Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to join my colleagues in wishing the member a happy retirement. As women in politics, she and I help make up barely 30% of Parliament. I truly wish her a wonderful retirement. Although we do not always share the same values, we live in a healthy democracy. Of all places, this is the very space where we should be able to debate. More importantly, we must not be afraid to debate.

Mr. Speaker, with just two weeks to go before July 1, hundreds of people still cannot find housing and are at risk of becoming homeless. Municipalities are investing to address the unprecedented homelessness crisis, including Montreal, which has tripled its budget. Quebec has also increased funding for this issue in its latest budget. The only government that is not doing more is the federal government. All that Ottawa has done is to renew its unsheltered homelessness and encampments initiative, which it had irresponsibly scrapped. With just two weeks to go before July 1, will the Liberals increase their funding?

Mr. Speaker, June 15 is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. At a time when fraud targeting seniors is gaining attention, let us remember the importance of staying vigilant and taking action against the various types of abuse, including financial abuse. Seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 face age discrimination, since they do not receive the same pension amount as seniors aged 75 and above. This is ageism, another form of abuse. However, rising inflation and housing problems directly impact people living on a fixed income. While there is also growing concern about isolation among seniors, the new requirements of the New Horizons program are making it harder for volunteers to organize activities to help them break out of their isolation. Let us stop ignoring the needs of seniors so that they can age with care, compassion and dignity.

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick comment and then a question for my colleague, whom I thank for her speech. I will add my thoughts on this democratic issue. While the government was busy manufacturing its majority, it did not accept any of the 11 recommendations from the Bloc Québécois. In such a context, the government should have talked to us and listened to us. However, this government has a tendency to move further and further away from listening and from democracy. Now, here is my question for my colleague. In terms of the measure in the economic statement on suspending the excise tax on gasoline, some economic experts, including Luc Godbout from Quebec, maintain that it is not a good decision, from the perspective of both a balanced budget and the environment. At a time when we need to invest in our infrastructure and social programs, we just deprived ourselves of a source of revenue. Moreover, experts are saying that there is a risk of forest fires this summer because of climate change and global warming. What does my colleague think about that?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the sentiments of my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord and reiterate another point. Certain groups have written to us because there has been a great deal of disinformation coming from the Conservatives. At the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Bloc Québécois tabled certain amendments it felt were essential. During one debate, I even heard people go so far as to say that people would no longer be able to protest. Normally, a protest is a legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. I do hope, however, that if a protest is intended to incite hatred, there will be tools available to intervene.

Mr. Speaker, the reform of the New Horizons program is putting community projects for seniors at risk. Our organizations have one month to submit their projects. In the meantime, Ottawa now requires them to register as a business, which can take up to 10 months. In addition, the criteria exclude small groups like some local FADOQs and Cercles de fermières; their parent organizations are registered, but they are not. Ottawa needs to give organizations time to meet the requirements and ensure that none of them are disqualified due to the new criteria. Will the government postpone its reform?

Mr. Speaker, July 14 is just around the corner. No one asked for this New Horizons reform. This is a complete nightmare for volunteers working to improve the well-being of seniors. Community organizations that still do not have a business number will not have time to register by July 14, and that is not to mention the hundreds of others at the local level who simply cannot register because of their structure. That is something else we learned at the briefing. This reform is not designed to address the reality facing Quebec organizations and seniors. Will the government extend the deadline so that the new criteria do not adversely affect seniors' projects?

Mr. Speaker, I will ask my colleague a question in my capacity as vice‑chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The committee is concerned about homelessness and is currently conducting a study on the subject. One of the issues raised by the Bloc Québécois regarding Bill C‑14 has to do with the provision making it an aggravating factor to commit assault against a public transit driver. I have a great deal of respect for public transit drivers. That said, the attacks they are subjected to are often related to mental health issues and even homelessness. The Bloc Québécois believes that, rather than creating aggravating factors, it would have been better for the government to invest in health care to take care of these people and truly protect drivers. That would have been much more effective than simply adding aggravating factors, which may not really help the drivers. What does my colleague think?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and fellow member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which is examining Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act. We heard that Quebec, through the Société d'habitation du Québec, will have the final say on the Build Canada Homes projects. However, several witnesses who appeared before the committee told us that there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding Build Canada Homes. How is affordability defined? Will rural municipalities get their share of the market? What will happen with seniors and women who are facing housing challenges? In short, there is still a lot of uncertainty. Does my colleague not agree that it would have been better to just transfer the amounts to Quebec and the provinces, since they are likely more attuned to their communities' housing needs?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I know that he has taken an interest in the issue of women's safety. He even participated in a few meetings of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Bill C‑16 incorporates many of the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. These recommendations are based on requests from survivors and victims, particularly with regard to court delays and the criminalization of coercive control. The Standing Committee on the Status of Women made these recommendations and they have been incorporated into Bill C‑16. Did he discuss this with his Conservative colleagues?

Mr. Speaker, speaking of what happens behind the scenes, it certainly does look like someone is hiding behind the curtain. I will leave it at that. Bill C‑16 is the topic of discussion tonight. In all seriousness, this bill seeks to better protect women. However, the problem I see from the outset is that this bill will not solve everything. I will be talking about that, and I know that my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle, with whom I will be sharing my time, will also be talking about that.

This is the third time I have talked about this bill, though I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This bill ended up being extensively discussed by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I have already talked about it a lot. I may come back to Bill C‑16, but I also want to use my speech to talk about the fact that protecting women also requires better housing and local services. I will come back to that. The Bloc Québécois obviously supports the principle of Bill C‑16, which contains a number of important improvements for better protecting victims of violence. In particular, it recognizes coercive control. It strengthens certain victims' rights and modernizes criminal law. However, one fundamental question remains: Can a woman be truly safe if she has nowhere to go after escaping violence? Justice is essential, but our committee also heard over and over that justice alone is not enough. I will begin by talking about the housing issue. I will then move on to the improvements that Bill C‑16 contains. I will close by talking about what makes Quebec different in this domain. A woman fleeing violence first needs a place to live. Behind every criminal record and every case file is a woman who has made the extremely difficult decision to leave her abuser. This decision often means giving up her home, leaving her job, uprooting her children and losing her financial security. Without a housing solution, many women remain trapped in their situations. What we heard at committee from survivors is that shelters are more than just places of refuge. The evidence we heard at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women served as a reminder of this. Shelters are true places of recovery. They provide shelter, psychosocial support, legal assistance, financial aid, support for children and assistance in building autonomy. For many women, it is the first night in a long time that they can sleep without fearing for their lives or those of their loved ones. Housing is also a public safety issue. A woman who leaves an abusive partner often has to choose between returning to her abuser or living in precarious conditions. It is absolutely terrible. She has to wait months for affordable housing. As long as this reality persists, no reform of the Criminal Code will be enough. I have some telling statistics. In 2024-25, Canada had approximately 561 residential shelters for victims of violence. Despite this, officials still identify the lack of affordable housing as one of the main obstacles to a sustainable escape from violence. Research shows that women who have access to second-stage housing are much more likely to rebuild their lives and avoid returning to their abuser. Sexual violence remains vastly under-reported. In fact, nearly nine out of 10 sexual assaults are never reported to the police. In 2024, 81 women were killed by an intimate partner in Canada, including 25 in Quebec. There have already been 10 femicides in 2026. One of the first occurred in Rougemont, in the riding of Shefford. I also mentioned coercive control. I would like to talk about some of the progress this bill will achieve after first discussing the importance of offering abused women more extensive help. Tackling coercive control is an important step forward. The Bloc Québécois welcomes the creation of a coercive control offence. This recognition is essential. It follows on a study that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women did on my suggestion following a request by the Quebec National Assembly and members who had worked on a report on rebuilding trust. However, Ottawa did not budge. Late last year, after a number of years went by, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women held a press conference pointing out that one of the main recommendations in my report was to criminalize coercive control. This recognition is essential. Violence does not always leave visible wounds. The wounds can also be psychological, economic, social, digital or emotional. Financial dependence is often an integral part of this type of control. Even under the best laws, a woman who cannot afford housing or food for her children remains vulnerable. We absolutely need to work toward women's economic empowerment, because we cannot break the cycle of domestic violence if a woman, even after years of trying, cannot accumulate the financial resources needed to escape that violence. She remains trapped in a cycle, in an endless spiral, where the man, to meet his own needs and expectations and to control his victim, exerts financial control over her. We must also consider women's economic empowerment and ways to ensure women can fully take control of their financial lives. Another point that came up during the testimonies before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is that we cannot overlook older women. Coercive control also affects older adults. What is concerning is that some women endure violence perpetrated by a spouse, a caregiver, or even an adult child. Data also show that there has been a significant increase in cases of domestic violence against older adults in recent years. The system must be able to recognize these specific realities. I also want to talk about the importance of respecting Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, because social services, shelters and housing fall primarily under Quebec's jurisdiction. Let us not forget that. The federal government must financially support these networks without imposing its own conditions. Quebec organizations are familiar with the realities on the ground and already meeting victims' needs. It is therefore important to look at what is being transferred to help the organizations that work with victims. Staff are exhausted, and they need resources and means to care for these victims and care for survivors. Bill C‑16 is not perfect, so the Bloc Québécois had moved some amendments, particularly regarding section 810 of the Criminal Code, which is still far too subjective. At the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I moved, in collaboration with my Conservative colleagues, that we conduct a study of section 810 of the Criminal Code. The Bloc Québécois wanted to take that aspect out of Bill C‑16, because it has been proven that section 810 conditions can give victims a false sense of security. We moved amendments, and there are some amendments that could have been made to Bill C‑16. However, our chief concern is that the Criminal Code be strengthened and that new offences be created. The Criminal Code is a federal law, however, whereas the application and administration of justice are the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. I said that to the Minister of Women and Gender Equality yesterday, and I asked her to discuss it with her colleague, the Minister of Justice. If the government does not arrange for money to be transferred to Quebec for the administration of justice, in acknowledgement of the fact that a much bigger burden is going to be placed on Quebec's justice system, it is going to be passing laws that cannot be enforced. There will not be enough resources to take care of victims and survivors properly. In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑16. It is a real step forward for victims. However, we must guard against believing that the Criminal Code can fix everything and that it is some kind of magic wand. A woman needs effective justice, safe housing, a bed in a shelter, adequate income and quality psychosocial support. As I told the minister yesterday, the Bloc Québécois will be here to make sure nobody forgets the amendments our party put forward at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The best way to protect women is not only to punish abusers, but also to give victims the practical means to get away and rebuild their lives with dignity. We owe them that because there must be no more victims.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Bloc Québécois proposed amendments to try to avoid some of the inconsistencies we see in Bill C-16. As I said in reference to section 810 of the Criminal Code, we want the criteria to be more objective than subjective. That was one of the amendments that had been proposed by my colleague to address this situation. That is the kind of amendment we would have liked to include in the bill, but unfortunately, the Liberals voted against it. So, we will definitely have to bring it up again. The issue of section 810 of the Criminal Code will need to be addressed, because it is clear that this section is not doing its job of ensuring that victims are safe. The Bloc Québécois will continue to closely monitor the issue of section 810 of the Criminal Code.

