Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport mentioned wanting to use the available expertise to accelerate projects of national interest. Speaking of expertise, Canada's chief science adviser told the Standing Committee on Science and Research that she had never been consulted about projects of national interest. It is funny. The minister is talking about expertise, but he is not consulting his own expert, who is paid with public money. Instead of trying to convince us that he is using available expertise, can he simply confirm that he uses it only when it suits his narrative?

Mr. Speaker, allow me to remind the Conservative leader of a few things that seem to be moving well. The first are the several Conservative members who crossed the floor to the Liberals. That even made it possible to deliver a majority, for the first time in history, after a minority government was elected in Parliament. The other things that are moving quite well are all the Conservative ideas that are being taken up by the Liberals. It is quite striking. The Conservative Party also promises to build energy, electricity and rail corridors. The Liberal Party is proposing the same thing in Bill C‑39. The Conservatives claim to support Quebec's autonomy. Will they put their foot down and ensure that Quebec's wishes as to whether or not we want this type of project on our territory are respected?

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that we are witnessing an ecological betrayal. We know that the Prime Minister is not just anyone. He worked at Brookfield. Most importantly, he is the United Nation's former special envoy on climate. However, he is the one buying a second pipeline with public funds and disregarding all of Canada's environmental laws for the sake of projects that are in the so-called national interest. If that is not a betrayal, my colleagues will have to let me know the strongest word there is to judge, observe and analyze that situation. I would like my colleague from Joliette to explain his point of view. Is the government turning the environment into a pipe dream by trying to take advantage of the tariff crisis to push things that could never have been done before?

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand part of my colleague's argument, and I would like her to explain it. She criticized the government for shutting down debate and shutting off the cameras. However, in June of last year, the Liberals did the same thing during the study of Bill C-5 on projects of national interest. Who supported that closure motion? It was supported by her party, the Conservative Party. I would simply like her to explain why it was okay to turn off the cameras and support the closure motion last year, but it is no longer acceptable this year.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to take a few moments to acknowledge a tragedy that deeply shook my region, the Lower St. Lawrence, yesterday morning. A major fire ravaged the Fibel et fils farm in Saint‑Éloi in Les Basques RCM. Our thoughts are with the Filion family and the entire team at Fibel et fils farm, who have been deeply affected by this tragedy. The farm lost its herd and the result of 45 years of hard work, which is a huge challenge for them. Beyond the material losses, the loss of these animals, which farmers care for and pay attention to every day, makes this situation even more heartbreaking. Behind every farm is a family, generations of work, expertise that is passed down from generation to generation and a vital contribution to our food security. Thankfully, no lives were lost. I also want to recognize the remarkable work of the firefighters who made it possible to protect the neighbouring buildings in spite of particularly difficult conditions. I want to express my solidarity with the Filion family, their loved ones and the entire agricultural community that was affected by this event. In the Lower St. Lawrence, when one of our own is struck by a tragedy, the entire community comes together. Our hearts go out to them at this particularly challenging time. Returning to the subject at hand, I would like to speak to Bill S-201, which aims to establish a national framework for sickle cell disease. I want to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois recognizes that this is a serious condition and that it is important to raise awareness about this reality. We also acknowledge the remarkable work of those living with the condition, their caregivers, organizations and health care professionals who support them on a daily basis. I would also like to highlight the work of Senator Marie-Françoise Mégie, who has championed this bill with determination in order to raise awareness of a condition that is still all too often misunderstood by the general public. Sickle cell disease is a chronic genetic condition that affects red blood cells and can lead to severe pain, serious complications and a reduced life expectancy. In Canada, nearly 6,000 people are affected by this condition. It is of particular concern to people of African and Caribbean descent, but also certain populations in the Middle East, South-East Asia and South America. It is therefore entirely legitimate to seek to raise awareness, improve support for those affected and promote research. Moreover, as Professor Jude Mary Cénat, director of the Interdisciplinary Centre for Black Health, pointed out, Bill S-201 addresses decades-long neglect of a disease that remains far too little understood. That said, the Bloc Québécois believes that the government must respect the division of powers when addressing this issue. Health care falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of Quebec. Several aspects of the bill directly affect responsibilities that already belong to the Government of Quebec. These include the training of health care professionals, the establishment of national standards for diagnosis and treatment, and public awareness campaigns. Quebec has always been clear. It intends to remain the lead authority on public health policies within its territory. Quebec did not wait for Ottawa to take action. Quebec has already developed its own screening model, its own clinical tools, and its own network of expertise to support people with sickle cell disease. When a province already has the programs, expertise, and infrastructure necessary to meet the needs of its population, a national framework should recognize this reality rather than seek to standardize approaches. Sickle cell disease is already part of Quebec's neonatal blood screening program. An improved version of this program has been in place since April 2025 to enable faster and more accurate screening for all newborns. Quebec's ministry of health and social services has also developed several guides, best practices, and tools for health care professionals. Families also have access to educational resources to help them better understand the disease and the available treatments. Quebec already has recognized expertise and a set of measures tailored to its reality. That is why we are concerned that Bill S‑201 does not more fully recognize Quebec's unique characteristics. We believe that the federal government should focus on areas that fall squarely within its jurisdiction, rather than trying to impose national standards in an area for which it has neither management responsibility nor accountability for the consequences. That does not mean that Ottawa has no responsibility, on the contrary. The problem is not a lack of national strategies. Rather, the problem is that Ottawa too often gets involved in areas that are outside its jurisdiction, while neglecting some of its own responsibilities. If Ottawa really wants to help improve care, it should start by adequately funding health care. The federal government was originally supposed to cover about 50% of health care costs. Today, its actual contribution is closer to 22%. The real problem is not a lack of national strategies, but rather a lack of funding. Before creating more national frameworks, Ottawa should start by meeting its financial commitments to Quebec. Quebec does not need a new federal national framework. What it needs is the federal government to respect its jurisdiction, increase health transfers and do its part. The federal government already funds research through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. If it wants to make a difference, then it should make sure that sickle cell research is supported. Several stakeholders have pointed out that this disease has long received less attention and funding than other comparable genetic diseases. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research already has the tools it needs to support researchers, promote scientific breakthroughs and improve treatments for patients. That is where the federal government should focus its efforts rather than trying to intervene in the organization of Quebec's health network. As for the data collection mechanisms set out in the bill, they will have to comply with Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and applicable privacy rules. The federal government should also look at its own programs to better meet the needs of people with sickle cell disease. I am thinking in particular of tax credits for caregivers and disability benefits. Some serious forms of the disease lead to significant limitations, and it is entirely reasonable to ensure that people who are affected can fully benefit from existing federal programs. We also believe that the federal government needs to be realistic when it comes to public drug plans. They fall under Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, and Quebec already has its own plan. It is therefore up to Quebec to determine which drugs and treatments it covers. Once again, Ottawa should first ensure that its own programs adequately meet the needs of the people affected rather than trying to intervene in areas outside its jurisdiction. Ultimately, the question is not whether we should support people with sickle cell disease. Obviously the answer to that is “yes”. The real question is how to do it effectively. For the Bloc Québécois, the answer is simple. The government needs to fully respect Quebec's powers, increase health transfers and shoulder the responsibilities that truly fall to Ottawa. Quebec did not wait around for this bill in order to take action. It already screens for the disease, supports families, backs health care professionals and contributes to the advancement of scientific knowledge. Therefore, we hope that any measure arising from this national framework will be implemented with Quebec's consent and in full respect of its powers. Let us help patients. Let us support families. Let us promote research. However, let us not use patients' suffering as a pretext to further centralize health care decisions. It is in this spirit that we wish to see the bill amended so that it fully recognizes Quebec's responsibilities and the work it is already doing.

