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 3 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, is Adil Charkaoui among the religious leaders who must be protected? It is like we are back under Justin Trudeau's government. We have learned that someone close to the Prime Minister, someone close to the Liberal Party of Canada, has lobbied for Driver Inc., drivers who are a danger on our roads. I would like the Prime Minister to tell me whether he will serve the interests of friends of the Liberal Party or the interests of Canadians, their lives and their safety.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's comments are more cute than accurate. Let us talk about the religious exemption. Does the Prime Minister agree or disagree with his justice minister , who seems to agree with the Bloc Québécois? I want to know where he stands personally, and I think the public has a right to know that. Will the Prime Minister serve the interests of religious minorities or will he serve the interests of the majority of Quebeckers?”
“Mr. Speaker, this morning, the former environment minister and former heritage minister, who is still very much a member of the Liberal caucus, published a letter that his replacements are clearly not very happy about. In it, he describes the agreement between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Alberta as a significant step backwards and a rollback. I need to know. Will the Prime Minister choose the environment and his own caucus, or will he choose oil company shareholders?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister thinks that nuclear power is clean energy. The Prime Minister is removing the caps and limits on greenhouse gas emissions, particularly for electricity generation. The former minister also said that once the support of the base is lost, it is very hard to get it back. For his own sake, will the Prime Minister abandon his oil agenda, go back to his climate agenda, and take an interest in Quebec?”
“Mr. Speaker, unless the Prime Minister's autocratic tendencies grow stronger, there will be another election one day. According to the former minister, people voted for voted for climate action, which the Prime Minister claimed to care about, and for trade negotiations. However, the Prime Minister is focused on neither. He is not doing things he said he would do, and he is doing things he never said he would do. In full transparency, what did he say to his former minister?”
“Mr. Speaker, the former minister of Canadian identity and culture left cabinet and admitted that he did it to make people think, because the Liberal Party had neglected the progressive wing of the party and because the reason that the Liberal Party had won so many seats was that Bloc supporters voted for it. To replace the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie , the Prime Minister appointed the member for Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs . Who is going to speak for language? Who is going to speak for culture? Who is going to speak for Quebec?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a document that he signed and that creates obligations. It is a contract. He can call it whatever he likes in the language of his choice. Given the issues surrounding the oil tanker moratorium, the issues surrounding the cap on greenhouse gas emissions, British Columbia's lack of agreement and the opposition of the first nations that voted against the agreement this morning, does the Prime Minister not think that he should reopen the agreement and ensure that the parties are signatories by free and informed consent?”
“Mr. Speaker, when one wants to get a party's agreement, then that party should be invited to participate in the agreement from the get-go. The contract the Prime Minister signed applies regardless, even without British Columbia. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that he did not respect what was said in the House and that there was not much respect for the truth when this agreement was signed? The agreement was being finalized at the very moment we were receiving a response here.”
“Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, the Prime Minister announced an agreement with Alberta that is surprising in many respects. I am thinking in particular of the fact that, the day before, I had asked the government whether it would make a solemn commitment not to allow any pipeline to pass through British Columbia without the free consent of the British Columbia government and first nations. The House leader stood up and told me that nothing would be done without their consent. The next day, the announcement was made. Am I right in thinking that this matter had already been settled and that we were lied to?”
“Mr. Speaker, did I just hear the Minister of Environment and Climate Change endorse an appalling agreement that scraps greenhouse gas emission caps for the oil industry and even for electricity production? Yesterday, I asked whether the government would formally and solemnly assure Canadians that no pipeline would ever be imposed without the free consent of British Columbia and indigenous peoples. The leader, the same one who smirks and says the opposite of the truth, stood up, said yes, and sat back down. He should have just stayed seated.”
“Mr. Speaker, we will not even pretend to say that they did not read their own document. The document is clear. It claims there is just one Canadian economy, which is not that of British Columbia or Quebec, but that of Ottawa and Calgary, with no regard for environmental assessments, indigenous peoples or provincial powers. Based on that, it looks like the Prime Minister is taking it upon himself to impose a business plan that will only serve the oil companies and himself.”
