Debates of Sept. 23rd, 2025

Auditor General of Canada

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It is my duty to lay before the House, pursuant to subsection 94(2) of the Access to Information Act and subsection 72(2) of the Privacy Act, the reports of the Auditor General of Canada on the administration of these acts for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), these reports are deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Information Commissioner

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It is my duty to lay before the House, pursuant to subsection 94(2) of the Access to Information Act and subsection 72(2) of the Privacy Act, the reports of the Information Commissioner of Canada on the administration of these acts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2025.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), these reports are deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

National Defence

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and consistent with the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Poland on the Protection of Classified Information”, done at Warsaw on January 16, 2025, and the treaty entitled “Agreement between Canada and the Portuguese Republic on the Protection of Classified Information”, done at Lisbon on September 16, 2025.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here this morning to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, in relation to the motion adopted on Tuesday, September 16, regarding Canada's immigration system.

Liaison

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Liaison Committee, entitled “Committee Activities and Expenditures: April 1, 2024 - March 23, 2025”.

National Defence

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on National Defence. The first report is entitled “Gaps to Fill: Housing and Other Needed Supports for Canadian Armed Forces Members and Their Families”, and the second report is entitled “Rebuilding Trust: Transparency and Accountability in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these two reports.

Canadian Multiculturalism Act

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑245, An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (non-application in Quebec).

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to introduce a bill to exempt Quebec from the application of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. It is clear that Canadian multiculturalism is directly at odds with Quebec's integration model, interculturalism.

By reducing the people of Quebec to just another minority, the Canadian doctrine takes a simplistic view of Quebec. It denies that there is a majority host society. It denies the duty to integrate. It denies the existence of the Quebec people. The Canadian model basically trivializes and isolates communities, while, in contrast, the Quebec model seeks to promote a progressive cultural convergence through contact and exchanges between newcomers and the host society. Under the Quebec model, it is not a question of rejecting otherness, but rather of adding it to who we are.

Canada treats Quebec like nothing more than an administrative entity, but we are much more than that. We are a nation that aspires to govern itself.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Criminal Code

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-246, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (consecutive sentences for sexual offences).

Mr. Speaker, for over a decade, Liberal justice policies have increasingly favoured criminals, therefore undermining the safety and dignity of victims and communities alike. Nowhere is this more painfully evident than in the case of sexual assault. Sexual violence is one of the most devastating violations a person can suffer. It strips away their dignity, their safety and their trust, yet multiple sexual assaults are often treated as if they are one offence, therefore minimizing harm, weakening deterrence and eroding public trust.

Since 2015, sexual assaults have increased nearly 75%, and offences against children by 120%. Liberal reforms have repeatedly prioritized repeat offenders, sending the wrong message that protecting predators matters more than protecting Canadians—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

There is a point of order from the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, you have commented on brevity during the introduction of private members' bills. We are finding that introductions are becoming more and more political. The statement that was just made is an excellent demonstration of this. I think you need to go back to the Standing Orders and provide a comment on how private members' bills are supposed to be introduced.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Typically, we are aiming for interventions of about 60 seconds when introducing a private member's bill, and the hon. member had not reached the 60-second mark. She has a bit of time left, but not much more.

The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola is rising on a point of order.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member politicizes just about everything, so the member for Lethbridge should be able to start from the top. In my view, that was a deliberate attempt to interrupt. She was not able to say what she needed to say to the Canadian public in one stream of thought, and she is entitled to start again.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I will give the member a bit more time, but not from the top.

Please, go ahead.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my point is clear that for over a decade, Liberal justice policies have increasingly favoured criminals and undermined the safety and dignity of victims and communities alike. The bill I am bringing forward today seeks to put victims ahead of criminals, which is where we need to land as a country. Liberal reforms have repeatedly prioritized repeat offenders, sending the wrong message that protecting predators matters more than protecting Canadians, and this practice is wrong and must end.

My bill would amend the Criminal Code to require courts to impose consecutive sentences rather than concurrent ones for sentences for sexual offences. With my bill, each crime would carry its own penalty and each victim would receive the recognition they deserve.

It is long overdue that we put victims ahead of criminals, and I hope I can count on all members of this place to agree with that.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Persons with Disabilities

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to table today a petition signed by hundreds of people who point out that persons with disabilities deserve to have a dignified life.

Unfortunately, the new Canada disability benefit does little to address poverty. In addition, this benefit is tied to the disability tax credit. Part of the problem is that only 1.6 million Canadians have access to the disability tax credit, while there are roughly 8 million Canadians with disabilities. This is a significant discrepancy.

During the COVID‑19 pandemic, a threshold of $2,000 a month was recognized as the bare minimum needed to survive. These individuals are asking that the Canada disability benefit be increased to $2,150 a month and that this benefit be decoupled from the disability tax credit in order to ensure broader accessibility.