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by pointing out that June 15, 2026, marks the 35th anniversary of the founding of the Bloc Québécois. In Sorel, on June 15, 1991, in the wake of the failure of the Meech Lake accord, Lucien Bouchard and members from Quebec from various backgrounds chose to come together to give Quebec its own voice in Ottawa. Lucien Bouchard put it very clearly, in a way that has stood the test of time: “The Bloc Québécois is the only way for us to do away with the harms of dual legitimacy. The truth is that there are two peoples, two loyalties and two visions of the country. There is a country missing in this country. Quebec is missing.” Thirty-five years later, this observation still resonates. Every time that Ottawa forgets about Quebec's priorities, every time that the regions are treated as an afterthought, every time that Quebec has to remind the government that it is a nation, the entire reason for the Bloc Québécois's existence is confirmed. Today, Bill C‑30 is another example of that. Not surprisingly, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill. We are not voting against it because it is entirely bad. Some of the measures are a step in the right direction. However, a budget implementation bill must be judged as a whole and, taken as a whole, Bill C-30 fails to address the most pressing needs of Quebec and our regions. For regions like mine, the Lower St. Lawrence, this economic update is notable primarily for what it does not contain. While Quebeckers are fighting for survival, and while the aluminum, steel, timber and processing sectors are suffering the repercussions of new trade barriers, the government is tabling an economic update that does not rise to the challenge. In eastern Quebec, this directly affects our forestry businesses, our manufacturers and the workers who sustain our communities. There are no support programs for the affected sectors and no real plan to protect jobs, as if this crisis can simply wait, yet the Bloc Québécois has proposed concrete measures to support the sectors affected by American tariffs, to help the elderly, to protect our regional media and to finally reform EI. None of these proposals were retained. We also called for correcting the injustice created between seniors 65 to 74 and those 75 and older. In a region like the Lower St. Lawrence, this issue has a real impact. At 74, groceries cost the same as they do at 75. Housing costs the same. Heating costs the same, and yet, Ottawa continues to treat these seniors differently. The Bloc Québécois believes there should not be two categories of seniors. Our seniors have worked their entire lives. They have built our communities. They deserve to be treated fairly. We also called for meaningful support for regional and French-language media. In eastern Quebec, we have seen regional news coverage lose ground. When regional newscasts are no longer broadcast from within our region, it is a wake-up call. The government has chosen to concede to the web giants and forgo revenue that could have been used to support local news, culture and French-language media. This economic update includes no concrete measures to further support regional media or protect local news. Once again, it is the regions that are left holding the bag. In a region where agriculture plays an important role in the local economy, we are also concerned about the proposed changes to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to the Pest Control Products Act. The government wants to weigh economic considerations against public health and environmental protection. For the Bloc Québécois, health care decisions must not be driven by politics. They must be based on science. Public health must never become an economic adjustment variable. I now want to talk about employment insurance. The government is extending certain provisions for seasonal workers until 2028. That is better than nothing. However, it still falls short of the comprehensive reform that regions have been seeking for decades. Seasonality is not a temporary phenomenon in the Lower St. Lawrence. It is part of our economic reality. In 2028, our forestry, agriculture, tourism and marine industries will still need workers. The conditions that justify these provisions will still be there. Why then are temporary solutions still being applied to a permanent problem? Why is uncertainty allowed to persist year after year? Why are these protections not being permanently enshrined in law? The Bloc Québécois is calling for real EI reform, permanent reform, systemic reform, reform that will finally eliminate the spring gap for thousands of workers. Seasonal workers are not a temporary problem. They are at the heart of our regions' economies. Ultimately, this bill does not address the priorities of regions like ours. It does not address the challenges raised by U.S. tariffs, the expectations of seasonal workers, the pressing needs of seniors or the difficulties facing our regional media. It also raises serious concerns about public health and environmental protection. People back home are not asking us for the moon. They are asking us to listen to them, to take their reality into account and to come up with practical answers to the challenges they face in their daily lives. Unfortunately, this bill provides them with no such answers. For that reason, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C‑30.

Madam Speaker, what the parliamentary secretary just said is extremely insulting. He now says he is offering it to everyone, but the measure he is offering to seniors is temporary. The purchasing power of seniors is a permanent problem, however. If he does not understand that after all these years as a member of Parliament, I wonder what he is doing here. I invite my colleague to go out into the community to meet with seniors, and I invite him to ask them if they have to make agonizing choices today between paying their rent, buying medication, groceries or clothes. Then he will come back and tell us things like he just did. I think he is going to be in for a big surprise, as we say in Quebec.

Madam Speaker, it comes as no surprise that the member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent—Akiawenhrahk will be voting “no” in the next referendum. I, on the other hand, will be voting “yes” in case anyone was wondering where my political interests lie. That said, what is even more ridiculous is that my colleague is asking me these types of questions when he knows full well that this is not a matter for debate in the House of Commons. However, I hope that my clear and straightforward answers have helped to reassure him.

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on his French. It is fairly easy to understand. The Liberals have rigged a majority. That is not insignificant. It is a historical first. Does anyone know what else is a historical first? The government has run the biggest deficit in history, totalling $78 billion. That said, they have done such outstanding work that that deficit will be $10 billion less. This government is currently doing the exact opposite of what it promised during the first election, which took place in April 2025. The main problem is that the government said it would resolve the crisis with the Americans. However, at present, nothing has been resolved. Concession after concession is being made, mainly at Quebec's expense. Our economy is the hardest hit compared to the rest of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to sit with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Science and Research. We share certain rural boundaries and we have an awareness of some of our mutual realities. I would like to talk to him about the EI issue. The Liberals, who were in power back then, have been promising a reform since 2015. The Trudeau government said so in 2015. Then, during the 2019 campaign, it said it again. In 2021, the budget even promised that the reform would get done. Here we are, in 2026, and we are still waiting. The government is offering temporary solutions to a permanent problem. Does my colleague truly believe that he is building Canada strong by proposing temporary solutions to a permanent problem?

