Christine Normandin

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑39 has nothing to do with making Canada strong. It is a bill for making democracy weak. It is 250 pages of measures that take an axe to almost every federal law, undermining our rights and harming our environment. In one of these measures, Ottawa is giving itself the power to designate any part of Quebec as a region of national interest and place it under federal control. Did the Prime Minister consult Quebec before seizing power over Quebec soil?

Mr. Speaker, I will take that as a no. Quebec was not consulted on regions of national interest. That is not all. After announcing, without consulting Quebec, that it planned to privatize airports, the government is now using Bill C‑39 to privatize ports. Quebec's ports are obviously essential infrastructure for our economy, but the federal government is opening the door for them to be run by foreign investors. Did the Prime Minister once again forget to consult Quebec before introducing legislation to privatize its ports?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here and to see my colleagues whom I missed over the summer. However, I almost feel as though we are on a diplomatic mission to a foreign country. The topic that we are debating today is a reminder of something that happens all too often in Ottawa, and that is centralization and interference. I do not want to impute motives to the member who introduced Bill C-266 since I am sure his intentions were good. This comes from a noble desire, that of creating better fluidity and mobility for the labour force in a context where there are challenges related to labour shortages, an issue we are aware of because our constituents come to us about it regularly. The problem is not the intention behind the bill, but the approach that it takes. Members in Ottawa have an unfortunate tendency of forgetting that they are not at Queen's Park, the Quebec National Assembly or a provincial legislature. They forget that they are federal members of Parliament. Indeed, Bill C-266 aims to create a national framework to harmonize credentials, establish equivalencies, and facilitate the mobility of workers and skilled trades based on standards to be established and announced by the federal government. Once again, the objective is not a bad one in itself. The issue is that, with legislation like Bill C-266, Ottawa is taking on a coordinating role and also, quite simply, the role of an arbitrator in an area that is otherwise largely administered by the provinces. This is not the first time we have seen something like this. This was often the case with the national health strategies and frameworks, for example. The federal government wanted to introduce regulations. Once again, this may stem from good intentions. However, the federal government does not train health care staff or employ them. It does not run hospitals, and yet it still wanted to set standards. The same is true of Bill C-266. The federal government wants to claim an area of jurisdiction that does not belong to it, perhaps with good intentions, but chances are the end result will be problematic. Just because the preamble of the bill states that provincial jurisdiction must be respected does not mean that we can expect the bill to respect provincial jurisdiction. Generally, when there is such a statement in the preamble, we see the exact opposite in the text that follows. Matters of labour mobility and workforce training fall exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. In fact, Quebec already has its own model, and it works. Quebec is responsible for training. Quebec is responsible for credential recognition. There are several organizations that do this including Québec Emploi, Services Québec, the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, and the Commission de la construction du Québec, which are responsible for administering certification for various skilled trades. The federal government has recognized the fact that Quebec is responsible for managing workforce training since 1997. The Canada-Quebec Labour Market Agreement, signed by Lucien Bouchard and Jean Chrétien, officially established that Quebec was responsible for its workforce and for training. Under this agreement, the federal government transfers funds directly to Quebec to make this possible. Mechanisms are already in place for recognizing credentials for skilled trades, as well as for mobility. For example, there is the Red Seal designation, which is the result of genuine collaboration between the provinces, territories, and the federal government. There are mechanisms that work. We are leery of the idea of trying to replace all of this with a regulatory framework created exclusively by the federal government. There is no need to recreate in Ottawa what can already be achieved on the ground through agreements and