Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, members of Council 5281 of the Knights of Columbus have been active in our community since 1962. Over the decades, the Aylmer Knights of Columbus have given generously of their time and energy to build a stronger, more caring and supportive community. Their actions are guided by a simple conviction: to care for one another. Whether they are holding a fundraising campaign, helping a family, hosting a community activity or engaging in a quiet act of kindness, charity remains at the heart of their work. This way of doing things has been passed down from one generation to the next in Aylmer for 65 years. On October 17, let us celebrate all those who built this council and those who continue this work and ensure its future. I wish Aylmer's Council 5281 of the Knights of Columbus continued success and thank them for their 65 years of service to our community.

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to commend my esteemed colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé. He is a person I respect so much. Before he became a politician, he was a member of a very noble profession. He taught history, if I recall our conversations correctly. I have a question for him as a man who is very familiar with history. Would it be possible, in this day and age, to build something like the national railroad in a short period of time, in this country, with all the regulations and timelines we have today? Are we not capable of taking action to do things that are really important for Quebec and for Canada?

Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have risen in the House to give a speech since returning from the summer break. I have put questions to several of my colleagues, but this is the first time I have had the opportunity to rise in the House to present a speech. I am very pleased to rise during this debate on Bill C-39, an act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy. Admittedly, the bill is rather long. I managed to read it last night and this morning. I have to keep referring back to other existing laws to understand the situation better. However, as I was reading the bill, an image came to mind. It was a train. I love trains. If I have to choose between flying or taking a train, I always take the train, to go to Montreal, Toronto, Windsor or Quebec City, for example. That has been my preference since I was a young child. It is the best way to travel and get around our great country. However, there is something that I never did as a child or a young adult. I never travelled across the country by train. I had the opportunity to do so when I was 49 years old. It was very exciting. My adult children and I took the train from Toronto to Vancouver. It took four days and it was extraordinary. I recommend that all my colleagues take advantage of the opportunity to see the country by train. There is the Canadian train that goes from Toronto to Vancouver, the Ocean train from Halifax to Montreal and between the two, there is the Via Rail fleet that serves the Quebec City-Windsor corridor. Throughout my journey across the country, I thought about one thing. Could we build this railroad today? Historians and history teachers know that the Canadian Pacific Railway was basically built in four years, from 1881 to 1885. Yes, construction started a little earlier, but there were issues. The bulk of the construction was done during those four years. Could we do that today? I readily agree with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé that it is important to have modern standards. We are not about to use slaves or workers who are treated like slaves to build the train, as we did with the Chinese-Canadian population at the time. We have labour standards, thank goodness. In a modern country, we can build in a responsible manner and in a way that ensures worker safety as much as possible. That is very important. However, given these factors, would we be able to do that today? I am not so sure. That is one of the reasons I like the specific provisions in this bill. When a project is proposed and all the information is available, we promise that there will be an assessment and that it will be completed within a year. To me, that is key. Things need to change. Everything has become too complex. We are complicating things. Is that really necessary? We do not want to get rid of the standards we have established, including environmental standards or standards related to working conditions. We need to keep those. That being said, can we get organized and accomplish great things together, within a reasonable time frame? I hope that, through this bill, we are saying that we can. I am hoping that with the building Canada strong act, we are able to organize ourselves in a way that allows us to respect all the different elements that we have thought are important as a country, that we have put in our laws, but that we can do so in a reasonable time frame because, and I have to say it and I know we have heard it, we really are living in exceptional times. Never before have I felt that this country has been threatened in the way that we have been. Now it is time for us to put all the elements on our side, to take advantage of all the wealth in people and in natural resources and in our industrial capacity, to build big things. When I say “to build big things”, I want to make it very clear that I do not expect us to derogate from a lot of the important standards we have put in place. Still, can we do that evaluation quickly? Can we do so in respect of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which we have an obligation and a duty to consult and to work with? I think we can. I think we can get ourselves to that place because, again, from another example in history, another time when Canada felt as serious a challenge was during the Second World War. When we got into the war in 1939, Canada was far from being an industrial powerhouse as a country, but in a very short period of time, Canadians, recognizing the challenges that we had, came together and organized ourselves properly so that we transformed our entire economy to become a wartime economy. We did so quickly, without taking shortcuts or compromising on quality, but just saying to ourselves, “The challenge is great.” We have to meet this challenge, and we have planned accordingly to be able to do so. This is something I expect from Canada and from all members of the House. I know we will not agree on everything, but I can only control what I can control. I want to tell all my colleagues that I will listen to their concerns and support suggestions to improve the bill as much as possible. However, I do not want that to be used as an excuse to paralyze everything and not do the work. Personally, I think we are all up to the challenge before us.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my esteemed colleague from Joliette a question about what he just said. He said that the government has gutted environmental regulations. I would like him to tell us where it says that. All we have asked our public servants to do is to act more quickly to provide a faster response. We are not cutting corners; we are continuing to do the assessments. Can my colleague tell us where in the text of the bill it says that we are gutting environmental protection regulations?

