Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question about the bill's shortcomings. Obviously, we are here to debate. However, although the government is saying that the bill will fully address the demands of the various indigenous communities, we know that there are problems with it that could result in the demands or desires of first nations and Inuit not being taken into account, even if there is a commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today. This is the first time that I am rising this fall, and I realized this morning that this is the 11th year that I have had the privilege and honour of coming to the House to serve the people of Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan. I want to give a shout-out to them. I met people all across my immense riding this summer, and I want to assure my constituents that I am still passionate and enthusiastic about representing them. That is what I will do during this parliamentary session, which certainly looks like it will be a very exciting and busy one, even though it may not seem that way yet. I imagine there will be some twists and turns. I represent a huge riding where 15% of the population is indigenous. Of course, seeing as I am the critic for indigenous and northern affairs, this bill is of particular interest to me. I am therefore pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. The Bloc Québécois said right from the start that we support this bill. Now, at third reading, following the study in committee, we still support this bill, which I must point out is the result of a request from first nations and Inuit. This bill reflects these communities' request for a commissioner or some structure to serve as their watchdog for modern treaty implementation. This is something they have been asking for for years—more than 20 years, in fact. Today's topic of discussion is something that has been called for for decades. If I may briefly digress, I would point out that the same can be said of practically all bills and topics brought before the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs: that they have been called for for decades. That is a really long time to wait for results. Now, having reached third reading, we are on the verge of achieving a result. I therefore urge all of my colleagues to vote in support of this bill, despite the criticism we heard in the speeches. Obviously, we are here for the same purpose: to critique the bill by analyzing its weaknesses. First nations and Inuit have been calling for the creation of a body to hold the federal government accountable, because some of its obligations have been objectively unmet. This has been going on for decades. It is discouraging for first nations and a waste of their resources, which is obviously something we would like to avoid. I will come back to that later. The bill to create the position of commissioner for modern treaty implementation would help reduce these delays, or at least, that is our hope, and that is the intent of the bill. It would ensure that less time, resources and energy are wasted on processes that should be conducted not necessarily quickly, but efficiently. I think we all know that we would not be discussing this bill today if the federal government were actually fulfilling its obligations. First nations and Inuit are simply asking for what is rightfully theirs. They are being told that the government is going to work on modern treaties and sign treaties and that this work will continue for several years to come. If the government had been committed to this and had worked diligently, always in consultation with first nations, treaties would have been signed faster and there would have been no need to go to court, for example, to resolve certain issues. I would say that this bill is a step in the right direction, specifically toward delivering the accountability required of the government when signing a treaty and ensuring seamless implementation of modern treaties. Obviously, even beyond this specific bill, the Bloc Québécois supports self-determination for nations. We know that this bill is the result of a commitment to reconciliation, which we also agree with. This is one measure that could improve the situation. We still hear about colonialism and assimilation today. This is something the government can do to break the cycle. Based on that principle alone, without going into the details of the bill itself, this is another reason why the Bloc Québécois supports the bill, that is, to move the government away from its paternalistic approach, which, obviously, dates back to the beginning of Canada's history and even before that. In committee, we heard testimony about the bill from several first nations. Naturally, they are all in favour of this bill being passed, particularly given that it was co-drafted. First nations and Inuit were consulted when the bill was being drafted in order to ensure it reflects their wishes and expectations. Several organizations told us that the federal government is stepping back from implementing treaties or is only implementing them in part. That is why they want a commissioner. The government is failing to honour its own commitments to first nations and Inuit communities. They want to cast off the shackles of colonialism, but they cannot because the government that should be helping them is in fact putting obstacles in their way. I am paraphrasing, but that is what we were told in committee. I just realized that I am only on page three out of 10, and I may not have enough time, so I will have to cut my speech short. In short, the testimony we heard leaves the impression that the federal government is signing treaties to try to satisfy first nations or that, at the very least, it is working on drafting treaties, but the work is extremely slow. As I was saying earlier—and I will say it again, because it is important—the issue of money often came up in committee. Communities have to pay thousands of dollars to take the federal government to court in hopes of winning their case. As I said, that takes a lot of resources, both financial and human, and it really gets the communities' hopes up. People sometimes forget this, but these communities do not have millions of inhabitants. They are sometimes very small communities that obviously do not have the same resources as the federal government. This is really David versus Goliath. They are like dwarves going up against giants. It is very difficult for first nations or Inuit communities to see these extremely demanding legal proceedings through to the end. These communities sometimes have a fairly small population, and, as I was saying, they do not have all the necessary means. As I said, these cases can sometimes drag on for decades. It is easy to imagine the consequences that these legal costs can have on the communities. These are financial choices that they also have to make. First nations and Inuit also pointed out in committee that the commissioner will not have any enforcement powers. The Bloc Québécois also raised that same criticism of this bill. Yes, the commissioner is there to act as a watchdog for treaty implementation. They can shine a light on shortcomings, such as departments' lack of understanding or the government's inability to act in the best interests of nations that want to be able to use their resources to help, but that is not enough. The commissioner cannot force the government to act. The trouble is that, although the commissioner can draw attention to what is not working, there is not necessarily an immediate solution. In fact, this goes beyond the government's mere willingness to act, even though we agree that, without this willingness, there would be no results at all. There is work to do on understanding modern treaty implementation, as we heard at committee. Aside from the government itself, the departments are also involved. As one might expect, treaty implementation does not only involve the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the Department of Indigenous Services. Multiple departments must address the issues at the same time. This is often done in silos, which means that interpretations differ from one department to the next. Since the interpretations are different, the work is not done in the same way. Obviously, their approaches should be harmonized, but that cannot happen at the end either. That also causes delays. I mentioned the government's willingness, but it is a question of finding solutions to ensure that departments can work together. They are already working together to a certain extent, but interpreting the treaties themselves is a huge problem. I do not wish to speak on behalf of civil servants, but this means hours of extra work for them. We need to find solutions that enable dialogue and harmonization. As I said, that is exactly what needs to happen so that treaties can be implemented more quickly and efficiently. The trouble is this silo mentality. As we can see, there is a willingness that may be symbolic, to a certain extent. As one of my colleagues mentioned earlier, there are issues or difficulties that are already on the table, but the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs is already aware of them. We will share some of the shortcomings in a report. However, there is still work to be done, whether it be to give the commissioner an enforcement role or to address the issue of harmonizing different departments' interpretations, amongst other things. In closing, I humbly reiterate the Bloc Québécois' support for Bill C-10. I am the Bloc Québécois critic for indigenous and northern affairs. It is a special role, because it means acting as spokesperson for another nation within a government that is obviously a colonialist government. It is still a colonial government in the eyes of first nations and indigenous peoples. Being their spokesperson requires me to display humility and to be willing to set aside or suspend my biases in order to try to understand what they want. It requires me to speak on behalf of those communities, which, in this case, are asking for a commissioner who can defend their interests and expedite treaty implementation. We support the establishment of this office. We do not support creating yet another agency with more expenses and more red tape, as some of my colleagues have incorrectly said. We just need to know what is happening. First nations and Inuit want to know. They are asking us to shed light on what is happening. As I said earlier, if this can push the government to act more promptly and effectively, then we are certainly on board. That is what first nations and Inuit are asking for. To conclude, I hope that all the parties will agree with the bill so that we can pass it. We have been discussing it for more than one Parliament. That shows just how long certain processes can take. There is still work to be done to establish the office itself, but I hope it will be set up in the coming years so that modern treaties can be implemented faster, with the simple goal of improving the well-being of first nations and Inuit communities.

Mr. Speaker, it has been seven years since I have sat across from a majority government. I imagine it should be pretty easy for the government to pass legislation quickly. However, it is important to listen to the opposition parties. Even though I do not necessarily agree with everything my colleague says, the fact remains that this bill could use some improvement. I would also like to remind members that, irrespective of the bill, the government must be willing to move forward on modern treaties. It is not only the commissioner who must push this forward. If the government were willing to do so, there would be no need to even vote on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this has no bearing on the bill, but yes, there are modern treaties. As a Bloc Québécois member, I leave it to the Government of Quebec to reach its own decision in this regard. Personally, I believe that no country can be developed without the first nations, even a country like Quebec. My colleague is well aware that I am a sovereignist. The first nations have a tremendous role to play. I also believe that the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador wants that too. First nations need to be part of every discussion. As I see it, that is extremely important. We have an opportunity to rewrite history in way that is fair, equitable and mindful of culture and language. My colleague knows that the Wendat nation is reviving its language. When a language comes back to life, it affects culture too. Obviously, I see this as a promising sign. I believe that sovereignty and the self-determination of peoples are important for both Quebeckers and first nations, but there are ways to work together, maybe even to create a country together.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and congratulate him in turn on his 11 years of representing the citizens of Rivière-du-Nord so diligently and passionately. Of course, I too am wondering why this bill keeps reappearing in a new form. The government is always the one that drafts it, and there is relative consensus, as I believe the bill will be passed. We have to wonder why it has not been passed more quickly. This always results in delays for first nations and Inuit. In this case, Bill C-10 is causing further delays, and the government is fully aware of that. I do not wish to speculate on the government's intentions, but I hope that this time will be different. It is up to the government to prioritize consideration of the bill, the debate and the vote. If it wants to, it could ensure that the bill does not die on the Order Paper at the end of the current parliamentary session.

