Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, that is the first time that the Chair has said the new name of my riding. I would like to thank my colleague. Every time I listen to him, I feel as though I am getting a lesson in economics. I myself did not study economics, so I am always learning. It is no small thing to have someone with a Ph.D. in economics in the House. When he speaks, his facts are supported by his knowledge and research. I will give him the last word because the questions and comments period is drawing to a close. What message does he want parliamentarians here in the House to take away from his speech?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Csur co-op, a social economy enterprise that embodies the best of community-based entrepreneurship and regional innovation in Vaudreuil-Soulanges. For the past two decades, Csur has been harnessing local resources to carry out ambitious projects that benefit our community. Thanks to its members' determination, the co-op has helped improve access to high-speed Internet in several rural parts of our region that were neglected by the major providers. With nearly 200 kilometres of fibre optic infrastructure, Csur's network now serves 10 municipalities. Another Csur initiative is the Marché Écolocal, a market that supports our local producers while strengthening our regional economy. There, now everyone knows my favourite place to buy groceries. I salute the founders, employees, volunteers, board members and partners who have contributed to this remarkable success. On behalf of the people of Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent, I congratulate the Csur co-op on 20 years of success.

Mr. Speaker, this government is subverting democracy by shutting down the debate on Bill C-22. Even though it has a majority, integrity demands proper scrutiny before we pass a bill that allows the surveillance of all citizens, the seizure of data without authorization and the tracking of phones. To add insult to injury, the closure motion also imposes a retroactive deadline for the submission of amendments. What a coincidence: The deadline was precisely when the Liberal members proposed their amendments. This is an utterly reprehensible case of parliamentary insider trading. Will they stop this shift toward authoritarianism?

Mr. Speaker, I always listen carefully to my colleague from Winnipeg North, and I do not know why he feels the need to shout like that. When I have my earpiece in, I find it hard to hear the interpretation. I know he is a passionate person, but still, I struggle to sit through his entire speech. I disagree with him on some things. He can attack the Conservatives all he wants, but he forgot to mention that the Barreau du Québec, the Canadian Bar Association and civil society groups had many questions and concerns about part 2 of the bill. It is not just the Conservatives, but also many groups in society that were questioning Bill C-22. Also, filibustering is a parliamentary tool that can be used when it becomes clear that the party in power is unwilling to negotiate or co-operate. What does my colleague have to say to the Barreau du Québec and the Canadian Bar Association, which have called on the government to split Bill C-22 in two?

Mr. Speaker, as we know, Bill C-25 includes changes to the names of electoral districts. The new name of my electoral district will be “Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent”. It will be easier to pronounce, but it will be less melodious for those who take pleasure in saying my riding's name. I am pleased to rise to speak to Government Business No. 13. I have a lot to say, but please allow me to digress briefly. We are soon going to adjourn for the summer, and I would say a certain fatigue has set in in the House. We are wrapping up our work this week, and one thing we do not say often enough is that, while we work hard, we could not do it without the support of our staff. Tonight, I would like to thank my assistant, Racim, who was brand new to Parliament Hill. He came here with me this fall and learned on the job. We had never analyzed a bill together or done clause-by-clause consideration together, so we learned together. Tonight, I want to say how happy I am with his work, his loyalty, his effort and his perseverance. It must be said that we put in long hours, especially heading into a break, to wrap up all the bills. I am part of a very hard-working and thorough caucus. We work hard and diligently, always with the common good in mind, to do everything we can to improve bills, to assess whether they are in Quebec's best interests and to develop proposals. It is all the better if they are in Canadians' best interests too. Racim and I work with a great team, and we are also building relationships with the other political parties. We have worked with the Conservatives and the Liberals, and we have also worked with an NDP colleague and our colleague from the Green Party. We joined forces to improve Bill C-22. I will say this straight away: This bill is probably one of the most significant pieces of legislation I will have had the privilege of working on in my time as a member of Parliament, because it brings about fundamental change. Incidentally, I would like to apologize for stumbling over my words and making a few minor slips. I am a bit tired. Yesterday, we sat until midnight, and as everyone knows, I am no spring chicken. I am 62 years old, so I am tired this evening. I hope everyone will forgive my little slips—