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague with great interest, and I congratulate him. I would like to warmly welcome my hon. colleague back to the House. He talked about what is worth discussing. I have two very clear questions to ask him, and I hope he can answer them very clearly and unequivocally. First, I believe that the Parti Québécois supports or is calling for the suspension of the excise tax on gasoline. Will the Bloc Québécois support the Parti Québécois on this issue? I also have a second very quick question. He spoke at great length and in great detail, but I would just like to know how he is going to vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am perplexed by the answer that my hon. colleague gave, two questions ago, to my colleague from Quebec, when she had said that she would always support affordability measures but not all of them. She is happy to support this one. I would like to congratulate her for supporting this piece of legislation going to committee. When else has she supported affordability measures? I am thinking of the tax cuts for 22 million Canadians. She did not support that then. When it came to providing seniors with a dental care program, she did not support that. When it came to helping our young kids to be able to have access to good food so that they could learn in school, she did not support that either. I think that this is the first time that she is supporting an affordability measure. I wonder if the hon. member would like to comment on why is it that this is now the first time that she is doing it, although I should not look a gift horse in the mouth. I am quite happy that she is supporting this going to second reading.

Mr. Speaker, Canada is one of the world's largest food producers. However, too much of the food we produce is processed abroad, and too many Canadians still rely on high‑priced imports. Canadian farmers deserve more options for selling their products, and Canadians deserve more choices about where they buy their food. Could the Minister of Finance tell us how the first‑ever national food security strategy will help us produce and process more food right here in Canada, so that more Canadian food ends up on our plates and more money—

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to wish the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville all the best, a woman I got to know through the National Prayer Breakfast. We have sat together. We have talked together. I wish the very best to her and her family for having served her constituents of Yorkton—Melville with great honour. Working in Parliament is a very unforgiving job, but she has acquitted herself well. I wish her the very best.