Mr. Speaker, before I address Bill C‑265, I would like to take a few moments to highlight a major milestone for my region: the 50th anniversary of Culture Bas-Saint-Laurent. I would have liked to be there with its members to celebrate the anniversary in person, but I wanted their contribution to be recognized here in the House of Commons. The 50th anniversary of Culture Bas-Saint-Laurent is an essential reminder of what sets us apart as a region. Let us not forget that Culture Bas-Saint-Laurent grew out of the very first cultural council in Quebec. For 50 years, the organization has been opening doors, bringing the cultural community together and contributing to raising the Lower St. Lawrence region's profile. I want to commend all the people who have kept the organization going all these years: the artists, the cultural workers, the partner organizations, the volunteers and everyone who believes in the power of culture to boost our communities. As the member for Rimouski—La Matapédia, a riding that includes La Mitis, Les Basques and La Neigette, I want to acknowledge the enormous contribution that Culture Bas-Saint-Laurent has made to our region. I wish Culture Bas-Saint-Laurent a very happy 50th anniversary and many more years of success. Many happy returns. I will now continue with the topic at hand today, Bill C‑265. The Bloc Québécois has done its job since the official first reading of this bill in the House on March 11. We have taken the time to carefully analyze all of the proposed amendments to the Food and Drugs Act with a view to creating a list of pre-approved therapeutic products under Health Canada's special access program. Let me be clear from the outset: The Bloc Québécois will be supporting this bill at second reading. The idea behind this bill is simple. It will enable certain seriously ill patients to access treatments more quickly when standard options have been exhausted. It addresses a reality that many of us have witnessed in our ridings: patients with serious or life-threatening illnesses who have exhausted all therapeutic options and wish to access a promising treatment that is sometimes already available elsewhere in the world. In those situations, every day counts. Every administrative delay becomes an additional burden for people who are fighting for their lives. We understand the legitimate desire to have access to alternative treatments when all else has failed. No one wants a patient to be denied a treatment option simply because administrative procedures move more slowly than their disease is progressing. I think many of my colleagues will relate to what I am about to say. At one time or another, we have all received a call or an email from a family desperately seeking a solution for a loved one who is seriously ill. Behind these requests are people who are almost out of options and who are still hoping for one more chance. The special access program was created for just this kind of situation. It is intended to provide access to certain treatments when conventional options are no longer sufficient and the patient's condition requires it. When we look at the path leading to the approval of a new drug, we quickly realize how complex the process is. From research to discovery, through clinical trials, regulatory reviews and approval by Health Canada, before a drug even makes it onto pharmacy shelves, it is clear that the process is like something out of The Twelve Tasks of Asterix. The creation of a list of drugs pre-approved for the special access program could help reduce the time required to process requests, in particular by easing the administrative burden. In principle, this is a step forward that deserves our support. However, the commendable intent aside, we have a duty to examine this bill diligently and judiciously to ensure that this measure is feasible and truly accessible to everyone. Quebec already has its own mechanisms for providing exceptional access to drugs under certain circumstances. This shows that our health care systems are already striving to strike a balance between access to treatment and the responsible management of public resources. That is why it is essential that Quebec be fully involved in any reform affecting access to treatment. First, we have concerns about how Quebec and the provinces have been left out of this process, even though they are the ones responsible for administering health care and, more importantly, managing drug plans. Facilitating access to a drug is one thing. Ensuring that it is truly accessible to members of the public, regardless of their financial situation, is quite another. Without close collaboration with Quebec and the provinces, the government could end up reinforcing inequality when it comes to access to care. Let us not forget that, under the existing special access program, drug prices are set by the manufacturer, so it is possible that some costs might have to be borne by hospitals, public or private insurers, or even, in some cases, patients or their families. We need to ensure that it is not just the wealthiest patients who are able to access these treatments, while others have to do without. That would go against a fundamental principle of our health care system, which is accessibility. Speeding up access to a drug should not mean sticking the provinces and Quebec, health care institutions or families with the bill. We cannot create a system where there is hope for everyone but where only those who can pay can really benefit from it. Innovation is important, but so is fairness, which is why we want to know whether there are any mechanisms planned to take into account the cost and coverage of these drugs. I would also like to hear what the sponsor of the bill has to say on the matter. Does he believe that the special access program's current mechanisms are sufficient to ensure financial accessibility, or does he think adjustments will need to be made? We agree that certain drugs should be made available more quickly, but certainly not at the expense of Quebec and the provinces, hospitals or even patients. Second, we must consider the delicate balance between rapid access and patient safety. Health Canada must continue to rigorously evaluate drugs before they are distributed. In health care, nothing should ever be used as an excuse to bypass the science. Urgency must never override caution. When a person is vulnerable and their options are limited, our collective responsibility is all the greater. We must offer hope, but not under just any conditions. Furthermore, Canada is already one of the most expensive countries for prescription drugs. There is no magic solution. Improving access to new treatments quickly often comes at a significant cost. We must therefore proceed with caution. We do need to move faster, but without driving up costs or cutting corners on safety. Lastly, a number of questions remain about the conditions for adding drugs to this list. In particular, we wish to hear from experts regarding the criteria for adding a drug to the list, the composition of the advisory committee that will be responsible for making recommendations, the follow-up mechanisms that will ensure patient safety, and ethical considerations regarding access to these new treatments. The Bloc Québécois intends to take all the time that is needed to hear from experts, health care professionals, researchers and all stakeholders at the committee stage. Bill C‑265 is ultimately about patients who are running out of options and searching for one more chance. When someone is seriously ill, hope means a lot. Our role as legislators is to ensure that this hope is based on real, fair access. That is why we support the principle of Bill C‑265. Yes, we need to improve access to innovative treatments when conventional options have been exhausted. Yes, we need to reduce red tape when it becomes an unnecessary barrier. However, we must also ensure that these treatments remain accessible to everyone, regardless of income, and that Quebec and the provinces are fully involved in the process. We must also uphold the highest standards of safety and scientific evaluation because, when it comes to public health, public trust is paramount. We will act openly and diligently, in the belief that better access to treatment must never come at the expense of fairness.

Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 78(3), commonly known as time allocation, is currently the Liberals' favourite dish. What we just witnessed is something that the Liberals have now done multiple times. Bill C‑25 is intended to increase public trust in Parliament and its institutions by preventing excessively long ballots, which can cause confusion. I would like the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader to tell us whether he truly believes that this is the way to strengthen public trust in Parliament. What his government is currently doing is just the opposite: It is quashing debate by resorting to time allocation for one bill after another and even for the economic update. I would like my college to tell me explicitly whether he thinks this will strengthen public trust in Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. My colleague did not get to finish his speech, but I imagine he had a great deal more to say. It is actually quite remarkable that Bill C-25, which amends an act, also changes the names of certain ridings. It has been over a year and a half since the last election. I made a promise to my constituents to give the riding a name that better represents it. I wanted it to be called Rimouski—Neigette—La Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques. The current name, Rimouski—La Matapédia, does not reflect the entire territory. I would simply like my colleague to tell me whether he agrees, based on his experience, that it would have made more sense not to wait a year and a half before changing the riding names. This work could have been done a long time ago, rather than putting it off indefinitely.

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. He really enjoyed quoting data from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I would like to ask him a question on that. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that if, tomorrow morning, we were to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline project in western Canada, which is now operational, we would lose money. The project was initially expected to cost about $6 billion, but ultimately cost us $34 billion instead. That means it is not profitable. If we buy a pipeline and have to sell it again, we lose money. I would like my colleague to be clear. Does he support the government using public funds to buy pipeline projects?

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives keep saying that investments are needed in fossil fuels. They are in favour of approving a new pipeline project in western Canada. As members will recall, the Trudeau government purchased a pipeline that cost $34 billion, and if the government were to sell it tomorrow, it would ultimately lose money. I wonder if my colleague thinks that using public funds to buy a new pipeline should be regarded as inflationary spending.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is overstepping once again. He wants to be able to re-authorize, by order in council, pesticides that have been banned on scientific grounds. In a provision buried in the omnibus budget Bill C‑30, he wants to give himself the right to overturn Health Canada's decisions by invoking undefined concepts such as economic security. Researchers and health and environmental organizations are unanimous: this is an anti-science measure serving the interests of large agrochemical companies. They are here today to ask for one thing. Will the government remove this provision from Bill C‑30?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are hiding a measure in Bill C‑30 that allows pesticides banned for scientific reasons to be re-authorized. This is the biggest setback since the Pest Control Products Act was created in 2002. Not only is the Minister of Health not upset about this, she even boasted that she was the only minister to ever attend a CropLife Canada event. CropLife Canada is an association of agrochemical companies that includes the pesticide giant Bayer. Why is the Minister of Health standing up for the profits of multinationals instead of standing up for public health?

Madam Speaker, a mix-up between two government departments is hurting our businesses and their temporary foreign workers. When our small and medium-sized businesses want to renew their employees' work permits through Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, they must submit a labour market impact assessment, or LMIA, within 60 days. However, Service Canada is the one that issues LMIA approvals. Since the Service Canada process takes more than 60 days, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada closes the files. As a result, in Rimouski, two workers at Armoires Perreault have been left without pay. A day care centre was denied two workers after waiting more than 100 days. Will the government stop punishing these people for its own mistakes?

Madam Speaker, it is simple: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada requires LMIAs in 60 days, but the service standard is 64 days. Obviously, this is not working, but Ottawa would rather blame the businesses than clean up its own mess. It is infuriating. The government must extend its deadlines when provided with proof that an LMIA is being processed. When it closes cases by error, it should at least allow them to be reopened at no cost and without having to begin the process all over again. Is it going to fix this disaster?

Madam Speaker, the media industry is going through a crisis right now. The government had introduced a levy in July but ultimately did not go forward with it. The government believed that would put it in a better position to negotiate tariffs with the Americans. That plan failed. Later on, the economic update failed to include anything to support local and regional French-language news outlets. In my region, the Lower St. Lawrence, TVA Group has seen its staff at the station shrink from 30 to eight in the space of two years. Local and regional news coverage is being eroded, yet the latest economic update contains nothing to support these news outlets. Can the minister tell us what he is planning to do right now? The crisis is only getting worse.

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister mentioned affordability. Let us talk about that. We are in the midst of a housing crisis. The Liberal government, which has been in office for a whopping 10 years, launched a national housing strategy in 2017 that never dealt with the crisis. Now, the government has come up with a new gimmick to lull us into complacency: Build Canada Homes. Build Canada Homes provides for the construction of 26,000 new housing units. How many are actually needed? According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we need 690,000, so either the government cannot do math or this is not a priority. I would like the finance minister to tell us whether he is really going to resolve the housing affordability crisis when he is addressing only 5% of the problem, if that.

Mr. Speaker, in the last budget and economic update, the Minister of Finance boasted about wanting to make Canada a global leader in innovation. However, in his last budget, he cut $40 million from the college and community innovation program. We reminded him of that and pointed out the inconsistency. The Liberals say they want to be leaders, but then they turn around and make cuts. The minister ended up reversing course in the economic update. He announced funding that basically reduces the cuts, but the program's budget is still being cut by $5 million. I would like the Minister of Finance to answer the following question. Does he know of any country in the world that wants to excel in innovation but that is cutting its investments in science and research?

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my colleague talked about the importance of affordability in the economic update. The economic update talks about the new initiative announced by the government, specifically Build Canada Homes. The government plans to build 26,000 new homes over the next few years, but the need is much greater. The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that 690,000 homes need to be built. With that in mind, I would really like my colleague to explain something. The government is not meeting even 5% of the need. In her opinion, is that what it means to take care of people when it comes to housing affordability and accessibility?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke to us about the importance of Toronto, which receives a large number of visitors. She mentioned $28 million per year. However, the problem in Toronto, aside from the housing crisis, is the mobility crisis. People can no longer even afford to buy houses right downtown. They have to move to the suburbs, yet the federal government cut $5 billion from the Canada public transit fund in its latest budget. Moreover, in the most recent economic update, the $3 billion that had been allocated is no longer earmarked for the Canada public transit fund, but has instead been folded into the generalized funding pot for infrastructure. I would like my colleague to tell us frankly, for the benefit of the people she represents, whether she truly believes her government is supporting public transit when it cuts funding and reallocates dedicated public transit funding to infrastructure in general.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are again taking advantage of their new majority, which they engineered by enticing floor crossers. This time, they are silencing the opposition with respect to PrescribeIT, a software designed to interfere with health care and prescribe medication. After wasting $300 million on it, the Liberals are abandoning it because nobody is using it. Yesterday, in committee, I moved a motion calling on the Minister of Health to appear and explain this fiasco. The Liberals used their majority to prevent us from putting it to a vote. Will the minister explain herself before the committee and denounce the censorship—

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11 is a concrete example of the Liberal government's lack of leadership. The Liberals have been in power for 10 years and, what is more, held a majority from 2015 to 2019. However, they waited for a public scandal before reforming the military justice system. Justice Arbour's report showed that the system was failing to protect victims. I have a simple question for my colleague. Why did they wait for a public scandal before taking action?

