So V ote

May/28/24 6:31:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in my previous intervention, I forgot to address one thing that I consider equally unacceptable and degrading for our democracy, and that is when members sink to spreading disinformation or lies or to using divide-and-conquer tactics. Claiming that challenging the president of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie was an insult to francophones outside Quebec is a lie. It is disinformation. It is an attempt to divide and conquer. Accusing us, the Bloc Québécois, of dwelling on this matter because the Speaker is a Quebecker is a low blow. I have no words to describe how absurd this attack is. Whether or not the Speaker is a Quebecker is irrelevant. I heard some members of the NDP and even some Liberals accuse us of objecting to the fact that the Speaker is a Quebecker. Ultimately, all this does is divide and conquer. It helps no one in our democratic system.

160 words

May/23/24 1:48:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I began my speech earlier by mentioning how intimidating it was to speak after my colleagues who had started off the debate on our opposition day and before those who would speak after me. I congratulate my colleague on her speech. She did a great job explaining today's theme. However, I would like her to talk a bit about the Conservatives' silence. Nobody seems too keen to talk about that today. Is it perhaps because, to help solve the housing crisis, the Leader of the Opposition proposed including conditions in his bill? Is it perhaps because the Conservatives have announced that they will probably oppose Bill 21 and challenge Quebec's call for secularism? Is it simply because the Conservatives are not prepared to honour the request from Quebec and the provinces to increase health transfers to 35%? It is all well and good to say that they are not going to impose conditions, but if they do not meet the main demand, which is to significantly increase transfers, the problem will not be solved. Could this explain some of the Conservatives' silence?

193 words

May/23/24 12:44:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have always advocated for nation-to-nation dialogue in Quebec with indigenous peoples. Here is another example of what is not working. The federal government is responsible for housing, especially in indigenous communities. We looked at this in committee, and right now, not enough investments are being made in housing for indigenous women and indigenous people. Rather than investing in areas that fall under Quebec's jurisdiction, the federal government should look after its own affairs.

79 words

May/23/24 12:40:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what is even sadder is that my colleague's only solution for seniors is the dental care plan. He did not talk at all about what his government is responsible for. Let us be clear. Old age security should be taken care of by his government, which increased the benefits by only 10%, and only for people aged 75 and over. I keep hearing about it every day. Seniors do not understand why his government, which is in charge of this program, has not taken care of people aged 65 to 74. They are falling through the cracks. They do not have more money in their pockets. That is what I do not understand and find very sad. As for setting partisanship aside, I will say again that if something is good for Quebec, we will vote in favour of it, and if it is not good for Quebec, we will vote against it. My colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou has worked on the issue of food assistance for children.