Mr. Speaker, as Pride season kicks off, I am pleased to stand up and celebrate the 30th anniversary of Jeunesse Idem. For 30 years, young people in the Outaouais 2SLGBTQIA+ community have had a place where they are respected, affirmed and loved. For 30 years, queer youth in the Outaouais have had a place to thrive, grow, and find a community. It is a place to find oneself. For 30 years, Jeunesse Idem has been visiting schools in the Outaouais to teach our youth about loving others and loving themselves. As we see a rise in homophobia, transphobia and violence against queer people, the work that Jeunesse Idem does, day in and day out, remains as important and relevant as ever. On behalf of myself and the people of Hull—Aylmer, I thank and commend Jeunesse Idem for 30 years of dedicated service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of Johanna Mizgala, chief curator of the House of Commons, who will leave the House at the end of September. A few months after she started working in the House, Ms. Mizgala showed leadership and grace under actual fire, keeping a group of parliamentary guides calm as shots rang out and she led them to safety. As Speaker, I saw her love and passion first-hand as she worked to preserve our history and heritage for all Canadians. She helped bring our history to life through interviews and reports on significant milestones, such as the centenary of the Parliament Hill fire, and key events in our history, such as the 20th anniversary of Nunavut and the 150th anniversary of Confederation. She also helped create the Room of Remembrance in West Block. Many of us know her personally, as she shared her expertise widely. We thank her for her remarkable service and wish her every success in her next chapter.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today not only as a member of Parliament, but also as co-chair of the Parliamentary Black Caucus, a position I share with my dear colleague from Terrebonne, who just gave a very good speech. I would like to bring a slightly different perspective to our discussion this evening on Bill C-9. The Senate amendment, which seeks to designate the noose as a symbol of hatred, is very important. The Senate did excellent work that deserves our support. I would like to speak about what this bill means to the Black communities that I speak with every week, about what this bill means to us and about what it means that Parliament is finally doing it. The word that comes back every time I have a discussion about this is “finally”. Finally, we are dealing with an issue that is of great symbolic importance and is a real symbol of hate for our community. I have been in and around public life for a long time, and for as long as I can remember, Black communities have been telling governments the same thing. They have described a noose left on a workplace, a drawing on a wall or an actual noose being held at a construction site, for example, and what that means to them. They are threats that police have had trouble categorizing, or incidents reported and then quietly filed away because the law had no clear box to categorize them in. They told these stories to commissions, to committees, to ministers and to members of Parliament from every party, and they have told them with a patience, frankly, that these communities should have never needed. For most of that time, the answer they got was sympathy. Sympathy is welcome. Sympathy is appreciated. Sympathy also costs nothing, and communities know the difference between a government that feels for them and a government that legislates for them. Bill C-9 legislates. As I mentioned, as co-chair of the parliamentary Black caucus, I hear from Black Canadians from across this country. They are parents, workers, students, children and elders. When the subject of hate incidents comes up, the pain in those conversations rarely centres on the incidents alone. It centres on what happens afterward, because it is not what happens to someone but what happens afterward that is most important, and the legal process takes what is a racist act and changes it into a generic file. People can carry a great deal. What wears them down is carrying it while institutions look away. When this bill names the noose explicitly in the law of Canada, I want this House to understand how that lands in our communities. The noose has a very specific and painful history for Black Canadians. My hon. colleague talked about the symbol of lynchings. I do not want to be too explicit, but I have to say that hanging, lynching, is not something that just happens by accident. It is often an act that follows torture and terror. It gives a very different perspective. When that symbol appears at a Canadian work site, the person who finds it instantly understands what it means. They know that they could never hold into themselves what the law does not do to protect them. This bill would change that. The law of this country would say in plain text that this symbol, used wilfully to promote hatred and terror, has no place in this country. It would be a message for Black Canadians. This sentence in the Criminal Code would be a recognition that decades of telling the truth about their experience has registered somewhere, that it registered here in this Parliament. Confronting anti-Black hate means naming it, and this Parliament is about to name it. The noose is a symbol that everyone recognizes, and the daily reality of anti-Black hate is usually quieter. It looks like threats, harassment, vandalism and intimidation, and it builds over months. The stand-alone hate crime offence at the heart of Bill C-9 is what would give the justice system the means to treat those acts as what they are. I will leave the legal mechanics to the colleagues who have covered them and will cover them. I just want to say that communities have learned to measure laws by whether anything changes. If they