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 6 of 8.
“I would therefore like my colleague to explain something. If there is a genuine desire for reconciliation, why did his party support a bill that was drafted without consulting first nations? This bill concerning major projects of national interest will have a huge impact on first peoples.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech suggests that he has experience in this area. However, I would like him to clarify something for me. There is a contradiction between the Conservative Party's intentions and actions today and what we saw in June. The government introduced Bill C-5 in June. The Conservatives supported this bill concerning projects of national interest, but not just any old way. A gag order was imposed after the new government had been in power for just four weeks, and the official opposition supported it. That has not happened very frequently in Canadian history. Bill C-5 has been criticized, particularly by indigenous communities, because there was no prior consultation. They were simply sent a document and given five days to respond and say whether they were okay with it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Winnipeg North. He mentioned that true reconciliation is not limited to apologies. I would like him to explain to us today why his government is not repealing the Indian Act, a discriminatory, colonial and paternalistic law imposed on first nations. That piece of legislation embodies everything that stands in the way of true reconciliation. Why, after all these years, has his government not taken steps to repeal the Indian Act?”
“Taking a page out of the charter, which the government says it wants to defend and enforce, is not about defending the charter; it is about censorship. I would like my colleague to explain how the charter can be defended by removing or limiting its section 33, the notwithstanding clause.”
“Mr. Speaker, of course, my colleague's speech and the Liberals' central argument today is around the charter. They want to defend the charter. They want the charter to be front and centre. The charter is not a smorgasbord where people can just pick what they want. The charter includes section 33, the notwithstanding clause. That is what enabled the repatriation of the Constitution and the implementation of the charter. Let us try to illustrate that again to help my colleagues understand. The charter is like a book. The Liberals are not happy about one page ant they want to remove it. They want guidelines. In reality, all they want to do is attack Quebec's secularism and language model. That is the truth.”
“Mr. Speaker, I gather that my colleague from Bourassa is openly against the laicity law. I will read him my prepared answer. Laicity is not a threat to religious minorities; it protects them all equally. The notwithstanding clause is not an aberration; it is a tool provided in the Constitution to enable elected officials, not judges appointed by Ottawa, to rule on matters of societal debate. The real danger is not laicity. The real danger is a federal government that would prevent Quebec and the provinces from exercising their democratic rights. I would remind my colleague that laicity is a defining feature of the great western democracies. Only in Canada is it not. I would invite my colleague to listen to my speech again. I named all the countries that embrace the principles of laicity.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for that softball question. Here is another example. In Diefenbaker's charter, Canada had a notwithstanding clause. That was in the 1960s. He was the one who implemented the charter that included the notwithstanding clause. That was the deal. Today, the Liberals do not agree with the Quebec model's vision of its language, interculturalism and secularism. They decided to change the rules of the game, to go through the back door, to appoint judges to the Superior Court, to take over the courts and tell them that their legislation is invalid. We are simply asking them to grow a backbone and to show a little courage. If they want to debate the Constitution, we are prepared to do so, even though we never signed it.”
“It is going through the back door and using the courts so it can say that it is not the one challenging Bill 21 directly, but rather, it is the Supreme Court judges. We are not stupid enough to fall for that.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is on the wrong track. In my speech, I mentioned that this also has to do with other provinces. Other provinces have used the notwithstanding clause throughout history. I invite him to read the Ford decision, which states that there is no danger in using the notwithstanding clause. I would also remind him that, historically, the notwithstanding clause has been used for more than 100 pieces of legislation. It has been in place for 43 years. Now, the government is filing a factum, through the Attorney General, as part of a challenge to a Quebec law, Bill 21. That is why we are pushing this issue so hard. The truth that my colleague does not want to say aloud is that the Liberal government is afraid of losing political points by attacking Bill 21 directly.”
