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 7 of 8.
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives support freedom of choice, but only when it suits them. When scientists choose climate, they muzzle them. When the public wants public services, they slash funding for those public services. When Quebec wants to choose transportation electrification, particularly through electric vehicles, they oppose it in the name of freedom of choice. It seems that Conservatives only advocate freedom of choice when it suits them and fits their own ideology. I would like my colleague to explain to me today whether he will respect Quebec's collective choice to begin an energy transition and move toward electric vehicles.”
“Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, we have chosen to ban gas-powered vehicles by 2035. That is our choice. It is our future. It is our economy. Why does the Conservative Party insist on imposing its oil-focused vision on Quebec?”
“Mr. Speaker, we are being treated to quite a show in today's debate. The Liberals are throwing mud at the Conservatives, saying that the Harper government also awarded contracts to GC Strategies. The Conservatives respond by saying that that is not true and that the current situation between the Liberal Party and GC Strategies is worse. Something rather historic happened yesterday. Every new minority government brings new coalitions. Yesterday, we witnessed the formation of a Liberal-Conservative coalition, which I now refer to as the “anti-Quebec alliance”. The Conservatives are fine with Quebeckers being cheated out of $814 million, and yet today, they are up in arms about the GC Strategies scandal. I have just one question for my colleague. Why is it acceptable when it is Quebeckers who are being swindled?”
“I have some news for my colleague from Alfred-Pellan : The Auditor General did not make any recommendations because the government was not even capable of following the ones that had been made in previous reports. Is a new election like a reset button? Is that what my colleague is saying?”
“Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing from the member for Trois-Rivières today is pretty mind-blowing. She seems to think that a new election is like a reset button. Imagine a driver ramming their car into a lamppost. Even if we replace the driver, the car is still the same, unless my colleague is saying the opposite. We are talking about 106 contracts between 2015 and 2023, most of them non-competitive. So much for fiscal restraint. After a new election, we are supposed to forget all that. It is swept under the rug and we are told it will never happen again. For more than half the contracts, representing $74 million, the government did not even check whether it received the deliverable before paying the bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a very serious question for my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I am trying to understand. His party was supposedly contacted by a whistle-blower named Luc Sabourin, who appeared before the committee to explain that he had seen serious irregularities at the Canada Border Services Agency. He mentioned that he had contacted the Conservative Party of Canada, but that nothing had happened, there was no follow up. It took the Conservative Party of Canada years to start asking questions and to bring this forward in committee. I would like my colleague to simply explain to me why it took years for them to take action to denounce this serious scandal.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree in part with what my colleague said, although I am deeply concerned about one thing. GC Strategies used to be called Coredal. This company had over $7 million in government contracts between 2011 and 2015. Who was in power at the time? It was Stephen Harper's Conservative Party. Furthermore, who was in the Department of Transport? It was Pierre Poilievre, the current leader of the Conservative Party. He was parliamentary secretary to the then minister of transport. Coredal was awarded contracts worth over $1 million. Can my colleague explain to me why there was no concern at that time about a company that would go on to become GC Strategies?”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague and congratulate her on her speech. In her report, the Auditor General of Canada mentioned that more than half the $64 million in contracts were paid without the government checking whether the work had been done or produced. My colleague mentioned that she was a businesswoman. When people manage money, do they pay bills without checking whether they received the product or service? I would like my colleague to answer that simple question.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from La Prairie—Atateken said this was unacceptable. What is unacceptable is the fact that the government did not even verify 50% of the contracts awarded, worth a total of $64 million, to see if the work had been done. What is more, these contracts were awarded untendered to people who did not even have the technical expertise. Our system includes something called ministerial accountability. Who was the minister responsible for ensuring that the contracts were fulfilled? Is the parliamentary secretary willing to admit that his government dropped the ball and that this was a failure? No, he is blaming it on the civil service. What kind of message does that send to Canadians? It is never the government's fault. They did not even verify 50% of public contracts to see whether—”
“In April 2015, he even said that when Ontario joined the carbon market, he was proud that two-thirds of the Canadian economy was now participating in the cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions. He said that at the Canadian green economy round table in Quebec City. When he is in Quebec City, the carbon market is a good idea. However, when he is in Ottawa, it is a bad idea. I would like my colleague to explain this to me, because I want to understand.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech and on his election. I welcome him to Ottawa. He used to be a member of the Quebec National Assembly, which brings back many memories for us. I definitely remember. I must begin by congratulating him on the thoroughness and accuracy of the facts he shared. He did not say that carbon pricing is a bad thing. He simply said that the government lost the communications battle to the Conservative Party, which has been talking about axing the tax for several years. I wanted to point that out because I think it is worth mentioning. I would like to understand something, however. When my colleague was a member of the Quebec National Assembly, he said that Quebec was proud to be part of a carbon market of its own making.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my Bloc Québécois colleague on his speech. Since he is the international trade critic, I would like him to explain how eliminating carbon pricing will impact trade with the European Union. The EU is going to impose an entry tax on certain products if no carbon price was imposed on them in their source country. I would like my colleague to explain how this could penalize Canada and benefit Quebec, which has once again shown leadership and progress by having its own carbon market.”