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you for your rigour and thank you for rising to call for a little more order. I was saying that it is a great privilege for me, and I will likely never experience this again in my career, to work on a bill that will profoundly change the way we approach public safety and privacy. Basically, Bill C-22 will change investigative practices and give police better tools, but it also involves invasions of privacy. Our challenge in committee was to determine how to support law enforcement agencies so they could lay criminal charges more easily, especially in the modern Internet era, while ensuring privacy protections under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Honestly, this was a difficult bill to study. It quickly became apparent that the government had already made up its mind, and since it had a majority, it was hard for the opposition parties to feel that their input was valued and sought. I must say that at some meetings, other than one or two colleagues on the government side, a number of colleagues across the aisle took off their earpieces and talked among themselves, showing little interest in what we had to say. We have often heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons say that the Conservatives engage in a lot of filibustering. Personally, I am not in favour of filibustering. However, it is still a parliamentary tool that can be used as a last resort when one feels that, no matter what people say, the government's primary goal is to run out the clock, hold a few hours of debate, and then, after about 20 hours, bring in closure and claim that the opposition parties are wasting their time. We could have wrapped up Bill C-22 in a single sitting if, from the outset, we had known that the government had little interest in listening to both civil society and opposition members, even when they were proposing good ideas. As a member of the Bloc Québécois, I was nevertheless quite fortunate. The seven amendments that were proposed, discussed, and debated were those put forward by the Bloc Québécois. Of the seven proposed amendments, only one was adopted, after being amended by the government. All the amendments I proposed came either from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Quebec Bar Association, or the chair of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. I did not propose far-fetched amendments. They were based on expert testimony that sought to help us strike a balance. Representatives from the Barreau du Québec said, among other things, that they could live with part 1 of Bill C-22, but that part 2 was more problematic and would have required further study. My Liberal colleagues said there was no point in devoting more time to study it because the Conservatives were filibustering. However, when we have the impression that speaking is pointless because we know in advance that the government just wants to run down the clock so it can then justify invoking closure, filibustering makes sense. That is what really bothered me, because I truly wanted to study Bill C-22 thoroughly and make a valuable contribution. The minister had assured us in the House that the government was open to amendments. When the debate on Bill C-22 is finally over, in the end, very few of the opposition's amendments will have been adopted, actually not really any. I find that very disappointing. Perhaps I am too much of a dreamer, too positive and too eager to collaborate. Since securing a majority, this government comes across as far more arrogant. Perhaps it was so aggrieved from having a minority that now it is making up for that. That is broadly how I see things. There are Liberal Party members I enjoyed working with because I found them to be very sincere in their work as well. Sometimes, as members of Parliament, we have an idea and we defend it. Our whip, our leader or party authorities give us instructions. In the case of the Liberals, the Prime Minister may be the one giving instructions. Sometimes, government members have to remain silent and toe the party line. The government wanted us to pass Bill C‑22 from the get-go. What irritates me about today's motion is that it is a super closure motion. Closure motions do exist. The Speaker confirmed that it is a procedural tool. I was here in 2006 when the Conservative government was in power. The Harper government also frequently invoked closure to pass legislation. It is a strategy. However, there is something that irritated me and that I found insincere. It struck me that the government had included in its motion the requirement that amendments be submitted by Monday at 4:30 p.m., yet it moved the motion at midnight on Monday night. When I read the motion on Tuesday morning, I nearly fell out of my chair, and I was given a bit of a scolding by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety. I do not think that is fair. That part of the motion is not right. In my opinion, it is unprecedented and akin to what is known in finance as insider trading. It is odd, but on Tuesday morning, I received amendments from the government. I wondered how government members knew that they could table amendments before 4:30 p.m. The reason is that they were told so. That, to me, is unacceptable. That is what irritated me the most in the Speaker's ruling on the point of order that I raised with my Conservative colleague. I was expecting a closure motion. I thought that the government would eventually want to pass the bill and would run out of patience. It never occurred to me, however, that it would do so before the parliamentary session ended. I expected it would do that in the fall, because I thought we deserved some measure of respect, and because the bill that we were preparing to pass was by no means small. I want to come back to this motion, which imposed a retroactive deadline for submitting committee amendments. I would have had to present my amendments the day before I received the motion. That is really unacceptable. I know Liberal members who serve on the same committee as I do, and I am sure that, if we had them take a polygraph, we would find out that they disagreed with this move just as much as I did. I reacted by raising a point of order because this goes against my values. It is the government's right to impose closure if it so chooses. It can do that. However, I think it was wrong of the government to include this retroactive deadline. We wanted to improve the bill, but that proved difficult. I asked questions. I am not a lawyer or a computer scientist. Quite a bit of expertise was required just to be able to ask relevant questions about this bill. I wanted to delve deeper into the subject, but that was not easy. I would have liked to hear from software architects, for example. I would have liked to hear from IT experts who could explain to me encryption and the consequences of weakening encryption. I would have liked for someone to explain this to me. If we store data for a year, are we creating back doors? Back doors are created to make the work of police officers easier, but do they also give cybercriminals access to that data? There were civil servants at committee to answer our questions, but they are not IT specialists or IT experts. They drafted a bill in line with the government's expectations. I wondered why it was so urgent. I have asked this question many times. My colleagues here in the House who have worked on this with me know that. Police have been waiting for this bill for 30 years, so here is what I asked them: Would it be an issue if we dealt with part of it now and finalized the bill a little later, given that it is such a big undertaking? I could sense some pressure. I am going to put forward a hypothesis about that pressure. I do not have any inside information, so this just is a hypothesis. I think much of the pressure is coming from the United States, which would like to share intelligence with Canada. Currently, we cannot exchange information because Canada is the only country of the Five Eyes that cannot do so. With the lawful access bill, we will be able to share intelligence with other Five Eyes nations. However, I have issues with what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said. He is telling us that Canada is lagging behind. What exactly are we comparing ourselves to? The United Kingdom does not have a charter protecting people's rights, and neither does the United States. They have street cameras in the U.K. that film people. It is a country that intrudes heavily on people's privacy, so, to me, it is not a model. It is even worse in the United States. It is the Wild West over there. They say that the other Five Eyes nations are scolding us because we are lagging behind and cannot share intelligence. We are comparing ourselves to countries that are not necessarily models when it comes to protecting privacy. We are also hearing about Australia, where things are happening as we speak. In fact, as part of the study, we received 100 written briefs and 70 or 75 letters from members of the public. I think there were about four submissions in favour of the bill. The rest of the submissions were against the bill, either in part or in full, but often only partially. I learned a lot from reading those briefs, because we did not have a chance to ask any questions of the representatives from the Five Eyes or Australia. Australia is actually reviewing its legislation on lawful access because it has been abused. There have been incidents that should never happen again. People in the United Kingdom are also reconsidering things, and civil society is taking action. My question, then, is why are we rushing this? The prime example always given is that, if lawful access had been in place, a criminal who abused children could have been arrested. We are also told that it would have been easier to stop an organized network of pedophiles operating on the Internet. I asked if that means that such criminals cannot be arrested today, because we do not have a law on lawful access on the books. The answer is no. That said, it is true that such arrests are difficult, and I do not want anyone to think that I am against lawful access. We think that police tools need to be modernized and that they should be up to the task of countering cyber-attacks. Most serious crimes often take place online. Criminals have more advanced tools than the police do. The police need more advanced, more suitable and more modern tools to stop the crimes being committed today. However, that is no reason to rush things to the point of not taking the time to hear certain witnesses. I will give an example. The Privacy Commissioner came to testify before the committee. He spoke as though we already had his brief in hand. His brief contained amendments. There is a major problem with the translation service. It took two weeks to translate some of the briefs and provide them to the committee in both official languages. We did not receive them in a timely manner because the work wrapped up so quickly. We did not have the opportunity to review them or even invite certain witnesses. In my opinion, the commissioner is a leading authority on privacy protection, because that is his mandate. We did not have the opportunity to ask him about his amendments because we did not have them in front of us. However, he had submitted his brief a week in advance, and when he testified, no one had received it. We then asked the government if the commissioner could come back. What was happening was that department officials were completely dismantling all of the amendments proposed by the Privacy Commissioner. It is easy to understand why I was a little skeptical. I wondered if the commissioner and his team had really been that wrong. We asked for unanimous consent for him to return, just to defend his amendments, which we had not had a chance to review, but the Liberals refused. There were plenty of small gestures the government members could have made to signal their openness. It would then have been justified for them to get all worked up over the Conservative filibuster, but honestly, I saw plenty of outstretched hands. There were proposals from the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Conservatives. They were all rejected out of hand. I want to conclude by saying that I really enjoyed working with my colleagues. I learned a lot. I also want to take the time I have left to thank the interpreters. I am a unilingual francophone. When I am in a committee meeting that starts at 3:30 p.m. and ends at midnight, it is hard for me. It is much easier with support from the interpreters. I want to thank all the interpreters who worked on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security during its study of Bill C‑22. We worked very hard, and they worked very hard too. Without them, my participation would not have been as meaningful.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. I appreciate her thoroughness a great deal. I spoke about that earlier. I ended my speech by saying that I would really have liked him to come back. I think that would have been a good thing for everyone, including members of the government. From the start, however, I sensed that the dice were loaded and that we were basically marking time, because there was not a lot of interest. I am not blaming committee members; as I said, there are party lines and members sometimes do things that they would not have necessarily chosen to do. However, I want to highlight that the Canadian Association of Journalists is concerned about this bill. It wonders whether journalistic sources, whistle-blowers and investigative journalists themselves could face threats. I find that disappointing, because I would have liked to have heard from the association's representatives and to have explored these questions, which came to me after reading their brief. Unfortunately, we were unable to invite them because the study period was so short that it prevented us from hearing what they had to say.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very wise question. Like every country, we are facing cyber-attacks from foreign entities, particularly India and China. We need to ensure that we have robust tools, and Internet providers must do the same. The bill provides some protections and imposes cybersecurity protection requirements on telecommunications service providers. That is what we did with Bill C-8. It also requires important collaboration to support the work of law enforcement. We agree with that. It is one of the good things about the bill. I have to admit that I agree with the government members, and I think that there is a consensus on that. There is nobody here who does not want to support law enforcement in their work and who does not want to give the police modern tools with which to carry out their duties, but it is hard to draw a line between ensuring public safety and ensuring some degree of privacy protection under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her kind words. I think she is brave, because she came during the clause-by-clause study, like my NDP colleague did. They did not have the right to speak, but they were there, hard-working and rigorous, and they proposed amendments. I have a lot of respect for these two members. I think that the reason for the haste is pressure from the United States. That is speculation, I do not have the truth, but I think that there is this push coming from the United States so that we can share intelligence also. It is all well and good to share intelligence with Canada, but the other countries would like Canada to share some in return. We are under pressure from a country that has no concerns about privacy protection. Obviously, I wish I had had more time to call witnesses I was unable to question. There are people who were not consulted by the government. Let me give an example. The chair of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency was not consulted by the government when it drafted this bill. The chair was forced to submit proposed amendments herself because the government did not see any significant role for her to play. I was disappointed. During her testimony, the chair, Ms. Deschamps, recommended amendments to us, and we will likely deal with them during our clause-by-clause consideration.