“The question is simple: Who decides for Quebec? Is it the National Assembly, made up of elected members who derive their legitimacy from the people of Quebec, or the Supreme Court appointed by Ottawa, interpreting a Constitution that we have never ratified? Ottawa chooses its judges while Quebec chooses its elected officials: that is the difference. As long as we remain strapped in this straitjacket, our collective choices will remain fragile, disputed and precarious. The only normal outcome for a normal nation is national independence, not against Canada, but for Quebec. Independence is the peaceful expression of a people that wants to decide for itself. Like all nations, as Lucien Bouchard used to say, Quebec is tired of always being told no. If Quebeckers keep being told no, they will eventually say yes, yes to our national destiny.”
“The Liberal government is attacking not only Bill 21, but also the parliamentary sovereignty of all the provinces. (1730) Above all, secularism is not a Quebec fantasy. France, Belgium, Germany, Austria and Denmark regulate the display of religious symbols in state institutions. The European Court of Human Rights has confirmed this on numerous occasions. In short, when it comes to secularism, Quebec is a normal nation. Canada is the outlier, and it has been so for a long time. Since 1982, it has always been the same story: repatriation without us, the failures of Meech and Charlottetown, challenges to Bill 101. Today, it is Bill 21, and soon it will be Bill 96. Every time Quebec wants to move forward, Ottawa changes the rules or imposes its judges. Every time, we hit the same wall. We are at a dead end.”
“Let us not forget that, thanks to the notwithstanding clause, Quebec has been able to make progress not only in terms of language and identity, but also in social matters. Here are a few examples. Small claims court, access to justice for all, was made possible by the notwithstanding clause. The Act Respecting Equal Access to Employment in Public Bodies was a step towards greater social justice. The Youth Protection Act, which ensures the protection of children's anonymity, is guaranteed by the notwithstanding clause. The notwithstanding clause is not the exception; it is democracy in action. Make no mistake, this is not just about Quebec. Five provinces, namely Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia, will take the same position before the Supreme Court.”
“Members will recall that he said that he was not afraid of the notwithstanding clause and that it is the elected representatives of the people who have the last word, not the courts. This notwithstanding clause works. It allows a parliament duly elected by the people to temporarily exempt a law from the courts. In other words, it puts the decision back in the hands of citizens. If a government abuses it, it will pay the price at the polls. That is the real limit: democracy. Forty years later, these same Liberals are the ones who decided to destroy what they had put in place earlier. The current Prime Minister is following in the destructive footsteps of Justin Trudeau and the centralist Liberal Party.”
“In his September 17 factum to the Supreme Court, the Attorney General of Canada had the nerve to claim that the use of the notwithstanding clause could lead to slavery, arbitrary execution or the banning of newspapers. These are not arguments; they are caricatures. This is what Ottawa thinks of Quebec democracy and its elected officials: that they would degenerate without the oversight of federal judges. The notwithstanding clause is not an abuse. It is an integral part of the Canadian Constitution. It was even the compromise that allowed the provinces to accept the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1981. In fact, it was Pierre Elliott Trudeau, a Liberal, who had to include it in order to get their agreement.”
“The invocation must be clear and explicit. It is written in black and white. The notwithstanding clause belongs to the elected representatives. It is up to Quebec to decide for itself and on its own behalf. Secularism is not a partisan whim. It is a deep-seated consensus, confirmed since the Bouchard-Taylor commission. All polls indicate that a clear majority of Quebeckers support Bill 21. This legislation was not born out of a sudden impulse, but rather out of a long social debate. It expresses the democratic will of an entire people. It is this choice that Ottawa is seeking to undermine by attacking the very tool that allows us to protect it.”
“In February 2023, the Bloc Québécois tabled a very simple motion: “That the House remind the government that it is solely up to Quebec and the provinces to decide on the use of the notwithstanding clause.” This motion did not ask for approval of Bill 21 or for a decision on secularism. It simply asked for recognition of a fact. However, the Liberals, NDP and Greens voted against it. They refused to acknowledge this reality. That is the whole story, the true story. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. In the 1988 Ford decision, the Court recognized that the National Assembly of Quebec has complete freedom to invoke the notwithstanding clause. It can do so pre-emptively without waiting for legislation to be struck down. Furthermore, the courts cannot rule on the merits, only on the form.”
