Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be back for this session. First off, it is important for me to say that today, we welcomed representatives from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers to Parliament Hill. There is a great deal of talk about jobs and what might happen at airports. Canada Post is facing a serious situation. Since September 25, 2025, it has been waiting to find out what will happen with the reform, and it is asking for a comprehensive public review of the corporation. We hope to get answers to these questions this fall. Here is the question I would like to put to my colleague. We are not seeking to undermine the purpose of reconciliation efforts. However, what is the point of this proposal if the commissioner will lack the teeth to take action and enforce compliance? What will we do when recommendations are made and the government refuses to listen?

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague as well. I see that it is much easier for our interpreters to interpret from French to English, because my colleague speaks English very quickly. I also want to wish everyone, including my colleague, a good start to the session. My question is this: Considering that no such commissioner position existed and that all of our commissioners tell us at our meetings that they lack sufficient enforcement powers and can do nothing but make recommendations, why not take this opportunity to create a commissioner position ourselves, and lead by example by introducing more coercive measures?

Mr. Speaker, the Laurentians were developed thanks to the P'tit Train du Nord, the cherished dream of Father Labelle. It was a railway line that made it possible to open up the territory and build our communities. For the past 30 years, this iconic route has sustained another mode of transportation. Today, cyclists, trekkers, runners and cross-country skiers can enjoy this long trail winding like a ribbon through our mountains, along our lakes and rivers and between our villages. Stretching over more than 230 kilometres, the P'tit Train du Nord linear park has become a key piece of tourism infrastructure for the Laurentians. It raises our region's profile, supports local businesses and encourages active transportation and a healthy lifestyle. The P'tit Train du Nord has been part of our regional identity since the late 19th century. It is a tribute to our ability to transform our heritage into a collective resource and look ahead to a bright future. This summer, I encourage everyone to come visit the Laurentians.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Natural Resources warned on Thursday that wildfire activity will increase throughout the summer. With hot temperatures expected, 300 mayors are calling on the federal government to abandon its plans for new pipelines, stating in their declaration that more communities are likely to burn to the ground this summer as we double down on fossil fuel expansion. As another wildfire season approaches, will the Liberals finally drop their obsession with oil?

Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. I would like to know if my colleague opposite, the government leader, has seen or read the remarks by the National Assembly's cybersecurity lead, Stéphane Le Bouyonnec, and if he noticed any red flags. In committee, Mr. Le Bouyonnec talked about the risks associated with insufficient digital sovereignty. In the case before us, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs held 70 meetings before finally securing an independent public inquiry that confirmed there has been interference in our elections. If Quebec says it is not sufficiently equipped, how can we think we have nothing to worry about here when 85% of the infrastructure is owned by south-of-the-border interests?

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague. I served on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for over two years. Yes, we had begun considering this issue before any foreign interference occurred. It took up some 70 meetings; I remember it like it was yesterday. My question is very simple. I am surprised, even disappointed, when we talk about loopholes for foreign funds. When we seek impartiality and transparency, what are the consequences of not being able to block money that we cannot detect?

Mr. Speaker, I think we are all starting to feel a little worse for wear—sitting here until midnight, constantly voting and dealing with closure motions. In short, we are all in the same boat, and we are all telling ourselves that we need to be strong, that we will get through this. I am going to ask my colleague a very simple question. How is it that, when the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had the opportunity to consider this issue, it did not give more thought to or examine political party financing more closely? My colleague knows very well that Quebec National Assembly settled this issue long ago. During an election year, a member may make two contributions of $100. However, there have been reports in the media about fundraising events where people are invited to meet the Prime Minister in exchange for a contribution of $1,500. How is it that this limit has not been lowered?

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague. I would like to know if she is aware of the impact that this new administrative structure, the so-called Build Canada Homes, has had in places like Laurentides—Labelle, where projects have not been allowed to move forward, leaving women who are victims of violence without the safe havens they need. Construction has been put on hold while people figure out where the funding is, and I am not sure it will ever be completed. Is my colleague aware that, if transfers to Quebec had not been suspended, women who are victims of violence would not have been left out in the cold?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know my colleague's thoughts about the study in committee of Bill C-16. The Conservatives made a lot of deliberate attempts to obstruct the work. While purporting to bring amendments beyond the scope of the bill, our colleagues engaged in endless filibustering. Considering that we made some progress and that we support the bill, even though it may not be perfect, what does my colleague think of the Conservatives' behaviour?

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply moved by the remarks made by my colleague from Shefford. We are talking about taking back control of our lives. Just a few hours ago, during the debate on Bill C-20, we were talking about building Canada. I asked the following question: How could a program be implemented to the point of jeopardizing or suspending the activities of organizations that help abused women, even as they were in the process of setting up shelters for them? When my colleague says that the government must absolutely work in a way that is consistent with Quebec, I would like to know if there are, in fact, concrete steps that can be taken.

