Maxime Blanchette-Joncas
Rimouski—La Matapédia, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I do not understand part of my colleague's argument, and I would like her to explain it. She criticized the government for shutting down debate and shutting off the cameras. However, in June of last year, the Liberals did the same thing during the study of Bill C-5 on projects of national interest.”
“Rather, the problem is that Ottawa too often gets involved in areas that are outside its jurisdiction, while neglecting some of its own responsibilities. If Ottawa really wants to help improve care, it should start by adequately funding health care. The federal government was originally supposed to cover about 50% of health care costs.”
“I am thinking in particular of tax credits for caregivers and disability benefits. Some serious forms of the disease lead to significant limitations, and it is entirely reasonable to ensure that people who are affected can fully benefit from existing federal programs.”
“Quebec's ministry of health and social services has also developed several guides, best practices, and tools for health care professionals. Families also have access to educational resources to help them better understand the disease and the available treatments.”
“If it wants to make a difference, then it should make sure that sickle cell research is supported. Several stakeholders have pointed out that this disease has long received less attention and funding than other comparable genetic diseases.”
“It is therefore entirely legitimate to seek to raise awareness, improve support for those affected and promote research. Moreover, as Professor Jude Mary Cénat, director of the Interdisciplinary Centre for Black Health, pointed out, Bill S-201 addresses decades-long neglect of a disease that remains far too little understood.”
The complete record
Every one of 351 lines we hold for Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 8.
“Mr. Speaker, the government is transferring sexual offence cases to the civilian courts. They are being taken out of the military system. The problem is that the government is already incapable of making the justice system work, especially when it comes to appointing judges. Quebec is short five judges and Canada is short 27. Victims do not need a change in system. They need justice. For that to happen, the federal government must do its job: It must appoint judges. Does the government intend to appoint judges as quickly as possible and give the system the resources it needs, instead of just passing the buck?”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11 is a concrete example of the Liberal government's lack of leadership. The Liberals have been in power for 10 years and, what is more, held a majority from 2015 to 2019. However, they waited for a public scandal before reforming the military justice system. Justice Arbour's report showed that the system was failing to protect victims. I have a simple question for my colleague. Why did they wait for a public scandal before taking action?”
“Mr. Speaker, the world is upside down. We are experiencing something never seen before because this is the first time it has happened in Canada's history. A government elected as a minority has managed to persuade members from different parties to join its minority government ranks and transform it into a majority government. Not only that, but the government wants to change the committees' composition. It calls it a matter of tradition. In addition to expanding the committees by not just one but two additional government members, the government will be reducing the opposition parties' speaking time. Is my colleague concerned that he might not be able to uncover potential new scandals?”
“Mr. Speaker, during her speech, my colleague said that the parties' representation on committees must reflect their representation in the House. The Liberals hold 51% of the seats in the House, but they want 58% of the seats in committees. Can my colleague explain to me how she can say in her speech that she wants committees to operate like the House, when in reality, the Liberals are giving themselves much more power with this new majority that they engineered by enticing floor crossers?”
“Mr. Speaker, only one in three people in Canada have confidence in its institutions, including Parliament. Given the Liberals' tactics for poaching members from both the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party in order to secure a majority, this is by no means a run-of-the-mill situation. It is the first time this has happened in Canadian history. I would like my colleague's thoughts on something. Does he think that the public will gain or lose trust in institutions when they fail to respect the will of the people as democratically expressed in elections?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government is saying that it respects tradition and that this is why it should have a majority on committees, despite the will of the people, who did not give the government that majority. I simply wish to remind the government that there is also a tradition here in Parliament of consulting the opposition parties. Today, however, there has been no such consultation. Can my colleague tell me whether, by any chance, he has forgotten that consulting the opposition parties is one of Parliament's traditions?”
“Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote the member for Gatineau, the government House leader, who told the House on April 16, “Canada's democracy is one of the most stable and strongest in the world, but it would be unwise to take this for granted.” I have news for him: Only one in three people in Canada trusts Parliament. What the government wants is to give itself a majority, even though that is not what the people voted for. It says that it wants to do this in order to fight cynicism. I would like my colleague to tell me how his government can claim to be strengthening democracy in Canada while acting against the express will of the people.”
