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 3 of 8.
“The Quebec fishing community is not calling for this kind of reform and it has concerns about its consequences. Essentially, our decision should be guided by three questions. Is it proportionate? Is it scientifically justified? Is it economically responsible? At this stage, the answers are not persuasive. A one-size-fits-all calendar is not the right way to manage the fisheries. Such management has to be based on the locality, on fish stocks and on the communities that depend on them. (1115) Although the bill may streamline federal administration, it complicates regional realities. The Bloc Québécois will therefore vote against Bill C-237 at second reading.”
“Next comes the issue of seasonal uniformity. The bill calls for the harmonization of open and close times across the entire Atlantic area. Fisheries management, however, cannot be limited to a one-size-fits-all calendar covering every corner of the territory. Beyond the issue of recreational seasons, the real strategic issue facing the fisheries exceeds the scope of this bill. We export the bulk of our catch and we import the bulk of the seafood products we consume. That deserves a broader debate than the one being proposed now. We understand that this bill addresses genuine frustrations felt in Newfoundland and Labrador. However, without minimizing that reality, a regional demand should not automatically result in a change that applies to the entire Atlantic area.”
“Currently, recreational groundfish fishing is regulated by daily limits restricted to open fishing seasons, as managed by fisheries officers. The bill would impose a system to record the number of fish caught, the location and the time of capture. In practical terms, this means that recreational fishers would have to fill out a logbook every time they go out. No one in Quebec is asking for that. Regulations must be proportionate to the problem they seek to solve. We are not opposed to collecting data. We are opposed to imposing poorly targeted regulations that are not backed by clear necessity, especially since data collection tools, such as electronic logbooks, already exist in the commercial sector. Before creating a new regime for recreational fishing, we should first optimize those already in place.”
“There is also the issue of scientific data. Take cod for example, where recreational catches in 2024 were estimated at approximately 2,700 tonnes, but actual landings were not directly measured. These figures are based on models. Before tightening regulations across the Atlantic, lawmakers must ensure that the data is complete and robust enough to justify such a reform. We believe in science, but science requires a solid foundation. It is also important to remember the economic importance of this sector. In some regions of maritime Quebec, fishing and processing account for up to 30% of jobs. These are not abstract statistics; entire communities depend on this industry. I want to talk about the issue of mandatory registration for recreational fishing.”
“The Coopérative des capitaines-propriétaires de la Gaspésie has warned that this approach could lead to a significant reduction in activity and have a domino effect on the region's entire maritime supply chain. When those who make a living from the sea tell us that a bill could weaken their sector, we need to listen to them. In light of this, our position has changed. The Bloc Québécois will therefore be voting against Bill C-237, and I will explain why. Modern management uses a stock-based approach. Migrations differ, spawning periods vary and environmental conditions are not the same everywhere. Standardization for the sake of simplification may seem appealing to Ottawa, but it removes flexibility for those on the water. Given that climate change is already altering species dynamics, that flexibility is essential.”
“Madam Speaker, I am rising today at second reading of Bill C-237 . At first reading last October, the Bloc Québécois indicated that we were open to this bill. At that time, we had already found some problems with the bill, but we were willing to analyze it, hear the arguments and look at the actual impacts it would have. Since then, we have worked hard to do just that. We have listened to Quebeckers. We have heard from the community. We have spoken to local fishers. We have heard from regional associations and departmental representatives. Whether it be in the Gaspé, Quebec's maritime regions, the Lower St. Lawrence or the north shore, the response on the ground is clear. People are opposed to this bill.”
“Now, regarding Bill C-10 , which seeks to create a commissioner responsible for helping indigenous people enforce treaty law, consultation is suddenly important. I wonder if my colleague can explain this rather blatant inconsistency.”
“Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague and congratulate him on his speech. Today, the Conservatives are saying that this new position of commissioner for modern treaty implementation would not be good for indigenous communities. I would like to remind my colleague that, when Bill C-5 on projects of national interest was being studied in June, indigenous communities were not consulted. At the time, the interests of indigenous communities were not important to his party. Now my colleague is saying that the interests of indigenous communities are important after all. Last June, the Conservatives did not think it was important to consult these communities on a bill their party supported using a gag order imposed by the Liberals.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her speech. She talked about something very important, something that I see as a hallmark of the Conservative Party, specifically, government accountability. That is what the Bloc Québécois wanted to pursue with our bill, and yet that is what the Conservatives rejected. Under our bill, the government would be required to table new trade agreements in the House before they are adopted so that members could review them in advance, which is not currently the case. I would like my colleague to explain how she can talk to us today about accountability when her party rejected a bill introduced by the Bloc Québécois calling for exactly that. I would like her to explain that inconsistency that I see here.”
“Madam Speaker, the cuts to science keep mounting. On top of the 20 positions that were cut at the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, more than 1,000 employees across Canada are being affected by other cuts to agricultural research. The agricultural research centre in Quebec City is being shut down after nearly 60 years of operation. The unions are calling out this major loss of expertise. Honestly, the situation reminds us of the how the Harper government once muzzled science. In economic times that demand reinvention and economic stimulation, how can the Liberals possibly make cuts to science?”
“Madam Speaker, the scientific community is concerned. The Liberals are cutting 20 jobs in my riding at the Maurice Lamontagne Institute in Mont-Joli, a major regional hub for science and a jewel of oceanography research. This alarming loss of expertise is jeopardizing the scientific and economic development of our regions. It is also reducing Fisheries and Oceans Canada's research capacity and ability to act on evidence-based data, which is already a serious problem at the department. Can we really afford to pinch a few pennies by cutting back on science?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is supposedly a financial expert. Meanwhile, we just had to wait 20 months for a budget, which is not something that has happened very often in history. Another thing that has not happened very often in history is having the largest deficit in Canadian history with a financial expert as Prime Minister. Now, we have a finance minister who is patting himself on the back today. We are talking about $11 billion over six years for Bill C-19 , when the government has just posted a record deficit. Was he not inclined to even attempt to make the budget credible and consistent? My question for the minister is simple: Are there other $11-billion dollar surprises like this one that we are not aware of?”
“Mr. Speaker, what great news we are getting today from the Minister of Finance. Members of the Bloc Québécois support a measure that is designed to help the most vulnerable among us, finally. However, I would like to remind the minister what he said a few months ago. He said that the government did not have the money to fix an injustice of its own making. I am referring to the OAS increase for persons aged 65 to 74. How is it that the minister can come up with $3 billion today for a measure intended to buy votes, but cannot provide direct assistance to seniors who are suffering daily? I would be grateful if he gave me an honest answer.”
“MPs who vote against the bill will be confirming that recognition of the Quebec nation is nothing more than empty words and symbolism. For the Bloc Québécois, the choice is clear: We must continue to oppose this state doctrine, which is toxic to the Quebec nation.”
“This is precisely why the Bloc Québécois exists in the House of Commons: to express this fundamental disagreement. Many democracies choose an integration model based on a common culture without denying diversity. The Canadian choice is not the only option, nor is it the only legitimate one. Respecting a different choice does not weaken a federation. It is the opposite. Refusing to recognize that choice is what erodes it. I will say it again: Bill C-245 does not take away anyone's rights. Its singular aim is to ensure there is a single framework for integration in Quebec, namely the one democratically chosen by the National Assembly of Quebec. MPs who vote for this bill will be choosing consistency and respect.”
“Bill C-245 provides an opportunity to give real meaning to this recognition. Let us be clear: Canadian multiculturalism not only denies the existence of the Quebec nation, it also refuses to fully recognize the multinational nature of the state to the detriment of first nations, which are too often reduced to mere cultural diversity. We must look at this objectively: Quebec's independence did not arise from a rejection of Canada. It emerged as a political consequence of a repeated refusal—emphasis on “repeated”—to give meaningful recognition to Quebec's collective choices. When a nation has a vision imposed on it that is not its own, and when recognition of that nation remains purely symbolic, the question of real autonomy will eventually arise. Bill C‑245 is not an act of defiance, it is a gesture of respect.”
