My riding is rich in resources. The Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine region is often referred to as a resource region. On Sunday morning, I visited Quebec's only salt mine, which is located in the Magdalen Islands. Last summer, I was in Murdochville, where I visited the copper mine. We cannot forget what a mine entails. Of course, we need minerals to function. We need them, but when mines are opened, it scars the environment. It creates a hole, and there will be tailings. It is a necessary evil, but even when done according to best practices, the fact remains that it has an impact on the environment. We need to keep that in mind when talking about an iPhone or a Samsung, or when talking about a washer or a dryer. We need to remember that mines were opened to provide us with the materials to make these products. The other image I want to illustrate is that of landfills. My colleagues may have already seen pictures. These days, landfills are enormous, with birds flying overhead and machinery piling up the waste. Every time we fill a landfill, we destroy habitats. No one would want to live there. Again, it is a necessary evil. Anyone living in a modern society has to consume goods. Yes, mines are necessary, and we have no choice but to have landfills. What we are saying today is that the time between the two needs to be as long as possible. Eventually, the mine in Murdochville will start up again. Between the moment a piece of copper comes out of it and ends up in my phone, and the moment I throw it in the landfill, that time needs to be as long as possible. If I can extend the lifespan of a product, that allows me to open fewer mines and fill fewer landfills. That is our challenge. It is about extending the lifespan of the goods we consume. Why is this important? In 2019, there were 53 million tonnes of electronic and household appliance waste. What does 53 million tonnes of electronic waste represent? It represents 350 Queen Mary 2 cruise ships. That is 53 million tonnes per year. Every year, 53 million tonnes of ore are mined. Mines have been opened for this purpose, and all of it will end up in landfills. That is a huge amount. Furthermore, waste from electronic devices and household appliances generates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Globally, by 2030, these emissions will total 852 million metric tonnes. There is no denying that we live in a society that engages in economic activity. We need goods to generate growth and provide a decent standard of living for everyone. Nevertheless, we must be aware of the impact of our economic activity. According to a 2019 UN report, only 17% of all the electronic waste we produce is recycled at this point. That means we have a big problem and we need to do something about it. What we are seeing is that consumers need a little help. In a Canada-wide survey, Equiterre found that only 19% of respondents chose to have their household appliances repaired. The remaining 80% of respondents throw them out as soon as there is a problem. As for electronic devices, only 26% of respondents get them repaired. That is still not enough. Consumers have a role to play in this. We need to make sure that we develop the instinct to keep things that are old. However, businesses also have a role to play. My colleague gave a speech earlier that focused mainly on a laissez-faire approach to the economy. Personally, I do not subscribe to that school of thought at all. In Quebec, we passed the Consumer Protection Act, which was a major innovation in the 1970s under the René Lévesque government. It is working. As a consumer, we can take action against a company when it fails to provide a product covered by a warranty of proper functioning and quality. It is therefore possible to act and we must do so. We cannot just wait for companies to regulate themselves. Of course, businesses want to make products at the lowest cost. The point of obsolescence is to generate economic growth. A company that manufactures a dryer that lasts seven years instead of 25 would likely sell many more over the life of a single consumer, so there is a clear economic benefit there. This is where the government must step in. I want to return to the image I have created for my colleagues: that of mines being opened and landfills being filled. The government must act as an arbiter to guide businesses. Currently, repairing an item like a vacuum cleaner or a dryer often costs more than buying a new one. Then there are cases where items simply cannot be repaired, which is even more frustrating. This tactic on the part of a business is understandable in a capitalist society, but the government must step in to ensure that as few mines as possible are opened and as few landfills as possible are filled. We must act to protect the environment, because we sometimes seem to forget that not all of the planet's resources are renewable. At some point, there will be no more minerals, and that point must be delayed as long as possible. Indigenous people often remind us of the need to think of the next seven generations. That is the very least we can do. We must therefore find a way to use our resources. We must also respect consumers. When someone buys a product that constantly breaks, even if the initial price is lower, they are not better off if they have to replace it every five or six years. That is what we are talking about today: finding a way to protect the planet, respect consumers and support repair shops. Back home in Saint-Siméon de Bonaventure, there is a little shoe repair shop called Le Petit Cordonnier, run by Guillaume Poirier, whom I really like. Whenever I have old leather shoes that are a bit worn out, I take them to him. He also patches up my Blundstones. He has even repaired a sail for my sailboat and re-upholstered the seat on my motorcycle. There is a real cost-saving aspect to all of this. However, we must encourage companies to act more responsibly and ensure that our products last as long as possible. In 2023, Quebec demonstrated strong leadership by passing a law that amended the Consumer Protection Act, which, among other things, strengthened the legal warranty of proper functioning and ensured the availability of replacement parts. Bill C-267 is interesting. It would give the Minister of Industry the mandate to develop a plan to establish a framework with the provinces to promote product sustainability, foster transparency, and better inform the public. This is nothing revolutionary, but it is a step in the right direction. As long as this is done in a way that respects Quebec's jurisdiction over consumer protection, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill. That is why we will vote in favour of the bill at this stage so that it can be studied in committee.

