Parliamentary Speeches

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, 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?

Mr. Speaker, not only does that have nothing to do with my question, it has nothing to do with the business of the House either. Contrary to Europe, the Prime Minister capitulated on streaming levies. Contrary to France, he capitulated on the digital services tax. He exempted American multinationals from the global minimum tax. He ended his countertariffs. He is trying to persuade the provinces to end their boycott of American alcohol. He is making every effort to appease Donald Trump, but the outcome is always more concessions. The renewal of CUSMA is now entirely off the table. Does the Prime Minister realize that his weakness strategy is not paying off?

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are leaving for what we hope are greener pastures. I imagine most of them are heading to committee meetings. Hopefully they will go well. There are not many meetings left before the session ends. I would like to say a few words about Bill C-25. Since we are nearing the end of the process having debated it in the House and discussed it at length in committee, I am not going to leave people in suspense. The Bloc is going to vote in favour of Bill C-25, which has moved forward with relative consensus in both the House and in committee. Everything went smoothly, that much is true. Furthermore, once I have outlined the bill's objectives, I will highlight its strengths. I will save the less positive aspects for last, because there are some. Bill C-25 amends the Canada Elections Act and addresses various issues. More specifically, it seeks to prevent large numbers of candidates from registering, as the protesters from the longest ballot committee have done. The hope is that we avoid ending up with ballots featuring 290 candidates that have to be unfolded like road maps and clog up the ballot boxes. We have worked to find solutions to prevent this from happening again. The bill also aims to strengthen the integrity, security and transparency of federal elections, but once again, there are a few minor pitfalls that I will address later. The bill seeks to update the electoral framework to address the risks of disinformation, foreign interference and cybersecurity. These issues were not yet as prominent during the last review of the Canada Elections Act. The bill also seeks to formally change the names of certain electoral districts. I will take the liberty of going over the changes affecting my colleagues. The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon will now have a much easier riding name to remember. She will become the hon. member for “Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent”. The member for Jonquière's riding name will get a little longer, but it will make his constituents happy. He will now be known as the member for “Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets”. The Bloc Québécois already has the maple capital in one of its ridings. Now we officially have the blueberry capital too. The member for Rimouski—La Matapédia is heading in the opposite direction of the future member for “Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent”. From now on, he will be the member for “Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques”. That name includes every single RCM in his riding. As I was saying, the goals of the reform introduced by Bill C-25 are broad and entirely legitimate, but in our view, they have not been fully achieved. I said we would be generous, so we will talk about the positives. One of the changes to the Canada Elections Act is the end of anonymous donations. The new version of the act will no longer allow it. It used to be allowed. People may not know this, but it used to be possible to make a donation completely anonymously, including through prepaid credit cards or cryptocurrencies that are impossible to trace. The new version of the act states that, should a member of Parliament happen to receive this type of donation, the money would be returned to the donor or destroyed if the donor could not be identified. This prevents funding from being received from obscure sources, such as donations from foreign entities. Attempts are being made to interfere with our elections. This is one aspect of the bill that helps counter this interference, which is unfortunately becoming increasingly common. Just look at the work carried out by Justice Hogue, who chaired the foreign interference commission. There are also stricter guidelines for nomination contests. In the wake of what is known in Quebec as the brownie scandal, we expected to see an equivalent measure put in place at the federal level, because Quebec had already quickly stated that it would close this loophole allowing fundraising for certain people in an electoral process, including leadership candidates and nomination contestants. In stronghold ridings, the question is not so much who will win the riding as who will win the nomination contest. If a party is contributing money to a nomination contestant, there is a reasonable expectation, in some cases, that they would then become the member of Parliament. That was not covered, but Quebec acted swiftly. We were happy to see the federal government follow suit. We were prepared to introduce a bill to that effect, but everything we were prepared to introduce was included in Bill C-25. We applaud the initiative. As for the work that is also being done on disinformation and other forms of interference, we know that interference can be done through social media and online publications, among other things. The bill already prohibits deepfakes, which mislead people and cause them to unduly vote against a candidate or favour a candidate by manipulating the content of a post or publication. We have seen examples of members of Parliament being victims of deepfakes that encouraged people to invest in certain products, which was completely misleading. Therefore, the bill prohibits creating or disseminating AI-generated content that falsely claims to be authentic and is in fact intended to deceive voters about a political actor or even the electoral process itself. We are also banning disinformation specifically regarding the electoral process. Unfortunately, among our neighbours to the south, we are seeing more people growing to distrust the integrity of the process. Bill C-25 addresses exactly that. It aims to expand existing provisions to further crack down on the publication of false or misleading information regarding voting procedures, such as voter eligibility, the various candidates and the nomination process. For example, a publication urging people to vote the day after the election would be subject to penalties now provided for in the bill. Bill C-25 also addresses issues related to hacking. There are new offences related to hacking and the unauthorized use of a computer, among other things. One of the issues that has interested us greatly, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, is the idea of preventing a large number of candidates from running. We know that the right to run for office is a fundamental right, but unfortunately we have seen in the past that this right has been used to subvert democracy. It was a highly militant act to attempt to break the record for the longest ballot. Every member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs agreed on the importance of addressing this issue, to the extent that we even moved a motion to conduct a study in committee specifically on the longest ballot. Most of the recommendations that emerged from that study are reflected in the bill. For example, it is now impossible for an official agent in a riding to serve as the official agent for multiple candidates. The longest ballot committee had a single official agent for 290 candidates. This is nonsensical considering the fact that legitimate candidates are meant to compete against one another. Bill C-25 also establishes a new offence intended to deter individuals from encouraging voters to sign multiple nomination forms. We know that approach taken by the longest ballot committee involved group signing sessions where everyone would gather together and sign numerous nomination forms in a single sitting. The bill also makes it an offence for a candidate to provide false or misleading information on their nomination forms or to encourage people to sign unidentified nomination forms. One of the things the committee pointed out was that, in order to recruit candidates, their nomination forms are already provided for them. Blank forms are already signed and given to them so that they can apply. Various offences have also been added in this respect, but something has been added that we do not agree with. I am referring to prohibiting a voter from signing more than one