call the police, will actions be taken? That is how people measure whether there is really justice in this country. This bill is built to change what happens when they call. Parliament, as members know, moves slowly, and in moving slowly, often there is wisdom, but sometimes it is the symbol of avoidance; it is an act of avoidance. Regarding the question of hate-motivated crime, I believe we have been slow in the second way. The evidence has been in front of us for years, if not generations. Statistics Canada has documented the rise of anti-Black hate crimes and of police-reported hate crimes year after year. Community organizations have produced report after report. The gap between what communities experience and what the law can capture was identified long ago, and it was identified by people far less powerful than any one of us in this chamber. However, they kept on raising it anyway. It should not have taken this long. I say that as a member of the governing party, and I say that because communities that are watching at home know this to be true, and we need to be honest about what this legislation would do. What I have also learned is that the second-best time to act is now, so let us all support this bill. Bill C-9, finally, would catch up to where people are. I will end with what I started with. Somewhere in the country tonight, there may be a worker going into his workplace and seeing the symbol of the noose being displayed or seeing a drawing of it. Right now, there is a parent explaining to their child what these various symbols of hate represent, having that difficult conversation that so many Canadians have to have with their children and their family. There are people right now deciding whether or not their place of worship, whether it is a church, a synagogue, a mosque or a gurdwara, their holy place, needs security equipment installed to ensure the safety of the people who come to worship. These Canadians are owed many things by their country and by their Parliament. One of them is a criminal law that sees what is happening to them clearly and responds firmly. Black Canadians deserve to know that their government sees that reality and is taking it seriously. So do all the communities that hate has touched, and this bill is how we show it to them. In conclusion, on behalf of the parliamentary Black caucus and on behalf of Black Canadians around this country, I ask every member of this House to please support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, education is officially a provincial responsibility. However, in a sociological sense, education belongs to all of us. Today's bill gives us the opportunity to clearly explain to Canadians what hate is and how we can ensure that we live together harmoniously, which is in our country's nature. My hon. colleague from Repentigny referred to an amendment that he had supported that was withdrawn from the bill. I recognize that it was very important to have the Bloc Québécois's support, but I would also like to say that, honestly, it did not change anything in terms of the scope of the bill. Even if we are talking about a religious person, the line that is crossed when inciting hatred remains the same. Nothing has changed in that regard, regardless of whether this exemption exists or not. Hatred—

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of information and disinformation with regard to this bill. One of the pieces clearly is that we would be taking away the rights of people of faith, people such as me, who attend church weekly and would feel that this would somehow impede them from speaking openly about their faith. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I can speak the words of sacred text, which for me is the Holy Bible and for others could be the Torah, the Koran or whatever text they have, but the fact is that I still have no right to preach for hate. That is a very high level. Just quoting the Bible, or any sacred text, at all is not what would put it in danger. The problem is when people call for the eradication of an identified group. That remains there regardless of—

Madam Speaker, I, too, want to wish our dear colleague from Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata a speedy recovery. I would also like to thank my colleague from Moncton—Dieppe for her speech. My question relates to amending the Criminal Code to make it illegal for intimate, non-consensual images to be shared. As the member spoke about, and as I know from participating in committee work, this is a particularly terrible scourge for women who have deepfake images or non-consensual sexual images distributed by former partners. Can the member talk about the importance of having this issue corrected and made illegal in Bill C-16?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a true mother of Confederation, the Hon. Jean Augustine. Jean is in Ottawa today to receive the Pearson Laureate Award, its highest honour, joining such past honourees whose leadership has helped make Canada a better country, including Jean Chrétien, Joe Clark and Irwin Cotler. Born in Grenada, she emigrated to Canada in 1960 under the West Indian domestic scheme, the same scheme under which my mother came to Canada. She worked in education, and later served on the founding committee to organize Caribana, now known as the Toronto Caribbean Carnival. Jean Augustine was the first Black woman elected to the House of Commons in 1993, and became the first Black woman to serve in a federal cabinet. She introduced the motion to recognize February as Black History Month. She also introduced a motion to have the Famous Five monument erected on Parliament Hill. On behalf of the entire House, I would like to salute Jean Augustine for her life of public service, and thank her for helping make Canada the modern and inclusive country we enjoy today. I hope all members will join us this evening—