Mr. Speaker, in the last four months of 2026, Quebec has mourned 10 victims of femicide. This number rivals the annual average for the past decade. That is horrific. I hope that my colleague on the other side of the House is aware of that, because these are tragedies. This is really an unacceptable number of domestic tragedies. I find the increase extremely alarming, perhaps more so than my colleague across the way. Advocacy and civil society groups are reacting the same way, because at this rate, 2026 could exceed the record 16 femicides committed in 2021. We do not want that. Words matter here: “Femicide” is not a trivial matter; it is a serious societal issue. Bill C-16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters with regard to child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures, has reached third reading. As my colleague mentioned earlier, this bill amends the Criminal Code to create a new offence that prohibits engaging in a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct toward an intimate partner. It also provides that murder known as femicide when committed against a female person is first degree murder in any of the following circumstances: the murder is committed against an intimate partner in the context of a pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour; the murder is committed in the context of domestic violence; the murder is committed in the context of human trafficking; or the murder is motivated by hatred. Now is the time to say enough is enough: no more femicide. The Bloc Québécois will continue to support the bill. Obviously, we do have some reservations. I still think that Bill C-16 represents a very significant step forward in protecting people from intimate partner violence and sexual offences. The Bloc Québécois strongly supports the changes regarding court delays, specifically the issue of mistrials. We support the new Criminal Code offence of recruiting a young person to commit a crime, the introduction of a safety valve for minimum sentences, and the strengthening of the Criminal Code provisions regarding harassment and sexual violence, which primarily affect women. As I said earlier, the committee study of Bill C‑16 took place despite the deliberate attempts by our Conservative colleagues to do what they think is their duty. Unfortunately, partisanship is leading to attempts to obstruct our work. By introducing a litany of amendments that are clearly beyond the scope of the bill, our colleagues in the official opposition engaged in a series of delay tactics. Some were posted on social media for purely partisan purposes, effectively turning the committee's work into an election platform. What else can we expect from them? Sometimes I wonder if they even care about being constructive. Despite it all, the work got done and that was in large part thanks to my colleagues from Rivière-du-Nord and Shefford. Protection for the loved ones of victims of coercive control has been expanded to even include pets. That is a good thing. It is good news. An aggravated sentence was also created for the non-consensual distribution of intimate images when the image was produced in the context of aggravated sexual assault. Two decisions made at committee leave gaps that warrant attention because they make the bill less coherent and could jeopardize the safety of the very people that Bill C‑16 seeks to protect. Let me come back to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images when the image was produced in the context of aggravated sexual assault. During the 43rd Parliament, I served as the vice‑chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We conducted a study on the online pornography giant Pornhub. I watched hundreds of hours of pornographic content depicting women being filmed against their will while engaging in sexual acts, whether consensual or not. These women did not even know they were being filmed, let alone that the footage would end up online. As a mother of two young adults, I cannot tolerate the fact that there are brutes, people with no sense of decency, who seriously film videos of these women, and men too, without their consent during sexual acts. Imagine how that can destroy a person's life, career, family and self-confidence at an age when people are still developing as human beings, when they are building their self-confidence. Let me be clear: Committing such an act against people aged 37, 45 or 75 is just as reprehensible and must be deemed both criminally and ethically unacceptable. Our society is changing, our mores are changing and our means of communication are changing. I am terrified that this could happen to any of us these days, and with complete impunity. We must act now, through other means that can address certain shortcomings. Let us take care of ourselves, and let us ensure that justice is done.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is some parliamentary gamesmanship going on. There are procedures that can be used to carry out or slow down our processes, but I implore my colleagues to realize that, on some issues, there is no room for partisanship. I am telling all members of the House that when it comes to issues like safety, crime or even medical assistance in dying, we must set partisanship aside and put people at the centre of our decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I was just talking about partisanship. Partisanship has its limits. Not agreeing with a decision or voting nay is one thing. In my opinion, however, using social media as an election platform is unacceptable. I do not even want to know how much money was raised. Ultimately, what this shows is a lack of seriousness. We may think of ourselves as seasoned parliamentarians representing our constituents, but I am sorry, people are forgetting the essence of what it is to be human.

I think I am bothering some people in the House, Mr. Speaker. I was talking about my colleague across the way. He is coming back and bothering us. It is 10:30 p.m. We are tired. Seriously, we are talking about respect and dignity for women, and that is what we are doing tonight. I think some of my colleagues need some interpretation, because they are not understanding what I am saying at all. In short, the provinces and Quebec should be getting all the resources they need to implement these measures to ensure the respect, dignity and safety of women.

Mr. Speaker, tonight, it is clear that there is a party line. I can tell what my colleague wants. There are consequences to voting against this bill because it falls short and is not broad enough. We can analyze the situation and decide that the bill can be reassessed. Has there been any progress? If the answer is yes, can victims be kept safe right now? If the answer is yes, then I beg them to please hold a free vote.

Mr. Speaker, he touched our hearts on Monday night as he carried the torch ahead of the Canadiens game. Then our hearts were broken by the news of his sudden death. Claude Lemieux, the most formidable playoff performer in history, passed away at just 60 years old. He was a four-time Stanley Cup champion, including in 1986 with Montreal. Claude Lemieux was the playoff MVP with New Jersey and a symbol of the 1990s rivalry between Colorado and Detroit. He embodied the spirit of Quebec. He was proud, he was a fighter, and he refused to give up. When the chips were down, he could be counted on to deliver. His 80 playoff goals rank him ninth all-time in hockey history. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I offer our deepest condolences to his wife, Deborah, and his children, Brendan, Claudia, Michael and Christopher. We are proud of Claude Lemieux in Mont-Laurier, where he grew up. I am also thinking of Mr. and Mrs. Lemieux and Jocelyn. My heart goes out to them.

