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 4 of 8.
“Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-241 , which seeks to create a new federal structure to improve flood and drought forecasting. We all share the same goal, namely, to better anticipate climate events that are becoming more frequent, more severe and more costly. However, the proposed solution is not the right one. A careful reading of this bill reveals one thing that really stands out. It does not grant any new powers, impose any obligations on the government or provide any real resources. Bill C-241 does not solve any concrete problems. Above all, it fails to address federal inaction. The Meteorological Service of Canada already has the mandate needed to produce forecasts, warnings and hydrometeorological models.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government is talking about its new program, or the new entity, Build Canada Homes. This morning, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that this program will add only 26,000 units over five years, barely 2% more than expected supply growth, but that federal spending on housing will decline 56% in the next three years. How can the government claim that it wants to double the pace of construction when there is no concrete plan on the table and the announced investments will not even offset the programs that are set to expire?”
“I would like my colleague to tell me what he thinks about this deficit and how the government is using creative accounting to its advantage.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, and I would like to hear what he has to say about the record deficit that the current Liberal government is forcing on us. The member says that this an intergenerational budget, but I would say it is more of an intergenerational disaster. We are talking about a $78-billion deficit. Justin Trudeau seems positively frugal compared to the current Prime Minister , the expert banker, who is driving us further into deficit. There is another equally serious matter: The member is saying that $45 billion of the $78 billion is investment. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the way the government put this budget together with this creative new accounting means that these are not real investments, and that means that we are not being told the real truth about the budget.”
“The Liberals are doing exactly what the Conservatives wanted, in other words, more oil, more oil and gas development, and a new pipeline. Does my colleague agree with what the government is doing? Does he agree with giving the green light to a new pipeline and investing billions more in fossil fuels?”
“Mr. Speaker, I did not think I would be saying this today, but it is a topsy-turvy world, or rather, a topsy-turvy pipeline. We just found out that the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture has resigned. He is the former minister of environment and climate change, for those who still believe climate change exists. We know that one side is not so sure it exists and the other side, the side of the government and the Liberal Party, is really starting to have doubts, and rightly so. The Liberals are adopting not one pipeline, but two. Trans Mountain cost $34 billion, and now we are talking about a new pipeline that will cost roughly $20 billion. I wonder if the Conservatives regret not voting for the budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, today, the member for Courtenay—Alberni is denouncing cuts to the public service, profits made by big grocery chains, oil subsidies, and inaction on the housing crisis and on homelessness. Where was he on November 17 during the deciding vote on the budget? He abstained. Today he is denouncing a budget that does nothing to resolve the problems he is talking about. I am trying to understand. Usually in politics, when a person says one thing and does another, we call that inconsistency. This is what makes people more cynical about politicians and democratic institutions. I would like my colleague to explain how he can denounce something today that he let pass on November 17.”
“Mr. Speaker, the NDP says it opposes handouts for oil companies, the underfunding of health care, and inaction on the housing crisis and on employment insurance reform. In fact, they have been calling for this reform for many years. However, it was the NDP that was able to get this budget through, because two of its members, the member for Courtenay—Alberni and the member for Nunavut , abstained on the deciding vote. My question is quite simple and easy. How can the NDP claim to stand up for workers when it supports a budget that clearly abandons them?”
“The Prime Minister has been travelling all over the world, but he cannot even come help his own businesses here at home. When it is time to help Ontario and Alberta yet again, he is there for them, but when it is time to help Quebec, where is this Liberal government?”
“Mr. Chair, I hope the people listening tonight, especially the government, can understand that where there is a will, there is a way. When it is time for Ottawa to help the oil industry, the cheque is signed mere days or even hours later. When it is time to help the auto industry, then presto, Ontario is up and running. However, when it is time to help Quebec's forestry industry, what is the rush? They take their time. We have had countervailing duties for 10 years now. Tariffs are at 45%, and yet the government is patting itself on the back. Businesses are closing their doors. People are losing their jobs. Now they are telling us that they plan to announce something else on Thursday, so we had better stay tuned. This is ridiculous.”
“It represents a sawmill that continues to open its doors every morning. For the past 10 years, it has felt like the government was turning a deaf ear. It is almost as if it has so little understanding of the regions that it does not even understand what the forestry industry is. Now, the Americans are imposing 45% tariffs and nothing is being done. The government is in complete denial. We have been calling for an emergency debate for weeks. That was not a priority either. We have a Prime Minister who travels all over the world, yet he is not even capable of coming here to solve domestic problems. I would like my colleague to explain to me whether he really thinks that the forestry industry and the regions of Quebec are a priority for the Liberal government.”