Mr. Speaker, I may not always agree with my official opposition colleagues, but that is what I said in my speech. I said that the lack of teeth is what could ultimately give us an additional structure but that we do not know exactly what it might contribute, besides calling attention to the government's shortcomings. We hope this will not be necessary and that the government will simply meet its modern treaty implementation obligations. However, we are going a step further, though it will do no good unless the government is on board. Naturally, as MPs, we can keep working in committee or in the House to ensure that these treaties are implemented effectively.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague from Saint-Jean asked me that question, as it allows me to add something I was not able to mention earlier. As I see it, yes, this does raise some concerns because, on top of that, the government currently has a majority, so it could prioritize certain issues and pass legislation very quickly. Again, I do not want to speculate about its motives, but I have noticed that its interest in first nations seems like lip service. We are talking about this bill, but another bill, one dealing with water, was introduced in June just before the summer adjournment. We have been waiting for that bill for several Parliaments now. Once again, this same government has drafted and reintroduced the bill several times, but in the end, the bill never makes it to the floor for debate, never completes the legislative process and never gets sent to the Senate. I think the government is showing that it has good intentions, but once again, it is not following through. The government needs to take action, but in my view, this might be just window dressing.

Mr. Speaker, I was slow to rise because I was delighted with my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé's comments. We just talked about another topic, infrastructure and airports. Obviously, I have a lot to say about Bill C‑30. I am thinking, for example, of the work done by my colleague from Jonquière on everything to do with the industry. In my riding, workers in the forestry and aluminum sectors need help. The industry also needs help, but the government is doing absolutely nothing. That affects us back home. Budgets, economic updates and supplementary estimates address a number of issues, but a lot of other issues are left out. When I go back to my riding this summer and speak to people, they will not know what the government has done for them, all the more so because it has put their jobs at risk. The Prime Minister said he would come to the aid of all these industries ahead of the CUSMA negotiations, which are dragging on, yet nothing has been done. The suggestions we made—the entirely reasonable proposals put forward by the Bloc Québécois—have fallen on deaf ears with the government. I do not even know if it has looked at them. As my colleague for Berthier—Maskinongé said, we were not consulted on what should be included in these supplementary estimates. I see this as evidence of contempt on the part of government. An opposition is not there simply to oppose. Yes, that is what we are called, and we are on the other side of the chamber, but we also have proposals to put forward. We see what is missing and what is being done wrong. We see how the government is improvising. That is why we are here. We are also here to improve things, for our constituents, of course, but I think we can also help the constituents of the ruling party. My colleague demonstrated this on the issue of pesticides: the government decided to shift its priorities. I do not even know if the economy is as important as public health or if it has become even more important. In my view, it is a truly dangerous practice to allow a minister to listen to lobbyists and ultimately decide that a once-banned pesticide is acceptable after all and can be authorized, regardless of the health implications. They can argue that this is truly more important for the economy, but there is also a connection to be made between the economy and security. This is very concerning. Most of my colleagues have mentioned this, but it is very concerning. The public may not realize it, but it is our role to point out that this is concerning, that the public's health is being put on the back burner to accommodate certain lobby groups that are exerting significant pressure on the government. That is our job. I said I would talk about transportation, and I also spoke about contempt. I would like to remind members that I represent a huge riding. I cannot help that my riding covers 350,000 square kilometres and is mostly along the river, stretching 1,400 kilometres along its banks. It also includes remote areas, since it is a northern riding. Some of these areas are so isolated that they are almost like islands, and obviously do not have access to the services available to people in major urban centres. That is understandable, but with its bill, the government is threatening some of our hard-won gains. I say “gains”, although not everything is perfect. Let us look at airports and ports. I know that airports are included in Bill C-30, but the government also added some ports that it wants to get rid of. In my region, on the north shore, particularly in the eastern part, on the lower north shore, there are 15 airports and ports that the government wants to divest itself of. That is a big deal to me. Yes, it is a big number, but it is also huge in terms of its significance and the message it sends to the people of my region. The government says it has an amazing $25-billion sovereign wealth fund. We have no idea how it will be funded because the government does not have a surplus. What it does have is record deficits. Maybe it needs some ideas. What can it do? It can sell the furniture. It can sell its assets. It can try to squirrel away a little cash, then say that the sovereign wealth fund is funded and will make some amazing projects possible. In regions like mine, this worries people. Some people may not know this because they are not familiar with every riding, but, in my riding, airports are the only link to the outside world. When we say they are people's only link, that means they are the only way to access health care. Anyone about to give birth or in need of medical care has to get on a plane. If we want to get mail from Canada Post, for example, it has to come by plane. If we want workers, they have to come by plane. If we want food at times of the year when the supply ship cannot get through because of the ice, it also has to come by plane. I mentioned ice, but even in summer there are ports where food should be arriving, yet they are no longer in service. People are worried. On the one hand, these are not major ports or airports, and private companies see no benefit in buying them. They really have no interest in doing so. What worries us is that the government wants to divest itself of assets. We are fine with that if it can make money from it, but, on the other hand, we have seen that the only way for the government to make money is to make cuts across the board. It is not creating wealth; it is scraping together a bit here and there, asking where it could find a bit of money, given that it cannot manage to create any. It is absolutely incapable of doing so. That is what the government is doing right now, so we are wondering whether it is going to help us. For starters, this infrastructure is run down. Some of it is dangerous. We cannot even access some parts of the wharves, even though food is delivered using those wharves. People board boats there too. Their safety is already at risk, and the government is not putting enough money into this infrastructure to maintain it and keep people safe. Now, the government is saying that it is going to try to sell that infrastructure. It is going to try to sell this rundown infrastructure to someone when it does not bring in any money. That does not work. What is the government telling people in my riding? It is saying that it is simply going to stop taking care of that infrastructure and just abandon it. It is going to close certain airports and shut down certain wharves. I mentioned 15 ports and airports, but there are more. There is also the Wabush airport, which is going to be put up for sale. Wabush is next door to my riding, and the airport there provides access to some parts of my riding. It is actually in Labrador, but that is where I have to fly into, like many other workers, doctors, nurses and so on. That airport is critical for us. I think it is contemptuous to turn up like that and make a big announcement saying that the government is going to find $25 billion by selling infrastructure without even telling the public about it. The government should reassure the public by saying that, even though the lower north shore is not profitable, the government will keep its ports and airports and make the necessary updates. The government is always saying that the north should be populated, that it is a strategic territory, that indigenous communities should be supported and that it should be developed. These are communities of 200, 400, 500 and 1,000 people. By depriving these communities of key infrastructure and the funding that goes with it, the government is telling these communities to close their doors and towns and not engage in development. There would be thousands of square kilometres where absolutely nothing will get done, even though there is extraordinary potential there. What is more, people are already developing these regions. Imagine the effect of such news on these communities when no one calls the developers. Neither the Minister of Transport nor his parliamentary secretary has given an answer to these communities. Are they supposed to wait on their development projects? We need wharves for development. We need an airport to attract residents. We are trying to develop our tourism industry, but no one will be able to get to our communities anymore, unless they come by rowboat, and they can only do that two weeks out of the year, because the water is too rough the rest of the time. It is the opposition's job to speak out against this. It is my role as the member of the riding to say that this does not make sense. I have to ask the Liberals to answer our questions. I would really like for the minister to ask me questions about these airports and ports so that I can discuss the situation with him. However, this should not be done with contempt. The government should not be leading people to believe that it is going to make all kinds of money by selling infrastructure that is not sellable and that no private buyers will be interested in. All of that is just part of what is in Bill C-30. That is the substance. It is unbelievable. As for the form, the government does not even want to discuss it in the House. This is an authoritarian government. I do not like using that word, but it is increasingly applicable. Ten years ago, I would never have thought that I would have to say this. I spoke about arrogance and contempt. The government does not listen; it puts blinders on and does whatever it wants, even though the members sitting on my side of the House say on behalf of the people of Quebec and Canada that this is not what they want. I would like the government to listen to us and to give us the proper amount of time to debate. The Liberals are setting a new record for the number of closure motions. Meanwhile, silencing members means silencing the people in my riding and in Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, I will answer my colleague's question in two parts. First, when I hear that all Canadians have been heard, I would really like my colleague to come to the lower north shore. I invite him to come to the lower north shore and Minganie this summer to tell people that the 15 ports and airports that his government would like to sell off or perhaps even close is really what they asked for. They did not ask for villages to be shut down. Then, on the subject of the sovereign wealth fund, we are told that all countries have one. However, my colleague is overlooking one small detail: The other countries that have such a fund are funding it with their budgetary surpluses. They are not selling off infrastructure to scrape together a bit of money to set up a sovereign wealth fund. That is the huge difference. Canadians did not ask to be saddled with more debt.

Mr. Speaker, that is just one data point. That said, I will not defend the government. Things seem grim over there, and there is not as much spending as we would like to see to stimulate all sectors of our economy, particularly local ones. I think a broader perspective is called for—a vision, even. I am sure my colleague feels that the government's current proposal lacks vision. The way I see it, creating a sovereign wealth fund without actually having the money suggests a lack of vision. They have no idea what they are trying to achieve, but they want to look good. It is meaningless. It is basically the same thing. What are they trying to accomplish? How are they going to fix the situation? What is the government's vision? Maybe that explains the figures we are seeing, but I hope this does not become a bad habit.