“Mr. Speaker, what is the world coming to? As we know, only one in three Canadians has confidence in Parliament and our institutions, according to Statistics Canada. Today, the government is telling us that it wants to fight cynicism. Democracy is not just a slogan that can be repeated over and over again in press releases and here in the House. Words have meaning. Today, the government is telling us that it wants to change the rules because it managed to recruit some members who were not originally on its side. Now that it has a majority in the House, the government also wants a majority on committees. However, voters did not give this government a majority mandate. How can we counter cynicism when the government acts in this way? It does not respect the will of the people.”
“Ensuring that more donations are made and more lives are saved is even more important. Let us not forget that this can happen to anyone and any family. On a more personal note, I have signed my organ donor card. I urge my colleagues to do the same. It is a simple gesture, but it can save a life.”
“We need to recognize the work of all those who make this possible on a daily basis: medical teams, coordinators and organizations. I am thinking of Transplant Québec, Héma‑Québec, Canadian Blood Services and all those who often work far from the spotlight but whose role is essential. They are the ones who make it possible to save lives. That is why it will be important to hear from these organizations in committee to ensure that this initiative reflects the reality on the ground and supports what already exists. Ultimately, the question is simple. Do we want to recognize the gesture or do we want to encourage more people to participate? The Bloc Québécois will support this bill, but we want to remind the House of the following: Recognizing donors is important. Recognizing the role of Quebec and its institutions is also important.”
“That is why the Bloc Québécois finds it unfortunate that the bill fails to mention Quebec's contribution in this regard. We can support a measure of recognition like this one, while remembering one simple thing: Donations can now be made within an organized framework because a system was built patiently over the years. We must not lose sight of what is important. Behind all this, there are still people who are waiting for transplants. There are families living in uncertainty, and very often, difficult decisions are made in extremely trying times. Organ donation is not just a medical issue. It is a matter of trust, support and organization. Indeed, a medal is a fine token of recognition. It is perfectly legitimate to want to highlight such exceptional acts. However, it is important to look at the bigger picture.”
“Quebec is therefore a pioneer in the field and continues to play an important role to this day. This role does not only involve medical advances. It is also about collective choices, a desire to organize its society and establish strong institutions. Take, for example, Transplant Québec. This organization was born out of a very real need. As transplants became more common, there was a need to improve the coordination of organ donation, removal and allocation. The work was done over time. It was built up. It was structured. Today, Transplant Québec plays a key role in coordinating organ donation and managing the wait list. That is an essential role. This is diligent work, carried out with compassion and with expertise developed here at home. In other words, Quebec did not just innovate. It built a successful model.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑234 , which seeks to create a living donor recognition medal. I want to start by calling attention to my colleague from Edmonton Manning , who donated part of his liver to his son. An act of such profound compassion commands respect. For a living person to donate an organ is a big deal. It is rare, demanding and most of all, it can change a life. The Bloc Québécois will vote for this bill. However, certain things need to be put into perspective. Long before this bill came along, Quebec had already taken the lead in organ donations and transplants. The first kidney transplant in Canada was performed in Montreal way back in 1958. In 1968, the country's first heart transplant was also performed in Montreal.”
“The revenue raising capacity that the federal government has maintained over recent years is now bringing certain provinces, including Quebec, to their knees, and this presents us with very difficult choices that mean we have to accept certain conditions reluctantly.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. I believe he shone a light on something that was already well known, something that the Séguin report demonstrated in the early 2000s, namely the adverse effects of the federal system, with its encroachment on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, particularly with regard to fiscal imbalance. As a member of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, I can see this in concrete terms. Universities now have the opportunity to draw funding from two levels of government: the Quebec government and the federal government, which has established scholarships and created the Canada Foundation for Innovation to support infrastructure, particularly in higher education and research institutions. I would like my colleague to explain to me what the outcome of all this is.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government finally took action in budget 2024. Student grants were adjusted for inflation and increased. It was clear that Canada was no longer competitive and that we were losing our best and brightest to the United States or to other countries. However, it is also becoming apparent that students are taking longer to complete their studies. Students who are already living on very limited means are being forced to extend the duration of their studies, or they have to get a job, prolonging their studies even more. Unfortunately, the government is not extending the duration of the support provided through federal student grants, as many organizations are calling for.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's remarks. Obviously, this is not the government's first discriminatory policy, yet we are told that this is an open, inclusive, and equitable government. Consider this statistic: approximately 80% of research funding in Canada goes to about 10% of researchers. Does that not seem lopsided? We have policies in place that favour a certain group of people, who are often part of the elite circles very close to the government, and that suits them just fine. The current structure and model of the university system is set up in such a way that when it comes to scholarships, it is always the same people who end up with everything. Furthermore, once they have received a scholarship, they are more likely to receive others in the future. That is how the system is currently built.”