“Mr. Speaker, Ottawa talks about national unity when it is convenient, but becomes divisive and paternalistic as soon as Quebec asserts its uniqueness and its choices. When faced with Washington's tariffs or the threat of American annexation, we are called upon to join forces. However, as soon as the external threat is averted, Ottawa turns against Quebec to challenge its democratic choices and undermine its institutions. Today, it is not just a law that is being targeted, but the very heart of Quebec's democracy. Ottawa is attacking Quebec's secularism law by seeking to restrict and weaken the notwithstanding clause, even render it meaningless. This is not the first time we have debated this issue.”
“In all this confusion, I would therefore like my colleague to explain to me what balance he is talking about. This clause has been in place for 43 years and has already been used more than 100 times, but for some reason it is suddenly necessary and useful to seek an opinion from the Supreme Court of Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Québec Centre, who understandably refuses to take a position on the deplorable statement made by the member for Bourassa. However, let us return to the subject at hand. My colleague spoke about balance, so let us talk about balance. The notwithstanding clause has been used more than 100 times in the last 43 years. Never in those 43 years has the federal government thought it was justifiable or necessary to seek an opinion from the Supreme Court on the notwithstanding clause. That is the legacy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who said he was not afraid of this clause. It is thanks to the notwithstanding clause that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was able to be implemented when the Constitution was repatriated in 1982.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé on his speech. Today, we hear the Liberals repeating over and over that they want to defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but the one who inherited the charter, the Canadian Constitution and its 1982 repatriation was Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Obviously, I would be happy to remind the House of Quebec's motto: Je me souviens , I remember. I will repeat for my colleagues on the other side of the House what the heir to the Charter and the Constitution said, which is that he was not afraid of the use of the notwithstanding clause. Instead, he kept repeating that it was always the elected representatives, voted in by the people at the ballot box, who had the last word, not the courts. I would like my colleague to comment on this historical reference.”
“Mr. Speaker, that was certainly a sanctimonious speech by our colleague from Winnipeg North. It was definitely not his first time lecturing us, nor is it likely to be his last. His argument does not hold water. He says we need to ask the Supreme Court for an opinion because the role of the Attorney General, through the government, is to defend the Charter. The notwithstanding clause has been around for more than 40 years. If there was no prior intervention, if the Supreme Court was never asked for a legal opinion, does that mean the government was not defending the charter? I have a simple question. Is my colleague saying that the government has not been defending the charter for the past 40 years because it never asked for a legal opinion even though the notwithstanding clause was used more than 100 times during that period?”
“His efforts are vital for science, secularism and democracy. They remind us that science is universal and transcends borders. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I offer him our most sincere congratulations.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely congratulate Yves Gingras, a professor of history and the sociology of knowledge at the Université du Québec à Montréal, who was awarded the 2024 Prix science et laïcité, or science and secularism award, in Paris at the 18th annual ceremony of the Comité Laïcité République. This award recognizes Professor Gingras' commitment to distinguishing between scientific knowledge and beliefs, as exemplified in his book L’impossible dialogue. Sciences et religions . As the director of the Observatoire des sciences et des technologies, Yves Gingras embodies intellectual rigour and critical thinking. As a knight of the Ordre national du Québec and recipient of the prestigious Prix du Québec Léon-Gérin, he has been defending the separation of knowledge and beliefs for over 40 years.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to say hello to the people of Rimouski—La Matapédia, whom I am proud and honoured to represent. The riding name has changed, but I am not forgetting the people of La Mitis, Les Basques and Neigette, and I want to say hello to them too. My question for my Conservative colleague is quite simple. The bill gives extraordinary powers to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship . We want to ensure that the choices made by Quebec, which shares jurisdiction over immigration, are respected. Does my Conservative colleague agree with the idea of the federal minister being able to cancel visas en masse, including visas for people selected by Quebec? I would like a yes or no answer.”