Mr. Speaker, in the span of two weeks, the Prime Minister announced that he will undermine democracy in a referendum by disregarding the 50%-plus-one rule; he announced, together with Alberta, a new pipeline that crosses the territory of another province without that province's consent; he forced the former environment minister to resign over his shift toward the oil industry; and he proved himself to be an anti-democratic Prime Minister and a proponent of predatory federalism in the service of the oil industry. All of this happened in just two weeks. How can the Liberals support this?

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague. We are talking about consistency in government planning. I serve on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The Liberals are talking about Build Canada Homes, and they want to build more homes. Our party has made concrete proposals and, right now, the industry's survival is in serious jeopardy. Does my colleague agree that it would have been a good idea to include the wage subsidy in the economic statement, or even to fix the spring gap for businesses?

Mr. Speaker, earlier I dared to speak my mind loud and clear, and I will say it again: One day the government will have to get its house in order and become experts on the “Buy Canadian” policy, among other things. I digress, but it will soon be clear why, as that is my question for my colleague. How is it that government investments have a direct impact when we have free trade agreements, and how is it that the government is saying to buy Canadian when the goods will be manufactured abroad, in Europe, for example? This is somehow allowed under these agreements. Can we have a clear framework? The deputy ministers will be appearing before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, and we expect them to be clear, straightforward and precise.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that seniors are facing difficulties. We have been saying for many years that seniors aged 65 to 74 are being discriminated against by the government, and we expected that this situation would be rectified. Instead of offering a poisoned chalice in the form of election-time handouts, the government could have helped people in this age group. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

Mr. Speaker, not long ago, on October 8, I spoke here in the House about Bill C‑11. My background in social psychology means that I have a specific perspective when it comes to victims, actions and their impact. In particular, I want to commend my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton because he and his colleagues had an opportunity to meet with victims, which allowed them to see that the recommendations in the Arbour report needed and still need to be implemented. I thank him for that on behalf of all our military personnel, but also on behalf of veterans, many of whom are victims of wrongdoing and criminal acts. I would also like to share the story of a female veteran. I will not mention her name, but I want to commend her resilience. This veteran was the victim of multiple rapes while she was in the Canadian Armed Forces. Just the sight of a uniform or a medal triggers her. When I say it triggers her, I mean she exhibits disorganized behaviour. It was clear that it was the sight of male authority that triggered an indescribable feeling in her. We saw it. I was there. Five minutes later, she managed to put it into words and explain what happened. As she told us, she has been living with this ever since that day, even after undergoing therapy. She had to repeat her story because there were so many changes. She met with an administrative officer, a caseworker, and another caseworker. She kept having to repeat her story. She knows full well that she will have to live with this for the rest of her life. I commend her courage. I can speak to this from my perspective as a social psychologist in the House today. This veteran, this woman, has to bear her suffering day after day and has to rebuild her life, knowing that there is a system in place to protect her. That is what we are talking about. How many years has it been? It has been over 10 years. What just happened? I am vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. We just completed our most recent report on the unacceptably high rate of suicide among veterans, which was tabled last week. Right now, we are looking into Lifemark, the rehabilitation program for our veterans, to see how it is working. This program is due to be re-evaluated shortly because the contract is renewed every six years. Some veterans have received good services, but there are a lot of problems with the program and that is what I am concerned about. The role of the justice system is to take what is happening in the Canadian Armed Forces and deal with it in the civilian system. That is what it needs to do in general. The committee looked into this and made some recommendations. I even heard two of my committee colleagues say that some of the votes had been unanimous. I feel as though we are in a bad movie. I was obviously not a member of Parliament from 2015 to 2019, but I get the impression that we are reliving a situation where the public is unaware that parliamentarians are being hit with one time allocation motion after another because the government is scared that we will bring up more scandals. We saw it earlier with Cúram. I have also seen it on the other committees I serve on. The government's approach is to be secretive and forget about transparency. The government now has seven members on committees, giving it a complete majority, but it had assured us that this would not prevent it from working collaboratively. Seven days later, it is clear that that is not going to happen, which is appalling. Normally, I struggle to get all my tasks done in a day, but for the past week, committee meetings have lasted only 20 minutes or have been cancelled. When there is an event, we do not resume the meeting later. Some votes will be held tomorrow, and I am convinced that the majority will decide to cancel the meeting, since there will be only one hour left. Is that democracy? Victims are speaking out loud and clear, and it is not just individuals who are speaking out. Factual, concrete reports and situations also exist. What are the Liberals afraid of? I am really trying to contain myself right now. I want to talk about an amendment the Liberals brought forward. It might put some people to sleep, but it is important. It states: That Bill C-11, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 10 with the following: 17 (1) Subsection 165.17(3) of the Act is replaced by the following: (3) The Minister may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular prosecution. ... The last point I read is the part that folks really need to pay attention to. Let me explain what that means. The Liberals are changing something that was not even amended by the committee and that was not even discussed. Seriously, that is what is happening. Worse still, they are even proposing to give the minister the power to issue instructions regarding a particular prosecution. I do not understand the logic. I really need an explanation, and people need to talk to one another. In our democracy, we must negotiate and vote, even if the government has a majority. I do not have much speaking time left, so I will conclude my speech. The bill has been drafted and introduced with the express aim of putting an end to a system where people protect one another, where complaints are swept under the carpet, where victims do not feel heard, believed or respected. Is that what the government has heard from the victims? Has the government really listened to the victims? Has it read the reports by Louise Arbour and Morris Fish? Once these questions have been answered, I can say that military culture will have to adapt to the 21st century. Military culture has to recognize that women are part of the forces. Yes, the military can accept them, but it has to adapt. It has to realize that women can be victimized. That means we have to avoid creating a justice system that tells them straight off, or at least, that gives them the impression, that the die is cast and the system is rigged. I am thinking of all the female veterans I have met in my role as critic for veterans affairs. I see them. I hear them. I believe them.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals give the impression that they are listening, while silently thinking to themselves that they have a trick up their sleeve. They even said that we were traumatizing the people who came to give evidence all over again. I have heard that so many times. Then, when they realize that this sort of incident is not an isolated one, they have to keep it under wraps. What do they do? As they now have considerable powers, they cut short the proceedings, move on quickly, avoid discussion and turn a blind eye to what they have seen and heard. I have hope. I hope they reverse course, because it is true that the Bloc Québécois and the official opposition have constructive and compassionate proposals.

