Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Liberal government announced that it intends to privatize Canada's four major airports, including Montreal's airport in Dorval. This airport plays a key role in Quebec's economy, and in Montreal's economy in particular. This is what is known as strategic infrastructure. Ottawa is prepared to hand over this airport to the private sector and even to foreign airports. Before making such an important decision for Quebec's economy, did the federal government consult the Government of Quebec, or does it believe that it does not need to do so?

Mr. Speaker, we take that to mean “no”. Aéroports de Montréal comprises representatives of the Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal, the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, the Government of Quebec, and of the airlines. Essentially, they are representatives from Quebec because the airport sector plays a vital role in Quebec's economy. Somehow though, this was not important enough for anyone in the government to pick up the phone and call Quebec to consult them. How can the Liberals justify this total lack of respect and consideration for the Government of Quebec and for Quebeckers?

Madam Speaker, there is something important to bear in mind about the current situation. In the course of our work as parliamentarians, I was tasked, as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, with creating an advisory committee, a body that tells us what questions to ask, where to look and where the government is going wrong. That is very useful. Let us look at what the bill proposes. We need to keep in mind that the bill was a collaborative effort that included the Land Claims Agreements Coalition. The process was a long-term undertaking. The funds to be invested in it are modest compared to the savings it could generate, especially in terms of government efficiency. As parliamentarians, we could use this office to get some accountability. Is accountability important to the member? If so, why not support passing the bill quickly?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you again, and the member for Winnipeg North as well. Bill C‑10 is important to me. In my capacity as critic for indigenous relations, I met with people from the Land Claims Agreements Coalition. I remember meeting Jim Aldridge, who has unfortunately passed away, and seeing how much he contributed for the groups. In committee, I interviewed Chief John Jack, who also appreciates this heritage. It is important to remember that this bill was co-developed, which means that we, as parliamentarians, must also be sensitive to the outcomes of this bill. Why are we here? We are here because the government has failed, year after year, decade after decade, to uphold its commitments to indigenous signatories to modern treaties and ensure the implementation of those modern treaties. Of course, program funding is an important issue. The Auditor General has produced many reports and follow-up reports on the government's inaction. What will creating a commissioner position achieve? It will allow us, as parliamentarians, to take note of any red flags, so we know what to ask questions about. Personally, I see that as a good thing. Does the member for Winnipeg North see it as a sign of the government's failure to keep its word to indigenous signatories to modern treaties?

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint‑Boniface—Saint-Vital for her speech. Having served with her on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, I find her presence reassuring. She is all about conciliation and listening, which are so important in the relationship with first nations. However, the reason this bill exists today is that, for decades, governments failed to carry out the follow-up required by modern treaties and expected by the first nations who signed agreements with the government. That is how we have gotten to this point decades later. I want to commend the Land Claims Agreement Coalition for its leadership. It championed these claims and helped to co-develop this bill. Ultimately, this bill exists is because the follow-up measures were not carried out. As a member of the government, will my colleague ensure that action is taken on the recommendations that the commissioner will submit? How can we ensure that the government and the ministers responsible will take the data and recommendations set out in these reports seriously, as it does the recommendations of the Auditor General or the Parliamentary Budget Officer? What responsibility does she intend to take internally to ensure that the government complies with these recommendations?

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Québec Centre for his speech and his awareness. It is clear that he has done his research. In the current context, I want to ask him a question. I think we see the need for a commissioner position and what it can bring, but what comes next for indigenous nations? We can all agree that there are benefits that come with a modern treaty. We see how the Cree people of Quebec, who were the first to benefit from a modern treaty, were able to ensure significant economic and social development. I visited Chisasibi this summer, and I saw the prosperity that self-governance and modern treaties can bring. Still, what comes next? Could the Wendat or Anishinabe also have access to a modern treaty and a decentralization of powers from Ottawa, as well as recognition of their autonomy? What are the next steps?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is asking why. It is because homelessness has increased by 20% in Quebec and 199% in Abitibi—Témiscamingue. While encampments have become a permanent fixture, while Pauline Marois has been working on a summit on homelessness, and while municipalities and Quebec have been investing, the federal government has contributed not one red cent. It even took a public outcry to prevent the Liberals from making cuts. We have an unprecedented crisis on our hands, and it is only going to get worse on July 1. When will the government acknowledge that fact and do its fair share?

