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 5 of 8.
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. To hear her talk, unicorns are descending on Ottawa, and this budget will solve all of our problems. What I particularly liked about my colleague's speech was that she really highlighted who this budget is intended to help, namely the economic elite, the Prime Minister 's friends. In her speech, she talked about numerous meetings. The people the Prime Minister wants to help are his friends, his buddies, the bankers and multinationals who are already filthy rich, not the real people who need money—seniors, young families and people who struggle daily to pay their bills, buy groceries and clothes and secure housing. She was clear about that.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Mississauga—Lakeshore is being very inconsistent. Today he is saying that debt helps create wealth. When he was Ontario's finance minister, however, he said he was determined to balance the budgets to get the government's house in order. Today he is defending a budget that creates a deficit of $78 billion, $45 billion of which was artificially reclassified as investments to lower the deficit on paper. Today the Liberal Party is saying that the world has changed. I would like my colleague to explain what has changed: his principles regarding fiscal discipline or the Liberal definition of transparency.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives pride themselves on being champions of fiscal restraint. I would like to remind my colleague that, under the Harper government in 2009, the deficit was $55 billion. Taking that data and adjusting it for today's inflation puts us pretty much in the same ball park. The Conservatives are saying that the deficit in this budget is too big and that they would have limited it to $42 billion. What I see in this budget, which looks more like a Conservative budget, is record military spending, a massive tax cut and handouts to oil companies. Do the Conservatives really oppose the deficit, or do they oppose it only because it is not their deficit?”
“Madam Speaker, the Conservatives would love to import the so-called three strikes law. In the United States, a third conviction means life in prison. It is causing the prison population to explode, and it is not reducing crime. Experts tell us that crime stems from the housing crisis, addictions and inadequate services. Why are the Conservatives so focused on a policy that does not work and does not reduce crime, instead of adopting an approach based on evidence, rigour, accountability and, above all, prevention?”
“I would like my colleague to explain how he sees a fundamental need versus a fundamental right in our society. What is he proposing today with regard to this bill introduced by the government?”
“Madam Speaker, today being October 30, 2025, allow me to acknowledge a historic moment in Quebec's history. Thirty years ago today, the Lower St. Lawrence said yes: yes to the country of Quebec, yes to liberty, yes to pride. It very courageously said yes. That same conviction is still very much alive today among the people in my region. We want to be masters of our own destiny because Quebec's independence is the logical next step in our history, our language, our culture, our identity, our very existence. My question for my colleague is this. We know that the Conservative Party wanted to implement reforms in an attempt to improve certain aspects of security. At the same time, it wanted to challenge a fundamental principle of justice, namely the presumption of innocence.”
“Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleague from Winnipeg North of something. Perhaps he does not spend enough time in the House to realize that it was his government that, with the support of the Conservative Party, imposed a gag order on the House last June regarding Bill C‑5 , a bill on projects of national interest. After several months, we still do not know what the projects of national interest are. I think it would be good to refresh my colleague's memory. Quebec's motto is Je me souviens . Perhaps my colleague still does not understand what it means, even after many years in the House, but I make it my duty to remind him. I would like my Conservative colleague to share what she thinks of what the government is doing right now. Once again, it is dismissing the committee's work with the support of the NDP through the back door.”
“I would like my colleague to share her thoughts about the fact that the government is repeating what it has done in recent years with the support of the NDP, which is to say, disrespecting the will of the committee and the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, what is happening today in the House is quite bizarre. The government has decided to completely disregard all of the committee's work. However, they claim to be transparent and to be working democratically by respecting the opposition parties. This is not how that works. Members used House resources, which are paid for with public money, to carry out their work, but since it did not line up with the government's ideological vision, it got tossed aside. Obviously, there is one party that needs to be named: the New Democratic Party. They are trying to form alliances with the government, which they want to support once again for possibly strategic and ideological reasons.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing quite a spectacle today. The member for Kingston and the Islands and his Liberal colleagues have just woken up. There is no one to speak to Bill C-12 . The member just arrived, though the House has been in session since 10 a.m. Where were his colleagues? I am asking them to take this more seriously, to be a little more diligent. The government put Bill C‑12 on the agenda for debate and then it did not send anyone to speak to the bill. As we know, when someone wants to hide their shortcomings, they talk about other people. That is exactly what my colleague from Kingston and the Islands just did. I would like him to tell me honestly why his party did not send anyone to speak to the bill today.”