Mr. Speaker, the government is transferring sexual offence cases to the civilian courts. They are being taken out of the military system. The problem is that the government is already incapable of making the justice system work, especially when it comes to appointing judges. Quebec is short five judges and Canada is short 27. Victims do not need a change in system. They need justice. For that to happen, the federal government must do its job: It must appoint judges. Does the government intend to appoint judges as quickly as possible and give the system the resources it needs, instead of just passing the buck?

Mr. Speaker, what is the world coming to? As we know, only one in three Canadians has confidence in Parliament and our institutions, according to Statistics Canada. Today, the government is telling us that it wants to fight cynicism. Democracy is not just a slogan that can be repeated over and over again in press releases and here in the House. Words have meaning. Today, the government is telling us that it wants to change the rules because it managed to recruit some members who were not originally on its side. Now that it has a majority in the House, the government also wants a majority on committees. However, voters did not give this government a majority mandate. How can we counter cynicism when the government acts in this way? It does not respect the will of the people. Does my colleague believe that fighting cynicism means not respecting citizens' choices and what they voted for?

Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote the member for Gatineau, the government House leader, who told the House on April 16, “Canada's democracy is one of the most stable and strongest in the world, but it would be unwise to take this for granted.” I have news for him: Only one in three people in Canada trusts Parliament. What the government wants is to give itself a majority, even though that is not what the people voted for. It says that it wants to do this in order to fight cynicism. I would like my colleague to tell me how his government can claim to be strengthening democracy in Canada while acting against the express will of the people.

Mr. Speaker, the government is saying that it respects tradition and that this is why it should have a majority on committees, despite the will of the people, who did not give the government that majority. I simply wish to remind the government that there is also a tradition here in Parliament of consulting the opposition parties. Today, however, there has been no such consultation. Can my colleague tell me whether, by any chance, he has forgotten that consulting the opposition parties is one of Parliament's traditions?

Mr. Speaker, only one in three people in Canada have confidence in its institutions, including Parliament. Given the Liberals' tactics for poaching members from both the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party in order to secure a majority, this is by no means a run-of-the-mill situation. It is the first time this has happened in Canadian history. I would like my colleague's thoughts on something. Does he think that the public will gain or lose trust in institutions when they fail to respect the will of the people as democratically expressed in elections?

Mr. Speaker, during her speech, my colleague said that the parties' representation on committees must reflect their representation in the House. The Liberals hold 51% of the seats in the House, but they want 58% of the seats in committees. Can my colleague explain to me how she can say in her speech that she wants committees to operate like the House, when in reality, the Liberals are giving themselves much more power with this new majority that they engineered by enticing floor crossers?

Mr. Speaker, the world is upside down. We are experiencing something never seen before because this is the first time it has happened in Canada's history. A government elected as a minority has managed to persuade members from different parties to join its minority government ranks and transform it into a majority government. Not only that, but the government wants to change the committees' composition. It calls it a matter of tradition. In addition to expanding the committees by not just one but two additional government members, the government will be reducing the opposition parties' speaking time. Is my colleague concerned that he might not be able to uncover potential new scandals?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑234, which seeks to create a living donor recognition medal. I want to start by calling attention to my colleague from Edmonton Manning, who donated part of his liver to his son. An act of such profound compassion commands respect. For a living person to donate an organ is a big deal. It is rare, demanding and most of all, it can change a life. The Bloc Québécois will vote for this bill. However, certain things need to be put into perspective. Long before this bill came along, Quebec had already taken the lead in organ donations and transplants. The first kidney transplant in Canada was performed in Montreal way back in 1958. In 1968, the country's first heart transplant was also performed in Montreal. Quebec is therefore a pioneer in the field and continues to play an important role to this day. This role does not only involve medical advances. It is also about collective choices, a desire to organize its society and establish strong institutions. Take, for example, Transplant Québec. This organization was born out of a very real need. As transplants became more common, there was a need to improve the coordination of organ donation, removal and allocation. The work was done over time. It was built up. It was structured. Today, Transplant Québec plays a key role in coordinating organ donation and managing the wait list. That is an essential role. This is diligent work, carried out with compassion and with expertise developed here at home. In other words, Quebec did not just innovate. It built a successful model. That is why the Bloc Québécois finds it unfortunate that the bill fails to mention Quebec's contribution in this regard. We can support a measure of recognition like this one, while remembering one simple thing: Donations can now be made within an organized framework because a system was built patiently over the years. We must not lose sight of what is important. Behind all this, there are still people who are waiting for transplants. There are families living in uncertainty, and very often, difficult decisions are made in extremely trying times. Organ donation is not just a medical issue. It is a matter of trust, support and organization. Indeed, a medal is a fine token of recognition. It is perfectly legitimate to want to highlight such exceptional acts. However, it is important to look at the bigger picture. We need to recognize the work of all those who make this possible on a daily basis: medical teams, coordinators and organizations. I am thinking of Transplant Québec, Héma‑Québec, Canadian Blood Services and all those who often work far from the spotlight but whose role is essential. They are the ones who make it possible to save lives. That is why it will be important to hear from these organizations in committee to ensure that this initiative reflects the reality on the ground and supports what already exists. Ultimately, the question is simple. Do we want to recognize the gesture or do we want to encourage more people to participate? The Bloc Québécois will support this bill, but we want to remind the House of the following: Recognizing donors is important. Recognizing the role of Quebec and its institutions is also important. Ensuring that more donations are made and more lives are saved is even more important. Let us not forget that this can happen to anyone and any family. On a more personal note, I have signed my organ donor card. I urge my colleagues to do the same. It is a simple gesture, but it can save a life.