“Mr. Speaker, November 27, 2025, will go down in history as the date the Government of Canada completely abandoned climate issues and the people suffering because of them, both here and abroad, so it could benefit oil company shareholders, most of them American. The Government of Canada has signed an agreement that requires it, if necessary, to steamroll over British Columbia and over various indigenous nations. After British Columbia, will it be Quebec's turn?”
“No, I will not lend him out to other parties. His secret is that he loves his people. He loves politics. He loves to serve. He represents an era that should never end. My friend, my dear friend, has collected years the way others collect treasures and jewels, except that his treasure is worth more than all the riches in the world. He shares that treasure and will continue to share it with Quebeckers, whom he loves more than anything else in the world.”
“He travelled all over Quebec with Gilles Duceppe to keep the flame alive, and he will be with us at our next rendezvous with history. The member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel—Alnôbak was there when the Bloc Québécois won 54 seats and formed the official opposition. In a way, he has already been the party leader. At 82, it might be appropriate to talk about his wisdom, but that would be to misunderstand my friend completely. Is he wise, calm, polished and a stickler for the rules? Come on, not for a second. He still has a mischievous glint in his eyes like a young man looking for trouble. What my friend is, however, is an encyclopedia of anecdotes. Above all, he is known for his kindness, generosity, advice, warm laughter, and unifying words of wisdom. He is a respected unifying force within the caucus.”
“My friend is also a paradox. On one hand, he has beaten Wilfrid Laurier's record for longevity. On the other hand, he has been campaigning for Quebec sovereignty since 1990. Apparently Canada still does not understand: The only way to get rid of the tenacious MP and the Bloc Québécois crew is through Quebec's independence. However, everyone likes the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel—Alnôbak, even the federalists, so it is complicated. The member, whose riding name has changed quite often, has been through a lot, from his impetuous youth to his apparent serenity today. He served for four years under Brian Mulroney after the 1980 referendum. He served under Lucien Bouchard during the 1995 referendum, after becoming one of the founding members of the Bloc Québécois.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to acknowledge another record set by the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel—Alnôbak . Yes, another record. He is basically the Céline Dion or Mario Lemieux of Parliament. Eventually, after so many records, people like that are no longer eligible. At some point, they have to step aside and make way for others, except that no one will ever beat my friend's records in Parliament. The first reason is that 41 years is a long time. The second reason is that Quebec will be independent long before another 41 years go by. One record that no one talks about is the fact that he presides over the House. After all, he presides over the election of the Speaker at the beginning of each Parliament. As a result, my friend may not have been the Speaker for long, but God knows he has been Speaker often.”
“Mr. Speaker, had we proposed an environmental measure, at least there would have been one in the budget. Will the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, the former environment minister and a Quebecker who served as a member of the Liberal caucus under Justin Trudeau, solemnly assure Quebeckers and the people of British Columbia, on his honour as an environmentalist who scaled towers in Ontario, that no project will move forward in Quebec or British Columbia without the free consent of the province affected and indigenous people, and social licence?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will need to be more specific in my question. I want to ask the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture , a former executive of Equiterre, this question. Is he comfortable with the Prime Minister 's focus, which involves weakening international relations, flouting Canada's laws and regulations, and siphoning money from Quebec and Canadians, all for an oil agenda that is detrimental to the climate?”
“Mr. Speaker, in 1995, a Liberal prime minister pulled a fast one on Quebec by cheating, lying and hiding. In 2025, is another Liberal Prime Minister pulling another fast one on the provinces and Quebec? He was elected on a platform of tariffs and trade, which he is now using to force an oil agenda onto the backs of Quebec and the provinces to the benefit of American shareholders and himself.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a perfect example of someone speaking out of both sides of their mouth. The government reels off bits of feminist rhetoric when, in fact, the message they are sending on the international stage is that Canada is no longer a country that promotes gender equality. Coincidentally, this comes at a time when the Prime Minister is looking for tens of billions of dollars from the United Arab Emirates. Someone please explain this to me.”
“Mr. Speaker, the discomfort on that side is palpable. It is like the entire team is skating backwards to make up for the Prime Minister 's diplomatic blunder. We are talking about the values of the free world, the efforts to build a better world and the powerful message being sent on the world stage. Is this not instead about pandering to the United Arab Emirates' sexist regime?”
