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 4 of 6.
“I guess now that they have already backed down, they have decided to take one more step back and not mention it at all and just pretend that climate change no longer exists. There must be some people on the other side of the House whose conscience is telling them to hide under their desk, because what is happening with respect to the climate is shameful. This is going to catch up with the government when it snaps out of its denial phase. We can talk about the end of EV initiatives, the end of the planned extension of funds that were going to total $83 billion before 2025 and were extended to exceed $100 billion in 2030, the end of the carbon tax and the $800 million that goes along with it, and the end of the emissions cap. I have a whole list.”
“Of the $4-billion carbon tax reimbursement that the government paid to Canadians a week before the election, Quebec received not one penny. Quebeckers paid the tax, but received no reimbursement from the government at all, because the money was not spent by families. It was a flagrant election giveaway that was taken out of the pockets of Quebeckers and put into those of Canadians. This bears repeating because it is still as unacceptable as ever. There is no hiding the fact that there is no money in the budget for fighting climate change. There is no denying that it is being ignored. Not so long ago, under the previous boss, this government talked about climate change and did nothing about it.”
“I imagine that the forestry sector would also have appreciated one. (1645) Then there is the $800-million reimbursement of a tax that was never collected. There are a lot of dimensions to this issue. Since the government is a mix of red and blue, we will call it purple. Every time this purple government talks about carbon pricing in its budget, it is referring to the controversial carbon tax. Carbon pricing, which is an essential tool for fighting climate change, is officially becoming controversial. Carbon pricing has become the scourge of public finances. However, carbon pricing recognizes that carbon emissions have an environmental impact and generate astronomical costs, which will ultimately be borne by the same young people denied the opportunity to buy a house.”
“These are real young people with jobs, some of whom are in a couple where both people work, and they tell us that they will never be able to buy a home. We had an opportunity to finally provide resources to these people, who would have used them, thus helping to grow the economy. However, the answer was no. We were simply told no. I think young people will remember that. There is nothing in the budget for forestry except credit support. Forestry companies cannot add interest costs to their expenses in such a crippling economic situation. In fact, solutions do exist, including those proposed by both the sector and the Bloc Québécois, that would address the core problem of the forestry sector's competitiveness at no cost to the government. I want to say that it is still not too late to do the right thing. We would have appreciated a sign.”
“If Quebec wants money for its projects, legitimate projects supported by its citizens who, incidentally, pay their taxes to Ottawa, then it will literally have to give up some of its powers. I want all those fine people across the way to know that building a house does not mean that young families can afford to buy it. There is nothing in all this that will give young people the ability to save the exorbitant amount needed to make a down payment on their first home. We proposed favourable terms under which young households could access government-backed credit or government loans. I encourage members to talk to young families, to leave the comfort of their bubble and go see ordinary people.”
“To top it off, the government is literally letting these people's purchasing power dwindle, ignoring the fact that maintaining the purchasing power of people who spend what money they have right away is a practical way to adapt to a crisis, especially if a recession were to occur. Let us talk about home ownership. The government came up with a program that was called Build Canada Homes. Former Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation programs were put under that agency. From that point, things become murky. It is no longer clear who does what, and we see no real distinction in the budget in terms of how Quebec is treated, so there is a hint of interference, that good old Liberal habit. It is as though they were saying: we have the money, Quebec does not. Our fridge is full while Quebec starves.”
“This is a gift from the federal government, which is keeping the money for the oil companies. As for pensions, we have been talking about them for years. There comes a point where pensions are a matter of principle, morality, ethics or responsibility. It is about taking care of our people. It is about doing right by people who worked all their lives, who live on limited incomes and have the misfortune of being between the ages of 65 and 74, meaning they receive 10% less in OAS benefits than people 75 and over. The organizations that represent these people, people under 75 and over 75 alike, all agree with us that such discrimination is unacceptable.”
“As has been the case for the past six months, we are again seeing that the decisions that are being made to adapt to the crisis with the United States favour Ontario, western Canada, and Canada's big banks and oil companies, not Quebec, and Quebeckers, especially young Quebeckers, do identify with any of this. Let us review the list. We have already talked about this, because it was one of our demands. We asked for an annual increase in health transfers of 6%, rather than 5%. This would have allowed the inevitable and unavoidable increase in spending in Quebec's health care system to keep pace with the increase in available resources. Now, we know that, year after year, with a return to 3% in 2028, Quebec taxpayers will have to spend an increasing percentage of the Quebec government's budget on health care or pay higher taxes.”