Madam Speaker, I would like to return the compliment to my colleague from Vancouver East. It has truly been a pleasure. Yes, that is true. Together, often alongside the Conservatives, we tabled the same amendments, particularly regarding the threshold for obtaining information. We both believe that “reasonable grounds to suspect” is not a high enough threshold. Our political parties, along with the Conservative Party, are calling for a much higher threshold, namely “reasonable grounds to believe”.

It certainly did, Madam Speaker. I think even the Privacy Commissioner was disappointed that we did not have his brief or his amendment recommendations before us when he testified before the committee. Having that information would have allowed us to make better use of his presence right then and there by asking him more specific questions so that he could defend his amendments. Madam Speaker, I think it was a mistake on the part of government members not to agree to invite him back so that we could give him another opportunity to defend his amendments, which, in my view and that of the New Democrats and the Conservatives, were very important.

Mr. Speaker, shutting down debate on Bill C-22 is an abuse of power. Everyone agrees that an overhaul is needed of this bill, which makes it easier to spy on people intrudes on their privacy. It forces companies to collect data on citizens and hand it over to the police. It forces telecommunications companies to track people at all times, without their consent. Basically, the federal government wants to create a backdoor into all of our phones. How can the government quash debate in order to rush through a bill that goes this far?

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the point of order raised earlier by the member for York—Durham. What we have before us today is not just a programming motion, it is a dangerous precedent, an abuse of the procedural power of the majority. Government Business No. 13 introduces a retroactive deadline for amendments to be tabled in committee, which is, to my knowledge, unprecedented and highly inconsistent with the very spirit of our rules. Let us be clear: A rule that sets a deadline that has already passed is not an organizational tool. It is a trap. When a government uses such a mechanism to close down debate, it is not managing the business of the House; it is taking it away. The power to schedule work exists to allow for expedited consideration of bills in accordance with the Standing Orders, not to deprive members of their fundamental right to amend, discuss and improve a piece of legislation. Some government members seem to have had the opportunity to table their amendments before the deadline, when the deadline was not known to all the other members. This is serious. That gave those members an unfair advantage over members of the opposition. This procedural imbalance is unacceptable. In a House where every member is supposed to have the same rights, I would say that is unacceptable. Parliamentary procedure is not a weapon at the government's disposal; it is the framework that protects all members of Parliament, notably against the tyranny of the majority. This sort of manoeuvre does not constitute good parliamentary administration; it is an abuse of procedure. Previous rulings by the Chair are relevant here because they highlight a fundamental point: The House cannot, on the pretext of efficiency, run roughshod over the legislative stages. The Chair must protect not only the form but also the integrity of the process. When a motion actually prevents members from carrying out their duties, the Chair must declare it inadmissible. Otherwise, we open the door to a precedent whereby the government will henceforth be able to set retroactive rules, reserve benefits for its own members and then close the door to any correction. We cannot mince words here. This is not merely a procedural innovation; it is an abuse of process. It is an attempt to circumvent the normal parliamentary scrutiny of an important bill—very important, in fact. This is precisely the sort of situation that the Chair must prevent if it is to preserve the credibility of this institution.

Mr. Speaker, this government is showing a lack of empathy for seniors and community organizations with its hasty reform of the New Horizons for Seniors program. Its attitude is jeopardizing hundreds of projects that break seniors' isolation and encourage them to have an active social life. The federal government should be thanking the volunteers who dedicate their time and effort to these projects, not treating them like potential fraudsters. All these organizations want is for the government to delay its reform to ensure that seniors are not left behind. Will the government delay the reform?

Mr. Speaker, after more than 30 years at the helm of Le Pont du Suroît, Marc André Bédard is taking a well-deserved retirement. He leaves behind an exceptional legacy of commitment, compassion and professionalism. He devoted his career to supporting people living with a loved one affected by mental illness, offering a listening ear, clinical support and hope to many families. Thanks to his inclusive and caring leadership, Le Pont du Suroît has become an essential organization in our community. Recognized as an outstanding professional, Marc André Bédard also succeeded in extending his expertise well beyond our region, across Quebec and elsewhere. His inspiring career and his dedication have had a lasting impact on the lives of many. I thank him for this remarkable contribution. He is truly a wonderful person and a dear friend. Crossing paths with him has been a real privilege. I wish Marc André a happy retirement with his beautiful partner Sylvie.

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. I know he recently celebrated his first year as an MP, and I imagine he has not yet had the opportunity to work closely on specific projects with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC. I have been an MP for several years now, and I can say that CMHC was a fairly important body for vetting business plans, as well as for ensuring that social housing meets various standards, particularly energy efficiency standards, and that our new housing meets the highest construction standards in terms of both sustainability and development. I would like my colleague to clarify this for me, because I do not really understand. Essentially, Build Canada Homes is taking the place of CMHC. Will the CMHC's expertise be transferred to Build Canada Homes?

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to listen to my colleague, the Bloc Québécois whip. I would like my colleague to talk to us about the diversity of social housing in Quebec. There are housing co-operatives and non-profit organizations that manage social housing buildings for people with disabilities or seniors. There is also social housing or low-income housing for seniors. I understand that other provinces do not have as much diversity. This diversity is Quebec's strength. I would like my colleague to tell us about one of Quebec's demands. Quebec would like to see funds set aside to allow alternative housing networks to flourish. When I think of Build Canada Homes, I tend to think that we are talking about housing in partnership with private entities, which might exclude community organizations, for example.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Shefford, who really knows her stuff, as members can see. She always speaks so eloquently and focuses on the common good. She is well versed in this issue. I would like to learn more about the amendments the Bloc Québécois would have liked to see adopted to further improve the situation. Can she explain to me why, in her view, the government rejected these amendments?