“Madam Chair, I want to say hello to the people tuning in this evening from Rimouski-Neigette, La Mitis, La Matapédia and Les Basques. This is an extremely important debate for the people back home in the Lower St. Lawrence. The forestry industry is a major economic pillar. It supports over 6,000 direct and indirect jobs. It encompasses nearly 250 businesses. Our region alone accounts for 10% of Quebec's softwood lumber production. Forestry is a real driver of regional development. It contributes to the vitality of hundreds of municipalities and communities in the Lower St. Lawrence. Where I come from, a wooden pallet is not some prop that only can be found in stores. A wooden pallet represents a paycheque for our families. It represents a paycheque for workers in our region.”
“Furthermore, it refuses to implement the one measure that could immediately save jobs, which is to buy back half of the countervailing duties. Why is the government abandoning our workers when Washington has been acting in bad faith for the past 40 years?”
“Madam Chair, I rise in the House this evening with a great deal of pride and respect to represent and speak on behalf of the people in my riding, the workers, entrepreneurs and businesses that have been struggling for far too long. In my region, in the Lower St. Lawrence, in Rimouski-Neigette, in La Mitis and in La Matapédia, the forestry industry is our lifeblood, just as it is for Les Basques, whose residents I salute. We have to remember one thing. When the industry gets brushed aside and does not get support, the whole region suffers. This directly and indirectly hurts the area's entire economy. I would like my colleague to tell me in concrete terms how the government can claim to be protecting our regions when it allows the United States to impose a 45% tax. That amounts to $10 billion in illegitimate tariffs.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Bow River, and I was really struck by one of the answers he gave to another member. He said we need to let private companies do what they do best, which is stimulate the economy. Under the Liberals, the federal government paid $34 billion for the Trans Mountain pipeline, which was more than four times the original price. Now, what news are we expecting on Thursday? Another pipeline, possibly publicly funded. I would like my colleague to clarify whether he believes that a single penny of public money should be used to line the pockets of wealthy oil and gas companies that are producing oil for export, not for local consumption.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I encourage my colleague to reread the budget. Research funding is being cut by 2% at the three granting agencies. He says that I am stating falsehoods. I think it is up to him to take another look at things.”
“I would like my colleague to explain how he can say that he wants to be the best when he is not even making the research investments it takes to be the best in the world in terms of innovation.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague said in his speech that we must focus on what we can control. The Council of Canadian Academies has confirmed that Canada is experiencing a major research and innovation crisis. Investment is falling. There is a brain drain. Productivity is stagnating, and the federal system is falling behind the rest of the world. What is there for research and innovation in the most recent federal budget? There is a 2% cut. There is no increase to offset inflation and no support for the next generation of scientists. Do we know what else his government is saying? It is speaking out of both sides of its mouth when it says that it wants to be the best and a global leader in innovation. I have a plant at home. If I do not water it, it may not grow.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is something extremely dangerous about this budget. I invite my colleague to turn to page 301. She will see that the government is being allowed to circumvent all laws, except the Criminal Code, in order to push forward projects disguised as innovation. Here in Parliament, we make the laws. However, now those laws can be circumvented if a minister comes along and says he has a good project. There is no need for assessments. There is no need to follow the laws. The government is giving itself the power to override any law. I would like a clear explanation from my colleague. If this is not an open door to patronage and a serious departure from democracy, then what is it?”
“I would like my colleague to explain to me why the government is able to find $100 billion to provide tax credits until 2040, when it is unable to adequately support the health care system and honour the original agreement, which was to fund 50% of Quebec's health care system.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague said in his speech that health care was a priority for him, so he will have to provide me with some explanations regarding the budget. Under the agreement between the federal government and Quebec, the federal government was supposed to cover 50% of health care costs. It is currently paying about 22%. I think that my colleague can see that there is a discrepancy there. We also note that, starting in 2028, health transfers will not increase by more than 3%, even though health care costs are rising by 5% or 6% a year. This discrepancy creates a $1-billion annual deficit for Quebec's health care system. I hope that the member understands that as well.”
“Mr. Speaker, there was a lot to take in from my colleague's speech. Where to begin? I want to talk about the one thing that the Liberals and the Conservatives agree on: oil. Recently, we found out that there will be an announcement on Thursday about a new pipeline. I would like to remind the Conservatives and everyone listening that we already invested $34 billion of taxpayers' money to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline. Did this decision benefit an already rich oil company or the people? People are already having a hard time because of the food crisis and the housing crisis. The climate crisis, however, seems to have faded away, as though it were happening on another planet. I would like my colleague to explain something. Do oil and tax credits help the people, or do they help wealthy corporations?”