Mr. Speaker, I also appreciate my colleague's work. Why is this not done on a case-by-case basis? Proposals are heard, a preliminary study is done, there is an assessment, and then a decision is made based on need and on what is proposed. When we all agree and then they say that it is wrong, that we should forget about it, that is like telling the minister that he will have the right to do whatever he wants. Seriously, we are going to have to change that, and we are going to do it together.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech. The intent of the bill is to amend the Criminal Code to make it an offence for certain people, in an end-of-life situation, to initiate a discussion about all the options available to a person who is suffering. This is based on discussions. Instead of the offence being based on an employee's behaviour, something else should be done. There are people everywhere, maybe even here, who would not be beyond reproach, yet this bill would amend the Criminal Code to make that an offence. It makes no sense.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply moved by the topic of our discussion. Allow me to explain why. I will start by asking those present and those watching at home to raise their hand if they have cared for someone at the end of their life who sought medical assistance in dying. We are not alone. We can ask people who have lived through the experience and people who are as afraid of this word as they are of the name “Voldemort”. Some people are afraid of discussing death, but death is part of life. This evening, we are talking about a change to the Criminal Code and a serious offence because it involves talking about death. That is exactly the issue. I would like to look back over Quebec's experience. The Parti Québécois opened the debate on medical assistance in dying back in 2012, as my colleagues will remember. Not only was it a human-centred process, it involved a highly collegial approach to human dignity. I want to commend Véronique Hivon for setting partisanship aside. Today, that approach is paying off. In 2014, three years before my father passed away, the minister of health and social services, Gaétan Barrette, was spearheading this file with Ms. Hivon. All parties in the National Assembly reached an agreement, because they showed a willingness to understand. No one can understand what the individual is going through. Even I cannot understand, and I lived this experience for 20 years. Quebec is not alone. MAID is also available in Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Colombia, Spain, Switzerland, Austria, Portugal and several of the U.S. states, to name just a few. Some of those places have had it for decades. I would like to share my own story. It will make it clear that our issue is not with proposing a change to the Criminal Code. In 1997, I was very, very young. I still am, but that will not last forever. In 1997, we received devastating news. My father was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Those who knew Mauril Bélanger, who was a member of the House of Commons, know that it can progress very quickly. In my case, in our family's case, it lasted 20 years. Over the course of 20 years, my father gradually lost his ability to move and take care of himself, and he had to rely on others. I had many discussions with my father. We never had an inclination to talk about the reality of what happens to all of us, that is, that we are born, we live and then we die. When the time came, when his physical and psychological suffering became unbearable, it made perfect sense to talk about it, but it was still extremely difficult. Here is what I learned. I could not imagine losing my father, who was of sound mind but was suffering. He was the one who told me that we needed to talk about it and learn what options were available. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but this is a very sensitive subject for me, and I can hear people having conversations. If they want to discuss medical assistance in dying, we can talk about it later outside the House—