“These two opposing integration models cannot be applied at the same time in the same territory because it causes confusion. Multiculturalism does not exist in a vacuum. It is part of a set of federal tools used to impose a single national vision, which sometimes directly contradicts Quebec's vision. The solution proposed today in Bill C-245 is simple: We need to stop applying this law in Quebec. Let us be very clear. Bill C-245 does not amend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It does not take away any rights and it does not exclude anyone. It simply allows Quebec to apply its own law on its own territory. (1145) In 2006, the House of Commons recognized that Quebeckers form a nation. That recognition has since remained largely symbolic. Recognition without any meaningful impact is not a recognition at all. It is just words.”
“On the other hand, Ottawa sends a different message, based on maintaining parallel identities, without a clearly affirmed common culture. The result is quite clear. There are contradictory expectations, it is more difficult to integrate and immigrants are caught in a political tug-of-war between Quebec and Ottawa. Immigrants have the right to hear a clear, honest and consistent message. Quebec has made its decision. On May 28, 2025, Quebec passed a law based on clear principles: French as the language of integration, a common culture, shared democratic values, state secularism, the rule of law, and full participation in Quebec society. This model does not exclude anyone, but instead proposes a common approach. As such, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act has become redundant, and even harmful, in Quebec.”
“It is a state doctrine that defines the Canadian national identity and that refuses to fully recognize a multinational state. This doctrine is not neutral. It is based on standards that originate primarily in English Canada and that are presented as universal but that are actually being imposed. It is therefore paradoxical, to say the least, that Quebec continues to be subjected to an identity policy that it has rejected, both politically and constitutionally. This contradiction is not theoretical. It is experienced on the ground every day, particularly by newcomers. On the one hand, Quebec clearly states one thing: French is the common language, the language of integration, the language of work, the language of public life.”
“Multiculturalism, on the other hand, is a political choice, a government policy, a state doctrine. This doctrine puts all identities on an abstract equal footing, without recognizing the existence of nations, whether it be the Quebec nation or indigenous nations. Conversely, a multinational federation recognizes the possibility of different peoples, different nations, each capable of making its own legitimate collective choices. Canada made one choice. Quebec made another. That is not a misunderstanding, but a deliberate political choice made decades ago. It is important to remember one key point. Quebec has never signed the 1982 Constitution, which enshrined Canadian multiculturalism in constitutional law and imposed this model without Quebec's consent. Multiculturalism is therefore not simply an administrative policy.”
“Mr. Speaker, our debate today centres on a fundamental disagreement between Quebec and Canada, a pivotal disagreement, a deep fracture that reveals what Quebec is and, most importantly, what Quebec refuses to be. This debate is not about openness, diversity or immigration. It is about Quebec's vision of itself as a nation and its right to make its own collective choices. Bill C‑245 is simple. It seeks to ensure that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act does not apply in Quebec. The reason is that this act is based on a vision of Canada that denies the existence of Quebec as a nation and that directly contradicts the integration model that was democratically chosen by Quebec. Ethnocultural diversity is a fact. It exists in Quebec. It is an asset. No one here is challenging it.”
“On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I want to extend my sincere condolences to his wife, Caroline, and his children, Pierre and Mathilde, who courageously supported him through illness until his soul set sail one last time.”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebec has lost a great explorer. Robert Grenier, a figurehead in the world of underwater archaeology, has passed away. Robert Grenier was a world-renowned expert who had worked for Parks Canada since the 1960s. He was even featured on the cover of National Geographic. His greatest achievement was the discovery of the San Juan , a 16th-century whaling ship, off the coast of Labrador, proving that the Basques were present in the Americas even before the founding of New France. Mr. Grenier also initiated the searches that led to the discovery of the ships from John Franklin's ill-fated Arctic expedition. A minister once compared Robert Grenier to Indiana Jones, and while he definitely had the same charisma and love for life, the difference is that he worked for UNESCO, fighting to protect sunken treasures from looters.”
“Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech, and a fairly simple question came to mind. Bill C-16 seeks to put an end to automatic dismissals of cases under the Jordan decision, which was handed down 10 years ago. Who has been in power for the past 10 years? It has been the same Liberal Party all that time. My question is quite simple: Why did the government wait 10 years to fix a problem that we already knew about 10 years ago?”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my Conservative Party colleague. From 2017 to 2023, some 150,000 people crossed the border irregularly at Roxham Road. It is fair to say that, at the time, the Bloc Québécois pretty much talked itself hoarse in the House asking the government questions to try to get the situation resolved. The Conservatives were pretty quiet on this issue. In fact, they stayed completely mum. I think that shows that there were problems at the border. The government has said several times that it is going to increase staff at the borders, but, according to the border services union, it is not enough. I would like my colleague to explain her point of view. What would it really take to restore people's confidence in our borders and keep all the people we represent safe?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my esteemed colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean on his speech. The government likes to repeat itself to give the impression that it is doing a good job. In April, the Prime Minister announced at a press conference that the government was going to hire additional CBSA officers to secure our borders. However, that request came from the Americans. It was not his idea. Then he held another press conference in October and announced the same thing again. He said there would be an announcement in the budget. He keeps repeating the same announcements over and over again. However, he never states the number of people needed, the number that the border services union is asking for. Does my colleague think that this government is making things up as it goes along, or does it have a plan with a very clear vision?”
“Mr. Speaker, what is the world coming to? The Conservatives are accusing the Liberals of not doing enough to buy a new pipeline. Who was it that bought a new pipeline with our public funds? It was the Liberals; the Conservatives never bought a pipeline. Let us not forget the facts: The Trans Mountain pipeline cost $34 billion, or six to seven times the initial price estimate. In addition, the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that we would lose money if that pipeline were sold tomorrow morning. The Conservatives, those good stewards of the public purse, are telling us that we need to buy another one, a second pipeline, so that we can lose even more money. They say that it will be good for the economy, that it will make rich oil companies even richer. Can the Conservatives explain to us what good a new pipeline is to Quebeckers?”
“I had the opportunity to question her when she came to meet with the Standing Committee on Science and Research. She told me that the current situation, in which the government is creating laws to circumvent all laws except the Criminal Code, is a nightmare. Do the Liberals still believe in science and climate change, or are they just trying to eat the Conservatives' lunch?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Liberal government simply wants to do as it pleases. We have a Prime Minister who wants to run the government like a big board of directors. Here are the facts. The Assembly of First Nations is calling on the federal government to withdraw the MOU that it signed with Alberta for the construction of a new oil pipeline. Other voices within the government, namely two experts and founding members of the Net-Zero Advisory Body, quit because the government is ignoring science and refuses to listen to recommendations from scientific experts. This government does not listen to or consult with first nations, and it does not consult with scientists. It also does not consult with its own adviser, the chief science advisor.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain why her government ignores scientific opinions on projects of national interest, such as the pipeline it proposes to build. I questioned Canada's chief science advisor at the Standing Committee on Science and Research. When I asked her to confirm that the government was creating a law in order to circumvent every law but the Criminal Code, including environmental, tax and transportation laws, she told me that she was never consulted about the list of projects of national interest and then described the situation as a “nightmare”. The Liberals, like the Conservatives, are ignoring the science. At least the Conservatives admit it. The Liberals only turn to science when it suits them.”
“Now that he is Prime Minister of Canada, he is telling us that we need a new pipeline, that we need to diversify our economy and that we need to placate the separatists in Alberta and not stir them up too much, because that could lead to Quebec becoming independent. What he is telling us today is pure hypocrisy through and through. First the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie resigned as minister, and now they are telling us lies. What is the real story? Do the Liberals believe in climate change or not?”
“Mr. Speaker, what is the world coming to? Now we are wondering whether the Liberals still believe in climate change. From what they are saying, it seems as though they have spent too much time with the Conservatives, or perhaps the Conservatives have spent too much time with the Liberals. Either way, red or blue, it amounts to more or less the same thing. They all want more pipelines. I would like my colleague to explain something to me. As we know, in his previous life, the Prime Minister worked for Brookfield with his friends who have ties to pipelines, but he was also the United Nations special envoy on climate action and finance. At the time, he said that we needed to keep fossil fuels in the ground.”
“Where are those good Conservative stewards of the public purse now? A pipeline is not profitable, okay? It will not put money in Quebeckers' pockets. I invite my colleague to answer this simple question. The other day, I asked a Conservative colleague if the money for this would be public or private. He told me that no public money would be invested. Why are they now saying the opposite?”
