Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I too have had the opportunity to work with her for 11 years, and it has been an honour. I think there is a bit of consensus on this bill. However, unless I am mistaken, this is at least the second, if not third, version of such a bill. Since this is a government bill, I do not understand why it could not be developed, finalized or passed in previous Parliaments. I am aware that it died on the Order Paper, but why did it die on the Order Paper? There was a Parliament from 2019 to 2021, and then another from 2021 to 2025. It seems to me that this bill could have been passed sooner, particularly if there is consensus. I wonder whether the government is actually serious or whether it just wants to tell indigenous people that it has introduced a bill. I want to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House what the religious exemption that is eliminated by Bill C‑9 refers to, because I am hearing things from our Conservative colleagues and I cannot believe what I am hearing. There was never any question of prohibiting people from reading the Bible, the Torah, the Quran or any other religious text. What is prohibited is spreading hate based on a religious text. Some people use that as an excuse to spread hate, and that is what is being prohibited. That is the defence that will be removed from the Criminal Code. Reading the Bible, the Quran and the Torah is allowed, it always has been, and I hope it always will be.

Mr. Speaker, everything has been said about this bill, including with regard to the religious exemption. Committee proceedings began last October, and in the end, it took time allocation to get it passed. I find that truly deplorable because this is an important bill. Hate is a societal cancer at every level. I support Bill C-9, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-9 and we will vote in favour of Bill C-9. However, regarding the question raised by our Conservative colleagues as to whether we should grant them more time to discuss it, I am not opposed to that. Personally, I believe there was a lot of unnecessary filibustering in committee since last fall. Despite that, if our Liberal colleagues agreed to drop time allocation and give the Conservatives more time, we would be willing to agree to that. By the end of the week, we could all come to fully understand Bill C-9 and pass it unanimously. If our Conservative colleagues intend to conduct a good-faith review of this bill, I support them.

Mr. Speaker, this is not my first time speaking in the House to Bill C‑9. My position, or the position of the Bloc Québécois, is already well known. Obviously, it will come as no surprise to hear that we have no intention of changing our position. That said, I think it is worth reiterating a number of points regarding Bill C‑9, because I would say that too much misinformation has been spread about this bill. Whether in good faith or bad faith, this disinformation has significantly undermined the bill's social acceptability. I would say that hate is like a cancer on society. It is eating away at our society from all sides. We see it online in social media comments that are not only unacceptable but often go so far that legal action is taken. Forty or 50 years ago, we did not see the kind of hate and violence that exists in schools today. It did not exist. Today, elementary school children can attack their teachers and use language that is worse than inappropriate, violent language toward teachers. We see it on the streets. Every day, we read the newspapers and see everything that is happening on the streets. We also know that society is changing. More and more newcomers are coming from all over the world to settle in Quebec and Canada. Their customs, values, religions and education are different from ours. They are not better or worse, only different. In fact, they are so different that we have to adapt to each other. Unfortunately, this difference sometimes leads to hate or, at the very least, hateful behaviour. That is what Bill C‑9 is trying to address. Naturally, there are already provisions in the Criminal Code that can handle some of these issues, but Bill C‑9 applies directly to hate by clarifying what needs to be clarified and by doing what I would call a small clean-up of the Criminal Code that was, in some respects, badly needed. Hate in Quebec and Canada has seen a significant increase. Between 2019 and 2022, there was an overall increase of 83% in hate crimes in Canada. An increase of 83% in three years is no trivial matter. When I said that society is undergoing major transformations, this is a good example. In 2023 alone, which is not that long ago, just three years ago, there were 1,284 hate crimes targeting a religion. That is 516 more crimes than in 2022. In one year, the number of hate crimes increased by 516 for a total of 1,284 crimes, all targeting a religion. That is a problem we need to address. That is what we were elected to do. We are in the federal Parliament. We cannot set the school curriculum because that is up to Quebec; it is under provincial jurisdiction. We cannot run hospitals because that is under provincial jurisdiction; it is up to Quebec. All the Bloc Québécois is asking for—and as members will have noticed, we have been asking for this consistently for as long as anyone can remember—is for the federal government to shoulder its responsibilities. It collects too much tax. It should return that money to the provinces, yet it uses it to try to manipulate the provinces by saying it will give them their money back on the condition that they do what it wants. We are constantly speaking out against this. That is the provinces' area of jurisdiction. We say that the federal government should simply transfer the money and let the provinces manage it as they see fit, particularly given that the provinces have the necessary jurisdiction and expertise in these areas. However, when we talk about the Criminal Code and when we talk about hate crimes, we are squarely in the federal government's wheelhouse. There was an increase to as many as 1,284 hate crimes targeting a religion in 2023 and an 83% increase in hate crimes in Quebec and across Canada between 2019 and 2022. These figures should speak for themselves and convince everyone in the House that we need to address this problem. For the Jewish community alone, we saw a significant increase to 900 cases over the same period, as well as an increase to 211 cases for the Muslim community. That is unacceptable. We have laws and regulations, and we have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to which virtually all of us are committed to some extent. The values enshrined in the charter are values we all uphold. We think it is important, for example, to allow everyone to practise the religion of their choice in Quebec and Canada. We think this is so important that the Quebec National Assembly passed a law known as the Act respecting the laicity of the State that has attracted a lot of media attention and that is currently before the Supreme Court of Canada. Quebec's Act respecting the laicity of the State seeks to ensure that everyone can practise the religion of their choice without any interference from the state. The state is said to be secular. It has no religious identity or preference. As a result, public servants who represent the state in their work, such as police officers or teachers, are representatives of the state and should not show any religious preference. That is the approach that Quebec has taken to ensure that everyone, whether they be Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Christian or Buddhist, can practise the religion of their choice without facing criticism from the state. We are being told that hate crimes are being committed against religious communities. It is the federal government's responsibility to address this problem, and that is what Bill C-9 does. It is rare for the Bloc Québécois to agree with the government's proposals, particularly those of the Liberal government, whose legislative measures we have criticized on a number of occasions. However, in this case, I must commend the work of the Minister of Justice, whom I have worked with over the past few months to arrive at this version. It is not perfect, I admit, but it seems to me to be entirely appropriate, given the current situation in our country. The offences or situations covered by Bill C-9 relate in particular to the incitement of hatred through the use of symbols. This bill will prohibit the use of certain hate symbols, such as the swastika or symbols associated with terrorist organizations. More recently, the noose was also added to this list following an amendment proposed by the Senate. We can discuss that. We could add many more symbols. We could take some out for all sorts of good or bad reasons. For example, I believe that the swastika is a religious symbol for the Tibetan community. I think it is the Tibetan community, but I am not sure. It is a symbol that is not just used to mark the despicable acts committed by the Nazis during World War II. It is also a symbol that has been in use for a very long time, long before the Nazis came to power in Germany. It is a symbol that some would have liked to protect and exclude from the list. As I was saying earlier, nothing is perfect. We need to try to address the issue as best we can. In the vast majority of cases, when someone uses a swastika, it is meant to recall a time that we do not want to forget, because I think we need to remember it, but a time that we do not want to go through again. Bill C‑9 will put an end to the promotion of hate through the use of hate symbols. As I was saying earlier, there is intimidation going on in our schools, on our streets and on the Internet. That is what intimidation is. Hate is being used to intimidate people, and I do not understand, or I am having a hard time understanding, how this can be happening. I do not think that should be happening. I think that, in a society, even if it is an imperfect one, where individuals respect one another and respect differences of opinion, intimidation should be banned. However, in this case, we see that intimidation was used to prevent or hinder access to public places. I am thinking of certain schools, places of worship, and community centres that have been subjected to all sorts of unacceptable acts of intimidation. Regardless of a person's religious affiliation, or even if the person has no religious affiliation at all, everyone has this right. Everyone also has the right not to believe in God. Everyone has the right not to have a religion. Everyone has the right to be undecided. We have the right to simply have no interest in the matter. All of this is perfectly legal. However, preventing people from accessing their place of worship is disrespectful. By doing so, we create—

