Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, since this is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak to you today, I would like to take the opportunity to say hello and welcome you back to Parliament. Listening to the speech by my colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, I realize how far apart the Conservatives and the Bloc are on these issues. I thought that Bill C‑39 went beyond everything the Conservatives have wanted for years, but no, it seems that it still falls short, that it still does not go far enough. According to Bill C‑39, assessments will be more flexible, particularly for oil and gas projects, which will no longer be subject to the Impact Assessment Act. It seems to me that the Conservatives should be patting themselves on the back and celebrating, but what I have been hearing all day is the complete opposite. In our opinion, the bill goes so far as to be outrageous. In my colleague's opinion, what is missing from the bill that would make it acceptable to the Conservatives?

Madam Speaker, I actually get the sense that Stephen Harper was more to the left than the current Prime Minister. The more time goes by, the more the measures this Prime Minister is putting in place that make me think that the Conservatives are jealous that he is not on the right side of the House based on his political stripes. Bill C‑39, which we analyzed with our teams, as I am sure the Conservatives did as well, contains things that seek to destroy or circumvent the laws that are there to protect the public, the environment and workers. I do not know what the Conservatives find in this bill that deserves support, aside from the fact that it goes way too far. I want to hear my colleague's thoughts on the fact that we have a government that is proposing legislation that, in my opinion, goes beyond even what Conservatives have been calling for for years.

Madam Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for his remarks, his comments and his speech. Since he was elected in 2025, we have seen this Prime Minister acting as if he could not care less about parliamentary procedure. He has his objective, so he is going ahead and trampling on just about every established procedure and tradition, and that is very worrisome. This bill raises some serious concerns about democracy. My colleagues talked about this earlier. Yes, this bill will end up in committee. Yes, the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois will make suggestions to improve this bill as much as possible, since it goes much too far in many areas. We have been pointing that out from the beginning. However, this government, with its arrogant attitude and its manufactured majority, will probably adopt the same attitude in committee. I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with me and whether he shares my concern that the work we will have to do on this very serious bill, with its far-reaching consequences, will ultimately amount to very little progress in committee because of this arrogant government.

Madam Speaker, the government keeps trying to reassure workers, particularly on the issue of labour rights, which, quite frankly, are literally being trampled by Bill C-39. Despite the government's attempts to sugar-coat it, Bill C-39 actually weakens protections for workers' rights, which is a real cause for concern for trade unions across Quebec and Canada. They are trying to sugar-coat all this by saying there will be a mediator to advise the minister, but the minister will still have the right, under the bill, to disregard the mediator's recommendations. The minister will have the right to stop a strike if he believes it is going too far and is in some way detrimental to the project at hand. Workers who hear this feel that they are losing their bargaining power and their dignity, in a sense. Their rights are truly being trampled by this bill. Despite the government's attempts to sugar-coat things and its claims that it is putting all kinds of protections in place, at the end of the day, the minister is the one who will have the final say on matters affecting workers during bargaining and strikes. I would really like to hear my colleague from Winnipeg North do his level best to reassure me about that, but I am not sure he will be able to. I would also like him to tell the workers, unions and labour representatives watching us that he is truly committed to ensuring that, when the committee studies Bill C‑39, solid protections for workers' rights will be added. As things stand, the bill offers no reassurance at all.

Mr. Speaker, the Broadcasting Act is among the many laws that the Prime Minister intends to break. It was the Liberals themselves who legislated for the CRTC to impose levies on American online streaming platforms. However, they are breaking their own law by asking the CRTC to disregard it and cancel the levies. That is unbelievable. That is a complete sellout of Quebec culture in favour of the world's wealthiest. Is it too much to ask the government to comply with its own law and allow the CRTC to impose levies?