Mr. Speaker, the member is right: Representatives from those Quebec organizations did indeed come to testify about shelters. What we are seeing at this point in time is that wait lists keep getting longer. When I say that waving a magic wand will not fix things, Build Canada Homes is a prime example of that. We do not really know what it will amount to; it is still very unclear. We have a lot of questions. One thing we know for sure is that wait lists are getting longer. More and more women are turning to emergency resources. Without a space in a second-stage shelter, they are stuck at the emergency shelter stage, meaning that other women who need emergency resources cannot get them, so they stay home and cannot access emergency resources. Other women who are ready for that second stage cannot access it because there is no space. After second-stage housing, where do these women go and what do they do? Often, they have their families. We want to ensure that these people are housed safely and with dignity. Sometimes they need supportive housing to ensure follow up. In short, all the steps are being delayed. This is a key issue because it is often the reason why a woman feels she cannot get out. She feels that she is stuck in a cycle of violence because she does not know where to go with her children. It is a huge concern.

Mr. Speaker, there is a bit of disinformation because the bill we are studying this evening essentially reiterates the Bloc Québécois's proposal to restore mandatory minimums for serious crimes. It also echoes the Bloc Québécois's idea about the potential recruitment of young people at earlier stages and about deepfakes. This bill is making progress on a lot of fronts. I think we have reached the point where we need to put this to a vote. It is time to move forward. I know there is room for improvement. We will have to continue to monitor progress, as I said, because this will not be like waving a magic wand. However, I think that the disinformation needs to stop and that we need to work on making progress, recognizing victims and helping survivors find their way and rebuild their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that listening to victims is what works best. As the representatives of many police forces said, the first step in addressing coercive control is to include it in the Criminal Code so that police have the tools they need. Otherwise, it is too difficult for them to act or to be proactive and act sooner. That is what this does. Recognizing coercive control means recognizing that there are warning signs and that police need be able to intervene much sooner. In order to achieve that, we need to criminalize this behaviour and listen to victims.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that committee members worked as non-partisanly as possible. In the course of our other proceedings, members of various parties asked questions of the victims and the witnesses who appeared. Incidentally, as part of other studies, we asked people whether Bill C‑16 should be passed. Everyone we heard from asked us to vote in favour of Bill C‑16 and explained to us why it is such a huge step forward. I would like to point out another step forward. During the previous Parliament, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to address the impact of the Jordan decision on court delays. Bill C‑16 addresses this issue too. In this case as well, to avoid further delays in the court system, the government must seriously consider providing the provinces and Quebec with additional resources so they can administer this new legislative framework properly. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

Mr. Speaker, I will try to restore some calm because I am ashamed right now. Unfortunately, I am reliving a scene I witnessed at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, where, instead of listening to victims, my Liberal and Conservative colleagues were bickering back and forth. The victims left in tears, and I am reliving that moment. Members on both sides can laugh and argue about this, but Bill C-16 addresses an issue that is far too important to victims for me to be witnessing what I am seeing right now. I feel ashamed on behalf of victims and survivors. I would like to come back to something. During the study of Bill C-16, the Conservatives filibustered while the Bloc Québécois was trying to be constructive and propose amendments. For example, we consulted legal experts to try to fix a mistake in this bill. The Bloc Québécois wanted to include provisions regarding an objective test. Such provisions would have enabled the judge to take into account the full context, the abuser's history, coercive behaviour and threats against loved ones and pets. That is what the offence itself does. However, even though the amendments we proposed were logical, the Liberals voted them down. I would suggest that everyone calm right down because, seriously, the way we are handling Bill C‑16 right now is not at all in the public interest. Let us keep in mind that the purpose of Bill C‑16 is to find real solutions so there will be no more victims.

Mr. Speaker, based on what I heard tonight in this debate, I am not sure if my Conservative colleague has consulted with his colleagues. There are two things I have taken away from the testimony we heard at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women's recent meetings on the issue of violence against women. First of all, the victims said that Bill C-16 was a necessary step. They said that we needed to take action and make the Criminal Code more effective. Earlier, I heard someone say that we were 99% in agreement. Once we get there, the remaining 1% can be addressed and worked out in a non-partisan manner. The other thing, of course, is that this bill does not solve everything. I acknowledge that, the Bloc Québécois acknowledges it too, and I told the minister so. We will come back with the amendments we proposed. Why not say that we will pass this bill and then work to propose additional measures? We could also address the broader ecosystem, in other words support groups, tackle the housing issue, and continue to work on the Criminal Code. We really need to look at this as a continuum of services.

Mr. Speaker, tonight we are debating Bill C‑16, tabled late last year. What still impresses me, however, is the timeline. For months, if not years, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women has been calling for progress on a number of issues: court delays, the criminalization of coercive control and, as the Bloc Québécois and other stakeholders have also urged, the issue of intimate AI-generated images and deepfakes. People have been calling for all that for weeks, months and years. It took a press conference by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women where we displayed non-partisanship, where members from all political parties sitting on that committee called on the government to criminalize coercive control and take action on violence against women. It is an important first step, but why did it take so long?

Mr. Speaker, it is true that people often view a legal ruling as a magic wand that will fix everything. What we keep hearing in committee is how important it is to focus on prevention. I mentioned this just yesterday to the Minister of Women and Gender Equality. I also told her about an important study on the rise of masculinism and anti-feminism, and that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women will hold a press conference and eventually release its report. I asked her if she would be interested in seeing the recommendations included in that report. Could my colleague comment on the importance of working proactively on prevention?

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and her bill. I will have an opportunity to speak about it later, but I have a question for her. Around the world, we are seeing democracy losing ground in an uncertain economic context. Unions exist. We know that, in times of economic uncertainty, it is essential to stand up for workers independently of management. In a context where democratic rights are being rolled back, that is important. How important are these two principles and her bill for democracy and for standing up for workers in an uncertain economic context?