“Not only have they over-committed themselves to a series of failures that are dangerous for the economy, but they are also playing double or nothing. They are investing more public money in every way imaginable—the classic Liberal approach to running up a deficit—to see whether they will be able to get out of the situation, if not economically, then at least politically. Time will tell. (1640) Is there anything in this budget for the Quebec nation, which the government is ignorant of and perpetually ignores? The government is ignorant of the Quebec nation in that it does not know anything about it. There is no evidence that this government cares at all about the Quebec nation. The government ignores the Quebec nation in the sense that it does not take Quebec into account in its political decisions.”
“Anyone with a basic understanding of accounting and public finance has to know this. It is clearly a sham. The government is dropping its elbows, and tariffs are going up. There are no trade negotiations under way, no matter what the ministers may say. This is an austerity budget with a dramatic increase in spending. That takes some doing. There is a dramatic increase in spending, but only a minuscule portion of that will be used to adapt to the tariff and trade crisis. It is in no way proportional to the deficit, which is nearly $80 billion. Moreover, Liberal governments have gotten us used to year-end deficits that are larger than those announced at the beginning of the year. When we look at the budget, it seems to us that the Prime Minister and the government are acting like compulsive gamblers.”
“The tariffs that the Prime Minister was going to sweep away with a wave of his hand, those on cars, trucks, the forestry industry, steel, aluminum, and so on, have actually increased. The other issue was trade. The Liberals promised that trade talks would resume quickly, culminating in a new free trade agreement in 2026, similar the last one, according to the Prime Minister. To say that the effort was not a success is putting it mildly. The third issue that inevitably comes with a budget is governance. We are being served up a disgraceful accounting exercise. Thankfully, people and pundits understand that the government cannot insert a column of investments in the federal budget and hope to treat them as assets when they are simply expenses. The Prime Minister must know this.”
“Unfortunately, as history has shown, the Liberals seem to believe that power belongs to them and them alone. They are now fantasizing about convincing stray sheep to come over to their side and create a majority, which would not reflect the will of the people. What are the issues? What was all over the news during the election campaign in early 2025? No one can tell me it was not tariffs. The all-powerful Prime Minister told us that he was quickly going to make these tariffs disappear. That would have been only natural, since tariffs meant to intimidate have no place between allies, partners and friends like the United States and Canada are supposed to be, and that includes Quebec, whether we like it or not. However, because of some somewhat clumsy flip-flopping, our relationship with the United States is not improving.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to repeat a word I used yesterday that surprised a few people. It is important to consider what words really mean. In my view, the budget is a sham because it makes claims that are not based on facts, accounting rules or even the content of the budget speech itself. There are some gaps, without any explanations. Some things are added on one page, only to be subtracted on another, bringing the initial figure back to zero. In short, it is a mess worthy of "the place that sends you mad", where even Asterix nearly lost his mind. I would also like to underscore the extreme arrogance that is reflected not only in the way the budget exercise was conducted, but also in the way a number of people in this Parliament are behaving. The Liberals have been in power for 10 years now.”
“Mr. Speaker, that reeks of embarrassment. If money is going to worthwhile projects then that is just great, but we do not yet know who will decide which projects are worthwhile. In any case, it is still an expense. The Prime Minister would fail a third-year math exam with his answers. Will the Prime Minister admit that he is implementing an austerity budget in order to finance oil companies at Quebec's expense?”
“Mr. Speaker, I did not expect the Prime Minister to want to answer the question. A tax credit involves paying money to someone who benefits from the tax credit. It comes out of the government coffers. The Liberals cannot claim that it is an investment whose value is kept on their balance sheet. The Prime Minister is claiming that expenditures are assets. Does he think that accountants are stupid?”
“Mr. Speaker, you are known for your expertise in financial matters and, in theory, the Prime Minister is as well, so let us be serious and not take people for fools. I would like the Prime Minister to explain how tax credits for oil companies, the organization of FIFA events and health transfers can be considered government assets.”
“At the end of his life, Jacques Parizeau left us with a critical message about our destiny that resonates in light of the current context: Do not be afraid, do not be afraid, do not be afraid.”