“Since the period was already covered, does that mean the Liberals bought themselves votes with a handout in the last election?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Jonquière on his speech. The purpose of my question is to clarify the situation for my colleagues and for the people tuning in at home today. Liberal MPs keep telling us that Quebeckers are not entitled to the rebate because Quebec has its own carbon pricing system. On April 19, 2024, the Liberal government changed the system. The Canada carbon rebate payments, which were previously paid out quarterly, became annual payments. The rebate was an advance on the tax that people would be paying indirectly on various products. Now, they say the government reimbursed the credit on April 22, six days before the federal election. That period had already been covered in advance, but cheques were sent out anyway. I would like my colleague from Jonquière to explain something to us.”
“If the Liberal government's goal is to help Canadians, why did it eliminate a carbon pricing system that put more money in the pockets of Canadians in 80% of cases? My question is simple. Why eliminate a tax—”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his speech. There are many things we disagree on, but there is one thing he may have avoided mentioning in his speech. He talked about redistribution and tax sharing. He talked about equalization payments. However, he did not mention that Quebec receives the least money per capita in all of Canada. It is not good enough to say that a province receives a certain amount; it must be calculated per capita. I would invite my colleague to clarify this in his future statements. My question for my colleague is this. According to what the member for Winnipeg North said in his speech on December 3, 80% of Canadians receive more money than they pay for the carbon tax. I would like my colleague to explain something to me today.”
“I would like my colleague to tell me what he thinks of the unanimous decision by the 125 members of the Quebec National Assembly to demand that Ottawa reimburse Quebeckers their $814 million. Does he think those MNAs are liars or just idiots?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. He said that Quebec cannot get a refund for the carbon tax because it has its own system. I did not realize that having an independent system meant that we will not be treated fairly. We are going to have to sort something out. The carbon tax refund was supposed to be paid out on April 22, but the tax was abolished on April 1. The finance department simplified things by saying that the refund of the infamous carbon tax was for the period from April 1 to June. How can the government refund something that was never collected? Quebeckers pay taxes to the federal government, unless my colleague can prove otherwise. If a refund is being given for something that was never paid, it is only fair that we ask for our fair share.”
“" Gumbitch " and " ostie toastée des deux bords " have become part of Quebeckers' more colourful language. Victor‑Lévy Beaulieu was a giant. To his family and loved ones, we offer our deepest condolences.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Lower St. Lawrence and Quebec literature have just lost one of their most spectacular, bold and prolific representatives. Victor‑Lévy Beaulieu has passed away at the age of 79, but he is leaving us with his plays, essays and novels. VLB was an editor, novelist and essayist. He was indignant and rebellious, a separatist who loved his corner of the country. Félix had his island, Vigneault had Natashquan, and Victor‑Lévy Beaulieu had Trois-Pistoles. Despite his immense body of work, Race de monde , L'Héritage and Bouscotte left the most lasting impression on Quebeckers. For years, millions of us sat in front of our TV screens watching his stories, unable to tear our eyes away from the drama or close our ears to the swearing of the larger-than-life characters.”