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Conservative colleague. I cannot recall the name of his riding, but thanks to him, I have an attentive audience. I think this is the first time I have been in the middle of a speech and seen everyone rush into the House to listen to it. I thank my colleague. I was talking about the offence of intimidation in order to obstruct or interfere with access to a place of worship. That kind of behaviour is unacceptable. It is disrespectful and creates frustration, which often leads to acts of violence. We need to address this problem. Of course, protests must still be allowed. The Bloc Québécois cares deeply about that. We care deeply about these values regarding rights and freedoms. I see that some of my colleagues are starting to leave. I must be a little bit more boring now. I apologize. We are committed to freedom of movement, freedom of speech and freedom of thought. We have no objection to people demonstrating outside public places. We believe that it can be a wonderful expression of democracy when done respectfully. However, blocking access—for example, demonstrating outside a church to prevent people who attend that church from entering, or intimidating them to discourage them from returning—is disrespectful and unacceptable. Bill C-9 addresses this problem. There is also the issue of offences under the Criminal Code that are committed and additionally motivated by hatred. We must do something about this. Bill C-9 addresses this. Sentences may be increased by up to 10 years. Committing theft or another offence under the Criminal Code is one thing. There are penalties in place. A certain amount of evidence must be provided for each of these offences. However, if it can be established that the offence in question was also committed on grounds of hate, then the sentence may be increased significantly. Unfortunately, I think this is a good thing. I say “unfortunately” because, like most of us probably, I wish we never had to do this or worry about this issue. We should live in a society where, first of all, no one commits crimes, and second, when someone does, it certainly should not be for hateful motives that are unacceptable in our society. These are all important things that we welcome with great pleasure, though that is not quite the right word. We certainly agree with that. The Bloc Québécois felt that Bill C-9 was incomplete and had certain shortcomings, which is why we proposed a number of amendments. We are pleased that, following discussions, the minister came to the conclusion that this made sense. Some of the proposed amendments were adopted. The first was to restore the prior consent of the Attorney General before starting proceedings under these hate crime provisions. When we talk about hate, we are talking about a number of things that often stem from frustration, which is often due to a lack of respect. One thing leads to another and we see situations where the parties are at odds with each other and things get heated, if we can put it that way. Without this requirement to obtain the Attorney General's consent, we run the risk of ending up with cases that might have little chance of success or that could, at the very least, turn into frivolous prosecutions. We do not want that. I think that we need to be prudent, remain calm and use some wisdom when dealing with these hate crime offences. Personally, I like to think that there are people in the Attorney General's office who will keep a close eye on things. It was a Bloc Québécois amendment that sought to undo the elimination of the prior consent of the Attorney General from Bill C‑9. That provision will remain and will ensure prudent and reasonable management of this whole issue. Then there is the definition of hate. There was a definition in Bill C-9 that struck us as somewhat flawed. In fact, it was a sort of exercise in rephrasing the Supreme Court's decision in the Keegstra case, changing a few words to try to come up with wording that was a bit more catchy or flashy. I think that was a bad idea. We wanted to stick to the definition established by the Supreme Court in the Keegstra decision, and the Minister of Justice agreed to do so. We therefore amended Bill C-9 to adopt the exact wording proposed by the Supreme Court. This will spare us legal setbacks, rulings that would delay the implementation of the law, or even hinder or overturn certain trials. Finally, there is the issue we have been discussing for some time now. It feels like when we talk about Bill C-9, that is all anyone talks about. Members will notice that I waited to bring it up, because I have spoken about it so often that everyone knows where I stand on the matter. I am referring to the religious exemption. Hatred, hate crimes, hate propaganda and anti-Semitism are already covered by section 319 of the Criminal Code. However, one of the subsections created an anachronism. I do not have the text in front of me, but I believe it states that no person shall be convicted of these offences if it can be proven that they spread hatred in good faith based on a belief in a religious text. That makes no sense. How can someone spread hatred in good faith? That seems contradictory to me. Canada, like Quebec, has also enshrined freedom of religion in law. In a state that claims to be secular, how can one claim that a person can twist and distort religious texts to make them say things that serve to spread hatred and that this constitutes a valid defence? I am sorry, but that seems unacceptable to me. We reached a compromise with the Minister of Justice because some people had been spreading a lot of propaganda about repealing the religious exemption, claiming that people would no longer be allowed to read the Bible, the Quran or the Torah. I find that troubling because members of the public accepted that idea, whether out of naivety or because they trusted elected officials in whom they believed, and now they are concerned about Bill C-9. We added subsection 319(2), which states that nothing in the Criminal Code “shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement made in the course of a discussion, publication or debate, if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement...[or] if they do not wilfully promote antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust.” This clearly indicates that a person may make a statement of a religious nature as long as it is not done for the purpose of spreading hate. That seems like an acceptable compromise to me. I will stop there. I sense that my time is up. I was pleased to address the House on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's hope. I wish a bill like this one could pass unanimously. I have said it before and I will say it again: This fall, I will be marking 11 years in the House, and I have never met a member who was acting in bad faith. I profoundly disagree with many of them on many issues, but I think that they all defend their points of view in good faith because they truly believe in them. I also trust everyone's intelligence, and I think that, if members carefully read the Criminal Code provisions on hate and the religious exemption, they should easily come to the conclusion that we need to move forward and get rid of this archaic provision that is holding us back.

Mr. Speaker, it seems pretty clear. No one can tell me that it is possible to spread hate in good faith or to interpreting a religious text to read that hate is a good thing. The same goes for hating Jewish people, Muslim people, Christians, Catholics, Black people, white people or God knows who else. It may be possible, but can we agree that all of it is done in bad faith? Spreading hate in good faith is impossible, and doing it based on religious writings is even more impossible.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles‑de‑la‑Madeleine—Listuguj, who always asks thoughtful questions. Working with him is always a pleasure. Obtaining the prior consent of the Attorney General is important to avoid misuse and abuse. Bill C‑9 endeavours to avoid certain hate-related abuses. The goal is to avoid excessive prosecutions or pitting one group against another. Rather than allowing people to bring proceedings without guard rails, the Attorney General is a subject matter expert who can set limits on prosecutions and ensure that charges are only laid in situations involving clear violations of the Criminal Code provisions.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He raises a good point. The Adil Charkaoui case shocked everyone in Quebec at the time, and probably everyone across Canada. I do not have the text in front of me, but this individual used biblical texts to say something along the lines of “Lord, eliminate all of Allah's enemies, spare no one”. It was clearly an incitement to hatred against Jews. However, the Attorney General did not bring any charges in this case. It seems that my colleague has information that I do not have. He seems to know why no charges were brought. I do not know. I do know one thing, though. I practised law for 30 years before I came to Parliament, and I know one thing. There are quite a few cases in the Crown prosecutor's office. Before deciding to assign a case to a lawyer and instructing them to bring charges, the director of the office will assess whether there is a reasonable chance of success or not. They will ask themselves whether they are getting involved in a case that is a non-starter or whether it makes sense. In Charkaoui's case, if I had been the director of the Crown's office at the time, with a provision like the one in subsection 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code, which permits hatred to be spread if it is done in good faith based on a religious text, I would likely have said that my chances of success are virtually nil and I would not have wasted the lawyers' time on such a case.

Mr. Speaker, I just said this, and I do not want to repeat myself, but I think it is important to have guidelines. We are dealing with explosive issues. Hate is fuelling outbursts of anger online, on the streets, in schools, and just about everywhere. We want to try to tackle hate. For heaven's sake, let us approach this with some wisdom and keep this guideline of entrusting general oversight to an expert—the Attorney General, in this case. That seems to me to be the wisest and most effective way to tackle this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. In his speech, and in the speech by his Liberal colleague before him, I could hear a certain commitment to freedom of religion, which I share. We in the Bloc Québécois are committed to it as well. I would like to know his thoughts on that matter. Does he think we should keep protecting freedom of religion and ensure that the state does not meddle in these issues, the way that Quebec did with the Act respecting the laicity of the State, for example? Does that seem important to him? Does he support freedom of religion the way we do, in the Bloc Québécois?