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague and riding neighbour for his contribution. I would like to add a dose of moderation to our discussion. People boast that our electoral system is strong. However, it took a bill, the one that we are about to pass, to make it clear that bribes meant to force a vote, or bribes meant to persuade someone to vote one way or another, are prohibited. The infamous “brownies” made headlines. How does my colleague explain the fact that we had to wait over 150 years following Confederation before a clause like this was introduced?

Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague is very concerned about the issues raised by Bill C-22, and I understand that the purpose of today's motion is to split the bill, but I would like to hear my colleague's views on the substance of the matter. One of the concerns he raised is that, if Bill C-22 is passed, it will allow people's personal information to be retained for one year. He touched on the issue briefly, but what is his interpretation of the type of information that could be retained under Bill C-22, as presently worded? Does it include geolocation data?

Madam Speaker, I want to take advantage of the minister's presence here to tell him about what is happening in my riding, in the Gaspé region and in the Magdalen Islands. The cost to build housing is not the same across the board. In the Gaspé region, in particular, it often costs about 25% more because of the remote location and the fact that there is less competition. It is even worse in the Magdalen Islands because all the materials have to be brought in by ship. Here is my concern and my question for the minister. First, is he aware that the regions may have different construction costs? Second, will Build Canada Homes have the flexibility it needs in its support for housing projects in order to adapt to regional realities? Otherwise, what is happening right now is that projects in my riding are stalled because they cannot be completed within the budget, given that construction costs were based on cost estimates in urban areas.

Madam Speaker, I would like to continue the discussion with the minister. He mentioned prefabricated houses, and I am aware that both the Quebec and Canadian governments prefer them as a means of reducing costs. However, what we are seeing in the Gaspé Peninsula is that prefabricated components have to be shipped, and that poses a problem. I therefore ask that, when planning future programs, the government consider that prefabricated houses, if built in the city, will have to be shipped to the regions, which adds to the cost. So far, in the Gaspé Peninsula, we have determined that it does not actually work out to be any cheaper in the end. I would also like to mention the company Les Habitations Mont-Carleton, which is based in Matane and aims to become a Canadian leader. I think they have a bright future. Can the minister assure us that, even if the government makes a shift towards prefabricated housing, the cost of shipping the components will be taken into account?

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question to determine his party's position on a request that is very important to the Bloc Québécois and that was brought to me again yesterday. I was in the Magdalen Islands, and some seniors came to see me to ask about the status of the Bloc Québécois's request to increase the old age security pension for seniors aged 65 to 74. This would cost just over $3 billion per year and would be good for our seniors, whose purchasing power has been eroded and who are not always in a position to earn more. What is my colleague's position on our request?

Mr. Speaker, I thought my colleague's speech was very interesting, especially the first part, when he talked about drifting away from democracy. It resonated with me, because I was elected last year and I have noticed that, month after month, the government keeps introducing legislation to bypass lots of other legislation, saying that, from now on, as much power as possible is going to be placed under certain ministers' discretion. What risk does my colleague see in all that?

Mr. Speaker, with regard to defence spending, what has been done over the past few months is pretty spectacular. The government has invested an additional $60 billion in the space of 10 months. What I have to point out is that Canada was a laggard and had not been doing its part since 2014. Our fear is that one big push can come with certain risks, such as the risk of abuse, the risk that the money will be invested unwisely. Is my colleague willing to acknowledge that Canada was dragging its feet and that it only woke up when global instability spiked?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said something that resonates with me because it is something I have felt as well. According to feedback from the public, when they saw the exchange between my colleague and the Minister of Finance, they did not understand why the minister was not answering. I must admit that, over the past year, this is one of the things I have noticed that really amazes me. When we go to a committee meeting and ask questions, it seems as though the government's primary goal is to avoid answering questions and just run out the clock. I really do not understand what the point of that is. Does my colleague have any explanation or possible theories to share?

Mr. Speaker, today is Gaspé Day, a day to celebrate the region that I love. The landscapes there are breathtaking, but let us talk instead about the people back home and, above all, about the bond that unites us. Loneliness is taking a toll on society, but the Gaspé is an exception. Back home, when I see an ambulance go by, my heart sinks as I wonder who has run into some misfortune. Back home, I only ever honk my horn to get my friends' attention when I pass by their house and they are puttering around their yard. Back home, the cashier at the grocery store comments on what people buy and sometimes shares recipes. Back home, my son plays hockey with the son of my childhood friend, whose father coached us 30 years ago. Back home, we love to tease each other, laughing as we look back on our own clumsy mistakes. It is as if the Gaspé Peninsula, with its sea, mountains and rivers, seeps into our souls and makes us better people, not perfect, but cheerful and warm-hearted. Since June 4 is Gaspé Day, I encourage everyone to let a little bit of Gaspé into their hearts.