“I would like my colleague to tell me whether she agrees that the government needs to finally take responsibility for the situation and send a message to reassure the universities about their image, as well as their international credibility.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. We agree on many things. I would like her to talk about a subject that has not really been broached today, and that is the issue of foreign students trying to exploit loopholes to apply for asylum. In Quebec, there were 340 such cases in 2020. How many were there in 2024? There were 5,535, an increase of over 1,500%. When we questioned the Minister of Immigration , she was unable to give us an answer. She read out data from a sheet of paper. That is not reassuring. The government is irresponsible. It is not taking responsibility, and it is incapable of reassuring the universities. It wants them to do the policing, but that is not their role.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. This bill discusses security at the border, as well as security in our communities. Recent media reports indicate that young people are increasingly turning to guns to protect themselves against criminal groups. That is concerning. As usual, we come back to the issue of prevention and education. When criminal groups cross our borders and try to recruit vulnerable young people, young people who are susceptible to joining these groups, I think that we need to have a discussion that rises above partisanship. What does the Conservative Party think about this phenomenon that is increasingly taking root in our communities?”
“Mr. Speaker, I share many of my colleague's concerns. In Quebec, we have suffered and continue to suffer from a lack of border security due to the Liberal government's lax attitude and abdication of responsibility. Not to name names, but Roxham Road is where 150,000 people over five years have crossed irregularly through fields with the help of smuggling rings. When we pointed this out and raised the fact that the safe third country agreement needed to be reviewed, the Liberal Party told us that it could not possibly do that because it would be too bureaucratic and that the agreement could not be changed. It is not right to take people into a country, handcuff them and leave them with the RCMP. Given this egregious example of bungling, I would like my colleague to tell me what he now thinks of the Liberal government and its inaction.”
“Madam Speaker, I will give my colleague a chance to put on his earpiece so that he can understand one of the two official languages of the House. My question is about the number of officers the government promised to hire. In April, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to hire 2,000 more officers: 1,000 CBSA officers and 1,000 RCMP officers. Last week, six months later, he repeated what he had already promised during the election campaign. I would like to understand the Conservative Party's position. Are the Conservatives prepared to say that this situation is unacceptable? We are constantly being promised hires that never materialize. I would like to hear the Conservatives' opinion on the number of officers to be hired and when these hires should be made in order to further secure our borders.”
“The Prime Minister sent a clear message to the press, yet back in the House, during the legislative process, the government seems disorganized, lacking in vision and unsure where it is headed. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the facts I just laid out.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to share his opinion on something a bit ridiculous that is happening in the House today and that goes well beyond Bill C‑12. The government added an extra day to the orders of the day to discuss Bill C-12 , which was tabled by the Liberals themselves. However, there are no additional speakers on the Liberal side. That makes me wonder. Are they embarrassed to send people out to speak? Are they afraid to say things they might regret? Opposition party parliamentarians are being forced to speak to fill a gap of the government's own making. Yesterday, however, at a big press conference, the Prime Minister said he was concerned about the economy and the trade crisis.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague was obviously speaking of the reality on the ground. I would like him to tell us where the Conservative Party was when people were entering Canada through the irregular border crossing at Roxham Road. In five years, more than 150,000 people made that journey. That is the reality on the ground. The Conservative Party said not a word; it had no plan and no solutions. I would also like to remind my colleague of Quebec's motto: “Je me souviens”, or I remember. When the Conservative Party formed the government in 2015 under Stephen Harper, its plan was to cut border officers. That is the reality on the ground today. I would like my colleague to tell us, in all honesty, what the plan is: Does he want more border control, but fewer staff? I would like him to explain that to me.”
