Yves-François Blanchet
Beloeil—Chambly, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, in the 1950s, today's Quebeckers were French Canadians who worked for the English. With the Quiet Revolution, which was also an economic revolution, the Quebec nation was created, along with a class of full-fledged Quebec entrepreneurs.”
“Mr. Speaker, at least he prepares his answers. That is $3.4 billion that will be lost in the creative sector in Quebec and Canada. The minister is going to invest $600 million that he is taking directly out of taxpayers' pockets.”
“Mr. Speaker, this time it is clear. The Prime Minister is abandoning the cultural sector in the face of American digital giants. Not only is he capitulating on the levy increase demanded from streaming platforms like Netflix, Prime, and Disney, but we also found out that he will require the CRTC to cancel every last bit of funding for Que…”
“Mr. Speaker, we predicted his appointment would be a disaster, and it is. The Prime Minister is once again abandoning Quebec culture because of Washington. The Union des artistes and the entire cultural community spoke out against it in the media on Saturday.”
“For example, he has donated or raised close to $2 million for good causes in his region, in the area around Châteauguay. Let us applaud the great generosity and business acumen of a Quebec builder. Every region of Quebec should have somebody like him. I want to thank Mr. Thibert. The best is yet to come.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister previously abandoned the digital services tax without any concessions from Washington; there was nothing at all. As a result, he deprived the cultural sector of $1.4 billion. Today, he is asking the CRTC to backtrack on the 15% levy imposed on large online streaming platforms.”
The complete record
Every one of 300 lines we hold for Yves-François Blanchet, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, in the past few days, the Prime Minister again claimed that 85% of Canadian exports to the United States are protected by CUSMA and that the tariffs applied to Canada and Quebec are the lowest the United States is imposing. It seems that, as of April 6, these are now the highest tariffs the U.S. is imposing on any country in the world, but yesterday's economic statement contained no measures. Will the Prime Minister sharpen his pencil and make some changes to help businesses?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister finally seems to understand the impact that U.S. tariffs are having on businesses, which is good. Just because 85% of businesses are still covered by CUSMA does not mean that everything is fine and dandy. That leaves 15% of businesses and 15% of workers affected, which is huge. I look forward to hearing what those measures are. I would like to know whether they will be included in the economic update and whether he is willing to consult us on them.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that Ms. Picard is a member of the committee. I would point out that, three weeks ago, the U.S. president announced harsher tariffs, including some that will affect manufacturing companies that use steel and aluminum. Those are real businesses and real jobs. Now that negotiation is back on the government's agenda, will it bring in transitional measures for businesses that are being affected between now and the end of these negotiations?”
“Mr. Speaker, for the past year, the Bloc Québécois has been demanding that trade talks with the United States be the top priority. However, that did not seem to be the government's strategy. Today, the government is relaunching the Advisory Committee on Canada-U.S. Economic Relations. The government is even enhancing it, perhaps in the interests of Quebec. The committee was a tool created under Justin Trudeau and has had little impact until now. Now it is sending a message that, once again, the government's priority is negotiation. In the meantime, will the government put transition measures in place for businesses?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is okay for people to admit that there are things they do not know. Since early 2025, we have heard a lot of talk but seen very little action. Tariffs are making every one of the White House's moves worse. The Prime Minister cannot just wave his resumé around, give speeches and recruit floor crossers. What does the Prime Minister have to say to Quebec and Canadian businesses that are suddenly facing a sharp increase in tariffs on their products and that could be forced to shut down if there is no meaningful government intervention?”
“Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister be any less specific? Literally hundreds and hundreds of Quebec businesses that depend on the American market will have to cut shifts, cut production and, in some cases, perhaps even shut down. This morning, Le Journal de Montréal reported that BRP has lost a third of its stock market value. I want to know what the Prime Minister is going to do right now to help the businesses and workers who are victims of President Trump's latest whim.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected because of his economic expertise and because he was going to protect Canada from tariffs. However, the White House has just changed the way it is calculating its already illegal tariffs on steel and aluminum. From now on, derivative articles of steel and aluminum will be subject to a 25% tariff on their full customs value, rather than to the already illegal tariffs on the value of the metal inputs. I assume that the government has raised this change with the United States. Is Canada going to get the Donald Trump and the White House to do away with this method of calculating tariffs?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is one or the other, and the Prime Minister is going to have to make up his mind. Either he acknowledges that religion plays a role and directly influences how his government and the Liberal Party manage government affairs, or he stops challenging Bill 21, which sets out rules for the secular nature of Quebec's state institutions. The Prime Minister cannot say and defend one thing and its opposite. He will have to take a stand and provide an answer. Can he tell us, yes or no, whether he truly agrees with the principle of the separation of church and state?”
“Mr. Speaker, the first word he said was “yes”. That is where the clarity ends. I assume that the Prime Minister believes, as I do and as all members do, that religion and the state are two separate things, one being personal and the other being public and collective, and that religion should not interfere in state decisions. That being the case, can the Prime Minister explain why his government spent millions of taxpayer dollars, some of which came from Quebec, to task Crown attorneys to block and render ineffective a Quebec law that had been duly passed by the Quebec National Assembly ensuring the separation of church and state?”
“Mr. Speaker, first, I want to make one thing very clear: The Bloc Québécois fully respects freedom of conscience, freedom of belief and freedom of religion. That is true for all people, including the Prime Minister . Yesterday, the Prime Minister quoted the Bible in a speech. That is his prerogative, but I would like some clarification on what has become a critical issue in light of recent events. Does the Prime Minister support the principle of state secularism and the separation of church and state?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would be lying if I said that I was surprised that he does not understand. Pierre Elliott Trudeau's Canada forced a constitution on Quebec. Quebec did not sign it and has never accepted it. Today, we are being told that Ottawa is in charge according to this Constitution and its charter designed against Quebec. By taking action against Quebec in the Supreme Court, is Liberal Canada telling Quebec that its national assembly must submit and that Quebec is a colony of Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, in 2019, the Quebec National Assembly passed a state secularism law. Like it or not, it is legitimate. Is the government trying to tell Quebeckers that the federal Parliament is superior and has authority over the Quebec National Assembly? Does Liberal Canada think it is in charge of Quebec?”
“Mr. Speaker, we are listening carefully to the arguments being presented to the Supreme Court. Some of them are excellent while others range between stupid and downright insulting. There is still time. Will the government acknowledge that it should instruct its lawyers to withdraw their submission and ask them not to present arguments against Quebec?”
“Mr. Speaker, I should have been more specific in my question and asked whether he spoke with all of our allies in Europe together. Also, it will take a lot more continental drift for the United States to end up in Europe. Does the Prime Minister intend to propose any short-term measures to help people who are suffering and who will continue to suffer as a direct result of this war? I am talking about purchasing power, inflation, pensioners and home ownership for young families. I am talking about all of these issues that cannot be resolved in Norway over a five-year period but that must be addressed now for the people of Quebec and Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, if I could call that clear, that would be news. In military terms, Canada is clearly the smallest of the major players. Among the mid-level players, it is clearly the most isolated and no one seems to have understood its position so far. Has the Prime Minister spoken with our allies in Europe? What have they agreed on in terms of a common position?”
“Mr. Speaker, bring out the good china; we have visitors in Parliament. Judging by the Prime Minister's inclination to travel the world like Marco Polo, he is his own foreign affairs minister. Unfortunately, this foreign affairs minister is not known for his clarity, and by not accepting his own invitation yesterday, he missed a tremendous opportunity to explain his policies in Parliament. When will he explain his strategic vision for the Middle East?”