Mr. Speaker, this week the Standing Committee on Public Safety heard critical testimony from various witnesses on Bill C-22, including the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. They highlighted that investigations on child sexual exploitation are taking too long and that the bill would help law enforcement get the necessary information quicker. Can the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Safety tell the House how this bill is part of our government's broader public safety initiative?

Mr. Speaker, last week, we lost Dr. Juliet Daniel, a remarkable scientist, mentor and leader whose legacy will live on. Born in Barbados, she came to study at Queen's University and she earned her Ph.D. at UBC. She went on to become a full professor at McMaster University and a respected voice in her field. I had the privilege of meeting her in Ottawa where she spoke about her research on triple negative breast cancer, which disproportionately affects Black women. Her discovery of the gene Kaiso, named after a type of calypso music, was a significant contribution to understanding how cancer spreads. I give my heartfelt condolences to her loved ones. Dr. Daniel's time on earth was like a comet: brief yet unforgettable. Though our time together was short, I wish her eternal peace. May her legacy continue to inspire women and researchers everywhere.

Mr. Speaker, in their speeches, the opposition members are saying that what is happening here in Parliament is unprecedented. I have a question for my hon. colleague, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. Can he give us an example of any place in Canada or even under the British parliamentary system of a majority government that did not control or hold a majority of seats on committees?

Mr. Speaker, men and boys across Canada are facing a health crisis. They feel their physical and mental health issues are overlooked, misunderstood or ignored. Stress and injury are normalized and vulnerability is stigmatized. Too many men and boys suffer in silence, and they are wary of asking for help. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health inform this House about what the government is doing to help men and boys across Canada live healthier lives?

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like thank my colleague from British Columbia for his measured and nuanced speech. He and I agree that it is important to update the laws that protect us in this digital age rather than relying on a legislative framework that predates the invention of the Internet. My colleague talked about avenues that he would like to explore in committee to delve deeper into some of the issues that he raised. Can he give a specific example of an amendment that he would like to see made to this bill?

Mr. Speaker, this bill represents progress. First, Bill C-2 was introduced. Then, in light of the feedback we received from members, we went back to the drawing board to redraft the proposed legislation, seeking as much consensus as possible. Consultations were then held with all political parties in an effort to reach that consensus. Does my colleague believe that Bill C-22 accurately reflects the discussions that we had with all parliamentarians?