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities has been clear. The committee is calling on the government to reconsider its distribution of student grants based on the type of institution where students are studying. In particular, the committee points out that federal decisions should align with those made by Quebec and the provinces because post-secondary education falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. This is not up for debate. What we are seeing right now is that Ottawa is moving away from simply helping students financially. It is starting to indirectly determine which institutions provide access to the grants and which do not. The result is that two students who have been recognized by Quebec can still be treated differently by Ottawa. That is not acceptable to us. It is a clear infringement on an area of jurisdiction that does not belong to the government. The federal government's role should be simple. It should help students, not redraw the boundaries of higher education in a way that suits it. If a recognized institution is authorized by Quebec, students studying there must be treated fairly. As we allow ourselves to be distracted by this debate, an even bigger problem is getting even worse: lack of funding for the next generation of scientists. Graduate scholarships have not gone up in 20 years. Some have not been indexed since 2003. Practically speaking, they have lost nearly half of their real value. Meanwhile, there are now about 240,000 graduate students and barely 6,000 federal scholarships. The situation in the Université du Québec network is even more dire. Only about 1.3% of its graduate students receive federal scholarships. Young people have been told to go into research, get an education and contribute, but they are not actually being given the means to do that properly, and it shows. Nowadays, most graduate students live on very little. Some have to work during their studies. Some even have to go to food banks. Others are seriously thinking about dropping out. In Quebec, in places like Montreal, some live on less than $20,000 per year. Everyone knows that is not enough. It is often even harder in the regions. As vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, I hear about this constantly. Students are burnt out, their professors cannot keep their teams together, and the system is on the verge of falling apart. My riding, Rimouski—La Matapédia, is home to applied research centres and teams doing innovative work on the ground. They all tell me the same thing. Resources are lacking, and projects are stalling, being postponed or being abandoned. At the end of the day, this has a direct impact on what we as a society can do. A few weeks ago, SEREX, a college centre for technology transfer located in Amqui, contacted me to warn that further budget cuts to certain programs risk significantly hampering its ability to operate. Then we wonder why people are leaving. A large proportion of postgraduate students are considering leaving Canada, and many already have. Why are they leaving? The answer is simple. Conditions are better elsewhere, pay is higher and there are more resources available. Again, I ask: Why train people here if we are just going to lose them? At this rate, Canada is becoming a place where we train people for other countries. We are kind of like a way station. We train the students and pay them, but others reap the benefits. A country that does that is not working for its own people; it is working for others. This is not just a student issue; it is also an economic issue. When we lose our next generation of workers, we lose ideas, we lose expertise and we lose the ability to innovate. We also lose economic benefits for our regions, our businesses and our institutions. In Quebec, this affects us directly. Our universities, CEGEPs, colleges and research centres, especially in the regions, play a key role in development. When funding falls short, the entire ecosystem suffers. Now the government is telling us that it has taken action, that it has increased and extended the assistance. Yes, announcements were made, but in all honesty, that does not solve the underlying problem. A few announcements do not make up for 20 years of delays. In the meantime, the government keeps making access to grants more complicated. It adds conditions and draws distinctions. It says it wants to help, yet it keeps putting obstacles in the way. None of that makes any sense. There is also another problem. We still do not have access to all the data we need to clearly see what is working and what is not. Researchers are expected to be rigorous, but the government itself does not always provide the means to analyze its own system properly. The federal government claims that it wants to become a world leader in innovation, but it is not even giving itself the means to fulfill its ambitions. It is at the back of the pack when it comes to research and development investment among G7 countries. A leader does not underfund the next generation. A leader does not needlessly complicate access to grants. Above all, a leader does not let its talent leave for other countries. The bottom line is simple. If we want to move forward, we need to keep our people around. That is quite logical. It is clear to the Bloc Québécois. The government needs to rethink the way it distributes grants. It needs to respect the decisions of Quebec and the provinces. It needs to treat students fairly. Above all, it must finally put in place stable, permanent funding. At the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves the real question: Do we want to keep our people here, or are we quietly agreeing to become a stepping stone in our researchers' journey? Right now, that is what is happening. People are being trained here but are going off to build up other countries. If left unchecked, things will keep heading in the same direction. Training people here so that they can achieve success elsewhere is not a strategy; it is a failure.

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear. To my knowledge, my colleague is pretty good with numbers. Federal student grants at the graduate level have not been adjusted for inflation for 20 years. I would like him to name one thing that has not been adjusted for inflation for 20 years and tell me whether he thinks that makes sense. How can we retain talent and expertise when we lack the necessary incentives or winning measures to retain these people? The position of the Bloc Québécois is quite clear. Yes, we want to increase federal student grants. However, the government is more interested in attracting and bringing in people from the United States and other countries than in strengthening conditions here for students already in Quebec and Canada. In the last budget, the government allocated $1.2 billion to attract people. I will give the government the benefit of the doubt, but I look forward to seeing the results. Before we build new gardens, perhaps we should take care of the ones we already have here.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's remarks. Obviously, this is not the government's first discriminatory policy, yet we are told that this is an open, inclusive, and equitable government. Consider this statistic: approximately 80% of research funding in Canada goes to about 10% of researchers. Does that not seem lopsided? We have policies in place that favour a certain group of people, who are often part of the elite circles very close to the government, and that suits them just fine. The current structure and model of the university system is set up in such a way that when it comes to scholarships, it is always the same people who end up with everything. Furthermore, once they have received a scholarship, they are more likely to receive others in the future. That is how the system is currently built.

Mr. Speaker, the government finally took action in budget 2024. Student grants were adjusted for inflation and increased. It was clear that Canada was no longer competitive and that we were losing our best and brightest to the United States or to other countries. However, it is also becoming apparent that students are taking longer to complete their studies. Students who are already living on very limited means are being forced to extend the duration of their studies, or they have to get a job, prolonging their studies even more. Unfortunately, the government is not extending the duration of the support provided through federal student grants, as many organizations are calling for.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. I believe he shone a light on something that was already well known, something that the Séguin report demonstrated in the early 2000s, namely the adverse effects of the federal system, with its encroachment on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, particularly with regard to fiscal imbalance. As a member of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, I can see this in concrete terms. Universities now have the opportunity to draw funding from two levels of government: the Quebec government and the federal government, which has established scholarships and created the Canada Foundation for Innovation to support infrastructure, particularly in higher education and research institutions. I would like my colleague to explain to me what the outcome of all this is. The revenue raising capacity that the federal government has maintained over recent years is now bringing certain provinces, including Quebec, to their knees, and this presents us with very difficult choices that mean we have to accept certain conditions reluctantly.