“Mr. Speaker, that question brings up the whole issue of precedent, that is, questioning the multilateral institutions that ensure that people talk to each other before they take action. Many of these institutions were created in the aftermath of the Second World War to safeguard against the proliferation of armed conflict. It is very risky to play games, calling for an end to such institutions. I would remind members that, without much more support, President Trump intervened in Iran a few months ago, boasting about the outcome. Nobody took him to task for that. We may not have done enough either, and I speak for myself as well. He felt emboldened to do the same thing again without, as I said, consulting with those who might have served as guardrails.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have serious concerns, and they are not exactly easy to express. I will explain why. There is a tendency to give a bit of a free pass, so to speak. It is as though, whenever there is a crisis, it is important to not question what the Prime Minister says, does, thinks, writes or changes. That is our job as parliamentarians, however. Over the past few months, in a number of speeches and moments to which he, at least, attaches great importance, the Prime Minister has taken positions and made commitments that have not materialized so far. Had it not been for what appears to be a honeymoon phase, he would be having a harder time politically. It is risky for his party, which does not really bother me, but the fundamental problem is that it is risky for the well-being and the economy of the entire population of Quebec and Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, rhetoric aside, I will not rise in this Parliament to declare that the President of the United States is a crazy person. I will exercise restraint. However, I get the impression that insanity in the use of nuclear weapons has much in common with insanity in the use of weapons in general. We see that all too often here, in the United States and everywhere else. Using violence and wishing for someone's death is, in and of itself, crazy.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have no right to speak for people who are not here and who will not speak publicly. Diplomacy is, by its very nature, discreet. We should ask ourselves what diplomats are currently saying behind closed doors. It is a troubling inconsistency when a prime minister says that military interventions must be sanctioned by the UN under international law, and then, at the first opportunity, suddenly hides behind the American President, whom he mocks and does not think very highly of. I am certain that international diplomacy has understood this well.”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand that we are talking about oil and gas pipelines. However, there is now a war going on in Iran. The last time Canada wanted to build a pipeline, it took 14 years. I am hopeful that people are a bit more optimistic than that about when this war will end. After letting a good part of our capacity to develop the electric sector fall apart, the government is now realizing that people who were smart enough to go electric are having a good laugh when they drive past gas stations.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing I do not need to ask my colleague to repeat his question. My answer will be shorter than the question. The primary duty of a government is to take care of its citizens, to protect them. As I said earlier, not all of the 106,000 or so Canadian expats have asked to be repatriated. There have been only a few thousand requests. How many of them just said that there was no answer? There was no answer. It takes longer than trying to change Internet packages. It is interminable. This suggest that this particular iteration of the government, which is just as Liberal as the last one, is incapable of understanding what is happening on the ground, what is happening to real people who are facing real threats and real dangers every day.”
“Despite that kind of deficit, none of the measures that people need will have been put in place. If this war drags on, and if the threat surrounding the Strait of Hormuz persists, this fall will be a complicated time in Canada. Once again, the most vulnerable will pay the price. I am calling on the Prime Minister to present a clear plan for taking care of people. His main role is to take care of people. Canada, Quebec and likely Terrebonne are waiting to hear what he has to say. Above all, the Prime Minister must do three things: relaunch tariff and trade negotiations, deploy short-term measures to support the economy and people's needs, and stand firm by partnering with other middle powers to save as many lives as possible during this war, which is no reality TV show. It is a war and people are dying.”
“The effects are significant: purchasing power, especially for the most vulnerable, the likely rise in interest rates, access to home ownership and job losses. These all threaten us. Proposals have been made for short-term measures in a spirit of collaboration. I am talking about measures to preserve purchasing power, especially for seniors. These also include proposals to improve processing within our borders and reduce vulnerability to threatened trade agreements. They also include measures related to productivity and wage subsidies. Today, we are exposing ourselves to another monstrous deficit in the fall of 2026, with no long-term effect and no time to put any measures in place. Heaven knows that implementing effective measures quickly is not what the Liberals are best known for after 10 years.”