“Mr. Speaker, I was shocked to learn that, following his visit to the United Arab Emirates, the Prime Minister of Canada is abandoning Canada's feminist approach to diplomacy and international relations. Can the government confirm today that gender equality is no longer a value promoted by Canada? I can assure the House that gender equality is a Quebec value.”
“Mr. Speaker, and the shadows of Jean Chrétien and Jean Charest fall over Parliament. The minister's reasoning is clear. The bigger the country, the stronger the currency. Let us assume that is true, although I would be happy to offer her an internship with my colleague from Mirabel . In the meantime, based on her own logic, does that mean she thinks Canada should scrap its own dollar and adopt the U.S. dollar?”
“Mr. Speaker, loyalty is a virtue. I am loyal to Quebec and to Quebec sovereignty. The Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions has shown that she is loyal to the Quebec Liberal Party and to Pablo Rodriguez, even as new revelations emerge about the legality of their financial practices. To each their own loyalties. However, the minister's federalist and Liberal loyalties are making her say some strange things. Can she clarify how a hypothetical Quebec currency would drive Quebec into Donald Trump's arms?”
“Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to play that game, I can remind him that he was once senior director of Equiterre. The minister does not seem to appreciate the scale of the crisis. News thrives on diversity, regional services, the French language and independence. The $150 million for CBC/Radio-Canada does not serve that goal. Private television and radio stations are essential. They are feeling threatened, swept aside and abandoned. Is the government actually planning the end of private media? Is it doing this on purpose? Are Quebeckers supposed to applaud it for that?”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister scrapped $1.5 billion that could have gone to arts and culture. In response to my colleague's question about the lack of funding for private television and radio, the minister said that he is giving $150 million to Radio-Canada and the CBC. I was a Radio-Canada commentator myself, and I have the utmost respect for the professionals who work there. However, am I expected to congratulate the minister for completely turning his back on private television and radio?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture announced $500 million a year for arts and culture in the budget. Some hon. members: Hear, hear! Yves‑François Blanchet : Mr. Speaker, could you please get those clowns under control? The minister could have announced $1.5 billion, at no cost to taxpayers, had he not scrapped the tax on multinational Internet companies. It would have been paid for by multinationals, which do not pay taxes in Canada. Now, Quebeckers and Canadians are on the hook for that $500 million. Am I supposed to congratulate the minister for that?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture announced $500 million a year for arts and culture in the budget. However, he could have announced $1.5 billion at no cost to taxpayers— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is obsessed with cellphones. We made six non-negotiable demands of the government. Let us spare him yet another failure. Is he prepared to make a formal commitment right now to put an end to the discrimination against seniors aged 65 to 75, increase health transfers by 6% per year and provide credit to young families to purchase their first home, all just to perhaps have a chance to save his own skin?”
“Mr. Speaker, there are so few who people who believe that, it seems likely that the Prime Minister does not believe it either. He was also supposed to restore free trade as soon as he got elected. If he had, he would not need to pretend that we have the best agreement in the world, when there is no agreement. Will the Prime Minister admit that his trade negotiation strategy with the United States, whose president does not even return calls, is a failure?”
“Mr. Speaker, at a time when the Prime Minister seems to be in a precarious position at best, he may be due for some soul-searching. He was elected on a promise that he would quickly get rid of the tariffs imposed on Quebec and Canadian products, yet these tariffs have increased. Not only that, new tariffs have been added. Will the Prime Minister admit that his strategy has failed?”
“Mr. Speaker, health is another priority for Quebeckers and Canadians. We have offered to work with the government on increasing health transfers to keep pace with higher health care system spending in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. The government said that the taxpayers of Quebec and Canada would pay more and more income tax or else the governments of Quebec and Canada would have less and less money for other things. Can the government confirm that it is refusing to increase health transfers to keep pace with health care system spending? That would take some backbone.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not read his notes, nor did he read his budget. I will give him a second chance. Building houses is great. However, young families have to be able to afford them. We have asked the government to create a system that gives young families buying their first house privileged access to credit so that somebody can buy those starter homes. The government refused. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he refused to give young families access to credit so they can buy their first home?”