moved that Bill C-261, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension), be read the second time and referred to a committee. Mr. Speaker, it is always very moving to have the privilege of introducing a bill that one cares about. I will be reading my speech because I want to share my message in full and I do not want to run out of time. For a society to live in peace, its citizens must live with confidence. They have to feel certain that their government is taking care of them, that it is working for their well-being and that it is keeping its promises. When a person retires, that is the moment of truth. That is when the unspoken agreement between the citizen and the state must be honoured. It should be the time to reap the rewards of decades of hard work, a time of dignity, not a time of mere survival. However, today, too many new retirees await this freedom with a sense of dread. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I am calling on my esteemed colleagues and fellow citizens to correct an injustice. We are living in one of the wealthiest societies in the world, one that prides itself on its social safety net, its values, its compassion and its commitment to mutual support. However, today, we are seeing this safety net become ever more fragile. There are more and more holes in it. We are abandoning the very people who built our schools, our hospitals and our businesses. We spend our lives imagining a retirement where we want for nothing, where we can have a well-deserved rest and where we can live out our lives in complete security. However, for thousands of new retirees, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement no longer constitute the promised safety net. Instead, they are life rafts and they are taking on water. We are not talking about charity here. We are talking about a social contract. These men and women paid their taxes for 40 or 50 years. They contributed to the country's economic success. They raised the generation that is now leading Quebec. The implicit promise was simple. If people worked hard and contributed to the common good, then the state would make sure that they wanted for nothing as they grew old. We are way off the mark. Not only are we way off the mark, but it is now clear that the Liberal government did not keep this promise—one among many, some might say. Young retirees are being forced to keep working just to make ends meet. Is this the sneaky way that the current Prime Minister and his predecessor have found to effectively raise the retirement age, without anyone noticing? If so, it is dishonest and unworthy of the office. This government tried to address the discontent but only managed to create an even greater injustice. It officially established two classes of retirees by deciding to increase OAS by 10% for those over the age of 75. On the one hand, we have older seniors, who are deemed worthy of additional assistance, and on the other, we have young retirees aged 65 to 74, who are essentially being told to fend for themselves. What is the logic behind that discrimination? At the grocery store, does inflation ask how old the customer is? Are rent, gas or heating costs lower when someone is 70 than when they are 76? What happens on the night before a retiree turns 75? It takes just as much air to blow out 65 candles as it does 75. The government says that seniors aged 65 to 74 are still active and can work to supplement their income. This is an insult to those who have had physically demanding careers and who, let us face it, are worn out. Asking a 68-year-old construction worker, warehouse worker or restaurant server to go back to work just to pay for groceries is not really a solution. It is an admission of failure. It means accepting that the government has failed in its duty. We in the Bloc Québécois will not back down. That is why, since 2021, we have been making every effort to put an end to the injustice caused by these two classes of seniors. We are often told that this would be financially unsustainable. We are told that increasing pensions for people aged 65 to 74 would cost the public purse billions of dollars. That is true. It is a significant amount. However, what is the cost of not doing it? How much does it cost our health care system when a senior eats poorly because fruit and vegetables have become a luxury? How much does social isolation—which leads to depression—cost? How much does the loss of dignity cost? It is not just a matter of compassion; it is also a matter of public health and safety. Thorough research has provided irrefutable evidence that the most egalitarian societies are the ones that fare the best. I am not going to mince words: The harms caused by inequality affect women first and foremost. Once again, women are statistically the ones who have the lowest pensions. They are the ones who live the longest in solitude. By refusing to help seniors aged 65 to 74, this government is perpetrating a form of economic harm against our mothers and grandmothers. It is taking the women who kept our society going—often from the shadows, often without pay—and putting them in a vulnerable position. Causing them anxiety about the future is truly unworthy of this House. Study after study clearly proves it. When the wealth gap is narrowed, crime falls significantly and confidence rises. Mental illness declines. Obesity, chronic stress and violence—especially violence against women—decline. Conversely, the wider the wealth gap, the sicker the body politic. Colleagues, for a society to live in peace, it takes confidence. I said it before and I am saying it again. However, poverty among seniors undermines that confidence. It creates anxiety not only for retirees, but also for their children and grandchildren, who see their own future as a threatening prospect, rather than a comfortable one. How can they trust a government that cheats their parents and flouts the social contract? By allowing seniors' spending power to collapse, the government is making a conscious decision to increase future social costs. It is opting for more people in hospital beds, more psychological distress and more insecurity. Of course, there are those who will solemnly claim that the cupboard is bare, that the debt is too big. Honestly, that is a risible argument. When it comes to finding millions of dollars to subsidize oil and gas giants, who do not need financial support, the money seems to appear out of thin air. When it comes to buying a pipeline in western Canada that will never serve our interests, the cheque book is often wide open. When the big banks are making record profits while raising fees on consumers, the government looks the other way. When billions of dollars end up in tax havens without being taxed, we are told it is really complicated. It is so complicated to get the money back from the tax havens. However, when a 72-year-old grandmother asks for what she is entitled to, namely enough money to pay her heating bill, just like her 76-year-old neighbour, suddenly everyone has to be responsible. They pull out the calculator and talk to us about fiscal discipline. This is not really a problem of revenue. It is a problem of choice. It is a political choice, a political decision. Clearly, this government's choices are not the same ones the public would make. The government prefers to help those who pollute, those who make massive profits, and neglects those who built Quebec. As someone who devoted her entire career to seniors, I think that is completely outrageous. We are not asking for the moon. We are asking the government to honour a social contract. Is it too much to ask to maintain what little balance still remains? I repeat: Our seniors are not asking for charity. They are demanding respect. What we are seeing today is a government that is deliberately and knowingly choosing to create and maintain two classes of seniors: one that deserves to be helped and another that is left to fend for itself. This age-based discrimination is unworthy of a modern society. The people that my colleagues and I represent think that this is unacceptable, and I am sure that many members of the House from all political parties agree with them. We are not here to beg for favours. We are here to correct an injustice and appeal to every member of the House's sense of reason. For a society to live in peace, it must treat those who built it with respect. What is needed now is more than just rhetoric on election day or during an election campaign. What folks need are cheques that will cover groceries and rent. It is time to stop seeing retirees as a budgetary burden or an expense column in an Excel spreadsheet. They are our society's collective memory. They are our roots, and it is absurd to cut off the water supply to our roots under the pretext of saving money. In the name of dignity, we call on the government to stop its petty calculations. It needs to stop dividing people. It needs to stop dividing seniors. We need to give them back what they entrusted us with. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I urge all my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-261, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. Many citizens heard that today would be quite a memorable day in my career as a member of Parliament. Seriously, over the past week, I have received hundreds of letters, emails and notes encouraging me to continue on this path, because seniors know that their living conditions and their dignity are not being respected at all. People in my riding, as well as the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, or FADOQ, the largest seniors' group in Quebec, representing several thousand people, are making this their top demand. I also spoke with the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées and with retirees from Quebec, who share the same demand. It is not too complicated. They are asking for fairness and justice. They are calling on the government to correct this age-based inequity and discrimination. I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues. In the last Parliament, my colleague from Shefford sponsored Bill C‑319, which went through a lengthy legislative process. Although it died on the Order Paper, a number of members in the House supported that bill. We hope the House of Commons shows the same cohesion and consensus again. Not only does Bill C‑261 seek to correct the injustice, but it also seeks to increase the GIS maximum exemption amount. It is important to clarify that. The bill provides for a 10% increase in OAS, but it also increases to $6,500 the maximum amount a person can earn before their GIS is reduced. Around 20% of seniors in my riding tell me that they are forced to work. However, for GIS recipients, any income over $5,000 is subject to a clawback. As the saying goes, that is like trading four quarters for a dollar. That is what my grandmother used to say. What do all these seniors end up doing, then? They end up working under the table or just making do, because they basically need every penny of their income to make ends meet. In closing, I can say that this truly comes from the heart. I know that my colleague across the aisle secured a royal recommendation to pass a bill that will allow bereaved parents who have lost a child to continue receiving their employment insurance benefits. I therefore hope to convince the government that it has a great opportunity to right a wrong and, of course, grant a royal recommendation to my bill. This bill will allow seniors to live better. Above all, they will see that this injustice and discrimination have finally been addressed. It is a matter of respect, and frankly, there is no room for compromise. Again, I appeal to my colleagues, from the bottom of my heart, to support Bill C-261.