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C‑259, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code regarding fair representation. I thank my colleague for tabling it. We are debating a fundamental principle of our democracy: the freedom of workers to organize freely. This right is not a privilege. It is a right that has been recognized by the courts, by international conventions and by our own laws. When employees choose to join a union, they must be able to do so without intimidation, pressure or interference from their employer. Bill C‑259 would ensure just that. The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill. I will start by talking about the importance of unions and why we are talking about them here tonight. I will then talk about the changes set out in Bill C‑259. Lastly, I will talk about Quebec's progressiveness in this area. First, why are unions important? All too often, we forget everything that unions have helped us achieve. Think of paid leave, annual holidays, pension plans, health and safety protections, parental leave, anti-harassment measures and decent wages. None of that appeared out of thin air. Those gains were achieved thanks to generations of workers who organized collectively. Even today, unions play a vital role. They help reduce inequality. They promote better working conditions. They help to reduce the gender pay gap. They ensure better protection for the most vulnerable workers. According to Statistics Canada, unionized employees, on average, earn more than non-unionized workers in comparable jobs. Unionized workplaces also have fewer workplace accidents and more prevention measures in place. That is not insignificant. Some might believe that this is not a major issue in federally regulated sectors, but that is not the case. Federally regulated sectors include banking, telecommunications, airlines, railways, ports and interprovincial transport. More than 900,000 workers are covered by the Canada Labour Code. Approximately 34% of those workers are covered by a collective agreement. In certain strategic sectors such as rail transportation or postal services, the unionization rate actually exceeds 70%. Union independence in these sectors is therefore a major issue. At its core, the bill we are debating this evening is all about company unions. What is a company union? It is a union dominated, controlled or influenced by the employer, a union that no longer truly represents the workers' interests, a union that essentially becomes an extension of the employer. Historically, this practice has been used to prevent the emergence of bona fide labour organizations. The company would create a fake union, negotiate with that fake union, and then claim that the right to organize was being respected. However, in reality, the workers were losing their genuine bargaining power. Second, what does Bill C‑259 accomplish? The Canada Labour Code already prohibits employer interference, but the current provisions are relatively general. The bill clarifies the rules. It clearly defines employer domination and influence as the employer contributing financially to the union, controlling union leaders, interfering in union elections, or making promises or threats intended to influence members. In other words, we are moving from a general principle to concrete criteria. The bill also provides for the revocation of certification of an employer-dominated union, the possible nullification of a collective agreement entered into under such conditions, strengthened remedies before the Canada Industrial Relations Board, and fines of up to $100,000. It really sets clear guidelines. Third, I want to talk about Quebec as a model. Quebec has often been a pioneer in this area. For decades, the Quebec Labour Code has protected union autonomy. Sections 12 and 13 of our labour code explicitly prohibit any form of employer interference in union activities. Quebec also pioneered several major reforms. For example, it banned replacement workers. For years, Quebec led the way while Ottawa was slow to act and the Bloc Québécois was calling for action. Even now, the federal government often follows suit on protections already recognized in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois sees Bill C‑259 as yet another example of that. Vigilance remains necessary. That is why we need Bill C‑259. Some might say that company unions are rare today. That may be, but when it comes to basic freedoms, we must never wait for a problem to become widespread before taking action. As lawmakers, our role is also preventive. We pass laws to prevent abuses. That is exactly what they are for. We pass laws to protect workers before their rights are violated. This bill sends a clear message. Employers must negotiate with legitimate worker representatives. They cannot create or control the organizations meant to represent workers. The Bloc Québécois fought for this improvement. However, we believe there is still a blind spot. The problem is the lack of data. The Canada Industrial Relations Board does not produce detailed statistics on specific cases of employer interference or on employer-controlled unions. If we want to improve the laws in future, we must be able to assess the reality of the situation and properly document cases. We therefore hope that more data will be collected and made public. This could certainly be a worthwhile goal to aim for in future. In conclusion, at its core, this debate is simple. A union must belong to the workers, not the employer. Workers must be able to freely choose their representatives. They must be able to freely negotiate their working conditions. They must be able to defend their interests without fear of reprisal. The Bloc Québécois has always defended workers' rights. We have done the same with regard to EI and seasonal workers. I keep saying that the Bloc Québécois will return to the fray with a bill for a comprehensive reform of EI to better protect seasonal workers, amongst others, but it is much broader in scope than that. We have also done the same for workers affected by the use of replacement workers, and we continue to monitor that situation. We will continue to do so because a fairer society means fairer workplaces. A healthy democracy requires free and independent labour organizations. In addition, respect for workers should never be negotiable. That is why the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑259. I would like to close with additional statistics on unionization in Quebec. Quebec has one of the highest unionization rates in North America. In 2024, 39.2% of Quebec workers were unionized, compared to about 28% in Canada. More than 1.6 million Quebec workers are covered by a collective agreement. We can see that these numbers and the impact of unions have an effect on wages. According to Statistics Canada, unionized workers earn on average 10% to 15% more than comparable non-unionized workers. The gap is even wider among women, young people, and workers with less education. With regard to inequality, according to the OECD and several academic studies, declining unionization accounts for between 20% and 30% of the increase in wage inequality observed since the 1980s. Highly unionized sectors generally exhibit smaller income gaps, less wage discrimination, and greater access to pension plans. When it comes to health and safety, unionized workplaces report more workplace accidents. Workers in these settings are more likely to have access to joint health and safety committees, training, and grievance procedures. Here are a few more statistics to wrap up: Between 1981 and today, the proportion of unionized workers in the Canadian private sector has fallen by about 40%. Despite this, unions still represent more than four million workers in Canada. That is still a significant number, and that is why we are debating this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Winnipeg Centre for raising this important issue in the House today regarding Bill C‑16. We sat together on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I know that she cares deeply about this issue. I also want to thank her for pointing out that services have to form part of a continuum, and that the situation of women has to be addressed proactively, especially their financial situation, their vulnerability, and how these factors can keep them trapped in a cycle of violence. My question is as follows. We recently conducted studies on the rise of homelessness among women, especially indigenous women who have a hard time finding housing. The witnesses also talked to us about the importance of applying the 230 recommendations arising from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. What does my colleague think about that?