“Mr. Speaker, on October 30, 1995, Quebec's support for sovereignty grew from the 40% seen in 1980 to just under 50%. Quebec was just a hair's breadth away from becoming its own country. History tells the tale. The so-called Canadian raison d'état served as a cover for cheating, lies and secrets, for voters who appeared out of thin air, for a love-in that smacked of hypocrisy, and much more. Now, Quebeckers, all Quebeckers, must look to the future and simply ask themselves what country they want and how to make that happen. Let us put aside the bitterness we feel at what was taken from an entire nation and focus our complete attention on the future, on the next opportunity, one we cannot afford to miss.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government is waiting for the U.S. to be in a better mood. It has not done anything yet. It is setting us up for inflation, a recession and business closures. It is doing nothing to bring people together so that Canada and Quebec can speak with one voice. It can say whatever it wants, but it is not doing anything to help businesses, nor is it doing anything to help people who lose their buying power. When will the government admit that it has failed and start collaborating so we might have some hope of achieving something?”
“Mr. Speaker, despite the Prime Minister 's promises and occasionally boastful claims during the election campaign, things have not improved, they have grown worse: 25% tariffs on trucks and cars, 45% tariffs and countervailing duties on lumber and forestry products, and 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum. What has the government got to say to workers, to vulnerable consumers and to investors being told that nothing is expected to change until well into 2026?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada, and thus Quebec, is in the midst of one of the worst trade crises we have ever experienced, and rather than improving, the situation is only getting worse. The Prime Minister gave everything away and got nothing in return. Now he is in a full-fledged quarrel with the President of the United States. What I want to know, and what people need to know, is what the government is going to do to re-establish a decent relationship with the United States of America.”
“Mr. Speaker, the word “fully” should be added in there as well. I want to talk about the forestry industry. We are no longer talking about protecting it; we are literally talking about rescuing it. The crisis hitting our forests and the forestry industries is worse than in 2008. Closures and layoffs are on the rise. Hundreds of jobs have just been lost in Saint-Michel-des-Saints. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that, in the face of the combined duty and tariff rate of 45%, there will be an immediate and comprehensive economic rescue plan for Quebec's forestry regions?”
“Mr. Speaker, if that is the best agreement, I would not want to see the worst. It raises a lot of concerns. People need a bit of certainty. Can the Prime Minister assure us, beyond any doubt, particularly after he scrapped the 3% tax on web giants, that the cultural exemption will be protected in the tariff negotiations? Can he assure us that supply management will be fully protected, including processing, and that the percentages will be respected, without any compromise?”
“Mr. Speaker, Paccar, a truck manufacturer in Sainte-Thérèse-De Blainville, just laid off 300 more workers after the White House imposed a 25% tariff. This comes six months after the election that brought in this Prime Minister, who was supposed to settle the tariffs and trade negotiations with a snap of his fingers. Can the Prime Minister assure the workers and the company that jobs and the business will be protected, no matter what it takes?”
“I would like to pay special tribute to its president, Stéphane Pallage, who very recently was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of Warsaw's school of management. Through its strong partnership with UQAM, for the past 30 years the university has been offering a program that is on par with UQAM's program, proving that a university education in Montreal can shine around the world. The most recent person to have been awarded this honour was Volodymyr Zelenskyy. I want to congratulate Stéphane—”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the administrators at the Université du Québec network and its president, our friend Alexandre Cloutier. They inherited one of the most precious jewels bequeathed by the great builders of the Quiet Revolution, foremost among them the late great Guy Rocher: an institution of higher learning and research that literally elevated Quebeckers, in French, to the status of one of the most educated and well-trained peoples in just half a century. The Université du Québec network, with its French-speaking students from all over and its outstanding medical program for the regions of Quebec, has quite simply become the most important academic institution in Quebec, but also in Canada. Its facilities include the Université du Québec à Montréal, or UQAM, which is its flagship institution in a way.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is an incredibly easy way to solve the problem and free the government from the shame it has brought upon itself. We will work to eliminate the religious exemption through the Liberals' bill. I challenge them, as much as they may support multiculturalism, to have the courage to vote in favour of our amendment to eliminate the religious exemption and thus ban hate, the spread of hate and incitement to violence in our media and on our streets.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is dancing around the issue, but he is not addressing the root of the problem, which is the religious exemption that remains in effect in their law. Spreading hatred is a crime in Canada, except when done under the guise of religion. Assaulting a woman captured in a war zone, for example by Hamas on October 7, 2023, is therefore something a man can do if he wants. It is halal. Is that what Liberal values look like?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Université du Québec à Montréal wisely banned a talk by Imam Uthman Ibn Farooq, but he will be wreaking havoc in Brossard anyway. Yes, this preacher will be able to spread his message of hatred and incitement to violence in Canada absolutely legally. Why? It is because he has the right to do so. Will the Liberal government remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code?”