“There are cuts to government spending, cuts to the public service and 15,000 people are at risk of being laid off. There is unprecedented spending in the military sector. There are tax credits for oil and gas companies to the tune of $100 billion until 2040. Give me a break. This is such a Conservative budget that Conservatives are crossing the floor to join the Liberals. I would like my colleague to specifically tell me what she does not like about the budget policies, apart from the deficit.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague on her speech. I agree with some of the things she said. One is that the Liberal government changed the accounting rules. This criticism was echoed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The Liberals are trying to hide a deficit with artificial assets of $45 billion out of $78 billion. That is basically tantamount to trying to deceive people, at least those who have a basic understanding of accounting and finance. That said, I have a question for my colleague. I do not understand the Conservatives' position. They told us that they would not support the budget if the deficit exceeded $42 billion. I do not hear them criticizing the government's policies. Based on what I see, this is a Conservative budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague just said that this government has a clear vision. Let us discuss its clear vision. It is running a record $78‑billion deficit, based on $45 billion in so-called investments in assets, a practice that has been criticized by the Parliamentary Budget Officer himself. I want my colleague to explain how he can talk about fiscal restraint when he is involved in running the biggest deficit in history and also changing the accounting rules in an attempt to muddy the waters. Has his definition of fiscal restraint changed, or is it his definition of fiscal transparency that has changed?”
“When we see Conservative members crossing the floor to join the Liberals, is that not because this is a Conservative budget?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is rather funny to hear the Conservatives say today that they are not in favour of the budget because the deficit is too high. I would like to remind my colleagues that Quebec's motto is "Je me souviens", or I remember. In 2009, the Harper government ran a record $55.6-billion deficit. If we enter that number into a calculator and adjust for inflation, we get about $78 billion. That is roughly the same amount as today's deficit. The Conservatives ran up deficits for six consecutive years, including the deficit of 2009. Now they are telling us that the deficit is too big and that they do not support the budget. My colleague says it is not in the Conservative DNA. I would like her to explain that to us today.”
“Mr. Speaker, can we have an emergency debate on this in 20 seconds? It is so insulting. We get robbed and ripped off, and then we are supposed to say thank you when they give us our own money back. Unbelievable. The Liberals spent $814 million on an election goody, a vote-buying handout, all from a tax that was never collected. To borrow another member's catchphrase, it is scandalous. In my view, building a strong Canada does not mean spitting on Quebec, stealing its money and ripping it off every day.”
“My colleague put the question to the minister in English. I do not know whether she does not understand French, whether she understands English better, or whether she is more inclined to follow orders when she gets them in English, but I think we are largely in agreement. Quebec's regions are completely left out of this budget. Once again, the focus is on objectives that have nothing to do with our realities and our priorities.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and I salute him. If I may make a pun on his name, I would say that he is very “generous” with his comments, and I am humbled by them. This is a red-letter day. I appreciate the way the member operates. I think we are both clear-headed. We come from the same region. We experience the same situations. I wish to salute the fine people of Témiscouata, whom he represents. I was the one who represented them proudly and with dignity for five years. Of course, while I still carry them with me in my heart, due to the redistribution, they are no longer in my riding. I hope my colleague takes the time to explore this spectacular region and say hello to everyone there. As I said, there is next to nothing in the budget for the Lower St. Lawrence.”
“When a government has nothing to hide, it proves that its bills are good and it gets them passed using the processes in place, but that is not what this government is doing right now.”
“Mr. Speaker, it always amuses me to hear my colleague from Winnipeg North speak. He says that his government makes laws, but then it makes other laws to get around and sidestep the laws it made. What is the point of making laws if they can be sidestepped? That is what the government did with Bill C‑5 . That is quite clear. He tells us that his government has some good bills, and yet the government does not want to comply with the laws it has made, so a new law is needed to get around them. What makes a bill good is when it abides by the law. It is pretty easy to understand. That is what democracy is all about. After that, we can debate, we can amend the laws or make adjustments. In this case, however, the government is trying to get around a dozen laws.”
“Quebec is doing its part and investing in the future, but Ottawa continues to insist on funding the past: oil companies, federal megastructures and web giants. Bill C‑15 does not respond to any of Quebec's priorities. It ignores our needs and weakens our regions. What is more, it infringes on our jurisdictions and diverts our resources to yesterday's industries. That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill. Quebec deserves better and so do our regions. The people that I am proud to represent, the people of Rimouski‑Neigette, La Mitis, La Matapédia and Les Basques, deserve a government that will finally make them the focus of its decisions.”