Mr. Speaker, I am truly offended by such arguments. It makes no sense. I do not know if all seniors 65 and older in his riding are rolling in money, but in Quebec, 1,869,000 people are 65 or older, and nearly half of them receive the GIS. Honestly, I cannot imagine repeating what I just heard to these people who are struggling to make ends meet. I understand that the Harper government may have been a little less hypocritical. It raised the retirement age to 67. When the Liberal government took office, it lowered the retirement age, but it did so in a roundabout way. It seemed to be telling people to keep working. I know Ghislaine—

Mr. Speaker, that warms my heart. I was wondering whether all the Conservatives were going to vote against the bill after hearing her colleague speak before her. I sincerely thank her from the bottom of my heart. I believe that the bill increases the exemption amount to $6,500. That gives seniors who are 65 and older some flexibility if they wish to work, so that they are not penalized as much if they want to continue working. I look forward to hearing my colleague talk about my bill. I am very pleased to hear that she will support it.

Mr. Speaker, I expect the Liberals to show some compassion, realize they made a mistake and seize this opportunity to fix it. There is no reason to vote against this bill, which will improve the quality of life for our seniors. The evidence is clear. Old age security is about $750 a month. No one would think of that as a fortune. We are not begging for anything. We are not asking for anything other than fairness for seniors between the ages of 65 and 74. I look forward to hearing the government members explain why they are not supporting this bill, because there is no good reason not to. I look forward to hearing what they have to say.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. I know that for many years he was the Bloc Québécois agriculture critic and I know that he cares about local craft producers of berry-based alcoholic beverages. The Bloc Québécois is proposing a modest measure that would not cost the government much, but that would make a difference for local producers of alcoholic beverages made from berries and maple syrup. Can my colleague explain to the government how exempting small local producers from the excise tax would make life much easier for our farmers?

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague to talk about what SMEs in Quebec really need. We know that the Bloc Québécois is very close to businesses in our communities, which have a different approach than the rest of Canada. What we are hearing from these business people is that the measures currently in place are not adapted to their reality. Businesses are closing and the regions are in a precarious economic situation. What could the government have done to prevent this situation?

Mr. Speaker, the speech by my colleague, whom I hold in high regard, has given us a glimpse into the beauty of his riding, and it has made me want to spend my summer holidays in that part of the country. I do not know if Tatamagouche is in his riding, but I had the pleasure of taking a short trip to that area. I know that his riding includes cities as well as rural areas, and I am guessing there are berry growers in his riding who produce spirits. My colleagues will hear me talking about this several times today because this ongoing injustice is close to my heart. Three years ago, Justin Trudeau's Liberal government granted an excise duty exemption for mead-based berry spirits and also for apple cider, but not for berry-based spirits. I would like to know if my colleague is willing to pressure his government to add an amendment to Bill C-31 that would make things fair for other berry producers, such as those who make blueberry or maple liqueurs. This is an important issue in rural Quebec. There are many Liberal members from Quebec who know that what I am saying is important. Is my colleague ready to take up the cause in his own province and make it clear to the Minister of Finance that it is time to right this wrong?

Mr. Speaker, this week marks a turning point, with the Prime Minister's climate betrayal and the Liberals' election deceit on environmental issues. The green banker they sold us on is green only in his thirst for wads of cash derived from black gold. He is also dragging down all the Liberals who ran on a platform that mentioned the words “climate change” 28 times, but never once mentioned the word “pipeline”. Is there a single Liberal member who will refuse to be complicit in this betrayal?

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister's environmental track record had been acceptable, the former minister of the environment, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, would not have stepped down. Nor would his predecessor, the member for North Vancouver—Capilano, have announced his departure too. His predecessor, Catherine McKenna, would not have said that we live in a petrostate where rich oil and gas companies have convinced politicians that fossil fuels are better than renewables. Every environment minister of the past decade is pulling away from the Prime Minister. How can the Liberals possibly brag about his record?