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke about ports and airports, I was referring to indigenous communities. I am thinking of the Innu communities of Unamen Shipu, Pakuashipi, Nutashkuan and even Mingan and Ekuanitshit, which need this infrastructure to develop. We are already aware of the needs in these communities, particularly when it comes to housing. We have also discussed infrastructure issues related to water and employment and all manner of issues. There are already a great many areas where we need to take action. Now the government is saying that we might not be able to get out anymore. It is the same for the communities of Nutashkuan, Unamen Shipu and La Romaine. In short, this shows a lack of respect for first nations. It means the government is not listening to them, and it is certainly not consulting them.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-269 on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. First of all, as a proud resident of the north shore, I would like to thank the people back home who work in the energy sector. My riding is the second-largest producer of hydroelectricity in Quebec and in Canada. Obviously, energy is a big part of our identity. I mentioned hydroelectricity, of course, but I am also thinking about projects such as the one in Pessamit, where there are plans to build wind turbines. We want that, too. I am very interested in that work. I also feel a sense of pride because the north shore, like Quebec, built this hydroelectric network on its own, without financial assistance from the government. It is a source of pride for me. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to all the workers in the industry, particularly those at Hydro-Québec. There are privately owned dams, but there are also Hydro-Québec dams. In fact, Hydro-Québec suffered a major power outage back home this morning, and they are still working on it. I wanted to mention that. It is affecting a lot of people in our region, and I want to thank them. They support Quebec's entire economy and industry. I just wanted to express my thanks. It has to be done, and it has to be done properly. As for the bill, considering what I just said, I cannot object to my colleague's bill, which proposes offering a tax credit. The bill is relatively simple: It amends the Income Tax Act to grant a heat recovery tax credit. It is as simple as that. The details may be more complicated, but overall, the bill is straightforward. The Bloc Québécois supports studying this tax credit, which goes hand in hand with the other existing credits. Despite having done so a number of times in the House, we would like to remind members of what the term “heat recovery” means. Obviously, we must agree on a definition before we can move forward. Heat recovery is “the principle of reclaiming heat which would otherwise be lost from a system and, instead, capturing and using it elsewhere to reduce energy consumption”. We hear a lot about reducing energy consumption, but some would argue that it is a matter of optimization. This is definitely about heat that would be lost. This is not about producing more energy, but rather recovering energy and putting it to good use. We hear a lot about productivity, which is something we care about. Why not make use of the energy that already exists? I will digress briefly to talk about hydroelectricity. These days, with climate change, we are facing a number of challenges that we have seen on the horizon for a while, but they are becoming even more apparent now, particularly with regard to water levels, which are going down. Some folks are wondering whether new dams should be built. Do we need more? These discussions have been on the back burner for a while, but we have been thinking about it. If energy usage could be optimized, there would be less demand on the system. Of course we encourage that. In Quebec, Hydro‑Québec already offers financial support programs to encourage businesses to install heat recovery technologies in buildings. Depending on the type of system, up to 85% of the heat energy can be recovered. There are different options, including water loops, cooler heat recovery systems, and plate, cassette-style or thermal wheel heat exchangers. It depends on the system that is used, but the recovery rate can reach 85%. For some methods, it is 20%. It varies, but this is still an opportunity to recover a significant amount of energy and convert it into added value. There are several projects across Quebec. Some have already been launched and are under construction. There is one right near here, in Gatineau. The Zibi complex is working with Kruger to reuse the plant's waste water in winter to meet the community's heating needs. It is right next door, so why not take advantage of that opportunity? There are also several greenhouses, in Drummondville, for example, or Île d'Orléans, where energy is being used. This is happening in many different places and across different sectors. I just mentioned the food industry and greenhouses, but there is also the whole issue of residential heating. These are other possibilities. That said, we agree. Through the government‑owned utility Hydro‑Québec, the Government of Quebec is already helping businesses and manufacturers modify their systems for energy recovery. What we actually want to know is which companies will be eligible for the tax credit. Not all businesses have started working on improving their greenhouse gas emissions. We want to know which ones will be targeted, which ones will be eligible. Again, the Bloc Québécois supports the bill introduced by my colleague from Calgary Centre. That said, we have concerns about the measure's effectiveness. Since there are other measures to support energy efficiency, we wonder whether this one is as good, whether it is better, or whether it is ultimately worth our while to adopt it. What we would like is for the bill to be sent to committee so that we can discuss it, debate it, and, of course, draw on the expertise of experts and scientists in various fields. For example, Environment Canada itself could shed some light on this by telling us the cost of such a measure, which might be difficult to estimate. The tax credit does not exist right now, but we know that it is not mandatory, so we do not know who will use it or on what scale it could be used. At the same time, there is the whole issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, we want to generate power using this recovered energy, but we need to look at what the benefits will be, because we also want to see results. We see that the government has begun dragging its feet in the fight against climate change, so we would really like to know what additional benefits this would produce. As I said earlier in a question to my colleague, this bill is very broad, and we are being told that the entire industry will benefit from it. However, the way we see it, even though the oil and gas sector accounts for 4% to 6% of Canada's GDP, it is responsible for 30% or 31% of the air pollution. We see an imbalance there. We want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but we are also talking about one of the most heavily subsidized industries, which already receives billions of dollars in investment tax credits. We wonder if this will be added as well, because this industry already has everything it needs to make changes and start recovering heat energy, for example, in order to contribute more to the fight against climate change and to improve its carbon footprint. That is what we are wondering. If this is intended to help oil and gas companies, we would like to know that because we do not think that this is the best way to do it. They already have the ability to do this. That is the main issue and the reason why we want the bill to be referred to committee. We are really acting in good faith, so that we can study this objectively and responsibly. I would remind my colleague that the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill and that we will support it so that it goes to committee, where we can discuss it and learn more about all the sectors that could benefit from the technology. We also want to hear from all the stakeholders in those industries that wish to apply for this investment tax credit to improve their productivity and to reduce their carbon footprint. That is why I hope that we can study this bill in committee.

Madam Speaker, I must say that this is fascinating. I too am a member of the opposition in the House and have been for 11 years. As my colleague said earlier, the Conservatives have been in opposition for 11 years. The Bloc Québécois will always be in opposition. The opposition is necessary. The opposition stops the government from becoming a dictatorship, although it has been acting like a dictator in committee ever since it secured its majority and got to set the agenda. We are also seeing dictatorial behaviour in the House, where the government wants to cut our debates short. I think that there is a fundamental problem in the House, and I have been experiencing it for 11 years: The government has a hard time managing its legislative agenda. If it were more organized, we would not be forced to rush through business at the end of every session under the threat of not being able to go home. I think that this is disrespectful to the public. They do not expect us to rush through our work. They expect us to manage our time properly. Take today, for example. If we had simply started with Bill C-9 this morning and debated Motion No. 12 after question period, we would have saved two hours. That would have given the government two extra hours for its legislative agenda. In my opinion, the government is having a hard time being efficient. We were discussing heat recovery earlier. If only we had a time recovery system, we could be more productive not only for all members of the House, but also for the public. That would be nice. I offer that as food for thought for my colleague across the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, visitors strolling through the Parc des pionniers in Baie-Comeau will see a 1,150-foot-long snake winding its way across, made up of some 34,000 rocks painted by people from around the world, like a fantastical creature emerging from the nearby sea. This immense creature sprang from the genius of a young boy, Hugo Jobin. At eight years old, when leukemia was threatening his childhood, Hugo chose to bring his rock snake to life, because he decided then that he would beat not only leukemia, but also a Guinness world record. Two years later, Hugo has beaten cancer and has already beaten every possible record for love and solidarity, alongside an entire community and, of course, his parents, Mélanie and Nicolas, as well as his little sister. I want to thank Hugo for showing us that the act of creating gives us even greater strength. He is 10 years old today. The Bloc Québécois is celebrating life with him and, soon, his Guinness world record.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today. This will be my first time speaking to Bill S‑228, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to sterilization procedures. We are now at third reading. As the Bloc Québécois critic for indigenous relations and northern development, I must say I have heard from a number of witnesses at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. It is hard not to be moved by what indigenous women, as well as women from ethnic minorities, have gone through. We know that these women, including women with disabilities, are the most affected by something that simply should not exist. It is unacceptable, even terrifying, for women. I think the fact that I am here today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to offer our support for the quick passage of this bill is a victory in and of itself, a victory that belongs to all women and their loved ones. We know that when tragedy strikes, we are all affected by what those around us are going through, so this will be their victory too, because I believe that there is agreement on both sides of the House to finally pass this bill, which is actually very straightforward. This bill amends the Criminal Code to clarify that, for the purposes of subsection 268(1), a sterilization procedure is “an act that wounds or maims a person”. The bill defines a “sterilization procedure” as “the severing, clipping, tying or cauterizing, in whole or in part, of the Fallopian tubes, ovaries or uterus of a person or any other procedure performed on a person that results in the permanent prevention of reproduction, regardless of whether the procedure is reversible through a subsequent surgical procedure.” This constitutes aggravated assault. As we have already done with regard to rape, we want to specify in the Criminal Code that this indeed constitutes aggravated assault. We want to ensure that, even though some people have talked about symbols, we want to go beyond symbols. We really want to ensure that we always strengthen the protection of those women whose bodily integrity is threatened. We want to ensure they are protected and we also want to assure them that they will be able to access the same health care as any other woman and that their free and informed consent will be required and taken into account. Certainly, as critic, I wanted to ensure that unintended consequences of medical procedures would not be included. A number of people provided testimony and some expressed concerns. We want to ensure the bill has the desired effect. That is indeed what we tried to do, to allay any possible fears about the bill, and we have done so. Some of the fears were expressed by the medical community, but all the answers provided were able to, as I said, allay people's fears. For example, the definition I read in the bill earlier requires the primary purpose of the procedure to result in the “permanent prevention of reproduction”. One of the examples we considered is that of a patient who consents to chemotherapy, which could indirectly result in sterilization. We ensured that this would not be covered by the bill. It would therefore not be included in the Criminal Code. Once again, the purpose of the bill ensures that it applies only to acts that are intentionally sterilizing. I gave one example, but there are others. The idea is really to target intentional acts, acts that are performed without the patient's free and informed consent. We really wanted this provision to apply both to doctors and everyone else. Situations resulting in sterilization as a side effect are not covered by the bill. Then there was section 45 of the Criminal Code. Section 45 protects doctors who are trying to save lives in emergency situations. Indeed obtaining free and informed consent in an emergency can be extremely difficult. It is certainly a different matter when a life is at risk and action must be taken. It is not considered a violation of the Criminal Code. Section 45 protects the medical profession. That was pretty much the idea we put forward in the last study. The goal was to dispel any fears people might have because not knowing the potential impact is always scary. That could make people reluctant to support the bill. Both sides of the House now agree that the bill should be passed, particularly in light of all the testimony that has been heard. It is important to remember that, while witnesses appeared before the committee in this Parliament, the bill was also examined during the previous Parliament, so we have been working on it for a long time. We have broken down several barriers. Now we are coming to the very end. That means that there is a consensus. I believe that this is the most rigorous and responsible approach, even though, deep down, we fully support a bill like this one, which seeks to put an end to all discrimination regarding sterilization. However, we also need to listen to all community stakeholders and there is a strong consensus there too. To wrap up, I will not read out all of the statistics that I have in front of me or all of the international calls for action. For example, the United Nations is calling for the enactment of legislation to protect all women from this type of injustice or, quite frankly, this type of crime. We are merely strengthening the Criminal Code. I hope that we can also provide the necessary resources. Yes, this is enshrined in the Criminal Code, but we are well aware that not everything can be solved through the Criminal Code. This is an extremely complex issue. Therefore, we need to be able to support women while engaging in dialogue and collaborating with various governmental and non-governmental organizations to ensure we address the full scope of the issue. As I was saying, for me, the recurring theme is truly protecting women, being able to assure them that their bodies belong to them and that no one can make choices for them. What I am saying applies to just about every indigenous affairs issue that comes before the House and that we are involved in. We must consult with women, respect them and ensure that they are stakeholders in the decisions being made on their behalf. In closing, I would like to pay tribute to all the women listening to us.