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the member from downtown Toronto gave a speech on the challenge of access to housing and housing construction, because I get the impression that, for the last 30 years, the federal government has been doing nothing but building housing in downtown Toronto. In rural regions like mine, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, it is virtually impossible to access any federal programs that operate in rural areas. Ask any member who represents a rural area more than 200 kilometres from the U.S. border, and they will say that they struggle to access any federal housing programs that actually work. That said, I would be curious to put the question to my colleague from Spadina—Harbourfront. Before entering politics, she was an activist for democracy in her professional life, particularly regarding the role of women in democracy. Did she get into politics to vote to shut down the debate one, two, three, four, five, six, seven or nearly ten times? I would like to hear her comments on that, because this bill will also be passed under time allocation.

Mr. Speaker, as things stand, conversations about housing are, naturally, conversations about Build Canada Homes. However, for the past year, Build Canada Homes has been having a lot of trouble getting its programs up and running. We have been told a number of times that the CMHC no longer exists and that people have to contact Build Canada Homes instead. Build Canada Homes' own standards dictate that it must provide responses within 30 days. However, Build Canada Homes is not meeting that deadline. I think this is a very serious problem. Now, people are being told to contact the CMHC, which is no longer supposed to have any files. Can someone set the record straight? Who is in charge now? Is it the CMHC or is it Build Canada Homes? When can we expect useful answers?

Mr. Speaker, on February 17, a technical briefing was held about Build Canada Homes. During that meeting, it was stated that Build Canada Homes would provide a response to the organizations within 30 days so that they would know what to expect. Unfortunately, what we are seeing today, several months later, is that Build Canada Homes is unable to meet these deadlines because it does not have the necessary staff. Worse still, it is referring organizations to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which is no longer supposed to be accepting applications. Will the parliamentary secretary commit to ensuring this 30-day deadline is met and to following up with her minister?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his thoroughness. He has the ability to keep things in perspective, which is nice to see in this Parliament, especially after the two very partisan speeches given by the parliamentary secretaries. I enjoyed hearing my colleague's ideas on how to improve accountability. I would like him to expand on that. How does he propose that we cut more costs, especially in relation to housing? Housing falls under provincial jurisdiction. Would transferring money to the provinces with no strings attached not be the best way to cut down on paperwork and red tape, cut costs, increase housing construction and improve access to housing for those who need it most?

Mr. Speaker, the debate on Bill C-26 is a good time to take stock of what the new Liberal government has accomplished after a year in office, even though the Liberals have been in power for 10 years, as we all know. When it comes to housing, there has been talk of cutting spending and eliminating immediate affordability supports, such as the Canada housing benefit, and supports for existing social housing. Budget 2025 also indicates that spending will drop to just $4.3 billion in 2028-29, a 56% drop compared to the funding allocated for 2025-26. If housing were really a priority for the Liberal government, would it be making such drastic and predictable cuts over the coming years?