Wildfire Response

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to table this petition on behalf of petitioners from my riding of Courtenay—Alberni, who are on the front line of wildfires this season. They highlight that the increase in intensity and cost of wildfires in Canada, not just in British Columbia but across the country, requires bold and timely action.

Without a national air tanker fleet, each province must weigh the cost of purchasing or contracting aviation resources, with no guarantee that resources will be available when and where they are needed most. Fighting wildfires and addressing the climate crisis demands a wartime level of effort and commitment. Other countries retrofit retired military aircraft for aerial firefighting and providing rapid response capability and national resilience.

The conversion of Canada's retired CC-130 Hercules fleet into state-of-the-art air tankers would protect communities and critical infrastructure, and it would help meet climate commitments by reducing catastrophic carbon releases from wildfires.

The petitioners cite that they are calling on the government to work in partnership with the private sector, in collaboration with potential first nations partners, to retrofit a portion of Canada's retired CC-130H Hercules fleet into large air tankers for wildfire suppression; deploy these aircraft as part of a strengthened national wildfire response capacity, to be shared with provinces and territories and, where appropriate, to be available for international humanitarian and emergency response missions; and, finally, prioritize this made-in-Canada solution, which leverages Canadian engineering and global expertise and delivers clear benefits in protecting lives, communities and the environment.

Health Care

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I table a petition from residents who are genuinely concerned about health care, in terms of everything from dealing with credential recognition to the treatment that nurses and health care professionals get in facilities, capital infrastructure and so much more. They are asking for a higher sense of co-operation between the different levels of government, in order to be able to achieve the type of health care that Canadians expect to see.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Scheduling of Committee Meeting

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, last Tuesday, a video was shot in a vacant committee room. I was involved in the video, as were my colleagues from the justice committee who are from the Conservative Party. In that video, we drew attention to the fact that although this was a regular day to hold a justice committee meeting, there were no Liberals present at this particular meeting and no member from the Bloc Québécois.

The truth of the matter is that opposition members do not set the schedule for the justice committee. It is done by the Liberal Party. The video had unintended consequences for the Bloc Québécois and, in particular, my colleague and friend, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, for which I apologize.

The fact of the matter is that they control the agenda. We were ready to conduct a meeting on that particular day, but the Liberal Party did not appear.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague for his initiative. On September 16, the members for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, York Centre, Brampton West and Elgin—St. Thomas—London South made a video in a House of Commons room when the committee had not been convened. We had had discussions about it among the parties.

Although the committee had not been convened, the video could give the impression that government and Bloc Québécois members were not at work when we actually were. Obviously, people are not going to show up for a meeting if the committee has not been convened. We have a lot of other things to do.

I would like to thank my colleague for acknowledging the harm that this has caused because it is very important that we be vigilant, that we protect parliamentary privilege and, most importantly, that we avoid misleading the public. It is important that we, here in the House, share common values, including respect for the work of all members, and that we are careful not to spread misinformation.

I would like to send a message to everyone in the House: We are here to work for the common good. I would encourage us all to refrain from making personal attacks and disparaging our opponents, and instead focus on debating the substance of the issues and our political positions. Of course, we will have disagreements, but we will also often be able to reach a consensus. Let us work for the common good while respecting our colleagues.

I would like to once again thank my colleague for acknowledging this, and let us remain vigilant going forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I think it is important to recognize that the meeting was actually scheduled for the Thursday, not the Tuesday. The member apologized, and I appreciate and thank him for raising the incident, but in his concluding remarks, he still suggested that the Liberals did not show up. The Liberals did not show up because there was no meeting scheduled; it was not until Thursday.

Opposition Motion—Constitutional Powers of Quebec and the Provinces

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

moved:

That the House:

(a) call on the government to fully withdraw from the legal challenge of Quebec’s Act respecting the laicity of the State before the Supreme Court;

(b) call on the government to withdraw its factum filed on September 17, 2025, with the Supreme Court contesting Quebec’s right to invoke the notwithstanding clause; and

(c) denounce the government’s willingness to use the Supreme Court to take constitutional powers away from Quebec and the provinces.

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint‑Jean, House leader for the Bloc Québécois.

I am pleased to speak today to this motion, which I am honoured to move on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. It has three very clear components that we will have the opportunity to examine. Before we begin the debate, however, I would like to remind members of a few things that I feel are important.

First, the dreaded notwithstanding clause, which the government considers an atrocity, a sword of Damocles hanging above the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is actually the very thing that enabled the Liberal government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau to patriate the Constitution without Quebec's consent in what was called the “night of the long knives”. Without the notwithstanding clause, there would have been no agreement with the provinces, and René Lévesque would not have been sidelined. Why is that?