Madam Speaker, someone mentioned rigour and transparency earlier in the debate. I must admit that I am hearing a lot of rhetoric today. Some folks are trying to simply persuade people, rather than using real ideas to convince them. Yes, some Quebeckers and Canadians are struggling to make ends meet, and I would like to see some solutions brought forward. A $25-billion sovereign wealth fund has been proposed. This is a debt that will be used to finance other major projects, with all decisions being made behind closed doors, without any input from the public. These include pipelines, which entail huge debts and do nothing to reduce our carbon footprint. We know there is no official definition of the term, but I would like to know whether my colleague agrees that these are inflationary measures.

Madam Speaker, we can see my colleague's love for his constituents and his desire to ensure that Canada's economy comes out okay, if not better. I did not get a satisfactory answer to my questions when we talked about rigour and transparency. The Conservative Party is talking about inflationary measures, and I was wondering whether my colleague thinks that a sovereign wealth fund is an inflationary measure since the government's sovereign wealth fund is not being created with money that has already been saved. It is a debt. I am wondering the same thing about the government's major projects and the pipelines in western Canada. The government is spending money, but do the Conservatives consider that to be inflationary spending?

Mr. Speaker, the indigenous housing crisis has been denounced for decades by every community. It is not just a matter of housing. It is also a matter of human rights, education, health, safety and dignity. It has been five years since the government took on an obligation under international law to address this crisis. The Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador has already calculated that there is a shortage of 10,000 housing units in Quebec alone, not to mention the fact that 8,000 housing units need to be renovated and 4,000 others need to be decontaminated. The federal government promised that this would be fixed by 2030. When will they work with communities to come up with a predictable and achievable plan?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-240, the offender rehabilitation act, at second reading. I would like to begin by reminding members that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-240, which was introduced by the member for Kitchener Centre, and we look forward to discussing it in committee. The bill essentially seeks to allow the courts to prescribe measures that offenders must take, such as participating in educational, training or treatment programs. It also addresses addiction to drugs and other substances, and finally, the bill seeks to ensure that the objectives of these programs are met, which could affect eligibility for parole. As I was saying, we support this bill. The bill seeks to amend three acts. First, it would amend the Criminal Code itself so that courts can “prescribe measures that the offender is to take during the custodial period of their sentence, which may include participation in educational, training or treatment programs.” It would also amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act because, in order to meet the program objectives, offenders must be required to undergo training during the custodial period of their sentence and such training must be included in the correctional plan developed by the head of the correctional facility. Assessments conducted by the parole board must also take into account these programs when determining whether to grant parole. Finally, the bill would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act so that, when a person is convicted of trafficking in fentanyl, the court can consider large-scale trafficking as an aggravating sentencing factor. That, in a nutshell, is what passing this bill would mean. We will see later what will happen when, I hope, the bill is considered and debated in committee. I hope it gets that far. It is one thing to say that we agree on passing a bill. Obviously, the rehabilitation of offenders is the very foundation of the justice system. The Bloc Québécois believes in that. However, the government must always ensure it has the means to match its ambitions. Let me explain. In terms of rehabilitation, we can look at the annual report tabled in 2019 or 2020 by the Correctional Investigator of Canada, Ivan Zinger. That report specifically criticized the academic and vocational training provided by Correctional Service Canada. For example, in 2020, 54% of inmates had not completed grade 10, and most inmates did not have access to education. At the same time, other reports have noted the impact of training on rehabilitation. According to Correctional Service Canada, someone who completes at least one level of an education program shows a 75% reduction in the rate of conditional release failure for a new crime, compared to offenders who had educational needs but did not participate in an education program. The impact of these programs is significant; their very availability is significant. The federal, provincial, and Quebec governments have conducted several studies on this. The numbers are compelling and they say this has a major impact. Later in my remarks, I will address the way Correctional Service Canada calculates this positive impact, but, generally speaking, we can agree that it is a positive impact. The annual report also noted that although training was being offered, inmates considered it outdated. The same observation was made about prison work. One of the examples in the report was quite striking. It mentions inmates who have access to computers that are often completely outdated. I am not talking about computers from five years ago, but computers that still use floppy disks. I cannot remember if I have ever used floppy disks from the 1980s. I do not think so. They have enough capacity to hold a single modern photo. These are the tools the correctional service is using to teach the inmates in the penitentiaries. While it is often said that these training programs have a positive impact, we must ensure that resources are available to offer training that is not merely symbolic, but that can have a real impact on inmates' lives and on their rehabilitation once they have served their sentences and are released. In fact, the correctional investigator concluded that the training was so ill-suited to the job market that it would not help them find work upon release. Obviously, in light of the floppy disk example that I gave, I do not believe that people would be able to find work with such training. That is just one example. The training is much broader, but it all points in the same direction. For example, as I said, no real skills are being developed. People cannot find a job if they have not developed any skills. Post-secondary training is almost completely overlooked. The books are outdated, and that applies to e-books as well. In short, all the textbooks that talk about knowledge and training are out of date. The government is failing to give prisoners the tools they need to reintegrate into society. I will provide a summary, which speaks volumes, from Canada's correctional investigator, Dr. Zinger: The investigation into learning behind bars looked at access to education and skills training in the federal correctional system. What is important to note from this study is that Canada is falling further and further behind the rest of the industrialized world in terms of digital learning and skills training behind bars. There are increasing signs of decline, given that little action has been taken to implement dozens of my office's previous recommendations in this area. These are the words of the correctional investigator. I will not list all the findings, but a few are equally meaningful and compelling. The report mentions that 6% of the incarcerated population is engaged in a prison industry through the CORCAN program. It also says that the work does not always lead to the acquisition of skills. It is bad enough that only 6% participate, but worse still that no skills are being learned. Furthermore, enormous waiting lists create a bottleneck for those wishing to participate in a training program. They have to wait a very long time. Clearly, not enough is being done to provide appropriate training that will, in fact, have the desired positive impact. Of course we fully support this bill. The Bloc Québécois does support it, but we want something else, too. The government decided to cut Correctional Service Canada's budget by 15% this year. I should mention that my riding is home to a federal penitentiary. Port-Cartier Institution is located on the north shore, in my riding. I know the management team very well, and I know the union representatives very well, too. I am aware of the difficulties and challenges they are currently facing, especially since the government is not supporting them. The government is cutting the budget by 15% right now. This means that not only are the inmates not getting the support they need, but workers in this sector are also not being properly supported. In my view, that is dangerous. Urgent action is needed. It is dangerous for the inmates, for the employees and, of course, for the public, because the sector does not have the resources needed to meet its objectives. I welcome the bill tabled by my colleague from Kitchener Centre, and I hope the government will listen. I hope it will show courage in its budgets. I believe we need to be forward-thinking and commit to looking after the public. Security is definitely an issue. I hope the government will support all prison staff, management, the officers working there, plus the people in our community. I hope we can move this bill forward. A CIRANO study also noted that Quebec is a world leader thanks to the training program being introduced in its prisons. I look forward to seeing how this bill progresses.

