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 5 of 6.
“I therefore call for a nation-to-nation dialogue between equals who will one day be bound together by treaties. Long live a free Quebec.”
“I would remind everyone that everything will work better once we are good neighbours who share certain affinities and challenges, but who are distinctly defined by differences that each of us chooses. At the end of the day, it comes down to the issue of individual rights versus collective rights. Imposing the supremacy of individual rights to an unreasonable degree is a divide-and-conquer approach. It fragments society. It turns society into a collection of individuals with total disregard for what they have in common, what they want to build in common and what dreams they have in common. It is all the more surprising that the people taking the divide-and-conquer approach are wealthy and make up 80% of the population. It is unquestionably the philosophy of the weak.”
“That is what makes the incredible nation of Quebec so strong, so vibrant and so admirable. Therefore, I am telling the government to have the courage to debate the issues of models, secularism, language and immigration. So far, this government has no more courage than the previous one. Last week, the Prime Minister told me that one of the government's responsibilities is to defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not the court's responsibility; it is the government's. The other side needs to grow a backbone, strengthen it a bit, sit down at a table and say that they want to have a conversation about the Constitution. I would like to be invited. I will clear my calendar. The government should do that rather than hiding behind judges. I want to thank the government for showing us how it works and thinks.”
“As I said, Pierre Trudeau's intention is reflected in the Constitution. Any other interpretation, including that of his son or that of the government, is adding insult to injury. Only two prime ministers have ever suspended basic freedoms: Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1970 and Justin Trudeau in 2021. The law resulting from Bill C‑5 also allows for the suspension of any federal law that the minister decides to suspend, yet ridiculous accusations are made against us. The government of judges and of populism will not be the government of Quebec. We are the ones who are the most hostile to populism, demagoguery and extremism of all kinds. (1200) Quebeckers are so tolerant that sometimes we step back and wonder whether we are too tolerant, before realizing that it is a good thing.”
“I searched, but I could not find a Parti Québécois membership card on them. Every Quebec government since then has, in most cases, renewed the notwithstanding clause. This federal government is using tactics very similar to those it criticizes the American right for: populism, the lowest common denominator, withholding information from the public, and social media-style spin that contains anything but information in most cases. In contrast to that, I would refer people to the report by Richard Rousseau, a brilliant synthesis that not nearly enough people know about or have read, unfortunately. Rousseau's report tracks the development of secularism as a value as Quebec evolved throughout the Quiet Revolution. Guy Rocher's influence shines through clearly. It is a thoughtful, smart analysis that respects the reader's intelligence.”
“If I understand correctly, let us imagine that I am the Quebec government and that I pass a law that allows someone to be summarily executed, that allows forced labour and slavery or that abolishes freedom of the press. Their argument is that there is nothing to say that I am not allowed to do that. It says that I can do that for five years until someone challenges it. The federal government's reasoning is that a province could authorize summary executions for five years. I do not know who came up with that, but people seriously need to rush back to school. They would have to go back to school, because when it comes to nonsense, this takes the cake. Who is the genius who thinks that Quebec would swallow that? By the way, I would point out that Robert Bourassa and Jean Charest used the notwithstanding clause.”
“It could be used against attempts to regulate trade unions in other provinces and anything else that might arise. The notwithstanding clause has been invoked or renewed well over 100 times in Quebec. It is the most powerful tool for centralization since 1982. Combined with the law resulting from Bill C‑5 , it is truly frightening. However, it could have the opposite effect of what the government wants, particularly because, as I said, the Liberals seem to have lost the plot. They believe that the notwithstanding clause could theoretically let a Quebec government allow full-blown summary executions, use forced labour, or abolish freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. What kind of madness is this, particularly when we are talking about the most progressive society on the continent? There is something idiotic about that.”
“(1155) What about the “after”? Again, it is written very clearly. The clause is in effect for a five-year period, which is renewable, with no limit on the number of times it can be renewed. There is no moral judgment or motive imputed to this. It preserves the sovereignty of Quebec's National Assembly and the provincial legislatures. I would remind members that a parliament is always sovereign in its decisions and prerogatives. There is more. If the government wins at the Supreme Court and succeeds in limiting the use of the notwithstanding clause and blocking the Quebec value of state secularism, it will also win the challenge to Bill 96 on the language issue and once again limit the use of the notwithstanding clause for that and for everything else.”