Mr. Speaker, we all have different abilities to focus. I tend to hear everything and see everything. It may be a character flaw, but noise bothers me. Members do not have to listen, but I would ask them to be quiet. I will continue by sharing what I experienced and what I have seen over the past few years. I hope that my colleague who introduced this bill has had the opportunity to openly discuss the scope of the issue we are talking about. If someone is pushed to seek MAID as a way to escape suffering, that is of course unacceptable. We all agree on that. However, in this case, the bill seeks to punish someone for having a discussion about possible care options that a person may turn to over the course of their life. That is something else entirely. We should be examining the behaviour of certain people who are supposed to show compassion to those at the end of life but who engage in unacceptable behaviour, such as systematically suggesting MAID on the grounds that the person seems to no longer be able to endure their suffering, as if we could simply offer them a way out. It is not as simple as that. I have experienced it. Those who raised their hands earlier have experienced it too. There is a problem, and I hope that we will really take care of it. We are talking about treatment and care. We have been hearing about this for quite some time. The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is currently studying the partners in Canadian veterans rehabilitation services program. Right now, we are learning that some specialists do not have what it takes to support veterans, because they do not understand the realities, the trauma or the wait times veterans face. Some veterans have to wait three years. I can understand when someone comes to the point where they are no longer able to endure what they went through after serving their country. They were told that they mattered, they dared to defend their homeland to the point of risking their own life, and then when they came home, they were told to take a number because they could not be served right away. We are currently assessing whether the program is worthwhile and whether the service providers have the skills to meet the standard that veterans deserve. I think it is truly unfortunate that another tactic is being used today to avoid addressing the core issue. A committee is currently meeting. If we can speak openly together, people will understand that this bill makes no sense if the goal is truly to hold those who act maliciously toward people at the end of life accountable.

Mr. Speaker, once again, what movie is this? I was there, back in 1997, in the era of the labour market agreement, occupational training and the creation of the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail. It is no mystery what is going on here in Ottawa. Businesses are struggling to survive because of the relentlessly rising tariffs. We were told to expect a big surprise after a year. Why is the government is still trying to interfere in areas that are functioning well in the provinces? Why is it proposing this bill? Does the government not have enough work or what?

Mr. Speaker, I worked for decades for labour market partners, including the youth employment centres that we have in Quebec, and I learned one thing: Employment insurance benefits were the only benefits that had not yet been transferred for Quebec to manage. Unfortunately, it did not happen. Right up until 2017, there were prior learning recognition agreements in place to allow educational institutions and businesses, among others, to work together on round tables to ensure that specific skilled trade qualifications were aligned with the labour market. It started in 1997, and by 2017, progress was still being made on issuing credentials in each province, and it was up to them to make improvements if they had difficulty in managing things, but what we are seeing today is a step backward. Earlier, I asked if the government was looking for more work, but I will go even further than that. The government wants to interfere. It wants to be the overseer even though the provinces have what it takes. Do not tell me that a cross-jurisdictional approach is what will help specialized workers in their respective fields. I would really like Quebec and the other provinces to have their own lists, and I know it is working very well in Quebec. They are even asking for more. They want the money for EI benefits to be managed properly by experts in the field, like professional development and, of course, education are. If not, I will go work at Quebec's National Assembly managing specialized trades.

Mr. Speaker, far too many veterans suffer from mental health issues. To help them, Ottawa created a program called partners in Canadian veterans rehabilitation services, or PCVRS. However, instead of helping, it is hindering. A survey of 51 mental health professionals found that PCVRS makes veterans' health worse. They are misdiagnosed by unqualified employees. Worse still, if they boycott the program, Ottawa threatens to reduce their benefits. Do veterans deserve that kind of treatment?

Mr. Speaker, veterans who are suffering are forced to participate in PCVRS under pressure from Ottawa, even when it worsens their symptoms. They are caught up in a bureaucracy that is hurting them. They are repeatedly confronted with their traumas by poorly trained therapists who contradict the advice of health care professionals, yet Ottawa is considering extending the program for another six years without evaluating its effectiveness. Before moving forward, will the minister launch an independent investigation into the human impact of PCVRS?

Mr. Speaker, the words “sense of duty”, “tenacity” and “strength of character” are not enough to describe retired captain Hélène Le Scelleur. She served with courage in the Canadian Armed Forces for 28 years, particularly in the Balkans and in Afghanistan, guided by a deep sense of duty. However, her dedication extends beyond her uniform. Today, she continues to serve in different ways. She is very outspoken about injustices, particularly at Veterans Affairs Canada and on the issue of the Presence in Absence monument. She even had the courage to resign from the Women Veterans Council, despite the consequences, in order to remain true to her convictions. Today, she is pursuing doctoral studies with the same determination. Hélène Le Scelleur is a woman who keeps going even in the face of adversity, and she deserves our respect.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's remarks, and I would like to point out that, when we discussed foreign interference, several colleagues here agreed with me, following those 70 meetings, that an independent public inquiry into the issue of foreign interference needed to be called. This bill is not only important, but essential. Since our own Privacy Commissioner lacks sufficient enforcement powers to deal with the Chinese vehicles that are coming to Canada, would my colleague agree that this is urgent and that the committee needs to have safeguards strong enough to ensure that our elections reflect a healthy democracy?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's attention to detail. I have attended several meetings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with him. I have a question for him. What about public funding for parties? The goal is to promote fairness, justice and democracy. Clearly, one of the things that public funding does is reduce the number of friends and loved ones with deep pockets. That is what was done in Quebec. The donation limit was lowered to $100 a year, regardless of how much each individual can afford to give, and the limit goes up to $200 during an election year. In 2011, the Conservatives eliminated the per-vote subsidy. Basically, to compensate the parties, the allowable amount was increased. This amount is now more than $1,780. It must be even higher, in fact, and honestly, it is really unfair. Would my colleague be willing to revisit the idea of a limit of $500 per person, for example? How about that? This is a topic that will likely be discussed at committee.