“Mr. Speaker, for a Quebecker, standing up increasingly means wanting Quebec to become independent. We gave this government, which is in the midst of a recruitment campaign, a chance. We called on the government to eliminate the discrimination in the old age security benefit paid to people aged 65 to 75, who get 10% less than people aged 75 and over. All it had to do was agree that this is indeed a matter of basic justice. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that he refused outright to help retirees?”
“The members on my right would not have agreed at all, of course, but maybe there would have been some members on the other side who might have said that we could do something about climate change. Instead, they let loose a Prime Minister whose very existence in politics implies a major shift to the right and a denial of environmental issues, which, by the way, will benefit him financially.”
“Madam Speaker, I understand where my esteemed colleague is coming from. In Quebec, we are doing our part, but if more members in the House from western Canada shared her point of view, perhaps the government would not get the free pass it hopes to get. I can only commend my colleague's commitment, which will complicate the numbers and ramp up the suspense in the government lobby. I do not see how the member, as the leader of the Green Party, could vote in favour of this budget. This is going to make life a bit more challenging for the government. That should have been done earlier. If the government truly intended to talk to Canadians, it would have done so one or two months ago, and there would have been pre-budget consultations. Climate issues would have been raised.”
“Madam Speaker, I almost want to wait and answer tomorrow so that I can search for an intelligent answer tonight on Instagram, but I will answer now by saying that when the bad outweighs the good, we vote against it. When a party has 22 members in a Parliament with 343 members, the vast majority of whom hate the idea of independence, having at least one person with an ego is a good thing.”
“Madam Speaker, I think the narrative about how we might end up in an election is not particularly credible right now, because the government did not try to reach an agreement with any of the opposition parties on budget measures that would achieve consensus in order to ensure that its budget would pass. Contrary to what the Minister of Finance said, the Liberals did not get a strong mandate. They got a minority mandate. However, the Liberals are doing something else. It is like they have cast all of us in an episode of House of Cards with the craziest plot twists imaginable, involving schemes to try to convince other members to cross over to their side through the back door. It is embarrassing to watch. I look forward to the break. They will sort out their little issues. Then we will have a vote. Whatever happens, happens.”
“I am still hearing denial, but it is impossible for Quebec, Canada or the planet to continue with development while denying the existence of climate change caused by carbon emissions and while failing to admit that the effects are costly and catastrophic. To allow the Conservatives to keep their vision and the Bloc Québécois to keep its vision, we could move this debate to another forum. It could take place on the international stage between an independent Quebec and Canada.”
“Madam Speaker, defending Quebec's jurisdiction over the fight against climate change is very important to the Bloc Québécois, to Quebec and to me personally. The purpose of carbon pricing is not to raise money; it is to encourage companies to improve their practices and develop their technologies, and many are doing just that. I was the one who negotiated the cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, which links Quebec with California, creating a huge market on the North American continent. This system is in place, it is still working and, thankfully, it is out of the Liberals' reach. They cannot simply decide to cancel or block it just to please the Conservatives.”
“Madam Speaker, I could almost hear music in the background. It was so beautiful and uplifting. If the member had liked my speech and was not disappointed, I would have been worried, because we certainly cannot agree on that. On the other hand, it seems to me that everyone knows that it is a tired old process that makes no sense. I think even Abraham used it. The government is saying that it is going to give us all kinds of terrible things that we do not want, but it is going to throw in a candy cane as a treat. Then it will ask us why we are not accepting the whole package together with the candy cane. The government seems to think people are stupid.”
“However, I would like to table the following amendment: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House reject the government's budget statement, which will hurt Quebec because it fails to: (a) raise the Canadian health transfer escalator to 6%; (b) end discrimination against people aged 65 to 74 who did not receive an equitable increase in Old Age Security; (c) repay the $814 million to Quebeckers who were not compensated for the end of carbon pricing in April 2025; and (d) propose concrete and effective measures to combat climate change”.”
“Amendment Madam Speaker, the government wants to promote major projects to us. I believe that Quebeckers should be promoting their own major project. That project is, of course, an independent Quebec. That is the project that deserves our vote. It will be called the country of Quebec. That will be our sole identity.”