Mr. Speaker, the Build Canada Homes bill is not a bad bill because we are in the midst of a housing crisis and any attempt to correct the situation is more than welcome. However, the way the bill is worded, the federal government is encroaching on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, which always makes me feel a bit uneasy. Quebec and Ottawa made an agreement on a number of things, which should help close loopholes. I would like my colleague to tell me this. In her view, would it not have been better to simply transfer money to the provinces by proposing that they look after housing in each province and in Quebec, according to the priorities and problems that each Canadian province is facing?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière for his speech, which was as engaging and passionate as he is. I must say that I was surprised as I listened to him speak. In my view, building a house starts with wood. Ask any six-year-old kid in school what is needed to build a house, and the first thing the child would say is wood. My colleague tells us that in the budget, wood is mentioned only nine times in I do not know how many pages. One might think that this was an oversight, except I understand that my colleague from Jonquière has frequently asked government members about what they are doing for the forestry industry. Unfortunately, it seems that they have turned a deaf ear. Can my colleague explain the government's apparent insensitivity or closed-mindedness regarding the forestry industry?

Mr. Speaker, rehabilitation and social reintegration are foundational features of the Canadian correctional system. People commit various crimes, some more serious than others. The goal is always to put these individuals behind bars. Part of the reason for that is punishment, but there is also considerable emphasis on rehabilitation to ensure that, when they are released from prison, they are less dangerous than when they entered. Rehabilitation and social reintegration are the hallmarks of a successful correctional system. As I was saying, an inmate who is released without having been rehabilitated poses a significant risk to society. With few exceptions, these people always get out of prison eventually. Some die behind bars, but the vast majority are released from prison at some point. What we want is for them to be as harmless as possible at that time. Rehabilitation is therefore essential. I am not a social worker or a criminologist, and I do not have the expertise to discuss the merits of rehabilitation or the best way to rehabilitate someone. However, I believe that weekends of freedom, after which people have to return to the institution, along with vocational training and all those other measures, are part of a comprehensive set of initiatives designed to help rehabilitate individuals and help them reintegrate into society at the end of their sentence. The bill seeks to increase the security classification for certain crimes. We can agree that these are some of the most serious crimes. However, the consequence of this is that these individuals will not be able to benefit from adequate rehabilitation measures. In a way, we are shooting ourselves in the foot by doing this. I understand that this bill stems from a number of cases that are, quite frankly, scandals. These cases shocked almost everybody. I am thinking of Paul Bernardo and Luka Rocco Magnotta, who committed heinous crimes. Reacting to these crimes is a normal human response. However, I think that, as legislators, we must be careful not to pass laws simply in response to scandalous cases that are condemned by just about everyone in society. Laws must apply to society as a whole and not become a type of revenge or protection in the face of isolated cases that should be relatively rare. I am not just talking about Paul Bernardo or Luka Rocco Magnotta. There are other cases as well. I am thinking of Claude Paquin, who was acquitted in 2024 in connection with two murders for which he had been found guilty 41 years earlier. This person spent 41 years in prison unnecessarily. There is also the case of Daniel Jolivet, who was convicted of four murders. The director of criminal and penal prosecutions recently stated that there may have been a miscarriage of justice. This person also spent many years in prison. It is not easy, and I do not blame the system. I understand that nothing is perfect. We all dream of perfect justice, which would penalize only criminals and free all innocent people. However, that justice would be neither human nor possible. We have to accept that there will always be a certain number of errors to deal with. If we admit that there will be a certain number of errors and acknowledge the system's weakness in isolated cases, I think it is best to try to get the most conclusive results. It is important to ensure that the reaction is not to penalize two or three specific individuals. It is important to ensure that our system makes it possible to rehabilitate people who have been found guilty. The system has to make it so that society is a safer place when these people get out of prison, since they are no longer in the same state of mind as when they went in. Security classifications are currently assigned based on an inmate's behaviour. An inmate who behaves well in prison may have their security classification adjusted to reflect that good behaviour. This can allow them to be released on weekends. It can open up certain opportunities for them and contribute to their rehabilitation, as I mentioned earlier. When it comes to granting parole or conditional release, professional expertise is available. Criminologists and many other professionals can testify before the Parole Board of Canada to explain which areas an individual needs to work on and whether or not they should be released. This process, which involves adjusting security classifications based on the inmate's good behaviour and relying on professional expertise before deciding how and when to release them, is one of the strengths of our justice system. It contributes to the rehabilitation of convicts, which in turn assures us that, when they are released from prison, they will be better off than when they went in. There is another issue that I wanted to address. My Liberal colleague mentioned it earlier. What Bill C-232 seeks to do could well be deemed unconstitutional if it were to be challenged in court. We know that the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional. In this case, could designating an individual as a maximum security offender and taking away pretty much all hope of ever getting out of prison not be considered cruel and unusual punishment? I think it could be. I think that this bill leans too heavily on the punitive aspects of our justice system, and the risk is significant. If the Supreme Court has to strike down these provisions on constitutional grounds, Charter grounds, we would likely end up in a worse situation than we are in already. The Bloc Québécois stands in solidarity with the victims of these monsters, and I believe that monsters is the right word. They committed heinous crimes. I do not know anyone who would condone these crimes. We stand in solidarity with these victims, but we want to avoid falling into the trap where we throw the baby out with the bathwater, as the saying goes. There are isolated cases of individuals that we have to deal with, and we are already dealing with them. I think that the justice system ensures that these people are detained and prevents them from becoming a danger to the public. However, we must not build the entire body of Canadian legislation around these isolated cases. We denounce criminals, we condemn them, we support victims and we stand in solidarity with them, but we refuse to embark on a legal process based on revenge. That would be misguided. As far as I am concerned, rehabilitation and the social reintegration of people who have committed crimes is the path we must continue to follow. That path can be improved, though. I agree. I think there is a lack of statistics on rehabilitation, for example. Do the measures taken in prison to rehabilitate inmates and ensure their reintegration into society have a positive effect or not? It is unclear. At the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we have questioned numerous experts about this issue on numerous occasions. We have too few statistics. That aspect of our prison system could benefit from further study; it could probably be improved. Let us stay on the right path that we have set out on, work to improve that path and avoid falling into the trap of revenge, which would only hurt us.

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with what our colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk was saying. Our colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean has not won the lottery. He is lucky, it is true, because he comes from a fine riding, but the people of Lac-Saint-Jean are truly lucky to be able to count on him. I can see that he knows the issues very well. To his credit, he spoke about them with passion. I find it hard to believe the government would turn a deaf ear to these requests. As the MP for Lac-Saint-Jean explained, establishing a base in Lac-Saint-Jean would meet the desired recruitment targets and enable people who have lost their jobs to find new ones. It is a win-win situation. I listened to him and I cannot believe that there has not already been some indication from members of the government that they are going to move forward, that they like the idea, that people can count on them, that they will be there. However, that does not seem to be the case. Does my colleague have any idea how the government will respond to this proposal, which is sound and is in everyone's interest?

Mr. Speaker, what I see when it comes to these investments is that there is a significant gap. The Liberals constantly claim that they are there for Canadians. It reached a point where it was comical. I remember the former prime minister saying that the government was there to help and would continue to help in order to help. He seemed to be talking in circles. Quebec has made certain demands. During the last campaign, the Prime Minister gave a lot of money to communities in western Canada as a rebate for a carbon tax that was never paid in the first place. That payment was made using Quebeckers' tax money, yet Quebec did not get a penny. According to our estimates, Quebec is owed $814 million. The federal government ignored that demand, but we did not let that deter us. We also asked for help for seniors, who worked hard all their lives. The federal government refuses to budge and is maintaining the two classes of seniors. What is my colleague's view on this? Should the Liberal government not show a bit more respect for taxpayers?

Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleague, I can hear how enthusiastic he is about his government's budget measures. I am listening to him tell us how great things are going and how wonderful life is. However, there is one thing I do not understand, so maybe my colleague can explain it to me. If his government is having so much success with the economy, why is it happening at our seniors' expense? Why did the Liberal government decide a few years ago that seniors aged 65 to 74 should be treated less well than those aged 75 and over? It would not cost a fortune to fix this. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for a fix for years. As a gesture of solidarity, could this government recognize how much these seniors have contributed to the Canadian economy and boost their purchasing power to match that of seniors aged 75 and over? Could it increase old age security at the same time? The Bloc Québécois has been calling for seniors' pensions to be increased by 10%, which is not that much. I would love to hear my colleague's thoughts. Can he tell me why the government did that?

Mr. Speaker, as I was just saying, I would not be prepared to say that Bill C‑16 is a cure-all and that everything will be fine from now on, but I would say that things will certainly be better than they used to be. I am quite pleased with the work that was done on Bill C‑16 before it was referred to committee and when the committee was studying it. This bill improves quite a number of things. First, it provides a legislative response to controlling and coercive behaviour. I believe we have been working on this problem for three Parliaments now. Our efforts have finally resulted in a bill. Since we still have three and a half years to go before the next election, I hope that we will be able to pass it and move on to something else. With this bill, we will finally be able to properly punish murders classified as femicide, meaning murders that occur alongside controlling and coercive behaviour, violence, human trafficking, hatred or other factors. We are addressing the issue of femicide. The bill also tackles the issue of harassment. Until now, and even today, victims that report harassment must prove that they subjectively feared for their safety. This often forced women or victims of harassment to testify and recount everything they had endured, the effect it had on them, which obviously hindered their recovery. Now, the standard is that the behaviour must be such that it could reasonably lead the victim to believe their safety is in danger. That is good news. I am not going to address every issue, because there are so many. As for the recruitment of individuals under the age of 18, this is something the Bloc Québécois has called for. I have personally spoken with our Minister of Justice on numerous occasions to address this issue. Criminals affiliated with organized gangs recruit young people knowing that, since they are under 18, it does not matter if they get caught, as they will not have a criminal record. These criminals therefore ask these young people to commit theft or other crimes on their behalf. It is a scourge. These are our young people; we try to keep them on the straight and narrow, to bring them back when they stray. It is truly appalling that there are people who recruit them to commit crimes. Personally, I recommended going so far as to provide that an adult who recruits a young person be sentenced to twice the penalty they would have received had they committed the crime themselves. The bill does not go quite that far, but it does provide for penalties for the recruitment of minors under 18. I applaud the minister's initiative. On the issue of reasonable time frames, the Supreme Court Jordan decision caused a number of issues. At the same time, we all agree—in any case, I do—that a trial should be held within a reasonable time frame. If it takes two or three years, I think that is reasonable. If five or 10 years pass and an individual has still not had a trial, that harms that individual, who has been living with the sword of Damocles hanging over their head that whole time. It harms the victims too. All that time, they do not know whether their attacker will get the conviction they want and that the attacker deserves. It harms everyone. It harms society. The costs are astronomical. Holding lengthy trials is not possible. I therefore agree with the Supreme Court regarding what “a reasonable time” means under the charter. In the future, the time frame will be set at 24 months at the Court of Quebec and 30 months at the Superior Court of Quebec. That seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I am satisfied with that. Unfortunately, things being what they are, there is no money. The federal government is not transferring funds to the provinces for health care. Hospitals are overflowing. People are waiting in emergency rooms. The federal government is not transferring funds to the provinces for education. Schools lack specialized services. The same goes for the courts. Not enough judges, court clerks and necessary staff can be hired. Not enough courtrooms can be booked. As a result, trials are often not held within the time limits prescribed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Bill C‑16 amends or improves the way time limits are calculated. I do not know if it will work. I remain skeptical but optimistic. If nothing else, I am pleased that our Minister of Justice has decided to address this issue, and I welcome this initiative. My colleague mentioned a certain aspect of Bill C‑16 a moment ago that is also a recurring issue. I have been an MP since 2015, and I do not remember a single time or year where we did not discuss the issue of mandatory minimum sentences. The Liberals do not want them for anything, whereas the Conservatives want them for everything. Throwing everybody in jail certainly would reduce crime on our streets, but that might not be the kind of society we want to live in. We need to find a middle ground. With all due respect for the opinion of my colleague who spoke just before me, I think that what Bill C‑16 proposes fits somewhere in that middle ground. This was a proposal that originated with the Bloc Québécois. I suggested it to the two people who served as justice minister before the current minister. Each time, they said it sounded reasonable and that something could be done, but nothing ever came of it. Now our idea has shown up in Bill C‑16. The government says it is trying to compromise. The mandatory minimum sentences that our Conservative colleagues believe in so strongly will be reinstated. That will send a clear signal that Parliament takes these crimes very seriously, and it will also send that message to the courts, but judges will be allowed to deviate from the mandatory minimums under genuinely exceptional circumstances. People may wonder why, since it can sometimes lead to absurd situations. I recall one case, although I have unfortunately forgotten the details. It was a Quebec case involving a young 18-year-old man who had been accused, for all sorts of reasons, of committing sexual interference with a minor because his girlfriend was 16 or 17 years old, I think. They had been intimate for a few years. Both families were aware of it and accepted the situation. It was all right, but sexual interference with a minor carried a mandatory minimum sentence. The judge said in his decision that he regretted the situation and that, in his opinion, it made no sense. Those were not his exact words. I cannot remember what he said exactly. Please excuse my word substitution. The judge said that it was unfortunate, but that the offence carried a minimum sentence so he had no choice. He therefore sentenced the young man to prison. I have no details about what happened next, and I do not mean to overdramatize the issue by citing a rare example. However, in those exceptional cases, can we trust our judges? They are not perfect, but based on my experience as a lawyer before I became a member of Parliament, and from what I have read since, they do a pretty good job. I have good friends who are judges, both at the Superior Court and at the Court of Quebec, as well as at the provincial courts of the other provinces. They are honest and well-meaning and, like just about everyone here in this chamber, they want the best for society. They work in the fairest, most effective way for everyone. Personally, I am fine with mandatory minimum sentences, but I want to make sure that the judges who preside over our courts can use their common sense in exceptional cases and that they are given the option to deviate from those minimums if they consider the case to be exceptional or if the sentence would be cruel and unusual. Those judges will obviously have to justify their decisions. In their rulings, they will have to explain the exceptional circumstances justifying their decision to deviate from the mandatory minimum sentence imposed by Parliament. That reassures me, and I think it should reassure the general public, too. I realize that this does not reflect the wishes expressed by our Conservative colleagues. I respect their position, but I would urge them to be a little more flexible in the criteria we use to assess bills. They will see that this may be the most appropriate solution between having no mandatory minimum sentences and having mandatory minimum sentences that are too restrictive in certain circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to repeat myself unnecessarily, but my colleague is right to raise this issue. I do not think it would be appropriate to return to mandatory minimum sentences that leave no room for discretion. For one, this would run counter to the ruling the Supreme Court has already handed down on this matter. I have no objection to going back to the Supreme Court several times if necessary, but constantly doing the same thing over and over again in hopes of obtaining a different result seems a bit odd to me. Moreover, I believe that our society is better off with mandatory minimum sentences that allow for exceptions. I disagree with a rigid framework that does not allow for exceptions, as that can lead to injustices.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me as well to work with my colleague. First of all, I want to say how much I appreciate his efforts to speak French. His French is becoming exceptional. I tip my hat to him. I actually think his French is better than my English. To answer the question more specifically, as I said earlier, I think the recruitment of minors is a scourge. I cannot stress this enough. It is cowardly for an adult to ask a minor to commit a crime on their behalf. I have no sympathy for such an adult, and I have no qualms about doubling or even tripling the sentence they would receive. That said, I understand that we are in Parliament. There are 343 of us here, and everyone's opinion must be taken into account. The Minister of Justice has found a middle ground between what I would have wanted and what others might have wanted. I will leave it at that. We will give it a try and hope for the best.