“Mr. Speaker, we said that we were not going to give the government carte blanche. Once again, we are going to work hard in committee. We want to get some answers from the government. I repeat that, when promises are made during an election campaign, both the opposition parties and the public want to see results. However, right now, they seem to be mostly empty promises. On the ground, we are being told that 2,000 to 3,000 more CBSA officers are needed. The government says it will hire 1,000. I do not know where the government got that number, but it is not 1,000 officers that are needed; it is between 2,000 and 3,000.”
“Mr. Speaker, I like facts, and there is one fact that I will certainly be able to remind my colleague about. As we know, Quebec's motto is “Je me souviens”, or “I remember”. The Harper Conservative government planned to cut CBSA staff at the border. That is mentioned in the 2015 report on plans and priorities. I invite my colleague to check that report and simply send me a brief email saying whether it is false that the report called for cuts to CBSA staff at the border.”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Conservative Party's guiding principle is law and order. However, law and order also happens at our borders. It was the Conservative government, under Harper, that planned cuts to the Canada Border Services Agency. Now that the Conservatives are in opposition, they are telling us they want more staff. There should not be such a contradiction between what they are saying today and what they did in the past. Quebec is inspiring in many ways. We have a different model of social reintegration than many other places in Canada. I think my colleague should also look into this and analyze this very specific situation regarding the kind of society that Quebec chose to create in the past and that is still an inspiration today.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question, but I did say a lot in my speech. In April, in the middle of the election campaign, the Prime Minister himself promised to hire 1,000 additional CBSA officers. Can my colleague tell us how many new officers have been hired to date, since her counterparts in the government are unable to tell us? It is rather confusing. The same goes for the RCMP. There was talk of 1,000 new officers. How many officers have been hired so far? No one on the government side is able to answer that question. If there is a plan and hiring is planned, I would like someone to tell us how many officers will be hired. This will reassure the opposition parties and, above all, the public.”
“It can only rebuild trust by making its system solid, predictable, fair and respectful toward Quebec. Bill C‑2 is a step in the right direction. That said, without sufficient staff, without guardrails and without respect for Quebec, the legislation will be incomplete. The Bloc Québécois will do its job, which is to curb excesses, demand results and defend Quebeckers' interests. In short, our guiding principle is to protect the border without trampling on rights and to respect Quebec’s choices.”
“In committee, we will demand a clear hiring plan for the CBSA and the RCMP, call for CBSA officers to be able to patrol between border crossings to provide operational depth without replacing the RCMP, set limits on the minister's new powers to prevent Ottawa from encroaching on Quebec's jurisdiction, create humanitarian exceptions, including through the pre-removal risk assessment mechanism, and demand fair compensation for Quebec, which is already taking in a disproportionate share of asylum seekers. The government says it wants to rebuild public trust in the immigration system. However, the government cannot rebuild trust by taking ad hoc measures intended to appease Washington and defuse the threat of tariffs. The government cannot rebuild trust by repeating past fiascoes, such as Roxham Road.”
“Finally, the end of the 14‑day exception in the safe third country agreement closes a loophole that encouraged irregular crossings and fuelled human smuggling networks. The government is finally taking action, but it is doing so unilaterally, without renegotiating the agreement. As a result, those intercepted after 14 days will be returned to their country of origin, unless it is a moratorium country. Evidently, the problem has not been completely resolved. On that point, it almost seems as if the government has taken inspiration from our own agenda. However, I will give it the benefit of the doubt. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of passing Bill C-2 at second reading. To be clear, this is not a carte blanche endorsement.”
“Even the government recognizes that the bill raises legal issues. The proof is that it put out a charter statement in an attempt to justify them. We are going to demand that every clause be examined through that lens. Again, it is important to recognize that this bill is a step in the right direction. Clause 77 would allow for the cancellation of fraudulent student visas obtained on the basis of fake admission letters. In the wake of the recent scandals, urgent action was needed to protect honest students and the integrity of our universities. The new grounds for inadmissibility will prevent a phantom student who is not attending classes from filing an asylum claim after one year. This practice is abusive and it must stop.”