“Mr. Speaker, today is all about the Conservative fantasy: pipelines and “drill, baby, drill”. We need to refocus the debate on the facts. The federal Liberal government bought a pipeline called Trans Mountain. In 2017, it was supposed to cost about $7.4 billion. How much did it actually cost? It cost taxpayers $34 billion, which is six to seven times more than the project was supposed to cost. The Parliamentary Budget Officer told us that, if the government were to sell it tomorrow morning, it would lose money. Now the Conservatives are telling us that we need another pipeline. Do they enjoy losing Quebeckers' and Canadians' money? Is that what the Conservatives are telling us? Would a new pipeline serve a market in Asia? No, there is no such market. They do not want to say that in their speeches.”
“Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the environment, the Prime Minister is ignoring the science. If that was not obvious enough from all the recent resignations, then take it from Canada's chief science advisor, Mona Nemer. I asked her questions about the Liberals' plan to push through major projects such as the pipeline by circumventing every law but the Criminal Code. She called it a nightmare scenario. She also confirmed that she was never consulted. Do the Liberals think it is normal in their country for the chief scientist to be completely left out of the process?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' climate betrayal was not the only reason why the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie resigned as minister. We have learned that two expert members of the Canadian Environment Domestic Advisory Group, who were supposed to advise the Prime Minister on the climate, have also thrown in the towel. They say that they were accustomed to giving advice that was not followed. Now, they are not even given a hearing. In other words, the Prime Minister pushes away everyone around him who cares about the environment, whether they are ministers or experts. How can the Liberals support a Prime Minister who refuses to listen to the science?”
“I want to recognize the invaluable contribution of the many volunteers who have been the lifeblood behind the salon from the very beginning, as well as its executive director, Robin Doucet, who has been proudly leading the organization with passion and care since 1996. I encourage my colleagues to join me in wishing long life to the Salon du livre de Rimouski.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the 60th edition of the Salon du livre de Rimouski, which once again this year brought together hundreds of authors, publishers and volunteers as well as thousands of visitors. This reminds us once again that people in the regions can accomplish great things. The Salon du livre de Rimouski was founded in 1964 by the Dames de Champlain and is now the oldest book fair still active in Quebec. For six decades, this cultural beacon of the Lower St. Lawrence has been a powerful affirmation of the vitality of Quebec culture and the French language.”
“What we want to know from the member for Kingston and the Islands and his government is whether they support the motion that they said they would support, or whether they are going to chicken out and back down.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are looking forward to the government stepping up, telling us what it really thinks and taking action. I do not think that is too much to ask. The government is delaying meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights so that it can take action. It is procrastinating and bowing to pressure from religious lobbies. It does not know what to do; there is infighting within the caucus. What kind of mess is Canada in? Religions are controlling democracy. What kind of world are we living in? The matter has been settled in Quebec. The Quebec National Assembly unanimously agreed that hate speech must be regulated and cannot benefit from the exemption that currently exists in the Criminal Code. That is quite clear. In fact, 75% of Quebeckers agree on this point.”
“Mr. Speaker, the situation is quite clear today. Religious lobbies are influencing both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. The Conservatives are spreading disinformation to mobilize their religious base, while the Liberals have capitulated and withdrawn their support for removing the religious exemption for hate speech. The Quebec National Assembly has stated clearly and unanimously that this loophole in the Criminal Code, which still allows hate speech on religious grounds, must be closed. Will the Liberals stop dancing around the issue today? Will they clearly explain why they are turning their backs on Quebeckers at a time when hatred is on the rise in public places?”
“Madam Speaker, for years, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for the Criminal Code to stop protecting hate speech under the guise of religion. The law must apply equally to all. Religion must never justify hate. Once again, we see that, within Canada, Quebec is regressing or stagnating. The same thing happened with secularism, conversion therapy and medical assistance in dying. Quebec settled these debates a long time ago. This is proof that our values are not compatible with this country's values and that it does not understand us either. Quebec deserves to function in accordance with its values. There is only one solution for that: Quebec must be independent.”
“It requires results, not intentions. Quebec does not need a new federal structure. It needs the federal government to finally do its part. What is missing today is not a national strategy. What is missing is the will to act.”