“I am not saying that to scare people, but if we want to find solutions to a problem, then we have to face reality and tell people the truth in order to bolster public confidence.”
“Mr. Speaker, 35 seconds is not enough time to explain this government's bungling over the past 10 years. Again, Roxham Road is a monumental disaster. To return to my colleague's question, last April the government promised us 2,000 officers: 1,000 for the RCMP and 1,000 for the CBSA. Last week, the Liberals held another press conference and repeated what they said in April. They told us that we have to wait for the next budget, that it will be in there. That is just straight-up recycling. What we are telling them is that they need to listen to what the people on the ground are asking for and saying. According to the Customs and Immigration Union, Canada has never had so little control over its borders.”
“Mr. Speaker, we can see the consequences. I gave the example of Roxham Road. I would have liked the Conservative Party to get more involved in this issue. When 150,000 people use a loophole to enter irregularly, I think that is a problem, but the Conservatives only get involved when it suits them. To answer my colleague's question, the consequences are already apparent: Organized crime is becoming more prevalent in communities and people feel unsafe. Then there is fentanyl. Again, this requires coordination and mobilizing resources, not just good intentions. I hope the government will get to work as soon as possible. It needs to hire officers, but also ensure coordination, with a coordinated strategic plan.”
“I am all for hearing that things are going in the right direction, but they need to stop trying to pacify people with press conferences and take action, instead of questioning motives and saying nice things at press conferences.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is pretty easy to understand. What we want is to restore public trust in the security of our borders. I will say it again: Trust is built with actions, not intentions. Right now, we are constantly being fed recycled statements. As I said in my speech, the Prime Minister repeated what he had said six months ago. Now we are being told that there will be money in the next budget on November 4. The Liberals cannot even tell us how many new officers they hired in the last six months. They are patting themselves on the back and telling us to trust them because there will be 2,000 new officers, but they are short more than the number that they promised. This is already an inconsistency. Once again, why wait months to do something that they could have done before?”
“The Bloc Québécois will ensure that Quebec's voice is heard, so that a fairer redistribution can be put in place and refugees can be accommodated in a way that respects Quebec's capacity and jurisdiction. At committee, we will propose that the public safety minister be required to table a public report each year on the resources and operations of the CBSA. Quebeckers have the right to know whether their border is really being protected. This debate highlights a broader issue. When Ottawa centralizes, Quebec waits. When Ottawa promises, Quebec must be patient. When Ottawa fails, it is Quebec that pays the price. To summarize, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-12 at second reading, but let us be clear: Our support is not a free pass.”
“We will also be scrutinizing the provisions that give new powers to the federal immigration minister, particularly the proposed addition to section 87 that would allow the minister to suspend, cancel or refuse to process visas, electronic travel authorizations or study permits. There is a legitimate objective for that, namely to combat fraud. However, these powers must be circumscribed, especially if they impact permanent residents selected by Quebec. If there are no guardrails on this power, it could even invalidate decisions made under the Quebec experience program or other federal-provincial agreements. This would set a momentous precedent. For years, Quebec has accepted a disproportionate number of asylum seekers, significantly in excess of its intake capacity. This situation has become untenable.”
“For too long, this agreement allowed anyone who entered irregularly outside an official point of entry to file an asylum claim if they were not intercepted within 14 days. This provision encouraged clandestine and sometimes hazardous crossings. The government partially closed this loophole, but it did so without negotiating with Washington, preferring a unilateral solution instead. Now, anyone intercepted after 14 days will be returned to their country of origin, unless it is a moratorium country. This is progress, but it is still incomplete. The Bloc Québécois will be monitoring the impact of this reform to ensure it does not create any new inconsistencies.”