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am quite moved to speak today on the bill introduced by my colleague from Burnaby North—Seymour in British Columbia. It is moving because this is a bill that will achieve consensus with financial support from the government and will truly change the lives of people who are experiencing immense suffering. Today, I am moved. I am happy for my colleague. I am happy for him because he managed to convince everyone, including members of the government. Parents who are grieving the loss of a child will be able to continue receiving their employment insurance benefits without having to worry about paperwork and red tape. They will be able to focus on their grief, come together as a family, and receive the support they need without worrying about a missed payment or a letter asking them to explain themselves. I feel that I am participating in a wonderful parliamentary moment today, and it reminds me that one of the reasons that brought me here is that I love making a difference in people's lives. As members of Parliament, we can do that, and this is a fine example of that. The beauty of private members' bills is that they are often based on personal experience, an observation we have made, or a significant need we can address. When we have the privilege of having our name drawn, we realize we have the opportunity to introduce a bill that will make a real difference in the lives of individuals and families. I wanted to commend the member for his perseverance, his tenacity and the way he worked to mobilize us and bring us together on such an important issue. I am also pleased with the important amendments that were proposed. In our view, the royal recommendation was the most important factor because, without it, the bill would have gone through the legislative process more quickly. Clearly, any families who are listening at home, and certainly those who are currently grieving, want us to pass the bill quickly so that they can have peace of mind. I also agree with my colleague from Burnaby North—Seymour that we seem to be on the same page and that it would be really good to expedite passing the legislation so that families can benefit from it. There is also one recommendation that matters to me a lot, the one that extends this privilege to self-employed workers as well. I am going to make a statement. I have spent the past 42 years with the same man. He has been self-employed his entire life. He is an artist, a graphic artist. A lot of people are self-employed, but it has not been that long since self-employed workers in Quebec were allowed to contribute to the Quebec pension plan to qualify for a pension. It might be 20 or so years ago. The whole issue of employment insurance for the self-employed was sticky. I am pleased with this amendment, because it allows workers who chose self-employment access to the same protections as salaried workers. Actually taking them into account is extremely important. It reminds me of the need for EI reform across the board. My colleague from British Columbia managed to get his bill through the legislative process quite successfully, and families are happy with it, but we could have made plenty of other amendments to the Employment Insurance Act that would have righted certain wrongs. I would like to share one that means a lot to me. It concerns women who take maternity leave only to find out when then return to work that their position has been cut. These women are not eligible for EI benefits. In my opinion, this is discrimination. In fact, this has been denounced by all workers' advocacy groups and unions. How can we still accept that, today, a woman who exercised her right to maternity leave is told, upon her return, that she no longer has a job and that she is also denied EI benefits on the grounds that she did not accumulate sufficient hours during her leave? That is something that really needs to be looked at because it is quite unacceptable. I even wonder why the Liberals, now that they have a majority, are not fixing this gender discrimination, since, the last time I checked, men cannot get pregnant. That is something the government could change. My colleague Louise Chabot, who was here during the last Parliament, prepared a bill that included all the necessary changes to reform EI. There is a nice bill that is now dormant and contains all the amendments that could be made to modernize the Employment Insurance Act. Today, we are talking about one specific section, about specific individuals, and that is great, we are very happy about that. However, the work to modernize EI must continue. We believe that EI needs to be completely overhauled. Like my colleague, I also had the privilege of being randomly selected. I will therefore have the pleasure of introducing a bill next week. My bill seeks to increase old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74 who did not receive the increase that those aged 75 and older did. Like my colleague, I am definitely going to take up the torch, because I am surrounded by seniors who have no pension funds, who live solely on their old age pension and who cannot make ends meet because of inflation. Like my colleague, I will also make it my mission to try to convince everyone that seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 deserve the increase too. The government should grant a royal recommendation for our bill too so that vulnerable seniors, those who are not lucky enough to have a pension fund or a job that allowed them to save, can enjoy a dignified retirement. It is up to the Quebec government and the federal government to provide seniors, the people who built the society we have today, with the means to enjoy a dignified retirement. This is the first time I am asking this, but I encourage everyone to seriously consider how we treat our seniors today. Are they really the ones that we are choosing to abandon? Personally, I have lots of ideas on how to fund solutions, but I will come back to them in my speech next week. I want to sincerely and warmly congratulate my colleague for choosing to come to the aid of parents grieving the loss of a child. The worst suffering a parent can experience must be to lose a child while on maternity leave. We have to cut through the red tape and give parents time to grieve. In committee, we unequivocally expressed the view that the benefit period should increase to 50 weeks. It is wrong to think that healing from loss takes only a few weeks. We believe that it would have been advisable to increase the number of weeks of benefits so that people could truly work their way through the grieving process. Together with our colleagues across the way and with our Conservative colleagues, we agreed not to put any obstacles in the way that would prevent the government from backpedaling on the royal recommendation. We were able to agree on fast-tracking it. I sincerely congratulate my colleague. I also want to tell the people listening to us or watching us that all parties in the House of Commons can work together. When parties work in good faith and focus on the common good, we get results that make a difference in people's lives. I want to thank him and wish him all the best. The Bloc Québécois looks forward to voting in favour of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have a very important question for my colleague about the government's amendments to the Excise Tax Act under Bill C-31. We have noticed that none of those amendments address the inequity and injustice between producers of mead and producers of blueberry spirits. A few years ago, the Bloc Québécois persuaded the government to exempt small local and regional producers from the excise tax so that they could make a living from their production. The government granted an exemption to mead and apple cider producers, but it did not grant the same exemption to producers of berry-based or maple spirits. Does my colleague think that the government is making a mistake? By refusing to exempt producers of berry-based spirits from the excise tax, it is limiting the economic development of our regions.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I know she is very passionate about this issue. She is standing up for women who have been victims of sexual misconduct while serving in the military. Bill C‑11 addresses many of the recommendations in Louise Arbour's report. Honestly, what surprises me is that some victims appeared before the committee during its study, and the victims themselves were asking for more protection. As a result, the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives and the NDP all introduced amendments, which were adopted based on the victims' evidence. However, because of its majority in the House, the government rejected them. I do not know how the member can face any of those victims, who must be disappointed today.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister confirmed yesterday that he is going to relax the regulations governing pipeline approvals as early as this week. At the same time, in his economic update, he announced a sovereign wealth fund that he is going to create using $25 billion in public money to pay for energy projects. Everyone can put two and two together. Is the Prime Minister going to make Quebeckers pay for his dirty oil pipelines that will not even have to comply with laws and regulations?

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to add my voice to those of all women and the entire population of Quebec who, this week, have experienced yet another tragedy: the 10th femicide of the year in Quebec in just four months. It is incredibly sad. It is unacceptable. As we speak, 10 women have been murdered by someone close to them simply for being women. At the beginning of the year, I agreed to join forces with organizations whose primary mission is to support women, so that we can flag this very important message: The next one is still alive. I am joining their efforts. Yesterday, there was a rally in front of the D'Main de Femmes women's centre to say that enough is enough, that this is unacceptable, and that the entire community stands behind all these organizations dedicated to standing up for the cause of women. There are also organizations that help men better manage their anger, because it is together, as a team, that we will be able to build a more humane society and also care for women who are victims of violence. I would like to commend them and also offer my deepest condolences to the family of the woman who was murdered in Gatineau this week, the 10th woman to have been murdered in Quebec since January. I am rising to speak to Bill C-11, which is somewhat related to women's issues. I think that sexual misconduct gave rise to this bill, which is almost the same as legislation that has been introduced before and which addresses serious needs. As my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé said, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. We have always supported any initiatives to ensure justice and to protect women in uniform who have been the victims of sexual misconduct and who have not always felt as though the military has been on their side since it did not take the necessary steps to look after them. Bill C‑11 amends the National Defence Act and other acts. As I said, the government already attempted to introduce Bill C‑66 in a previous Parliament, but that bill died on the Order Paper. As everyone knows, Bill C‑11 follows the recommendations of former Supreme Court justices Morris J. Fish and Louise Arbour, who, in their report on the issue of sexual misconduct, made several recommendations. Bill C‑11 implements several recommendations, including recommendation number five from the Arbour report, with the aim of removing the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction over the investigation and prosecution of Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. The bill also responds to recommendations made by former justice Morris J. Fish by modifying the appointment process for the three primary judicial or military authorities, namely the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services. The government would select these individuals rather than having the military leadership do so, and those individuals would therefore be immune to any form of blackmail, so to speak. The bill now allows military personnel from the rank of private to that of chief warrant officer to become military judges. Finally, the bill makes other, less substantial changes, including the option for victims to receive help from a victim liaison officer. As we know, when someone wants to report sexual misconduct, harassment or sexual violence, having a neutral party by their side to support them in everything they do is very important. Bill C‑11 has made it through a significant portion of the legislative process, including committee work, and it has been a lot of work. I want to commend my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for the tremendous work he did on making it possible to improve the bill. On that point, the Bloc Québécois members are proud to have secured amendments that improved the bill. Here are a few examples. We added the option for victims to request that a trial be held before a military court rather than being transferred to a civilian court. We also ensured that the bill clearly stipulated that the government must draw up a plan to create an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct in the armed forces. We also made a compromise amendment that is more realistic by allowing civilian authorities to transfer cases in accordance with victims' recommendations, rather than imposing an automatic transfer. This would allow for the resolution of contentious cases, such as when there are multiple victims or when transferring the case could jeopardize the possibility of a trial within a reasonable time frame. We also succeeded in amending the bill so that veterans can be appointed as military judges and so that military judges are released from the Canadian Armed Forces. In the meantime, the government secured a majority, as members well know. I would say that there has been an abuse of this majority, which was secured, as we all know, through floor crossers. The committee's work was thorough. The committee listened to victims, who expanded on everything that Justice Arbour had heard and recommended. Victims spoke before the committee and their testimonies were used to form the basis of the amendments that were made to improve this bill. It is understandable, then, that we see this as an abuse of the majority. The government's action is not consistent with what the Prime Minister always tells the media when he does interviews, which is that he expects members to be serious and thorough and that he does not want to see any obstruction. What we are seeing today is a bill whose amendments were completely thrown out by a majority government, which put them to a vote and disputed them. Because of the government's majority, of course, virtually all of our amendments were defeated. Committees do serious work. If the government can do without the work of committees, perhaps it wants to abolish them. If this is happening now, will it also happen with regard to future bills? At the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, we work in relative harmony. I would say that we are working to improve Bill C-22, but I have concerns. I wonder whether I will end up working on amendments that go absolutely nowhere. Will I end up putting effort into a bill whose fate has already been decided by the government? Will the government reject every amendment proposed by the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party or the Green Party? As we know, our democratic system is designed so that the opposition can help improve bills. In the case of Bill C-11, I think the government really missed the mark. I do not think it was really listening, and that is unfortunate. I hope this does not set the tone for all our work moving forward. I do not appreciate having my time wasted, and neither do most of my colleagues. We do not want to waste our time in committee deliberating, listening to witnesses, and then, in the end, not really knowing whether the government is going to challenge everything that had passed. In closing, as I said, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-11 at third reading. The bill addresses a problem that was swept under the rug by both the Harper Conservatives and the Liberals. Even though we agree in principle, we had to speak out against the government's lack of seriousness when it comes to the democratic process in place in parliamentary committees. I would like to use my remaining few seconds to commend the courage of my friend, Alain Therrien, who decided this week to pursue his political career by running in Quebec's next provincial election and confronting the Premier of Quebec. That is to his credit. When he sat here, he was a very active leader in our parliamentary lives. I want to join my Bloc Québécois colleagues in wishing him the best of luck and success in Quebec's next election.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's commentary. I think he realizes that the Bloc Québécois truly cares about helping to improve bills. We always say that if a thing is good for Quebec and good for Canada, so much the better. We always approach bills this way, and we take our work on parliamentary committees seriously. As we have said, we are going to support this bill, but what we had proposed was not a rejection of Justice Arbour's recommendations, quite the contrary. I think that the member for Berthier—Maskinongé and I said as much in our two speeches. We agree with the recommendations, but we think that certain amendments could have improved the bill to provide better support to victims. Unfortunately, the government decided otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the official opposition is using the tools at its disposal to make the government realize that it has taken the wrong path by outright rejecting all the amendments that had been adopted by Conservative, Bloc Québécois and Liberal MPs, too; it is worth pointing that out. I hope that the government, through this permissible parliamentary strategy, will realize that it made the wrong choice and will make amends on behalf of the victims.