Mr. Speaker, five years ago, I rose in the House to note that my son, Léon, was finishing elementary school. Naturally, five years later, it is time for his high school graduation ceremony, which he will be attending on Saturday. I would like to tell him that I am very proud to be his father and offer him my sincerest congratulations, especially since he made a name for himself in Quebec with his performance at the Quebec Games last summer, where he won two gold medals in swimming, for the breaststroke. I also want to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. Let us start by saying something important about Bill C-26: The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill simply because it is necessary to transfer funds quickly and without delay to help Quebec build and set its housing priorities. It is rather ironic that the Auditor General of Canada issued a report on child care services. As members know, this policy resulted in an unconditional transfer being made to Quebec. That is because, in 1997, Quebec had already created the network of early childhood centres to provide affordable child care for everyone. This system is renowned and has proven its worth. Transferring the money directly to Quebec will allow Quebec to manage its affairs as it sees fit and in accordance with its own reality. That is precisely what Bill C‑26 does. It transfers the funds earmarked for affordable housing to the authority that has jurisdiction in this area. As a result, Quebec will be able to ensure that it develops strategies based on its priorities and aligned with the realities of the various communities within its territory. It will be in a position to develop its own strategy for social and affordable housing. Another advantage is that it reduces administrative costs, because the province already reports on its own expenditure through its own budget. Instead of duplicating costs, the government sends the money directly, cutting red tape and eliminating duplication, which means that everyone wins. Since the money comes without conditions, Quebec will be able to use a variety of means to influence the rental supply, whether that means building housing-related infrastructure, such as sewers and water systems, introducing tax relief or building social and affordable housing. In short, Quebec will have the tools it needs to take effective action using the various levers at its disposal. Transferring this $1.7 billion allows the provinces to take immediate action, and that reduces wait times. It differs from the strategy of Build Canada Homes, which is just another Crown corporation that creates more duplication, more management costs, more public servant hiring and so on. Transferring the money to the provinces reduces the size of government and gives responsibility to the governments that are actually responsible for housing. Quebec and the provinces each have their individual realities. Quebec's reality differs from the reality in British Columbia. Yukon's reality is completely different from New Brunswick's reality. If every province takes charge of its responsibilities based on its own reality, we will end up with more tailored, more flexible programs. Over the past few months, at meetings of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I have personally questioned various departments about their definitions of urban, rural and remote regions. As the member for a region that could be described as rural and remote, this question concerns me tremendously. What we observe is that the federal government has a distorted view of rural regions. To the Government of Canada, any census area with a population of 100,000 or less is a rural region. Geographic factors apparently do not matter. Abitibi-Témiscamingue is located six or seven hours from urban areas, depending on the destination. That makes it impossible to compete with cities located in the suburbs. The reality is that transferring the funds to Quebec ensures that realities like mine are respected. Another issue is all the regulatory requirements in federal programs that do not apply to Quebec because it has the Civil Code. Basically, this creates new obligations for Quebec stakeholders, resulting in additional delays and costs to meet a requirement that does not even apply in Quebec. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Lynda Perreault, a member of my team who works in my office and helps organizations navigate the complexities of organizations such as CMHC and Build Canada Homes. To date, Build Canada Homes still cannot meet its own 30-day deadline for responding to proposals. It made that commitment during a technical briefing on February 17. The truth is, Build Canada Homes does not have enough staff to review the applications. As a result, it has to ask CMHC—or perhaps I should say “the agency formerly known as CMHC”—to do what it used to do: review applications. Who suffers as a result? The projects and the organizations themselves. For my region, the upshot of this is that we will often miss the construction season. Unfortunately, our summers are shorter than elsewhere. We lose years to administrative delays. Mortgage costs are often passed on to the organizations that wanted to balance their budgets without taking out a mortgage. Winter construction in Abitibi—Témiscamingue is not t really an option. Our winters are very long, so we have no choice but to be more efficient during the summer. Delays result in additional costs for many non-profit organizations that are just trying to create social and affordable housing for vulnerable populations. They end up with extra costs, forcing them to cut back on their operations, which means they end up helping fewer people. A lot of construction is happening in Abitibi–Témiscamingue right now. However, it is private development. While that is a good thing, it means that families and lower-income individuals are unable to afford these new properties. Furthermore, several developers were told that their applications would be transferred to Build Canada Homes. The reality is that this has not happened. They have to start all over again and resubmit their projects. This means even more hours of work lost for non-profit organizations. If the money had been transferred to Quebec, this sort of problem would not be happening. The solution is so simple. That is, of course, provided that it does not take two years to sign the agreements, meaning that inflation eats up the lion's share of the funds allocated to Quebec. The Canada housing infrastructure fund agreement was finally signed after two years. The result was an agreement under which Quebec received only $1 billion of the program's $6-billion budget, or 16.6%, which is far less than its share of the population. This is also what is known as a fiscal imbalance. Quebec should have received $1.3 billion to match the figures calculated using the needs identified by the Union des municipalités du Québec, yet we received $300 million less. The Liberal members from Quebec do not boast too much about that. If we add the inflation of the past two years, we must acknowledge that that money will not go as far today as it could have. It is important to remember that Quebec municipalities are currently experiencing one of the most serious housing crises ever, while a lot of the infrastructure is aging and no longer suitable to today's reality. It is time for Ottawa to do what it must do, which is to unconditionally transfer the money to Quebec and the provinces as soon as possible. This would be a win-win situation for everyone. I want to give some examples. In 2016, funding for major housing-related infrastructure was also announced, and that funding was immediately allocated to Ontario. It is interesting because the programs in Ottawa are designed with Ontario's reality in mind. It took over three years to reach an agreement with Quebec. I have to talk about inflation again. Then came COVID-19. Then came the skyrocketing cost of housing. Because of this, we were not able to build as many housing units. The amount of housing built was much less in Quebec because of all these constraints. If Quebec's reality had been respected and this money had been transferred with no strings attached, the housing shortage that we have been seeing across Quebec, and particularly in Abitibi-Témiscamingue for the past 20 years, would not be as significant now. That is not without consequences. I can give a wide range of examples that show that federal programs do not work in Quebec and in rural and northern regions like mine. Energy efficiency requirements are problematic. Ottawa wants to tell us how we should manage energy efficiency, but Quebec City's criteria are different. This means we have to send an inspector on site. That results in additional costs and delays. All of this means we cannot meet deadlines. We cannot finish construction on time, and we lose years of construction time. It is entirely Ottawa's fault. Ottawa should mind its own business and do what Bill C-26 thankfully calls for, namely, respecting the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec and transferring the funds unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I were wrong, but the record of the last 10 years in this Parliament shows that I am not wrong and that funding does not reach Quebec, or if it does, it is only after several years' delay. Obviously, this means there is less money in current dollars available for the construction of these homes. When will we see a program that is truly adapted to the regions of Quebec? When will the government stop focusing solely on Toronto and its suburbs? When will the government take an interest in the true rural regions of Quebec and the rest of Canada? Not all of Canada's regions are within 200 kilometres of the U.S. border. Unfortunately, such programs do not exist because they are designed for towns with a population of 100,000 or less. We do not have those resources or that expertise in our municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Centre, whom I hold in particularly high regard. As I said, this is one of the few bills that involves an unconditional transfer. In effect, this means that Quebec's money will be returned to Quebeckers. For that reason, we are somewhat open to it. We generally find that, with programs such as the Canada housing infrastructure fund, Quebeckers pay their full share, namely 22.5%, corresponding to their share of the population. However, they receive only 16.6% of the funding, meaning that Quebeckers are paying to create housing elsewhere rather than at home, even though Quebec has significant housing needs.