Mr. Speaker, the government has said that it is dropping the levy and that it will make up for it with public funds. Where is it going to get that money? Directly from the pockets of taxpayers is where. The problem is that, instead of taking money out of the pockets of multinational Internet companies, the federal government is sticking citizens with the bill while giving them no say in the matter. On top of being grossly unfair, this approach replaces sustainable, legally protected funding for culture with a one-time amount that any government can cut at any time. Will the minister finally reconsider and choose the side of francophone and Quebec culture?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims he broke off negotiations with Washington to protect our culture. However, yesterday, when he was asked to reconsider his policies on American streaming platforms' contributions, he categorically refused. We will say it again and again, as many times as it takes: The future of francophone culture in Quebec and Canada depends on contributions from the web giants. Without them, there is no solution. The government will need to decide whether it truly wants to protect francophone culture. Will it ask the CRTC to impose these levies?

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see how people dodge the issue. Discoverability is one thing. Contributing financially is another. The Prime Minister wants to build closer ties with Europe and distance himself from the Americans. When it comes to culture, the European Union requires American streaming platforms to pay a levy. It imposed a levy without any significant price hikes for users. In contrast to the 27 European countries, Canada is going it alone and bowing to American pressure in the fight for cultural diversity. Since it wants to draw closer to Europe, will the government reinstate the levies that it should never have scrapped?

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see you again, as well as all my colleagues, for this new session of Parliament. I am very happy to see everyone again and to begin the debate on Bill C‑10, which I think is important and I find interesting. My colleague from Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan worked very hard on this bill. I think everyone already knows that the Bloc Québécois agrees with the spirit of the bill. I find it interesting that the government wants to establish the position of commissioner for modern treaties, because whenever it takes too long for commitments to be implemented, it is usually because the government is dragging its feet. Government members always give very eloquent speeches and make lofty promises. They always seem impressive, but it is clear that concrete action on the ground is slow to really happen in the various communities. I hope the government and my colleague opposite will be telling us that this also means that the government is ready to commit to finally putting into action what has already been agreed upon. First nations and their governments have been waiting for this, and I think the time has come to take action. Does establishing this position mean that the government is finally ready to deliver on what it has promised?