177 words

May/23/24 12:29:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is not easy to speak today after all my eloquent Bloc colleagues and before those who will speak after me. My takeaway, so far, is this: The freer Quebec is, the better off it is. The federal system meddles in things that are none of its business. Year after year, budget after budget, the federal government keeps interfering in areas that do not come under its jurisdiction. It needs to stop. Interference causes delays, especially in Quebec, where everyone agrees that this spending power is illegitimate. The Bloc Québécois therefore demands that Quebec be given the right to opt out with full financial compensation, unconditionally and in every instance where Ottawa meddles in areas that are not its own. I am going to attempt to once again explain what it is we are trying so hard to get people to understand. I will talk about the fact that Quebec is progressive, the failures of the federal system's meddling and, finally, the fiscal imbalance. First, all of Quebec's major social and economic advances occurred after we withdrew from federal programs ill-suited to our needs or after we created programs that later, ironically, provided the inspiration for programs that the federal government then tried to impose on us. By refusing to join the Canada pension plan, we were able to create the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, a powerful lever of economic development and modernization in Quebec. By withdrawing from the EI special benefits program, we were able to implement our own parental leave, which caused women's participation in the workforce to explode and paved the way for work-life balance. By withdrawing from the federal student loans program, we were able to implement a financial aid system that made Quebec the North American leader in access to education. By withdrawing from federal labour programs, we were able to implement an employment policy that brought together workers, employers and educational institutions to have training better meet the needs of the labour market. Now, I want to talk about some of the concerns. The latest example is the dental plan, which falls under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction in health. Ottawa is taking on new power and choosing to give $2 billion to Sun Life, a private company, to manage this plan. What is more, Ottawa is not harmonizing this plan with Quebec's public program, which already covers children. If the federal government chooses to introduce a pharmacare program, which also falls strictly under Quebec's jurisdiction, we can expect further centralization and a significant risk of it not being harmonized with Quebec's program. There is no shortage of examples of failed interference. Last fall, the government introduced a bill to set up sector tables to discuss labour market training. Even though Quebec already has a system in place and is managing it, Ottawa is simply ignoring that fact and is proposing to duplicate the program without any harmonization or compensation. This is not an isolated case. Just look at financing for Quebec's provincial and municipal infrastructures; housing, where Ottawa is duplicating targeted, complex programs, creating a cumbersome and confusing situation that is delaying the completion of projects; or health. Ottawa introduced health initiatives in the last budget, but is offering no services. Meanwhile, the health care system is in crisis. Here again, health transfers come to mind. They have increased six times less than expected and come with conditions that have led to a tug-of-war. As a result, the necessary money is slow in coming. In fact, it could be said that the decline in Quebec's autonomy and the erosion of Quebeckers' ability to make their own choices is a strong trend. Even the Institute for Research on Public Policy, a Canada-wide research group based in Ottawa, concluded the same thing last June. All this is taking place in a context where Ottawa is already doing a very poor job of managing the issues under its jurisdiction, multiplying its spending without seeking efficiency or results, and slashing its transfers to the provinces by multiplying conditions and delaying the payment of the promised amounts. The delays are just as unacceptable in the case of infrastructure or housing programs, where it takes years for an agreement to be reached and for the approved sums to be paid out, because here too, Ottawa is interfering. In terms of the issues that I deal with as a critic, the government delayed getting money out to domestic violence shelters during the pandemic. What is more, despite our repeated requests, the government still refuses to increase OAS by 10% for seniors aged 65 to 74. Finally, as a third example, in my riding, the government is not contributing to a cost-shared infrastructure program for the construction of the Saint-Césaire arena. Inflation has driven up costs and the other two levels of government have done their part, but we have not heard from the federal government. This is concrete evidence that the interference and incompetence of the federal government is delaying and even undermining our work. Ottawa is doing this because it has the upper hand due to the persistent fiscal imbalance. In Canada, there is a serious fiscal imbalance to the detriment of Quebec and the provinces. Year after year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer keeps repeating in his fiscal sustainability report that the provinces' finances are not sustainable over time. There are three kinds of dysfunctions. First, by collecting more revenue than is necessary to meet its obligations, Ottawa is not making the effort to manage its administration effectively. The federal government is notoriously ineffective. When Ottawa gets involved, everything costs more than it should. Ottawa's continued interference is leading to an unprecedented centralization of power in the hands of the federal government. This weakens the people of Quebec's ability to develop in accordance with their needs, strengths, characteristics and desires. This centralization has been a trend for a long time, since Confederation. Since then, every Canadian government has been working to transform the federation into a legislative union, where Ottawa would reign supreme over the provinces and Quebec. Even under the Harper government, a Conservative government, centralization of power occurred, and that trend is ongoing. In Canada, there is no status quo. The third way, autonomy, that lies between our sovereignty and our assimilation and in which Quebec would be respected, is constantly under attack by the federal government, no matter which party is in power. The conclusion is that things are not working. To put an end to interference means truly offering Quebec a right to opt out with full compensation and without condition from any new federal program that falls under the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces. The government must immediately undertake negotiations with Quebec to implement this right to opt out of the dental care program and of the possible pharmacare program. It must undertake negotiations with the Government of Quebec to fully transfer to it the temporary foreign worker program, which would be a continuation of the federal government's withdrawal from Quebec's labour market sector, which first started in 1997. It must also systematically apply the principle of asymmetry in every federal transfer, in order to give more flexibility to the Government of Quebec, the cornerstone of a nation that enjoys the inherent right to self-determination. Finally, there needs to be a systematic review of federal programs with a view to determining which ones infringe on the jurisdictions of the provinces or overlap their programs in full or in part. Only Quebec still stands up to the federal government's interference. When the federal government creates housing programs, it can easily impose them on the provinces, which just accept them and make their contribution. In Quebec, the federal government is barging in on an existing ecosystem, and that causes friction and keeps programs from starting up. After the national housing strategy was announced, it took more than three years for Quebec and Ottawa to come to an agreement. Recently, the federal government again refused to give $900 million to Quebec without imposing any conditions on housing construction. It is hard to believe that negotiations will be streamlined and fast-tracked under a new federal department. It is the same thing with infrastructure programs. The federal government wants to determine infrastructure priorities for Quebec and the municipalities, going so far as to interfere in matters as local as urban planning and the density of residential districts. When the federal government announces a new infrastructure program with new conditions, it starts a tug-of-war with Quebec. Programs in Quebec start on average 18 months later that in the rest of Canada, where the government has free rein to take the lead in areas outside its jurisdiction. In conclusion, one federal party after another has opted out of recognizing the Quebec nation and everything that implies. Even the Conservatives, who say they reject Pierre Elliott Trudeau's legacy, embrace Trudeau's principle of provincial equality. There is no special status; there is no right to opt out. Federal spending that encroaches on provincial jurisdiction negates the division of powers in Canada and erases Quebec's autonomy. There is no way for Quebec to end federal interference. Federal interference proves that the fiscal imbalance has not been resolved. We know this because Ottawa has extra money to spend in areas under provincial jurisdiction. The fiscal imbalance will never be resolved without ending federal spending power in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Ottawa's conditional transfers and interference are undermining Quebec's autonomy. The House of Commons recognizes the Quebec nation; everyone seems to be bragging about that today. However, recognizing the existence of a nation is more than symbolic. Just like individuals, nations have fundamental rights. The most fundamental of these rights is the right of a nation to control the social, economic and cultural development of its own society. It is the right to self-determination. We cannot, on the one hand, recognize that the Quebec nation exists and has the right to make choices that are different from those of Canada, and, on the other hand, deny that right by maintaining the federal government's spending power. In the end, the federal government's spending power is its very denial of the Quebec nation.