Mr. Speaker, one issue that is very important to me, particularly as the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, is access to housing for first nations. I would like to see a program created by and for first nations. I am thinking in particular of the Yänonhchia' program, which aims to develop indigenous expertise but is not necessarily reaching the communities because of the way federal programs are designed. In every budget, the federal government allocates billions of dollars for indigenous infrastructure, and it presents that as though it is something really wonderful. Even today, $4.5 billion is being set aside for access to clean drinking water. In reality, however, expertise is not being developed within first nations. So many unattainable standards and requirements are imposed on the communities that, one year later, because the deadlines are extremely tight, Ottawa takes its money back and puts it back in the coffers. It then pats itself on the back for properly managing the money, since, in the end, it spent less than expected. At the end of the day, the needs remain unchanged and the quality of life for first nations is getting worse.

Mr. Speaker, here we are discussing a bill that concerns unconditional transfers to the provinces and the topic of Manitoba comes up. I find that interesting. I had the opportunity to visit its legislative assembly in late summer. Interestingly, Louis Riel has finally been recognized as Manitoba's first premier. I am drawing a blank. I would like my colleague to remind us what the federal government did to Louis Riel. I think the matter is relevant to a study of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Natural Resources announced on Thursday that we are facing another bad summer for wildfires. However, that is not apparent from listening to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Two days earlier, he was at an energy trade show in Calgary, calling the oil sands one of the great industrial achievements in Canadian history. He was boasting about speeding up oil and gas exports at the very same time as his own department was warning that our regions are going to burn. Do the Liberals not think that the safety of forested regions should come before oil sands profits?

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is a combative man, someone who is not afraid to take a stand and argue a point. My question is simple: Did he argue with his government when it came up with the misguided idea of tabling an economic statement that fails to address any of the concerns that might have justified urgently presenting such a statement? After all, it is not a budget. We could have waited until the fall to adopt most of these measures. That would have been much simpler. The real emergency was Donald Trump and the 25% tariffs imposed on steel and aluminum, but the economic statement does not include any measures to address that. Did my colleague raise this issue internally and ask why his government did not simply cancel the statement and send everyone an email instead? That would have been much simpler.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauce for his remarks. He and I have something in common. We both come from former Créditiste regions. That is worth pointing out. He told us that he was making a non‑partisan appeal. I would like to hear him elaborate. Can he name any good things that came out of the economic statement, particularly in relation to the 25% tariffs that Donald Trump imposed on all products containing steel and aluminum? Can he think of anything that the Liberals have done to help people in the sector? I personally do not see anything. I would like to hear his thoughts. Is he more optimistic than he was over the last month with his hockey pool? I would also like to hear his thoughts on that.