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my Conservative colleague for his pertinent remarks on this bill. My question is this. Over the years, we have seen this government cloak itself in virtue. Every time they speak in any location, they say they are on unceded territory, they reach out to first nations communities, they show them some love, as teenagers like to say nowadays. However, when it comes to action, it seems to me that not much is happening. It seems to me that there are urgent human needs that should have been addressed years ago. I get the feeling that this is another step that may not lead to much. I want to know whether my colleague shares my cynicism about the government's desire to establish this commissioner position all of a sudden, although we obviously agree on the idea of this office. I still get the feeling that things are going to drag on. I still get the feeling that we are going to continue to see extremely critical situations, situations that are unacceptable from a humanitarian perspective in indigenous communities, that will continue to go unaddressed.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-268, which is sponsored by the member for Compton—Stanstead. This is a bill that I am particularly interested in, given my professional background. The bill concerns the spectrum policy framework for Canada. The French word for spectrum is “spectre”. If Quebeckers and Canadians were asked what that makes them think of, 99.9% of them would probably mention ghosts or James Bond villains. Very few of them would talk about frequencies, airwaves or broadcasting in general. However, spectrum is absolutely essential to broadcasting and communications as we have known them today and for decades. There is a reason why this topic is of interest to me. Before I got into politics, I dabbled in various fields, including radio. I worked at radio stations for three decades. That might be hard to believe. Some might say that this is impossible, because that would mean that I had to have started at the age of five or six, and they would not be far off. In any case, I spent many years in this fascinating industry. Issues related to spectrum, airwaves and broadcasting involve the technical side of the field that I was in and was genuinely passionate about. Back in my day, although we are not talking about the 1920s or 1930s, we did not have this level of congestion. Regulations were in place, and the government was exercising some control over frequency usage, but it was not as important back then as it is today. It has been quite a while since this policy was last revised. It was revised in 1992 and again 15 years later, in 2007. Now, in 2026, almost 20 years later, we find ourselves needing to review these regulations and this framework. In recent years, municipalities have begun implementing regulations to prevent owners from leaving vacant downtown lots unused. These lots must be developed because we need the space to alleviate congestion and we lack space to build housing. The same principle applies here. That is the analogy I would use to explain why spectrum allocation and frequency usage need to be managed in much the same way. There are telecommunications companies that have acquired frequencies but do not need to develop them or lack the resources to do so, because developing these services is quite expensive. As a result, they are holding these unused frequencies that could be put to other uses. We have heard the industry call for more deregulation, rather than a stronger framework. I feel a little uneasy about that request, particularly in this case. We need to reach everyone. The argument we often hear from the industry is that 99% of the country is covered, that 99% of people have access to LTE or 5G technology, and that soon people will have access to the next technology. It might be 6G; who knows. Now, 99% does seem like a lot of people. Yes, that is true. It is good. It is much better than it was just a few years ago, but it still means that over 200,000 people do not have access to a cellular network. In 2026, not having access to a cellular network is, of course, a problem for communication. It is certainly a problem when it comes to entertainment. Nowadays, entertainment is increasingly delivered through our electronic devices, our cellphones and tablets. In some cases, it is through our computers, but the fact remains that we need this system, these frequencies. We can say that those 200,000 people who do not have access to entertainment can always read a book or go play outside. Yes, there is always a way to make do, but these 200,000 people also do not have access to emergency safety services. We have seen cases where this mattered. There have been situations where people needed to call the fire department or an ambulance urgently—after an accident or during a forest fire, since wildfires sometimes cut off regular communications where they are usually available—but were unable to access even the most basic emergency services. This is a cause for concern. This is a cause for concern, and there is no reason why we should be prevented from providing this service simply because the companies do not want to develop it, even though they hold the required spectrum. People get the impression that everything is fine because almost everyone is connected. However, we are talking about an essential service. It becomes an essential service as soon as there is an incident like the ones I just mentioned. Bill C-268 contains meaningful, positive measures that will improve the current situation. People in rural areas, such as Drummond, will no longer have to wave their phones around trying to get a signal. These measures are primarily aimed at ensuring that unused spectrum is put to use in one way or another. I think it is a waste to hold these resources and not take the necessary steps to use them, particularly in regions and situations where there is a pressing need that must be addressed. I also like the idea of delivery timetables. According to Bill C‑268, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, would be required to act within a fairly short time frame of six months after the act's coming into force. It seems to me that the CRTC already has a rather large backlog of urgent matters to address, so entrusting it with managing this bill as a priority might be risky. There is a history of inaction at times due to the excessive workload that the CRTC faces. However, if everything goes well, we could already see results within six months of the bill's passage and implementation. I find that encouraging. The other thing is that there would be a verification process to ensure the accuracy of data, such as mobile coverage data. When we check with companies that provide mobile phone services, we often get responses that do not accurately reflect the situation on the ground. We have seen this happen. I, for one, have been told that my region has 100% coverage and that there is no reason for there to be any problems. However, when we are passing through the rural parts of our ridings, it is rare not to come across areas where communications literally cut out and where there is no signal at all. It is very frustrating, once again, to be told that 100% of the territory is covered when we run into situations like that. What are we waiting for? Are we waiting for something serious to happen before we realize that cell service has become something that we can no longer do without and for which we have an obligation to establish mechanisms to ensure reliable service? For now, obviously, that is not yet the case. There would be a process to ensure the accuracy of mobile coverage data provided by telecommunications companies as well as data on network deployment. In short, there would be more transparency, more efficiency and a better overview of the situation. These are easy things to put in place. However, I will say it again, the argument that 99% and a bit of the population is covered is not enough. That is much better than 10 years ago, so congratulations may be in order. However, I find it extremely concerning that there are even a few people in this context who do not have access to basic security and emergency services. This requires us to act quickly. On that note, I think it is pretty clear that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑268 from my colleague from Compton—Stanstead.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The first thing I want to say is that it is a bit distracting, when there are not that many people in the House, to hear a conversation between members on the other side. Is it possible to ask that conversations be taken outside? The second thing is that my colleague just said she is 62 years old. I do not know if it is allowed under the Standing Orders to lie about one's age. I appeal to your judgment on that.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my young colleague on her speech, which I greatly appreciated. I know that she has worked extremely hard on this bill, as she does in everything that she undertakes. She did such a thorough and professional job, and I commend her for that. In her speech, she spoke of the difficulties that Canada may face in sharing information with other countries, particularly the United Kingdom, England. Certain countries have a history of experiencing attacks, acts of terrorism and various threats that have led to the introduction of different types of measures. I would like to ask my colleague whether she thinks that more flexibility is needed in terms of privacy protection in order to ensure public safety. Should we adopt security measures similar to those in some of these countries, such as having surveillance cameras on every street corner and greater tolerance for intrusions into personal data? Should we uphold our principle of protecting personal information, or should we instead align ourselves more closely with countries that may have less regard for such matters when it comes to their citizens?