1751 words

May/23/24 12:26:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. However, I want to come back to the fact that the programs managed by Ottawa are completely ineffective. There are many examples. From what I am hearing, the member wants us believe that everything is fine and that the federal government's programs will solve seniors' dental care problems. It is a mirage. That is what I believe and what I see, because the seniors who come to my office are more likely to complain about the fact that this is not working. That is why we are saying, let us simplify things and transfer the money to Quebec, which will make its own choices and help people. Clearly, it is not working. Attempts to interfere result in duplication of services and additional delays. In the end, people do not get better services. They do not have that service and they have to wait. It is sad to see people continuing to suffer.

161 words

Context: House Hansard - 296 - Apr/9/24

May/23/24 12:09:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am always surprised to hear anyone mention the Sherbrooke declaration, when the NDP is constantly behaving like a government that wants to run a province. That is the case here, and my colleague just gave an example. She started accusing the Bloc Québécois of being insensitive when we talk about interference when people are affected. Of course I see the effects. First, the National Assembly unanimously called for the right to opt out with compensation from dental insurance because Quebec is capable of managing its own system. I say this because any attempt to interfere will cause duplication and longer delays. People in my riding of Shefford have been coming to see me, saying they have not been able to register and they are having problems. The process is long and complex. That is what happens when the government tries to interfere in a jurisdiction that is not its own. It creates duplication, causes further delays and, in the end, it is the people who pay the price.