“Mr. Speaker, we are well past the deadline the Prime Minister set for himself when he was campaigning. I guess the situation is understandable. Now he is telling us that negotiations are under way to lower tariffs. It has been six months. They keep going up. The United States is adding new tariffs. This can hardly be called a great success right now. Can he at least, in the meantime, roll out the programs he announced for aluminum and lumber? Those sectors have not yet seen a penny of what was promised.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will take the Prime Minister at his word regarding what he said during the election campaign. He said that soon after the election, there would be no more tariffs, and that tariffs should not be used to retaliate against friends, allies and partners. He said that the tariffs would be eliminated quickly and that in the week following the election, he would go there and sign the free trade agreement. He is the one who changed his mind. Not only did he change his mind, but he is also going to negotiate a pipeline to the United States. What will that do to diversify our economy?”
“Mr. Speaker, we are making progress. I get a sense that, in a month or a month and a half, my colleague, the leader of the official opposition, will be ready to talk about Quebec's independence. We are making progress. Meanwhile, medium- and heavy-duty trucks will be subject to a 25% tariff starting November 1. Lumber is subject to various types of tariffs at a rate of 45%. Aluminum and steel are tariffed at a rate of 50%. Automobile tariffs are in the range of 27.5%. I would like the Prime Minister to explain to us when he will be speaking with businesses in the affected industries, their workers and subcontractors—”
“Mr. Speaker, the “best deal in the world” does not seem to be working for the aluminum or forestry sectors. Spouting nice words seems to be enough for the Prime Minister. A gentleman named Jean de La Fontaine wrote The Fox and the Crow , which says, “Flatterers thrive on fools' credulity.” Does the Prime Minister think that Quebeckers will be satisfied with the sly fox's words for much longer?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is not what we were told during the election campaign. It was supposed to be so much better. The truth is that the Prime Minister has come back empty-handed. He got zip, nada, zilch, nothing at all. To make matters worse, there are new tariffs on trucks and higher tariffs on softwood lumber. The great negotiator keeps striking out. When is he going to hit a home run?”
“Mr. Speaker, wow. The Prime Minister was not scolded. That was the bar—to avoid getting attacked by the U.S. President with the whole world watching. That was the bar, and he certainly cleared it. Better yet, he got told that he was good and strong. The Prime Minister was supposed to get more and speak less. We are getting the opposite of what we got with his predecessor. Does the Prime Minister think a meeting and some nice words from the U.S. President are enough to resolve the trade crisis?”
“On behalf of the Bloc Québécois and in the presence of Mario Lefebvre and Serge Grimaux, his collaborators and close friends, who are my friends too, I again extend my condolences to his partner, Hélène Lévesque, his family and all those who loved him. He went away before he could see the national dream become reality. To Fiori, my friend: “It will be our turn, it won't be long.” When that day comes, we will think of Serge.”
“Mr. Speaker, June 24 is Quebec's national holiday. This year, it was also a day of collective mourning for an entire nation. Serge Fiori, the great Serge Fiori, Fiori the wise, Fiori the madman, Fiori the gentle, affectionate soul, our friend Serge Fiori is now among the angels, singing the most beautiful melodies they have ever heard. Fiori of Harmonium, Fiori with Séguin, Fiori solo, Fiori the Quebecker left us in the midst of his nation's celebrations. Even in the depths of my grief, I thought his timing was apt. He left behind a people whose hopes he often sang about and whose sovereignty he supported. I still cherish the support he offered me.”
“Mr. Speaker, if Quebeckers and Canadians had wanted Conservatives, they would have voted for more Conservatives. The Liberals are adopting a Conservative fiscal approach. The Liberals are adopting a Conservative approach to climate change and the oil sector. The Liberals are adopting policies that look very much like Conservative-style austerity, with direct borrowing. Will the Prime Minister scrap his plan and bring serious people to the table to reform a postal service that does in fact really need it?”
“Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the deficit the government is running up is going to be a lot bigger than that. If this is an essential service, and if the goal is consistency, why does the government want to drastically reduce this service? Why was it done in such a way that the workers had to turn on their televisions to find out what was going on with this? Why did the government not consult people instead, and why did it borrow an old Conservative policy?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government has just interfered in the already complex negotiations going on at Canada Post to the point where its actions seem like nothing less than pure provocation in a dispute already fraught with complications. The uncertainty the government has sown is affecting not only workers, but many families as well. It is fomenting uncertainty in villages in the regions of Quebec and, presumably, within the regions of Canada as well. It is spreading uncertainty in the regions and among seniors most of all. We want to clearly understand. Does the Prime Minister see the postal service as an essential service?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Constitution we have was imposed on us. It contains a notwithstanding clause that we have the right to use, much to the government's consternation considering the crass insults that it has been hurling not only at Quebec, but at other Canadian provinces as well. Will the Prime Minister do the decent thing: withdraw this brief and apologize to Quebeckers?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want all Quebeckers to see all the Liberals rise to insult them all as a whole. I want the Prime Minister to explain to me why, in his brief, he felt the need to mention the possible return of forced labour or slavery. I want him to explain to me why his members talk openly of racism. I want him to explain to me why he believes that Quebeckers, members of North America's most progressive and open society, would want to bring back the death penalty and summary executions. Why does he allow insults like these?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has, of course, read the factum filed on behalf of his government with the Supreme Court to attack secularism as it is understood in Quebec and the notwithstanding clause. He has, of course, approved it. This factum was, of course, ultimately signed by his Attorney General. This is the man who sought the solemn support of Quebeckers and who believed in their judgment. Does he actually think that Quebec will resort to using the notwithstanding clause to allow summary executions, take away women's right to vote, or bring back slavery?”
“Mr. Speaker, we must read up on the specific application of the notwithstanding clause, but I feel I should tell my esteemed friend and colleague that there are many free and democratic societies around the world that, even without being monitored and crushed by Canada's moral supremacy, do not have the death penalty, do not interfere with freedom of the press and do not use forced labour.”
“Mr. Speaker, the federal government is wearing a black and white striped jersey. It is sort of playing the referee. It figures that it is the one that upholds the Constitution, funds opponents, participates in the exercise of having prosecutors present arguments and engages in political propaganda. In fact, I can provide an example of that. The factum does not talk about pre-emptive use, but a heck of a lot of people on the other side of the House always act as though such use is one of the seven deadly sins. The government is centralizing and giving itself a bunch of powers in the hopes of reaching the point of no return with Quebec before Quebec collectively comes up with the good idea to become independent.”
“Mr. Speaker, I feel like telling them, with all due respect, to get a clue. It is the job of judges, or the government, which will pay to hire lawyers to draft a document, which they should be very ashamed of, given the statements it contains about summary execution, freedom of the press and so on. There are some crazy things in it. However, if various bodies in Quebec and Canadian society want to go to the Supreme Court, I have said this consistently and I will say it again: I have nothing against that. That is what it is there for. However, the federal government is not supposed to adopt an ideological position and fund opponents of one or more laws duly passed by Quebec or the provinces.”
“It could crush secularism and, in doing so, crush protection for the French language and lots of other things by centralizing power right off the bat, in a permanent and systematic way, in the hands of the morally superior federal government, of course.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is because they had not thought of it yet. Basically, for some years now, the government has been trying to pit two visions against each other on the assumption that its own would win. It is not as silly as it sounds, because political games can pay off in Canada if they involve attacking Quebec's unique values. However, that will not work. The next government of Quebec is very likely to be a sovereignist government. The current Premier of Quebec was once a sovereignist, and only God knows what the wisdom of old age will show him one day. Then, the government saw an opportunity to tackle this issue head on and kill multiple birds with one stone.”
“Mr. Speaker, Liberal governments tend to have the attitude where they presume and claim to be irrevocably morally superior from the outset: “I am a Liberal Canadian, you are worth less, and I control the federal Parliament, obviously, because the provinces are ethically and morally inferior to a federal Liberal”. We have been living with that for such a long time and we are sick of it. We apply the Constitution, we are entitled to do so, end of story.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know that is not the intention of my colleague, the perfect gentleman I know him to be. However, there is such a thing as collective rights. If, through a combination of initiatives, solidarity and co-operation, up to and including burning to death in a church, Quebeckers, or French Canadians, had not joined forces to assert the collective rights that unite us, without infringing on individual rights, there would be no such thing as a francophone Quebec nation and society today.”