“The Bloc Québécois will be clear: Quebec must continue to have its say on the number of refugees it can comfortably accommodate. We are already taking on more than our share compared to the other provinces. Ottawa should compensate Quebec instead of leaving it to bear this burden alone. Certain provisions also raise legal questions. For example, the bill prevents the minister and the minister's staff from being compelled to appear before the Refugee Protection Division. Is that consistent with transparency and accountability? The committee will have to answer that question. (1710) The bill also provides that affected individuals may apply for a pre-removal risk assessment. However, I should point out that several countries, such as Haiti, are subject to a moratorium. In those cases, the actual scope of this mechanism is limited.”
“Another important aspect of Bill C-2 has to do with immigration and asylum claims. Vigilance is essential. Bill C-2 gives the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship the power to override his own officials' decisions before a case is referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. In other words, the minister becomes both judge and jury. That gives one person too much power with not enough safeguards. Let us be clear. If the government wants to rebuild public trust, it needs to demonstrate transparency, predictability and respect for Quebec's jurisdictions. Once again, we have a government that is centralizing decision-making in Ottawa and giving the minister discretionary powers without any real checks and balances. That does not build trust; it destroys it.”
“The Speech from the Throne did mention RCMP officers, but it did not mention CBSA officers at all. That is why the Bloc Québécois keeps raising this issue. Those officers have to actually be deployed. Without boots on the ground, the new measures will be meaningless. It is the same issue with Canada Post. Bill C‑2 removes some of the legal barriers to mail inspection. However, in my riding of Rimouski—La Matapédia, for example, we already have problems with postal services. In some municipalities, mail is only delivered every other day. A recent staffing shortage even resulted in no mail delivery for several days. If workers are already stretched thin, how can they be expected to do more? These are the government's true colours: it offers promises but no resources, laws but no officers, and heavier workloads but no support.”
“This is why we doubt the government's ability to keep its new promises. Yes, Bill C‑2 includes some useful measures, but it is important to bear in mind that, without additional staff on the ground, the border will remain porous. Take customs, for example. Bill C‑2 will finally allow officers at the Canada Border Services Agency to demand facilities for inspecting goods intended for export. For too long, they have been telling us that they cannot open containers at the port of Montreal because they do not have the warrants and facilities to do so. This will be fixed, and it is a step forward. What are people on the ground saying? The Customs and Immigration Union estimates that it would need another 2,000 to 3,000 officers to get the current job done. The government promised 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new CBSA officers.”
“It was too often improvised, and more importantly, it was dictated by Washington. The goal was clearly stated in the Speech from the Throne, specifically, to rebuild public trust in the immigration system and in border security. However, Bill C-2 falls very short of that. This bill seems to be designed less to reassure Quebeckers and Canadians and more to respond to pressure from the United States, in the midst of a tariff war where Donald Trump is using migration and fentanyl as a pretext for taking trade measures. Members will recall the fiasco of Roxham Road. For years, Ottawa tolerated an irregular crossing that overwhelmed our services. Instead of fixing the problem quickly, it allowed the situation to escalate. The result is that Quebec paid the price but did not receive sufficient compensation.”
“Mr. Speaker, securing our borders is not a luxury. It is a matter of urgency. For a long time now, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for strong measures to combat the export of stolen vehicles, the increase in asylum claims, the fentanyl crisis and money laundering. However, the situation had to become critical before the government would think about taking any action. After nearly 10 years of complacency, now the government is acting like a pyromaniac firefighter. It did nothing to prevent the fires, and now it wants to rush in and pretend to be the saviour putting out the flames. Yes, some measures have been taken, such as closing Roxham Road, albeit too late, and some announcements have been made about tackling organized crime. However, let us be honest. It was never enough, and never sustainable.”
“Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague and congratulate him on his speech. One interesting thing about Bill C‑2 is that border services officers will not even be allowed to patrol between certain sectors. That will make them less effective. I just want my colleague's opinion. Does he agree that they should be more effective and that the officers, though too few in number, should be allowed to patrol between border crossings?”