“Did he speak with the middle powers he is referring to? Right now, the so-called middle powers in the west are moving in a very disordered way, around, beside and behind the American initiative, unable to settle on a common path. (1915) Let us take a look at the effects here in Quebec and Canada, because this war will change people's lives. We already had a tariff crisis, which is still going on and has been getting worse for the past year. We already had a trade crisis so bad that anytime the U.S. President even bothers to take the Prime Minister 's call, everyone goes crazy and it is front-page news. Canada and the U.S. are nowhere near reaching an agreement. We were already living with the threat of a recession, and now the price of a barrel of oil is skyrocketing, with obvious short-term inflation and a possible recession spiral.”
“It must be said that the trade agreements the Prime Minister is signing all over the place are a long way off from free trade agreements. He is signing a piece of paper at the end of every visit because he does not want to get on the plane empty-handed. There is nothing in those documents that will change the economic reality of Quebec or Canada in the foreseeable future of the next several years. It is more or less the same thing. No matter what figures Canada or the Prime Minister says, Canada would not even be able to spend the promised amounts anytime soon. Canada is not going to become a major military power overnight. This is the starting point for that reality. In Davos, the Prime Minister touted co-operation between middle powers. Surprisingly, he did so two days after more or less making a pact with the Chinese empire.”
“Spontaneously, however, we suddenly support the U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran. First, they give their unconditional support. Then, the minister and the Prime Minister procrastinate. Next, they have a sudden epiphany and defer to international law. Then they say that Canada will not get involved. Then they say that it might get involved, depending on the conditions. Finally, today, we are being offered a position, a sort of belated conversion that has the virtue of being clearer: Canada was not consulted, Canada does not agree, and Canada will not participate. It is a belated conversion, but at least it is clear. We are not the only ones interested in this, because Canada is a member of NATO and a member of the G7. It took a long time to understand this, and we are not immune to further changes in position.”
“We can all agree on certain fundamental truths that have been repeated for a long time now. Iran's nuclear program must be dismantled. We must put an end to a regime of terror that oppresses women first and foremost. We must stop the Iranian regime's sponsorship of terrorism. However, can we question the approach, once these objectives have been clearly established? Is it really healthy and normal to automatically rule out the international institutions that act as safeguards against the inappropriate behaviour we have seen, which has an impact on the entire planet? Is it normal not to inform the usual allies, even if we understand that the UN Security Council was basically hamstrung? Is it normal to accept not having been consulted by the person or country that is supposed to be our main ally?”
“Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote a rather old but very relevant saying: The absent are always in the wrong. This saying takes on a very special meaning today. Let us hope that, together, we can see reason. Perhaps some people would have preferred to see certain others here. Everyone will come to their own judgment. However, a certain someone's presence would certainly have helped to clarify things and reassure the public, and that is a fundamental function that comes with certain titles. More than six months ago, Iran supposedly had its nuclear capability permanently taken away. President Trump boasted about that with all the subtlety we have come to expect from him. However, he has been criticized for everything he has and has not done for the past year and even prior to that. Suddenly, without consulting anyone, he unleashed hell on Iran.”
“Mr. Speaker, Cúram is the biggest financial scandal in Canadian history. Retirees' purchasing power has been falling since the Liberals came to power. I am talking about these Liberals and the ones in the previous government, because they are one and the same. Since the Prime Minister says it is not his fault, will he at least agree to get to the bottom of the Cúram scandal by launching an independent public inquiry? That is what others have done.”
“Mr. Speaker, he says it is not his fault. In 2019, the Bloc Québécois called for the government to boost retirees' purchasing power. Then came the pandemic, which made matters worse for retirees. That was followed by postpandemic inflation, which further eroded retirees' purchasing power. Next, there was discrimination between retirees over 75 and those under 75, and now we have Cúram, which is preventing 85,000 retirees from getting their cheques at the right time, in the right way or in the right amount. Does the Prime Minister realize that his government is the one that has been mistreating retirees the most? There must be at least one retiree in Terrebonne who is wondering about that.”
