SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

  • Member of Parliament
  • Member of Parliament
  • Bloc Québécois
  • Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques
  • Quebec
  • Voting Attendance: 67%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $115,154.34

  • Government Page
  • May/9/24 7:56:16 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague from Whitby, who I work with at the Standing Committee on Science and Research. My question for my colleague is on the effectiveness of implementing, creating a new department of housing. Quebec already has the ministry of municipal affairs and housing and the Société d'habitation du Québec. The last projects that were funded in Quebec, in my region in particular, were funded from money in budget 2022. It took two years to budget the money, transfer it and come to an agreement with the Government of Quebec. I would like my colleague to explain what Ottawa will be able to do better than Quebec. I would like to know what Quebec cannot do with its current expertise.
129 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/8/24 6:52:24 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, we are going to make history, but maybe not for the right reasons. We are witnessing a miracle: The Conservative Party has become the party that cares about vulnerable people, the middle class and families. They call it common sense. I would like to discuss common sense with my colleague. Currently, we are discussing the bill that implements the economic update. In the economic update, according to the last budget, there is a tax credit for the energy sector to the tune of $20 billion. The Conservative Party has not said a word about it. I would like my colleague to tell me if he is proud that his party supports a tax credit of $20 billion that could help the middle class, families, access to housing. That is the question my colleague is avoiding. That is the money that will enable oil and gas companies to rake in even greater profits.
154 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/24 5:16:32 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, with this budget, the federal government is responding to a crisis, namely, the housing crisis. My question for my colleague is this: Does she agree that the money earmarked for housing should be managed by the people who understand the housing crisis? Here is an example: CMHC collects data. I have the honour of representing 39 municipalities. Out of those 39 municipalities, CMHC collects data on only one. The government wants to put out a fire, but it is only spraying water on part of the building. Does my colleague agree that the money earmarked for addressing the housing crisis should be managed entirely by the Quebec government?
110 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/5/23 8:03:51 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, what I am about to say is no secret, but it is important. The government purchased a pipeline. It is not for shipping grain; it is for shipping oil. The pipeline cost $30 billion. It started off at $7 billion, and then climbed to $15 billion, $22 billion, $24 billion, $28 billion and $30 billion. I hope that the government realizes that it could fix an awful lot of problems with that money. It could build housing, help seniors and support families. What my colleague from Terrebonne said is important. The government is not even trying to hide anymore. It bought a $30‑billion pipeline with our money. In the latest budget, it is also giving away $21 billion in tax credits to oil and gas companies. I will not be shedding any tears here tonight for these companies over tax credits. They are not even subsidies now, just tax credits. That makes it even harder to track how much money will be disappearing into the pockets of which multi-million dollar corporation. The government cannot be serious. It wants to transition to green energy, yet, today, the Minister of Labour is praising the government's action on seabed oil and gas development, saying, “Don't tell me a green energy future doesn't include oil and gas.” I want to congratulate the Minister of Labour. This government is not going to make the net-zero energy transition happen, I guarantee it.
255 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/5/23 7:49:30 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, introduced by the government. The budget is a key exercise in our democracy. It is the time when the government decides how and where it will spend the hundreds of billions of dollars that it controls. The government does not pull all this money out of thin air. Each of these dollars comes directly out of the pockets of individuals from the four corners of Quebec and Canada who worked hard to earn that money. That is why the government has a duty to use that money responsibly and reasonably. Most of all, it has to spend so as to meet the needs and priorities of the public—because, again, it is our money. The government can also use the budget to implement its vision for society, the vision it has for the future. We saw that in Quebec with the construction of hydroelectric dams, which continue to make the Quebec nation an ambitious, visionary and decidedly green nation. I will say, however, that if we want to find a vision of the future, then we need to look somewhere other than this Liberal budget. If we take a close look at the budget, we see that the government's priority is more about saving its faltering marriage to the NDP than meeting the needs of Quebeckers and Canadians. While the Prime Minister plays political games and uses the treasury as his personal piggy bank to stay in power, everybody else is tightening their belts and wondering how they will pay their mortgage. We are talking about inflation, recession, the economic slowdown and skyrocketing interest rates, but the government has not seen fit to implement preventive measures to prepare the economy for the possibility of rough times ahead in the coming months and years. This government is completely out of touch with the economic situation and its day-to-day impact on the lives of real people. Since these ministers are chauffeured around and do not often take the time to look beyond Ottawa and the greater Toronto area, I will use the rest of my time to explain what is happening in areas such as mine, the Lower St. Lawrence, and how their inaction is making life difficult. The first urgent issue is housing. It is not complicated. There is virtually nothing available on the market in my region. According to the most recent data from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, the vacancy rate in Rimouski is 0.4% this year compared to 0.2% last year. That