Madam Speaker, I have a question about the forestry industry. This is one of the Bloc Québécois's demands. The industry back home is being hit hard. Many people have lost their jobs and a lot of families are being impacted. We proposed a number of measures. One of them was for the government to refund 50% of the monthly antidumping and countervailing duties paid by forestry producers to the U.S. to give them immediate liquidity. This measure would be cost-neutral. I would like to know why the government did not consider it.

Mr. Speaker, I have a friendly question I would like to ask about women, and more specifically about EI reform, benefits for workers in seasonal industries and ending discrimination against seniors of all ages. We know that women, especially senior women, are more likely to find themselves in a precarious situation. There is also the whole issue of health transfers. We know that many women work in health care and that the government has decided to continue cutting health transfers. Why were these constructive proposals on areas that fall under the federal government's jurisdiction not taken into account in the drafting of the budget or even in the recent economic update?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to assault against persons who provide health services and first responders. As everyone knows, this is not the first time we are debating this bill in the House. Today we are discussing Bill S-233, but this bill was introduced in the last Parliament by my colleague, who I wish to acknowledge. This bill, which came back through the Senate, was not voted on during the last Parliament, but it received unanimous support from all parties in the House. I will read the summary of the bill: “This enactment amends the Criminal Code to require a court to consider the fact that the victim of an assault is a person who provides health services or a first responder to be an aggravating circumstance for the purposes of sentencing.” As I was saying, the bill we are considering today is the same as Bill C-321, which was introduced during the 44th Parliament. As I mentioned earlier, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill, which follows up on a recommendation set out in the Standing Committee on Health's June 2019 report on violence facing health care workers in Canada. It was nearly seven years ago today that the report was tabled. Needless to say, there was an election in 2019 and the government was unable to respond. Here we are again in the House almost 10 years later. We are talking about a committee, a study and a bill. We are here to provide a satisfactory response to this 2019 committee recommendation, which was naturally supported in Quebec and across Canada by a number of organizations, in particular, the Canadian Nurses Association. That being said, here we are talking about this bill again today. I will be quick, because I have already said that we obviously agree that assault against first responders and health care workers should be an aggravating circumstance for the purposes of sentencing. Ultimately, I would like to the government to go even further with this. Members rightly pointed out that these workers experience all sorts of violence. We are talking about assault here, but they also have to deal with things like psychological and sexual harassment. That has been well documented. First responders experience more violence than other categories of workers, and that is even more true for women. They are the ones who are most affected. Under the Criminal Code, assault, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault or bodily harm against a public transit operator are all considered aggravating factors, so we agree that these same aggravating factors should be applied for the purpose of sentencing when the victim is a health care worker or first responder. I was saying that I think the government should go even further, because these workers already have some level of protection under the Criminal Code. Such acts are prohibited, but that does not solve everything. I heard my colleague from the government say earlier that we, as legislators, are responsible, and that we have a responsibility to take action. For several years now, the Bloc Québécois has been calling on the government to increase health transfers. Indeed, we are talking about sentencing here. There is a punitive aspect, but there is also the whole issue of prevention. We are talking about sexual harassment, psychological harassment and assault, but the fact remains that the health care sector is one of the sectors under the greatest pressure due to a lack of resources. The Canadian Nurses Association, which I mentioned earlier, supports the bill. Here is what the association stated in its brief: The work environment is also known to contribute to workplace violence. Examples of organizational factors that contribute to the problem include excessive workloads, inadequate staffing, excessive use of of overtime (mandatory and/or voluntary), lack of managerial support when reporting instances of workplace violence, and lack of perceived consequences when committing violent acts. We think that the best way for the federal government to improve working conditions for nurses, health care workers and first responders is to increase health transfers. Instead of a paltry 22% transfer that falls far short of the health care system's needs, we want to see 35% transfers made to Quebec and the provinces to fill the gaps caused by the federal government and its refusal to see the direct, harmful and sometimes tragic consequences of denying the health care system proper and adequate funding. I would add to that the whole issue of mental health. When we talk about prevention, naturally we want to protect our workers so that they can properly carry out their duties and avoid violent situations. However, we are not investing enough in the whole issue of mental health either. That is also part and parcel of health transfers, but I am addressing it more specifically because witnesses from various organizations commented that instances of violence have increased most noticeably since the pandemic precisely because of insufficient health funding, especially mental health funding, which is why we are again facing situations that could have been avoided. I would perhaps add a third point, in addition to the issue of funding and the fact that we absolutely agree with Bill S-233, one that has come up several times and not just in relation to this bill. I find it unfortunate that the House is unable to pass bills like my colleague's within one parliamentary session. That means that we end up with several bills coming back from the Senate in the next Parliament. Obviously, we can continue to debate these bills, but that slows down the passage of bills and the introduction of new private members' bills. Introducing private members' bills is also part of our job and some members do not get the chance to do so because the House has a hard time getting things done in this regard. I know that we are talking about something else here and that this would require reform, but the fact remains that we keep debating the same bills over and over. I am sure that my colleague's bill will be passed. The House agrees on that. We will send the bill to committee and I hope that no election will be called this time because then we will have to once again start studying this bill from scratch, even though we already agreed on it. Bringing bills back from the Senate is a relatively new practice, but it has an impact here. I hope that the House will also be able to find a way to resolve this situation, because then we would not be here discussing this same bill. It would have already been passed and we would already be taking care of first responders and health care workers. I have said it before and I will say it again: The Bloc Québécois supports this bill. I would like to close by acknowledging all the health care workers and all the first responders in Quebec and, of course, in my riding of Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, which is facing significant challenges as a region that is considered rural. I am sure my colleague realizes that there are hundreds and hundreds of kilometres in my region without a network. Sometimes these workers have to respond to emergencies on the water or in the forest, in situations that are already difficult. Working in health care is more than just a job for these folks. It is truly a calling. That is why I am thinking of the workers in my region. I would like to commend them, and I especially want to commend my mother, who was a nurse for nearly 40 years. I have heard many horror stories—wonderful stories too, but some horror stories—and I hope this bill will help address some of these situations, because we want workers who are happy in their jobs and therefore able to work for everyone's benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance how he can boast about his support for workers. He mentioned seasonal workers. There are some in my riding. The Liberals have been promising EI reform for over 10 years now, but they have not proposed anything. We offered them a ready-made bill, but they did not take it up. They could have introduced it themselves if they had wanted to. This is a persistent problem in my riding. There is still no assistance to maintain the employment relationship with businesses that are forced to close. There are people back home who have lost their jobs and who are wondering about their future. The government denied them that support. We are talking about working conditions. I would add that this is happening just as the government is threatening gains related to the Canada Labour Code, so I wonder how the government can claim to be working for workers when it is doing exactly the opposite.