“Mr. Speaker, if there is something I have learned in politics, it is repetition. It is not that some people do not want to understand; rather, some people do not want to know. It is pretty simple. During the election campaign, the Liberal Party and its leader abolished a tax that was no longer in effect. As a result, some people received a rebate on a tax that was no longer in effect. Who did we not get a rebate? I must admit that this affects Quebec, as well as British Columbia and other jurisdictions. That said, only the Quebec National Assembly spoke up to ask for the $814-million reimbursement. I am trying to explain this a simply as possible to my colleagues. An election cheque landed in the mailbox before the election was called. It is as simple as that. We are simply asking to be reimbursed because we did not get our fair share.”
“The answer is quite simple: The Bloc Québécois is opposed to the jurisdictional encroachment the Conservative Party seeks to undertake through its motion today.”
“Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague and riding neighbour. I think that one thing about the Conservatives is clear. We know that some people still deny science. Nonetheless, in terms of respecting jurisdictions, the Quebec government is free to choose its own carbon market. The Conservatives moved a motion today that seeks to interfere in areas of jurisdiction. Someone in the Conservative Party or its Quebec caucus needs to explain in English to their colleagues from Alberta or western Canada that, when they move a motion to abolish Quebec's carbon exchange, they are not respecting jurisdictions. I think that is akin to talking out of both sides of one's mouth. They are saying they respect jurisdiction but then they table a motion that will do the opposite.”
“The Liberal Party is able to deliver cheques in mailboxes during election periods, but when it comes time to solve problems like the Phoenix pay system, it is too complicated. A little consistency and a little rigour from our colleague from Winnipeg North would do no harm, and it would elevate the debate in the House a bit.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North has contradicted himself a lot. I will remind him of the facts. His government's Department of Finance has said that payments made to Canadians in April would give back the federal fuel charge proceeds collected from April to June. What does my colleague not understand about that? The tax, which was repaid in advance, no longer existed between April and June. I think that the Quebeckers listening to us today are not fooled. It was an election giveaway. Let us look at how clever the Liberal Party was to send out cheques right before the election. Let us remember that, in August 2021, a cheque was sent out to seniors during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
“Today, we are simply asking that Quebec be treated with respect, that its taxpayers be reimbursed for what they have paid and that the government finally listen to what every single elected official in Quebec has been calling for. Of the $3.7 billion distributed, including $814 million financed by Quebec, Quebeckers received zero dollars. Quebec took action. Quebec is paying. Today, Quebec is demanding fairness. Elected officials in the House must respond fairly.”
“The National Assembly is making the request unanimously with its motion from April 23, which demands that Quebec receive its share, meaning over $800 million. What response did the Prime Minister give? It is no big deal, Quebec has another system. The Prime Minister gave a clear and unequivocal refusal, a refusal to recognize an injustice, a refusal to respect Quebec's elected officials and the National Assembly's unanimous request. The motion we have moved today is not just a partisan plea. It is a basic demand for justice and respect. It aims to correct a clear mistake, a decision made in haste during an election, without a thought for tax fairness among the citizens of this country.”
“(1250) Concretely, that means that products from a country like Canada, which does not put a price on carbon or pollution, will be subject to surtax in the European market. In that case, who suffers? Canadian companies will, but not Quebec companies. Why? Because Quebec is responsible and it still has a price on pollution. While Ottawa is making Canada weaker, Quebec is wisely preserving its access to international markets. However, from everything I have just said, Quebec is the one being punished, even though it is doing all the right things, is responsible and has taken action, and above all refuses to take the easy way out. The Bloc Québécois is not the only one making this request today.”
“Let us remember that 90% of the tax revenue was returned directly to households, and according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, eight out of 10 Canadians got back more than they paid. That is what Justin Trudeau's Liberal government has been telling us for the past 10 years. Why scuttle an effective policy? It is because the “Axe the tax” slogan is easier to sell than a transition plan. It is also because, six days before the election, a cheque is much more attractive than an energy transition project. There are consequences to that choice. While the government is abandoning carbon pricing, the European Union is preparing to implement a border carbon adjustment as early as next January.”
“Let us look at some concrete examples. A family in Mont-Joli received no part of the $456 paid to their Canadian neighbours. A senior couple in Amqui was paid no part of the $334 that their taxes helped to fund. Students in Rimouski, workers in Trois-Pistoles and retirees in Sainte-Angèle-de-Mérici got nothing at all. They all paid their fair share, but they did not get their piece of the pie. Meanwhile, households in other provinces receive a cheque for a tax that no longer even exists. Canadian unity sure is wonderful. This is not just an economic injustice; it is also an abandonment of the environment. By abolishing its carbon tax, the Liberal government is sabotaging its own climate policy. It is betraying Canada's international commitments. It is giving in to the Conservatives' simplistic propaganda.”