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on her speech. She has been in this House for many years. My colleague was very, very young when she was first elected, as we all know. She has seen various permutations of government. I was first elected in 2019. The Liberal government held a minority. We had to debate important bills and sensitive issues. The government had no choice at that time but to negotiate with one of the opposition parties. Even though feathers got ruffled on a few occasions, particularly among the Conservatives and the Liberals—some committees got pretty rowdy—bills were always passed in the end, thanks to the co-operation of the opposition parties. Now we have a government that has secured a majority through various manoeuvres, as everyone is well aware. The fact remains, however, that the views, ideas and contributions that opposition parties can bring to bills as important as Bill C-22 are essential. I think it is quite shameful that the government has decided to shut the door on these discussions. I would like to know whether my colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands thinks that the Liberals got burned so badly over the past few years that now they are saying enough is enough, they can do what they like without giving the opposition a second thought, they can manage their affairs as they see fit, that is just the way it is now that they have their majority, and democracy be damned. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

Mr. Speaker, I was thinking along the same lines as my colleague from Mount Royal. I congratulate him on his speech. Indeed, the Bloc Québécois's call over the past several years to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code has finally been included in Bill C-9, which we are debating today. Like my colleague from Mount Royal, I have never heard any group representing the Jewish community speak out against this request from the Bloc Québécois. On the contrary, it is seen as yet another tool to protect Jewish communities, which have been particularly targeted by hate crimes over the past few years and even in recent days. Once again, we are witnessing extremely troubling acts of anti-Semitism in our society . I would like to know what my colleague thinks. In fact, he just touched on the answer a bit in his response to our Conservative colleague, but I want to know what he thinks the repeal of this exemption will mean for the sense of security among Jewish communities in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton made an announcement today, June 17, or maybe it is June 18. I am not very good with dates, as my colleague knows. Today, June 16, he announced that he is leaving us to run for the Parti Québécois in Quebec's general election this fall. I want to congratulate this extraordinary colleague who wears such sharp suits and ties and has such a unique sense of style. He is an activist. That is a privilege that we have as members of the Bloc Québécois. Our party is full of activists, men and women of conviction who are dedicated to the interests of Quebeckers and to a great and noble cause: making Quebec a country. The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton now intends to champion this cause at the Quebec National Assembly. We were colleagues and, from now on, we will be allies. What a colleague he was. He has done impeccable work as the critic for international trade over the past six years, whether in the midst of a trade war or a pandemic. He has masterfully defended the aluminum, forestry and aerospace industries, among others. He worked with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé to protect supply management, and he has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to combatting forced labour. Everything he did in the House, he did with conviction and generosity. He is an activist. The Bloc Québécois is losing a member who is appreciated by everyone, a friend. Personally, I am also losing a riding neighbour with whom I had the opportunity to laugh and have fun, and I will miss that. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I thank the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for his years of service and his sincere convictions. I look forward to working with him in the future. I am sure we will meet each other again in our efforts to fight for Quebec as a country.