“Clearly, nothing could be further from the truth. However, no one wants to attack Quebeckers directly over their values and their language, because support for sovereignty is growing and the next Quebec government will likely be a sovereignist government. Now I am getting to the challenge. There is talk about putting limits on the use of the notwithstanding clause. There is talk about the “before”, meaning pre-emptive use. In reality, pre-emptive use does not exist in the Constitution. No doubt some legal expert on the other side came up with a brilliant idea one day. His friends patted him on the back and said that surely he did not have the guts to say it. Well, he did have the guts to say it, and pre-emptive use is now part of the narrative. Section 33 is clear. It says what it needs to say and is consistent with the intent.”
“They are not looking for people to participate in a common culture, which is obviously always changing, as was the case for the culture in Quebec, which welcomed Irish people, Scottish people and all the other waves of immigrants. There is no common language base in Canadian multiculturalism because it goes without saying that English has a rather strong draw. There is no value associated with or required for the claim of equality, because, of course, Canada claims to defend equality for everyone. In defending equality for everyone, it tolerates and perhaps even promotes behaviours and values that literally deny gender equality. Furthermore, the strategy involves persuading newcomers that Quebeckers are xenophobic enemies who engage in hostile identity-based racism. That is rather offensive.”
“There is an enormous amount of support for the separation of church and state, which is what we are talking about here. Most parties agree on that. Things get more complicated when we add unsuccessful immigration to the mix of Canadian multiculturalism. This is a recent connotation that did not exist when this value first emerged. Today, it has become ideological for the Liberals and a way to get votes. Basically, for the Liberals and for neo-liberalism in general, immigration is about welcoming people who are both producers and consumers. These people are simply seen as economic variables. The Liberals are not worried about how they contribute to what could be a collective identity.”
“Its strategy also involves using the fiscal imbalance to place Quebec and all the provinces under economic subjugation in order to centralize power, and the despicable Bill C‑5 is just one example of that. If there were no fiscal imbalance, there would be no Bill C‑5. Ottawa's centralizing vision is as simple as that. However, secularism is an essential legacy of our emancipation. Canada brings its multiculturalism to bear through the charter and the courts, and it has given itself tools to do so, the main one being a reference to the Supreme Court. The government is funding those who wish to challenge Quebec values all the way to the Supreme Court. This is a toxic subject in Quebec. It is dangerous for multiculturalists.”
“It is important to point that out. He played a huge role in drafting the Charter of the French Language, in creating our network of schools and universities and in establishing the basic concepts that gave rise to a Quebec-specific vision of state secularism. With that, we became Quebeckers. Try as they might to make us into federalists, we are proud Quebeckers through and through. The Canadian government has used the same strategy for a long time, and it will not change. Its strategy involves exploiting Quebec society's incomparably generous and welcoming attitude toward newcomers, both in number and in deeds, in order to turn Quebec society into an increasingly weakened minority within the Canadian majority.”
“Numerous institutions followed, including Bill 101—which I would classify as an institution—the Charter of the French Language, as well as some exemplary, extraordinary institutions that are absolutely fundamental to the history of Quebec, such as the education system, with the comprehensive high schools and CEGEPs that were founded and the network of universities that was built from the ground up. Today, that network not only makes Quebeckers proud, but also gives them access to an education system whose quality and graduation rates are on par with the rest of the western hemisphere, whereas Quebec used to be at the very back of the pack. These are revolutions in terms of the role of the state, both economically and in all respects. (1150) The late Guy Rocher played an instrumental role in many of these developments.”
“They were also controlled by a long-standing tacit agreement between the Church and the English authorities who had told the Church it could retain its authority if it kept the people in line. Then came the Quiet Revolution. During the Quiet Revolution, French Canadians, who would later become Quebeckers, took charge of their own destiny using the means at their disposal. Obviously, we must mention the first major step toward taking ownership of our economic tools, namely the nationalization of hydroelectricity by René Lévesque during Jean Lesage's government.”