“We have seen it happen countless times since the Quebec nation came into existence. There is another issue that we have reason to be up in arms about, and that is the much-talked-about high-speed rail project. The government is unilaterally taking control of this infrastructure project. In the omnibus Bill C-15 , the government invokes its declaratory power to make the Quebec-Ontario high-speed rail project an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction. That is a direct infringement on Quebec's jurisdiction. It sets a dangerous precedent that should concern anyone who cares about respect for the division of powers. I hope my Conservative colleagues are listening to this. They respect provincial autonomy, but only when it suits them.”
“Contrary to what the government promised, Crown corporations will not even have to demonstrate that the money is reducing costs for consumers. It is a handout in disguise. The government is giving money to corporations that can do with it as they please. No one is even going to check whether it is good for the public. Forget about accountability. Once again, who is paying for this? It is Quebec that is paying, while others cash in at our expense. It is like the $814 million that the Liberals stole from us. What a nice gift to hand out in the middle of an election on the backs of Quebeckers. We get punished because we are different. We get punished because we are innovators. That is the federal government all over. The federalist parties team up and walk all over us, and we see proof of that again today.”
“There are no criteria, no plan, no accountability and, worst of all, no agreement with the Quebec government. This means needless overlap from a parallel federal structure encroaching directly on our jurisdiction. In Quebec, we are not better or worse; we are just different. We have the Société d'habitation du Québec. We did not wait for the federal government to build homes. We took charge ourselves because we believe in our potential, our vision and, above all, our ambitions. I am going to switch gears now and talk about the clean electricity tax credit. It will benefit oil companies, but mostly, it will benefit the oil- and gas-producing provinces. The credit covers 15% of investments, even in provinces where electricity comes from coal or gas.”
“Clause 208 of Bill C-15 allows a minister to exempt any company from the application of any federal law, except the Criminal Code, for three years, without vote, without debate, without guardrails. This is a power that should never exist in a democracy. Bill C-15 is Bill C-5 on steroids. Ottawa has created a new housing agency called Build Canada Homes with a budget of $11.5 billion. Its French name is “Maisons Canada”, but it started out as “Bâtir Maisons Canada”. No one knows what to call this program anymore. It reminds me of the song Une main haute and some of the election campaign speeches. When they are not messing around with program names, they mess around with songs. This Liberal government just makes it up as it goes along.”
“It abolished the digital services tax, a 3% tax on web giants, which would have brought in $7.2 billion. The Bloc Québecois did not cancel this tax. The Liberals did. They had acknowledged the need for this tax and laid the groundwork. They were scheduled to implement it in July. Other countries stood their ground. France stood up to Donald Trump, and so did Italy, Spain, and the U.K. Ottawa caved in. By repealing the act, the government deprived itself of strong leverage it could have used in the trade negotiations with Washington. To make matters worse, it is refusing to extend the print media tax credit to electronic media. This is a simple but urgent measure. Ottawa is turning its back on regional news, and our communities are paying the price. The problems do not end there.”
“Just last week, TVA announced more job cuts at the Rimouski station, which went from 30 employees to only eight at present. There is only one camera operator to cover a huge geographic area. There used to be three, but from now on, the journalists will also handle filming. A total of 87 positions have been eliminated in Montreal, Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivières, Saguenay and Rimouski, in my riding. A total of 28 jobs were lost in the regions, and approximately 800 have been lost since 2023. This is not just an economic issue; it is an issue of democracy. (1140) When regional news outlets shut down, our realities, our voices and our municipalities vanish from the public discourse. Instead of helping our media outlets, what did the government do?”
“I represent the people of Rimouski-Neigette, La Mitis, Matapédia, and Les Basques with dignity and pride. I want to say hello to them. These are strong and united communities with deep roots in their region. However, nothing in this budget or in Bill C-15 truly reflects our realities and priorities. Some of our regional media outlets are floundering. Our infrastructure is aging. There is a housing shortage going on everywhere, from big cities to villages. Our businesses are facing a labour shortage. Our cultural, community and science organizations are struggling to stay afloat. Bill C‑15 makes no mention of the Lower St. Lawrence or the people I represent. In our region, this is not merely a theoretical issue; it is a daily reality.”
“First, it allocates billions of dollars to introducing new grants for fossil fuels, extending the carbon capture tax credit until 2041—the “new fossil fuel fig leaf”, I call it—adding small nuclear reactors to supply heat for bitumen extraction, and opening the door to letting liquefied natural gas qualify for a tax credit that was not designed for such a thing. The government is sending a clear message today that the energy transition can wait, but oil subsidies cannot. While Quebec is investing in hydroelectricity, wind power, biomass, clean innovations and smart grids, Ottawa is funding yesterday's energy sources. Quebec is making efforts to move forward with a transition, while Ottawa is funding things that set us back. I am a proud member from the Lower St. Lawrence.”