Mr. Speaker, I am no longer a member of my professional association of social workers, so I cannot use that title anymore. However, I had a very rewarding career as a social worker that helped me to realize that when we are helping or supporting a victim, their consent is important. It is also important to understand how the victim wants to approach the process, how they want to go about it, so that they can feel as though justice has been served for the injuries, violence and harassment they experienced and for their work environment's failure to listen and to provide support. In that sense, I think that the decision should rest with the victims. Since I did not participate in the work of the committee, I would also like to understand why the government did not agree that victims should have the right to make their own decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Kildonan—St. Paul on introducing this bill. I commend her for raising awareness about the fact that seniors, especially those living with dementia, need the support of their community and all members of society to help them safely navigate this difficult stage of life. I am curious to know why Manitoba does not have a silver alert system in place. Quebec has a system that works extremely well, and Ontario has one too. The two neighbouring provinces are already working together. I am not convinced that a national standard would improve the alert service we already have in Quebec. I am curious to know what is happening in Manitoba. Does the RCMP have a resource problem? I would like my colleague to explain why this debate is not taking place in the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker, this being Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month, my thoughts go out to my friend Marie-Andrée, who is courageously battling this disease despite the difficulties she faces. I always think of my friend Marie-Andrée when we recognize Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month, because we obviously need more donations and grants to advance the research, so I want her to know I am thinking of her. Today, we are discussing a bill on a very important topic. I have devoted my entire career to serving seniors, especially those in the process of losing their independence, first as a social worker and then as a manager within Quebec's health and social services network. I am well aware of the issues facing people living with dementia, and I am also well informed about the consequences of having a loved one with dementia. I am therefore pleased, if I may say so, to congratulate the member for introducing a private member's bill on this topic. Basically, we have a lot of questions. We are all in favour of an alert, but we have a lot of questions. The first is that I do not understand how a coordinated system across the country could improve the Quebec system. A former spokesperson for the Montreal police said that there could be up to 12 reports of missing seniors in Montreal every day. I cannot imagine an alarm going off on people's phones every time a senior is reported missing. I have a lot of questions and I hope that we will be able to discuss them with the member to better understand. I do not know whether she intends to use the same system as the Amber alert. In my opinion, that might not necessarily be appropriate for those with dementia, particularly because people may become desensitized and stop paying attention to such alerts if they start receiving a large number of them on their cellphones. I am asking a lot of questions this evening to try to learn more. As the member from Quebec said, Quebec has been using the Amber alert system since 2019. At that time, Liberal minister Marguerite Blais put a pilot project in place and, because of a recent tragedy in Quebec, the silver alert program rolled out across Quebec in February 2026. On April 17, someone from my riding went out for a drive. When a person has frontotemporal dementia, for example, they may appear to be perfectly capable and functional. They are even capable of driving, but there comes a point when they end up completely lost while driving. The alert was triggered quickly, and in just three or four hours, Ontario police found the person on the road and immediately brought them to safety. This is proof that the Quebec system works very well. It is even a model for several other provinces. Since Quebec and Ontario are neighbours, there is a great deal of co-operation and a long-standing tradition of collaboration, I would say, between the Sûreté du Québec and Ontario police forces to ensure a rapid response. As the member said, in order to locate someone, we need to minimize delays and act quickly. I wonder what a national framework might mean for response times in Quebec and Ontario. I see it creating more complications or adding more red tape that could slow down a system that already works quite well in Quebec. That said, I am willing to speak with the member and with the Bloc Québécois critic for seniors, the member for Shefford, to better understand her intentions. If the goal is to emulate best practices in Ontario and Quebec and encourage other provinces to do more, I would gladly have that discussion, but I still need to be convinced of how this approach would benefit Quebec. There are, after all, organizations that represent many seniors in Quebec. Naturally, they cannot oppose a bill aimed at promoting the well-being of seniors. However, they do have some concerns about the federal government imposing additional requirements. They fear that things will become more complicated. That is what the FADOQ and the AQDR in Quebec have stated quite clearly. I agree with the member. This is not about engaging in a partisan debate between the right and the left. That is not the issue. When things are going well in a province and neither community groups nor police forces are calling for changes to a system that is working, I wonder if this bill a good solution, particularly for Quebec. I remain open to being convinced. Obviously, if the provinces want to adopt a single system, that is their prerogative. It is their decision, and we cannot oppose that. We believe that the provinces are in the best position to implement the criteria to trigger an alert, because they control and coordinate their police and health care systems. Unlike many provinces, Quebec has its own police force, the Sûreté du Québec, which is similar to Ontario's police force, the OPP. Quebec has developed its own communications practice. Could this collaboration, which has been built by experience, be weakened by adding an additional layer with the goal of creating a national approach? Trying to do so often makes the process more complicated. I am not sure whether the Sûreté du Québec or even the Government of Quebec would be willing to reopen the issue of standards, given that Quebec has just adopted its own. Shortly after they were adopted, we had examples of seniors with dementia being found quickly because the silver alert is truly meant to alert the public. The decision of whether to issue an alert is up to the police force, which would be the Sûreté du Québec in this case. I would love to meet with my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul so I can understand how this bill would benefit Quebec's seniors and so we can start a conversation on this issue. She should also understand that, at present, we are neither for nor against her bill. We are more in an exploratory phase, because we feel that the member's speech, as well as the answers she gave to questions, are not yet comprehensive enough to allow me to continue my deliberations. I would like to congratulate my colleague on introducing this bill, which does address the important need to protect older people and those with dementia who need the wider community to look after them. I invite her to come and discuss this with me and our seniors critic, the member for Shefford, so that we can better understand her intentions and, above all, so that she can reassure us about the model she wishes to develop. The model differs from Amber alerts. As my colleague from Mont-Royal says, we certainly do not want Quebeckers to become desensitized, because they are used to seeing Amber alerts for missing children or very serious disappearances. If we increase the number of alerts, they might think that it is just a false alarm, no big deal, and then they might let their guard down. We want to avoid that at all costs. I invite my colleague to come speak to us and continue the conversation.

