So V ote

Jun/6/24 8:02:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when a member of the Conservative Party, the party that brags about standing up for francophones, asks me to respond with a yes or no, it is hard to take that seriously. I wish I could ask my colleague whether he is comfortable with the fact that his party, which claims to recognize both official languages, is not in favour of having bilingual judges on this commission. Again, I cannot take this seriously. As I said earlier, the Conservative Party appointed a unilingual anglophone auditor general. I have to say that he did learn French afterward. Who appointed unilingual anglophone justices to the Supreme Court? It was the Conservative Party. Who appointed a unilingual anglophone minister of foreign affairs who did not speak a word of French? A francophone who does not speak English would never be appointed minister of foreign affairs. That would just be too bad for the anglophones. In terms of credibility, we cannot trust the federal parties to promote and defend French.

168 words

Jun/6/24 8:01:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, once again, we see the profound hypocrisy at play here. Nothing goes deeper than Anglo-Saxon hypocrisy, and this MP just proved that to be true. For him, someone who is capable, competent and qualified must be someone who speaks one of the two official languages. It makes no sense for a government to appoint a Governor General who does not speak a word of French when that is one of the official languages. It is ridiculous for a government to appoint a unilingual anglophone Lieutenant Governor in the only bilingual province in Canada. It is ridiculous for a government to appoint judges who do not speak a word of French to the Supreme Court of Canada. A person would have to be high on something to believe that defending and promoting French is a priority for the Liberals. I understand that they are the ones who legalized marijuana, but they should not—

156 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Jun/6/24 7:51:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-40