“The Conservative Party is currently in the opposition and wants to ensure border security and it wants more border officers. That was not one of its priorities when it was in government, but it is a priority now that it is in the opposition. Why?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I really like the part in his speech when he said that French is not a secondary language in Canada. Quebec's motto is Je me souviens , or I remember. I would like to remind my colleague that it was the Conservative Party, under Stephen Harper, that appointed a unilingual anglophone auditor general, unilingual anglophone Supreme Court justices and a unilingual anglophone foreign affairs minister. I will give my colleague the benefit of the doubt. I hope that he will share the following good news with his anglophone colleagues. French is not secondary language in this beautiful, bilingual Canada. The question I want to ask my colleague is the following. When the Harper government was in power, it planned to cut staff at the Canada Border Services Agency.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech made it clear that the government's priority is border security and the safety of Canadians. I would remind the House of the Prime Minister 's promise in April, during an election campaign, to add 1,000 new border officers and new RCMP officers. I have a simple question for my colleague. What concrete measures have been taken since those announcements? How many new officers have been hired at both the Canada Border Services Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that it is very important to pass this bill. Her government could have already done that, since it had a majority from 2015 to 2019. It knew both the problem and the solutions. This goes back to 2009. Today, the government is telling us that we need to restore public confidence in our immigration system. We are not going to get there by recycling bills that have been dragging on for many years. I would like an honest answer from my colleague. Does she really think that the bill will address the root of the problem within the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, which is the most dysfunctional department in the federal government?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government mentioned in the throne speech that its priority is to restore public confidence in the immigration system. I would like my colleague to simply tell me whether she agrees that this bill, which seems rather minor to me, will really restore public confidence in the immigration system. What concrete steps does she suggest we prioritize to really address the root causes of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration's deep-seated problems?”
“Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said earlier, the Bloc Québécois is obviously in favour of this bill. We want to finally move on to something else because what we are doing this morning is recycling. I have to let honest workers and taxpayers know. This problem has existed since 2009, when the Conservative Party changed the legislation. We know the problem, and we know the solutions; now is the time to act. My question for my colleague is this. If this issue is so important, why did her government not resolve it when it had a majority? The Liberals had a majority from 2015 to 2019. They had four years to do it, and nothing has been done.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. He said that it was not their fault and that the Conservative government created the problem. I would like my colleague to tell me why his government did not fix the situation before now if it was so serious. There were parliamentary reports dating as far back as 2007 on lost Canadians. The issue got media attention. There was even a legal challenge filed in 2021. It took a decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for the government to act. I would like my colleague to explain why no one at the immigration department noticed that this was not working.”
“Can he tell me whether he truly thinks that the public will start having confidence in the immigration system again because of minor changes like the ones put forward in Bill C‑3 ?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague described the situation well. The government acknowledges that its immigration department has some very serious problems and that the public no longer has confidence in the immigration system. It even mentioned this in its own throne speech. What is happening this morning, at the beginning of this new Parliament? The government is recycling. It thinks the public will start having confidence in it if it passes a bill. I am not saying that the bill is bad or unimportant, just that it fails to address the root of the problem. There have been seven immigration ministers in 10 years, and the same party has been in power for the last 10 years. My colleague is very familiar with the immigration file.”
“Madam Speaker, the government has not increased graduate scholarships by a single cent in 20 years. We were told that it was not a priority. Now the government has a new argument. It is saying that it will follow through on what it said during the election campaign. The Liberals told us that they would invest in science, research and innovation. I would like my colleague to clarify the following point today. Will there be indexation of graduate scholarships, which, I would remind members, were not increased by a single cent between 2000 and 2024?”
“Mr. Speaker, we have just been served up the usual Conservative rhetoric. I do not recycle because my neighbour does not recycle. That is what my colleague just said. We should put everything on hold because China pollutes more than we do. What a profoundly cynical abdication of responsibility. We should refuse to do anything to fight climate change because other people are worse than we are. The only question I have for my colleague is this. Quebec has made its choices for its future, for its economy and for its transition. Will the member respect Quebec's simple choice to limit the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035?”