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this bill, which is very important for the safety of Canadians and for Canada's role on the international stage. Usually, when I give a speech, I like to speak off the cuff, relying on only a few notes. However, I will not do that today for two reasons. First, as a member of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, I have several obligations, including the obligation not to disclose certain information that I am made aware of in the course of my work. Second, this issue is very relevant to the work of the committee of parliamentarians, which is made up of parliamentarians from all political parties in the House and the Senate. I am therefore going to be very focused and read my speech just to make sure that I do say anything that I should not. The world around us is becoming increasingly digital and networked, and much of our day-to-day business, means of communication and overall lives relies on the Internet. I do not have to tell my colleagues about all of our different devices, which I will not use as a prop, such as smart phones, emails and the like, and instant messaging applications. All these things easily and instantly transcend provincial, national and international borders. Unfortunately, this equally means that malicious actors like organized crime groups and violent extremists can explore this borderless nature of cyberspace for their own benefit. Canada's law enforcement agencies and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service need modern tools to help keep communities and Canadians safe. Therefore, we must close the capability gap in current legislation that prevents law enforcement's and CSIS's lawful access to data and ensure they can properly execute their mandates and protect Canadians. Canada maintains an international reputation as a safe and peaceful country. To sustain this reputation, we must ensure that our legislation keeps pace with modern threats and technologies used in criminal and malicious activities. “Lawful access” is a term we will hear a lot in association with this bill, and let us be very clear about what it means. Lawful access includes the tools and authorities to legally obtain certain information, data or communication during investigations. This information is often essential to generating leads on serious criminal activities and national security threats, as well as identifying and prosecuting those involved. For decades, law enforcement and CSIS have had to operate without a legal framework requiring electronic service providers, or, as I will refer to them, ESPs, to develop and maintain lawful access capabilities. The current legal framework has not kept up with rapid advances in technology. Frankly, our laws are very much like me: They are analog in a digital world. This is the reason we have developed Bill C-22, which aims to facilitate law enforcement's and CSIS's timely access to basic subscriber information. I would like to make sure we understand it would be basic information. This is important because law enforcement and intelligence investigators need basic subscriber information, like a legal name or an address, to identify or exclude suspects, particularly during the preliminary stages of an investigation. Bill C-22 would also establish a general legal framework to require electronic service providers to have the capability to respond to legally authorized requests, like a warrant or a production order, while respecting and protecting privacy interests and fundamental rights that all Canadians expect. Bill C-22 would introduce provisions to support law enforcement agencies as they crack down on crime in an increasingly complex technological landscape, where the vast majority of evidence is online and in an electronic format. Law enforcement groups have sounded the alarm on the obstacles they encounter during investigations. They have sounded this alarm for years. Currently, law enforcement faces many challenges in obtaining the information it needs. Often, law enforcement does not know which service provider holds the customer account associated with the subscriber information, which also means it does not know who to serve with a production order. This challenge presently stalls and delays real-world investigations. In many cases, law enforcement is required to seek multiple judicial authorizations to seek very basic information from different service providers, solely to confirm which provider services a phone number or an IP address. The current framework causes significant, unnecessary and harmful delays. Timely access to this basic information is crucial in all stages of an investigation and can spell the difference between securing key evidence and allowing criminals to slip through our fingers. As another example, police could be aware that a provider holds certain information, but the company is unable to provide it because its systems do not possess the capability to do so and there is no legal requirement to carry such capabilities. We have heard many stories of law enforcement tracking a missing child or attempting to stop a terrorist attack, knowing which ESP to obtain the information from but being stonewalled by the provider's lack of lawful access capabilities. We cannot hope to fully protect Canadians and our communities if law enforcement and CSIS are unable to do their jobs. What is more, Canada may not be able to contribute meaningfully to joint investigations with its international partners or fully benefit from the support that our international partners provide to us. My colleague the parliamentary secretary spoke at length about this. For this reason, Bill C-22 introduces new legislation to close this gap, whereby certain electronic service providers would need to develop and maintain the technological capabilities to respond to production orders. To be clear, this aspect of the legislation intentionally and explicitly would not allow for a so-called back door or any direct access for law enforcement or CSIS into electronic service providers' systems, and the legal authority to access that information would still always be required. Bill C-22 proposes two ways by which an ESP could be asked to develop and maintain lawful access capabilities. First, those designated as core providers, such as traditional telecommunications companies, would have to abide by specific requirements set out in the regulations. Second, the Minister of Public Safety could issue a ministerial order to develop specific capabilities based on operational needs as new technologies develop. We have heard the concerns from parliamentarians and stakeholders around privacy and oversight, and I want to reassure Canadians. I am actually very proud of the fact that the government took back this bill, listened carefully and amended it in ways to address the concerns that were raised. Bill C-22 now includes safeguards so that ESPs would not have to abide by any demands that would introduce systemic vulnerabilities in electronic protections, such as encryption breaking or what I called a “back door”. The bill would also require that the Minister of Public Safety obtain the approval of the intelligence commissioner before a ministerial order is valid, and it could be subject to further review by the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA. Bill C-22 is about removing harmful barriers that impede active investigations, delay justice and put Canadians in harm's way. This is about bringing our legislation up to date, finally, with modern technologies and with that of our closest allies. This is about ensuring that extortionists, child predators, cybercriminals, hostile state actors and organized criminal networks would have nowhere to hide. This is a responsible bill that would make the necessary changes, and I hope all members can see their way to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Edmonton area for raising this issue. It is a very important issue and one that I fully support, and I understand what he is bringing up. I know, for example, that the NSICOP Act is behind in its five-year review. I can assure the hon. member that I would be happy to work in partnership with him and others to ensure that this review does happen. I will also commit to working with the member on these issues. This is not easily arrived at, in terms of Bill C-22. To ensure that Canadians have confidence in it, we do have to make sure that it has those reviews in that time. I would be happy to work with the member, and he has my full commitment to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Shefford for her very relevant question. We introduced this bill to give our national security and intelligence agencies new tools, modern tools, they could use to conduct investigations and protect Canadians. That does not mean that we are going to be spending money the same way as before. We can take advantage of these new tools. Rather than using paper and sorting through paper files, we can use modern tools to do the work, making it much more efficient and effective. I think that is one way of making sure that we are protecting Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has done work in this field, and I thank her for her work. The best way to make sure that she is protected, I am protected and everyone here is protected is to not cast a wide net. This is why there are some safeguards in this bill, for example, making sure that there would be judicial reviews of these orders and having ministerial orders approved by an officer of Parliament, the intelligence commissioner. These are safeguards that are built into this bill to ensure that there would not be any excesses, as the member rightfully would be concerned about. I have great confidence that people doing their jobs properly will make sure that we avoid, as we say in French, des débordements.