175 words

Context: House Hansard - 296 - Apr/9/24

Apr/9/24 4:39:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear the Liberals stand up for the environment. We keep repeating that the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. We have opted for a carbon exchange instead. More and more states, including Washington, will be joining this North American exchange. It is time to send the message that this system can work, and that other places in North America are interested. Nevertheless, the Liberals are still investing in oil companies and ensuring that those people receive these credits. Would my colleague not agree that if the government really wants to send a strong message on the environment, it absolutely must stop investing all this money in the oil industry and instead invest in a green transition?

123 words

Context: House Hansard - 293 - Mar/21/24

Apr/9/24 3:53:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, since the carbon tax does not affect Quebec, I will engage my Liberal colleague on another topic. In his speech, he acknowledged that times are tough. Housing is one of the major concerns for any household. I have just spent two weeks in my riding. During those two weeks, I have been hearing about these attempts by the federal government, particularly through the Programme de la taxe sur l'essence et de la contribution du Québec, or TECQ, to impose conditions on housing. Where I come from, people are not having it. Cities have land to protect. Cities have urban plans. What they want is for the federal government to do what it has to do, which is to transfer the money and not impose an additional tier, additional delays and duplication. The cities back home really do not want these housing conditions for the TECQ.

150 words

Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24

Mar/21/24 11:36:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mirabel. His speeches are always passionate and informative. I would like to add a comment. That same member from Lethbridge called me a dictator in the House just because I wanted to protect Quebec artists who are leading the way and deserve to be supported. Wanting to protect artists from Quebec does not make me a dictator. I would like to come back to my colleague's question. How can disinformation have gone so far that Conservatives are voting against the agreement with Ukraine, saying that it will increase the carbon tax in Ukraine? That makes no sense.

105 words

Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24

Mar/19/24 5:06:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I simply had to rise. I just heard my colleague talk about lying. I would like to hear them. Right now, it is the Conservatives who are spreading disinformation. Once again, they tried to say that the carbon tax applies in Quebec, but it does not. We have a system that acts as an economic lever with markets as big as California, the state of Washington and many others. In Quebec, it is an economic lever. The Conservatives can say it until they are blue in the face, but it does not apply in Quebec.

98 words

Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24

Feb/29/24 1:52:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

Mr. Speaker, Quebec is a pioneer when it comes to this model of early childhood and child care centres. We are truly proud of that. It has helped so many women return to work. The comments in many studies at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women confirm the need to provide child care services. Bill C‑35 includes the principle of ensuring that francophone children and those from Canada's francophone communities can benefit from child care services in their language. Does my colleague agree that we must pressure the government to ensure that this is more than just a nice principle in the bill, that it is truly enforced, and that money is set aside to ensure that child care services are provided to francophone children across the country?

133 words

Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24

Feb/29/24 12:04:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech and for her nod to Quebec and its child care system. However, I would like her to return to the debate at hand. She did not answer the question asked earlier by my colleague. Only yesterday, the Liberals wanted to add hours of debate. Suddenly, today, they want closure, limiting debate. This morning, I met with people from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. I can say that francophone women are especially worried. Yes, the bill's intention is to ensure francophone children can have access to French-language day care services. According to these women, however, that is just a veneer. I would have liked to have the opportunity to debate a bit more with my colleague. I would have liked to have been able to confirm that the government will do what it takes to ensure children from French communities outside Quebec will have day care services in their language. I would have liked to debate with her, but closure has just been invoked.