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague contributed to this discussion at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, but I would like to hear him elaborate further on this matter. The Bloc Québécois proposed amendments to Bill C-16, but they were rejected. This leaves a certain inconsistency in the bill. On the one hand, the bill modernizes the offence of criminal harassment by introducing objective criteria based on the totality of the circumstances. On the other hand, the sureties to keep the peace under section 810 and subsection 810(3) of the Criminal Code are still based on a purely subjective criterium. This creates a real inconsistency. Could my colleague comment on that?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters in regard to child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures. This bill was studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It is the result of extensive deliberation and numerous studies on violence against women, including studies conducted by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Something definitely needed to be done about the Criminal Code. Even the Government of Quebec was asking us to intervene in that respect. Quebec's report on rebuilding trust addressed violence against women. Quebec forged ahead and became a pioneer. It implemented measures, such as specialized courts and electronic bracelets, but some measures fell under the Criminal Code, which is under federal jurisdiction. I have had a number of discussions with members from Quebec, people who contributed to that report and who asked us to take action. This is an important bill. Obviously, we support Bill C-16. As I mentioned, several provisions take in proposals that have long been defended by the Bloc Québécois. What is more, the bill makes important advances for victims of domestic and sexual violence and in terms of child protection. Today, I will talk about the progress made for victims, but I still want to point out some of the ways that Bill C-16 falls short. I will end by talking about some of the Bloc Québécois's concerns. First, there is the issue of femicide, which is finally being acknowledged. In 2024, around 81 women were killed by an intimate partner in Canada. Now, there are even some municipalities that are describing this situation, these femicides, as an epidemic. They are saying that femicide is an epidemic. In Quebec, 25 femicides were recorded in 2024. Since the beginning of 2026, there have already been 10 suspected femicides reported in Quebec. These are chilling figures. The bill recognizes that some murders committed in the context of coercive control, sexual violence or hatred must be considered femicides. As we know, every femicide represents the collective failure of a system that was unable to protect a woman. Shelters and women's groups have been calling for this recognition for years. It was also important to address the issue of coercive control. In fact, that was something that women's shelters and the community had been calling for. The good thing about the bill, the thing that is a step forward, is that it addresses the issue of coercive control so that it is possible to intervene before it is too late. Coercive control often occurs long before physical abuse starts. Violence may not always be physical, but it always hurts. Some examples include isolation, monitoring, intimidation, threats and financial control. Violence rarely begins with a physical assault. The Bloc Québécois therefore welcomes the creation of a specific offence for coercive control. Prevention is better than seeing the impacts of a tragedy or having one more victim. There is also the issue of court delays. Putting an end to mistrials is a good thing, because justice delayed sometimes becomes justice denied. Here is the number of criminal trials that were stayed for unreasonable delay: in 2021, there were 13; in 2022, there were 18; in 2023, there were 96; and as of June 30, 2024, there had been 62. That is far too many. Behind those numbers are victims of sexual assault, intimate partner violence and other serious crimes. These were serious cases, but they were dismissed due to court delays. The Bloc Québécois supports measures designed to increase consideration of case complexity in order to prevent prosecutions from being thrown out solely for procedural reasons. The Bloc Québécois even introduced a bill on this subject in the previous Parliament. Clearly, we have long been committed to this cause, so we welcome this initiative. The Bloc Québécois had also called for a discussion on the issue of organized crime recruiting young people. Criminal gangs are now recruiting people directly on social media, and those being recruited are getting younger and younger. Young people are being used to carry out crimes because they are perceived as more vulnerable and are punished less severely. The Bloc Québécois has long been calling for the creation of a specific offence for the recruitment of minors. This measure is intended to target the real perpetrators, the adults who manipulate and exploit young people. I am thinking in particular of the tragic case of Mohamed-Yanis Seghouani, who was recruited by organized crime when he was just 14. With regard to sexual violence and protecting victims, victims of sexual assault must be able to seek justice without being revictimized. The bill tightens the rules around access to medical records and provides greater protection for victims, while maintaining the right to a full and fair defence. Pornographic deepfakes are being expressly addressed by legislation. The non-consensual distribution of intimate images is a growing phenomenon that demanded a clear legislative response. The bill is also a step forward for victims' rights. It strengthens the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Victims are entitled to respect, courtesy, compassion and fairness. That is important. They are also entitled to have their cases processed within a reasonable amount of time. However, these rights must be accompanied by sufficient resources for the justice system. Obviously, I am going to talk about the need for federal transfers to Quebec, because Quebec is responsible for administering the justice system. It is all well and good to introduce more laws, but Quebec and the provinces need to be given the resources to act. I am about to use a term that may not be exciting, but that suits our purpose here, because what we are really talking about is the fiscal imbalance. Second, this leads me to point out some of the flaws in the bill. Shelter representatives constantly remind us that femicide rarely occurs out of the blue. It is often preceded by a history of violence, harassment and coercive control. When a woman asks for help, the system must be able to intervene before it is too late. That is why I was talking about measures to allow Quebec's system to handle this issue. We acknowledge that Bill C‑16 is a step in the right direction because it explicitly recognizes this reality. However, the government must also provide the means to take action. Regarding the lack of resources, the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women told us clearly that needs are outpacing resources. Many shelters are turning women away because they do not have enough spots. Some women have to stay in dangerous situations because no other immediate solution is available. As far as transitional housing is concerned, leaving an abusive partner is not simply a matter of finding a spot in a shelter. Women need a safe place to live while they rebuild their lives. Several witnesses emphasized the importance of second- and third-stage housing. Without affordable housing, some women are forced to return to their abuser. Everything gets delayed. In some cases, they stay longer in emergency shelters because they have nowhere else to go afterward. They stay there, delaying the arrival of another woman in urgent need of this resource. This delays every step of the process and delays the arrival of women who need protection. We are also seeing this in the work of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which is currently conducting a study on the issue of housing availability and the lack of resources to help women who are experiencing intimate partner violence. I would also like to talk about children who are exposed to violence. Witnesses also noted that children are victims of intimate partner violence too. They are collateral victims. Even when they are not directly targeted, they live in a climate of fear and insecurity. Preventing violence also means protecting children. As for prevention, all the witnesses pointed out that violence cannot be solved by the justice system alone. That means that Bill C‑16 will not solve everything. Prevention remains essential. We need to invest in education, equal relationships, mental health services, and support for young people. We also need to use federal transfers to give resources to community organizations. That is important. When we did our study on anti-feminism and the rise of masculinism, those were some of the recommendations that emerged. We need to teach boys and girls what respectful, violence-free relationships look like. Concerning court delays, a number of organizations said that lengthy proceedings can discourage some victims. When a woman finds the courage to report her attacker, she should not be forced to wait years before justice is served. Court delays contribute to revictimization. Measures designed to avoid stays of proceedings are important to maintain trust in the justice system. Victims demand to be heard, believed and protected. They also demand that the justice system be more humane. The provisions enhancing victims' rights in Bill C‑16 are an important step forward. Third, the Bloc Québécois has a few reservations I will go over briefly. We support Bill C‑16, but it still contains some inconsistencies. I mentioned them earlier: Amendments meant to provide better protection for stalking victims were rejected. We believe that victims need to be given more preventive tools before the violence escalates. Some of the changes to bail conditions may also be too broad and exceed the bill's original objective. In conclusion, Bill C‑16 is a significant step forward. It acknowledges the reality of femicide, criminalizes coercive control, better protects victims of sexual assault, addresses youth recruitment by gangs, and attempts to limit the consequences of court delays. I would like to say one last thing: The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill, but we call on the government to keep working so that victims are truly believed and placed at the heart of our justice system.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the first point my colleague raised, namely the issue of coercive control. Following the release of the report on rebuilding trust, I met with MNAs in Quebec City who asked me to take action. At the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I proposed a study on coercive control. The study was conducted, we produced a report, and we tabled it. Together with my colleagues on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we had to pressure the government for months, even years. Finally, after our press conference last fall, the government took action. That is good, and we welcome the move, but the government could have acted sooner.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and comments about my speech. I also want to commend her for fighting for the feminist cause. Regarding the Bloc Québécois's amendments, as I mentioned earlier, there are some inconsistencies. For example, the offence of criminal harassment is supposedly being modernized by the introduction of objective criteria. However, when we talk about sureties to keep the peace—the infamous peace bonds under section 810 of the Criminal Code, which is another study that I worked on for the Bloc Québécois, together with my Conservative colleagues—it is clear that, in this case, the criteria are subjective. That creates inconsistencies. The Bloc Québécois wanted to see fewer of them. Our amendments sought to remove these inconsistencies from Bill C‑16.

Mr. Speaker, that is another issue that the Bloc Québécois wants to tackle. Obviously, I am talking about this material, the distribution of this material depicting children, especially with the increase in deepfakes and the fact that images of children can be used. That is one of the things the Bloc Québécois is calling for. This violence against children should not exist. We could do better and we could do more.

Mr. Speaker, my response will be brief. This is an important step. It is good to strengthen the Criminal Code, but if the government does not give Quebec the financial resources to address these new offences within its legal system, if the government does not provide community organizations with the necessary resources, and if the government does not look at the bigger picture, as part of a continuum of services, it simply will not succeed.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for introducing this bill. We have been passing the baton to one another, and I now pass it on to the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon. My colleagues and I at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women are currently hearing from witnesses as part of a study on senior women. We are hearing about older women finding themselves on the streets. Homelessness is on the rise. Demand for food hampers is on the rise. What we are hearing is seriously catastrophic. In the last Parliament, with the exception of the Liberals, even the former Liberal MPs who became independent voted in favour of the bill I introduced on this subject. The Conservatives voted for it, the Green Party voted for it and the NDP voted for it. In committee, a report was even adopted unanimously. Everyone voted in favour, including the Liberals. However, once the matter came before the House, the Liberals changed their tune and voted against it. I would like to know what my colleague expects from the vote this time.