Mr. Speaker, I wish everyone a happy Black History Month. Earlier this week, I spoke with a fabulous group of high school students. One of them asked me if I had ever encountered racism myself and how I overcame it. Of course I have. On more than one occasion, I have been confronted with the N-word, and in the moment, I find it bewildering. After all, what does a racist want me to do? My skin is brown. I cannot change that. I do not want to change that. To a racist, I say this is not my problem but their problem. They do not like Black people? I say good luck with that. They might want to seek some help because their life is going to be needlessly painful if they cannot accept the reality of my skin or that the sky is blue or that the sun always rises in the east. February is a month for celebrating our identity, our presence and our ongoing contributions. I wish all my colleagues here in the House a happy Black History Month.

Mr. Speaker, a tidal wave of sorrow has swept over our country this week, including Kitigan Zibi, as the member for Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi so eloquently described earlier today. Two young lives have been extinguished far too soon, leaving their loved ones and their entire community to grieve. Can the Secretary of State for Nature share her thoughts and reflections on the tragic incident that has taken place in Quebec?

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in today's debate. Before I get into my speech, I would like say two things. First, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville. Second, I, too, would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work of one of my staffers. MPs are nothing without their teams to do the day-to-day work. They support us and assist us. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of attending an awards ceremony where Louise Goulet received a certificate of recognition. Louise has been working with me for 10 years and she helped me with my first election campaign in 2015. She is always there faithfully serving the extraordinary interests of the people of Hull—Aylmer. I am very grateful to Louise, as well as to Martin, Nicolas, Rania, Mamadou, Elsa and Valérie for all of their help. I also want to say that, next week, after several months of working with the hon. member for Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, Shane Atienza will be moving to my office for the coming months. He is a parliamentary intern. This is an extraordinary program, and I encourage all members to submit a request for an intern at the next available opportunity. High-speed rail will fundamentally change the way people travel between Quebec City and Toronto. It is going to provide faster, more reliable and more sustainable service in the busiest corridor not only in Canada but, frankly, in North America. Cutting travel time in half would mean travelling from Ottawa to Montreal in less than an hour, from Ottawa to Toronto in less than two hours. This will not only change everyday travel patterns, it will expand access to jobs, talent and markets. This increased connectivity will strengthen regional supply chains, support labour mobility and create conditions conducive to stronger economic growth. It will bring communities and businesses closer together, support new investment and innovation, and provide Canadians with a modern, reliable, low-emission means of transportation that will strengthen our competitiveness. The high-speed rail initiative is necessary because the current transportation infrastructure has already reached its limits. Within the next 15 years, the population will increase to as many as 24 million Canadians living in the corridor between Quebec City and Toronto. We know full well that our highways are already operating at maximum capacity when it comes to traffic. It is very important to have a new rail system available. As I said, this train will be fast, reliable, and will truly serve Canadians. In a time of global economic uncertainty, the high-speed rail initiative represents a historic opportunity to invest in Canada's future. This is a strategic step toward building a more resilient and competitive economy, one that is better positioned to withstand external pressures, including the growing threat of tariffs. Major infrastructure projects like this one create jobs. For the high-speed rail project, we expect to support more than 50,000 jobs during the design and construction phases alone. This project will draw on Canadian expertise, including engineers, land surveyors, architects and rail specialists. It will also generate strong demand for Canadian materials and services. The proponent of this project, Alto, estimates that the combined effect on productivity, the labour market and tourism will result in an annual increase of $35 billion. The benefits extend far beyond the immediate impact. In the long term, high-speed rail will connect major hubs across provincial borders, creating a more resilient economy by facilitating interprovincial trade. This is a priority we all recognize in the current economic climate. This fully electric high-speed train will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This will be equivalent to taking more than 100,000 cars off the road. This legislation also ensures that the impact assessment process will apply to every segment of the project, placing consultation and environmental protection at the very heart of this initiative. I was involved in the launch of this project. The mayor of Ottawa was there. The mayor of Gatineau was unable to attend because she was at another event, but she wanted to be there. The City of Montreal unanimously passed a resolution to promote and support this project. This is a project that has been discussed for decades. Now that we have reached the point where we can take action, there are people who want to slow down the process. This is no longer acceptable. This project is clearly in the best interests of everyone, Quebec, Ontario and Canada as a whole. It is time to take action. The federal government's buy Canadian policy is essential to strengthening our national industries and supporting good jobs for Canadians. As we move forward with high-speed rail, we will prioritize the use of Canadian-made materials whenever possible. These measures will help to create an environment favourable to Canadian products and strengthen our domestic industrial capacity. As we move forward with this transformative initiative, we are encouraged by the clear signals of support from Quebeckers. This project is supported by the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal and several several chambers of commerce in the corridor between Quebec and Ontario. This is a tremendous opportunity to transform our country, modernize our economy and create infrastructure that will be used for decades, if not a century. By building a faster, more efficient and more reliable rail network, the high-speed rail initiative will strengthen the capacity of Canada's supply chains and stimulate long-term growth. This initiative, which has the support of provincial partners, is enthusiastically welcomed by municipalities and aligns with national priorities, reflects a shared commitment to modern infrastructure, strong domestic industries and a connected and competitive Canada. I am certain that, together, we are investing in a future in which Canadians will benefit from greater opportunities and our economy will be more resilient, more dynamic and better positioned to succeed in a rapidly changing world. It is a project for the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for his question. I have a great deal of respect for him. We have worked well together. I invite his constituents to take part in the consultations, which have already begun. I myself took part in a consultation here in the national capital region. The place was packed. People were there to share their perspectives, to offer advice, and to propose changes. I found that the project proponents listened to us. Already 26,000 Canadians have taken part in the consultations, and I would encourage my colleague's constituents to do the same, to share their concerns, and to put forward innovative solutions. I think that we will end up with an excellent project for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to correct the premise of my hon. colleague's question. What exists right now is a proposal to identify the general corridors. Part of the project involves consulting the communities to identify where things will broadly go. Following the consultations, it is possible that by some time next fall Alto may have identified a specific location or route. From there, we will be able to hold more in-depth consultations. However, I would like to correct the assertion that the corridor will be 10 kilometres wide, because in reality it will be only 60 metres wide.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure my dear colleague from Quebec that there is a great deal of enthusiasm for this project. It is not because the project will pass directly through Hull—Aylmer. Unfortunately, it will not, as much as we would like that. In our community, we are preparing a proposal for a tramway in Gatineau. What is more, this tramway is a project that I have been working on since I was elected in 2015. I proposed it because I knew that a tramway was a modern way to transport people and provide a public transit system. We already know that our roads are too congested.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time in the 45th Parliament that I have risen to present a petition. I am presenting petition e-6685, signed by nearly 600 Canadians. This petition stems from the efforts of a great Canadian, a veteran, retired captain Jocelyn Démétré. I know I am not supposed to recognize any individual in the gallery, so I will not recognize the former captain in the gallery. However, I can say that he is a veteran, that he has written a book and that he works on behalf of veterans. The petitioners are pointing out that “Canada does not have any laws prohibiting contempt of the flag, as many countries do, such as France, the United Kingdom and Switzerland”. The petitioners are calling on the “Government of Canada to introduce a bill to protect our Canadian flag from any action that would destroy or desecrate the national flag without lawful excuse”.