Mr. Speaker, the minister said that one of our responsibilities is to explain complexity. I would add that another of our responsibilities is to clear up any grey areas surrounding a topic so that the public, Quebeckers and Canadians can clearly understand it. Today, we are debating a Conservative motion. In a few minutes, I will speak to the Bloc Québécois's position on that motion. Would the minister be willing to have this matter discussed by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, for example? By the way, the committee never shut down this idea. A motion was tabled, and I heard someone say a while ago that it had been shut down, but it was never shut down. That means it can be done. In fact, when certain items of business were being granted priority this morning, the Conservatives did not bring this motion forward. I simply want to correct the information provided earlier. I would therefore like to know whether the minister would allow us to find a way to discuss this matter, perhaps in committee, for everyone's benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois on this opposition day. I would like to begin by explaining the underlying premise of my remarks. I want to talk about this in a reasonable and balanced manner, because I think it is in everyone's best interest for Quebeckers and Canadians to be informed. I am glad the Conservatives moved this motion, because it gives us a chance to discuss an issue that may affect all Quebeckers and Canadians. It is important. For that reason alone, I can say that the Bloc Québécois supports the motion in principle, and I emphasize the word “principle”. That does not mean we agree with all the wording in the motion, and I will have the opportunity in my speech to talk more about certain aspects. Even though I have 20 minutes to speak, I am afraid that will not be long enough to say everything I want to say. This is a testament to just how rich this subject is, how far-reaching it is, and how it merits further discussion. First of all, the reason we support the motion in principle is that the decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada creates real legal uncertainty in Quebec and across Canada. This requires a response from the government, and we cannot simply deny the scope of the decision. It is groundbreaking in the sense of being new, and it creates very real and concrete obligations for both the provincial and federal governments in the reconciliation process with indigenous communities. Of course, as we have been hearing since this morning, this raises fundamental questions about land rights in Canada. When we talk about land and land rights, it naturally affects everyone. The decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada has raised uncertainties regarding private property rights that cannot be left unaddressed. We have discussed uncertainty and we have discussed concerns. When I mentioned earlier to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations that we need to clear up grey areas, that is what I meant. That is one way of doing things. There are others that are complementary, but that is one. I would like to mention that property rights are not consistent across the country. The wording of the motion does not take that into account. I will give the example of Quebec, because we have a civil law tradition. We grant a real and absolute private property rights. In contrast, Canada takes a fee simple approach, as we see in the motion. Canada also relies on the many court rulings that have been handed down, including the Cowichan Tribes ruling. Fee simple ownership in Canada has roots in British feudal law and is the most comprehensive form of private property ownership. However, the fact that this case challenges private property rights is a good reason for everyone to consider the consequences. We will not necessarily do that here, according to the wording of the motion, but we also need to take into account the legal idiosyncrasies of each province and Quebec. I will come back to that a little later. Quebec is in a unique legal position because of the Quebec Civil Code, which is, of course, different from the common law system. The ruling is based on section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. On the one hand, we have a civil law tradition, but on the other, there is also the Constitution Act, 1982, which recognizes and affirms aboriginal title. I do not know whether I need to remind members of this, but I will do so anyway: Quebec did not sign the 1982 Constitution. When it comes to legal idiosyncrasies and context, I think that we also need to take that into account. I wanted us to consider that as well, and I wanted to remind my colleagues of it. That will have to be taken into account in future broader discussions. While I do not want to speak for the general public, I think that one problem in the British Columbia case, specifically for the Richmond area and the greater Vancouver area, is that the court deliberately refrained from ruling on the question of how ancestral title and fee simple interests will coexist. All issues related to governance, consultation, taxation and the validity of permits therefore remain unresolved. As we have heard, this is a complex issue. If I wanted to really simplify it, I would say that there are two types of rights: aboriginal title and fee simple interests, which establish the ownership of a territory or a piece of land, in the case of individual property. There are distinctions between the two, but we will not go into detail on that. In any case, both involve a property right. They coexist, but it is difficult to uphold absolute rights without any discussion. I think that is what people are afraid of, as they are wondering whether there is a hierarchy of rights. There is no such hierarchy, but people want negotiations. People are concerned because they do not know all the ins and outs of the issue. A clear mechanism needs to be put in place to resolve the issue of the validity of property rights. This is the most pressing issue resulting from this situation, and I believe all my colleagues have mentioned it. Of course, there is also the fact that people in British Columbia are concerned. I have read several articles on the subject and it is clear that the government itself, if not the municipality of Richmond, will provide information to the public and answer questions. It is therefore clear that other levels of government are willing to take charge in order to answer the public's questions and reassure people. If municipalities and the Government of British Columbia itself are already having to inform the public, this shows just how many questions there are regarding the ruling in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada. Those questions need to be answered, even if, it must be said, our response cannot cover off all scenarios. There has been talk of negotiations, so there will have to be agreements. There needs to be a solution, and we do not have one. I would like to go over what led to the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada ruling. As I said earlier, this groundbreaking decision was a precedent-setting game-changer for both ongoing and future claims to aboriginal title. The doctrine of aboriginal title recognizes that indigenous peoples' rights to their territory were not extinguished when Europeans arrived. There is a mechanism, there is case law establishing that aboriginal title is grounded in sufficient, continuous and exclusive occupation of the territory. This is what affirms aboriginal title. The B.C. Supreme Court confirmed that the Cowichan have exclusive occupation rights in determining land use. The 863-page judgment was delivered on August 7, 2025, which was less than a year ago. The Supreme Court of British Columbia found that the descendants of first nations demonstrated the existence of aboriginal title. That has already been done. It exists apart from the current provincial land title system. Two property rights, two land entitlements coexist, as I said earlier. The Cowichan Nation sought a declaration of an aboriginal title to their village to recognize an aboriginal right to fish. This is different from aboriginal title; it is aboriginal rights. Of course, some groups and governments, including Canada, British Columbia and the City of Richmond, opposed that request, as did the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority and two first nations, namely, the Tsawwassen First Nation and the Musqueam Indian Band. It took 513 days for the court to deliver a ruling, which was based specifically on the promise made by British Governor Douglas in 1853. The Cowichan proved their title. Once again, the court decided to omit a ruling or direction regarding the coexistence of aboriginal title and fee simple ownership, which calls into question concepts that we have long regarded as immutable in the history of Canadian land rights. That is unsettling. There is a lack of information. There are also concerns because, when we innovate, we are dealing with the unknown. That is what is happening here. I want to come back to fee simple ownership. As I said, the Conservative motion makes no mention of civil law, so I want to talk a little bit about that. I will likely be the only speaker today who talks about Quebec's specificity. As I was saying, two legal traditions coexist in Canada: common law and civil law. Civil law governs private law relationships, while common law applies to public law. In the rest of Canada, private law and public law are governed by the principles of common law. Property rights fall within this single legal framework, which means that there are significant differences between Canada and Quebec in the way those rights are defined, exercised and protected. Fee simple ownership does not exist in Quebec. Ownership is an absolute right derived from section 947 of the Civil Code. Ownership is a real right exercised over the thing itself, directly and without an intermediary. Section 947 defines it as follows: “Ownership is the right to use, enjoy and dispose of property fully and freely, subject to the limits and conditions for doing so determined by law.” This means that, under Quebec civil law, ownership has other essential characteristics, such as the fact that it is absolute, exclusive and guaranteed in perpetuity. Registering that right in Quebec's land registry renders the right of ownership enforceable against third parties, meaning that the right is recognized and must be respected by third parties. In Canada, things are different. The concept of fee simple ownership can be traced back directly to British common law. It is the most comprehensive type of ownership recognized by common law and most closely resembles the absolute title concept set out in civil law. The theoretical concept of fee simple, however, is fundamentally different from what we have in Quebec. In theory, under common law, land is held by the Crown, not owned with absolute title, which means that the owner has a real estate right to the land, and fee simple ownership is the most complete type of estate. Despite the appearance of absolute title, the ownership in question remains a tenure, meaning that the Crown, theoretically, retains radical title. Fee simple ownership does not terminate on the holder's death and can be disposed of or passed on by the owner or tenant. Indigenous reserve lands are held by the Crown in trust for indigenous communities. As a result, members do not have fee simple ownership, but rather a right of possession recognized under the Indian Act. Furthermore, fee simple ownership is enforceable against all persons, including the state. I would like to add a few words about residential property values and project financing, which is something my colleagues are concerned about, especially my official opposition colleagues who moved this motion. I have to admit that the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada ruling and its interpretation by the business and financial communities seem to have already had economic and political repercussions. We can see it. We can read it in the extensive coverage in both French and English media in Quebec and across Canada. However, it is important to keep in mind that there are still no studies or analyses with conclusive and robust data demonstrating a general, measurable effect on home values. I am not saying that such an effect cannot exist or does not exist. I am saying we do not have the data. I was talking earlier about information, and I believe that here we are addressing an issue of interest to all Quebeckers and Canadians. The goal is to determine what the actual impact is, without limiting ourselves to mere interpretation. I am not saying it is just an interpretation, because some of my colleagues have specifically mentioned that there are real, concrete cases. They have met with people, so it exists, but we would also like to have data, because that can obviously inform, support and complement our thinking, as well as our actions, as legislators. Legal experts and economists first point to the reputation and perceived impact of the decision regarding the Cowichan tribes. For market participants, the recognition of ancestral title means new long-term instability and uncertainty regarding the land tenure system in the region in question. There are concerns and legal uncertainty regarding the possibility of future restrictions on land use and development, as well as changes to land-use planning regulations and the governance of that territory. Some pundits have also noted that, even without an obvious drop in prices, uncertainty about the future liquidity of properties and the ease of resale may be enough to influence decisions to buy, sell or invest. The market is heavily influenced by confidence. A legal jolt like this one could be an additional risk factor that might affect property valuations and influence appraisers' caution, although, as I mentioned earlier, this cannot really be accurately quantified just yet. Moreover, as I believe my colleagues have mentioned, and as was pointed out in several articles I have read, it is not as easy as it once was to get a loan. It is becoming harder. The B.C. government is already trying to address this situation. Let me get back to my point. I tend to ramble when I speak, but I knew where I was going with this. When institutions refuse to acknowledge a direct link to decisions, even reviewing the risk model or requesting more detailed legal opinions can increase the costs associated with due diligence. This can result in financial institutions adopting a more cautious approach to new loans and refinancing, as well as access to credit being tightened temporarily in the sectors most directly affected. I do not have much time left. Although I spoke primarily about Cowichan Tribes, I could have talked about Musqueam as well. I did not talk about the Wolastoqey Nation of New Brunswick either, even though the decision handed down in that case seems like the opposite of the outcome in British Columbia. Once again, this shows the complexity and concerns that can arise from decisions rendered by courts like the Court of King's Bench of New Brunswick or the Supreme Court of British Columbia in relatively similar, yet not identical, cases. Although I will not go into detail, there are some similarities that make it hard to tell exactly where things are heading, despite the need for certainty. I did not have enough time to discuss the Conservatives' motion in detail. Evidently, I can say that the Bloc Québécois supports it in principle. We would certainly like to make some changes to it. I can say without hesitation and in good faith that this topic could very easily be discussed by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. That is what committees are for. I fail to see the utility of creating a special committee, but I am open to discussing the matter, and then we will see whether we support the motion or not.

Mr. Speaker, I was not expecting to talk about areas of jurisdiction, even though, as a Bloc Québécois member, we often talk about this. Of course it is important to respect jurisdictions. I discussed what makes Quebec unique in terms of civil law and the issue of the signing of the Constitution, which is something that is missing for us in Quebec. I expect everyone to fulfill their responsibility for dialogue in a fully transparent and productive way.

Mr. Speaker, there are actually two points in my colleague's remarks, which I also appreciate. The first concerns the actual impacts. I do not know if my colleague missed the part where I discussed the actual impacts. I said that I had read about the subject in several articles. I said that there were no rigorous and precise studies providing us with conclusive data on the situation. I even said it would be interesting to have such data, because it is of interest to everyone and we want to discuss the issue based on such data. That does not mean we do not want to act quickly. That is one thing. As for the second point, my colleague may not have been paying attention when I specifically mentioned one of his colleagues, who said that we had refused to consider the matter in committee. In fact, it was not put to a vote in committee. I believe it was simply proposed. Today, we held committee proceedings, and the matter was not brought up. Obviously, as I just mentioned, we agree in principle, so I am open to discussing it. It is possible the government said no, but my hon. colleague did not mention a word about it to me.