Mr. Speaker, what I see when I look at this bill, and its timing, is that the Liberal government has done basically only one thing to achieve the 15% cuts per department that were announced to perhaps one day balance the budget. Otherwise, running a $70‑billion deficit is no big deal. The aim, then, was to cut 15% in every department. However, it seems that the only department that actually did it was the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, and the only area where it did so was in science and research. I think that is completely absurd, particularly when it comes to the capacity for innovation in agriculture. Will we be able to eat safe, healthy food? That worries me. There are also going to be cuts to food inspection at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. At the same time, certain pesticides that had previously been banned are now going to be approved. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

Mr. Speaker, it is sad for me to have to say this to my colleague from Beaches—East York, whom I knew and particularly appreciated at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology for several years. First, if his wife is in the gallery, I would like to take the liberty of telling her that she and my colleague have a lovely kitchen, which we have had the pleasure of seeing many times in committee, and that they also have very beautiful children. What I will take away from my colleague is his spirit of independence. Independence obviously resonates with me very much. That is one of my motivations for being in politics. I actually wanted to ask him about that, and he talked about it in his speech. Indeed, for me, and just like the member for Calgary Nose Hill or the former NDP member for Windsor West, when we were on the Standing Committee on Industry, we knew that we had truly independent members. As for my colleague's legacy in the House, I would like to ask him the following question: If we were to create the Nathaniel Erskine-Smith index to measure MPs' degree of independence from their party line, how would that index look right now? I want to thank Nate, and I hope to see him again soon.

Mr. Speaker, I rather like my colleague from Mississauga—Lakeshore. We should hear from him more often in the House. I would like him to talk about the budgetary projections and fiscal anchors the Parliamentary Budget Officer mentioned. She projects that the deficit will be $6.5 billion higher, reaching a total of $71.8 billion, compared to the economic update released just a month ago. I found that interesting. The Liberals were telling us how much smaller the deficit was than expected and that the situation was better. It is a bit like me giving my teenager $100 to go buy pizza and him being proud to hand me back $5 afterwards. We do not know what he did with the rest, but that is not good management. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Given the current circumstances, where is the deficit headed?

Mr. Speaker, I feel like it is Halloween and I dressed up as the member for Simcoe North, but it is purely coincidental. No need to worry, we did not call each other to confer before starting the day. I would like to ask him a question. In his speech, he talked a lot about risk. One of the major risks that I see at the moment was raised by one of his colleagues on his Facebook page. I have to credit him. He posted that GDP growth under Mark Carney dropped by zero—

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to supply and appropriations, a major issue for me in the past year has been the announcement about budget cuts to science and research. This will save the government approximately $27 million to $35 million over five years. Will saving this amount over five years really make a difference when we know that the deficit is over $70 billion? The government will save a mere $27 million to $35 million by making cuts to science and research. What we are also seeing today in Bill C-30 is that the government is going to permit the use of more pesticides without knowing what kind of cocktail this will create and without knowing what impact it will have on human health, because the government is also making cuts to the science and research that would help find alternatives. Is my colleague concerned about that?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her ongoing commitment to gender equality in the House. Consistent with the intent of the bill, the Bloc Québécois supported it and also proposed amendments in committee, in a spirit of collaborative development. However, the Liberals, who now have a majority, rejected one that I think is crucial. I would like to hear the minister's thoughts on this matter. It was recognized that stalking is part of a pattern of coercive behaviour that must be assessed as a whole. This amendment would have somewhat shifted the burden of proof, which essentially rests with the victim. We have therefore missed an opportunity to make it easier for a woman to file a complaint and defend herself. What does the minister think?