nomination form. I talked about group signing sessions earlier, when a hundred or so forms are signed in a single sitting. That is one thing. However, a voter may legitimately want to or wish to sign more than one nomination form. Adding this limit, in our opinion, does not solve the problem. That is what the Chief Electoral Officer, or CEO, confirmed. The CEO does not have sufficient resources to cross-reference the data between the nomination forms to see whether there are indeed multiple signatures. In any case, candidates would not de disqualified on that basis. Canada's Chief Electoral Officer has been very clear on this point. Allowing multiple signatures would not disallow certain candidates, in part because it would be impossible to determine which signature was obtained first in order and then establish which ballot is valid or invalid. This therefore places an unnecessary burden on the voters—not on the candidates—as they must limit themselves to signing only one nomination form. In our view, this also runs counter to the principle of the ballot secrecy. If a voter is limited to a single signature, they might legitimately conclude that they are indirectly supporting a candidate and that, since they can sign only one nomination form, they will sign the nomination form of someone they are interested in. This could harm candidates from smaller parties. Indeed, if a candidate from a small party or even an independent candidate has to inform people that they can sign only one nomination form, that person may want to reserve their signature for someone from a larger party. It becomes difficult for someone from a smaller party to get signatures. This could be seen as undermining ballot secrecy, but perhaps individuals who have not yet made up their mind might want to support two candidates running against each other so that they can make a more informed decision between the two later on. They might then want to sign two nomination forms, which would now be prohibited under the new legislation, which, as I mentioned, does not compel them one way or another. It might be a deterrent, but given the other offences created, particularly those targeting individuals who induce others to sign more than one nomination form, in this case the offences would apply to a voter. In certain cases the voter might mean well by signing more than one nomination form, and in any event, the various candidates would be accepted. That was the part that bothered us. I also spoke about the fight against foreign interference. There is no denying that when it comes to elections, what really matters is money. Deepfakes, bribes and misinformation were all looked at. When it comes to fundraising, an attempt was made to address the matter of foreign funds, but the issue has only been partially dealt with, because it is still possible to circumvent the intent of the bill. I will explain what I mean. Under the new legislation, a third-party entity that might want to promote an idea during an election campaign without being a political party may do so only with Canadian funds. So far, so good. However, we were told that for smaller entities, it becomes a bit complicated to sort out which funds are exclusively Canadian and which of their own funds come from various sources. To avoid complicating matters by requiring such entities to maintain separate bank accounts, the idea was to allow third parties to use up to 10% of their funds, regardless of the source of those funds, in order to participate in an election. It is worth mentioning that the Conservatives did a good job on this issue. The problem is that for a third-party entity with vast resources, 10% can amount to a significant sum. For example, if several small entities were to join forces and raise a fund of $200 million, $20 million could still be spent without the source of the money being identified. We would have preferred to maintain the principle that only Canadian funds can be used to campaign in an election on behalf of a third party, rather than having this loophole that ultimately allows donations from outside the country to be accepted without additional scrutiny. We are also disappointed that parties will no longer be required to provide five days' notice of a fundraising event and post it on their website. The report submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada would remove the exact addresses of those participating in the fundraising event for entirely valid security reasons, and I understand that. However, virtually all information about the donors is removed. We would have liked to at least retain the location and time of the event, as well as the postal codes of those who attended. All of this comes in the wake of what happened with Wealth One Bank. There was a fundraising event in the Papineau riding that Chinese stakeholders had participated in. In the days that followed the fundraising event, the 46 donors from the Toronto area who had participated in it secured federal approval for the creation of their chartered bank, giving them the right to operate in Canada. It was a form of pay to play. As a result, in 2018, the government created more transparency surrounding fundraisers by requiring the names of attendees to be disclosed. However, these provisions have been removed from the bill, which we believe is an unwarranted step backward when the goal is more transparency. Another shocking irritant is the fact that the Liberals voted against our recommendation. The bill removes the requirement to return funds to donors when a violation occurs in the filing of the report within 30 days of a fundraising activity. For example, someone might neglect to file a report. It would then never be known who attended a fundraiser. The party would be fined, which it could pay out of the funds raised at that very event. This means that there is no deterrent to committing a violation when people hold a fundraiser, because they could reimburse themselves using the funds collected during that event if the rules are not followed. That is something that the Liberals removed from the original legislation. We tried to restore it through an amendment, but unfortunately it did not pass. That was certainly disappointing. As I also mentioned, we would have liked to see more transparency in the reports. Both the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois tried to achieve this. Unfortunately, their efforts went nowhere. Another issue was raised, and that is privacy. We know that this is a very sensitive issue these days. Our digital identity is becoming increasingly prevalent and increasingly important. Governments must follow suit and ensure that organizations collecting sensitive information protect it adequately. Bill C-25 takes a small step in the right direction by requiring parties to adopt formal privacy policies. However, it does not go any further, and that creates problems. The idea that parties will self-regulate when it comes to protecting privacy is flawed. For example, different parties will likely have different policies, and there is no federal framework to ensure consistency among them. This is essentially self-regulation, which is problematic. Furthermore, last June, we passed Bill C-4. This bill allows political parties to be exempt from privacy protection measures implemented in Quebec and the other provinces. For example, a province may adopt a rigorous data protection regime that it wishes to impose on organizations such as federal political parties. This is precisely what British Columbia did, and that is what prompted the decision regarding Bill C-4. However, Bill C-4 exempts federal parties from the application of these measures. We wanted to reinstate this requirement in the new version of the Canada Elections Act, but it was not included. Several witnesses told us that, pending a national federal privacy policy for political parties, ensuring that parties are at least subject to provincial regulations was the lesser of two evils. If a province has strict regulations, one can assume that the parties will comply with them. At the very least, in the meantime, while we wait for a genuine national policy, this would help unify data protection systems, rather than letting the parties regulate themselves. I see that my time is almost up and that I have just a few seconds left. I just want to point out that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill even though it could have been improved more than it was. This is a little like someone telling us they are going to repaint the house, but they end up painting just one room and dirtying the floor in the process. It is better than it was, but it is not perfect. Anyway, we will vote in favour of the bill even though it is somewhat disappointing, unfortunately. We hope that, in the near future, we will have an opportunity to revisit those shortcomings and fix them.