“I will give the government the benefit of the doubt, but I look forward to seeing the results. Before we build new gardens, perhaps we should take care of the ones we already have here.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear. To my knowledge, my colleague is pretty good with numbers. Federal student grants at the graduate level have not been adjusted for inflation for 20 years. I would like him to name one thing that has not been adjusted for inflation for 20 years and tell me whether he thinks that makes sense. How can we retain talent and expertise when we lack the necessary incentives or winning measures to retain these people? The position of the Bloc Québécois is quite clear. Yes, we want to increase federal student grants. However, the government is more interested in attracting and bringing in people from the United States and other countries than in strengthening conditions here for students already in Quebec and Canada. In the last budget, the government allocated $1.2 billion to attract people.”
“At the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves the real question: Do we want to keep our people here, or are we quietly agreeing to become a stepping stone in our researchers' journey? Right now, that is what is happening. People are being trained here but are going off to build up other countries. If left unchecked, things will keep heading in the same direction. Training people here so that they can achieve success elsewhere is not a strategy; it is a failure.”
“The federal government claims that it wants to become a world leader in innovation, but it is not even giving itself the means to fulfill its ambitions. It is at the back of the pack when it comes to research and development investment among G7 countries. A leader does not underfund the next generation. A leader does not needlessly complicate access to grants. Above all, a leader does not let its talent leave for other countries. The bottom line is simple. If we want to move forward, we need to keep our people around. That is quite logical. It is clear to the Bloc Québécois. The government needs to rethink the way it distributes grants. It needs to respect the decisions of Quebec and the provinces. It needs to treat students fairly. Above all, it must finally put in place stable, permanent funding.”
“When funding falls short, the entire ecosystem suffers. Now the government is telling us that it has taken action, that it has increased and extended the assistance. Yes, announcements were made, but in all honesty, that does not solve the underlying problem. A few announcements do not make up for 20 years of delays. In the meantime, the government keeps making access to grants more complicated. It adds conditions and draws distinctions. It says it wants to help, yet it keeps putting obstacles in the way. None of that makes any sense. (1110) There is also another problem. We still do not have access to all the data we need to clearly see what is working and what is not. Researchers are expected to be rigorous, but the government itself does not always provide the means to analyze its own system properly.”
“Conditions are better elsewhere, pay is higher and there are more resources available. Again, I ask: Why train people here if we are just going to lose them? At this rate, Canada is becoming a place where we train people for other countries. We are kind of like a way station. We train the students and pay them, but others reap the benefits. A country that does that is not working for its own people; it is working for others. This is not just a student issue; it is also an economic issue. When we lose our next generation of workers, we lose ideas, we lose expertise and we lose the ability to innovate. We also lose economic benefits for our regions, our businesses and our institutions. In Quebec, this affects us directly. Our universities, CEGEPs, colleges and research centres, especially in the regions, play a key role in development.”
“Students are burnt out, their professors cannot keep their teams together, and the system is on the verge of falling apart. My riding, Rimouski—La Matapédia, is home to applied research centres and teams doing innovative work on the ground. They all tell me the same thing. Resources are lacking, and projects are stalling, being postponed or being abandoned. At the end of the day, this has a direct impact on what we as a society can do. A few weeks ago, SEREX, a college centre for technology transfer located in Amqui, contacted me to warn that further budget cuts to certain programs risk significantly hampering its ability to operate. Then we wonder why people are leaving. A large proportion of postgraduate students are considering leaving Canada, and many already have. Why are they leaving? The answer is simple.”
“Meanwhile, there are now about 240,000 graduate students and barely 6,000 federal scholarships. The situation in the Université du Québec network is even more dire. Only about 1.3% of its graduate students receive federal scholarships. Young people have been told to go into research, get an education and contribute, but they are not actually being given the means to do that properly, and it shows. Nowadays, most graduate students live on very little. Some have to work during their studies. Some even have to go to food banks. Others are seriously thinking about dropping out. In Quebec, in places like Montreal, some live on less than $20,000 per year. Everyone knows that is not enough. It is often even harder in the regions. As vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, I hear about this constantly.”