Mr. Speaker, there is something to be said about the time when there was a minority government. We were able to strike a sort of balance between a more progressive vision of the justice system, championed by the Bloc Québécois, and a more traditional vision focused on law and order, with harsher penalties, advocated by the Conservatives. Unfortunately, the Liberal majority means that the government will be able to impose various measures, notably an amendment that unduly broadens the scope of the provisions on bail conditions and other procedural safeguards. Taken together, these elements create conditions in which the criterion of violence, usually used to justify harsher sentences, is removed. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this. Does this create an additional risk for women and victims?

Mr. Speaker, there is clearly something important in this bill. However, in committee, the Liberals decided to vote against a Bloc Québécois amendment that would have applied mandatory conditions to any offence against an intimate partner, including purely financial disputes, such as fraud. These included a no-contact order, a ban on cross-examination, house arrest and a ban on possessing firearms. Evidence that a female victim could legally rely on to strengthen her defence is being rejected by the Liberals. Why is that?

Mr. Speaker, according to my research, two trials were halted in my own riding in 2023 because of incessant defence motions. Clearly, the Jordan decision ended up being applied. Is that a problem with our justice system? Is there a lack of resources? Ultimately, will this bill help address that, or are we basically still leaving victims to fend for themselves when justice is not taking its course because of a lack of resources?

Mr. Speaker, there is a growing scourge in our society, namely the use of the Internet to access violent material or material that sexually exploits children. This is a very serious matter and I would like to ask my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, a question. What solutions does Bill C‑16 propose, particularly in terms of what is required of Internet service providers, to stamp out this scourge and protect our young people once and for all?

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑16 makes certain amendments to the Firearms Act. The bill “amends the Firearms Act to clarify that an individual whose firearms licence or registration certificate has been revoked is required to deliver their firearm”. Furthermore, no individual is eligible to hold a licence if it is suspected that they “may have engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking.” We know that the Conservatives are generally opposed to the idea of any form of gun control. Does my colleague think this amendment to the bill is reasonable?

Mr. Speaker, let us all raise a glass today in honour of World Milk Day. Today is a reminder of how important dairy farmers and processors are. Lucky for us, we have dairy farmers in almost every region of Quebec. The dairy sector is a major driver of rural development, employment and the vitality of our regions and local economies. Consequently, continuing to protect supply management is essential to ensuring stable incomes, supporting the next generation of farmers, preserving family farms and offering high-quality products that are among the best in the world. On this World Milk Day, I want to sincerely thank those who feed us with passion and make us proud. As I conclude, I want to point out that we need to think about Alto. We need to consider how it will impact agricultural land and the fact that it is putting nearly 1,700 properties at risk of expropriation. We are talking about 50 farms, many of which are dairy farms. This must be taken seriously if we want to protect our production capacity, our food security and the mental health of our farmers.

Madam Speaker, I feel like I am unrecognizable today. In summary, I have concerns when I look at Bill C‑31, especially the part about public contracts. The bill says that this division amends the financial administration to authorize the government to make regulations with respect to the conditions under which contracts may be entered into, despite any other act of Parliament. Essentially, the main amendment seems to be adding Crown corporations. Are federal Crown corporations becoming the new way to get around the Financial Administration Act? We just finished studying this at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Clearly, Crown corporations are like black holes: Accountability is not the same as within a department. Is it still a democracy when the government skirts the law and uses Crown corporations for expenses that the government should be incurring itself? I would like to ask my colleague that question.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of Ottawa Senators fans in the Outaouais region, and we salute them. However, there are also a lot of fans who love truly great hockey, and they want to watch the Montreal Canadiens' playoff games at the Slush Puppie Centre. However, the National Hockey League and the Senators are standing in their way. They invoked territorial rights to prevent Habs games from being broadcast in the arena. If the Senators want their games to be broadcast, all they have to do is not get eliminated after just four games. As a result, the people of Gatineau are missing out on a great event. Worse still, a local mental health organization is missing out on tens of thousands of dollars, because proceeds from ticket sales were supposed to go to it. Yesterday, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously joined the City of Gatineau and 7,700 petitioners in calling on the league and the Senators to back down. Quebec is Habs country, and that includes the home region of “Le Démon Blond”. Fans should be able to get together to cheer the Canadiens on all the way to the cup, because the people of Gatineau are chanting “Go, Habs, go”.