genuine mutual recognition. One of the problems we foresee with the creation of a federal regulatory framework is that harmonization would not necessarily mean improvement. A difference between two provinces should not be systematically interpreted as an unnecessary barrier. Part of the reason Quebec has its own training is that it has its own safety standards and professional regulations, as well as its linguistic reality, which people tend to forget when they want to go all out with pan-Canadian standards. One of the issues that may crop up when people seek to standardize current practices is that they may end up looking for a common standard that will tend toward the lowest common denominator. In some cases, that could weaken the requirements that are more stringent, and for good reason, in Quebec or other provinces. Those requirements were put in place by provinces that know the reality on the ground and that are responsible for administration, training and the awarding of certifications. In that kind of context, two large segments of the population could lose out. First, the public could lose trust in the recognized value of certain certifications, which have historically been awarded by bodies that can administer them properly, rather than bodies that make things up as they go, such as the federal government in matters of labour. Second, workers may find that their initial training diminishes in value because it would be considered equivalent to that of other workers in Canada, when it is not, in fact. Both workers and the public stand to lose out. As I was saying, what we are seeing with Bill C-266 is part of an obviously broader federal drive towards standardization. We have seen this before, to some extent, and can draw a parallel with Bill C-5, which aimed to reduce interprovincial barriers to trade. It used a similar approach in that it showed a tendency to set aside crucial aspects of the economic fabric of Quebec and the provinces, particularly in cultural and linguistic matters. These barriers were not implemented on a whim, simply to throw up roadblocks or just for their own sake. There are reasons they exist, and it should be up to the provinces and the provinces alone to decide when to lift certain barriers. The bill provides for consultations, but we have often seen in the past that consulting does not imply agreement. Often, consulting means talking endlessly without ultimately taking into account what has been said, despite, as I said a little earlier, a preamble that provides for areas of jurisdiction to be respected. By creating federal frameworks, the government is ultimately making a unilateral decision on what constitutes a legitimate standard or a barrier. This could force us into situations involving a kind of reverse onus when it comes to removing barriers to mobility. The provinces and Quebec would have to justify and explain themselves even in cases where they rightfully decide to maintain different requirements. The solution is not a national framework but an improved version of something already available: increased federal labour mobility transfers for Quebec and the provinces. Funds are not an issue: Ottawa has already set aside large amounts for training in the skilled trades. Even during the recent spring 2026 economic update, there was talk of $2 billion over five years. Once again, even though a statutory framework was not involved, the federal government's willingness to impose standards on Quebec was unmistakable. Funds were given exclusively to the provinces willing to align their procedures with federal expectations. For some provinces, it was a carrot; for those that refused to surrender their jurisdiction to the federal government, it was a stick. The solution that Quebec wants is perfectly simple: an unconditional transfer of funds with the right to veto federal initiatives that fail to respect Quebec's jurisdiction. Labour mobility is a positive thing. It is something that Quebec is already working on improving. However, there is no room for mobility when it comes to Quebec giving up its areas of jurisdiction or handing them over to Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question along similar lines to the one my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord just asked. He asked why we are on the umpteenth version of this bill. I would like to know why this bill is the oldest one still before the House. This is Bill C‑10, but we have now progressed beyond Bill C‑30. There does not seem to be any filibustering, and there is a general consensus about it. Does my colleague think that the government's failure to prioritize Bill C‑10 sends the wrong message? I am talking about the fact that it has taken so long to put it on our agenda. Twenty-four bills have been referred to the Senate since this Parliament began, while this bill is still before the House.