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a simple yet fundamental question: Is it acceptable for people who have worked their entire lives, raised their families, paid their taxes and built our communities to now be living in poverty? Bill C-261, introduced and vigorously defended by my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, aims to restore fairness for seniors and allow them to live with dignity. For years, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for OAS to be increased for all seniors, starting at age 65, because dignity does not begin at age 75. The two classes of seniors are an injustice created by Ottawa. In 2021, the federal government granted a 10% OAS increase, but only to those over the age of 75. We saw this coming and, as early as the 2019 election campaign, we criticized the idea of creating two classes of seniors. This decision created two classes of seniors: those entitled to a benefit increase and those left behind. However, the cost of groceries, housing, transportation, insurance, electricity and medications are also rising for seniors aged 65 to 74. Quebec has approximately 1.09 million people aged 65 to 74, compared to about 875,000 people aged 75 and older. This means that the majority of seniors were excluded from this increase. The Bloc Québécois rejects this injustice. The government cannot acknowledge the vulnerability of seniors while excluding a large portion of them. The current economic reality is grim. In March 2025, nearly 744,000 Quebeckers received the guaranteed income supplement, which is a sign that many seniors are living on very modest incomes. More than 53% of Quebeckers aged 65 and older live on less than $35,000 a year. What is even more concerning is that 32.5% live on less than $25,000 a year. These are not abstract numbers. These are people who sometimes have to choose between paying their rent, buying their medication, eating properly or heating their homes. According to the reports, some retirees are living on around $1,960 or $2,000 a month. Once the rent, electricity, insurance, telephone bills, transportation costs and medication have been paid for, there is very little left for groceries and unexpected expenses. We are talking not about comfort here, but about financial survival. The housing crisis is also affecting seniors. That, too, needs to be discussed. The housing crisis is not just affecting young families; it is also hitting seniors hard. The Observatoire québécois des inégalités reports that housing has become unaffordable for more than half of all households made up of the poorest 20% of people aged 65 and over. Nearly a quarter of senior households are living in housing that is considered unacceptable, meaning that it does not meet the criteria for affordability, quality and adequate size. The work on homelessness from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities has highlighted a reality of growing concern: Seniors are at risk of homelessness following a rent increase, eviction, separation or the death of a spouse. For a senior living on a fixed income, a rent increase of a few tens or hundreds of dollars can upend the entire financial balance. After a lifetime of hard work, no one should have to fear becoming homeless. Poverty among seniors is also an issue in terms of health. When seniors do not have enough money, they do not cut back on frills. They cut back on essentials. They cut back on groceries. They put off buying medication. They avoid certain medical travel. They cut back on heating. They isolate themselves because they can no longer afford to go out, get around or participate in activities. Poverty among seniors thus becomes a challenge in terms of public health, food security, mental health and human dignity. Senior women are particularly vulnerable. We hear that often. Senior women live in especially precarious situations. In Quebec, the median after-tax income for women aged 65 and over is about $24,100, compared to $34,200 for men. This difference can be attributed to careers that were interrupted, lower-paying jobs, part-time work and years spent taking care of children, loved ones or sick spouses. Senior women are also more likely to live alone, particularly once they become widowed or following a separation. During the Standing Committee on the Status of Women's proceedings, several witnesses pointed out that financial insecurity can trap women in situations of domestic, psychological or economic violence. When a woman cannot afford to find new housing, pay a security deposit, furnish an apartment or ensure her financial security, she may remain in a dangerous situation simply because she has no other option. Increasing the income of older women is therefore not just an economic measure. It is also about safety, autonomy and protection. The committees also highlighted the importance of having a better understanding of economic violence. Some women have never had full control over their finances. Others are financially dependent on a spouse. Some are afraid and have little savings. They might have some private retirement funds but little room to manoeuver. When retirement, a separation or the death of a spouse occurs, they end up in a highly vulnerable position. Isolation also exacerbates the situation. An isolated older adult has less access to information, less support in filling out forms, fewer networks to find housing and fewer people to turn to in a crisis. A basic income then becomes a practical tool for reducing dependence, vulnerability and isolation. Seniors also want to contribute to our society. That is another aspect of the bill. It is important to reject the stereotype that seniors are only recipients of services. More than 170,000 Quebeckers aged 65 and over are employed. More than half work full time. On top of that, 81% of seniors consider themselves to be in good, very good or excellent health. Many want to stay active, share their experience, work a few hours, volunteer, support their family or contribute to their community. The problem is that the current system can penalize them when they want to earn some extra income. That is why the bill also proposes to increase the exemption for employment income from $5,000 to $6,500. That measure would enable seniors who want to work a little more to do so without being penalized when their benefits are calculated. Bill C‑261 includes two primary measures. First, it increases the full OAS pension by 10% for all pensioners 65 and older. In practical terms, it allows seniors from 65 to 74 to receive the same amount as pensioners 75 and older. Second, it raises the exemption on employment income from $5,000 to $6,500 for the purposes of calculating the GIS. Both measures have the same objective: to give seniors more breathing room, to acknowledge their contribution and to allow them to live with more dignity. I want to address some criticism. There are people who will say that this measure is too expensive. However, the real question is this: What is the cost of doing nothing? What is the cost of homelessness among seniors? What is the cost of the preventable hospitalization of someone who lowered their dose of medication or stopped eating enough? What is the cost of social isolation? What is the cost of lowering the income of older women and forcing them to stay in abusive situations because they cannot afford to leave? Investing in seniors' incomes means preventing much more serious and costly social problems. Others fear that the old age security increase will reduce the guaranteed income supplement. However, an increase in OAS does not affect pensions under the Quebec pension plan and does not automatically reduce the GIS. There may be specific effects depending on certain tax situations, but the measures are clearly aimed at improving the disposable income of the vast majority of seniors. It is ultimately a matter of consistency. The government says it wants to fight poverty. It says it wants to prevent homelessness. It says it wants to support women who are victims of violence. It says it wants to encourage active aging. The government cannot claim to be fighting against the vulnerability of seniors while maintaining a policy that excludes most seniors. However, the government still refuses to correct an obvious injustice toward seniors aged 65 to 74. In conclusion, seniors built our communities. They have worked, paid taxes, raised families, supported loved ones, built businesses, sustained our regions and passed on their experience. Today, many are living on less than $25,000 or $35,000 a year, while the cost of housing, groceries, medication and essential services continues to rise. Bill C‑261 is a matter of fairness, respect and dignity. It is also a concrete response to the risks of homelessness, poverty among senior women, isolation, economic violence and the loss of purchasing power. We have a duty to correct the injustice created between seniors aged 65 to 74 and seniors aged 75 and over. For that reason, the Bloc Québécois encourages all parliamentarians to support this bill and send a clear message to seniors that they matter, that they have contributed and that they deserve to live and age with dignity. I seriously urge us to put an end to this injustice and show some dignity in the House. I hope there will be Liberals who will fight to challenge the party line and vote in favour of this bill.

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I shared some time together on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I know she cares a lot about this cause. In her speech, she talked about the dispute between Air Canada and its flight attendants, who were doing unpaid work, and the fact that women were disproportionately affected. Can my colleague tell us how repealing section 107 would help women and promote their cause in certain disputes?