Mr. Speaker, I can hardly contain my excitement over the Montreal Victoire winning their very first Walter Cup. Our champions defeated the Ottawa Charge by a score of 4 to 0. This is the first time in the short history of the Professional Women's Hockey League that the cup has been won by a team north of the U.S. border. All Quebeckers are celebrating alongside our captain, the GOAT and playoff MVP Marie‑Philip Poulin, and Laura Stacey. All Quebeckers were on the edge of their seats, cheering on Ann-Renée Desbiens for her shutout and Catherine Dubois, Alexandra Labelle and Erin Ambrose for their hard work. All Quebeckers jumped for joy when Abby Roque scored two goals. Fortunately, the story does not end here. We will have another chance to applaud Danièle Sauvageau's team during Saturday's victory parade for the Victoire in Montreal. The victorious Victoire. Is there a finer or more natural role model for all those young girls who dream of taking to the ice themselves? I want to thank the team for their dedication to their sport. Well done. Long live the Victoire.

Mr. Speaker, like Quebeckers generally, I am a bit fed up with the centralist, exclusive vision of elite sports that Canada constantly displays. My colleague alluded to this in his speech when he said he was proud to see investments of $750 million. In the meantime, families, young people and seniors are not getting any help even though they need access to physical activity too. Where is the federal government when the time comes to build infrastructure like gyms, pools and arenas? The need in Abitibi—Témiscamingue is desperate. I want to point out that Rouyn‑Noranda was forced to build a pool with only six lanes and that a project in Témiscamingue was cut back to the bare bones, with an investment of $18.6 million. We could search in vain to find a cheaper project in Canada. That is the bare minimum. Still, the federal government is nowhere to be found. Why is this happening? Why is the government boasting about this economic statement? Why are members boasting about investing in sports when the government is nowhere to be found when regular folks need help?

Mr. Speaker, I spoke about Témiscamingue earlier. I will do so again because we did not get an answer in the economic statement about what is happening with the forestry industry, a key sector for Témiscamingue and for the Quebec and Canadian economy. There are no measures to help lumber mills retool. I am thinking in particular of the Béarn sawmill. In recent weeks, Chantiers Chibougamau announced that the mill was closing its doors. That hurts an economy like Témiscamingue's. Once again, the federal government is nowhere to be found when it comes to transforming the economy and making investments. Why not convert this mill into a biochar plant? However, that would require major investments, and the government is not stepping up to help with wage subsidies or countervailing duties either. When will the government really help regional economies, especially Témiscamingue's economy and forestry sector?

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague from Vancouver East has two issues she is passionate about: the living conditions and housing conditions of first nations. In the budget statement, the government clearly fails to address two major concerns affecting many Canadians. In the current context, the government has missed an opportunity, particularly to implement initiatives such as the Yänonhchia' initiative, which provided powers by and for first nations and empowered them to make decisions regarding housing. It also included an investment fund that would have made it possible to reinvest funds. Is my colleague disappointed by the government's lack of solutions regarding indigenous housing and the increasingly urgent needs in this area?

Mr. Speaker, cost overruns are a Liberal hallmark. First there was Cúram, which is now costing taxpayers $7 billion following yet another cost overrun according the economic update. Everyone has heard about ArriveCAN and Phoenix, and now there is PrescribeIT, a software designed by the federal government to meddle in health care and prescribe medication. It cost $300 million, almost eight times more than expected, and that $300 million is a complete waste because nobody is using this software and the Liberals are pulling the plug. Why is our money going up in smoke yet again?

Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is nothing more than a tall tale that started in Rouyn, but in the early part of the last century, two Anishinabe hunters, the Mackimoot brothers, returned to their community with a glittering stone from Conia Asini. Then, a prospector from Nova Scotia, Edmund Horne, took his canoe to the township of Rouyn. Once there, potentially as a result of contact with the Anishinabe, he discovered a huge copper deposit. Shortly thereafter buildings began to spring up, including Jos Dumulon's famous general store, the Osisko Hotel, the Horne mine and smelter, and the house that belonged to my great-grandfather Eugène Lemire. On May 5, exactly 100 years ago today, Rouyn became a town, a few weeks after Norcanda, which is what we would still be calling it today had it not been for a distracted printer. Rouyn-Noranda is the copper capital and self-proclaimed cultural capital of Quebec. It is also the capital of endless possibilities. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the incredible journey of our hockey team, the Huskies, who truly reflect who we are: often overlooked but hard-working, proud people with heart and soul who never give up. I would like to welcome everyone to join us in the celebrations.