“I hope they are tuning in today, and I want to say hello to them. At first glance, I would say that this budget seems a little conservative. I never thought I would say such thing. We are seeing Conservatives crossing the floor to join the Liberal Party. They are not just crossing the floor because the lunch is better on the other side. They are doing it because the budget has some good things in it that align strongly with the Conservative ideology. It does not matter what party is in power, because the budget does not meet the needs and priorities of Quebeckers. Let us now turn to Bill C-15 , which attempts to conceal some of the most troubling measures we have seen in recent years in its 650 pages amending 49 different acts.”
“We wanted the government to take care of people, support seniors, increase health transfers, maintain infrastructure, facilitate access to housing, and support families and workers more. There was nothing excessive about what we were asking; these are simply things the government should be doing to meet the basic needs of Quebeckers. However, Ottawa said “no” to all of this. This government not only ignored our priorities, but it also gave up the fight against climate change by abandoning the 2030 targets, by breaking a promise that Justin Trudeau had made with great fanfare to plant two billion trees, and by extending the tax credits for oil and gas companies until 2040, at a cost of $100 billion. However, the government has no money to take care of the most vulnerable people who are struggling right now.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to take part in this historic debate. The title of this budget is “Canada Strong”. Let me tell the House what I really think about it. Let us be clear: The budget tabled by this government is, in my opinion, an absolute sham. It contains a record deficit of $78 billion dressed up with some creative accounting in an attempt to make $45 billion in fictional investments look like actual spending. This Prime Minister 's track record in his first year is not looking good. He is doubling the deficit left by his predecessor. Like many other members, I would never have dreamed that anyone could make Justin Trudeau look frugal. The Bloc Québécois had put forward six reasonable budget requests firmly rooted in the needs of our communities.”
“Giving $150 million to CBC/Radio-Canada is all well and good, but this budget contains absolutely nothing for our private broadcasters and television networks. I would like my colleague from Drummond to clearly lay out the Bloc Québécois's expectations and the consequences of the federal government's inaction and irresponsible behaviour.”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend and congratulate my colleague from Drummond for his very thorough work. I enjoyed the touch of humour he added at the end of his speech, and I think it really picks up on what a lot of people are thinking. Over the years, my colleague has also demonstrated thoroughness in his work on culture and the media, whether national or regional. Right now, we are still faced with a media crisis at the national level and even at the regional level, and it is only getting worse. In Rimouski, in my riding, TVA has cut jobs. In 2023, the Rimouski station had 30 employees. Two years later, only eight remain. Since 2023, TVA has cut nearly 800 jobs in all. The government tells us day after day during question period that it is investing in the media.”
“May his legacy inspire future generations, and may our public policy remain grounded in the values he cherished: rigour, curiosity and scientific integrity. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I extend my thanks to Rémi Quirion for all he has done.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the illustrious career of Quebec's chief scientist, Rémi Quirion, who will be retiring in the spring. He was appointed in 2011 when this role was initially created. As Quebec's first chief scientist, he laid the foundations for the role, defined its areas of focus and built its credibility both in Quebec and abroad. Thanks to his vision and his gift for bringing people together, he has forged lasting bonds between the areas of research, education, innovation and public policy. While serving successive ministers and governments over the years, he has remained true to the fundamental principle of decision-making based on science, fact and the search for truth. We wish him all the best in his well-deserved retirement.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage with my colleague on a matter of great concern to me, specifically science, research and innovation. As the Bloc Québécois critic for this file, I always make it my duty to express the concerns and demands of the scientific community. This budget does not include any increase in funding for the three granting agencies or anything to boost student scholarships. There is nothing to offset the inflation that is stifling university researchers. This government claims that it wants to be the world leader in innovation, but innovation requires research. Could my colleague explain how this government can claim to be leading the world in innovation when it refuses to invest in the science that makes that possible?”
“Now she is telling us that this budget will take care of everyone, but the fact is that it will take care of the oil and gas companies by offering them $100 billion in tax credits until 2040. Will that meet her constituents' needs? I very much doubt it. This former mayor also talked about infrastructure. Investing $9 billion in infrastructure is peanuts. It is a drop in the bucket. She will never convince me that this is going to solve Canada's infrastructure problems. I would like my colleague to explain to me how, given what I just said, she thinks this budget will really help the people who are struggling in her riding.”