187 words

Mme Andréanne Larouche

Feb/29/24 10:19:41 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois prepared a supplementary report to reaffirm that health falls under Quebec's jurisdiction and that the federal government needs to respect that. Consequently, Quebec can implement major programs to raise public awareness of human trafficking, its forms and its impacts on women, girls and gender-diverse people. Quebec can also ensure that educational materials and training manuals are distributed to the province's vulnerable populations, law enforcement and frontline service providers. Investments in support services for victims, such as counselling services that take into account the victims' trauma and cultural realities, legal aid and safe housing for victims of human trafficking also fall under Quebec's jurisdiction. The Bloc Québécois strongly opposes the compartmentalization of human trafficking victims because all lives are equal and everyone must have equitable access to services, regardless of their ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity. To wrap up, with respect to the funding of organizations and initiatives that help people, especially indigenous people, Black people and immigrants involved in the sex industry, including victims and survivors of human trafficking, as well as sex workers, the Bloc Québécois insists that this funding be in the form of transfer payments to ensure Quebec’s jurisdictions are respected. These services should therefore cover the much broader areas of law, justice, health, mental health and addiction. Finally, the Bloc Québécois is opposed to implementing a procedure to expunge convictions prior to 2014 associated with consensual sex work.

260 words

Context: House Hansard - 286 - Feb/27/24

Context: House Hansard - 283 - Feb/15/24

Feb/27/24 5:31:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-205 Bill C-320 Bill C-233