“Meanwhile, the same department is refusing to provide universities with data on individuals who filed a refugee claim after getting a study permit. In other words, Ottawa is asking universities to solve a problem without giving them the necessary information to do that. This inconsistency is irresponsible. The Bloc Québécois will not allow universities to become an administrative appendage of a department that is not doing its job. We are pleased that the bill seeks to close this loophole, but a lot more needs to be done to make Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada genuinely transparent and accountable. This bureaucratic inconsistency is also clear from the way Ottawa administers the safe third country agreement.”
“For months now, universities have been sounding the alarm about the worrisome issue of fake students who enter Canada on a student visa, attend no classes and make an asylum claim after one year. These cases of fraud undermine the credibility of our university system and deny genuine talent a place at these institutions. In a system that limits the number of international students, every spot matters. The most troubling thing about this is the way Ottawa has reacted. Instead of taking responsibility, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is asking universities to police foreign students and to verify every student's attendance record and legitimacy. It seems to expect deans to act as immigration officers.”
“We are not talking about replacing the RCMP, but rather empowering CBSA officers to intervene on the ground in places where trafficking and illegal border crossings occur. Nothing is preventing the government from doing so, apart from its own inaction. (1635) When containers filled with stolen vehicles leave our ports without undergoing any inspection, this is not an administrative detail. It is a loss of sovereignty. The border is also a matter of economic sovereignty. When imported products are brought into the country in violation of trade rules, our producers and local businesses pay the price. The Bloc Québécois will support any measure that protects Quebec's security and economy. As the Bloc Québécois's science and innovation critic, I would also like to address the issue of asylum claims filed by some international students.”
“The government keeps making announcements, but on the ground, positions remain vacant. Inspections are not being conducted at ports, and border regions are still awaiting reinforcements. The government even promised to review the pension plans of frontline officers in recognition of the fact that their jobs are so difficult, but once again, there was no meaningful follow-up. Officers are still waiting for concrete action, not press releases. The government may be proud of its promises, but what it is saying in press conferences does not match reality. Trust is built on action, not on mere intentions. The Bloc Québécois, like the customs union, is asking that Ottawa authorize CBSA officers to patrol between border crossings.”
“When the Bloc Québécois asked to renegotiate the safe third country agreement to close Roxham Road, the government responded with bureaucratic excuses. As a result, there have been six years of neglect and Quebec was left to fend for itself. This makeshift system where Quebec's role is to pay up while Ottawa communicates is a shining example of the federal government's denial. A border left open for six years is no border. It is an abdication of responsibility. Ottawa likes to talk about a strong Canada. However, a strong country is not built on press releases. It is built with staff, equipment and commitment. Let us talk about staff. The customs union estimates that the Canada Border Services Agency currently needs another 2,000 to 3,000 officers to properly fulfill its mandate.”
“If anyone is looking for concrete proof of the disparity between words and actions, they need only think of Roxham Road, a symbol of the Liberals' failure to control our borders. Between 2017 and 2023, more than 150,000 people crossed this border irregularly. In 2022 alone, there were nearly 40,000 crossings, more than all previous years combined. Of these irregular entries, nearly 90% were in Quebec. Quebec therefore bore the human, logistical and financial burden of this situation alone, spending more than $400 million on accommodation, services and support. Rather than taking action, Ottawa allowed the issue to fester, repeating that nothing could be done, until the pressure became untenable.”
“This bill incorporates several measures already included in Bill C-2 , which is intended to combat transnational organized crime. Rather than piling up more legislation, the government would do better to enforce existing laws. I would like to remind the House that the government's border security promises are not new. On April 10, 2025, in the midst of the election campaign, the Liberal leader, the Prime Minister that is, proudly announced in Brampton that his government would hire 1,000 RCMP officers and another 1,000 CBSA officers in order to curb the flow of migrants and combat fentanyl trafficking. Six months later, on October 17, the same Prime Minister repeated the same announcement word for word, this time presenting it as a bold new measure. The same numbers, the same promise, the same speech—in short, nothing new at all.”