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C‑226, the bill introduced by the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells to establish a national framework for food price transparency at the grocery store. To begin, the Bloc Québécois is sensitive to the economic reality that Quebec and Canadian families are facing. We know full well that the rising cost of groceries is forcing a growing number of households to monitor and compare prices more closely. That said, Quebeckers want more than just a better understanding of their grocery bill. They want grocery prices to come down. It is true that certain price display practices sometimes make it more difficult to compare items, but we also must be honest. Displaying a price by litre or by kilogram does not change the amount paid at the cash register. The problem is not how the price is displayed, but the price itself. The bill is giving the impression that it is addressing the cost of living, but it fails to address the real causes of price increases. While families struggle to make ends meet, the government is once again choosing to focus on the price tag rather than on the grocery bill as a whole. The real problem is market concentration, the power of the big chains and the fact that the bill has no effect on those factors. Basically, the bill is focusing on the prices displayed in store, meaning what retailers are doing. It is not getting at what really influences prices. The Bloc Québécois is against the bill because it seeks to establish a national strategy with accountability requirements for Quebec and the provinces in a sector that falls under their jurisdiction. As we know, agriculture and agri-food are shared jurisdictions. However, retail, domestic marketing and consumer protection fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. It is not a grey area. In this case, when a customer buys a product at the grocery store, it is a transaction between a consumer and a merchant. That is unmistakably a matter of private law that falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. What is more, Quebec did not wait for the federal government to take action. Quebec is the only place in Canada that already regulates unit pricing. Unit pricing is not even mandatory anywhere else in the country. Quebec is already committed to protecting consumers in accordance with its own laws and within its own areas of jurisdiction. That is why we find it very difficult to accept the fact that Ottawa wants to impose a national framework in an area where Quebec is already taking action. The federal government sees rising food prices as an opportunity to talk about removing barriers to interprovincial trade. It is trying to use this bill to lump together all sorts of rules that are not directly related to that objective, including unit price labelling. However, it is important to be clear. Unit price labelling is not a barrier or hindrance to trade, nor does it impede the flow of goods between provinces. Once again, the federal government is failing to take the right approach and actually help Quebeckers and Canadians keep money in their pockets. How will this bill lower families' grocery bills? The answer is that it will not. Instead, this bill simply adds another layer of bureaucracy and accountability in a sector that does not fall under federal jurisdiction. If this were to move forward on national level, then it would be best if Quebec and the provinces discussed the matter amongst themselves, agreed on the requirements, and jointly established a course of action that respects their jurisdictions. Discussions on internal trade may provide a forum for this, but certainly not at the cost of federal encroachment. Accepting this today also means accepting a precedent. It opens the door to further federal interference tomorrow in areas that are the sole responsibility of Quebec. I would also like to point out that the Competition Bureau's June 2023 report on food prices did not propose imposing a uniform federal standard. On the contrary, it spoke of collaboration between the provinces. None of the recommendations called on the federal government to intervene directly in this way. It is the provinces that must reach an agreement. This is important because it confirms that, even when we are talking about improving practices, the way forward remains negotiation, not imposition. The problem is that the federal government too often acts as though Canada were a unitary state. It wants to harmonize policies across the country without accounting for existing realities, choices already made or jurisdictions. The reality is that Quebec is often ahead of the curve. This is true on a lot of issues. Once again, Quebec is already working on a problem, and the government comes along and tries to force it to adopt a Canadian standard that disregards everything Quebec is doing. We are getting a little fed up with seeing Ottawa step in when Quebec is already doing something. The government has been pushing the idea of a national unit pricing standard for a long time. After realizing that it lacks the leverage to force the provinces' hand, the government is dialing up the pressure. The government can tout the advantages of this kind of policy all it wants, but two simple facts remain: The federal government has no authority to impose that, and it will not lower food prices anyway. In short, everything has been set up to federalize an issue that is actually the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. We need to let the appropriate governments handle this and negotiate among themselves. They have already demonstrated that they can work together when necessary. We saw that with the grocery sector code of conduct, for instance. It can all work out when governments collaborate. When Ottawa imposes its will, it mainly causes unnecessary tension. What we are asking for is simple: genuine negotiations that respect jurisdictional boundaries. The federal government can facilitate everything, but it cannot impose a one-size-fits-all standard in a sector that falls outside its purview. Quebeckers are not looking for empty measures. They want meaningful action that will truly lower their bills and respect Quebec's jurisdiction. For all the reasons I have just listed, the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will give my colleague a moment to put in his earpiece so that he can understand me properly in one of Canada's official languages. The Conservative Party claims to defend individual freedoms. I would like to ask my colleague a simple question. Does he support “reasonable suspicion” as the threshold for granting access to Quebeckers' and Canadians' digital lives? That is what this bill does right now.

Riddle me this, Mr. Speaker. The government is asking the public to trust it and saying that it needs more power. That is what the government is asking parliamentarians to approve right now. However, the government is cutting the resources of those that will oversee those new powers. In the most recent budget, the Liberal Party made a 15% cut to the budget of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, the watchdog for the new powers the government is asking for. Can my colleague explain how the government will do more surveillance with more powers when there will be fewer people responsible for overseeing those new powers?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from a speech delivered by Imam Adil Charkaoui in Montreal on October 23, 2023. He said, “Allah, take care of these Zionist aggressors. Take care of the enemies of the people of Gaza. Identify them all, then exterminate them. And don't spare any of them.” If that is not hate speech, then I would like my Conservative colleagues to tell me what is. No charges were brought against him after that speech. It was the federal police, the RCMP, that said we should modernize the Criminal Code to ensure that we wipe out hate speech. I would like to ask my colleague a simple question: If he wants to crack down on hate speech, why does he not agree that we should put the legislative tools in place to do so?

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. I gave an example earlier, following a speech by a Conservative colleague, about how Imam Adil Charkaoui had incited hatred, notably with his speech at an event. No charges were brought under the existing Criminal Code, and that is why the Bloc Québécois is seeking to modernize it, as suggested by the RCMP. There were no grounds for the RCMP to lay charges, even though someone had engaged in hate speech. I would like my colleague to explain this to me in concrete terms: If a person can preach hatred under the guise of religion, and the police are telling us that they are unable to lay charges, how is it that my colleague does not agree with the idea of modernizing the Criminal Code to prevent this sort of situation?