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C‑247, which seeks to repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. First, the right to strike, and we need to call it that, is a fundamental right that is recognized by the courts and that is protected by freedom of association. The Bloc Québécois believes that this right must never depend on the political goodwill of a federal government. I remind members that Bill C‑247 seeks to repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. This section gives the Minister of Labour extremely broad powers to intervene in labour disputes in the federal jurisdiction. The minister can go so far as to ask the Canada Industrial Relations Board to intervene or impose any measures the minister considers necessary. The main issue is that there are practically no clear guidelines in the legislation at this time. I will begin by explaining a little more about what the bill would change. I will then provide some numbers. Lastly, I will remind members of our historical position. First, with respect to section 107, there are no strict criteria tied to public health, national security or an exceptional emergency. This opens the door to political interference in strikes that are, in fact, lawful. A strike is often the last resort for workers after months or sometimes years of negotiations. If the government can intervene as soon as the pressure gets intense, the right to strike becomes meaningless. A strike only carries weight when it creates real economic pressure. If employers believe that Ottawa will eventually intervene, why would they negotiate quickly? Why would they make compromises or concessions at the bargaining table? As a result, the existence of section 107 directly alters the balance of power between employers and workers. It encourages employers to stick to their guns rather than bargaining in good faith. The Bloc Québécois believes that disputes should be resolved at the bargaining table first, not in ministerial offices and not through premature political intervention. Historically, section 107 has existed since 1984, but it was rarely invoked. What is concerning today is the rapid increase in its use. Just since 2024, Ottawa has used section 107 to intervene in at least seven major labour disputes. My colleagues have already cited recent examples in their remarks, including WestJet, CN, CPKC and Air Canada. The noteworthy thing about the dispute at Air Canada is that it was about unpaid work, which disproportionately affected female flight attendants. Other examples include the ports of Montreal, Quebec City and Vancouver, as well as Canada Post. What was intended to be an exceptional power has effectively become a standard tool for managing labour disputes. Take Canada Post, where more than 55,000 workers were affected by the dispute. Small and medium-sized businesses pegged their economic losses at approximately $76 million per day. Yes, these disputes have a significant impact on the economy. They are a source of concern among businesses and citizens. However, when a government limits a fundamental right, it should always do so openly, in front of Parliament. For a long time, when a government wanted to end a strike, it had to introduce special back-to-work legislation. This entailed a public debate, a vote by elected officials and political accountability. Section 107 circumvents this debate, this democratic process, by employing a much more low-key administrative mechanism. Many labour organizations have been complaining about this situation for years. In their view, section 107 makes it possible to suspend or neutralize a lawful strike without any real parliamentary oversight. A number of lawsuits have also been filed challenging the constitutionality of these interventions. There are even some labour law experts who hold that the right to strike is an integral part of true collective bargaining. If that right can be suspended too easily, it throws negotiations off balance, not to mention the obvious problem of creating a double standard. Prolonged lockouts, aggressive management strategies and refusals to compromise are often tolerated. However, as soon as workers effectively exercise their right to strike, Ottawa takes swift action, as if the problem were always the union, as if the right to strike were an economic obstacle and not a fundamental democratic right. The Bloc Québécois believes that true balance must be restored to labour relations. Repealing section 107 does not mean that the government loses all its tools. The minister will still be able to appoint mediators, use conciliation, support negotiations and establish commissions of inquiry. If an exceptional intervention is truly necessary, the government can still introduce special legislation in Parliament, but it will then have to publicly defend that decision to elected officials and the public. That is what parliamentary democracy is all about. That is how the process should work. Bill C-247 aims to protect a fundamental right, limit a ministerial power that has become excessive, strengthen collective bargaining, and return negotiations to where they belong, that is, between employers and workers. We often say this that the best agreement is always one that has been negotiated rather than imposed by force. For the Bloc Québécois, defending the right to strike means defending workers' dignity, freedom of association, and the balance of power in labour relations. Let us look at some statistics and key points to drive home our message. As we know, there has been a recent surge in the use of section 107. Some would even go so far as to say that this section has been weaponized and has become an obsession for the Liberals. Section 107 has been around since 1984. For decades, it was used only very rarely. According to several legal and union analyses, its use has skyrocketed since 2024. As I mentioned earlier, the federal government has intervened in at least seven or eight major labour disputes by invoking section 107. Think about the major disputes where the government has invoked section 107: WestJet, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific Kansas City, the port of Montreal, the port of Quebec, the port of Vancouver, Air Canada, Canada Post. Take the WestJet dispute, for example. According to CUPE, in June 2024, the government attempted to invoke section 107 even before the strike at WestJet had actually begun. Crucially, when the Canada Industrial Relations Board did not immediately suspend the strike, the employer quickly returned to the negotiating table. A court ruling forced them back to the negotiating table. Ultimately, an agreement was reached swiftly once the parties returned to the table to talk. It is important to bear in mind that these disputes have economic repercussions. As I have already mentioned, 55,000 workers were involved in the dispute at Canada Post. That is not insignificant. Canadian small businesses were deeply affected and pegged their losses at $76 million a day during the strike. We fully understand why they were worried. Negotiations needed to resume. The parties had to get back to the negotiating table. We are saying that there is a way to do better in terms of bargaining. The best way to resolve a labour dispute is with a framework where disputes are resolved at the table, there is no premature political intervention, the right to strike carries its full weight, and the parties are genuinely encouraged to reach an agreement. The Bloc Québécois is acting in accordance with its historical position. I know that my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean is here. One of our former leaders, Gilles Duceppe, was a trade unionist. More recently, we had another trade unionist on our team, Louise Chabot, whom I acknowledge. This is part of our DNA, and we continue to hold those traditional positions. Section 107 makes it possible to circumvent parliamentary debate on back-to-work legislation and intervene directly in a dispute by suspending a perfectly lawful strike or rendering it meaningless. As we said, repealing this section would not leave the minister with no other recourse. The minister would still have all the mediation and conciliation powers provided for elsewhere in the Canada Labour Code. This would force the minister to play a more traditional role during labour disputes, in other words, facilitating and supporting negotiations, suggesting solutions and exerting political pressure, rather than directly short-circuiting a lawful strike by issuing a broad directive to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. This change is important. That is why we support this bill, out of respect for workers' rights and in keeping with the historical positions of the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to read today's Conservative motion and discuss what is missing from the motion. I have a question for my colleague. One of the things we in the Bloc Québécois have noticed is that this Conservative motion is missing something. In the spring of 2025, a vote-buying cheque was sent out to everyone in the provinces, except people in Quebec and British Columbia. While people in the rest of Canada were receiving cheques, Quebeckers were still paying interest on the debt incurred from those cheques and the carbon tax. We know that the sole purpose of the measure was to buy votes. People in Quebec did not pay that tax. In the end, Ottawa literally stole more than $814 million from Quebeckers through the Liberals' vote-buying cheques. The Conservatives have also left that out of today's motion. In a context of significant financial needs and with the heavy burden of pressure and responsibility on Quebec, does my colleague believe that we are entitled to that $814 million?

Mr. Speaker, today once again, we see the Conservatives drawing conclusions. I just returned from a constituency week. Naturally, people talked to me about inflation, about increasing food bank use and about increasing homelessness. They talked to me about all of that. However, what we are debating today would not help any of these people. In fact, $2.4 billion was lost as a result of the Liberals' decision to suspend the excise tax until September. This measure only resulted in $59 for the lowest-income households. In the end, that is not what they need. They need more meaningful solutions. What does my colleague think? Where will that money come from in the end? With today's motion, the Conservative Party wants to increase the deficit without explaining where it will make cuts. Economically, that does not add up. However, if she wants to talk about other ways to help people in need and increase the income of seniors who are living on the streets, we are willing to discuss that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a few comments to my colleague. We see that the Liberals' gas tax cut mainly benefits the wealthy, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer; that it is “an unfair and short-sighted measure”, according to Normand Mousseau of the Institut de l'énergie Trottier, which is affiliated with Polytechnique Montréal; and that lowering gas taxes is a bad idea masquerading as a good one, according to Luc Godbout, a prominent economist at the University of Sherbrooke. What we are debating today is, first and foremost, the suspension of fuel taxes. This would deprive the government of tax revenue during this period of deficit, so it is another bad idea masquerading as a good one. Furthermore, in Quebec, we see that the fuel tax dates back to 1924 and is used for road maintenance. Finally, a reduction would run counter to the government's climate change goals and the 2030 target, while other countries in Asia and Europe are aiming for net zero and implementing measures to achieve this energy transition. What does my colleague think of all this?

Mr. Speaker, the government likes to brag a lot about the economic update, saying from the get-go that it addresses the cost-of-living issue and that it will solve the current problem of inflation. However, there is not much in this economic statement that actually helps people, particularly those most affected by inflation, such as people on fixed incomes, like seniors. Nothing was announced for them. That was something that the Bloc Québécois had asked for. There is an unfairness among seniors. This government created two classes of seniors and it is still unable to solve this problem, even though it has economic consequences. Why did my colleague and his government not use this economic update to ensure that all seniors receive the same pension amoun, starting at age 65?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on today's important Bloc Québécois motion on the U.S. tariffs and the impact on businesses and workers. They absolutely need our support in this time of uncertainty. I welcome this motion, and I am very pleased to speak to it. Since April 6, Quebec has been hit hard by a major economic shock. Donald Trump made a decision to impose new tariffs, which come as a direct attack on our businesses. These are not abstract numbers. Workers, SMEs and entire regions are affected. I would like to commend our whistle-blower, the member for Joliette—Manawan, who alerted us through his amazing work on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. I thank him for notifying us and for keeping an eye out on behalf of Quebec businesses. What we are currently facing is no mere trade dispute. It is an economic crisis that threatens the very fabric of our industry. The city of Valcourt, in my riding of Shefford, is a symbol of Quebec industry, of Quebec entrepreneurship, where a small garage grew into today's Bombardier. As the member for Shefford, I am well aware of Quebec's unique industrial fabric and the entrepreneurship developed over the years that now sets us apart. What happened on April 6 is a total game-changer. Since then, a 25% tariff has been applied to the total value of products containing over 15% steel, aluminum or copper. As a result, products that were once exempt are now being taxed. This means that a lot more companies are now being affected. Here are a few key facts: 24% of Quebec's exports to the U.S. are now targeted, and the average effective tariff rate has climbed from 5.7% to 9.6%. Now, Washington is not just taxing metal, but also Quebec's value added, know-how and labour. The economic impact is already very real and the consequences are already being felt in Quebec: 9,700 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector. Other data indicate that there is a 5.1% decline in employment in some sectors and 441,000 manufacturing workers are at risk. In the aluminum sector, 65% of SMEs are reporting a drop in sales and 47% are anticipating layoffs. Nearly one in three businesses are worried about their survival. This is not a future risk; it is a full-fledged crisis. This has a real impact on businesses. Some businesses are experiencing very immediate consequences, such as cancelled orders, loss of competitiveness and sudden cost increases. For example, a $30,000 part can generate $7,500 in tariffs. Some businesses are losing between 30% and 50% of their sales in the span of just a few weeks.U.S. buyers are turning to local suppliers to avoid risk. This is a reality throughout Quebec, including in the highly entrepreneurial and industrial city of Granby, in my riding of Shefford. It is home to many small and medium-sized manufacturers. I want to acknowledge the work of Granby Industriel and the incredible Granby industrial park. From Rougemont to Racine, businesses allow the beautiful riding of Shefford to thrive. However, we have to recognize that we are dependent on exports to the United States. It took media coverage about one case for us to wake up. It was the case of BRP, whose share price plummeted. Even without a specific high-profile case, the signals are still clear: loss of contracts, delayed projects and growing economic uncertainty. Businesses have to adapt, but many fear that they will have to reduce their staff. In Granby and elsewhere, businesses no longer know whether to invest or simply survive. This is a reality they are experiencing. The problem is the government's response, which is inadequate—