Mr. Speaker, Alto has confirmed that the section of high-speed rail between Montreal and Ottawa will go through 1,700 properties. With no input from the owners, 500 of our best pieces of farmland will be cut in half. When the Alto people tell us that they are consulting towns and farmers, it is all for show, because they already know exactly where they want to go and what land they want to expropriate. Alto is steamrolling our farmers. Will the Prime Minister finally ask it to get the farmers' consent, instead of running roughshod over them?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes for his concern, which we can feel, and for his commitment to this issue. These are deeply troubling issues that are difficult to address, but I think that he is doing so with great dignity. The fact that the bill is now at third reading is also a testament to his strong leadership. We just quickly completed report stage, but I think it is important to talk about the testimony that we heard from victims in committee. For example, Nicole Rabbit was scheduled for a C-section at the University of Saskatoon on September 11, 2001. We are talking about something that happened less than 30 years ago. She said: I trusted the medical team but knew something wasn't right when I smelled the burning flesh. These were strangers who I had no previous encounters with who insisted I tie my tubes. The medical team took advantage of me in a vulnerable state....No one asked me what I wanted. No one explained to me why I apparently needed this done, and I didn't sign any forms. I still have no real idea what the options were and why they said it was best for them to sterilize me. I know now that the sterilization can't be reversed. My colleague talked about reconciliation and systemic issues. I would like to hear his thoughts on what we can do to ensure real reconciliation.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are abusing their majority to cover up the Cúram software scandal. After spending months denying that any problem related to OAS or any cost overruns even existed, the government has added $451 million for Cúram and the Canada Revenue Agency to its economic update. That means another cost overrun where none was supposed to exist, to fix problems where no problems were supposed to exist either. We will never know why, because the Liberals either resorted to filibustering or used their majority in committee to kill an investigation into Cúram. Why are they hiding this information from Quebeckers?

Mr. Speaker, that is why the program has gone over budget five times already. The Liberals have had a majority in committee for seven days now. Already, they have killed an investigation into the Cúram cost overruns, which now total $7 billion. They decided that the investigation into Driver Inc. should be in camera, as though they care more about protecting dangerous truckers than the lives of Quebeckers. They have also shut down investigations into health care, veterans' services, the aerospace sector, and more. A culture of secrecy has taken hold in Ottawa. When will the Prime Minister step in and stop this abuse of power?

Mr. Speaker, I have been following the bill's progress. There is something shocking about how Liberal arrogance is what is driving the decision to revisit committee discussions when there were amendments that responded to the justice's report and acknowledged her work. In particular, there was a Bloc Québécois amendment that addressed timely trials. However, the new majority got this amendment rejected, along with many others. I want to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. How does she feel about the arrogance that is being shown in this new context, which the people did not vote for but which is the result of floor crossers being bought off by the Liberal government?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Cambridge for her concern because she began and ended her speech by talking about those who served, those who came away with trauma or physical effects, those who need help. We heard from some of these individuals in committee. I would like my colleague to tell me whether she thinks that there will be political repercussions for the government because the Liberals have ignored the voices of those who were represented in committee by members of the opposition. Some of the opposition members' proposals were even adopted by the government only to be rejected in the end. What message does this send to the people who have served the country?

Mr. Speaker, for months now, the Liberals have been insisting that there are no issues with Cúram. They keep saying that it is not true that pensioners are having trouble receiving their OAS. They are saying that it is not true that there are cost overruns and, above all, that there is no need for an inquiry or to hand over documents. In a dramatic turn of events, the government announced in the economic update that it is giving $451 million to Cúram and the Canada Revenue Agency to “ensure seniors receive their benefits accurately and on time”. If there are no issues with Cúram, what is this money for?

Mr. Speaker, what do they have to hide? The Liberals have just proven that a public inquiry is absolutely necessary. They know that Cúram is causing problems with the processing of OAS pensions because they are spending an additional $451 million to fix the problem. They know that there have been cost overruns. They have just added to them. In short, they have proven that the two problems are real and that they have been aware of them for years, even when former prime minister Justin Trudeau was in office. However, as recently as Monday, the Liberals were still filibustering at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to hide information. What do they have to hide? When will they hold an independent public inquiry?