Mr. Speaker, we want to be responsible, reasonable and rigorous, as I said at the outset. These are the three “Rs”. We find that doing all this work in just a few days or a few weeks is asking the committee, and even the government, to work too quickly. We believe that we need time to understand, consult and reflect. That is one of the things I think we can talk about. The whole issue of the special committee is another thing I mentioned. I think it is fair to ask what it is that a special committee can do that the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs cannot. Of course, we can always talk about that. We have these questions and concerns because we want to be productive and because we do not want to engage in partisan politics.

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. We certainly do not want to blur the boundaries between the legislative, executive and judicial branches. Nevertheless, I believe these issues are relevant to everyone. That is why I decided to deliver a carefully considered, fact-based speech. Some concerns may be legitimate. The goal is not to interfere in a debate, but these rulings do have an impact on all Quebeckers and Canadians, including members of first nations. I think it is healthy to be able to discuss any subject in the House. Nothing should be off limits.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go beyond what the courts have said. However, as I have mentioned on several occasions, this is exactly the question we are asking ourselves: How can they coexist? On the one hand, when reading between the lines in the New Brunswick judgment, it appears that they cannot coexist, whereas in British Columbia, with the Cowichan Tribes, for example, it appears that they can coexist. However, we do not know how this could be achieved. We have concerns. There could be negotiations, agreements. Will it be on a case-by-case basis? Obviously, there is still a lot of uncertainty, and I cannot speak on legal matters, but I can point out that we are asking these questions responsibly. How can they coexist? How will we find solutions? Will it be through negotiated agreements? Obviously, there are plenty of questions, so the motion is relevant.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière, whose speeches are always both eloquent and insightful. I am starting my 11th year in the House, and I have lost count of how many times I have risen to speak about the forestry and aluminum sectors or about the broader issue of Quebec, of course. Earlier, a government member asked a question about our dependence on the United States. As a sovereignist, I would say that the first way that we are, unfortunately, unavoidably dependent on the U.S. is through the Canadian federation. We see how the government and the Prime Minister fail to recognize Quebec. The Prime Minister said that his first major move had to be economic. Perhaps that was necessary since he took office just a few months after the arrival of Trump and the tariffs he imposed. The Prime Minister spoke of a strong Canada and continues to repeat that ad nauseam today. However, after more than a year, I fail to see any real benefits back home in my riding. I mentioned my riding, but this also affects the ridings of Lac-Saint-Jean and Jonquière, for example, because we are talking about the aluminum and forestry sectors, which are really struggling right now. There are three forestry companies in my riding, two of which shut their doors after briefly resuming operations. In short, the forestry sector is hanging on by a thread because the government is doing nothing to help it. This all happened over the course of a year, but as I said earlier, I have been talking about this for 11 years. We could even say that people have been talking about forestry for 40 years, this sector that is of little interest to the federal government in everything it does. For example, the government asked Quebec to diversify our markets by exporting to Asia. There were programs for that, but that got us absolutely nothing. I am thinking of the businesses back home, the people from Arbec, of course, all the workers who were laid off at the Outardes sawmill and all those families, because entire communities are being affected by the government's refusal to work together and listen. The government has decided that the money would go to one place but it is failing to understand the industrial fabric of Quebec and its regions, including mine. Today, I want to say that I stand with the families in my riding and elsewhere who are struggling to put food on the table. It is the same thing in the aluminum sector. The largest aluminum smelter in North America, Alouette, is in my riding. Alcoa is there too. That sector is very strong. At the same time, we are sending the message that it might be a bit easier for large corporations to find other export markets. Let us not forget all the SMEs, the main focus of today's debates, that are forced to shut down and face uncertainty and fear because the government is not doing anything. It says it is, but it is simply empty rhetoric. What is it actually doing? As my colleague from Jonquière mentioned, the government is offering new loans for businesses, but if it truly wanted to discuss things with people and businesses, it would be listening to what the unions are proposing. The Steelworkers, for instance, have made several proposals to help the various sectors. The same goes for the forestry and aluminum sectors. It is not only the unions. Sure, workers make proposals, but major corporations and SMEs also have demands. We have to listen to the people on the ground. They know what the needs are. They know better than we do, in our offices far, far away from our ridings. To figure out what the needs are, we have to be there on the ground and talk to people. The government is not doing that. I will give an example. Yes, the Bloc Québécois is an opposition party, but we want to offer constructive opposition. What people back home are asking for is to keep their jobs. When a business has to close down because it is threatened by tariffs, it is important that it have the certainty that it will retain its employees and their expertise, and that these employees have the certainty that they will continue to receive a salary, in the form of a benefit. The employment relationship with workers is extremely important for all sectors, because it assures businesses that the workers will be there as soon as they resume operations. We must not delude ourselves into thinking that workers are everywhere, readily available and properly trained. I live in what is considered a remote region, a rural community spanning 350,000 square kilometres with a population of 100 people, and we definitely need workers. When sectors of our economy are weakened, folks will leave the region and may never return. We are truly caught in a vicious cycle. This is what businesses, SMEs and workers are all asking for. They are simply asking that the government ensure this employment relationship can be maintained, as it did during the COVID-19 pandemic. Everyone wants a strong economy, as the Prime Minister says. We must ensure that everyone has the tools needed to build a strong economy. Driving workers away is not a solution. Telling businesses to take on more debt when they are struggling the most is also not a solution, and that is exactly what the government is doing right now. I was saying that the government was not meeting the needs, and I gave just one example. Not meeting the needs is one thing, but not anticipating is another. What we have noticed is that the government is always reacting to what is happening. CUSMA, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, and the negotiations are nothing new. They are cyclical, predictable issues. With the current President of the United States, I think we could have guessed that there would be obstacles, since he has been putting up roadblocks for over a year. Once again, there is nothing concrete in the government's economic update or in the measures that should be taken based on the renegotiation of CUSMA. Nothing is being done, and that is worrisome. The government is reactive. With respect to the economic update, I listened to the Minister of Finance and he repeated slogans, which is just fine during a campaign, but now they keep coming back with slogans revolving around the sacrosanct notion of economic strength, but there is nothing for our sector. When I told one of my colleagues on the government side that we no longer want this dependence on the federal government, it is because our money, Quebeckers' money, is not going where it would help. Quebec sends taxes to Ottawa—a fact that is sometimes forgotten—and we get money back while always being told, in a completely patronizing way, how to use it and what we should be doing in Quebec. Right now, it is clear that this is not working. The government has decided to contribute to industries that are not the choice of Quebeckers. When they talk about pipelines and western oil and gas, that is not what we want at all. We want to develop in other ways. I talked about forestry and aluminum. That is what we do at home, and we do it well. We would like to see that money come back to us. Even a small percentage that could go back to the forestry industry would be extraordinary, but the government is not doing that. In closing, I would like to urge and formally invite the government to revisit the proposals the Bloc Québécois has put forward to help the industries and to help the workers, because these are not two separate issues, and to invest in strengthening these sectors. I was particularly struck when the Minister of Finance unveiled the sovereign wealth fund. That, too, was almost a slogan. A fund that belongs to itself, that is the be all and end all, and will fix everything that needs fixing in Canada's economy. It is a fund that is actually a debt. Should we call it a sovereign debt or the Prime Minister's debt? I wonder. It is debt, and the government is choosing to go into debt for oil and gas projects when it cannot even support Quebec businesses, forestry companies and aluminum companies. It is easy to see why we opposed the government's measures. I hope they will listen and take action, but it has been 11 years. I feel like I do not even believe in it anymore.

Mr. Speaker, that brings to mind a Dalida song. We keep hearing about a strong economy. I would like the Liberals to come to my riding and tell the workers who have lost their jobs that there is absolutely nothing to help them maintain their employment relationship or get through this crisis. I would like the Liberals to come and tell them that the government has strong measures in place. These strong measures mean more debt for businesses. What is more, no one knows when they will see this money, which could be put to use by the businesses themselves. They are being asked to diversify, but also to innovate. While this could be a viable option for some in a crisis, not everyone is necessarily in a position to do so. In my view, the government has done absolutely nothing for the industry.

Mr. Speaker, all the credit goes to my colleague from Jonquière, who looked through the economic update. The words “forest” and “forestry” only appear four times, while oil and gas are mentioned some 150 times. It might be anecdotal, but it is indicative of the government's interest, or lack thereof, for the forestry sector. What the government is really proposing is retraining. It is offering retraining programs for workers. That is sending a scary message. The government is telling workers that it is turning its back on them even though the economy is strong and it is doing all these great things. If they lose their jobs, all they have to do is retrain and find something else, because the government does absolutely nothing to support the forestry sector. That is what I am reading between the lines.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes people say that to ask a question is to answer it, and that is what the member did. However, it is true that there is money that is sitting idle, that is, the $4.4 billion that is being unused and that should be going back to the workers. The bottom line is that government has an opportunity to ensure that this money can be used by the industry to get through the crisis. This measure really comes at no cost to the government. The money is there, it is not being used. I do not understand why the government is not accepting this Bloc Québécois proposal, or the other proposals made today, which are all just as relevant and meaningful.