“We cannot rehash, assume, concoct, fabricate, or otherwise make wild assumptions about the legislative intent. Nor can we ask a judge to do so. The intention was written; it was signed; and it was imposed on Quebec, which has never, under any government, endorsed that Constitution. Let us review a little history, beginning in 1760. For some 200 years, the French in New France were essentially cut off from the French in France. During the 20th century, the intellectual elites and the artists, when they came on the scene, shared a dream that would persist until very recently, the dream of reconnecting with France. However, in the 1950s, French Canadians were people who worked for English bosses and were controlled by them because they had very little control over their own economy.”
“The first is a conqueror's model that seeks to erase not all differences, since there are some that are useful in many other provinces, relative to Quebec, but only those differences that point to ways in which the conquered people did not want to assimilate and be absorbed by the conqueror. However, the action taken aligns with the reading of a constitution that reflects the intent of the legislator, the government at the time, which was the government of Trudeau senior. There is something a bit insulting about saying that they did not understand their own Constitution, or that they were dishonest or incompetent. In many ways, that statement would apply more to the current government when it comes to these matters. The Constitution reflects the intent of those who signed it.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by asking “what is up with them?”, or, to put it more informally, “have they lost the plot?” The factums submitted by the government's lawyers include statements that would shock even the most radical people across the border. I will elaborate on that later. In more polite terms, the government has made a fool of itself, but in doing so, it has highlighted the profound cultural, traditional and historical differences between Canada and Quebec. It has highlighted a difference in perspectives, or a difference in models, between Canada's model of multiculturalism and Quebec's model of “interculturalism”.”
“Mr. Speaker, in 43 years, no Quebec government has ever signed the Canadian Constitution. At this point in time, the Constitution does not allow the government to attack the French language and the Quebec value of secularism the way it wants to, so it appears to be trying to hide behind the court and a government by judges. It is asking the justices to change the Canadian Constitution on its behalf. Will the Prime Minister respect the consensus in Quebec? If he wants to open up the Constitution, I am very open to that.”
“Mr. Speaker, the notwithstanding clause is enshrined in the 1982 Canadian Constitution, which Quebec never signed. René Lévesque included the notwithstanding clause in every one of his bills after the Constitution was signed by all of the provinces except Quebec. The Prime Minister is attacking the legacy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Is he asking judges to come down harder on Quebec and do more damage to it than Pierre Elliott Trudeau did?”
“Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity for collaboration. In the last few hours, there has been much speculation that the government might table what will essentially be an attack on the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution, but we do not really know yet what it will contain. That said, a poll shows there is a very broad consensus in Quebec about the importance of state secularism. Is the Prime Minister committed to respecting the right of Quebec and the provinces to invoke the notwithstanding clause, even pre-emptively?”
“Mr. Speaker, allow me to remind the minister and the government that 80% of our exports go to the world's leading economy and leading military power and none of that is going to change anytime soon. Whether we disagree with this administration's philosophy or not, we have to treat it with respect. The Prime Minister will soon be travelling to Mexico, Malaysia, South Korea and maybe even Brazil. Amid all of that, will he have a moment to speak with the President of the United States or travel to Washington?”
“Mr. Speaker, what I heard in Washington was that people were disappointed that the Prime Minister did not show up, even though the minister was there. There are people who feel that the government's attitude is somewhat disrespectful, particularly since it said that the special relationship with the United States is over. I asked the Prime Minister to address that yesterday. Is the government not worried that the United States may become legitimately concerned about the Canadian government's attitude heading into negotiations?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to put something into context. I went to Washington, not to speak against the government or Canada, but to help establish favourable conditions for what should be our real priority: trade and tariffs. However, yesterday, when I asked the Prime Minister a serious question, he told me that Canada's negotiations and relationship with Mr. Trump were going well. By way of evidence, he mentioned that they have cell phones and exchange texts. I want to know who, on the other side of the House, will not be too embarrassed to stand up and explain that to me.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's rare appearances or absences in Washington have been widely noted in Washington, both by the political apparatus of the administration and by economic associations which often share our views. When did the Prime Minister last travel there and when does he intend to start spending some serious time in the capital of our primary trading partner? Will he make it a priority instead of fantasies about infrastructure that will not see the light of day before the end of Mr. Trump's term?”