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to a very important topic. I am referring to the creation of an independent commission to review miscarriages of justice under Bill C‑40. The bill is concrete and positive, a fact that deserves mention, considering it is not always a Liberal Party specialty. That is a rare occurrence indeed, as we know. In 2021, the Minister of Justice commissioned a report on the current criminal conviction system. The findings of this report showed that awareness about the danger of wrongful convictions has increased in Canada and the world. None of the many people consulted for this report opposed the creation of a new independent body at arm's length from the government to replace the federal Minister of Justice in hearing applications for remedies for wrongful convictions. This bill demonstrates a willingness to ensure that decisions about people who have been convicted are more independent and to strengthen public confidence in institutions. The reform proposed by Bill C‑40 is a very good initiative, and the Bloc Québécois believes that creating this commission will have several positive effects. First of all, it will allow for greater independence between the legal and political branches. The bill takes the discretion away from the justice minister and gives it to the commission. This is a step in the right direction, although it comes a little late, given that the Liberal government waited until after the media had reported on shocking cases of prisoners waiting months, even years, to have a miscarriage of justice reviewed. In the United Kingdom, for example, this system of having an independent commission review miscarriages of justice was set up 25 years ago. We are 25 years behind. This is not exactly a reason to pat ourselves on the back and break out the champagne. This independence was called into question by the recent revelations about former justice minister David Lametti, reinforcing the need for the power to order a new trial to be taken out of the hands of ministers and given to an independent body, specifically the new miscarriage of justice review commission. Let me refresh my colleagues' memories. The former justice minister ordered a new trial in the case of Justice Delisle, contrary to the recommendations of the Criminal Conviction Review Group, which said that no miscarriage of justice had occurred. This finding was also corroborated by Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions. This decision also came as a surprise to Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions, Patrick Michel, who suspects that the minister's use of power was arbitrary rather than discretionary. To add insult to injury, the sponsor of this bill is none other than the former minister of justice and former member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, which proves the importance of the bill's existence because of his actions. The Bloc Québécois would like to mention that the passage of Bill C-40 will not do anything to change its desire to investigate this matter at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This is about maintaining the public's confidence in our justice system. Favouritism has no place in our courts. Since Bill C‑40 seeks to take away the minister's power to order a new trial and instead give that power to commissioners, we think that decisions like the one made by former minister Lametti will not happen again and that this will help increase the public's confidence in the justice system. The bill will also guarantee everyone access to the commission and a referral to legal services so that everyone, particularly the most vulnerable, will have true access to justice. The history of our courts and the recent revelations regarding the former justice minister remind us that we need to improve the judicial review process. Once again, this is about the public's confidence in our courts and our justice system. Let us remember that this bill is named after the late David Milgaard. The Milgaard case is important because it reminds us that our courts, like any institution, are sometimes fallible. We need mechanisms to ensure that, when mistakes are made, they can be corrected. Just as a reminder, Milgaard was a young man who was convicted and sentenced to 23 years in prison for the murder of Gail Miller, a crime he never committed. Because Milgaard and his mother, Joyce, defended David's innocence so tirelessly, we now understand the need for a judicial review mechanism. It is thanks to their campaign and the efforts of people like Donald Marshall, Guy Paul Morin, Thomas Sophonow and James Driskell that we are now working to improve our justice system. Every one of their stories is one more reason motivating us to create this commission. We thank them for fighting for a better justice system. Finally, even though the Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of the bill, we must point out the hypocrisy of the Liberals and the NDP when it comes to the French language. My colleague, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, moved an amendment during clause-by-clause review of the bill to require the commissioners who are appointed to be fluent in both official languages. That was too much to ask. For the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP, the official languages are good for speeches and campaign days, but within the Canadian government, the Canadian public service or our courts, they are optional. The NDP boast about defending the idea of bilingual judges since 2008, but they rejected the idea of requiring the commissioners heading this independent commission to be bilingual, and they voted against their convictions. The Liberals boast about being the first government to recognize the decline in French, but they voted against the idea of bilingual judges. We saw the same thing happen with the appointment of the unilingual anglophone Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick, which is the only bilingual province in Canada. That is not to mention the appointment of the Governor General, who does not speak a word of French. To be fair, she knows how to say “bonjour”, and I think her French has improved. Now she knows how to say, “Comment ça va?” Anyone who believes that the Liberals are making French a priority must be dreaming. Quebec's motto, however, is Je me souviens, which means “I remember”. On some level, it came as no surprise to see the Conservatives' contempt for French. After all, this was the party that once appointed a unilingual anglophone auditor general and unilingual anglophone Supreme Court judges. What comes next remains to be seen. Although this great party claims to be a champion of French, once again, it does not walk the talk. That is what we call geography-dependent bilingualism. It adjusts to voter opinion like a weather vane adjusts to the wind. Moments like this reveal, or perhaps remind us, how incidental the French language is in Canada and how utopian it is to believe that the two official languages could ever truly be equal. If anyone is unfamiliar with the word “utopian”, I encourage them to look up the definition in the dictionary. Although we are choosing to support this bill, I feel compelled to point out once again the hypocrisy of certain parties and members when it comes to defending and supporting the French language. It is interesting when the government repeats over and over, on the campaign trail, in the Speech from the Throne and in the House of Commons, that it is the first party to recognize the decline of French, but—surprise, surprise—it will not be the last to worsen that decline. In closing, I hope this bill will be passed for all the reasons I outlined throughout my speech. It will foster greater public confidence in our justice system, greater independence in our justice system and, above all, greater access to justice. I also hope that, once the bill is passed, the government will make an effort to appoint commissioners who are proficient in both official languages. Why not do more to ensure that francophones have the same access to justice as anglophones? That is what substantive equality should be all about. It is not just a matter of obtaining services in French on a part-time basis. It is also about access to services in both official languages in Canada's justice system. I can assure the House that we will take a closer look at this and make sure that this genuine concern is heard.

1468 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Jun/6/24 5:49:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-277