Mr. Speaker, my mother-in-law has Alzheimer's. I know how devastating this disease can be. She is far from alone. Every day, 300 Canadians are diagnosed with dementia. Although there is no cure, we know that community initiatives can make a big difference for people with dementia and their families, friends and caregivers. Could the Minister of Health tell us what steps the government is taking to ensure that Canadians with dementia have access to the health care they deserve?

Mr. Speaker, December 6 marks 36 years since the murder of 14 women at École Polytechnique in Montreal. This was a horrific event that shook the entire country. We have a collective duty to fight gender-based violence. Can the parliamentary secretary tell the House what measures have been taken to honour the memory of these young students and ensure that such a tragedy never happens again in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, last week Canadians watched in horror as hurricane Melissa, which was the strongest hurricane in the Caribbean's history, tore through the region, leaving widespread destruction in its wake. Hundreds of thousands of people were affected, lives were lost, homes and infrastructure were damaged and destroyed, and families were affected by the flooding and landslides. As the people of Jamaica, Cuba, Haiti and across the region begin the difficult work of reconstruction and recovery, can the Secretary of State for International Development talk about what Canada is doing?

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you in the chair and to take part in these debates. I listened very carefully to my friend from the Bloc Québécois, a very experienced member. All through his speech, however, I asked myself one question. What could have changed in a process that was previously considered perfectly acceptable until the day this new Prime Minister arrived? Is anything substantially different? It seems to me that the process is the same one that all members used to consider acceptable, until today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for his service in the Canadian Armed Forces. I am very grateful to him. I am also very pleased to know that he and his colleagues are going to support this bill. He asked a very sincere question. I have a question for him too. Does he believe that the current military court system serves the interests of Canadian Armed Forces members who are victims of sexual misconduct, or does he believe that using civilian courts instead is a better option for those individuals?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate a bill that is very important for the military community and for Canadians, that is, Bill C‑11, the military justice system modernization act. This bill will have a significant impact on members of the Canadian Armed Forces as well as veterans. Indeed, Bill C‑11 address the concerns that victims and survivors within Canada's military community have shared with us over the past few years. It includes a series of targeted amendments that aim to modernize the military justice system and strengthen support for victims and survivors. The bill responds to recommendation 5 of the report from former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour and the eight recommendations of the report from former Supreme Court justice Morris Fish. More specifically, the bill proposes to make six amendments. I will give a brief overview of all these amendments. First, it will enshrine in law the fact that the Canadian Armed Forces no longer has jurisdiction over Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. Second, it will enshrine in law that civilian authorities have exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. Third, it establishes a victim's liaison officer, who will be available to victims throughout the transfer of cases, regardless of jurisdiction. Fourth, the bill seeks to strengthen the role of key positions in the justice system to make them more independent. Fifth, it seeks to address the historical discrimination faced by under-represented groups in how cases have been processed and transferred. Finally, the bill ensures that the military justice system remains aligned with the Criminal Code and the civilian justice system. Our government takes the well-being of Canadian Armed Forces members very seriously. That is why we have worked hard in recent years to implement all 48 recommendations from former Justice Louise Arbour's report. More than 30 of those recommendations have already been implemented. By the end of the year, with the passage of this bill, I hope we will be able to say that not just 47 recommendations, but all 48 recommendations made by former Justice Arbour have been implemented. I would like to provide an overview of Justice Arbour's recommendations. Three years ago now, Justice Arbour submitted her final report on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces to the Minister of National Defence. This report, entitled “Report of the Independent External Comprehensive Review of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces”, contains 48 recommendations that focused on reforming the “institutional shortcomings and structural impediments” that allowed the problem to persist. In recommendation 48 of her report, Justice Arbour called for the Minister of National Defence to appoint an external monitor to oversee the implementation of the recommendations in the report and other external recommendations that she accepts. The external monitor, Jocelyne Therrien, shared her fifth report in July. Ms. Therrien emphasized that we are making progress and are on track to meet the intent of the 48 recommendations by the end of 2025. Indeed, in our efforts to follow up on recommendations 1 and 2, we have made significant progress in clarifying definitions and terminology. In June of last year, the defence team announced that policies using the term “sexual misconduct” would be updated to replace it with “harassment of a sexual nature”, “conduct deficiencies of a sexual nature” and “crimes of a sexual nature”. In addition, “sexual assault” will be separately defined in the relevant policies. In March of this year, CAF adopted the Canada Labour Code definitions of harassment and violence, aligning its harassment and violence prevention program with the public service workplace harassment and violence prevention program. This resulted in a unified workplace harassment and violence prevention policy that applies to both National Defence public service employees and members of the Canadian Armed Forces. This change also addressed recommendation 3 of Justice Louise Arbour's report. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces who experience or witness harassment or violence in the workplace now have a simplified incident reporting system, informal resolution mechanisms and a simplified investigation process. We have also made progress in providing a range of relevant services and supports to victims. In response to recommendation 14 of Justice Arbour's report, the sexual misconduct support and resource centre has expanded its services to include a full-time legal resource responsible for providing information and assistance to victims of sexual misconduct in a military context. The next step will involve providing access to civilian lawyers able to contribute their assistance in different parts of the country at no cost to victims. Bill C‑11 takes another step forward by improving support for victims and assigning exclusive jurisdiction to civilian authorities for investigating and prosecuting Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. Our government remains steadfast in its ongoing commitment to addressing all forms of misconduct and unprofessional behaviour within the Canadian Armed Forces. It is imperative to ensure that victims and survivors receive the support and justice they deserve. In conclusion, Canadian Armed Forces members are always there to ensure Canada's security and it is our duty to protect them from harassment and misconduct. The 48 recommendations made by former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour clearly showed us the path to follow to change the culture of our institution, and the external auditor, Jocelyne Therrien, is ensuring that we respect this commitment, this new path. In closing, I want to thank the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the veterans for their service to Canada. I hope that all my colleagues in the House will support this bill so that we can ensure justice for victims of harassment and sexual misconduct.

Mr. Speaker, I have come to know my hon. colleague very well, and I know he takes these issues very seriously. It is not a guarantee that the culture will change, but it is clear that we must take every step possible. One of the first things to do is assure victims of sexual harassment or misbehaviour that the system is not stacked against them. The way to do that, as we saw in the report by Madam Justice Arbour, is to take them out of the system where they could be seeking justice from their superiors or where those working on a file could be trying to pursue a case against a military superior. That does not lend confidence to the system, so it is important for victims to have an independent system, which is what they would be guaranteed by criminal courts outside of the military service. That is the first step, and it is one step that would go a long way to changing the culture in the military.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important point the member for Winnipeg North raises in the House. Because the system has been in place and there has been action already on some of the reports that have been brought forward, which understand the scope and severity of the situation, these things have been acted on. Now we are codifying this. Now we are making sure that the resources are put in place. Now we are making sure that training is provided and that our folks in the armed forces understand better how to transfer files to the civilian courts and provide support to the victims of sexual misconduct and harassment in our system. These are very welcome changes, and it is wonderful to hear in the questions from different colleagues that there seems to be general support among members to make sure the bill gets to committee. I hope it becomes adopted as legislation before the end of the year.

Mr. Speaker, there are many elements to the premise of that question that I have some difficulty with, but there are two things that should give the hon. member some confidence. First of all, this legislation reflects directly the recommendations by former Supreme Court justices Louise Arbour and Morris Fish. Second, the member can take confidence in the fact that the person responsible for making sure the recommendations are being followed going forward, Madame Jocelyne Therrien, is following through on them. She can assure parliamentarians and, most importantly, members of our Canadian Armed Forces that these recommendations are being followed through on.