MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Marilène Gill

Bloc Québécois Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan 31 statements translated

Gill consistently advocates for more government spending and support for her riding and home province, especially in the forestry, aluminum, and energy sectors. She frequently expresses frustration that these industries and workers are being neglected by the government in favor of oil and gas. While she pays lip service to issues like reconciliation, women's rights, and climate change, her primary focus is always on securing more federal money and attention for Quebec and her specific region within it.

Government Orders

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

2026-06-18

“I want the government to spend a lot of money on indigenous infrastructure programs in my riding.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The government should spend more money to stimulate the economy everywhere. The government's sovereign wealth fund idea is bad because it has no money and no vision.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You say the government heard everyone. Come visit the North Shore. See the ports and airports your government wants to cut. No one asked for their towns to be cut off. And don't say a wealth fund using their savings is the same as selling off our infrastructure. People never asked you to borrow more money. Don't pretend this is what they wanted.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want more spending and special treatment for my region. My region deserves special treatment. The government should spend a lot of money on my region. The government is bad for not spending unlimited money on my region. I am very upset. I am mad at the government.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

2026-06-15

“I don't like how the government acts like a dictatorship. They're disorganized and rushing through business. If they managed time properly, we wouldn't need to skip debates. The government should be more efficient.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

Income Tax Act

2026-06-15

“I want to say nice things about energy workers in my riding. The bill would add a tax credit for heat recovery equipment. Quebec already has programs like this but I still support the bill. The bill should go to committee so we can learn more. I'm worried the bill might help oil and gas companies too much. They already get a lot of help. I want the bill to focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to know if the tax credit in the bill will go to oil and gas companies. I'm glad my colleague brought this bill. But I want to make sure oil and gas companies don't get more tax credits. I'll talk more about the bill later.”

Statements by Members

Hugo Jobin

2026-06-09

“I'm filling time with a cute story.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-06-08

“I can see you want the best for your riding and for Canada. But I asked about rigour and transparency, and you didn't answer. The Conservative Party talks about inflation. So I'll ask directly: Is a sovereign wealth fund inflationary when it's created with debt, not savings? What about government projects and pipelines in the West? Is that inflationary spending?”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You say you want truth and transparency. But this $25 billion fund is a sneaky debt. They will spend it on pipelines in secret. That won't reduce carbon. I think it will make inflation worse. I don't trust this.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

The Criminal Code

2026-06-08

“I am here to support a bill that amends the Criminal Code. Sterilization procedures should be considered aggravated assault. This bill will protect women's bodily integrity and require their free and informed consent. We addressed fears from the medical community. This bill targets intentional sterilization without consent.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Indigenous Affairs

2026-06-03

“I want to cheer for more government spending on indigenous housing. Housing is a human right. The shortage is a crisis. The government promised it would be fixed.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

2026-06-01

“Why didn’t the budget spend on my preferences for health, seniors, and EI reform for women? Even though health is provincial jurisdiction?”

“You talk about helping women. Bloc proposed EI reform. I want to know if you will really do it.”

“I want the government to give money to the forestry industry. People are sad. The government should spend money to fix this.”

Private Members' Business

Offender Rehabilitation Act

2026-06-01

“I like this bill. It wants to rehabilitate prisoners with education and training. That's good. But the government isn't giving enough money or updated tools to really do it. The training is outdated. Inmates aren't learning useful skills. This bill won't work without more support and funding. I want the government to spend more money on prisons and staff in my riding.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

2026-05-25

“You're all talk and broken promises. You keep saying you'll reform EI, but there are seasonal workers in my riding and a decade later you've done nothing. We wrote a bill for you and everything, but you ignored it. It's a real problem, but you won't help. People are losing jobs and their futures while you deny them support. You're even threatening labour gains. Don't claim you work for workers when you're doing the opposite.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

Criminal Code

2026-05-25

“I want to say I support this bill. I talk about how it's been debated many times before. I use this to hint that the government can't get things done. I want to look like I care about this issue more than the government does. The real solution is to spend more money on healthcare. I call for transfer payments to Quebec to be increased from 22% to 35%. Civilians assaulting nurses is bad, but the bigger problem is underfunding.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-07

“I already said yes to the principle but no to the wording. What more do you want from me?”

“I'm not going to pretend I have all the answers. Even the courts seem confused about whether these two kinds of title can coexist. We have a lot of questions and uncertainty. The courts aren't clear, so we need to talk it through and search for practical ways they might be able to coexist, maybe through negotiation and agreements. That's why we're asking these questions responsibly with this motion.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