Mr. Speaker, the perfect is the enemy of the good. This saying may well apply to the current situation and to Bill C‑277, an act to establish a national strategy on brain injuries, which I have the opportunity to talk to members of the House about today. I would like to thank my colleague for his hard work to bring this proposal before us today. Unfortunately, as with all previous national strategies, it is nothing but smoke and mirrors to make people believe that the government is doing something for them. At the end of the day, it is like putting a band-aid on a wooden leg. It serves no purpose. We have talked about national strategies for diabetes, firefighting cancers and eye health; now we are talking about a brain injury strategy. The Bloc Québécois wants to make it clear that it is uncomfortable with these national strategies. For one thing, they tend to disregard the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. One thing the bill would do is identify the training, education and guidance needs of health care and other professionals related to brain injury prevention and treatment and the rehabilitation and recovery of persons living with a brain injury. Yes, it is well intentioned. Despite my colleague's goodwill, I repeat that professional associations and the training of health professionals are not under federal jurisdiction. Brain injuries in particular are treated by hospitals, which are under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Therefore, the federal government cannot identify anything, but it can certainly help identify needs and participate in the collective effort to address the concussion epidemic. The fact is that Quebec has developed its own organizational model to address brain injuries, known as the trauma care continuum. It has been around since 1987, which is nothing to sneeze at. We already have 37 years of expertise in this area. In addition, Quebec has its action plan for the prevention and management of concussions in sports and recreational activities. The bill also endeavours to promote awareness and education with particular emphasis on improving public understanding and protecting the rights of persons living with a brain injury. For an awareness campaign to be effective, it must be adapted to its context. Given that the Quebec government provides the services and resources, it is in the best position to run those campaigns. In fact, there are many websites and brochures available to the public that are designed to prevent or recognize the symptoms of brain injuries. Our second concern with this bill is that, rather than offering concrete solutions to help people who are truly suffering, it serves more as a communication tool. In fact, the only thing it proposes is to have public servants produce a report the following year, with recommendations that are often unenforceable. If this bill had more teeth, it would propose measures that would have an immediate impact rather than a document that proposes measures after the fact. Finally, the Bloc Québécois believes that the bill ignores all the work that Quebec, the provinces, health professionals, researchers, organizations and so many others are doing on brain injury. Its objective is to make the federal government the puppet master, when Quebec has already had its own expertise for more than 30 years, as well as a unique approach to treating traumatic injuries, which include brain injuries. If the member wants to win the support of all parties for his bill, as he said he did, we urge him to recognize the efforts made by health care networks to help fight the effects of brain injury. We suggest that he avoid using his leader's sanctimonious and paternalistic tone, as he did on pharmacare, because Quebec did not wait for a national strategy to take action on that front. It is clear that this bill does nothing for people with brain injuries and serves only to ease our consciences. Concrete action is sorely lacking. That said, the Bloc Québécois will still vote in favour of the bill, provided that the federal government co-operates with Quebec and the provinces and does not impose another centralizing program that encroaches on our autonomy and sweeps aside our hard-earned expertise. It is good to set the record straight and force the federal government to fulfill its obligations. It has a duty to ensure that brain injuries are prevented wherever it can, both as an employer and as a contributor to a number of sports organizations and events. It is also the federal government's duty, through the three research councils, to fund scientific research. It is important to remember that, because it is so critical to support those who work in the universities and hospitals on treating brain injury, and the rehabilitation and recovery of individuals living with a brain injury and many others. As vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, I can only encourage the government to increase and support on an ongoing basis its participation in funding research. For 20 years it has under-funded scientific research compared to the other G7 countries and we are now suffering the consequences. Canada is the only G7 country that is seeing a decline in the retention of researchers because they are drawn to other countries where science is better supported financially and better conditions are offered. I also want to remind the House that Canada is the only G7 country that was unable to produce its own COVID‑19 vaccine. These are two tangible examples that demonstrate that this chronic under-funding has adverse effects. If the federal government wants to use tax tools to help families deal with additional costs or loss of income resulting from brain injuries, the Bloc Québécois will encourage it. In short, this and future governments can take up many non-invasive and non-intrusive responsibilities without descending once again into interference. To sum up, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill. However, it urges the federal government to take a cautious approach to any future recommendations made by officials examining this matter. As long as the federal government is willing to collaborate, rather than set conditions, we will gladly support the initiative. If it crosses a red line, we will be there to set things right. Although the federal parties might be tempted to centralize power, the Bloc Québécois will continue to defend our areas of expertise and our vision of how things should be done. We will remain vigilant, we will show no tolerance for any abuse or attempted interference, and we will defend against any encroachment on Quebec's powers. Finally, I will conclude by saying that we would be happy to consider any tangible, meaningful contributions that would really help people with brain injuries. In the meantime, we will settle for this strategy. This bill alone will not be enough to support these people. Yes, it is good to encourage consultation, but we believe that access to health care is the real problem. Quebec needs more resources in order to provide its health professionals with better working conditions, to keep them in the public system and to improve access for patients. The federal government has health care commitments that it is not fulfilling. It was supposed to pay 50% of health care costs in Quebec and the other provinces, but it currently covers only about 22%. If my colleague really wants to help our constituents with health care, he should push the government, which his party is propping up, to transfer the money owed to support the health of Quebeckers. The consequences of underfunding health care make it difficult to maintain effective, high-quality service. I see the devastating effects of that in my riding. For example, people have a hard time accessing specialized treatment, which is concentrated in urban centres several hours' drive away from my constituents. Add to that the wait times for an appointment with a health care professional and the working conditions that we can offer those professionals. We cannot accept this. It is vital that Ottawa honour its commitments so that everyone can have decent access to health care.