“I want to mention some related regional projects where there is a collaborative effort. We have asked for support for these projects. There is the Exploramer museum's shark pavilion. There is the Espace Hubert-Reeves in Charlevoix. There is the Îles-de-la-Madeleine airport runway extension, which will enable the people of the Magdalen Islands to export as far as Ontario, which is a large market for them. There is the Forillon shipyard. There is the ongoing interest in the Port of Saguenay. There are also the measures we suggested to tackle the Driver Inc. issue. That comes directly from the Bloc Québécois. There is the removal of the luxury tax on business aircraft and the removal of the GST on first homes, and there is money for culture. There are some good things, but overall, it remains an extremely risky and dangerous budget.”
“Cuts to the public service are popular. It is trendy. However, making cuts the wrong way can sometimes be irresponsible. I have already mentioned that the austerity in this budget is being used to fund support for the oil industry. Oil does not serve Quebec and is damaging the planet. We are going to pay while the Prime Minister watches water levels rise because of climate change. He will have retired and will be sitting on his boat, not even realizing what is happening. As the water rises due to climate change, he will rise too. This image is a simple illustration of the total indifference these people feel toward the reality of all the people around the world who are suffering because of climate change. There are positives, and I will mention them, because people are always saying that we do not talk about the good things.”
“Incidentally, I invite everyone to have a look at the beautiful ship on the cover of budget document. The ship is named Arvik I and was built in Japan. That is rather interesting. It illustrates this government's judgment. Now I am going to talk about austerity. Tens of thousands of jobs are at risk through attrition. That means fewer people doing the same work. The most experienced people leave, and the least experienced people stay on and have to do more work. In the meantime, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is incapable of doing its job, and the Canada Revenue Agency is not doing its job either. If the government at least tried to cut out overlap or encroachment on Quebec's jurisdictions, it could save a lot of money, but no, the Liberal government is far too committed to its interfering ways.”
“(1650) For infrastructure, the Liberals are investing $115 billion over five years. This may sound like good news, but only a small portion of that amount will be used to help companies adapt to the tariff crisis. There is almost nothing for the Liberals' major projects. There is money for defence, tax cuts and the good old Liberal deficit, but at an all-time high. We are talking about the need to adapt in the negotiations with the Americans, who are not being very nice to us. Let us not forget that the Canadian government wants to revive Keystone XL, which will take western oil and send it to the United States. They call that market diversification? Also, the government just gave Ontario $2 billion to buy modular nuclear reactors made in the United States that can process only American uranium. So much for diversification.”
“By refusing to provide this money to Quebec, which delivers services to these people, the Government of Canada is telling the Government of Quebec to pay twice its share to welcome people arriving in distress from other countries and asking Quebec and Canada for help as they settle in. The Government of Canada is telling the Government of Quebec not to expect to get anything back. The deficit is a popular topic of conversation. The deficit is not $33 billion plus investments; it is $70 billion. The accounting process they used is an embarrassment. This has been discussed before. It is no different than if I walked into my bank and told the bank manager that I wanted to take out a mortgage and then offered up my debts as collateral. It makes no sense, yet that is how the people of Quebec are being treated. As I said before, this is a sham.”
“If that happens, the polluter no longer pays: the polluter gets paid, the polluter gets encouraged, the polluter gets rewarded, the polluter gets a boost, the polluter goes unpunished. Quebec, which has clean and renewable energy, is literally subsidizing polluting energy from western Canada. I do not have time to go into it now, but I will come back to the claims the western provinces make about equalization. Quebec gives more money to western Canada in oil subsidies than it gets in return. Let us talk about asylum seekers. Quebec requested $700 million because it takes in and is currently hosting twice as many asylum seekers as the Canadian average. Yes, twice as many.”
“The member for Repentigny has generously provided us with many examples of what this budget contains in terms of the climate. It seems to me that the government has abandoned a principle that I have not heard about in a long time. I believe this will resonate with people. If the government were to talk to the people of Quebec and ask them whether polluters should pay, I think the vast majority of people would say yes, that it is basic logic, common sense. The polluter pays principle is an expression that has not been used for a long time, and I want to bring it back. The polluter pays principle means understanding that Ottawa cannot take money from Quebeckers and send it to oil companies.”