Mr. Speaker, here is what I think of his government. I admit that the current Minister of Justice is someone I have a cordial relationship with. I consider him to be effective, and I have a certain amount of confidence in him. However, I do not want anyone to ask me to approve everything the current government has done. It has done a lot more objectionable things than good things, in my opinion, and I say that with all due respect for our colleagues who make up this government. I would be remiss if I did not mention certain aspects of the justice system. It is all well and good to pass laws that we think are effective, but the fact remains that they have to be administered, and that falls under provincial jurisdiction. There is no money in the provinces. That is something the government could perhaps do: speed up transfers to the provinces, stop meddling in matters that are none of its business, and ensure that the provinces are able to effectively enforce the laws passed here.

Mr. Speaker, no matter what the Liberals may think, the Clarity Act is a tool designed to disregard democracy if the outcome of a vote does not suit the federal government. Its sole purpose is to suppress the will of the people. It is a law that undermines democracy and the right of peoples to self-determination. It also undermines justice by disregarding the Supreme Court's opinion, which holds that the concept of a clear majority is purely qualitative and not tied to a numerical margin of victory. This is blatant authoritarian overreach. Are the Liberals not ashamed to promote this?

Mr. Speaker, there is no place in a democracy for a law that does not respect the will of the people as expressed by a majority of 50% plus one vote. There is no place in a democracy for a law that overturns the will of the people by claiming, after the fact, that the question or the result was not clear enough. There is no place in a democracy for a law that flouts the rules of the ballot box when the outcome is not what the government wanted. We must steer clear of this slippery slope to authoritarianism. Will the Prime Minister finally make up his mind and repeal the undemocratic Clarity Act?

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I do not entirely agree with my colleague. In fact, I have the same concern about budgetary matters. It is true that people are struggling to make ends meet. However, the problem is that cutting gas taxes and increasing oil production are counterproductive. This is simply putting things off. The planet will eventually have to be cleaned up because it will no longer be livable. Many countries around the world have gone green and are powered by electric, wind and solar energy, and yet our Conservative colleagues are calling for a return to oil. Unfortunately, the government seems to agree with them, since gas taxes were recently scrapped. I will therefore ask a question, and I would like my colleague to share his thoughts on this. Is it not counterproductive to boost oil production and cut taxes? Should we not instead be investing in a transition to clean energy?

Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague and I are pretty much on the same wavelength when it comes to a number of things. However, as far as decisions by the government are concerned, we saw that the former Liberal government was steering us toward a green transition. There were investments in the auto industry. Then the government announced that it would be scrapping all of that. Instead, it will start subsidizing the oil industry again, which I believe to be counterproductive and expensive for everyone. On top of that, the government decided to reimburse all Canadians for the carbon tax they paid in the previous year, except in Quebec. Quebeckers are owed $814 million that the government refuses to repay. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Quebec is in a rather unusual situation. We invested in the transition to green energy, and now we are being told to forget all that and go back to oil. Not only that, Quebeckers are not getting back the $814 million taken from their pockets to compensate other Canadians. What is my colleague's take on that from an economic perspective?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the Bloc Québécois motion that called on the federal government to pay back the $814 million it owes Quebeckers. His colleagues voted against that motion. That seems rather strange to me. If they really want to help Canadians save money and they really want to be fair, then why have they forgotten about Quebeckers? I do not understand. The Conservatives hold some ridings in Quebec. I am shocked at this lack of interest in the plight of Quebeckers. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

Mr. Speaker, not only does the Clarity Act give the federal government some kind of veto over the wording of the question, as though people are too thick to understand the question, but this undemocratic law also calls into question the principle of majority rule in a democracy. The Liberals want clarity. That is fine, let us be clear then. First, the government that initiates a referendum determines the question. That government alone. Second, 50% plus one is a clear majority. Will Ottawa understand these basic democratic principles and repeal its undemocratic Clarity Act?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Does she believe that building Canada strong and the “nationalism” advocated by the Prime Minister includes respect for provincial jurisdictions? Is a strong Canada not necessarily a Canada that respects the jurisdictions of the various provinces? In this regard, can we count on the current government to consult the provinces, to really consult them, take their opinions into account, and create programs that respect the jurisdictions and priorities of each province and Quebec?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière was right in saying that it is easy to see that the member for Mirabel used to be a university professor. He has a knack for putting things simply. I, on the other hand, am even simpler than that. I am not exactly an expert when it comes to economics and finance. When I am not an expert in a particular field, I tend to stay on the path forged by others who know more about the subject than I do. I remember the recent pandemic we experienced about five or six years ago. At the Bloc Québécois's suggestion, the House passed a wage subsidy. My colleague talked about it in his speech and others have also talked about it. It worked and it helped to save businesses. That is the well-beaten path that I would tend to follow since I do not know much about this. However, our Prime Minister, who knows a lot about economics and finance, does not seem to want to follow that path. I do not understand why. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Does he not think that we should rely on what has already been done rather than trying to reinvent the wheel and possibly falling flat on our faces?

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton's speech on this motion, which was entirely relevant and appropriate under the circumstances. The situation that the Bloc Québécois is speaking out against is one that is long-standing and extremely problematic. The government is always playing catch-up. That is what is happening with health care. In the beginning, the federal government was covering 50% of health care costs. Now it is covering less than 20% of those costs, and it takes everything we have got to try to get it to cover 6% of the annual cost increases. The federal government is not there yet. It does not want to. The federal government does not want to put money into health care, even though Quebec and the provinces are asking it to. Let us come back to the problem of agreements with the United States. I understand that the Prime Minister of Canada cannot decide to remove the tariffs. The American President is the one who imposed them. However, when the Prime Minister took office, he made promises and commitments in that regard. He told us that he would put an end to the tariffs within months, which did not happen. As my colleague pointed out, the tariffs have even increased. That is a sign of failure. If the government cannot keep its word and deliver what it promised last year, should it not find other ways to at least cushion the blow for Quebeckers and Canadians? Yes, that would cost money, but we have talked about a number of things. All of that can be funded relatively easily. My colleagues from Jonquière and Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton just noted that the federal government always invests to save businesses elsewhere in Canada but very rarely in Quebec. What if the government cut the oil subsidies? That is a commitment we made. Members will recall that Canada signed the Paris Agreement. It made environmental commitments. It is clear, as every observer and auditor has confirmed year after year, that Canada is not meeting its targets, it is not on track to meet its targets, and it is not making any changes to make that happen. Let us try to live up to our commitments. Let us eliminate the oil subsidies. That would help the government meet its Paris targets and save $25.7 billion over five years that it could use to support the energy transition. This money could also be used for other programs. The idea of $25.7 billion is a bit abstract, but it is basically $25,700 million, cash. That is $5,140 million a year or $428.33 million a month. I can break it down even further than that. It is $99 million a week. The government would have access to an extra $99 million every week for five years. We could afford plenty of support programs for our businesses. We could support our workers as well as our softwood lumber, aluminum and steel industries. We would be able to support everyone who needs support. Unfortunately, it seems that this government does not have the political will to do it. We should recoup that $25.7 billion and put it to use. For example, in just two months out of that five‑year period, the government could repay the $814 million owed to Quebeckers because the federal government decided to hand out an election bribe last year by channelling that money to citizens in western Canada. Quebec has been left high and dry. That $814 million could be paid back. It would help. Why not reform employment insurance and address the infamous spring gap that we have been talking about fixing year after year? I have been here since 2015, and I have been hearing about the spring gap since 2015. Let us take this opportunity to fix it. It would help Quebec and Canadian workers get through the tariff crisis. There are many more ideas like that. Our regional media outlets, and even our national media outlets, are not being subsidized. I have seen criticism from commentators and Radio-Canada analysts about other private media outlets. I have a great deal of respect for Radio-Canada and I certainly would not want to see it disappear, but why not try to bring a little balance to the media landscape? Why not provide a little more support to private media companies or give them fairer opportunities, while maintaining funding for Radio-Canada? Why not fix the issue with old age security? The previous federal government decided to create two classes of seniors. The government increased benefits for seniors 75 and over, but those 65 to 75 were told to manage on their own. Maybe they could receive support. That might not be a bad idea in a period of austerity like the one we are in now. There are other ideas like that. I was speaking earlier about health care. The increase in transfers is 6% per year, which amounts to $14 billion over five years. Earlier I mentioned that $25.7 billion over five years could be recouped just by eliminating the oil subsidies. There are plenty of solutions, and I could list many others. Again, I get the message. I may not be an economist, but I get it. I get the Prime Minister's message that he cannot solve the tariff crisis on his own and that it was Donald Trump who imposed these tariffs. I get that, I am not dense, but there are other things that are within our control. The oil subsidies are within the government's control. As for the media crisis, the government holds all the cards. The election bribe it sent to western Canada using Quebec's money—now that is serious—was within the government's control. The government could sign cheques. It could fix the EI spring gap. I encourage our Prime Minister to use the skills he says he has, which I do not doubt. After all, he has held several important economic and financial positions over the course of his professional career. I have no doubt of his qualifications, but could he use them for our benefit, since that was why he was elected? Rightly or wrongly, a lot of Canadians and Quebeckers believed that he was the man to help us solve the tariff crisis. A year later, however, we see that not only has he failed to help, but the situation has actually gotten worse. Let us put that aside for a moment and make use of the tools we have. We could cut the oil subsidies, equalize benefits for our seniors, refund Quebeckers the money they are owed, support our media industry and fix the problems with EI. I could list many other things, but I think that, even with just these, there is plenty of work to be done. The means and the needs are there. This is something our Prime Minister is capable of doing. The question is, does he have the will to do it?