“Improving our ability to predict storms while funding what makes them more violent makes no sense. That is why the Bloc Québécois is proposing concrete measures: enhance the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund, provide more support to fight shoreline erosion, and implement a co-insurance program to protect households located in the most at-risk areas. These are not mere suggestions. These are realistic, workable solutions that people want to see. Bill C‑241 does not build any real capacity. It does not address any weaknesses within the Meteorological Service of Canada. It does not respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. It does not help municipalities, which are already dealing with the climate crisis every day. The climate emergency requires political courage, not imaginary structures.”
“Over the past 10 years, natural disasters have cost the country more than $2.5 billion a year. In Quebec, compensation increases year after year, and insurance premiums rise accordingly. In many cases, less fortunate households are located in the most vulnerable areas. Adaptation is not just an infrastructure issue; it is also a social justice issue. In my region, the Lower St. Lawrence, farmers' soils are drying out, their crops are less robust and their costs are going up. Hydrological forecasting is not a luxury; it is crucial to food security. There is a fundamental disconnect here. The government is proposing a new structure for predicting climate disasters while it continues to support oil and gas projects that make climate change worse.”
“Quebec plans its interventions at the watershed level, as recommended by international best practices, and it already shares its hydrological data with its partners, which would be a good thing at the federal level as well. We must also remember a simple constitutional truth: Waterway management, land use planning and emergency preparedness fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Canada is made up of many nations. To suppose that a single centralized model can serve such disparate realities is to ignore the fact that the risks, territories and jurisdictions are diverse. (1800) Let us not forget the St. Lawrence River, a living and complex river that calls for detailed, local, place-based expertise. The government is grappling with soaring climate costs, but it is doing nothing to curtail the causes of climate change.”
“Rising sea levels, the disappearance of the ice that once protected our coasts and more intense storms are accelerating erosion in eastern Quebec. What used to happen once in a generation is now happening much more often. Our coastal municipalities have been fighting for too long, practically alone. They do not need a new office in Ottawa. They need a reliable, involved and consistent partner. Quebec, for its part, has adopted a modern legal framework with its Act to affirm the collective nature of water resources and to promote better governance of water and associated environments, as well as its Act respecting the conservation of wetlands and bodies of water.”
“There is also Ouranos, a Quebec consortium known for the accuracy of its regional climate models. Another example that I am very proud of is the Institut des sciences de la mer de Rimouski, in my riding, which models coastal storms, erosion, ice and the unique characteristics of the St. Lawrence River. These are not abstract concepts; they are tools that protect real communities. People in my region, the Lower St. Lawrence, have not forgotten the high tides of December 2010. That evening, waves several metres high struck Sainte-Flavie and Sainte-Luce with tremendous force. Some homes were damaged, some shifted. The main road was swept away by the sea, and the coastline receded in a single night. It was not a trivial matter for us. It was a clear sign of what climate change would bring to our region. Since then, experts have confirmed it.”
“When a river overflows or the ocean breaks through dikes, the last thing our municipalities need is an additional and duplicate structure. Clarity saves lives. Duplication creates confusion. Creating a new federal structure means creating positions, offices and procedures. Meanwhile, municipalities have been waiting a long time to receive the support that was announced. Back home in the Lower St. Lawrence, people know this. While the paperwork makes its way from one department to the next, the waves wait for no one. In the meantime, Quebec has made progress. We have world-class scientific expertise tailored to our land and waterways. One example is CEQUEAU, a hydrologic model developed by the Institut national de recherche scientifique that simulates the flow of water in rivers and watersheds and is used to predict floods.”
“Environment and Climate Change Canada already has all the tools it needs within its own legislation to modernize its capabilities, collaborate with Quebec and the provinces and support existing systems. If these tools are insufficient, the government should have started by amending the law and strengthening what already exists. However, Bill C-241 does not change anything. A system cannot be improved by simply announcing a new structure on paper. The bill talks about supercomputers, sophisticated models and a national co-operative service. However, the most basic questions remain unanswered. Who decides? Who runs things, and with what money? There are no specific directions, scientific responsibilities or clear mechanisms for coordination in the text. In an emergency, ambiguity is dangerous.”