Mr. Speaker, that is zero for two. Let us give him another chance. The Prime Minister keeps saying that Canada needs to partner with middle powers to stand up to the United States. However, he is breaking with the 17 European countries and Australia, which impose digital services taxes on tech giants. He is breaking with the European Union, which imposes levies on streaming services such as Netflix. The fight for the diversity of cultural expression will be waged and perhaps won by middle powers. Canada is pulling out. It is weakening the global consensus and threatening the future of Quebec culture. Is selling one's soul not a rather high price to pay just to please Donald Trump?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, during oral question period earlier today, the Minister of Government Transformation and member for Louis-Hébert misled the House. This is not the first time this has happened, which is why it is important for me to set the record straight. He stated, in his response to my question earlier, that the Bloc Québécois had not submitted any requests as part of the pre-budget consultations. In order to enable the member for Louis-Hébert to provide answers that meet the standards of rigour and honesty required by his office, I would like to table—

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. The name of his riding brings to mind landscapes, nature and beauty, and I cannot help but believe that my colleague is worried about the environment and climate change. In fact, he mentioned it in his speech, talking specifically about greenhouse gases and the fight against greenhouse gases. The Bloc Québécois called for an end to the oil subsidies, which would have generated approximately $27 billion in revenue for the government over five years. Instead, the government is maintaining the oil subsidies and, on top of that, it is relaxing the pesticide regulations. These are two measures that actually run counter to what my colleague mentioned earlier. They run counter to the fight against climate change. I would like my colleague to tell me whether he agrees with these measures and how they help the environment.

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague knows full well that Quebeckers and Canadians are struggling financially. Groceries are expensive. Everything is expensive. Even families that were well off not too long ago now have to make sacrifices and choices. There are solutions at our fingertips that could have been discussed in committee and that could have been discussed more broadly here in the House. For example, eliminating the subsidies to oil companies would generate about $27.5 billion in revenue for the government over five years. That is an estimate from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Would my colleague agree with this type of measure, which would ease the financial burden on Quebeckers and Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands on her speech. Obviously, she represents the Green Party, the environmental party. I would like her to tell me a little about this government's backsliding on the environment since this Prime Minister took office last year. For example, think of the pipeline agreements, the rollback of the pesticide regulations, and the continued investment in tax breaks for oil companies. I would like to know if my colleague is still optimistic about the fight against climate change under that party's leadership.

Mr. Speaker, time seems to stand still when my colleague from Winnipeg North rises to speak. This parliamentary secretary was here during the previous Parliament. He has been here for quite some time. In the previous Parliament, I remember sharing his point of view on a very important broadcasting bill, Bill C-11. We debated it in the House. The Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP were on the same side back then. We believed that we had to fight for culture. Today, his government is doing the opposite. His government is turning its back on culture and giving in to American threats by caving on some very important things, including the digital services tax, which was supposed to bring some tax fairness to the system. We just saw the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, make an important decision, which the government overturned and sent back to the drawing board. The government refused to implement the 15% contribution that the CRTC had just mandated and has instead chosen to have taxpayers foot the bill for the share that streaming services should have paid. We were equally passionate about Bill C‑11 and the principle that streaming services and U.S. tech giants should pay their fair share. However, his government is going in exactly the opposite direction. Has my colleague changed his mind? Has he switched sides? Does he think that it is a good idea to let streaming services and tech giants skip out on paying their fair share and contributing to the broadcasting system that they are profiting from immensely?

Mr. Speaker, somewhere in the great beyond, Sophie Faucher is listening to the outpouring of praise and kind words that followed the announcement of her premature passing. The radiant and dazzling Sophie Faucher exuded a powerful and luminous energy that made her loved by all. This great actress, the daughter of another great actress, could shift effortlessly from drama to comedy, from writing to voice acting, from Frida Kahlo to Maria Callas, drawn to these extraordinary women perhaps because she saw herself in them. We certainly saw her in them. Everyone will talk about her ability to fly off the handle one moment and burst out laughing the next; to be moved to tears one moment and outraged the next. A true Quebec icon, she was the embodiment of what it means to live life to the fullest. It is a sad loss. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I offer her family and her many friends and admirers my deepest condolences.