“Mr. Speaker, a border is not just a line on a map. It is a symbol of our security, our sovereignty and our ability to make our own decisions. For 10 years, the federal government has been turning a blind eye while stolen vehicles leave our ports, fentanyl crosses our borders and Quebec alone bears the brunt of unprecedented migratory pressure. Today Ottawa is taking action, but only because it no longer has a choice. During all that time, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for better border control and increased efforts to combat organized crime and drug trafficking. To us and the Government of Quebec, Bill C-12 is a step in the right direction. However, let us be clear: Our support is not a carte blanche endorsement. Before praising the bill, we must also recognize its limitations.”
“In addition, the Customs and Immigration Union is calling for between 2,000 and 3,000 new officers to be hired. The government has announced the hiring of 1,000 officers, but it did not specify when that would happen. The government also said that there have already been two press conferences on the subject and that this will be included in the upcoming budget. I would like my colleague to tell the public the truth and stop repeating things to try to lull us into complacency.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. He said that the borders are strong and secure. One does not introduce a bill to strengthen borders that are already strong and secure. What my colleague is saying is illogical. I would like to share with him some findings from independent observers. The Office of the Auditor General has pointed out that delays, a shortage of officers and a lack of performance evaluations at the Canada Border Services Agency are undermining the effectiveness of border controls. Meanwhile, the Customs and Immigration Union notes that Canada has never had so little capacity to control its borders. I do not know what my colleague is basing his claim on, when he says that our borders are strong and secure, because others are clearly saying something completely different.”
“Does my colleague think that the government needs to make the same announcement three times before finally taking action?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the residents of Rimouski—La Matapédia, whom I proudly represent. I would also like to acknowledge the residents of La Mitis, Les Basques and Neigette. The government seems to be recycling announcements all the time, not just some of the time. Last week, it recycled a major press conference where it announced that it would secure our borders. This is the same promise that the government and the Prime Minister himself made back in April. The government talked about hiring 1,000 new CBSA officers. It promised to hire 1,000 new RCMP officers. During this time, how many officers did the government actually hire? The answer is zero. The government repeated the same announcement twice.”
“Mr. Speaker, I need my colleague to explain something to us. In April, through the Prime Minister , the government promised to hire 1,000 new CBSA officers and 1,000 new RCMP members. Six months later, just last week, the government repeated its April announcement to us. Can my colleague tell us how many officers have been hired since April? If none have been hired, what is the plan? How many officers will be hired, and what is the exact timeline?”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the minister's speech, including the part where she said that her bill would solve problems that her own department had created. For months now, the government has been asking universities to act like the police. It wants them to investigate the problem surrounding international students trying to use loopholes in the system to apply for student visas and then claim asylum. That is a failure of the system. The universities tell us that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is refusing to share its data with them. It is making universities do the heavy lifting. I would like the minister to reassure us today by telling us that she will finally demand that her department live up to its responsibilities and stop passing the buck to the universities.”