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C‑224. Introduced by my Conservative colleague for Ponoka—Didsbury, this bill aims to amend the Food and Drugs Act to exclude natural health products from the definition of therapeutic products. In practical terms, if this bill passes in its current form, natural health products will no longer be subject to the same oversight mechanisms as other therapeutic products, including those set out in Vanessa's Law. Let us briefly revisit the reason for this law. Vanessa's Law was enacted in 2014 following the tragic death of Vanessa Young. It aims to enhance the powers of the Minister of Health to better protect the public from unsafe products. For instance, Vanessa's Law allows the minister to order manufacturers to disclose information, to require a label change, to prohibit the sale of a product and, most importantly, to order a recall of products that present a serious health risk. For a long time, natural health products were excluded from those powers. However, these products are not always harmless. Probiotics, vitamins, minerals, herbal remedies and traditional medicines are now a huge industry. In Canada, this market is estimated to be worth between $4 billion and $5 billion per year, and these products are widely used. It is estimated that that 73% of Canadians use this type of product on a regular basis. The term “natural” inspires confidence, but it must be made clear that “natural” does not mean “harmless”. “Natural” does not mean “without side effects” and does not mean “without supervision”. These products can interact with prescription drugs, cause serious adverse reactions and, in some cases, have very serious consequences. Consider, for example, the known interactions between certain supplements and prescription drugs that can reduce the effectiveness of a treatment or increase health risks. Members might also recall the sad case of Michel Joannette, who developed hepatitis after consuming a natural product he bought online to help him lose weight. These situations remind us of a simple reality: Just because something is natural does not automatically mean it is safe. In 2021, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development published a troubling report on Health Canada's oversight of these products. The report concluded that the department's oversight had failed to ensure their safety and effectiveness. The commissioner identified several significant problems. First, Health Canada could not order the mandatory recall of a natural health product, even in the presence of a serious health risk. Second, there were significant gaps in the inspection of manufacturing facilities. Post-market surveillance was also insufficient, and the department did not always have the necessary tools to effectively detect unlicensed products or misleading advertising. The numbers speak for themselves. The number of reports of adverse effects associated with these products rose from 22,211 in 2010 to 96,559 in 2019. In light of these findings, the federal government decided to take action. In 2023, under Bill C-47, these products were made subject to certain provisions of Vanessa's Law. The department can now impose mandatory recalls when public safety is at stake. However, Bill C-224 would reverse that decision. Let me be clear. We in the Bloc Québécois recognize that natural health products should not be treated exactly like prescription drugs. They belong in a distinct category. They cannot be treated as simple food products, either. In our view, the position is simple and balanced. Natural health products are not drugs, but nor are they risk-free. They must be strictly regulated. The key question, then, is this. Are we going to weaken public health protection measures? In its current form, Bill C-224 raises a major concern. If it were passed as is, the minister could lose the ability to impose a mandatory recall when a product poses a danger to the public. Imagine for a moment a product contaminated with bacteria such as E. coli. Without this recall power, we would be relying solely on the manufacturer's goodwill to have the product removed from shelves. It would put us back in a situation that the Auditor General himself deemed inadequate. It would be a step backwards, one that we should not take. That said, the Bloc Québécois believes that this bill deserves serious consideration in committee. That is why we will support the bill at second reading so that it can be examined in depth. However, we will be very clear on one thing. Our final support will depend on one essential condition: The bill must maintain mandatory recall power. Public protection must never be weakened in the name of deregulation. Quebeckers must be able to have complete confidence in what they consume. This means that what is sold on the market must meet rigorous standards, have clear labelling and make truthful claims, and the government must have the tools it needs to intervene when public health is threatened. Clear regulations protect consumers, but they also protect reputable businesses that follow the rules. This is a simple matter, really. Just because a product is popular does not mean that it is effective or safe. The legislator's primary responsibility is still to protect public health. The Bloc Québécois will therefore keep an open mind about this bill, but there is a very clear line that we will not cross. Public safety must always come first.

Madam Speaker, I am rising today at second reading of Bill C-237. At first reading last October, the Bloc Québécois indicated that we were open to this bill. At that time, we had already found some problems with the bill, but we were willing to analyze it, hear the arguments and look at the actual impacts it would have. Since then, we have worked hard to do just that. We have listened to Quebeckers. We have heard from the community. We have spoken to local fishers. We have heard from regional associations and departmental representatives. Whether it be in the Gaspé, Quebec's maritime regions, the Lower St. Lawrence or the north shore, the response on the ground is clear. People are opposed to this bill. The Coopérative des capitaines-propriétaires de la Gaspésie has warned that this approach could lead to a significant reduction in activity and have a domino effect on the region's entire maritime supply chain. When those who make a living from the sea tell us that a bill could weaken their sector, we need to listen to them. In light of this, our position has changed. The Bloc Québécois will therefore be voting against Bill C-237, and I will explain why. Modern management uses a stock-based approach. Migrations differ, spawning periods vary and environmental conditions are not the same everywhere. Standardization for the sake of simplification may seem appealing to Ottawa, but it removes flexibility for those on the water. Given that climate change is already altering species dynamics, that flexibility is essential. There is also the issue of scientific data. Take cod for example, where recreational catches in 2024 were estimated at approximately 2,700 tonnes, but actual landings were not directly measured. These figures are based on models. Before tightening regulations across the Atlantic, lawmakers must ensure that the data is complete and robust enough to justify such a reform. We believe in science, but science requires a solid foundation. It is also important to remember the economic importance of this sector. In some regions of maritime Quebec, fishing and processing account for up to 30% of jobs. These are not abstract statistics; entire communities depend on this industry. I want to talk about the issue of mandatory registration for recreational fishing. Currently, recreational groundfish fishing is regulated by daily limits restricted to open fishing seasons, as managed by fisheries officers. The bill would impose a system to record the number of fish caught, the location and the time of capture. In practical terms, this means that recreational fishers would have to fill out a logbook every time they go out. No one in Quebec is asking for that. Regulations must be proportionate to the problem they seek to solve. We are not opposed to collecting data. We are opposed to imposing poorly targeted regulations that are not backed by clear necessity, especially since data collection tools, such as electronic logbooks, already exist in the commercial sector. Before creating a new regime for recreational fishing, we should first optimize those already in place. Next comes the issue of seasonal uniformity. The bill calls for the harmonization of open and close times across the entire Atlantic area. Fisheries management, however, cannot be limited to a one-size-fits-all calendar covering every corner of the territory. Beyond the issue of recreational seasons, the real strategic issue facing the fisheries exceeds the scope of this bill. We export the bulk of our catch and we import the bulk of the seafood products we consume. That deserves a broader debate than the one being proposed now. We understand that this bill addresses genuine frustrations felt in Newfoundland and Labrador. However, without minimizing that reality, a regional demand should not automatically result in a change that applies to the entire Atlantic area. The Quebec fishing community is not calling for this kind of reform and it has concerns about its consequences. Essentially, our decision should be guided by three questions. Is it proportionate? Is it scientifically justified? Is it economically responsible? At this stage, the answers are not persuasive. A one-size-fits-all calendar is not the right way to manage the fisheries. Such management has to be based on the locality, on fish stocks and on the communities that depend on them. Although the bill may streamline federal administration, it complicates regional realities. The Bloc Québécois will therefore vote against Bill C-237 at second reading.

Madam Speaker, we are experiencing the worst housing crisis in decades, and the government is boasting that it is going to create a new entity called Build Canada Homes. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that Build Canada Homes will create a mere 26,000 new homes, when 690,000 are needed. Does anyone on that side of the House know how to count? I thought the Prime Minister was supposed to be a financial expert. The government is not even addressing 5% of the crisis. Is there any plan to even pretend that the government is working on the crisis, or is the plan more to manipulate public opinion into believing that the Liberals are really good?