“Mr. Speaker, I flat-out reject those statements, as they do not stand up to economic analysis. Other forums will be necessary, considering the format. The Prime Minister said that the once close and trusting relationship we had with the United States is over. That statement was not well received in Washington. Can he say whether he is now confident that the once special and trusting relationship between Canada and the U.S. administration will soon be restored? It is a necessary step toward restoring the trade relationship.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected based on claims that he would be hands-down the best person to handle the tariff crisis and the trade crisis. Four months later, Canada is failing miserably. The best we can say is that it has not been a success and that the results are falling short of expectations. Will he commit today to making it a real priority to end the tariffs and sign a trade treaty with the United States?”
“If not for his leadership, I doubt the noble pursuit of making Quebec a country in its own right would ever have come to be. I am grateful to Mr. Rocher. He is no mere centenarian; history will render him eternal.”
“Mr. Speaker, the choice of topic for my first intervention this fall was clear. I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude, affection, recognition and admiration for the timeless Guy Rocher, a man, a sociologist, a nation builder and an educator, at once so kind and so clear, who left us on September 3 at the age of 101. Guy Rocher was the founder of Quebec's education system, the father of secularism in Quebec, the author of our Charter of the French Language, and a pioneer of our sociological tradition. He was a quiet revolutionary who laid the groundwork for everything we are as a people and for our distinct, legitimate and generous national identity. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to express my deepest condolences to Guy Rocher's loved ones.”
“Mr. Speaker, when it comes to managing the tariffs file, let us remember that, after making a bunch of compromises on borders, on defence, and on the abandoned countermeasures that may now be back on the table—and I am curious to see the details, as they have already done more harm than good—the Prime Minister's strategy was supposed involve reaching an agreement with Donald Trump before the G7, because it is urgent. He is serving up projects that are much more focused on oil than on aluminum or steel. He is telling us that we will see things happen this summer and that we will not believe our eyes. Will the Prime Minister admit that his strategy is a failure?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government considers it a feat to hypothetically reduce the assessment period to two years. No shovels have been put in the ground yet. There are still a great many years before projects are built. Take Trans Mountain, for example. That took 12 years. The tariff crisis was an emergency. The Prime Minister is talking about a solution that will not require a pound of aluminum for 10, 12 or 15 years. Where is that solution of his?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when talking about the connection between tariffs and bulldozer Bill C-5 , two of the Prime Minister's colleagues responded by spewing nonsense, trying to come across as charming and funny, which they are not. I do not believe that there is any connection between the tariff crisis and the time needed for Bill C-5 to eventually take effect. I would like the economist and Prime Minister to explain the connection between the immediate tariff crisis and Bill C-5.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals need to stop regurgitating stock answers. Bill C‑5 will not have any impact on the Canadian economy, but it will have a huge negative impact on the public purse for many years to come. Bill C‑5 will have no impact on the tariff war and no foreseeable impact on production-related trade or on the Canadian economy. Will the Liberals stop taking people for fools and admit that Bill C‑5 is the Prime Minister 's business plan and that it goes against the interests of Quebec workers?”
“Mr. Speaker, if the G7 is considered progress, then we are not out of the woods yet. The government is muzzling Parliament, suspending the rule of law, and preventing elected members who are not siding with the Liberals and the Conservatives from speaking, but meanwhile nothing is happening on trade and tariffs. There is talk about oil. However, Bill C-5 has nothing to do with trade and nothing to do with tariffs in the foreseeable future. Have the government and the Prime Minister misplaced their priorities?”
“Mr. Speaker, the main issue during the election campaign was a serious crisis, a tariff and trade crisis. The day after the election campaign, poof, it disappeared. The Prime Minister went to Washington to meet with President Trump and came back with nothing to show for it. That said, the Prime Minister has since made significant concessions on tariffs, borders and defence. He said that all of the tariff issues would be resolved before the G7, but he is returning empty-handed yet again. Should workers be satisfied with a 30-day deadline?”
