Kristina Michaud

[Climate Change, May 27th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, according to Carbon Brief, Canadians per capita are historically primarily responsible for climate change.

Quebeckers are much less responsible. While an individual Canadian emits more than 21 tonnes of greenhouse gases a year, a Quebecker emits 9.8. That is less than half. Why? It is because we do not produce dirty oil in Quebec.

However, we pay for this dirty oil when the federal government invests our money in projects such as Trans Mountain. Ottawa makes us unwilling accomplices to those who are responsible for climate change.

Why not get out of dirty oil instead of getting Quebeckers into it unwillingly?

[Climate Change, May 27th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, again, according to Carbon Brief, Canadians have historically been the major contributors to climate change per capita. The Canadian Press investigated the sharp rise in infectious diseases linked to climate change. It found that there has been a 1,000% increase in Lyme disease cases in Canada over the past 10 years.

Public health is even concerned that wet weather may promote the emergence of mosquitoes responsible for diseases such as Zika virus and malaria. There is a human cost to being responsible for climate change. Is it not time for Canada to finally crack down on its abusive oil and gas production?

[Climate Change, May 27th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, some people think that Canada is too small to have any impact on climate change. On Thursday, Carbon Brief reminded us that it compiled data on greenhouse gas emissions dating back to 1850 to determine which countries are historically responsible for climate change.

Canada is in the top 10. It is by far the least populated country in the top 10, which means that Canada is the largest contributor to global warming per capita. Nevertheless, Canada continues to increase its oil production, particularly through the Trans Mountain pipeline. Encouraging harmful oil production means being responsible for climate change. When will the Liberals stop it?

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Madam Chair, it is indeed Bill C‑367, which was introduced by the member for Beloeil—Chambly and leader of the Bloc Québécois, that simply seeks to eliminate this religious exemption. I hope that the government and the minister will be in favour of this bill.

I will ask a simple question to close: Will the minister finally implement an organized crime registry?

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Madam Chair, the government is completely ignoring Bill S‑210. Bill C‑63 is a huge bill that has received some criticism. It is likely to take a long time to study.

However, we think the proposal to set up a digital safety commission is a good idea that should be implemented quickly. That is why we are proposing that the bill be split, quite simply, so that we can take the time to properly study all harmful content while still setting up the digital safety commission quickly. I understand that the proposal has not been accepted, but I still think it is a good idea.

The topic of harmful content brings me to hate speech. Will the minister commit to abolishing the Criminal Code exemption that allows hate speech in the name of religion? In fact, that would be a great addition to his Bill C‑63.

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Madam Chair, I politely beg to differ. I feel that Bill C‑63 is extremely important, but it is not exactly the same thing. Yes, it contains elements that make it possible to regulate or, at least, be warned before consuming certain types of content, but there is nothing that really makes it possible to verify the consumer's age.

I would therefore advise the government to support a bill like Bill S‑210. Obviously, it is not easy to implement this type of safeguard, and other countries are currently looking at that. However, it is an extremely important bill.

To return to Bill C‑63, would the minister agree that the first part of the bill could be split from the rest so that the digital security commission could be created as quickly as possible? That would enable us to protect female victims of intimate content communicated without consent, including deepfakes.

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Madam Chair, I think that the minister is well aware that those are two completely different missions. Both are commendable.

Bill C‑63 has its good points, but Bill S‑210 really seeks to check the age of pornography users to limit young people's access to it. The Liberal Party seems to disagree with this bill, and yet other countries, like Germany, France and the United Kingdom, as well as some states in the U.S. are looking into this way of verifying the age of users.

Why does Canada not want to move forward in this way to limit the access of children under the age of 18 to pornography?

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Madam Chair, I would point out to the minister that he does not want to give Quebec an exemption from the Criminal Code, but he is giving one to British Columbia. In my view, this is something that is possible for the people in this situation in Quebec.

Now, I would like to hear his comments on all the issues related to child pornography, children's access to pornography and the sharing of non-consensual content. To my eyes, the purpose of Bill S‑210, which was introduced by Senator Julie Miville‑Dechêne and which seeks to prevent minors from accessing pornography, is completely different from the purpose of Bill C‑63, which the minister introduced and which seeks to protect the public from harmful content streamed on social media, such as intimate content communicated without consent and content that sexually victimizes a child.

Does he agree with me that these two bills have completely different purposes?

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Madam Chair, I would now like to hear what the minister has to say about the sensitive issue of medical assistance in dying. Yesterday, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to allow people suffering from an incapacitating disease, such as Alzheimer's or dementia, to make an advance request for medical assistance in dying while they are still capable of doing so.

The bill is supported by Sandra Demontigny, the Collège des médecins, the Barreau du Québec, the Chambre des notaires du Québec and the Quebec and Canadian associations for the right to die with dignity.

Will the minister commit to taking a compassionate approach consistent with the steps taken by the Government of Quebec to meet the needs of people suffering from serious and incurable neurocognitive diseases by supporting the principle of this bill to allow advance requests in Quebec?

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Madam Chair, I thank the minister for those details.

I would now like him to talk about the Jordan decision, which has returned with a vengeance in Quebec in recent years. Recent decisions have brought to light the serious problems in our justice system in terms of delays.

Last weekend at the Festival international du journalisme de Carleton-sur-Mer, which took place in my riding, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said that we are looking at the problem from the wrong side. Yes, the Jordan decision imposes timelines, but that benefits victims. When we think about the timelines, we rarely think about the victims. Because of the Jordan decision, they do not have to wait for years before they can testify. He also added that we should not seek to change the Jordan decision to extend the deadlines, but instead we should improve our justice system so that it is able to meet those deadlines. That requires massive investments in justice and the quick appointment of judges.

Does the minister agree with the Chief Justice?

I would also like to know what he is doing to improve delays in the justice system.