Mr. Speaker, today I want to pay tribute to a great man from my region, someone who made it famous far beyond its borders. Claude Bachand, the Bloc Québécois member of Parliament for Saint‑Jean from 1993 to 2011, has passed away. Everyone knew Claude, and everyone liked him. In fact, colleagues from all different parties on Parliament Hill would often ask me about him, even 15 years after he left, because they cared about him so deeply. We know that Claude cared about them too. He was a real people person. Claude was a perfect example of a grassroots MP who had his region's best interests at heart. During his tenure, he organized plenty of meetings and extended many invitations, particularly to ambassadors and consuls, so they could get to know and love Saint-Jean just as much as he did. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I offer my deepest condolences to his family, his loved ones and the many friends whose lives he touched.

Mr. Speaker, as we take stock of this parliamentary session, there are two things that Quebeckers will remember. The first is how the Prime Minister betrayed the environment by putting an end to Canada's fight against climate change and by pushing the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie to resign. The second is how the Prime Minister betrayed our culture by sacrificing the creation of French-language content for the sake of the web giants just to please Donald Trump. These two steps backward are jeopardizing our future and will basically just serve to line the pockets of American tycoons. How can the Liberals undo an entire generation's struggle and progress like that?

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the Prime Minister's record so far. He betrayed the climate. He betrayed our culture by leaving billions of dollars on the table. He made multiple concessions to Donald Trump with nothing to show for it. Also, Quebec's economy was hit the hardest by the tariffs, yet it received the least support, especially for the lumber industry and for steel and aluminum processing. He used closure to pass an authoritarian agenda to concentrate power and suspend laws. He disrespected Parliament. That is his record. Those are his true colours. Does he realize he will eventually pay the price if he keeps doing the opposite of what he promised he would do?

Mr. Speaker, July 1 is fast approaching and, when it comes to tackling the housing crisis, there is a prominent local figure who stands out from the crowd and refuses to give in to fatalism. Jean-François Tremblay, an impact real estate investor—but more importantly, a man of compassion—is demonstrating that it is possible to innovate and take concrete action to meet a fundamental need like that of having a decent home. His project, Domicile Fixe, offers 30 highly affordable homes in Vieux-Iberville, while meeting a wide range of criteria, including LEED, WELL and universal accessibility standards. Even more remarkable is that these homes, which are untouchable by speculators, are based on a financial structure that receives no subsidies from any level of government. Jean-François Tremblay is a builder who dreams bigger than the others. His dreams are never an end in themselves, but rather the starting point for great achievements. As he prepares to welcome a new addition to his family, I send him my warmest wishes for happiness. Just like his projects, this new adventure holds great promise for the future. I would like to thank Jean-François.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are confusing their parliamentary majority with the right to do what they want, when they want. The time allocations never seem to stop, which is especially odd considering that their bills are certain to pass. Yesterday, it was Bill C‑30, which authorizes the government to approve the use of previously banned pesticides. Today, it is Bill C‑22, which authorizes the invasive surveillance of Canadians. That comes on top of lots of other legislation, like the legislation arising from Bill C‑5, under which the Prime Minister is giving himself the power to circumvent laws. Are the Liberals so quick to resort to time allocations because they want to keep the public in the dark about the scope of their abuse of power?

Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister has nothing but contempt for the work of Parliament. He is ramming through draconian laws using closure. He is concentrating all powers in hands of cabinet. He is using those powers to deregulate industry for the benefit of primarily American companies or to suspend certain laws. On the international stage, he says that he wants to form an alliance of middle powers against Donald Trump, but in real life, he is making concession after concession to the U.S. President. The Liberals promised Quebeckers a green banker. They promised a strongman who would stand up to Washington. How have we ended up with neither?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister talks a good game. After Davos, where he called for middle powers to stand together, on Saturday he said at the G7 that the strands of a new world order could be woven together. The problem is that it is all talk. In real life, the Prime Minister is breaking with Europe by scrapping the digital services tax. He is distancing himself from the European Union by scrapping the levies on online broadcasters. He is leaving the climate fight to the Europeans so his government can build pipelines to benefit the Americans who own the oil companies. Why is he spending his time abandoning the middle powers just to please Donald Trump?

Mr. Speaker, I did not even mention the Keystone XL pipeline, which is good for the U.S. but bad for all the countries working to fight climate change. I did not even mention Bill C‑30, which would allow previously banned pesticides to be approved. That will be good for the U.S. factories that manufacture Monsanto products, but it will be bad for our trade relations with Europe, which operates by stricter standards. The Prime Minister talks a good game, but his actions are moving him further away from our European allies and closer to Donald Trump. He writes fine speeches, but why do his actions always contradict his words?

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, 70 scientists from 17 countries updated the climate change data from the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Paris Agreement's global warming target is no longer achievable. Sea levels continue to rise at twice the previous rate, and the number of days with extreme marine heat has tripled. What is to blame? Well, it is fossil fuels. What is the government doing? It is building a new pipeline and new gas pipelines without conducting an environmental assessment. How can the Liberals follow the Prime Minister in this madness?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not listening to the science when it comes to the environment, just as he does not listen to his former environment ministers, his net-zero advisory body, whose members have resigned, or even his own members, according to media reports. He does not listen to anyone except the interests of American oil and gas company owners. He is keeping all the power in his own hands to build pipelines that line the pockets of Americans. If this is the strong Canada that the Liberals want to build, then do they realize that we are going to pass on that?