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to Bill C‑320, which amends the Criminal Code with respect to disclosure of information to victims. The Bloc Québécois supports this bill. As vice-chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women since 2020, I have contributed to numerous studies aimed at addressing violence against women. The figures are very alarming. Many cities in Quebec and Canada have gone so far as to describe the situation as an epidemic. We need to come up with concrete solutions for victims, to prevent the violence from creating more victims. In a recent article, I promised to make this a priority in my status of women file. Today, I will explain the Bloc's position in greater detail. Then, I will elaborate a bit on the benefits of this bill. In closing, I will reiterate the importance of making this a non-partisan issue. First, the Bloc Québécois's position is consistent with its commitment to support initiatives that keep women safe and that address violence against women. We believe that victims have everything to gain from getting as much information as possible about their assailant and the situation surrounding the assailant's potential release. This position is in keeping with the Bloc Québécois's support for Bill C‑233. As a small reminder, that bill amended the Criminal Code to require a justice, before making a release order in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence against their intimate partner, to consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person, to include as a condition of the order that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device. The Bloc Québécois will always stand up to protect victims of crime and strengthen the relationship of trust between the public and our institutions. Secondly, the bill before us now seeks to amend the Criminal Code to enable victims of a criminal offence to get an explanation about how certain decisions were made about their assailant. This includes the eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender in respect of temporary absences, work release, parole or statutory release. Adding a mechanism that would give victims access to additional information about their assailant's situation and decisions being made about that person is certain to strengthen the justice system. Over the past few years, Quebec has positioned itself as a world leader in enhancing victim protection and strengthening victims' trust in the justice system. For example, the Government of Quebec has launched a pilot project in a number of courthouses to create courts specializing in sexual assault cases in certain courthouses; one of them is near me, in Granby. There is also the electronic monitoring device pilot project, which was successful and has been deployed across the province. These advancements meet the objective of recognizing how vulnerable victims of an offence are and putting all the tools at their disposal so they can be safe. This way, the justice system can evolve and adapt to better serve the needs of victims of crime. In an effort to be consistent, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑320. If they pass, these legislative changes will represent an added value for the victims, including female victims of domestic or sexual violence, for example. The justice system has to be more effective in general and more transparent, not least to facilitate the legal process and ease the long-term effects on victims or their family, especially when a decision is made about releasing the assailant. It also strengthens public trust in the justice system so that no other victim of a crime will hesitate to report it to the police. Statistics show that there has been a spike in femicide and domestic violence. Between 2009 and 2019, there was an increase of 7.5%. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to help reverse this troubling trend. The year 2024 is not off to a good start, since the first femicide in Quebec took place at the beginning of January in Granby, in my riding. Once again, my thoughts and sympathies go out to the victim's loved ones. The reality on the ground highlights the gaps, including the status quo in the justice system: Many victims continue to fear their assailant, even while that person is in custody. We can only applaud an initiative that seeks to improve the victim's experience of the justice system throughout the process, starting from the moment she decides to file a complaint. We need to rebuild their trust. Actually, “Rebâtir la confiance”, or rebuilding trust, is the title of an important non-partisan report that was produced by elected officials in Quebec City on the issue of violence against women, highlighting victims' lack of trust in the system. Thirdly, I would like to emphasize this non-partisan aspect that allows us to move this file forward. I know that the Conservative members will support this bill. We need to rebuild victims' trust in the justice system, which these same victims describe sometimes as lax. This bill seeks to better equip victims and their families so that they can obtain accurate and concurrent information on the court's decisions on their attacker. Victims and their families say that they are sometimes surprised to learn that the attacker is entitled to early release, long before the end of the 25-year sentence, for example. This needs to be taken into account. The Liberal caucus will also be in favour of this bill because it will improve the level of transparency in the judicial process. The NDP caucus, too, will be in favour of this bill because it will improve the level of transparency in the judicial process. We all agree on the need to find solutions to help victims regain this all-important trust and further encourage them to come forward. I would like to briefly come back to a few other measures that were recently brought in that seek to meaningfully work on this issue of violence. We know that adding meaningful proposals and establishing a real continuum of services will help victims. No magic wand is going to fix all of this in one shot. I want to come back to the matter of the special court for victims of sexual assault. This is a recommendation from the report entitled “Rebâtir la confiance”, that is currently being analyzed. The purpose of such a court would be to give victims a safe space where they can be heard by the justice system, a space where the workers at every level, including judges, are sensitive to the needs of victims. The first such court was set up in Valleyfield on March 5, 2022. It was a world first. Yes, Quebec became the first place in the world to set up a court specialized in domestic violence. With regard to electronic monitoring devices, Quebec has once again been a leader in better protecting victims. Quebec became the first province in Canada to launch a two-pronged monitoring system for domestic violence suspects. However, threats still exist. From what I heard in committee, we need to be careful that these devices do not create a false sense of security and ensure that they are worn properly. We also need to consider the fact that connectivity may be a problem in some places, especially remote areas, which means that the devices may not work properly there. We need to address that. I had argued from the outset that the government should follow suit and recognize Quebec's leadership on this issue. On May 20, 2022, Quebec was the first jurisdiction in the country to do this. It was ridiculous that only criminals sentenced to two years less a day should have to wear an electronic bracelet. The federal government should follow suit so that criminals with the toughest sentences could also find themselves subject to this measure under the Criminal Code. We have seen study after study in committee, but concrete action is slow in coming. There was the committee study on intimate partner violence, which also demonstrated the need to broaden our perception of violence and include the notion of coercive control. Recently, there was the clause-by-clause study of Bill S‑205, which specifically aimed to broaden the scope of electronic bracelet use. There is also this question of trust in the system that was raised during the study on abuse in the world of sport. Victims questioned the complaints system and called for an independent public inquiry to restore their trust and encourage reporting. In fact, that was the top recommendation in the report by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. The government must take action now. In closing, I would say that it is important to send a strong message to the victims and to take additional measures. We have to set partisanship aside and ensure that we actually mean it when we call ourselves feminists, that we walk the talk. I have had enough of fake feminism. On the other side, they cannot claim to be feminists by boasting about getting tough on crime if they also infringe on women's right to control their own bodies. We have to remain vigilant and not fall prey to demagoguery, disinformation, and dare I say even the erosion of law and order. That would be the logical conclusion. It is going to take a lot more than common sense to find solutions. Let us all—elected members, justice officials and community stakeholders at every level—work toward a common objective: to save women's lives so that there is not one more victim.

1658 words

Feb/15/24 1:39:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of working with the member at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, and I thank her for the question. We have many values in common, but, in this case, she is talking about consultation with various communities. She mentioned continuing the consultation process, but what does she make of Quebec's clear request for legislation and action now? Does she realize that this delay and her party's lack of political will will cause women like Sandra Demontigny to continue suffering?