Mr. Speaker, to answer the parliamentary secretary's question, it is important to remember that the measure has still not been adopted. In fact, it does not exist until the bill receives royal assent. We made these recommendations in committee proactively and asked the Chief Electoral Officer some questions directly. Who better to answer our questions than the Chief Electoral Officer himself? He confirmed that, in any case, there is no way to implement an enforcement mechanism to prevent someone from signing more than one nomination form. He told us very openly that he hoped this measure would act as a deterrent, but that, otherwise, we could not hope to solve the problem with this measure alone. Our argument is that all the other measures, such as the single official agent that the parliamentary secretary mentioned and the sanctions imposed on those who encourage someone to sign multiple nomination forms, would be enough. In other words, there is no added value in the requirement to have a single signature, although there are several disadvantages.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk for his kind words. First of all, I really appreciate it. He is a colleague that I hold in high regard. There is a lot in that question. I think that many people have learned a number of lessons, sometimes different ones. However, the one that is perhaps the most objective and applies to all parties, and even more so to the public, is the idea that every vote counts. I think that is the lesson everyone has learned. As for the rest, the methods used, all parties have been able to draw various lessons. However, I am sure that, as they knocked on doors, all parties had to remind people that every vote can make a difference. We saw a very concrete example of this during the last election, and it is something that will probably set a precedent for the future. We need to remind people that, even if they may sometimes think otherwise, their vote can have a significant impact.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. She hit the nail on the head. The problem of interference stems from an inability to identify the source. One thing became clear in committee, and that is the fact that, unfortunately, we will always be one step behind. Hostile foreign actors will always have vast resources at their disposal that allow them to find legal loopholes. The problem is that when we are aware of these loopholes and choose not to close them, we become partly responsible for our own misfortune. I gave some examples, including allowing a third party to use up to 10% of its own funds to conduct activities during an election campaign. A third-party organization could have $200 million in the bank from its own funds, which could come from the United States, China, or anywhere. That still amounts to $20 million that it can use with impunity, rather than having to go through a separate bank account where only Canadian funds would be used.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question in excellent French. I am very grateful for that. As for the funding loophole, I previously talked about it when I was answering my colleague's question. In terms of the security of the ballot boxes, this was a Conservative amendment that was very interesting on the substance, but not as interesting in form, in our opinion, because it wanted to include something very specific into the Elections Act to protect ballot boxes. If memory serves, I remember, for example, that the clause provided for the use of a three-point locking system, along with video surveillance. This is something that, in our opinion, should be in the regulations instead, which allow for much more flexibility. Including the principle of the security of ballot boxes is something that could have been done by amending the act. However, very specific proposals were made, for example, with regard to using a three-point locking system. In five years, that may be a completely outdated technology. We would then be stuck with an election law that is no longer up to date, which would impose on the party something that no longer works and that cannot be changed other than through a legislative amendment. However, in that context, the regulations would have allowed for more flexibility. It was a really great idea. The way it was carried out might have warranted a different approach. That is why we voted against it. It was not the principle that we took issue with, but rather the way it was handled.