“Mr. Speaker, the sponsorship scandal cost around $330 million. The SAAQclic fiasco in Quebec cost around $1.1 billion. The infamous Phoenix fiasco is estimated to cost $5.1 billion and counting. Estimates for the Cúram fiasco have ranged from $1.6 billion to $6.6 billion. Is the Prime Minister proud to be presiding over the worst financial scandal in Canadian history?”
“It is important to remind our brothers and sisters in the Anishinabe nation that they are not suffering alone, that the Quebec nation stands with them and that, of course, the Parliament of Canada stands with them as well. Today is a dark day. It will take courage, fellowship, solidarity, kindness and compassion to get through this ordeal. It will take some time, and it is going to take all of us to get through it. We will remember.”
“Today, all Quebeckers are reminded of Polytechnique, of the women who were taken from us and of the raw pain that never goes away. Everyone is wondering today what kind of world we live in. So far, no motive has been identified. What motive could there be for picking up a gun and turning it on our children? Nothing can explain, much less justify, such an atrocity. I will close with a side note. Our hearts go out to Tumbler Ridge, of course, but they are also big enough to embrace another small community, Kitigan Zibi, and the Anishinabe nation that also lost two children today. Their lives were taken by their own father, who then took his own life.”
“I want to thank law enforcement, health care workers, support staff and everyone deployed to Tumbler Ridge today to assist the children and the community. I want to thank them for being there today, and I want to thank those who will be staying for quite some time, as they must, long after the flags flying at half-mast have been raised again and after life, one way or another, resumes its course. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I also want to reach out to the government. If it needs anything at all to help the grieving families, it can count on our full co-operation. Quebec has never felt closer to British Columbia than it does today. The hearts of every Quebecker with a child in school today go out to British Columbia.”
“Our hearts go out to those who will be torn between the relief of bringing their own child home alive and profound empathy for the families who will come home without one of their own. Our hearts go out to all the students of Tumbler Ridge Secondary School, whose lives will be forever changed. Our hearts go out to the students who will always wonder why, always asking themselves, “Why us? Why them? Why not me? Why here? Why?” and who will never get an answer. Our hearts go out to all the residents who are dreading the moment when they learn the names of all the victims, knowing that in a community of barely 2,400 souls, they will inevitably be loved ones, grandchildren, neighbours and friends. An entire village is losing some of its children.”
“[ Translation ] On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, and I assume I can say this on behalf of the entire Quebec nation, I offer my condolences to the families of the nine victims and my solidarity to the families of the 25 injured, as well as to the entire Tumbler Ridge community. Our hearts go out to the grieving families. Our hearts go out to the parents who are experiencing the worst imaginable cruelty and the worst possible injustice. There is no way to prepare for the grief of having one's child torn away, leaving lives forever changed. Our hearts also go out to the parents who are holding their breath as they wait for news about their children in the hospital.”
“Mr. Speaker, today, our thoughts are with the community of Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, where nine children have been killed and 25 others injured. Our thoughts are with the victims of this senseless and unspeakable violence at a high school. I will make an exception today so that I can speak directly to the families and to British Columbians who are not all fortunate enough to speak French. (1420) [ English ] In the name of the Bloc Québécois and my own, I would like to offer my deepest condolences to the families of the nine children whose lives were taken, to the 25 families waiting and hoping for good news about their wounded children, and to the entire community of Tumbler Ridge.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is not getting any better. Let us say that Canada is in a good position to tell the U.S. president that we paid for the bridge and to ask him to treat us with respect. However, now we are going to pay for planes even though he is not treating us with respect and he will retain control over the planes by monitoring the flight plans. At this point, should the government not practise the Canadian nationalism it preaches and suspend the F-35 purchase contract until trade relations return to normal?”
“Mr. Speaker, wording the question differently could lead to a differently worded answer that I might have a chance to understand. If the Prime Minister believes that the United States is no longer a reliable partner, is it normal for the government to follow through on a contract that the Prime Minister himself called to be studied and suspended, when the U.S. President goes so far as to say that a bridge paid for by Canada could be blocked because his mood happened to swing that way at the moment? Is the government being inconsistent, or does it simply not mean what it says?”
“Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister gave a speech in Davos about the hypocrisy of great empires, a speech that most people seemed to agree with. He outlined some very interesting principles. Today, I want to call on the Prime Minister to be consistent because in that speech he said—without naming names, but in other circumstances, he did name names—that the United States was no longer the reliable economic and military partner we could count on. However, this morning we learned that the Canadian government is going to again award F-35 contracts to the United States, not suspending the contract as it had done.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any agricultural producer who considers their farm to be too small to be worthy of respect. Are the powers to suspend rules, laws, parliamentary privilege, environmental consultations, and expropriation rules not proof that Bill C-5 and its offshoot, Bill C-15 , are heartless bills?”
“Mr. Speaker, I gather that this is the sum total of the Prime Minister's knowledge of the trauma caused by the expropriations in Mirabel, which he wants to duplicate and repeat. Does he think that expropriation without mutual agreement, expropriation by email, expropriation without impact studies, and expropriation without genuine consultation are likely to ease the serious trauma suffered by the people of Mirabel and the Laurentians?”
“Mr. Speaker, first, allow me pay my respects to Prime Minister Harper, who is the thought leader for both the Prime Minister and the Conservative leader . I would like the Prime Minister, in the company of someone who claimed to be sensitive to Quebec's reality, to summarize what he knows and understands about the expropriation and the trauma inflicted on residents of Mirabel during construction of the Mirabel airport.”
“Mr. Speaker, she is talking about a "friendly" agreement. The pigs will be thrilled. That said, the minister responsible for the negotiations was interviewed on Radio-Canada this morning and he said that, while we are focusing on history, he is focusing on Quebec's forests. My goodness, what a day of revelations it has been. It is the Epiphany. Can someone tell me what this government has done for forestry, apart from rejecting the industry's proposal, or is this government as bad at economics as it is at history?”
“Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the words “pig”, “hog” or “pork”. There was no reference to pork in the answer. My question is simple. The Prime Minister , who is the new incarnation of God, told us yesterday that we now have a deal with the Chinese, who are lifting tariffs on pork. Can the government at least include the word “pork” in its answer? Can it quickly commit to ensuring that lifting tariffs on Quebec pork is a top priority? After all, Quebeckers are the leading buyers of electric cars in Canada, and the government is bringing in 50,000 of them.”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister told us that China had committed to lifting its tariffs on Quebec pork. The pork industry, which did not know about this, was both surprised and very happy, understandably so. This morning, Antoine Trépanier reported that this is not in fact true. The government should not treat people this way. It should not be creating false hope. Can the government confirm that there is, in fact, no agreement on pork with China?”
“Mr. Speaker, from what I understand, and this is meant to be reassuring, beyond certain controversies that may be relevant in many respects, most Quebec and Canadian export jobs depend on American businesses at least as much as on the U.S. President, and something serious is happening. That is what we are asking for. If the Prime Minister is more familiar with economics than he is with Quebec history—because he is not very good at history—then why did he not remove the tariffs on Quebec pork while he was negotiating diversification with China?”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand that the United States has changed, and I am just as concerned as the Prime Minister. We support market diversification. We have been suggesting that for the past year. However, we do not want to turn our backs on Quebec values, which, I hope, are similar to Canadian values in some respects. The United States will still account for more than three-quarters of our trade for the foreseeable future. Jobs and businesses are at stake. Can the Prime Minister assure us that a new trade agreement will be in place by July 2026?”
“Mr. Speaker, please allow me to extend my best wishes for 2026 to you and all my colleagues. I would also like to share some of the very real concerns I have for Quebec and Canadian businesses and for jobs in Quebec and Canada. A speech, in and of itself, does not generate money. It does not create jobs, nor does it protect jobs. I gather that there are no negotiations happening with the Americans on trade or on the tariffs, even though President Trump is the cause of our worst concerns. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that normal, cordial negotiations are happening with Washington?”