In fact, this provision assures the provinces that the federal government and its charter are not at a higher level, that the federal charter does not override the will of the provinces and that the parliamentary sovereignty of the provinces is in no way in question. The notwithstanding clause allows the Quebec, provincial and federal governments to pass laws notwithstanding section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 33 states the following:

(1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.

(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.

(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).

(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).

Nowhere is there any mention of pre-emptive or non-pre-emptive or curative use. Nowhere is there any mention of a limit on renewing the notwithstanding clause. It is simply a tool.

My first reminder is this: The Quebec government has the right to use the notwithstanding clause as it sees fit, within the limits of its scope, of course. It is not up to Ottawa to impose its views on Quebec.

My second reminder is this: Since the 1960s, secularism has been a fundamental component of Quebec society. The province began by secularizing education with the creation of the ministry of education. Classical courses were then replaced by CEGEPs. Teachers traded in their cassocks for trousers and their headdresses for hairstyles. Secularization continued until a constitutional amendment put an end to the religious school boards, replacing them with linguistic school boards.

Over the past 20 years, there has been debate about reasonable accommodations, the Bouchard-Taylor commission was established, there were public consultations on the charter of values that went on for months, there was the debate about Bill 21 and, more recently, the Pelchat-Rousseau committee considered the limits of the Act respecting the laicity of the State.

For the past 60 years, Quebec has thoughtfully examined the question of secularism, it has laid the foundations of Quebec society, for the separation of church and state, with French as our common language, equality between men and women, and the recognition of a shared historical heritage.

Also for the past 60 years, Ottawa has tried to sabotage Quebec's efforts by challenging the way we do things. Even now, the House of Commons begins its day's work with a prayer. It is one thing if this government is unwilling to act or is indifferent when it comes to protecting secularism, but what it is doing now is far worse. It is trying to weaken Quebec secularism, literally acting as judge and jury, scorning Quebec's choices from the moral high ground it has taken. Ottawa simply does not like the choices made by Quebec society.

That leaves us here today with this motion that is asking three things of the federal government. First, that it not challenge Quebec's choices in the Supreme Court. Second, that it keep its comments to itself. Third, that it give up on the flawed notion of using this provision to weaken the powers of Quebec and the provinces.

' The Attorney General of Canada had not submitted his factum when we drafted this motion. The information we had was that Ottawa would only challenge the use of the notwithstanding clause, but not the Act respecting the laicity of the State. We thought this was rather absurd. We felt that without the notwithstanding clause, a series of legislation, such as the Act respecting the laicity of the State and legislation to protect the French language would end up in court. For several months, we thought that Ottawa would go to the Supreme Court to undermine secularism in Quebec, but we were wrong. The federal government is going to the Supreme Court to take away the tools that enable Quebec to set rules and safeguards in the society in which we live together. We call on the government to withdraw its challenge to Bill 21.

I would go further and say that when the Canadian Constitution was repatriated in 1982, the government of Trudeau senior inserted section 33 on the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to isolate Quebec.

He introduced ironclad constitutional protections to ensure that things would remain the same. I would remind members that constitutional amendments require the support of the House, the Senate and seven provinces representing at least 50% of the population. What the Liberal government is now doing is to replace parliaments and representatives of the Canadian people with a few judges appointed by the very government. This is an attempt at a constitutional coup. If the government is uncomfortable with the notwithstanding clause, which clearly appears to be the case, it should invite elected representatives to a constitutional conference. This debate should take place in parliaments and not in court. It should be between representatives of the Canadian people, and not between judges and lawyers.

The Liberals claim they are defending the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; however they are skirting the democratic process when they ask the Supreme Court to limit section 33. The use of Bill 21 as a pretext to ask the Supreme Court to amend the Constitution shows the Liberals' misuse of the notwithstanding clause. They claim that the use of the notwithstanding clause needs to be restricted, under the pretext that what those evil Quebeckers are doing with laicity is appalling. That is what the government is trying to say.

It does not like Quebec's choices, and it wants to take away the tools that allow Quebec to make its choices. This is a political battle; it is being waged in the political arena, not the legal one. This debate must take place here, in the provincial legislatures and with the Quebec National Assembly. One of the arguments in favour of the notwithstanding clause was that the provinces did not want government by judges. Now, by challenging this provision, the government is ignoring the will of the provinces. Indeed, it has asked the Supreme Court to get involved in politics and amend the Constitution, changing its intent. It is undemocratic.

The government must withdraw, withdraw its factum and, once and for all, forget about this bad idea to use the Supreme Court to weaken Quebec and the provinces.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. He knows very well that Canada is made up of several provinces and territories.

In his opinion, are there any limits when it comes to the provinces using the notwithstanding clause?