is a slight improvement, but it is nothing to write home about. To give members an idea, a healthy real estate market usually has a vacancy rate of about 3%. We are nowhere near finding a balance between the current vacancy rate of 0.4% and the average of 3%. That imbalance is having unprecedented consequences for my region. I held a housing summit in my riding in March to better understand and identify those consequences. Here are some of the things that the organizations and people on the ground shared with me. There is no longer any such thing as affordable housing. The housing units that are available are unaffordable or not fit to live in. Requests for emergency assistance have tripled since the beginning of the pandemic. Obviously, there are not enough resources to help all of those people and many are being left to fend for themselves. Emergency shelters, particularly in Rimouski and the surrounding areas, are full to overflowing. It is unprecedented. People were homeless in Rimouski in the middle of winter. Spending the night outside in the Lower St. Lawrence area in the middle of winter is far from pleasant. I have heard some extremely disturbing stories. Students looking for housing are being approached by older men offering to put them up in exchange for services. That is completely unacceptable. Staff at addiction treatment centres have even told me that people cannot leave their facilities because there is nowhere go. Given all the precariousness and the distress people are feeling, one might think the government would have made it a priority to tackle the housing crisis, but no. The Liberals have completely dropped the ball. There is nothing at all for housing in the latest budget—zero, nada, niet, not one penny. The government members are patting themselves on the back and quoting data from the 2022 budget. It is unbelievable. How can this be happening? A crisis is going on, but no investment is being made to find solutions that could end it. The disconnect is staggering. However, the demands of the Bloc Québécois and community organizations were fairly clear and specific. For instance, the government was asked to permanently renew the rapid housing initiative and to increase the rent supplement transfer. The need to speed up the transfer of funds between governments was also discussed. With each day that the federal government holds on to funds instead of passing them on to Quebec to send where they are needed, construction costs keep rising and our students, families and seniors keep growing poorer. How much longer do we have to wait for action? Urgent action is needed now to resolve the housing crisis. Another area where we hoped the government would deliver on expectations is employment insurance. This issue has been a topic of discussion for a long time. When the Liberal government came to power in 2015, it was one of their election promises. When it came back to power in 2019, it did not keep its promise then either. In 2021, it made the same promise again. We were told that consultations were being held to find out what was going on, but they know what is going on. They know the problems and they know the solutions. What is missing is the will to act, the action. I have not forgotten the Liberal promise of 2015, and I can say that the rights groups advocating for the unemployed have not forgotten it either. The unemployed men and women who are waiting for the government to deliver real reform have definitely not forgotten it. Currently, six in 10 workers who pay into employment insurance are not eligible for it because the eligibility criteria no longer reflect the reality of the labour market in 2023. These are not people who hope and pray for an unemployment cheque, they are people who pay into the fund. It is not complicated: this program was set up many years ago and has not been updated. There has been no reform. Naturally, it no longer reflects reality. I hope that the government will take action on this for once and for all. As mentioned, on reading budget 2023, we learn that the government is not planning for any reform before 2030. The Liberals promised reform in 2015. During the 2019 election, they said they would do it. In 2021, they called an early election. We all remember what a good idea it was to change government and call an election in 2021. What is more, they did it in the middle of the pandemic, when they were telling people to wear their mask and maintain social distancing. Then the government and its Prime Minister, the member for Papineau, went out and took photos with babies. They acted like the pandemic was over because they wanted to win the election. They did not want to change things for people. They wanted to return with a majority government. It is not easy to be in a minority government. Every day, this government shows us that it does not care one iota about democracy. We know that it entered into an alliance with the NDP, which has been doing its bidding for some time. This is not new. The NDP also serves the government by supporting its gag orders. There have already been a dozen gag orders since the government and the NDP, which calls itself the New Democratic Party, struck a deal. Let us come back to the budget. My colleagues will understand that it is quite difficult to just go along with it. I hope that the people listening to us at home will realize what is happening in this democracy. It is now operating under multiple closure motions to allow the government or an opposition party to save face. That is what we are currently putting up with in a G7 country. I will repeat that six out of 10 workers who pay into EI are unable to access it. In the Lower St. Lawrence area, back home, seasonal work is a large part of the economic activity and the lives of workers. A strong EI system would help build solid regions and ensure that people keep living in our regions and do not leave. The EI reform is urgent. It is part of the support measures that are necessary for seasonal work, which is an economic driver in our regions. I am thinking mainly of tourism, agriculture and the fishery. We can discuss that. All of these sectors rely on seasonal activities. It is not because people do not want to work in certain seasons. Potatoes cannot be planted in the middle of winter. Some government ministers do not seem to grasp how it works. People are still wondering about this in 2023. Another issue I absolutely must address has to do with seniors, specifically the inequity suffered by people aged 65 to 75 who are not getting an increase in their OAS benefits. The government is completely out to lunch on this. It is yet another broken election promise. I hope the government will do something once and for all.