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague has just said is a comment, not a question. I will take note of his comment and say the same to him. I am not going to repeat what I said, but, since he is part of this government, is he capable of persuading his leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, to take action? It is all well and good to talk and announce measures, but is he capable of taking action around benefits for seniors, the media, the EI spring gap and wage subsidies? Wage subsidies were a proposal put forward by the Bloc Québécois during the pandemic six years ago. It worked and we saved businesses. Can we use the tools we have, follow the well-trodden paths that have proven their worth, and help the citizens of Quebec and Canada get through the tariff crisis?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C‑225 for the second time in this Parliament. However, this topic is nothing new. I had already spoken to this bill a few times. In 2020 and 2021, our colleague from Victoria and members for several other ridings had already introduced similar bills, and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is currently completing its study of the government's Bill C‑16, which deals in part with the same issue. Bill C‑225 is, I believe, the fifth bill dealing with the same issue. The reason for that is not that we are doing a bad job and need start over all the time, but that bills die on the Order Paper when Parliaments end. When we start over, we often like to wear both a belt and suspenders, as we say back home. We want so badly for something to work out that we often give it two or three tries. As I was saying, what we are studying right now is Bill C‑225. As for Bill C‑16, we will very likely complete the clause-by-clause consideration on Wednesday, at which point we will finally be able to begin third reading of the bill, which also addresses the issue of coercive and controlling behaviour. It is a major problem. I am obviously not the only one who thinks that this is a major problem. Our society is continuously undergoing major changes. That has always been the case and likely always will be. Certain behaviours that may have been acceptable 50 or 75 years ago, or even in the last century, are no longer acceptable, and I am sure some behaviours that we think are acceptable today no longer will be in 50 or 100 years. That is why we need to be continually reviewing the legislation that applies to certain situations, even though we may have done so a while back. All types of violence are on the rise in Quebec, Canada and throughout the world. We now have to deal with extremist groups that have resources that they never used to have and that are spreading around the world and throughout our society. There is also domestic violence, another form of violence that may seem insignificant because each case involves fewer people. Domestic violence usually involves two individuals, the violent individual and the victim of their violence. However, it also affects the couple's children, their whole families and society as a whole, which must find a way to address this issue. Education is needed to bring about change. We can pass as many laws as we want in the House, but we can never prevent somebody somewhere from becoming violent and committing regrettable acts of violence without even thinking about it, without even making a conscious decision. In my riding, last fall, Gabie Renaud was murdered. Her murder caused a lot of outrage, not only in my riding but across Quebec, Canada and the U.S. as well. The accused was an individual who had previously been convicted several times for domestic violence. I believe he had been convicted over a dozen times. I do not have the exact numbers but it was multiple convictions. He served his time in jail and was released. He paid his debt to society, as they say. He got out of jail, found a new spouse, abused her and then murdered her. It is appalling. Although it may only affect a few close individuals, I believe it is an issue for society as a whole. As parliamentarians, this is primarily our responsibility, since it is up to us to establish a legal framework, or a body of laws, that will ensure these kinds of harmful situations are prevented. Would locking someone up for the rest of their life when they are violent with their partner solve the problem? It probably would, but that is not what we want. We believe in lofty principles such as the presumption of innocence and people's rights and freedoms. They are enshrined in our charters, both in Quebec City and in Ottawa, and we must maintain them. However, we must also work to ensure that this does not happen again. Bill C-225 proposes criminal measures. It proposes harsher sentences and consequences for such crimes in the hope that society as a whole will become more aware of how serious the situation is. There is also the hope that this may prevent more cases of domestic violence like this one. Does it work? I do not know. So far, the results have not been very encouraging. As I said earlier, cases of domestic violence are on the rise in Quebec, across Canada and just about everywhere. I think we need to pass Bill C-225 and Bill C-16 and support the fight against these crimes through tougher penalties. However, I also think we need to invest more in rehabilitating inmates and educating young people to prevent this from continuing to happen. Education programs are already being provided to young people in schools. The goal is to try to prevent violence. Given that my wife was a teacher for her entire career, I can say that the situation is definitely not getting any better, despite everyone's efforts. Violence in schools is on the rise. I am not a sociologist, and for reasons I do not understand, unfortunately, people are obeying the established rules less and less, and they are disrespecting one another more and more. We cannot ignore the problem and we should all be extremely concerned about this. We may not be the ones teaching in our schools, but we create the legislative framework in which society as a whole operates. These punitive measures, which involve imprisoning people and refusing to release them until a certain period has elapsed, probably have some deterrent effect on people who have not yet been charged but who are watching to see what kind of laws we pass. However, that is not enough. We need to invest. Quebec has no money left, the roads are in bad shape, and people wait 24 to 48 hours in emergency rooms. There are little to no specialized services left in schools. This is not working anymore. People are overtaxed. In many cases, more than half of a person's salary goes to the government. Where does that money go? I think the federal government should transfer funds to the provinces to help them address these issues. There needs to be more rehabilitation programs in prisons. There needs to be more educational initiatives for youth in schools. We need to find a way to rebuild a society that respects every individual and establish a legal framework that enables and promotes this respect and mutual awareness among all members of society. I could go on at length about this, but I would not be adding anything substantial. We will agree on Bill C-225, but that does not preclude us from doing more to prevent crime through education and better rehabilitation in our penitentiaries, so that when people are released from prison after one year, five years, or twenty years, they come out different from who they were when they went in.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which was interesting, important and relevant, as usual. I also note that there seems to be a fundamental problem with this bill. We should not need to make legislation to tell the government to do its job, to monitor it and to make sure it is doing it. At the same time, I see that the commissioner will have no teeth. There will be no penalties. Does my colleague think there might be a link between these two ideas? A government that needs to have legislation to monitor what it is doing might be a tad uncomfortable with the idea of giving teeth to its watchdog. That could become troublesome. Is there a link between these two ideas?