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, it is important for me to express my full support tonight for “Le communautaire à boutte” movement. Before becoming an MP, I served as executive director of the Hautes-Laurentides community development corporation for over five years. I worked closely with more than 50 organizations that provide services that government agencies cannot. These are dedicated people. I commend the organizations that have been around for 40 years. I will name a few: La Griffe d'Alpha, Maison Lyse-Beauchamp for the homeless, L'Arche du Nord, La Petite Mission, and Maison de la Famille du Nord. There are so many of them and they are part of our social fabric. Our regions need them, and this is a unique model that Quebec has developed over the decades. I stand with them wholeheartedly in ensuring that services for the vulnerable are not interrupted in the future. Today, we are discussing Bill C-236. The Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of the bill because we want to study it in committee. It is a Conservative Party bill that is at second reading stage. I should mention, however, that the bill may be unnecessary. Let me explain. The case cited by the Conservative Party to justify this bill shows that the Parole Board of Canada already takes account of refusals to disclose the location of a victim's body and refusals to admit guilt. In fact, Australia since 2015, the United Kingdom since 2019 and the United States since 2021 have had similar legislation in some of their federated states, although studies suggest that these laws are unnecessary and even violate certain rights of inmates, in addition to transforming the goal of the parole system from rehabilitation to punishment. As is always the case when the Conservative Party introduces bills related to the justice system, the Conservatives' vision of justice is not justice in the noble sense of the word. All too often, the official opposition wants Canada's justice system to be about revenge. Not only that, but the parole system already takes certain criteria into account when making its decisions. Once again, the Conservative Party wants the legislative branch to play a role in the administration of justice. Once again, the Conservative Party wants to severely restrict the discretion of the members of the Parole Board of Canada. Once again, the party of law and order wants to control the law. Nevertheless, setting aside partisan considerations, I want to say that, despite these reservations, I recognize that victims' loved ones deserve answers and that this bill deserves to be studied in committee. This actually allows me to point out that parliamentary committee work is fundamental to demystifying complex issues. My colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon just talked about this in the context of Bill C-8. It is easy to introduce bills to pander to one's base, but the bill has to pass the smell test and that is what parliamentary committees are for. It is an opportunity to hear from academics and experts on the issues at hand. In this case, that will include families, loved ones, and the Parole Board of Canada, to learn in detail exactly how things work in practice. We need to challenge assumptions and sit down to ensure that the system is working as it should. That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill, because this matter deserves to be addressed with all the seriousness, diligence, and impartiality that the issue of justice demands. Just two weeks ago, when I rose here to speak to a Conservative Party justice bill, I said that the justice system is under attack throughout the west. It is a tactic employed by the far right and various fringe groups. I have said this on several occasions since becoming a member of Parliament, and that concerns me. Using the justice system and judges as political tools is a road to nowhere, except to inflate dubious theories. Do we want an American-style system, with all the problems that come with it, or do we want a justice system worthy of the name? I believe and hope that we can all agree on the answer. Populism is on the rise all over the world. It is a troubling trend. As a member of Parliament, I have made it my mission to stand as a bulwark against populism and to always focus on the facts. I urge my colleagues from all parties to do the same. Let us send this bill to committee and have it studied thoroughly to ensure that it meets our legal principles. That is why I am saying here today that we need to look at the facts and send the bill to committee.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to speak to Bill C‑220, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding immigration status in sentencing. I think it is a shame that we have to talk about immigration this evening because of a bill. What we should be talking about are the business owners and claimants who are paying the price for the unacceptable delays caused by the mismanagement of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. In Laurentides—Labelle, people are concerned and upset and their trust in democratic institutions is suffering. That is the real problem we should be dealing with. The Bloc Québécois is cautious about Bill C-220 because this Conservative bill is rife with disinformation, demagoguery and populism. We are getting used to that. This bill is biased because it conflates facts and perceptions. It conflates the law with the conception of an idea and a value rather than what should take precedence in law: the facts. It is actually harmful to democracy, because not relying on facts is harmful to democracy. That is why the Bloc Québécois wants the bill to go to parliamentary committee so that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights can examine the facts, the reality, the case law, and do diligent work. The judicial system is under attack across the western world. This is a tactic used by the extreme right and alternative movements. Let us not bring this discussion into our province. Quebec is a place that has been spared this rhetoric, and it is our duty as parliamentarians, but also as Quebeckers, to fight against the current trend of having politics interfere with justice. Since becoming a member of Parliament, I have said this many times, and it worries me: weaponizing the justice system and judges is a road to nowhere. All it does is inflate dubious theories. It is the job of parliamentarians to look into the matter. If there is a problem, then it is up to us to fix it, but please, let us not use partisanship to undermine our institutions. I have a question for the Conservatives. They claim to be in favour of law and order, so why did the Harper government amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or the IRPA, to reduce the criterion for serious criminality from two years less a day to six months? I think that is a valid question. Why did the Conservatives amend the IRPA to prohibit a person from appealing a removal order if they are inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality? Generally, those who support law and order also support fairness in the justice system. They support transparency in the justice system. They support a justice system that judges everyone equally. However, that is not the premise of this bill. The Bloc Québécois agrees with the principle that the effect that a sentence has on the offender's immigration status cannot be the determining factor in sentencing. However, that should not be done with a negative view. The Conservatives mentioned the Pham case, but do they understand it? The 2013 ruling does not state anywhere that the immigration consequences of a sentence must take precedence. The court simply noted that the immigration consequences of a sentence are one consideration among many. In addition, Bill C‑220 also states that a judge would not be able to consider the effect that a sentence might have on a family member. I want to point out that I am deeply uncomfortable with this provision. It could have the effect of undermining the best interests of a child. That is very concerning. I am also concerned about the Conservatives' attempts to restrict judges' discretion. In order for judges to do their job, they must have the freedom to impose sentences that are individualized and proportionate to the gravity of the offence. They must be able to weigh all the factors. I want to be clear: The Supreme Court does not order judges to impose sentences based solely on a person's immigration status, but rather to consider it as one factor among others so that the sentence and its consequences are proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The Conservatives want a system of revenge. What I want, and what my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois want, is an impartial, transparent justice system that is free of partisanship. Do we want an American-style system riddled with abuse, or do we want a real justice system? A justice system is what defines a government. I am a sovereignist, as everyone knows. I want Quebec to be a republic, as everyone also knows. In the meantime, I live in Canada and I do not want to live in a society where the justice system is at the mercy of the government in power. That is dangerous.