1657 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 6:37:01 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for you and the office you hold. However, my colleague's behaviour is completely unacceptable. I hope that you are taking note of it. My colleagues in the House noticed it, as have I. Here is the question that I have for my colleague. We are currently experiencing a housing crisis. There are no new investments in the most recent federal budget to address that crisis. In Rimouski, in my riding, we have a record vacancy rate of 0.4%. I would like my colleague to tell us why the government has not done anything or invested anything in the most recent budget to create—
115 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/17/23 4:45:26 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her enjoyable speech. We see that she is very passionate about the Canadian Armed Forces and their importance. I share her desire to support our veterans, especially the members of the armed forces who protect and serve us every day. There were some things missing from the last budget. The omissions were rather striking. We are currently experiencing a housing crisis. There is a crisis going on across Canada and Quebec, affecting a number of regions, including my own, the Lower St. Lawrence. It is undeniable. There is also another crisis, the labour shortage. My colleague briefly touched on it when she was talking about the need for the Canadian Armed Forces to attract and retain service members. There is nothing in the budget, no key measures. The Bloc Québécois has proposed several, including tax incentives to allow experienced workers to work a few hours or days a week. There are other measures that could give some breathing room to people who want to join the workforce to help our business owners. I would like my colleague to share her point of view on the complete absence of measures to deal with—
204 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/17/23 4:16:19 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, and I commend him. We have a very serious situation right now, and that is the housing crisis. It is indisputable. The entire country is being impacted. Where I live, in the Lower St. Lawrence, in the riding of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, the vacancy rate in the city of Rimouski is 0.4%. This is a serious situation. There is not enough housing for people of all ages and all financial levels. In the key sector of health care, we are unable to bring in workers to take care of people, and this government's latest budget completely ignores the housing issue. There are investments for indigenous housing, but there is nothing, zero dollars, to create new housing for people who really need it. I would like to hear exactly what my colleague thinks about that.
154 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Oct/27/22 1:30:33 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-31 
Mr. Speaker, back home in Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, the housing situation is serious. Rimouski is one of the towns in Quebec that has been hit especially hard by the housing crisis. The vacancy rate is 0.2%. People are being pushed into homelessness. They no longer have a roof over their head. It is extremely serious and I am very worried about it. I would say to my colleague that, back in the 1990s, the federal government disengaged from social or affordable housing, whatever he wants to call it. We know that the government even invents new words sometimes. It reinvents them or gets rid of them, but that is another story. The Bloc Québécois is calling for an investment of 1% of the total budget, which corresponds to $3 billion of the federal budget, to massively reinvest in social housing. What we are asking for above all is for the federal government to transfer the money to Quebec City to stop wasting time. This is going to take housing starts and new housing. Stop putting national standards—
190 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Oct/4/22 12:48:19 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-30 
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. He made several references to wanting to help families. In Bill C‑30, the measure seeking to introduce a non-refundable tax credit to help the people who need it, that is, the most vulnerable and low-income Canadians, will cost the government $2.5 billion. In the last budget, the same government subsidized oil companies to the tune of $2.6 billion to deploy new carbon capture technologies. What is more important? Is it subsidizing oil companies or helping low-income families that really need it?
100 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Oct/4/22 12:33:22 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-30 
Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for my colleague. Inflation was 6.9% in April when the government tabled its budget. The latest data show that it was 7% in August. Today, the government has suddenly woken up and decided to implement measures to counter inflation. My question is very simple: Why did the government wait five months after tabling the budget to propose concrete, meaningful measures to deal with inflation? Why did it not do it in April's budget?
82 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/8/22 1:25:41 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I just listened to my colleague's speech, in which he talked about the need for housing, which is pressing in Quebec and especially in my riding. The vacancy rate in the city of Rimouski is 0.2% right now, and that is unprecedented. The city has the fourth-worst rate in Quebec. The national housing strategy announced by the Liberal government in 2017 allocated $40 billion over 10 years. We are halfway through that time frame, but the government has not yet invested half of that amount. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer predicted that the targets set by the government would not be met. Yesterday's budget announced $4 billion over 10 years to create 100,000 new homes. We need 100,000 new homes in the next five years just in Quebec. Can my colleague explain to me how the money announced yesterday is really going to help address the housing crisis?
158 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/8/22 1:09:21 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from London North Centre. One thing that is missing from this budget is help for seniors. There is absolutely nothing. On page 188, it says that seniors are not doing so badly and are not really living in poverty. However, I would remind my colleague that last August, during a totally useless election campaign, the Prime Minister promised seniors he would increase the guaranteed income supplement by $500 for people living alone and $750 for couples, but there is nothing for seniors in this budget. The government continues to discriminate against seniors by dividing them into two classes. Old age security will go up starting at 75. There is nothing for people aged 65 to 74. I would like my colleague to explain how the government can claim that drugs, rent or any consumer goods cost less for people 65 to 74 than for people 75 and up.
155 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border