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a bill that seeks to ensure that the federal government honours the treaties it has signed. I wonder if we should apply this concept to more federal government matters. The first thing that springs to mind is the famous notwithstanding clause in the Constitution that was adopted by Pierre Elliott Trudeau's government, because the current government seems intent on challenging it. It seems to me that having a commissioner to ensure that the federal government honours its commitments under both the Constitution and international treaties could be a good idea. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice texted an apology to the Premier of Quebec for his comments about wanting to limit the use of the notwithstanding clause. However, that is exactly what he is doing with his Supreme Court challenge of Bill 21. His brief and his oral arguments make it clear that Ottawa wants to limit the use of the notwithstanding clause by restricting its pre-emptive use. Now that the minister has apologized, will he formally commit to never allowing limits on the notwithstanding clause, including for pre-emptive use?

Mr. Speaker, the government may not have the power, but we know the federal government's position on the notwithstanding clause. There is no misunderstanding. In fact, the government has spent at least $2 million fighting something in the Supreme Court over which it supposedly has no power. The government wants to limit Quebec's ability to pre-emptively use the notwithstanding clause. What it is doing is exactly why it had to apologize to the Premier of Quebec. Rather than saying one thing and doing the opposite, will the government commit to refusing to limit Quebec's power to use this clause in any way?

Mr. Speaker, I did not have the pleasure or honour of knowing David, but I do have the pleasure of knowing his father. We do not always see eye to eye, but I have a great deal of respect and a deep affection for him. I am pleased to speak to this bill on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. I can say straight away that we will be supporting Bill C-231. Having read it, I would say that this is part of the Bloc's DNA. Since its inception, the Bloc Québécois has consistently supported diversion measures. The Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitation. Obviously, there are cases where imprisonment is necessary and where a firm hand is required. The Criminal Code is there for a reason, and that is a good thing. Our prisons serve a purpose, but we must be cautious. We must not treat them as a panacea. Imprisoning someone is not always a useful, or the most useful, option. Because they are younger, our young people in particular are, by nature, less experienced and less mature. They are more likely to make mistakes, sometimes minor, but sometimes more serious. In either case, as a society, we must be compassionate and seek to guide them back onto the right path rather than imprisoning them in a system that may be difficult to break free from afterwards. We had similar discussions back then on Bill C-5. These discussions were not always easy, and we, the Bloc Québécois, supported diversion. When I read Bill C-231, it seemed like a second chance to revisit this issue in a useful way, not only for the courts as a whole, but most of all, for our young people. Addiction is less a legal issue than a medical issue. Locking someone up in prison for any amount of time will not cure an addiction. Treatment, however, can. Does treatment always work? No, certainly not, but does that mean that treatment is not worth trying? Whether the child involved is our child, or the child of a loved one, a neighbour, a friend or a complete stranger, rehabilitation is a worthwhile investment for any child struggling with addiction. It may not work, and at some point, it may be necessary to admit defeat and opt for harsher measures like incarceration or other alternatives. However, when a young person is struggling with this kind of problem, enlisting measures outside the legal system is not only our duty, it serves our interests as a society. The Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitation, for both adults and young people. However, does a society have to invest billions of dollars to build prisons and hire guards to keep people who have committed crimes within its walls? In some cases, I would say yes, but in many others, I would say no. Even when it comes to adults struggling with addiction, the Bloc Québécois has often said that these are cases in which diversion measures should be attempted. It is more profitable for society, more compassionate toward society as a whole and more effective, but especially when we are talking about youth rather than adults. Our young people need love. I think that Bill C‑231 offers that. We wholeheartedly support our colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière on this bill. I was listening to our Liberal colleague, who may have been hinting at the government's intention to propose certain amendments. There may indeed be some amendments. That said, I am pleased to see that all members of the House are on board with this idea, without division or partisanship, which is unfortunately often unhealthy. It is not because of ill will, but rather because we are often bound by the constraints of party platforms and campaign promises. That is the nature of the beast. We are here because we were elected on different platforms, and we need to stand up for our ideas. However, there are instances like this one where the principles we uphold allow us to find common ground on a specific issue. That is the case here. I wonder whether we are dealing with a bill that could be one of the few opportunities we have to proceed by unanimous consent, or whether we could even fast-track it. I would love to see this bill come into force this spring, or as soon as possible. As I said, I never had the pleasure of meeting David, but I would like to close by wishing him all the best. I congratulate my friend on his bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was rather pleased when I reviewed Bill C-22, because I think it is better than what was proposed in Bill C-2 last year. However, I am not sure that it meets all of the necessary conditions for it to come into force. It will come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois is also not sure whether this bill should come into force. Honestly, I cannot tell my colleagues this morning what position the Bloc will take when it comes time to vote. We are still thinking about it and taking into consideration the comments, suggestions and criticisms we are hearing from civil society and others. While many people recognize the merits of many of the provisions of Bill C-22, others are concerned about other aspects of the bill. This weekend, I read a New York Times article that a colleague sent to me about a recently developed software program that can hack into the databases of banks, governments and businesses. This software or AI could be put up for sale and sold to the highest bidder. We learned about this a few weeks ago, and the situation is constantly evolving, day by day. Access to personal information is a major issue. It may well be the most important issue that this honourable House will have to address during the 45th Parliament. However, at this point, there is not a lot of data available to us. As I said, the situation is evolving day by day. What seemed impossible six months ago has now been a reality for months, and we are now grappling with what has existed for just a few weeks. Needless to say, we have no idea what will exist in six months or a year. Despite all that, we are about to pass a bill that purports to regulate what will happen in six months, a year or 10 years. It is going to be quite difficult to draft a bill that includes sufficient measures to protect the entire population against various problems. It will also need to include sufficient regulations to protect individuals' right to privacy and all the rights recognized by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In saying all of that, I still have not really said anything; I know that and I am fully aware of it. However, I want everyone to recognize the gravity of the situation, the importance of this bill and our lack of tools in the face of all the objections that are being raised. In this context, we must keep a watchful eye on the process we are about to implement. I am thinking in particular of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. That agency is a good thing. However, when I read the bill, I noted that the agency will only receive unredacted reports after the redacted reports are tabled. That means decisions will be made and regulations will be adopted by the government without the House having a say and without the agency, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and all the other organizations that exist to protect people's rights and freedoms being able to look at them. Will we not end up making matters worse? I am not saying that is the case, but I would say it is one of our main concerns regarding Bill C-22. Part 3 stipulates that Bill C-22 must be studied in committee and reviewed after three years. That is good news. The question is whether a review after three years is sufficient, given how quickly these situations evolve. I am not convinced that it is. If Bill C-22 is referred to committee, this is something that will need to be examined. Will the government be open enough to discussing the matter with the opposition parties and agree on a safeguard mechanism that is sufficiently well defined? That is the question. I just want to digress for a moment. Today, by-elections are being held in three ridings, two in Toronto and the other in the riding of Terrebonne, Quebec. What will the results of those by-elections be? I do not want to make any assumptions and no one has a crystal ball, but one thing is certain: The situation of the current government, which until now has been a minority government, could be very different as of tomorrow. What impact will that have on the safeguards that we are working on? Will the government still be as open to their political opponents when they are in a minority situation as it was when they had the upper hand over the government? I do not know. Until now, one committee member, regardless of their party affiliation, could tip the balance one way or the other, since the committees are often, although not always, made up of a Liberal chair, with four Liberals on one side, four Conservatives on the other and a Bloc member. That means that the Bloc member could hold the balance of power in committee and could decide between the Liberals' position and the Conservatives' position. Will this situation continue after tomorrow, once the by-elections are over and we know the results? I do not know. I do not recall whether it was in the news today or yesterday, but I have to say that I was pleased to read that, according to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the government would continue to work closely with the opposition, or at least respect the positions taken by the opposition, and that this would continue. I appreciated that openness. I just hope that that is what will actually happen, because if we end up with a majority government that plans to ignore the positions advocated by the opposition parties, then the situation could become very troubling, especially since we have already passed bills such as Bill C-15, which, in my humble opinion, granted the government excessive powers, and we have before us today Bill C-22, which could be similar in nature. Is it wise to pass Bill C-22? Perhaps, perhaps not. As I was saying, there are some positive aspects. We need to address the issue of access to information. I understand that we need to get up to speed with what is being done elsewhere in the world. That is an argument that has come up a few times. However, when we take a closer look, it is not necessarily clear that Canada is in such a bad position compared to what is being done in the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the world. We therefore need to examine this closely. Would Bill C-22 not put us in a position that is abusive—or at the very least excessive—compared to what is being done elsewhere? That may or may not be the case. One thing is certain: No matter what side of the fine line we stand on, mechanisms for protecting every person's rights and freedoms are vital. In my opinion, Bill C‑22 does not place a high priority on that. The powers conferred on the agency, which I believe are largely cosmetic at this point, require careful examination. It might be nice to see words like “protection agency” in the bill, but in reality, if this agency is informed of what was done—right or wrong—only after the fact, what can it really do besides say that it would have disagreed had it been consulted? A fat lot of good that will do. It might be a good idea to do the review before things happen, not after. The regulations that will be made should be examined, if not by the House as a whole, then at least by independent agencies responsible for protecting the rights of all citizens. I think these issues deserve to be studied. The bill also sets a threshold of “reasonable grounds to suspect,” rather than “reasonable grounds to believe”, which would need to be met before certain investigations can be authorized. This distinction may seem semantic, but it is actually quite significant, since “reasonable grounds to suspect” represents a significantly lower threshold than “reasonable grounds to believe.” Granting investigative powers based on mere suspicion could amount to a blank check. The threshold for “reasonable grounds to believe” was already relatively low. Lowering it further is cause for concern. If the bill is considered in committee, I look forward to hearing what organizations responsible for protecting rights and freedoms have to say about this. For my part, I find this issue troubling. The Intelligence Commissioner's approval of regulations is also an important factor. However, will the commissioner be allowed to intervene at an early stage? A veto power might be excessive, but at the very least, the authority to observe, critique and make recommendations would be essential. However, I do not believe that the current version of Bill C-22 offers much hope in this regard. In my view, both the agency and the Intelligence Commissioner, which are essentially the only two independent bodies with the power to reassure the public and protect each individual's rights and freedoms, should be consulted before decisions are made to avoid jeopardizing everyone's rights and freedoms. Personally, I have nothing to hide. However, the idea that the authorities might be able to access my emails or financial information strikes me as intrusive and makes me feel uncomfortable and unsafe. No one is completely comfortable with that level of surveillance. Everyone is concerned about an Orwellian dictator, even though some say that we reached that point some time ago and that we have to stop being afraid of that. That may be true, but Bill C-22 proposes giving such a dictator even more power, which may alarm many. We need to focus on how we are going to protect individual rights and freedoms. We all know that our lives are already quite public. Almost everyone is on social media in one way or another. These platforms contain a lot of information that would otherwise be personal and confidential. Every individual chooses to post pictures, text or documents on those social networks. They choose that kind of exposure, and that is perfectly fine. I understand that. Bill C-22 goes even further, however. When we start talking about banking information, emails, and all that, it becomes a cause for concern. Although I believe that law enforcement and government agencies must be given the means to protect us from malicious intrusions by foreign agents or organized crime, or from all kinds of attacks that may be launched against our bank accounts or other assets, and although I believe that the government must take measures to protect us from this, I also believe that the government must take steps to ensure that, in doing so, it does not infringe on our right to privacy. This is the fine and delicate balance we are currently trying to strike: the balance between protecting ourselves from organized crime and foreign interference and protecting ourselves from potentially abusive intrusions into our privacy without any safeguards in place. I would also like to hear from the Ethics Commissioner. We will see what he has to say if the bill is referred to committee. The Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service are all institutions that must take a close look at Bill C‑22. While it may be an improvement over, or more acceptable than, Bill C‑2, Bill C‑22 is nonetheless questionable and troubling. It must be examined thoroughly. I will leave it at that and say that we in the Bloc Québécois are continuing our reflection in the hope that we will be able to find a sound position to take on these serious issues.