“My goodness, what a lovely gift for the rest of Canada. Those public funds also include the taxes paid by Quebeckers. Quebec was excluded, however. Why is that? Because it was not subject to the federal tax, but the tax that was eliminated on April 1 did not fund anything. The fact is that those rebate cheques were a purely political gesture paid for by everyone and distributed to nearly everyone, excluding Quebeckers. Let us recall that Quebeckers were never entitled to the carbon tax rebate because, in 2013, Quebec chose to adopt its own carbon pricing system. It is a system that is recognized, credible and effective, with links to California and Washington state. It is a system that works. It is a system that Quebeckers embraced out of a sense of responsibility, and now they are penalized for doing the right thing.”
“We have moved a clear, legitimate and fair motion today that is asking the federal government to immediately and without conditions reimburse Quebec for its contribution equal to $814 million. It is not a privilege and it is not a favour. It is a question of justice. Let us look at the facts. The new Prime Minister made an order on April 1, 2025 repealing the federal carbon tax. The carbon tax rebate was paid out on April 22, but it covered the period from April to June 2025, a period where carbon pricing did not even apply. It is written in black and white on the Finance Canada website: “Payments delivered to Canadians in April would thus return the fuel charge proceeds collected during the April-June quarter“. Since no proceeds were collected, however, the government paid those rebates directly from the public purse.”
“Mr. Speaker, first, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Repentigny. On April 22, just six days before the federal election, millions of Canadians got a cheque from the federal government. It was a generous payment presented as a carbon rebate totalling $3.7 billion. Cheques were as much as $456 per household, but Quebeckers did not get a dime. However, Quebec taxpayers paid their unequal share of that expenditure. Their income taxes funded nearly $814 million of that rebate. They paid part of the bill, but they were excluded from being beneficiaries. That is an egregious injustice, it is an unacceptable vote-buying action, and that is what the Bloc Québécois condemns today.”
“Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague and congratulate her on her re-election. Under the Harper government, there were plans to cut the number of officers at the border. That is what it says in CBSA's 2015 report on plans and priorities. Now that the Conservative Party is in opposition, it seems to have taken the opposite position. They agree that we need more staff to have more security at the borders. I would like my colleague to simply explain to me why it was a priority to reduce staff when the Conservative Party was in government, but now that they are in opposition, they agree with increasing staff.”
“Madam Speaker, the bill gives new powers to border services officers, but those already on the ground are overwhelmed. The union even says that they are short 2,000 to 3,000 officers. Let us start with the Prime Minister's promise. On April 10 during the election campaign, he promised 1,000. Can my colleague tell me how many new officers have been hired since then? If the answer is zero, when will they start hiring to secure our borders?”
“Madam Speaker, Bill C‑2 gives CBSA officers more power to deal with fentanyl and, notably, vehicle theft. However, without additional staff, this will only solve part of the problem. On April 10, the Prime Minister promised to hire 1,000 additional officers. When will he finally keep his promise and follow through?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and congratulate him on his election. The Quebec National Assembly unanimously rejected the federal government's proposal to create one economy. The Bloc Québécois does not want to see the regional differences and economic diversity in Quebec, and indeed in many regions of Canada, ignored. This is not what Quebec wants either, as the Quebec National Assembly clearly indicated. I would like my colleague to tell me whether he agrees with the unanimous will of the Quebec National Assembly to respect the fact that Quebec's economy is very different from that of the rest of Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and congratulate her on her election. She talked about a major issue in her riding: homelessness. I will explain to my colleague and to those watching at home today that the word “homelessness” does not appear in the Speech from the Throne. It was there in 2020 and again in 2021, but there is no mention of it in 2025. It magically disappeared, as if the problem had been completely solved. However, the reality on the ground is very different. Between 2018 and 2022, homelessness in Quebec skyrocketed, increasing by 44%. How is it that the throne speech makes absolutely no mention of such a major problem in Quebec that was recognized by the previous government?”