Mr. Speaker, the word in French is not “programme”. The correct word is “émission” or “série”. While our media outlets continue to lose millions of dollars in revenue, the Prime Minister tried to placate Donald Trump by ending a decade-long campaign by the cultural sector to ensure that the tech giants pay their fair share. In response, Donald Trump has issued additional threats regarding CUSMA. I would like to read a quote from a Quebec filmmaker, a certain Mr. Falardeau. I do not think the Prime Minister knows him. Mr. Falardeau said, “If you lie down, they will stomp on you. If you remain standing and resist, they will hate you, but they will call you ‘sir’.” Is the Prime Minister not the least bit tempted to take that advice so he might actually be called “sir”?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals love to dream big, but when it comes to taking action, it is a whole different story. French-language culture is the main victim of the Prime Minister's capitulations. Scrapping the digital services tax means a loss of $1.4 billion per year, and waiving the levies on streaming platforms means that billions more will be left on the table. More importantly, this means abandoning a permanent solution to cultural issues and replacing it with temporary public funding that is subject to the whims of Canadian governments. Ottawa is permanently abandoning a decade-long fight to make web giants contribute. When he was appointed, did the minister know that he was being mandated to destroy our culture?

Madam Speaker, I would like to offer my full support to our colleague from the riding of Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, who, unfortunately, cannot be called by his name in the House. It would have been much simpler, as his riding has a very long name. We all heard about what happened today. We are all very concerned and wish him a very speedy recovery. We need his passion here in the House. I congratulate my colleague opposite on her speech. There are a number of provisions in Bill C‑16 that we like. It contains very important measures to protect victims, especially victims of domestic violence. However, the Bloc Québécois believes that coercive control should not be assessed by a single factor. A combination of factors should be considered. The Bloc Québécois tried to include provisions in the bill that would have judges consider a range of factors, meaning the situation as a whole. That amendment was rejected by the Liberals, and I wonder why, because it was something very reasonable, very responsible and very respectful of victims and what they go through in these situations. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that at this stage of our study of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I am not sure it is very parliamentary to say that questions are dumb. I am seriously wondering about that. That said, it is rare for me to agree with the member for Winnipeg North, but at the moment, I must admit that I am a little perplexed myself. I get the impression that the Conservatives are finding reasons not to support this bill, even though it has been requested by groups advocating for victims of crime and domestic violence. I always hear the Conservatives bringing the issue back to mandatory minimum sentences. Our system is far from perfect, but it is quite likely the least imperfect one out there. I do not know of any studies showing that harsher sentences are more beneficial to society than rehabilitation programs for offenders. Does my colleague have any scientific arguments or supporting data to back up his claim that mandatory minimum sentences work better than rehabilitating offenders?

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the parliamentary secretary on her speech. From the outset, I want to say that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-25 for a number of reasons. In her speech, my colleague mentioned some of the provisions that Bill C-25 would introduce, including prohibiting individuals from falsely representing themselves to be someone they are not. The current Prime Minister got elected by claiming to be the only one capable of standing up to Donald Trump in negotiations with the United States. The record of the past year suggests that is totally far-fetched, it is false, and we can see that. According to my colleague, does that mean that, under the provisions of Bill C-25, the Prime Minister himself would be in violation of the law?

Mr. Speaker, what a shame there is no unanimous consent. We would never have turned down an opportunity to be educated and informed. I do not understand why they denied it. It would have been instructive. Returning to the speech by my colleague from St. Albert—Sturgeon River, whose thoroughness I appreciate, there is something in Bill C-25 that concerns me somewhat. I agree that we should tighten the parameters a little, particularly when it comes to the endorsing candidates. However, when we collect signatures for a nomination form, which many of us have done, we make a point of telling people that this is not an endorsement of the candidate or the party. It is a recognition that this person is eligible to stand as a candidate in an election. In proposing this measure, which prevents people from signing multiple nomination forms in the same election, it seems to me that we are going against that principle in a way. Saying that people can only sign one form is a bit like saying that by signing a nomination form, that person is endorsing that particular candidate. I feel that this measure may go a bit too far. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