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely apologize to the interpreters. I never turn the pages like that, but I forgot. They will be going in another direction. The problem is the government's inadequate response. The government was slow to react, and the economic update initially contained no measures tailored to the crisis. While $10.1 billion was collected in tariffs, only $5.7 billion is being redistributed. This leaves $4.4 billion unused while businesses are struggling, and the announced measures rely primarily on loans. They are proposing $1 billion through the Business Development Bank of Canada and $500 million through regional agencies. This is good, but the problem, as my colleague from Joliette—Manawan said and as he heard in committee, is that businesses are already over-indebted. He heard this from representatives of economic organizations in Quebec, who raised this point. That will not solve the problem, because the fundamental issue is not that businesses lack access to credit; it is that they are already in debt, as I said. However, they are cash-strapped and unable to continue their operations during this period of uncertainty, so we do need to offer loans to businesses that are experiencing revenue losses. However, if we focus solely on that solution, it amounts to increasing their debt burden, so we are not coming out ahead. The Bloc Québécois is instead proposing concrete measures that are tailored to the situation. We keep coming back to our first idea: the wage subsidy. This solution is based on the model used during the pandemic, which worked well. The advantage is that it helps maintain employment relationships and prevents mass layoffs. By protecting the employment relationship, this measure helps to retain expertise and avoid higher social costs. That is important. There is also the idea of buying local. We suggest introducing a local procurement policy to support local processing and economic self-sufficiency. This morning, I met with representatives from companies such as Lassonde, which sells beverages. This morning, these food processing companies emphasized that there is no policy, no commitment. Government must lead by example. Much of it depends on institutional frameworks, but we must put this policy in place. It was part of the Bloc's proposals during the last election campaign, a year ago. We wanted Canada to pass a sort of “Buy Canadian Act” to prioritize buying local. We also want to support businesses directly by prioritizing grants over loans and addressing their short-term cash flow needs. We are also proposing another solution: a one-stop shop for SMEs to simplify access to programs, reduce the administrative burden and provide clear, centralized support. As the employment and labour critic, I would also add that employment insurance reform is necessary and of utmost importance to ensuring support for those who, despite everything, will lose their jobs during this crisis. Our social safety net must be adjusted to account for 2026 conditions. The Bloc Québécois believes employment insurance reform is crucial, and we will continue to push for it. The economic risk of doing nothing is immense. Quebec will lose an estimated $8 billion per year. Potential consequences include plant closures, brain drain and long-term regional decline. When a business closes, the jobs and expertise do not necessarily come back, and that is deeply tragic. Sometimes these things are lost forever. In conclusion, Quebec is particularly vulnerable because its economy is centred on manufacturing and exports. Its economic model is based on SMEs and very small businesses. This context calls for swift, targeted, meaningful action. It is vital to support businesses, protect workers and stabilize the regions. This is so important. I would remind the House that our ridings are home to some incredible family businesses, and we want them to stay in businesses. Every dollar of countertariff revenue should be reinvested directly to support the people grappling with the consequences of the tariff war. That was mentioned earlier by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean. Inaction and inappropriate measures could have a lasting effect on our economy. It is time to take rigorous, responsible and effective action, as the Bloc Québécois has always done for the sake of Quebec's diversified business and economic sector.

Mr. Speaker, I would respond to my colleague by asking him a question. Did this government really act swiftly to protect the lumber industry? Did it adopt a real aerospace policy? He should be aware that the lumber and aerospace industries and other Quebec-specific sectors tend to be neglected in negotiations and during these troubled times. The government was quicker to help Ontario's auto industry than to support Quebec-specific sectors.

Mr. Speaker, this government was elected last year by leading people to believe that it would resolve this conflict with the wave of a magic wand. Here we are, one year later, stuck in this situation. We must act now, because negotiations with the Americans have indeed been dragging on. This continues to have negative impacts. Now that we see that the government has not moved forward or advanced negotiations in the past year and that businesses need help, I would like to know whether the Conservatives will support our motion.

Mr. Speaker, businesses in my riding are obviously asking questions. The government is taking steps, but the steps often do not match up with the businesses' needs. For example, the loan announced yesterday is smoke and mirrors. It will add a burden for businesses, because the assistance is still in the form of a loan, even though businesses in my riding already have loans. At the economic discussions we attended, representatives of Granby Industriel told us that they did not want any more loans because they already had too many. Representatives of BRP also say that they want other solutions and want to know that the government will help them in other ways, for example by using other means that the Bloc Québécois is proposing. This is clearly not enough for our local businesses. I hear about other concerns that the government has not acted or has let things drag on. For example, its inadequate announcement on the issue of temporary foreign workers is having consequences on businesses. I think that, if we can get beyond the smoke and mirrors, we can work together, collectively, in the House of Commons, with as little partisanship as possible, to help our local businesses.

Mr. Speaker, first I want to point out something that is not directly related to today's topic but that still concerns an issue that affects it, although indirectly. I am wearing a red dress pin because tomorrow, May 5, we commemorate Red Dress Day. It is a time to remember missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. There are some topics that are hard to talk about in the House. Allow me to establish a link. Following my election in 2019, Senator Miville‑Dechêne reached out to me and told me about an all-party group on human trafficking and modern slavery. I was surprised that human trafficking and modern slavery still existed in 2019. Perhaps I was naive and living with my head in the clouds. Today, in 2026, I cannot believe I am forced to rise to speak to a bill about forced sterilization. Some of these topics are very sensitive and hard to discuss. I will address this one by invoking a fundamental principle: the right to control one's own body. This right is at the heart of any free and democratic society. Let us be clear: Forced sterilization is a human rights violation. It is an irreversible violation and a form of institutional violence. This is not a theoretical debate. In 2026, it is still a reality that, unfortunately, has not yet been eradicated. Behind this bill are women who were deprived of the choice to bring a child into the world. It is unspeakably cruel. As the mother of a four-year-old girl, I have to say this is a very difficult subject. It is not a simple issue. It is a reality that is part of a very dark chapter of our history. This is, of course, a historical legacy of colonialism. I will share some statistics. Between 1966 and 1976, there were 1,200 sterilizations, 1,150 of which were performed on indigenous women. Clearly, they are overrepresented. In Alberta, 74% of the women who were sterilized were indigenous. This reflects a legacy of eugenics and colonial policies. There were 580 documented cases between 1970 and 1975. These practices were intended to control certain groups that were deemed “undesirable”. This is systemic racism, and it leads to health inequalities. Contrary to what we might think, this is an issue that is still timely today, as I mentioned in my introduction. There have been some class-action lawsuits. Over 100 women filed suit in Saskatchewan, and another five lawsuits have been filed across Canada and beyond its borders. In Quebec, 22 cases have been documented, 30 Atikamekw women have filed a lawsuit and testimony has recently been heard in 35 cases. Let us talk about the issue of consent. These women are often asked for consent when they are in pain and in a vulnerable position. They are often pressured to make a decision. It is reasonable to wonder whether consent is valid when it is obtained from a person in a vulnerable position. This is not something that happened way back in the past. There are still cases before the courts today. Why do we need to legislate? This constitutes assault, which is already an offence. However, it is difficult to clearly define the act, to take legal action. It is very difficult to punish something that is not clearly defined. That is how we see it. I would like to make a comparison. Sexual assault needs to be explicitly defined. That takes political will, but this legislative change must be made so that it is perfectly clear to institutions that there will be zero tolerance. This right needs to be explicitly stated to better protect these women. We need to clarify that sterilization is mutilation, a form of aggravated assault. It is defined as any procedure that prevents reproduction. We need to ensure that there is free and informed prior consent. Yes, the purpose criterion protects necessary medical procedures. Of course, we are talking about protecting physicians, but the consent must be valid to exclude any criminal liability. Emergencies are also covered by section 45 of the Criminal Code. This bill protects patients without penalizing professionals who are acting in good faith. That is what we want to do here. To respond to criticism about criminalizing doctors, I would say that this is a clear law that also protects practitioners. We encourage enhanced consent protocols. The same logic applies to medical assistance in dying or caring for the incapacitated. Above all, we want to avoid a legal vacuum. There are reports that show the current recourse system has failed. Right now, this is a theoretical right with no actual enforcement, which does not really constitute protection. On top of that, there is the stigma of silence. There is a stigma attached to this. There is also a lack of recognition. It is a taboo subject that no one talks about. By naming it, we are recognizing it, and by recognizing it, we are ultimately protecting these women so that they can continue to make their own decisions about their bodies. There is are very systemic and social aspect, which is that the groups affected by this issue are indigenous women, racialized women and persons with disabilities. This violence is rooted in power imbalances, as I mentioned earlier. The truly tragic thing about this is that there are many consequences. We are talking about trauma and loss of trust, but also an intergenerational impact. It is not just an attack on a person's body; it is an attack on their entire life. Taking away a woman's ability to give birth is an attack on her right to choose whether to do so. This assault lasts a lifetime for a woman, who will later experience the psychological and physical scars of it all, because there will be scars, many of them. The Bloc Québécois strongly supports this bill, with certain reservations, of course. We want it to respect Quebec's jurisdiction over health care. As Bloc Québécois members have repeatedly said, the involvement of indigenous nations is a must. Nation-to-nation discussions are consistent with our vision, and we naturally want indigenous nations to be involved going forward. We also want to remind members that we will always reject any attempts at federal overcentralization. We will have to keep an eye out, because we see that this federal regime is yet another in a constant stream of attempts to overcentralize. The rights of these indigenous women and girls must be protected while respecting jurisdictions. Obviously, a law alone is not enough. Professionals also have to be trained. A monitoring and cultural adaptation mechanism also needs to be implemented. We could take inspiration from the Collège des médecins du Québec, whose initiatives promote collaboration and take a co-operative approach. As we have been saying, despite some criticism, this bill does seek to protect physicians. I think physicians want to collaborate on this issue, and we applaud their initiatives considering that the law must be translated into practice. It will take awareness campaigns to make that happen. We must eliminate the stigma and taboo surrounding forced sterilization, which is indeed still happening. My colleague, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, talked about this a little earlier in his question. He used to serve on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, and I know he took an interest in this issue. He shared the very real case of a woman who was subjected to this and described the pain and the wounds, both psychological and physical, that she suffered as a result of forced sterilization. In closing, these women have been ignored and silenced. We cannot forget the victims who have suffered as a result of this atrocity. As parliamentarians, we have a collective responsibility to take action today. By supporting this bill, we can appeal for justice, dignity and recognition. As a final point, I want to say that this bill is a step toward making amends, but, above all, it is a commitment to never tolerate this unacceptable act again. We are hearing more and more about the need for reconciliation lately, and I believe this bill aligns perfectly with that objective. As elected officials, we must set partisanship aside and move forward for the sake of victims.