“Let us hope the summer will be restful despite the challenges that lie ahead of us. In that spirit, I wish all Quebeckers and everyone who loves them a wonderful, very national holiday for the land of dreams.”
“Mr. Speaker, in five days, Quebec will celebrate its national holiday. It will be a celebration of summer filled with song, reflecting our history and our stories. I would like to remind members that, 45 years ago, René Lévesque proposed a way to coexist with our neighbours, with our neighbour, as equals. Being united and partnering with our neighbour is a noble pursuit as long as it is freely consented to, but not when that neighbour is imposing its vision, its plan, and its interests that differ in terms of priorities and values. In the global south, the west and no doubt the Middle East and perhaps Asia, the coming months will present challenges that will remind us, as friend, partner and ally, that we must realize our full potential, which requires the equality of our nation with all others.”
“Mr. Speaker, someone suggested earlier that folks are missing Prime Minister Trudeau. I am not so sure, but his government and this one have a few things in common because they are the same. That is why the Prime Minister always talks about the “new government”. At the end of the day, the only new thing about this government is the Prime Minister. As for those 44 MPs, supposedly Quebec loves them and loves what they do and cannot stop talking about how amazing they are. However, the 125 members of Quebec's National Assembly unanimously said that there is no such thing as one Canadian economy because we have our own institutions, and our institutions are valid.”
“Mr. Speaker, instead of environmental assessments, the current bill could give the minister the ability to arbitrarily circumvent them in the name of the “one economy” myth. The Liberals are free to hope that Canada is one economy, but they cannot say that it is, because every province is different. I am sure my colleague will agree with me on that. Every province and region has different economic bases. They export to different markets and have developed different economic tools. That is why we denounce this terrible move toward centralization, especially since it gives a single minister the authority to arbitrarily suspend laws that have been in effect for a long time. Quebec must never give up the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement or dictate the duration of its work.”
“Mr. Speaker, I share a lot of things, but that is not one of them. We missed out on a debate. Where was their boss? We usually have our first debate on TVA in front of a large audience. Where was their boss? I could have one tomorrow morning. I am always up for a debate. We could ask Mr. Poilievre, who is not in the House. I have invited him many times. The Liberals promised to table the bill by July 1, and they have done so. However, did they also promise to blatantly disregard the rules of democracy and try to ram regulations down our throats that they had never mentioned to anyone? There are details of this legislation that suspend fundamental laws preserving indigenous rights, the environment and biodiversity and that suspend the rule of law in Canada at the will of the Prime Minister and his best friend.”
“All of us have been elected to work in a transparent manner. We have all been elected to carry out a mandate given to us by the people. The MPs who are not members of the government have been elected to provide careful oversight and, at the very least, to ensure, before they throw their support behind the government, that bills have been carefully scrutinized and found to serve the common good. Today, nothing could be less certain. I therefore urge everyone to forget about making deals, carry out the responsibility entrusted to them by the citizens of Quebec and Canada and refer this bill to committee for study by members of the House. We are willing to contribute to that study. That is how the House is meant to function.”
“The Liberals are kicking off their term by imposing time allocation on a Parliament where they were elected by the will of the people to serve as a minority government. I do not think that the government is going to get away with this so easily. I would like to believe that the Conservatives will refuse to sell their souls to the Liberals, because this is not what Quebeckers voted for. They voted for a Parliament that works for them and respects them. The size, breadth, and unprecedented scope of this bill demand comprehensive analysis. This bill needs to be exhaustively studied in committee, not skimmed on the fly one fine, sunny June 12. If the government had nothing to hide, it would let us send this bill to committee and preferably split it up, in keeping with its true nature.”
“It is quite literally reckless, regardless of one's political affiliation. That is not what Quebeckers voted for. I can already hear someone saying that there are 44 Liberal members from Quebec. It is true that there are 44 Liberal members from Quebec. There are also 11 Conservative members from Quebec, and God only knows who would consider joining the other party. The Liberals did not present a platform; they barely presented a business plan. Quebeckers voted Liberal out of fear, rightly or wrongly, of the Trump-Poilievre duo. Now the Liberals are adopting the Conservatives' ideas in an attempt to align themselves with the Conservatives and carry out the Conservative agenda. No one can convince me that this is what Quebeckers voted for. This is just what Quebeckers voted against.”