Mr. Speaker, the minister just said that the amendments returned to us by the Senate are relatively simple to deal with. Like my Conservative colleague earlier, I was of the impression that the House would likely pass this bill fairly quickly once it returned from the Senate. I wonder what message the government is sending by imposing time allocation on a bill on which there otherwise seems to be consensus. What does that say about the government's way of doing things? When the government decides to impose closure, even on bills for which there is a consensus, it seems to me that this sends a very bad message. Can the minister tell me if discussions on passing Bill C-14 were stalling? I really do not get that impression. Imposing time allocation at this point in time seems all the more unjustified, to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I love my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands but, unfortunately, when she raises her voice, that risks damaging the interpreters' hearing. I urge all members of the House to be conscientious. Sudden outbursts like that can unfortunately affect other people.

Mr. Speaker, on the bail issue, I can understand my colleague's position on the Senate amendment. However, it does come with certain guidelines. A judge who grants a person who has committed a crime in recent years the opportunity to be designated as a surety must demonstrate that it is in the interest of justice and must record the reasons for their decision in the case file. Does my colleague not think that refusing this amendment is a bit of an affront to judges' ability to make sound decisions on a case-by-case basis, allowing them, where justified, to authorize a surety that would otherwise have been inadmissible?

Mr. Speaker, I will be relatively brief in my comments on the amendments proposed by the Senate. Let us not forget that we are actually debating the Senate's proposed amendments today, as opposed to the substance of Bill C-14, since we have already debated it in the House and it was passed on division. I will nevertheless take the liberty of making a few comments on the substance of the bill, but only very briefly. The Bloc Québécois proposed amendments to improve the bill. Some were adopted, for example the fact that, in the Youth Criminal Justice Act or what was known as the Young Offenders Act, the use of a firearm was added to the definition of violent offence. This made the courts' work easier because, otherwise, it was always up to the Crown, on a case-by-case basis, to prove that an offence committed with a firearm was in fact a violent offence. We finally corrected something that seemed obvious. It was also at the suggestion of the Bloc Québécois that the government included in the bill the obligation for parliamentarians to review the legislation after five years of its coming into force, which we think is an excellent thing, especially in a context where aspects of the legislation deal with the issue of the presumption of innocence. We pointed out at the time that we were less in agreement with the idea that certain offences should be increased or that consecutive sentences should be handed down for offences that did not necessarily involve violence. These measures seemed designed to address a political issue rather than a legal one. For example, I am thinking of the issue of auto theft. We know, as recent history has shown, that consecutive sentences or longer sentences for auto theft are not the way to solve the problem. Rather, we can solve the problem by investing in border security. That is why we have recently seen a drop in the number of auto thefts. Among the changes set out in Bill C‑14, there were some we considered acceptable and others we did not like. All things being equal, we felt that the bill still had more benefits than drawbacks, and so we decided that we would vote for it if the bill were put to a vote at third reading. It was passed on division and went to the Senate. That is how we ended up debating Senate amendments today. As far as our position on the amendments go, I am about to spoil the surprise. We agree with the government's position on the Senate's amendments, accepting some and rejecting others. I will briefly run through them. The Senate had a few concerns, a few fears, particularly about the disproportionate impact of incarceration on certain marginalized groups, such as indigenous people, racialized people, youth, and individuals experiencing homelessness. Allow me to go over the proposed amendments. Bill C-14, as drafted, automatically prohibited anyone convicted of an indictable offence within the past 10 years from acting as a surety. We just discussed this during questions and comments. The government accepts the less stringent amendment proposed by the Senate, and so do we. It allows a judge some discretion in situations where no one else could act as a surety for an accused. For example, a newcomer may not necessarily have family here. In our view, there are still sufficient safeguards in place. The judge must explain how it would serve the interests of justice for a person who has been convicted of an indictable offence in the past to act as a surety. The judge must explain this and must enter the reasons into the record. In exceptional cases, this allows a judge to let someone who has been convicted of an indictable offence act as a surety. We believe this strikes an appropriate balance. Take, for example, a person who has previously been convicted of vandalism. I would remind the House that there are major and minor offences. Should