Mr. Speaker, regarding Bill S‑3, I want to hear my colleague talk about the context in his province. At home in Quebec, we have Hydro-Québec and Énergir. In the new context of a majority government, we are going to see more than ever the government, in this federal system, try to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions and give itself more powers. The Bloc Québécois wants to make sure that Hydro‑Québec and Énergir are at least heard in committee. We want to ensure that Quebec's jurisdictions are respected and that the minister refrains from interfering even more. What does my colleague think about our desire to ensure that Quebec's jurisdictions are respected in this area?

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle indicated where we stand on Bill C-266, an act to establish a national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility. This bill is presented as a practical measure aimed at facilitating the mobility of skilled workers. Who could possibly oppose credential recognition? Who could oppose streamlining administrative procedures? Who could oppose faster access to the labour market? Behind these good intentions lies a well-known strategy. Ottawa is using a real problem to grant itself new powers in an area that falls under Quebec jurisdiction. Skills training, trade certification, workforce planning and labour market organization are all Quebec's responsibility. Quebec already has its own institutions, mechanisms, partners and economic priorities. The Bloc Québécois has been clear: This bill is an attempt at centralization disguised as a technical solution. When it comes to employment and labour, Quebec did not wait for Ottawa to take action. Quebec already has a comprehensive system and it already manages its labour policies with the Commission de la construction du Québec, the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, Services Québec, vocational training centres, the CEGEPs that offer technical programs and employer and labour organizations. We already have a lot of labour policies. It is important to take a moment here to review the history. In 1997, Ottawa recognized Quebec's responsibility for active employment measures through the Canada–Québec Labour Market Development Agreement in Principle. Since then, Quebec has been designing, administering and adapting its own training and job entry programs. Ottawa has already acknowledged that Quebec is in a better position to manage its workforce, so why are we taking this step backwards? What is more, what we can say is that the amounts that have already been transferred prove that the Quebec model exists. I will share a few numbers. In 2019, Ottawa announced nearly $5.4 billion in funding for Quebec until 2022‑23 through workforce and labour market agreements. That represents roughly 240,000 more Quebeckers who can benefit from employment and training measures. Ottawa already recognizes that Quebec is better at administering these programs, that needs differ from province to province and that Quebec has its own model. This raises the following question: If Quebec is already managing the billions of dollars invested in training, why would Ottawa now want to control the rules? We can see that there is a real risk of downgrading standards. The problem with the national framework is that the bill provides for a national list of trades, a comparison of provincial standards and equivalencies, harmonization and regulatory streamlining. That means that Ottawa is establishing itself as a national benchmark. When we see all that, it is clear that it is a danger for Quebec. Such a situation could undermine Quebec's safety standards, its training requirements, its apprenticeship mechanisms, its ability to protect French in the workplace and its unique characteristics in the construction industry. I come from a family of masons and carpenters. I often have conversations on Sunday evenings with my brothers, brothers-in-law and other family members. They regularly talk to me about reskilling, training and the very strict rules governing their trades, especially in the construction industry. I can confirm that Quebec is truly at the forefront. There is a risk in allowing Ottawa to take a more centralized approach to managing this. I would like to share a statistic that might be useful at this stage. The construction sector in Quebec employs more than 300,000 workers. We are talking about a critical sector here, not some administrative detail. Quebec has unique characteristics that are non-negotiable. These include the use of French on construction sites, the province's specific construction regulations, Quebec's distinct regional realities, the province's unique industrial needs, and the culture of labour-management co-operation, which must also be taken into account. We need to recognize that labour market needs in Sept-Îles, Rouyn-Noranda, Drummondville or Montreal are not the same as those in Calgary or Halifax. The Canadian labour market is far from uniform. Trying to standardize it is a mistake. We certainly agree on mobility in some form, but the main problem is interference. The Bloc Québécois has a fairly balanced position. We generally support voluntary mutual recognition, the free movement of workers, intergovernmental agreements, the reduction of red tape, and more pragmatic solutions. For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois opposes any frameworks imposed by Ottawa, centralization, Canada-wide standards that bypass Quebec, and the gradual erosion of jurisdictions. Lastly, we do want to talk about the labour shortage, but the problem is a lack of workers, not a lack of structures. The real solution we want is to promote skilled trades to young people. We also want to speed up the recognition of prior learning. We want to invest in skills training. We need to support reskilling, help SMEs train the next generation of employees and allow Quebec to recruit workers based on its needs. All of this is crucial because Canada has had over 700,000 job vacancies on several occasions recently, according to Statistics Canada. A shortage of welders is not going to be solved with a federal committee. That is not how it works. What we are seeing once again is that anytime there is a crisis, the federal government sees it as an opportunity to introduce bills that interfere in the provinces' areas of jurisdiction. I get the impression that, with the situation with our American neighbours, the federal government is definitely trying to find “Ottawa knows best” solutions. However, that is not how things work. The Bloc Québécois criticized Bill C-5 and its many encroachments thanks to its Canadian projects led by Ottawa. However, Bill C-266 follows exactly the same path that we criticized. These attempts at interference have been happening repeatedly since the current Liberal government and Prime Minister were elected. It has not even been a year, but the number of attempts at bills that encroach on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction is extremely worrying. Little by little, they are trying to chip away at the powers that are rightfully ours. As I said, Quebec is a pioneer in many areas. We have a proven track record when it comes to labour. Quebec knows how to train its workforce. Quebec knows how to recognize the skills of its workers. Quebec knows how to meet its regional needs, and Quebec knows how to collaborate when it is useful, but Quebec does not need a federal arbiter, a national framework, a new bureaucracy or a new structure. This bill does not address the labour shortage. If anything, it addresses Ottawa's need to always be involved. That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C-266 in recognition of Quebec's jurisdiction over its workers and its labour market.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, with whom I have had the opportunity to serve on several committees, including the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. In her speech, she noted that certain communities had concerns, particularly regarding resource development. She seemed to be saying that they still need to be listened to and still have concerns. At the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we have often talked about the fact that indigenous and Métis women are disproportionately affected by so many issues. How will this bill actually help indigenous and Métis women? What can my colleague propose to truly ensure that their rights are respected?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his work on this matter. I had the opportunity to speak at an earlier stage of his bill and took the chance to highlight Quebec's pioneering role in organ donation. More specifically, I outlined the history of Transplant Québec. How does my colleague view this alignment and the fact that people outside Quebec will finally be able to share in Quebec's experience, enabling them to benefit from the improvements in these life-saving transplants?