Mr. Speaker, I only wish I had other suggestions. The questions were put to the witnesses. We were coming back to the idea that technology advances so quickly that we are always lagging behind, which is why it is perhaps important to review the legislation on a regular basis. The law's current provisions serve a legitimate purpose, but I still get the sense it will never be enough. That is why it is so important for members and political actors not to add fuel to the fire by spreading disinformation, which, unfortunately, is often used to feed deepfakes.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps granting concession after concession to Donald Trump. By July, the PM had already scrapped the digital services tax on U.S. tech giants. In August, he dropped Canada's retaliatory tariffs. This week, he cancelled the levy on American online broadcasters, and he did all of this without getting anything in return. The Prime Minister met with Quebec and the provinces today, and rumour has it that he brought up their boycott of American alcohol. Did the Prime Minister ask them to follow his lead and grant further concessions?

Mr. Speaker, for CUSMA, the Prime Minister's concessions to the Americans go even further. Through Bill C-5, he has granted himself the power to suspend laws in order to build new pipelines. The big winners are the shareholders of oil companies, 60% of whom are American. Under Bill C-30, he is granting himself the power to re-approve banned pesticides. The big winner is Bayer, which sells Monsanto's American seeds and pesticides. The Prime Minister is concentrating power in his own hands, but it is the Americans who are benefiting from it. Is that really his definition of Canada strong?