89 words

Feb/13/24 5:51:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-273

Madam Speaker, if I may, I would like to wish my daughter Naomie a happy second birthday and tell her that mommy loves her very much. It is a bit in keeping with the theme of the bill before us, since we are talking about children, and I am certain she is paying close attention right now. Some bills are tricky to explain, especially when they are about children, and particularly given that, in Quebec, we are crazy about our kids. That being said, I want to state from the outset that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-273 to prevent it from being studied in committee. I will begin by explaining why we made this decision. I will then describe the context surrounding this bill and, finally, I will explain why it is a bad idea masquerading as a good one. First of all, the Bloc Québécois is once again advocating a balanced position on this sensitive issue. We are going to be the adults in the room. As such, we believe that the law must include reasonable defence mechanisms to help maintain public confidence in our rule of law. The bill essentially aims to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code, which provides a defence to parents as well as teachers if they use reasonable force to correct a child. This could be described as child discipline and parental discipline. Section 43 states, “Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.” That is clearly stated. Second, as we have seen in the media, a movement has taken off in recent years. This movement calls for an end to all forms of corporal punishment of children and young people, including the repeal of section 43 of the Criminal Code. A number of stakeholders and groups like Corinne's Quest have expressed their support for the idea that parliamentarians should remove this provision from the legal framework once and for all. Initiatives with that goal have been introduced in the House of Commons and the Senate as recently as 2022. It is important to recall that, in 2004, the Supreme Court considered the issue and upheld the constitutionality of section 43. It can be used as a defence to charges of assaulting a child. To avoid legal pitfalls, we believe it remains relevant to the exercise of parental or teaching authority, as long as it is reasonable. In Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada, the highest court interpreted section 43 of the Criminal Code. Section 43 was challenged on the basis of sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantee the right to security of the person and the right to equality respectively, but it was not struck down because the protection it offers is limited. As a result, it does not exclude the possibility of charges being brought and possibly even criminal sanctions being imposed when excessive force is used against a child. As soon as that force becomes anything more than transitory or trifling force to control the behaviour of a child or as soon as it becomes harmful or degrading for the child, then the protection offered under section 43 no longer applies and the behaviour in question can be considered criminal. This protection is exercised reasonably and the circumstances are taken into account. The Supreme Court found that force may not involve objects, such as rulers or belts, and it may not be applied to the child's head. The removal of section 43 from the Criminal Code would mean criminalizing the normal behaviour of parents who are trying to put their child to bed and of teachers who have to physically control a child to remove them from the classroom or take them out of a dangerous situation, such as a fight. Without a protection mechanism, prosecutors can still exercise their discretion to prosecute or not. However, once charged, parents and teachers would lose legal recognition of the educational role they play, which could justify these behaviours. Psychology has shown that removing this legal recognition can have consequences. Third, the NDP's Bill C‑273 is an all-or-nothing proposal: either repeal section 43 or not. The fact that the NDP is unwilling to compromise when it comes to justifying actions intended to physically control a child or youth stems from its ideology. An example of a compromise would have been to repeal section 43 but to add a new provision that indicates that the behaviour cannot be criminalized if the force is used to protect the child from a threat or danger, to prevent the child from committing a crime, or when performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good parenting. The NDP's proposal is not the good idea that it appears to be. With the rise in violence in our schools, we cannot take away the few protective measures that teachers have at a time when they need to manage students who are less and less respectful of authority. Criminalizing by default force that is used to reasonably control a misbehaving student does nothing to encourage efforts to recruit educators. That is a very real issue right now. For example, a Radio-Canada article written by Alexandre Duval last year stated that in 2021, “education centres in Quebec reported twice as many violent acts as in 2018-2019, before the pandemic”. There is no denying that increase, and we cannot add to teachers' mental burden by increasing the risk of lawsuits and taking away their ability to intervene if situations get out of hand. The article states the following: At the Centre de services scolaires des Affluents in Lanaudière, reports of physical and verbal violence more than doubled over the same period, from 757 to over 2,000. This represents an increase of 164%. A comparable increase of 141% occurred in cases reported at the Centre de services scolaires de la Beauce-Etchemin. Just over 400 violent acts were reported in 2021, compared with 979 last year. I would like to share a personal story. Before I was elected, because I love children so much, I was lucky enough to work as a monitor in an elementary school, where I had to deal with various situations. I had a ball thrown at my face, which broke my glasses. I saw children in crisis attacking their classmates. This was clearly a safety issue for the student involved and for the others. That is to say nothing of all the times I walked into a classroom and the teacher was trying to get some of the more unruly students under control. I witnessed some pretty disturbing scenes. This bill would make it difficult for staff to intervene. In fact, I myself would have had concerns about intervening to restore a sense of security in such situations. We have to be extremely careful because the law already exists and we cannot use excessive force on a child. We obviously do not want to harm a child. Earlier I mentioned the 2004 ruling on section 43. The research I did in preparation for this speech also led me to a report from the Institut national de santé publique du Québec that focused on violence and health and addressed the issue of bullying and violence at school. Violence can occur between students as well. Staff have to be able to take reasonable action if the other students are in danger. In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois believes that our schools can be safe places for everyone and that our teachers play a key role in preserving a harmonious environment that is conducive to learning. We need to have a legal framework that is respectful of parental and teaching authority, provided it is used reasonably. It is a matter of education, but also of safety. As I was saying earlier, it is also a matter of knowing how we want to intervene with children, but it needs to be done reasonably. That is why we are voting against Bill C‑273. Again, the NDP is proposing an idea that is not as good as it seems and that might end up criminalizing the behaviour of parents and teachers who are acting in good faith. I would like to point out one last thing. We all want the best education for our children, but we need to keep the tools that we have for taking action and protecting them. No one wants to use excessive force against a child. If there is a problem, then we want the justice system to be able to do its work. What we are seeing right now is that there are risks involved in repealing section 43. There is the risk of additional pressure on staff and the risk of error on the part of some parents. For all of these reasons, once again, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill, which addresses this extremely sensitive issue. Let us remember that, first and foremost, we want to make children's welfare a top priority for elected officials in the House.