Mr. Speaker, the first thing the Prime Minister sacrificed in the trade war with Washington is francophone culture. This reminds me of how Winston Churchill was advised to cut funding for the arts in the middle of a world war. Churchill asked, if not for the arts, then what are we fighting for? What the Prime Minister has sacrificed to Donald Trump is what sets the Quebec nation apart: our culture, in our language. This is how the Quebec people expresses its existence. How can he treat it as a mere bargaining chip?

Mr. Speaker, when I hear the member for Winnipeg North talk about good news and how lucky Canadians are to have the current government, I really have to wonder. I wonder if I am dreaming and if someone should wake me up. It is really astonishing. The Liberals' self-congratulation is getting embarrassing. When figures come out, we can break them down and interpret them as we wish, but some of them do not lie. In the first quarter of 2026, 35,000 retail jobs were lost. Retail is the end of the line. It is clothing shops, supermarkets and convenience stores. That is where people go to shop for their everyday needs. The loss of 35,000 jobs in the first quarter of 2026 means that people cannot afford to buy from their regular stores. That is an alarming figure that shows that Canadians and Quebeckers are currently feeling much more financial distress than optimism, contrary to what my colleague would have us believe. At some point, will the government take concrete measures to help people pay for groceries and basic needs?

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that my colleague talked about young people struggling to find work in the current economy. As I pointed out earlier to the member for Winnipeg North, 35,000 jobs were lost in the retail sector in the first quarter of 2026. These are precisely the kinds of jobs that are often available to younger people and those who may have less formal education. Meanwhile, the Conservatives fully support making massive investments in developing the fossil fuel industry. Billions of dollars are going to oil companies in the form of tax breaks, for example. Would my colleague be in favour of easing the burden on taxpayers a little, including the young families she seems to want to defend in her riding? People in my riding, Drummond, are also struggling. Would she be willing to reconsider the subsidies given to oil companies and redistribute some of those billions of dollars to taxpayers who are really struggling right now?

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador on her speech. It was a great speech until she said that she was the alternative solution to the situation, with the usual Conservative Party slogans, using the same proposals that promote oil and gas over natural resources and renewables. Anyway, I would like to focus on the part of her speech that I liked, the part about the regions that are becoming ghost towns because there is a shortage of long-term employment and development opportunities to encourage young people to move there. It is unacceptable that young families are looking to leave Newfoundland and Labrador. Newfoundlanders should have the chance and the opportunity to make a life for themselves in their home province. My region is facing some challenges at the moment. The government does not seem to understand the situation, which is jeopardizing our manufacturing sector and for which there is an incredibly easy solution. I would like to hear my colleague talk more about concrete solutions to real problems rather than waving around a magic wand that she thinks would solve everything if a Conservative government were in power.

Mr. Speaker, ADISQ later came back to say that this was not a permanent solution. The entire cultural sector is calling for a long-term solution that involves contributions from digital platforms such as Netflix and Amazon Prime. In the meantime, Ottawa is still exempting them and turning to taxpayers to make up the $600-million shortfall. We have been talking about this for 25 years. The future of culture depends on the web giants paying their fair share. This decision is clearly yet another capitulation to the digital billionaires at the expense of Quebec culture. What will it take for the Minister of Culture to defend culture?

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated the speech by my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul. Her passion for this issue was evident in her remarks. I know she has worked tirelessly and with great dedication on these issues over the years. I see in Bill C‑16 many improvements in terms of compassion and fairness for victims. There are also many improvements regarding the recognition of deepfakes. I therefore see very positive developments. My colleague is right to say that the collaboration that took place in committee left something to be desired. The committee rejected amendments and refused to discuss amendments from the opposition parties that were entirely constructive. Even if we can agree that we could be stricter on certain points—that we could place greater emphasis on minimum sentences, for example—does my colleague not think that there is still some improvement in Bill C‑16, that it is better than nothing, and that we can work on the rest later? Would that not be something worth considering?