“The result is that two students who have been recognized by Quebec can still be treated differently by Ottawa. That is not acceptable to us. It is a clear infringement on an area of jurisdiction that does not belong to the government. The federal government's role should be simple. It should help students, not redraw the boundaries of higher education in a way that suits it. If a recognized institution is authorized by Quebec, students studying there must be treated fairly. As we allow ourselves to be distracted by this debate, an even bigger problem is getting even worse: lack of funding for the next generation of scientists. Graduate scholarships have not gone up in 20 years. Some have not been indexed since 2003. Practically speaking, they have lost nearly half of their real value.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities has been clear. The committee is calling on the government to reconsider its distribution of student grants based on the type of institution where students are studying. In particular, the committee points out that federal decisions should align with those made by Quebec and the provinces because post-secondary education falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. This is not up for debate. What we are seeing right now is that Ottawa is moving away from simply helping students financially. It is starting to indirectly determine which institutions provide access to the grants and which do not.”
“Riddle me this, Mr. Speaker. The government is asking the public to trust it and saying that it needs more power. That is what the government is asking parliamentarians to approve right now. However, the government is cutting the resources of those that will oversee those new powers. In the most recent budget, the Liberal Party made a 15% cut to the budget of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, the watchdog for the new powers the government is asking for. Can my colleague explain how the government will do more surveillance with more powers when there will be fewer people responsible for overseeing those new powers?”
“Mr. Speaker, we would like some clarification from the Conservative Party. I would like him to explain his party's position. Where is the line between public safety and respect for privacy? I would like my colleague to share his and his party's views on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will give my colleague a moment to put in his earpiece so that he can understand me properly in one of Canada's official languages. The Conservative Party claims to defend individual freedoms. I would like to ask my colleague a simple question. Does he support “reasonable suspicion” as the threshold for granting access to Quebeckers' and Canadians' digital lives? That is what this bill does right now.”
“We need to let the appropriate governments handle this and negotiate among themselves. They have already demonstrated that they can work together when necessary. We saw that with the grocery sector code of conduct, for instance. It can all work out when governments collaborate. When Ottawa imposes its will, it mainly causes unnecessary tension. What we are asking for is simple: genuine negotiations that respect jurisdictional boundaries. The federal government can facilitate everything, but it cannot impose a one-size-fits-all standard in a sector that falls outside its purview. Quebeckers are not looking for empty measures. They want meaningful action that will truly lower their bills and respect Quebec's jurisdiction. For all the reasons I have just listed, the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill.”
“Once again, Quebec is already working on a problem, and the government comes along and tries to force it to adopt a Canadian standard that disregards everything Quebec is doing. We are getting a little fed up with seeing Ottawa step in when Quebec is already doing something. The government has been pushing the idea of a national unit pricing standard for a long time. After realizing that it lacks the leverage to force the provinces' hand, the government is dialing up the pressure. The government can tout the advantages of this kind of policy all it wants, but two simple facts remain: The federal government has no authority to impose that, and it will not lower food prices anyway. In short, everything has been set up to federalize an issue that is actually the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces.”
“On the contrary, it spoke of collaboration between the provinces. None of the recommendations called on the federal government to intervene directly in this way. It is the provinces that must reach an agreement. This is important because it confirms that, even when we are talking about improving practices, the way forward remains negotiation, not imposition. (1120) The problem is that the federal government too often acts as though Canada were a unitary state. It wants to harmonize policies across the country without accounting for existing realities, choices already made or jurisdictions. The reality is that Quebec is often ahead of the curve. This is true on a lot of issues.”
“Instead, this bill simply adds another layer of bureaucracy and accountability in a sector that does not fall under federal jurisdiction. If this were to move forward on national level, then it would be best if Quebec and the provinces discussed the matter amongst themselves, agreed on the requirements, and jointly established a course of action that respects their jurisdictions. Discussions on internal trade may provide a forum for this, but certainly not at the cost of federal encroachment. Accepting this today also means accepting a precedent. It opens the door to further federal interference tomorrow in areas that are the sole responsibility of Quebec. I would also like to point out that the Competition Bureau's June 2023 report on food prices did not propose imposing a uniform federal standard.”