1600 words

Feb/13/24 5:03:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I talked about the Conservatives' obstruction. Unfortunately, I could also talk about the Liberals' inaction, which is why we are still here today, why this file was delayed. What is more, they are asking us to wait another three years. Enough is enough. As for my colleague's remark, the Conservatives are bringing up cases that might have more to do with the justice system. Before being elected, I worked on the issue of elder abuse. These are isolated cases and they have more to do with the justice system. In the case at hand, we are talking about professional bodies. I talked about it in my speech. We are also talking about a joint committee made up of senators and MPs who worked hard and proved that the safeguards are there and that, no, it is not true that a person can ask for medical assistance in dying as easily as ordering food in a restaurant. It is not true. There are safeguards and, in Quebec, this is clearly understood. What we need to do is to let ourselves be guided by the scientific evidence and by what professional bodies are saying, not by isolated cases and regressive religious attitudes.

203 words

Feb/13/24 5:00:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague from Montcalm has arrived. He can answer that question as well as I can, and he must have heard a thing or two from the Conservatives at the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. I sincerely sympathize with him. As my whip herself said earlier, we can hardly believe what we have been hearing since this debate began. I am speaking today because I have been hearing about this bill from seniors' groups ever since I was named the critic for seniors. They have certainly made me aware of this issue. Seniors' groups in Quebec want this freedom of choice. I have said this before, but I will say it again because I think it is appalling. Anyone who says that seniors are going to food banks to request medical assistance in dying is engaging in blatant and serious disinformation. This debate reinforces my conviction about why states must be secular. This is an example of why it is dangerous to let religious elements participate and pay for a political party's leadership race in Canada.

185 words