Mr. Speaker, today is Gaspé Day, a day to celebrate the region that I love. The landscapes there are breathtaking, but let us talk instead about the people back home and, above all, about the bond that unites us. Loneliness is taking a toll on society, but the Gaspé is an exception. Back home, when I see an ambulance go by, my heart sinks as I wonder who has run into some misfortune. Back home, I only ever honk my horn to get my friends' attention when I pass by their house and they are puttering around their yard. Back home, the cashier at the grocery store comments on what people buy and sometimes shares recipes. Back home, my son plays hockey with the son of my childhood friend, whose father coached us 30 years ago. Back home, we love to tease each other, laughing as we look back on our own clumsy mistakes. It is as if the Gaspé Peninsula, with its sea, mountains and rivers, seeps into our souls and makes us better people, not perfect, but cheerful and warm-hearted. Since June 4 is Gaspé Day, I encourage everyone to let a little bit of Gaspé into their hearts.

Madam Speaker, despite everything my colleague said, the fact remains that Canada has the highest level of household debt in the world, or one of the highest in the world, according to the IMF. The people most affected by that are those with the lowest earnings: seasonal workers who are struggling to get enough EI, given the rising cost of rent and groceries. I want to share the story of Lise Lapierre, whom I met at the E. Gagnon & Fils plant in Sainte‑Thérèse‑de‑Gaspé. Her EI ran out so she had no benefits coming in from early March to mid-April, so she evidently had no option but to go into debt. When will the government finally take action and put an end to the spring gap in EI?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague wanted to talk about natural resources in particular. One economic sector in serious difficulty in Quebec is the forestry industry. In the Gaspé, where I come from, forestry businesses are often family-owned. Those that export their products have been hit with 45% countervailing duties since October. One business operating in my riding is struggling financially. I am talking about Damabois, which has plants in Cap‑Chat and Matane. Two hundred jobs across Quebec could be at risk. Clearly, the government is not doing enough to support the forestry industry. Does my colleague agree with me that the government should do more to support Quebec forestry companies?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my riding neighbour for his speech. He and I represent ridings where seasonal work is a reality. According to the IMF, Canada's household debt is one of the highest in the world right now. Those most often affected are low-income earners, our seasonal workers, the very people who are indispensable in economic sectors that serve as pillars of our regions, such as the fishing industry. I recently met Lise Lapierre of E. Gagnon & Fils, in Sainte-Thérèse-de-Gaspé. She spends long hours pushing carts full of crabs and lobsters. In spite of everything, she is dealing with the EI spring gap. This year, it lasted from March through mid-April. Does my colleague not think that, to address the economic situation, this government needs to wake up and quickly reform employment insurance to put an end to the spring gap for seasonal workers?

Mr. Speaker, looking at how the Canadian economy has been performing, it is clear that the real problem is exports. We know that the forestry industry is being hit hard by 45% countervailing duties, which of course limits its ability to export competitively to the American market. We in the Bloc Québécois proposed that the government buy back the countervailing duties, the money owed to our businesses, in order to give them a bit of liquidity. Why did the government not take up our suggestion?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's list did not even include the backtracking on environmental assessments, the protection of endangered species, and so on. The Canadian Climate Institute says the government will not meet its climate targets. The Pembina Institute says the same thing. The former environment minister who resigned says the same thing, too. All we are asking the government is to provide evidence when it says it will meet its targets despite its backtracking. It cannot. Are the Liberals are not telling the truth? That is the only possible conclusion.

Mr. Chair, I understand from the minister's response that she supports this objective of distributing asylum seekers fairly. That goes without saying, because, obviously, the more asylum seekers we have, the higher the costs to the public treasury. In Quebec, there is also the challenge of integration in French. According to the French language commissioner, between 33% and 40% of asylum seekers arriving in Quebec have difficulty mastering the French language. Does the minister plan to revive the committee that was established in 2024 to work toward a better distribution among the provinces?

Mr. Chair, the minister tells us that she believes in the goal that is the equitable distribution of asylum seekers. She even tells us that it is a success. She explains that the number of asylum seekers is decreasing, which does not answer the question. The question is that there is currently an inequitable distribution of asylum seekers and that Quebec receives more than 38% of all asylum seekers while accounting for only 22% of the population. Where does the minister see success in that?