“That is why we find it very difficult to accept the fact that Ottawa wants to impose a national framework in an area where Quebec is already taking action. The federal government sees rising food prices as an opportunity to talk about removing barriers to interprovincial trade. It is trying to use this bill to lump together all sorts of rules that are not directly related to that objective, including unit price labelling. However, it is important to be clear. Unit price labelling is not a barrier or hindrance to trade, nor does it impede the flow of goods between provinces. Once again, the federal government is failing to take the right approach and actually help Quebeckers and Canadians keep money in their pockets. How will this bill lower families' grocery bills? The answer is that it will not.”
“As we know, agriculture and agri-food are shared jurisdictions. However, retail, domestic marketing and consumer protection fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. It is not a grey area. In this case, when a customer buys a product at the grocery store, it is a transaction between a consumer and a merchant. That is unmistakably a matter of private law that falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. What is more, Quebec did not wait for the federal government to take action. Quebec is the only place in Canada that already regulates unit pricing. Unit pricing is not even mandatory anywhere else in the country. Quebec is already committed to protecting consumers in accordance with its own laws and within its own areas of jurisdiction.”
“The problem is not how the price is displayed, but the price itself. The bill is giving the impression that it is addressing the cost of living, but it fails to address the real causes of price increases. While families struggle to make ends meet, the government is once again choosing to focus on the price tag rather than on the grocery bill as a whole. The real problem is market concentration, the power of the big chains and the fact that the bill has no effect on those factors. Basically, the bill is focusing on the prices displayed in store, meaning what retailers are doing. It is not getting at what really influences prices. The Bloc Québécois is against the bill because it seeks to establish a national strategy with accountability requirements for Quebec and the provinces in a sector that falls under their jurisdiction.”
“Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C‑226 , the bill introduced by the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells to establish a national framework for food price transparency at the grocery store. To begin, the Bloc Québécois is sensitive to the economic reality that Quebec and Canadian families are facing. We know full well that the rising cost of groceries is forcing a growing number of households to monitor and compare prices more closely. That said, Quebeckers want more than just a better understanding of their grocery bill. They want grocery prices to come down. It is true that certain price display practices sometimes make it more difficult to compare items, but we also must be honest. Displaying a price by litre or by kilogram does not change the amount paid at the cash register.”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. I gave an example earlier, following a speech by a Conservative colleague, about how Imam Adil Charkaoui had incited hatred, notably with his speech at an event. No charges were brought under the existing Criminal Code, and that is why the Bloc Québécois is seeking to modernize it, as suggested by the RCMP. There were no grounds for the RCMP to lay charges, even though someone had engaged in hate speech. I would like my colleague to explain this to me in concrete terms: If a person can preach hatred under the guise of religion, and the police are telling us that they are unable to lay charges, how is it that my colleague does not agree with the idea of modernizing the Criminal Code to prevent this sort of situation?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from a speech delivered by Imam Adil Charkaoui in Montreal on October 23, 2023. He said, “Allah, take care of these Zionist aggressors. Take care of the enemies of the people of Gaza. Identify them all, then exterminate them. And don't spare any of them.” If that is not hate speech, then I would like my Conservative colleagues to tell me what is. No charges were brought against him after that speech. It was the federal police, the RCMP, that said we should modernize the Criminal Code to ensure that we wipe out hate speech. I would like to ask my colleague a simple question: If he wants to crack down on hate speech, why does he not agree that we should put the legislative tools in place to do so?”
“Public protection must never be weakened in the name of deregulation. Quebeckers must be able to have complete confidence in what they consume. This means that what is sold on the market must meet rigorous standards, have clear labelling and make truthful claims, and the government must have the tools it needs to intervene when public health is threatened. Clear regulations protect consumers, but they also protect reputable businesses that follow the rules. This is a simple matter, really. Just because a product is popular does not mean that it is effective or safe. The legislator's primary responsibility is still to protect public health. The Bloc Québécois will therefore keep an open mind about this bill, but there is a very clear line that we will not cross. Public safety must always come first.”
“If it were passed as is, the minister could lose the ability to impose a mandatory recall when a product poses a danger to the public. Imagine for a moment a product contaminated with bacteria such as E. coli . Without this recall power, we would be relying solely on the manufacturer's goodwill to have the product removed from shelves. It would put us back in a situation that the Auditor General himself deemed inadequate. It would be a step backwards, one that we should not take. That said, the Bloc Québécois believes that this bill deserves serious consideration in committee. That is why we will support the bill at second reading so that it can be examined in depth. However, we will be very clear on one thing. Our final support will depend on one essential condition: The bill must maintain mandatory recall power.”