Madam Speaker, it is always fascinating to listen to my colleague opposite talk about all of the bills tabled by the government in the House. I have to admit that he is a great public speaker. That said, what surprised me about his speech is that he talked about how hard-working the Bloc Québécois is and about how the Bloc takes its work seriously. Over the past six years, we have said that the Bloc Québécois is the adult in the room, and I think everyone agrees with that. That is not surprising because we did not change our way of doing things and we will not change it, even if the government does have a majority in the House and in committee. The Bloc Québécois wants to improve bills. Our guiding principle is that if a measure is good for Quebec, then we will support it, and all the better if it is good for the rest of Canada. We are rather proud of that because we are diligent and hard-working professionals. My question for my colleague is this: The bill says that some definitions will be established by regulation, but it make me rather uneasy to give the government the power to establish definitions by regulation. It gives the executive a lot of leeway to change the regulations as it sees fit, without parliamentary debate. Could my colleague explain why the public servants who drafted this bill are insisting that some rather important definitions in the bill be established by regulation?

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's clear and precise remarks. He takes care to explain things well using concrete examples. This government has a tendency to define terms in regulations. That is what happened with Bill C‑2. It happened with Bill C‑22. Now it is happening with Bill C‑28. It tends to nail down definitions in regulations instead of bills. Can my colleague explain what reasons the government might have for doing that?

Mr. Speaker, I am in awe of our leader's oratorical skills. She always finds the right words and has a very clear way of explaining the issues to us. Once again, her speech was constructive, with proposals and arguments explaining why the government's current proposal regarding the makeup of committees is unacceptable. This is not the first time the Liberal government has broken custom and tradition by significantly changing the rules. The Liberals did that with the Trudeau government. They took advantage of their alliance with the NDP to act like a majority and make significant changes to the Standing Orders. They are at it again today. Can our House leader explain to me what Quebeckers and Canadians have to lose because of the approach taken by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who is acting like the government's “bad cop”?

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to talk to us about a few things in a little more detail. The Prime Minister sweet-talked us about collaboration, openness, and partnership. He put up a nice facade, wore a nice suit, gave a nice performance. However, behind the scenes, on the floor of the House of Commons, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is doing the exact opposite of what the Prime Minister publicly announced to the media, in front of reporters. Can my colleague tell me what will happen if a scandal is uncovered and we want to learn more? The matter will be impossible to discuss in any committee because the Liberals will reject the motion. They will block transparency. Can my colleague elaborate on the current issue of transparency and accountability?

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the speech by the chief opposition whip. Having served as a whip myself, I know that it is a very demanding role that also requires a thorough understanding of parliamentary procedures. I have a question for my colleague. As we speak, there are two or three committees that are at a standstill, including the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The Liberals are filibustering and refuse to discuss issues that require transparency and testimony so that we can examine matters that are somewhat sensitive but necessary. Right now, it is the Liberals who are filibustering in the committees. We are not opposed to committees having a majority, but we believe that seven Liberal members is excessive. It is an abuse of power. We wonder if the official opposition whip feels the same way we do.

Mr. Speaker, the Valleyfield Rotary Club is proudly celebrating 80 years of service to the community. For eight decades, this club, which is made up of dedicated business people, has embodied the values of solidarity, generosity and leadership. Through their involvement, members make a real contribution to improving quality of life in the region. Under the leadership of the current president, Jean‑Michel Montpetit, the Rotary Club is continuing its work with energy and vision. He is doing an outstanding job of supporting many local initiatives with the help of a team of passionate and dedicated volunteers. This anniversary is an opportunity to recognize the enduring commitment of those who make the Valleyfield Rotary Club an essential force for development and community support. I wish the Valleyfield Rotary Club continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my colleague that it is a good thing the government did not have a majority when it introduced Bill C‑2 because that bill was a disaster. Everyone agreed on this. People from all kinds of industries agreed that privacy protection was an issue. Now, as far as Bill C‑22 is concerned, yes, we see an improvement and, yes, the government has finally held consultations. Still, there is something that is bothering me. The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, was given a secondary role. Australia gives its oversight agency a leading role, yet Canada has decided to notify NSIRA 12 months after the fact, when it submits its report. What is more, the government has three months to submit that report. This means that some events will not be reviewed by NSIRA until a year and a half has passed. Does my colleague think that giving more power to NSIRA, whose mandate is to monitor compliance with legislation, would be a good amendment?

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and I would like to ask her the following question: In Bill C‑22, the government decided to choose the lowest threshold for obtaining information, that is to say it chose a threshold of reasonable suspicion rather than reasonable belief. The lower standard chosen by the government is raising a lot of questions among experts in Quebec and Canada. What does my colleague think about the government choosing the lowest threshold?

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. The government has announced that it will be tabling an economic statement in late April. I believe it will be on April 28. I am asking this question because, under Bill C-22, the intelligence commissioner will have a greater role. Law enforcement agencies will consult him frequently. So far, there has been no mention of increasing his budget. An important role is also being given to the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, yet the budget includes cuts to this oversight body's funding. There is something I do not understand, and perhaps my colleague will be able to clarify this for me. They want to give more power to the government, ministers and law enforcement while also cutting the budget of those who are supposed to oversee them.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech. He delivered it in both official languages and I thank him for that. I have a little question for him, precisely because he is a Quebec member. Quebec has adopted robust legislation to protect privacy, Bill 25. Certain large Quebec institutions have asked me what is going to happen with Bill 25. They have adapted their practices and systems to meet the privacy requirements of Bill 25. Now that Bill C-22 has been introduced, is it going to cause any confusion in Quebec? Companies and institutions have made a lot of investments in response to Quebec's Bill 25. What is my colleague's reaction to that? What kind of allowances does he propose that his government make?

Mr. Speaker, I see that my colleague enjoys holding forth, and I think we share the same concerns about Bill C‑22. It is a much-needed bill, but there are a lot of passages, especially in part 2, that require amendments to improve the bill, particularly when it comes to the whole issue of definitions. In Bill C‑22, the government gives itself a great deal of leeway to define certain fundamental privacy-related terms, but it chooses to do so through regulation rather than through parliamentary debate. This raises concerns, because the government will have a lot of freedom to change the definitions of fundamental privacy-related terms. Does my colleague think that reducing the number of things that can be decided by regulation would be good amendment?