Mr. Speaker, in life, there are people who inspire us with their courage, self-sacrifice, strength and dignity in the face of adversity. Since becoming the veterans affairs critic, I have come across some truly exceptional human beings. I have entered a world that is too often overlooked, one that is characterized by humanity, dedication and altruism. One person in particular is always on my mind. He is one of those guardian angels who, each in their own way, have taken their combat experience and used it to help others. Serving others is their mission in life. I would like to introduce the House to retired captain Jocelyn Démétré, the founding president of Hero Lodge, a retreat in the Northwest Territories that he funds with revenue from his book, and a recipient of the Minister of Veterans Affairs Commendation. I respectfully salute Jocelyn Démétré, a hero whose has made it his mission to serve every day.

Mr. Speaker, I did pick up on a desire to make greenhouse gases less and less noticeable. I actually met with the President of the Treasury Board this morning, and we talked about regulatory sandboxes, among other things. I am very concerned. I am very concerned because, on this opposition day, it is clear that economic pressure from the fossil fuel lobby has resulted in an opposition motion aimed at tearing down what is being built. Is my colleague aware that, if there is pressure in the interest of economic prosperity, the new measures in the budget will make it possible to change course and potentially not meet the targets?

Mr. Speaker, tonight, the fundamental question is: Why debate this motion in the House? This question seems very simple, but it is crucial to me. Since I have been a member of the House of Commons, I have rarely seen orders of reference from the House to committees, other than for questions of privilege. I have seen my share of questions of privilege. I sat on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for three years. I was surprised to see the Liberals take the initiative to move this motion. Let us examine it together. To begin, the motion asks for the following: That: (a) the House recognize, (i) that the government is making historic investments in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to meet our NATO funding targets earlier than committed, First of all, that is not true. More than 10 years ago, Justin Trudeau's Liberals committed to reaching 2%. It is a bit ridiculous to claim that this is earlier than expected. The second point reads as follows: (ii) the assumption that an increasing number of CAF service members will lead to a growth in the ranks of Canadian veterans over the next few decades; That is an insult to the active military personnel who contact me as the Bloc Québécois veterans critic. The housing for active military personnel is outdated. There is a severe lack of investment. It is scary. The houses are like sieves. We are hearing more and more news about this every day. The third point says this: (b) it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to undertake a study on alternative ways to make use of underused and surplus federal lands and buildings, in ways that help reinvigorate communities by serving as centers that provide services for veterans, provided that... I will always be an ally of veterans. I will always be there to stand up for their basic needs. I keep saying that we need to see to their basic needs. What are those needs? They are food, shelter, and security. I am the first to call for dignity for veterans. I am the first to ask that their needs be met, that they be consulted—it is a small word, but it is crucial—and that we not patronize them. However, I am very aware that they are currently being exploited. Let me be clear: I am in no way against the substance, but I am against the form. If the Liberal government wanted to launch a study on the subject, it could have done so in committee. The Liberals have four members on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. Those four members are competent and know how the parliamentary system works. They know full well that they can move a motion to study the subject. However, the government has decided to do so here in the House. I come back to my question: why? House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, at page 795, states the following: The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates has a very broad mandate, which includes, among other matters, the review of the effectiveness, management and operation of the central departments and agencies, and the review of the effectiveness, management and operation of new and emerging information and communication technologies by the government. That is a lot. The committee is also mandated to review the process for considering the estimates and supply, and the format and content of estimates documents. The Standing Orders also empower the committee to amend certain votes that have been referred to other standing committees as part of the estimates, in coordination with those committees. I will ask my question again. Why does Motion No. 16 direct the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to look into this matter? If we are talking about providing housing for veterans, I am sure that my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs would be honoured to study the issue of housing, homelessness and surplus land available. That is committee work, after all. I fundamentally believe that committees are autonomous and that their work should not be dictated by the House. This precedent, a word we have heard so often, would give members of non-recognized parties like the NDP and the Green Party the ability to direct the work of committees based on an order of the House. I am concerned about setting this kind of precedent because it is not being done out of compassion. Perhaps it is being done for the sole purpose of getting around the Bloc Québécois, which holds the balance of power at standing committees. We will say that again and again, because this situation is exceptional. The government knows that just three votes in the House will enable it to do an end run around Quebeckers, who wanted 22 separatists, 22 people who love Quebec, 22 champions of Quebec's distinct nature, 22 patriots to advocate for them right here in the Parliament of Canada. Many people might find this part of the process irritating. I can hear them laughing, but they cannot bulldoze us. The rules of democracy exist to prevent unilateral decisions. Parliament must not become a chamber that rubber-stamps executive decisions. It must be a chamber of debate, reflection and oversight of government. As a member of the Bloc Québécois, I will always stand up to defend these fundamental and intrinsic principles of the Quebec sovereignist movement.