“Mr. Speaker, Via Rail receives $1.3 billion from Ottawa to provide regional connectivity, yet nothing has been spent on improving services in eastern Quebec. In Rimouski, the train comes barely three times a week, at about 2 a.m. This is completely disconnected from the reality of a regional capital and especially the reality of residents who need to travel for medical treatment, school or to see family members. Since this government is paying Via Rail to serve the regions, will it insist that Via Rail quit ignoring eastern Quebec?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain how we can possibly trust the Liberal government and take it seriously right now. This is the same government that totally betrayed first nations four months ago when it failed to consult them on a project in the national interest. Members will recall Bill C‑5 , which was passed on closure with the support of the official opposition, the Conservative Party. The Conservatives do not brag too much about that, especially since it was a new government that was four weeks old. It was really unprecedented. To come back to my question for my colleague, I wonder how we can trust people who did not consult first nations four months ago and who are also telling us today that they are going to establish a commissioner who will be an observer with no teeth.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives boast about being the best at reconciliation. This is what we have heard today. However, four months ago, they supported the Liberals' Bill C‑5 , a bill dealing with nation-building projects that went against consultations with first nations. Today, they are telling us that, in the Harper era, they signed more treaties than the Liberals, so they are the best. Today, they are telling us that they do not really agree with Bill C‑10 , using bureaucracy as an excuse. They may be the best at accountability, but only when it suits them. My question for my colleague is simple. Are the Conservatives not afraid that, in the event that they return to power, they would have to be accountable to a commissioner who we hope will have real teeth?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals keep saying that they want to advance reconciliation. However, four months ago, not four years ago, they passed Bill C‑5 , which deals with nation-building projects, without consulting first nations. This was criticized by the Assembly of First Nations and by Inuit and Métis communities. Today, the Liberals are proposing Bill C‑10 . They would create the position of a commissioner for modern treaty implementation without giving the commissioner any real powers. The commissioner would have no teeth. They would be able to examine the situation and make recommendations, but their hands would be tied. They would not be able to make binding recommendations. Are the Liberals afraid of actual accountability, which would force them to face up to their unfulfilled promises to first nations?”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives often talk about accountability, but only when it suits them, it seems. For them, reconciliation seems to be nothing more than a slogan, used only when it suits their vision. They are telling us that Bill C-10 creates too much bureaucracy. Real bureaucracy is when the federal government announces, promises and repeats things without ever delivering results. That is real bureaucracy. We understand that the bill is not perfect. We would like the commissioner to have more power to enforce. People have been calling for this for the past 20 years, even when the Conservatives were in power under Stephen Harper. Will my colleague support Bill C-10 today, or will he once again turn a blind eye, claiming that this involves too much bureaucracy and that, ultimately, it does not suit their interests?”
“How could his party also vote in favour of a closure motion to help the Liberals muzzle the House just four weeks into a new government? How exactly does my colleague plan to extract a reasonable explanation and justification from all these contradictions?”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. He said the Conservative Party is a reconciliation champion because, during the Harper era, it was the first official party to apologize for residential schools. I find that interesting, but I would like him to explain the disconnect between that statement and what his party did a few months ago when Bill C‑5 was introduced. There was no prior consultation of indigenous communities about that bill. The Assembly of First Nations and Métis and Inuit communities all spoke out against that, but the Conservative Party never did. It said nothing at all. I think perhaps the Conservatives should be a little more careful about claiming to be reconciliation champions. There is one major contradiction in particular that I would like my colleague to explain.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I will wait until he puts his earpiece in so that he can understand one of the two official languages in the House. Here is my question for my colleague. We know full well that the Conservative Party is the champion of accountability. In this bill, the new commissioner only has the power to observe. They have no power to enforce and to actually change things. They can watch, but their hands are tied. They cannot change anything. I would like my colleague to tell me whether his party agrees that the commissioner should be given real mechanisms so that they can actually change things when the government acts against first nations.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to clarify something for me in terms of words and actions. She speaks of reconciliation and transparency and yet, in June, this government tabled Bill C‑5 without first consulting indigenous communities, for which it was criticized. How can we trust a government that completely ignored indigenous communities only a few months ago but is now saying that it wants true reconciliation?”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. She referred to a key word, namely “accountability”. There is something I would like her to clarify for me: Where is the accountability in this bill? The new commissioner will have the power to analyze but not the power to compel action. This means that the commissioner would be able to paint a picture of the government's shortcomings but would not be able to change anything. It is like hiring a referee but not even giving them a whistle. Could my colleague explain something to me? Could it be that the Liberals are afraid of implementing actual mechanisms for holding them accountable for their actions?”