“In 2023, under Bill C-47 , these products were made subject to certain provisions of Vanessa's Law. The department can now impose mandatory recalls when public safety is at stake. However, Bill C-224 would reverse that decision. Let me be clear. We in the Bloc Québécois recognize that natural health products should not be treated exactly like prescription drugs. They belong in a distinct category. They cannot be treated as simple food products, either. In our view, the position is simple and balanced. Natural health products are not drugs, but nor are they risk-free. They must be strictly regulated. The key question, then, is this. Are we going to weaken public health protection measures? (1850) In its current form, Bill C-224 raises a major concern.”
“The report concluded that the department's oversight had failed to ensure their safety and effectiveness. The commissioner identified several significant problems. First, Health Canada could not order the mandatory recall of a natural health product, even in the presence of a serious health risk. Second, there were significant gaps in the inspection of manufacturing facilities. Post-market surveillance was also insufficient, and the department did not always have the necessary tools to effectively detect unlicensed products or misleading advertising. The numbers speak for themselves. The number of reports of adverse effects associated with these products rose from 22,211 in 2010 to 96,559 in 2019. In light of these findings, the federal government decided to take action.”
““Natural” does not mean “without side effects” and does not mean “without supervision”. These products can interact with prescription drugs, cause serious adverse reactions and, in some cases, have very serious consequences. Consider, for example, the known interactions between certain supplements and prescription drugs that can reduce the effectiveness of a treatment or increase health risks. Members might also recall the sad case of Michel Joannette, who developed hepatitis after consuming a natural product he bought online to help him lose weight. These situations remind us of a simple reality: Just because something is natural does not automatically mean it is safe. In 2021, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development published a troubling report on Health Canada's oversight of these products.”
“For instance, Vanessa's Law allows the minister to order manufacturers to disclose information, to require a label change, to prohibit the sale of a product and, most importantly, to order a recall of products that present a serious health risk. For a long time, natural health products were excluded from those powers. However, these products are not always harmless. Probiotics, vitamins, minerals, herbal remedies and traditional medicines are now a huge industry. In Canada, this market is estimated to be worth between $4 billion and $5 billion per year, and these products are widely used. It is estimated that that 73% of Canadians use this type of product on a regular basis. The term “natural” inspires confidence, but it must be made clear that “natural” does not mean “harmless”.”
“Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C‑224 . Introduced by my Conservative colleague for Ponoka—Didsbury , this bill aims to amend the Food and Drugs Act to exclude natural health products from the definition of therapeutic products. In practical terms, if this bill passes in its current form, natural health products will no longer be subject to the same oversight mechanisms as other therapeutic products, including those set out in Vanessa's Law. Let us briefly revisit the reason for this law. Vanessa's Law was enacted in 2014 following the tragic death of Vanessa Young. It aims to enhance the powers of the Minister of Health to better protect the public from unsafe products.”
“Madam Speaker, the government is saying that it wants to solve crises. However, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the crisis will not be solved because the government's actions are inadequate. The government wants to build 26,000 new housing units although we need 690,000. Allow me to explain it to my colleagues who are good at math on the other side. This means that it is addressing only 5% of the crisis. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that the contribution of Build Canada Homes will be modest. Is my colleague really interested in solving the crisis, or is he just doing PR?”
“Madam Speaker, we are experiencing the worst housing crisis in decades, and the government is boasting that it is going to create a new entity called Build Canada Homes. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that Build Canada Homes will create a mere 26,000 new homes, when 690,000 are needed. Does anyone on that side of the House know how to count? I thought the Prime Minister was supposed to be a financial expert. The government is not even addressing 5% of the crisis. Is there any plan to even pretend that the government is working on the crisis, or is the plan more to manipulate public opinion into believing that the Liberals are really good?”
“Madam Speaker, we completely agree that this just adds more bureaucracy, that it adds a new structure. They already had the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, but now they are adding Build Canada Homes instead of optimizing what is already in place. I would like to know if we can agree that this is another attempt by the federal government to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions, including in housing. In Quebec, we already have the Société d'habitation du Québec. I would like to know if my colleague agrees that Quebec should ask for the right to opt out with full compensation for anything having to do with federal housing projects.”