Madam Speaker, this is not an easy subject, but it is important to talk about it. I told my colleague earlier how resilient and courageous he is. He is taking action and wants to make things better. For those who did not hear his speech, I will try to explain what Bill C-231 is all about. The bill seeks to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act to clarify the measures governing addiction treatment programs for young persons. This would allow courts to delay sentencing to enable the young person to participate in an addiction treatment program. The bill also provides that failing or refusing to comply with treatment conditions cannot by itself result in detention. My colleague can rest assured that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of a bill that will help save lives. I am thinking of David and David's friends, and I am thinking of Caro and my colleague, because Christmas is right around the corner, and that is always a major milestone. I am glad that we already talking about it in 2025, so we can take action as quickly as possible. My colleague is right to say that the “war on drugs” approach does not work. I can speak to this because, when I first started out in my career way back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, I was involved in psychosocial intervention in the areas of drug addiction and suicide prevention. At that time, things were very different than they are today, as frontline workers would go directly to the scene whenever an incident was reported. Today, tighter security is required because there are increased concerns and complications when a mental health issue, including drug and psychotropic use, goes undiagnosed. It became clear to me when I was 20 that people should not be punished; rather, they should be supported and listened to so that they can receive the necessary care. I would also like to say that for a number of years, I have almost always had a naloxone kit with me. As elected representatives, we are often in contact with crowds at events, and we never know when a situation may arise. I would encourage all my colleagues to get a kit, as naloxone is an extremely valuable antidote than can save a life in the event of an overdose. This gives me an opportunity to share that in the years that followed, I made sure that the community organizations where I lived had as many tools as possible to help teens and young adults. I commend the work done in Quebec by the organization Mesures alternatives, which has locations throughout the province. The one I am most familiar with is Mesures alternatives des Vallées du Nord. I wish to recognize Marc‑André Roy in particular. I do not know how long he has worked there, but I do know that his focus is prevention, and I am sure the statistics reflect some solid results. Although my colleague did not wish to present any statistics, I think it would be a good idea to compile the current data so that once the bill is passed, the impact on prevention efforts can be measured. We can say already that Quebec has an advantage in the form of its 2018-20 national strategy for psychoactive substance overdose prevention, which aligns perfectly with the steps proposed by my colleague in his action plan. First and foremost, we must educate people and raise their awareness. That is what we are doing today. That is important. Second, we need to prevent overdoses and re-educate people about harmful effects. That means we need to address the underlying causes of drug use. My colleague put it very clearly: People use drugs recreationally, but there are also those who use drugs as a crutch because they are suffering. Obviously, that is what we are dealing with today. We need to produce legislation, along with public policies and regulations. We need to have monitoring and surveillance. This bill will allow us to collect information and to have the tools needed to ensure that our young people receive the support they need. Obviously, we also need research, training and addiction treatment. I spoke about naloxone a few minutes ago, but naloxone is an emergency antidote for use in exceptional circumstances. There are many other treatments that I will not speak to this morning. Obviously, there is treatment of pain. Sometimes, people use cannabis to relieve physical pain, while others use it for mental pain. We need to speak about that too, and I have seen that more and more people are willing to do so. Men and women of all ages are increasingly opening up about their pain. Suffering is not something that can be measured; it is something each of us experiences differently. I would therefore like to commend my colleague for his very moving speech. If he needs a hand at any time to fine-tune this life-saving bill, we are here for him. It is very sad that David will not be here this Christmas, but the action we are taking here will have an impact, and it will not just be a drop in the ocean. On the contrary, it is a small step that will turn into a big step, and it will help all young people, particularly those experiencing major challenges. With the two minutes I have left, I am going to share some statistics. As my colleague said, the opioid crisis caused 20 deaths a day in Canada in 2024. That adds up to 53,821 opioid-related deaths, according to data from March 2025. Men are more likely than women to die from an opioid overdose. In 2024, Quebec ranked fourth in terms of opioid-related deaths, with 645 deaths. Even one death is too many. I explained the approach being used in Quebec. Considering the reduction it achieved in deaths from opioid overdoses, I hope that all the other provinces and territories will consider using it too. I thank my colleagues, and I want to take this opportunity to wish them all a happy holiday. I also want to wish my colleague a lot of courage and compassion.