“If the member believes that protecting supply management is not a luxury but a matter of survival for many of the farmers she represents, will she commit to sitting down with her party's representatives, supporting the bill introduced by the leader of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Beloeil—Chambly , and prioritizing this bill so it is brought forward as soon as possible?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to say hello to the people of Rimouski—La Matapédia, whom I proudly represent. I congratulate my colleague from Compton—Stanstead on her speech and her election. My question is very simple and concerns supply management. We know that this issue affects her riding in particular. The Bloc Québécois did what it said it would do during the election campaign. It reintroduced a bill to ensure that supply management will be fully protected in future negotiations, particularly with the United States. We want to ensure that it will not be sacrificed in the same way it was under her government in the last three trade agreements.”
“My colleague will have to explain to me how proper health care services can be provided in Quebec and rural areas, like the one he represents, if the federal government is only increasing transfers from 22% to 24%, when the initial agreement was for 50%.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, but he will have to explain a few things to me. In 2020, the Premier of Quebec and governments across Canada asked the federal government to increase health transfers from 22% to 35%. I would like to remind my colleagues and those watching at home that the initial agreement was for 50%. However, because of the well-known fiscal imbalance, the federal government kept money in its own pockets to fund other things and infringe on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the other provinces. Then, three years later, after the request from the Premier of Quebec and premiers across Canada, the government increased transfers by 2%. That is right: 2%. Health transfers were increased from 22% to 24%.”
“Together, they proved that regions can successfully host the largest events with pride, passion and determination. Good luck to the finalists and happy Memorial Cup.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to draw the House's attention to the fact that Rimouski is hosting the Memorial Cup for the second time since 2009. This is a very important Canadian junior hockey event. Since the start of the tournament, our region has shown that we think big outside the major cities. This event is already a great success. Every so often, the Lower St. Lawrence becomes a land of champions. At the heart of this success is the Océanic de Rimouski, the team of an entire region that the Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League once again entrusted to host this prestigious event. Thank you to the Tanguay family, the organizing committee led by Sébastien Noël, the volunteers and residents for all of their hard work. I also want to commend the young players for their talent and sportsmanship.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and congratulate him on his re-election. He talked about the importance of having social programs. We know very well that the Liberal government became an expert in interfering in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. After drawing inspiration from and copying Quebec's child care programs that have been around for more than 25 years, it then came up with the dental care program. Now there is talk of the pharmacare program. How can the federal government improve on what the Government of Quebec has mastered for about 20 years now? I would like my colleague to explain that to me.”
“Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague and congratulate her on her re-election. The government says it wants to defend the economic sovereignty of Canada and Quebec through the back door. However, the Speech from the Throne does not mention the words “aluminum”, “forest”, or “aerospace”, which are three important economic pillars for defending economic sovereignty, among other things. The question I would like to ask my colleague from Sherbrooke is very simple. Does this silence mean that defending Quebec's economic interests is just not a priority for the current government?”
“For a long time now, Quebec has been asking for control over its own immigration so that it can take its capacity to receive and integrate newcomers into account and protect French, its national language. Does my colleague agree with that approach?”
“Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague and congratulate him on his election. He spoke on a very important topic, namely immigration, which was also addressed in the Speech from the Throne. More specifically, it mentions plans to cap temporary immigration. It even mentions rebuilding public trust in our immigration system. In recent years, however, since the Liberal government took power, the Liberals have been utterly obsessed with managing the immigration system. Canada's population growth is among the highest in the world. My colleague from Brampton West mentioned it in his speech when he pointed out that newcomers have certain needs, like infrastructure and public services.”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague and thank him for his speech. In the Speech from the Throne, the government says it wants to build affordable housing through the “build Canada homes” program. The French name of the program was changed during the campaign after the government had been negligent, verging on careless, with the French language. I have a simple question for my colleague. In his riding, what would it cost to build affordable housing?”
“Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague and congratulate him on his re-election. The Conservative Party prides itself on being the best at cutting spending. One big expense was incurred over the last few days, when the foreign monarch Charles III came for a visit. I would like my colleague to give me a simple answer. Does he agree with the idea of spending millions of dollars calling in a foreign sovereign to stop the Americans from threatening to annex us?”