Mr. Speaker, there are many positive aspects to Bill C‑16, as was mentioned earlier. There are, however, certain shortcomings and some issues that deserved to be explored in greater depth. For example, a number of amendments were proposed. Earlier, we heard the Conservatives place great emphasis on an issue close to their hearts: mandatory minimum sentences. The Bloc Québécois also had proposals to make. I am a bit concerned about the government's approach these days. They are rushing things and cutting debates short. They are requesting time allocation, which are closure motions, strictly speaking. I wonder if the secretary of state could share his thoughts on this. Are there not important issues—such as this bill, which is extremely important to society as a whole—that warrant taking the time to show a little respect for the views of the opposition parties?

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my colleague from Guelph discussed the perspective of victims in her speech. I think this bill is so important. It will make fundamental changes to how victims are treated during the very painful process they have to go through to obtain justice in situations that are sometimes troubling. My colleague mentioned this in a number of cases. There are a lot of very positive points in Bill C‑16. I believe she talked about respect, courtesy, compassion and fairness. She also talked about court delays. She says that Bill C‑16 will address the issue of court delays. I am not aware of any cases where a trial was halted, because of the Jordan decision, for example, and where the delay in justice, the stay of proceedings, served the interests of victims. The perpetrators are always the ones who come out ahead. What does the government intend to do to fix this problem quickly?

Mr. Speaker, I must say, I am really enjoying this debate. I have been listening to the comments this evening about the importance of Bill C-16, particularly with regard to victims' rights and the rights of victims of domestic violence. However, as I mentioned earlier and as I pointed out to the member for Guelph, there are flaws in the justice system. Proceedings are slow and some cases are dropped due to court delays. One of the major problems is the shortage of judges. We still do not have enough judges. The Liberals may argue that the provinces share some of the blame for the role they played in the backlog of cases in the courts, but the fact remains that, when it comes to the federal courts, it is the Liberal government, the current government, that is responsible for appointing judges. There is still a backlog. It would help a lot if they appointed a few judges. Is that one of the options being considered?

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-31 is 300 pages long. Consultation with the opposition parties has been minimal. There was no actual technical briefing, apart from the one held three weeks after the bill was introduced. It seems quite likely that even before MPs managed to get a briefing, reporters or others outside the House of Commons had received more information than members of Parliament. The bill addresses some very important issues. It expands subsidies to the oil and gas industry. It also allows the possible use of hydrogen production using methane as a clean energy, which contradicts what Hydro-Québec says. It seems to me that Hydro-Québec knows what it is talking about where clean energy is concerned. My colleague just told the Conservative member that we are debating Bill C-31 in the House. That is true, but the Liberals are limiting our debate time with this gag order. Does my colleague agree that such important issues as this warrant greater consideration for the opinions of experts and opposition members?

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Saskatoon West on his speech. I have a question for him. I assume this government is pushing its bills through under closure because it is afraid that too much debate would lay bare its failures so far. This government and this Prime Minister were elected on the promise of standing up to Donald Trump and his tariff and economic threats. I will give my colleague from Saskatoon West all the time he needs to list all the victories this government has achieved against Donald Trump since it was elected just over a year ago. I would like to hear them all. He can take all the time he needs.

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech. I know that her province of Saskatchewan obviously has very significant trade ties with our neighbour to the south, the United States. I also know that Saskatchewan was quite pleased to see that an agreement had been reached with China on canola. The fact remains that, historically speaking, our number one economic partner has been the United States. Right now, this government is doing nothing to solve the problem, or should I say problems, that we are experiencing because of President Trump's extremely hostile economic policies. I would like my colleague to comment on that. This government behaves as though it were the saviour of the Canadian economy in the face of Donald Trump, but there is nothing in its track record over the past year to suggest that we are on the right track. I would like to know whether this is as much of a concern in Saskatchewan as it is for us.