“The people and families of Quebec and Canada are going to pay thousands of dollars a year for repairs and adaptations for damage caused by climate change, which everyone is suddenly pretending no longer exists. They are going to be saddled with projects that will encroach on laws, powers and regulations enacted over the years in relation to the environment, indigenous rights, biodiversity, language and taxation. The government will make that happen by giving a minister who is not very far from the Prime Minister, and who will probably be at the dinner with Mr. Sabia, totally discretionary powers, something countries that are not particularly democratic can only dream of. (1245) However, the government's hasty actions quickly turn into improvisation. Improvising with government affairs is a risky business.”
“The government will have to pay. The public will have to pay. Apparently, according to the Minister of Industry , the government is disinclined to pay for hydroelectricity. The Liberals will be able to make up their own minds, because they just recruited the Prime Minister 's pal, who was in charge of Hydro-Québec. They brought him in, they are going to have a little get-together so he can help them sort out everyone's money issues, and he will be privy to all their secrets. That alone is a question worth asking. However, it will be years before all those projects generate revenue for the government, and with all the spending I have already mentioned, which will make Justin Trudeau seem like a frugal mom, the deficits will be astronomical. The government is going to act as though climate change does not exist.”
“Nobody knows anymore how many billions of dollars are involved in the cancelled countertariffs, because the countertariff dance is a bit hard to follow. The government is talking about $9 billion that will go not toward strengthening our military, but toward absorbing the F‑35 cost overruns. All this is on top of the promise to increase spending, lower revenues and rebalance the budget with 2% growth. Many people have tried this before, but none have succeeded. The math simply does not add up. Regardless, the government is going full speed ahead on projects of pharaonic proportions. A key component is oil and gas, including pipelines. That is not the only component, but it is part of the plan. It is clear that, in the short term, for most, if not all, of the pipelines, the private sector will not act alone.”
“This is not a value judgment, but the message we received was that people did not want the Conservatives and were afraid of the Conservative leader, because the party and its leader were associated with ideas similar to Mr. Trump's. Once people realized the Conservative leader was unlikely to win the election, it was a bit late, but many people came back to us. We still have a clear influence in this Parliament today, which will become obvious in the House over time. To steal votes from the Conservatives, the Liberal leader stole their platform. The Liberals are talking about tax cuts, “drill, baby, drill”, an impossible budget, and a financial framework that makes no sense. Even today, Canadians got $4 billion in handouts without a penny going to Quebeckers. The Liberals have proposed $6 billion or more in tax cuts.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères . We are dealing with one of the most significant, if not the most significant, moves toward centralization, encroachment and “franchising” of the provinces and Quebec for the benefit of the Prime Minister's business plan. It all began when Donald Trump was elected. Fear became a reality and a political tool that was used to tell people to be afraid and to rally behind the former head of the Bank of England. It worked, and we have an obligation to listen to popular opinion. We understood that people were afraid of Donald Trump. In Quebec, however, they quickly stopped talking about Mr. Trump. Rightly or wrongly, people started talking about the Conservative leader.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is what the law says. With all due respect, Quebeckers seem to have voted out of fear of the Conservative agenda. They decided to go that way, and it even cost us some seats. Now the Liberal government is taking the Conservative agenda and implementing it. That is not what Quebeckers voted for. I assume that all opposition parties want to work. Why not allow elected officials, who all want to work hard, to do some serious and thorough work in committee on a bill that will fundamentally transform the regulatory and economic fabric of Quebec and Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries Act, the Indian Act, the International River Improvements Act, the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, biodiversity acts and regulations, the Official Languages Act, the Income Tax Act and the Canada Labour Code are all acts and regulations that the minister would be allowed to suspend arbitrarily thanks to Bill C‑5 . At the very least, does not the entire framework for regulating economic activity in Quebec and Canada deserve thorough study in committee?”