Mr. Speaker, this time, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, a member of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying from the House of Commons may have a dissenting or supplementary opinion appended to its first report by tabling it with the Clerk of the House by July 10, 2026, and that, in such a case, the Clerk of the House shall forward such dissenting or supplementary opinion to the Clerk of the Senate so that it may be deemed to have been tabled in both Houses; that a message be sent to the Senate informing it that this House has adopted this order, and inviting it to adopt provisions to give effect to this order.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is abandoning Quebec culture to please the web giants and Donald Trump. First, he scrapped the digital services tax, which represents a loss of $1.4 billion per year, in exchange for absolutely nothing. Today, he is ordering the CRTC to waive every penny of the levies charged to streaming platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime, and yet the European Union imposes levies on streaming platforms and they comply without any significant cost increases for their customers. Why is the Prime Minister in such a hurry to leave our culture at Donald Trump's mercy?

Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at the Prime Minister's recent record. The Prime Minister is turning his back on culture in favour of digital giants like Netflix and Amazon. The Prime Minister is abandoning the fight against climate change in favour of the oil companies' American shareholders. The Prime Minister is handing control of pesticides over to multinational agrochemical companies. No prime minister has ever deregulated so extensively for the benefit of large foreign corporations. Is selling out to the highest foreign bidder what he means by building Canada strong?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is neglecting culture yet again. After scrapping the digital services tax last summer without getting anything in return, yesterday he scrapped the proposed increase in levies on tech giants for Quebec cultural production. His first instinct in dealing with Donald Trump was to hand out billions of dollars in gifts to the tech giants and pass the bill on to taxpayers. It took less than 24 hours of negotiations in Washington for the Prime Minister to agree to that sacrifice. Why is he so eager to capitulate when it comes to the future of Quebec culture?

Mr. Speaker, the minister's $600 million is paid for by citizens. The minister is replacing billions of dollars in contributions from platforms like Netflix with $600 million from taxpayers' pockets. Regardless of whether citizens are subscribers or not, they are still going to pay. However, other countries around the world are demanding significant payments from streaming platforms and they have not seen a significant increase in bills. Quebec had the courage to stand up to the web giants. When will the federal government show the same courage?

moved for leave to introduce C‑279, An Act to repeal the Clarity Act. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to introduce Bill C‑279, an act to repeal the Clarity Act. This bill simply seeks to repeal the federal Clarity Act, which allows Parliament to override the will of the people by a simple majority vote of 50% plus one. The Clarity Act does two things. First, it allows the House of Commons to determine whether a referendum question is sufficiently clear before a referendum takes place. This is particularly paternalistic and impugns the intelligence of the public by assuming that people are unable to think for themselves and understand a question. Second, following a referendum, the Clarity Act allows the House to rule that the majority was not clear, that there was no majority because of the turnout, the percentage of votes in favour of the secessionist option or the substance of the debates. In short, the House of Commons can tell millions of people that their voice did not count based on 343 votes in the House with a potential majority of a few votes off from 50% plus one. Bill C‑279 also aims to uphold certain basic democratic principles, which were reiterated by the National Assembly of Quebec when it voted unanimously in favour of the principle. That means both federalists and separatists, across all parties, are rejecting the Clarity Act and pointing out that 50% plus one is a clear majority and that, in the case of Quebec, it is up to Quebec alone to decide its future. Again, our bill is simple. It simply aims to repeal the abomination and democratic aberration that is the Clarity Act. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Liberals keep backtracking on environmental issues time and again. Their backtracking even led the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie to resign. Despite all this backtracking, the Liberals keep repeating that they will meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets. We are wondering how. That is why, last Thursday, the Bloc Québécois demanded to see the figures the Liberals are using as the basis for their claim that emissions will fall despite all the measures they have sacrificed. The minister did not have that data. Now does she have the figures on the impact of the backtracking announced this year?