someone who once committed an act of vandalism be prevented from being named as surety? If it has been less than 10 years and the person committed a truly serious crime, then surely they would still be in prison, which would immediately disqualify them, so that seemed to be an appropriate balance to us. There is also the matter of whether we should add an obligation for judges to systematically ask defendants whether they belong to any of the groups mentioned in section 493.2 of the Criminal Code, namely racialized or minority groups, and to include that information in the court record. The government rejected the Senate amendment in that regard. We agree with the government. The amendment makes it mandatory to ask the question, when we know that judges are already required to include in the record the fact that they took those criteria into consideration. In my opinion, and this is why we oppose the amendment, we should not force a judge's hand when it comes to how they comply with this obligation to ensure that the person is not part of a targeted group. That gives judges some discretion because it is not always necessarily relevant, appropriate or reasonable to ask a person whether they are part of a targeted group. We will leave it up to the judge to decide how to meet that obligation in each case, since they are required to indicate in the court record that they took those factors into consideration. I know that the Senate heard testimony that the obligation to document that the criteria had been considered was not always being met. This section has only been around for two years, since 2024. Since it is already not being complied with, I respectfully suggest that, rather than creating a new section, we should instead ensure that the section that was created two years ago is complied with and that judges are more careful about including a statement that they have properly taken this obligation into consideration in the record. There are also amendments about an annual report on interim release. It is not an amendment, since it already existed in Bill C‑14, but the Senate wants to improve it in various ways. One of the proposed changes is to add the rates of detention in custody before trial to this report. The government agrees with the amendment, and the Bloc Québécois supports it as well. Having real, accurate statistics will help us gain a better understanding of the reality of preventive detention and will probably help better inform future debates on this issue. However, one of the amendments proposed by the Senate is a requirement to consult Statistics Canada and experts in data collection when preparing the annual report. We believe that this amendment might be a little too restrictive. The courts and the minister already have the option of consulting Statistics Canada and engaging with various experts, but making this mandatory might remove some flexibility in how things are documented. It might be more rigid than necessary. We therefore agree with the government that the amendment should not be adopted. Another Senate amendment would change the implementation date for all the amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, particularly regarding the confidentiality of records. A certain degree of flexibility is required to implement these changes. By allowing a certain period of time to do so, we ensure that it will be done properly. The amendment delaying the coming into force date is therefore entirely justified and appropriate. The government supports it, and we support it as well. I think I have finished walking us through the Senate's amendments, the government's position and our position. Some of the amendments do indeed improve Bill C‑14, and we support them. We share the government's position on them. The rejected amendments are not necessarily bad, but they are already addressed, to a certain extent, by existing Criminal Code provisions. Strengthening them further might take away some of the flexibility that is required in criminal matters. I did not mean to needlessly belabour my observations on the amendments. In closing, I would say that we agree with the government's response to the Senate concerning the amendments it accepts and those it rejects.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned briefly, this amendment deals with the confidentiality of records. Bill C‑14 addresses legislative gaps in the Youth Criminal Justice Act regarding how long records should be kept. For example, in cases where the charges were withdrawn or discharged, there were inconsistencies, and in some cases, no time limit was specified at all. To ensure the law is properly applied, a short grace period is being granted to allow the courts to update their IT systems, for example, and to enable police forces to ensure that records are kept properly. It makes sense to allow for a grace period rather than bringing the bill into force immediately upon royal assent. We felt that this amendment was entirely justified and that the time frame was reasonable.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister sacrificed the future of francophone culture at the hands of Donald Trump. He is completely giving up on the 10-year struggle to get American web giants to help fund creative works and news. What has he gotten in return? All he has gotten is yet another escalation of hostilities from Washington. After seeing Canada surrender on the culture issue, President Trump responded yesterday by saying that he is not looking to renew CUSMA. Does the Prime Minister realize that he sacrificed culture for nothing?