Mr. Speaker, Kelly Morrisseau was murdered 20 years ago this year. This young indigenous woman, who was seven months pregnant, was found at the entrance to Gatineau Park, less than seven kilometres from Parliament. Twenty years later, her killer remains unknown. There are thousands of Kelly Morrisseaus, young girls and women who have gone missing or been murdered. We have a duty to remember them. Today, on Red Dress Day, let us honour the memory of the women, girls and other people who have been murdered, as well as those who have gone missing, whose families have never been able to find them. We know that indigenous women are overrepresented among victims of femicide, domestic violence and vulnerable living conditions, and yet the 231 calls for justice from the national inquiry still have not been addressed by the federal government. We know this is happening right under our noses, just like the murder of Kelly Morrisseau 20 years ago, less than seven kilometres from Parliament. Let us remember and let us take action.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C‑10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. I want to thank all the groups that worked together to develop this bill. This includes the 130 first nations and Inuit indigenous groups who offered their collaboration and who have been calling for this bill for decades. I also want to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, who worked together during the study of the bill to see if we could improve it. Naturally, we wanted to work diligently because the bill had already been introduced in the previous Parliament. This bill is a second attempt and it is one that everyone agrees on, so I believe that we should move forward fairly quickly. Quite simply, indigenous organizations were calling for the creation of a commissioner position to work on the federal government's accountability, transparency and responsibility in meeting its obligations. In their view, these obligations were not being met. That is why we are studying this bill. It may come as a surprise, because the government should be responsible and transparent. It should be diligent in answering for its acts or omissions, but that is not the case. Unfortunately, to supplement the Auditor General's work, indigenous groups had to ask that a commissioner also be assigned to ensure that the government fulfills its obligations. Bill C-10 is a step in the right direction because it is something that first nations and Inuit peoples have been calling for in terms of the signature and implementation of treaties. For decades, first nations have seen that, although the government has an obligation to implement various treaties, it is not doing so. There are delays and, after a great deal of struggle, first nations ultimately have to go to court to make their voices heard. They spend a lot of money for the court to tell the government that it has to fulfill its obligations. That is just common sense. It is a truism, but that is what the government has to do. We need a commissioner to help with that. The Bloc Québécois unequivocally supports the self-determination of nations. It supports any quest for autonomy or freedom. It is a legitimate cause, particularly here, in the face of persistent colonialism that once tried to brutally eliminate or assimilate certain nations. I believe that we can achieve the same objective by changing what needs to be changed. This is another way of enabling first nations and Inuit peoples to regain some control when faced with the government's inability to fulfill its obligations. Obviously, we support that. We also support first nations' efforts to move beyond the Indian Act. The ability to sign modern treaties that are implemented is precisely what allows them to escape this enduring paternalism. As was pointed out this year, this has been going on for 150 years, and I would even say it has been going on for more than 150 years, before Canada was even founded. Emancipation is of enormous importance to first nations, and non-indigenous people may not think about it because it is something they take for granted. When we talk about governance, we are talking about identity, culture, language and territory. This is what the signing of treaties will promote. I am talking about self-governance, the empowerment of first nations themselves, and, beyond identity, everything related to opportunities for economic development, opportunities for social development, as well as environmental protection. The impact of signing modern treaties is enormous. It truly means achieving self-governance based on one's values and what a community needs to live differently. As members know, we in the Bloc Québécois, as sovereignists, want to be able to make our own decisions about how to govern ourselves, how to protect our language, our culture, and the way of life we want for the people of Quebec, for our children and for future generations. I would therefore like to see indigenous communities and nations, as well as Inuit communities and the Inuit nation, have exactly the same opportunities when it comes to their emancipation from the Indian Act. Since time is quickly running out, I will stop here when it comes to self-determination. I would like to add something that was mentioned in committee, which I found very interesting and which was, in fact, pointed out by a number of witnesses. Treaties may be ratified, but when it comes time to implement them, it becomes apparent that each department understands and interprets those treaties very differently. Obviously, the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the Department of Indigenous Services are not the only departments involved. There are a number of departments affected by modern treaties that the government and first nations need to work with. Having a commissioner who can bridge the gap between the various departments and foster consistency in the understanding and interpretation of treaties could promote a faster and more coherent implementation of these treaties. I would even say that consistency could be improved, which would mean fewer disruptions between the various stages of the implementation process. I wanted to point that out. I would also like to highlight a criticism that has been raised on several occasions. It is one that I have also heard in the House. Even if there is a commissioner to act as a watchdog, they will be a watchdog with no bite. Yes, they are there to ensure that the government fulfills its obligations under the treaties it has signed and pledged to implement, and they can point out if something is not working or needs to be addressed, but they cannot force the government to act. That is ultimately a matter for the executive branch. Of course, a report will be presented to the House, but it will then be left to the executive branch. That said, this bill is not the ultimate solution. However, those who drafted it were guided by a commendable and necessary principle, and we hope that, by applying additional pressure, we may encourage the government to make the choice—because I believe it is a matter of will—to implement treaties diligently and in the interests of the well-being of first nations. That is why I am going to reiterate the Bloc Québécois's position: We are in favour of the bill. As I did at the beginning, and to bring things full circle, I will remind members that although we agree and would like for there to be a commissioner, we also wish there were no need to appoint a commissioner, in addition to the Auditor General, simply to ensure that the government honours its commitments. It is a bit unusual to say that, but, for my part, I already expect the government to do the work that is related to its obligations; that is the baseline. If a commissioner is to be appointed, we do not necessarily want there to be more structure; we want it to work properly. For that reason, I encourage the government to respect this bill and perhaps ensure that there is no need to call upon the commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, three modern treaties already exist in Quebec. Those treaties were signed decades ago. As for the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, the frustration among first nations stemmed from having to fight the government on unequal terms. First nations have to go to court to assert their rights and to point out that the government is not doing its job. They cannot believe this. A lot of time and money is being wasted, resources that first nations communities could put to good use, whether for education or health care, rather than spending it on legal proceedings against the government to force it to fulfill its obligations.

Mr. Speaker, this has indeed been raised in the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs on several occasions; I mentioned it earlier. Ideally, this would not even be necessary if the government were fulfilling its obligations; we would not need an additional layer of oversight. As we have said, it is a watchdog with no bite. I have said it before: The commissioner will have no teeth. We hope it works. It may be wishful thinking, but we should be able to rely on the government to fulfill its obligations. Then we would not need a commissioner. I think it is worth pointing this out but, at the same time, first nations want a commissioner and are counting on this to put pressure on the government to act more swiftly. We will see if that is the case, and perhaps this will come back to the House so we can add something else—perhaps give the commissioner more teeth—or simply realize that it has not worked and see what needs to be done to ensure that the treaties are actually implemented.

Mr. Speaker, of course, that is speculation. When I try to be empathetic and put myself in the government's shoes, I would obviously prefer that the commissioner not have any teeth. However, the government has obligations, and I hope it will be responsible and meet them. I completely agree with my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord on this matter. When we vote for a bill, we hope that it will not hurt us too much if we know we are not meeting our own responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois finds it unacceptable that the government is granting greater powers to the police and intelligence services while slashing the budget of the body responsible for overseeing them, namely the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA. Its budget has been cut by 15% as a result of the Liberal government's penny-pinching. I would like to know what my colleague thinks.

Mr. Speaker, as a native of the Lower North Shore, Randy Jones was bound to be born a giant. In a landscape as vast as the horizon, between rock and sea where the possibilities were endless, he did it all: from fisherman to mayor of Gros-Mécatina, from warden of the Golfe-du-Saint-Laurent RCM to candidate in Manicouagan, from husband to father, from friend to legend. He carried the Lower North Shore on his shoulders, not because of his stature, but because of his heart, which beat for all the coasters, his vision, which saw all the possibilities beyond the obstacles, and his voice, which said, like a promise, “Follow me wherever you want to go”. He knew how to fight with strength and compassion for the forgotten, for dignity, and for the right to live on the land. He wanted to liberate his island. He brought cell service and the Internet to the region. He saved lives. He may not have had time to drive the 500 kilometres of coastline from Kegaska to Blanc-Sablon in his pickup truck, but the day we inaugurate “Jones Road”, many of us will be there to travel down the road with him one last time. Farewell, Randy.

Mr. Speaker, during a ceremony held yesterday to commemorate the repatriation of the Constitution—an event known in Quebec as the night of the long knives—the Minister of Justice dropped a bomb. He announced that no matter which way the Supreme Court rules on the notwithstanding clause, he will take action to constrain it before the court even renders its decision. He announced that if Quebec is unhappy about it, he will attack Quebec's powers. Does he think he can bend Quebec's democracy to his will? Who does he think he is?

Mr. Speaker, just a few hours before the new Premier of Quebec's first visit, the Minister of Justice announced that he would be cracking down on the notwithstanding clause. He is going to limit the right of Quebec's elected officials to pass laws that Quebeckers voted for. He is going to target secularism, the protection of the French language and all of our societal choices that are different from those of Canada. Is that how Quebec deserves to be welcomed to Ottawa?

Mr. Speaker, seasonal workers are not asking for the moon. The Interprovincial Employment Insurance Alliance calculated that it would cost one penny per $100 of wages to eliminate the spring gap forever. It would cost a single penny. The federal government needs to understand that, while work is seasonal in the regions, the workers are permanent. They are the ones who keep regional economies going. They need 15 more weeks every year. Will the government finally fill the EI spring gap once and for all?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. The Bloc Québécois has a question about the budget cuts. Of course, we agree that the government should give intelligence services and the police more power so that they can do their jobs, but at the same time, it is cutting the budget of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, by 15%. That seems rather inconsistent to us. On one hand, the government wants to grant more power, but on the other, it is cutting necessary funding for organizations such as the NSIRA, funding that may already be insufficient to carry out the work that these organizations need to do. I would like to hear the minister's thoughts on that.