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the minister still does not have the figures. We want figures for this year, because this is the year the Liberals announced a new pipeline and new LNG projects, cut Alberta's industrial carbon price, scrapped the oil and gas emissions cap, suspended the clean electricity regulations, cancelled the carbon tax, and the list goes on. Today, even though they do not have any figures measuring the impact of this backtracking, the Liberals keep insisting that they are going to meet their climate targets. How are we supposed to believe that?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously condemned the Prime Minister for his authoritarian statement that 50% of the votes cast plus one would not be enough in a referendum. It reaffirmed its support for Quebec's Bill 99, which defines a clear majority as 50% plus one, just like all democratic votes around the world. It declared that no parliament or government may impose constraint on the democratic will of the Quebec people to determine their own future. Does the Prime Minister understand Quebec's message, and will he respect the foundations of democracy?

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's elected officials have condemned the Prime Minister's drift toward authoritarianism with his Clarity Act. I would like to draw his attention to a reaction that might inspire him. The leader of the Quebec Liberals said, “We in the Liberal Party of Quebec are both federalists and democrats”. Yes, it is possible to be a federalist, a democrat, and a Liberal all at once. It is possible to hold multiple principles simultaneously. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, is merely a Liberal, in addition to being paternalistic and anti-democratic. Will the Liberals bring him back down to earth and ask him to repeal the Clarity Act?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has to respect democracy, but yesterday he did the opposite by announcing that he would use the Clarity Act to meddle in Alberta's referendum question. The provinces and Quebec have the right to ask their citizens any question they choose in a referendum. Citizens have the right to answer freely, and the majority wins with 50% of the vote plus one. Only two groups are involved: the government asking the question and the citizens answering it. That is democracy, plain and simple. Will the Prime Minister respect that?

Mr. Speaker, respecting democracy means not only avoiding interfering in referendum questions, but also avoiding interfering in the people's answer. A clear majority is 50% of the votes plus one. As the Prime Minister knows, all his laws are passed with a majority of 50% plus one. His own majority is 50% plus one. Even his own parliamentary secretary for justice said that the rule is 50% plus one. That is democracy, except for referendums apparently, because of the Clarity Act. Will the Prime Minister stop this drift away from democracy?

Mr. Speaker, Ottawa is currently reviewing the question that the Alberta government will put to its population in a referendum to see if it is appropriate, because Ottawa knows so much better than anyone else what kind of question should be asked. Ottawa knows what is clear and what is unclear to ordinary people. The federal government is so superior, so much better. Good thing the government is here to look after us and to explain things we are capable of understanding. Does the government realize that the Clarity Act is nothing but a demonstration of contempt for the populace and the provinces?

Mr. Speaker, contempt is when one considers a person, group or thing inferior. It is a feeling of superiority. When the government of a province or Quebec asks its people a question, it is up to the Government of Quebec or that provincial government to decide on the question, and it is up to the people to answer it. Ottawa has no business getting involved. Ottawa is interfering simply because it believes itself to be superior to everyone. There are two options: Either Ottawa respects the democratic process that is under way, or it interferes and confirms its contempt for the people. What will it do?

Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the Liberals have decided to speed up pipeline construction by cutting red tape: too many rules, too much hemming and hawing, too much focus on reducing greenhouse gases and social acceptance. Canada has oil, so we are going to make a fortune, and to heck with the regulations. The Conservatives are losing the battle for the hearts of oil lovers. Soon enough, the Liberals will be the ones wearing “I love oil and gas” pins. If there is a single Liberal left who believes in the environment, what on earth are they doing in this party?

Mr. Speaker, there must be some Conservatives who are itching to cross the floor. They see themselves in a Prime Minister who promotes the monarchy and the oil sands. We now understand the Liberals' vision. Canada's future is based on dirty 19th‑century fossil fuels. Now at least we know where we stand. My question is simple: Why do the members in that party who still believe in the fight against climate change not just leave? What are they waiting for?

Mr. Speaker, no one is going to refuse the support, but it is poorly targeted. To quote the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, “For businesses whose survival is currently in jeopardy, this is not enough.” When support measures leave the most vulnerable businesses behind, I would not call that a success. That is a failure. As Desjardins has shown, the businesses most at risk are disproportionately those in Quebec. Quebeckers are the ones at risk. When will a wage subsidy be introduced to protect them?