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that my colleague is raising a concern that I also share, in a number of ways. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for a number of years now and, all too often, police officers tell us that police services do not all have access to the same information, which significantly impacts their efforts to fight crime. Indeed, information must be shared among the various police services. That is important. We share the same concern about privacy and the measures that should be implemented to regulate these powers. Police services must work together and share information, but it must all be done in accordance with clear and well-defined standards. That is why the work we are doing right now on Bill C‑22 is so important. It will ensure better communication and more efficient service delivery without compromising privacy rights.

Mr. Speaker, we are not that far apart on this issue. We really need to give law enforcement and government agencies the tools they need to adapt to the realities of 2026, 2027 and so on. I agree on that point. However, does that mean that we agree to pass Bill C-22? I do not know. As I said at the outset, we are still considering it. There are arguments in favour that are being countered by arguments against, and they all make sense. All of the arguments are reasonable. All of the concerns are, in my opinion, justified. However, the demands and requirements regarding the fight against organized crime are indeed a concern for the Bloc Québécois, and always have been.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question gives me the opportunity to say that we are pleased that, with Bill C‑22, the government has proposed a piece of legislation that is better than Bill C‑2. I acknowledge that and am grateful for it. However, as I said earlier, just because it is better does not mean it is perfect. That does not even mean that we should spend time studying it in committee. Maybe we should, and maybe we should not. That is something we are currently considering. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to say today whether we will be voting for or against referring it to committee. We will have to decide what position to take in the coming days.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, that issue is debatable. The government wants to change the threshold from reasonable grounds to fear to reasonable grounds to suspect. The threshold is being lowered to such an extent that, ultimately, there is hardly any threshold at all. It is important to think about that. We need to be careful. It has been said that the perfect is often the enemy of the good. We will have to see. If we go too far, we might do more harm than good, so we need to look at this carefully.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue introduced Bill C-15, the budget bill, which contains measures to help Alto expropriate land from the people of Terrebonne for the high-speed rail line. People might ask what the connection is between the Minister of Finance, a budget bill and expropriations. It is true that there is no connection, except that the Minister of Finance has close ties to Alto's senior management. Why did he use his budget bill to help Alto, a company he has close ties to, evict the residents of Terrebonne from their homes?

Mr. Speaker, if the minister had recused himself from the Alto file, he would not have tabled a bill that deals directly with this file and benefits Alto. The people of Terrebonne are not fooled. What they are seeing today is a Liberal member helping a company—one whose executives he is close to and that was created by the federal government—kick people out of Terrebonne by undermining their rights. How can anyone expect the people of Terrebonne to have confidence in this Liberal government after this?

Mr. Speaker, earlier, my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj asked a government representative a question. He wanted to know who had been consulted on the decision regarding the timelines for responding to a request and the timelines for companies subject to this type of request to challenge the decision. The answer was that a consultation was carried out with police representatives and officials from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. I think that is reasonable. However, does my colleague not think that it would also be a good idea to consult representatives from the community to determine whether these timelines are reasonable for the companies being asked to comply with a request?

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his question. I agree with my colleague from Drummond about the importance of these debates. We know that there have been tough debates on certain bills in the past. Does my colleague think that we would be able to reach an agreement on Bill C-22, if it were to be studied in committee, and come up with a version that would protect everyone's rights and freedoms, while guaranteeing access to the information needed to ensure security?