1392 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Jun/6/24 4:28:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party seems to have some good ideas. It recently had one. It wants to lower federal gas taxes. That sounds interesting. I wondered why they had not come up with it sooner if it was such a good idea. I did some searching. In 2008, the Harper government said that higher gas prices were unavoidable and that Canadians would have no choice but to reduce their dependence on oil and gas. He said, and I quote, “I believe you will see, over the next few years, the general trend of gasoline and other energy costs will continue to rise”. Stephen Harper, the former leader of the Conservative Party, refused to cut federal gas taxes. I will quote him again. He said, “The ability of governments to affect the price of gasoline per se is so small that it's not worth doing. What you've really got to do is lower costs for consumers generally, rather than try to fight the upward trend in the price of gasoline.” One member who was around under the Harper government is the current leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Carleton. I would like my colleague to explain in concrete terms who is telling the truth. Was it the former leader of the Conservative Party or the new leader of the Conservative Party?

229 words

Context: House Hansard - 325 - Jun/5/24

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Jun/5/24 6:15:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was very interesting. I think he is suffering from extreme optimism. Canada, which has the largest supply of drinking water in the world, is unable to provide its citizens with safe drinking water. My colleague said that progress has been made and we should be happy with that. The Liberal Party's promise in 2015 was to provide clean drinking water to indigenous communities. It has not been able to keep that promise. It is all well and good to say that progress has been made, but why is it that, after nine years in power, the government introduced a bill saying that more action is needed? There is a lack of seriousness, much like there was with the electoral reform promise the Liberal Party made in 2015. I would like my colleague to explain, as optimistically as he likes, what legislation needs to provide, nine years down the line, in order to give people access to a resource as basic as clean drinking water.

171 words

Context: House Hansard - 325 - Jun/5/24

Context: House Hansard - 320 - May/29/24

Jun/5/24 5:03:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to seek unanimous consent to change my vote. I want to vote no.

25 words

Change

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

May/29/24 5:56:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-70

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his excellent speech. It is always a pleasure to listen to him. It is like a university lecture condensed into a speech, and we keep coming back for more. It is a nice change from some other speeches that tend to be more vague, with watered-down points. Canada's national security policy dates back to 2004. This policy does not even include the words “China” and “Russia”. The government wants to counter foreign interference while being manipulated. I think the government is going about it the wrong way, which demonstrates the need to update the national security policy specifically for the purpose of countering foreign interference. My colleague mentioned the issue of naivety, which clearly no longer applies to this government now that it has introduced Bill C‑70. However, there is the issue of transparency. When it was elected in 2015, the Liberal government promised to be transparent. With the Hogue commission, we are not seeing any transparency from the government of the day. I would like my colleague from Trois-Rivières to explain the importance and necessity of having a transparent government when it comes to releasing documents to ensure public confidence in democratic institutions in order to counter foreign interference.

223 words

May/9/24 9:26:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it will take me a lot longer than a minute to make the federal government understand that the regions exist and that they have specific needs, just like Quebec, which is also distinguished by its nationhood and its own specific needs. Air transportation is practically non-existent in the regions. When its pals at Air Canada ask for millions or billions of dollars in wage subsidies, the government is there to help. However, when it comes to providing services to regular folks and putting planes on the tarmac, the government is nowhere to be seen. As for rail transportation, our friends at Via Rail want financial support to renew their rolling stock, which is so old it cannot run any longer. It requires constant patch-ups and repairs. In the near future, what will happen? How will the trains keep running? Once again, the government is abandoning public transit, especially in the regions of Quebec. That is completely unacceptable. It compromises life in the regions, including the empowerment and growth of rural residents.

175 words

May/9/24 9:25:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is obviously in favour of this measure, which finally recognizes how distressing such situations can be for parents. We did not wait for the federal government to create our child care system. It has been around for 25 years. The same goes for our other social programs, such as the Quebec parental insurance plan, which has been around for many years. Quebec has a strong social safety net. Again, we did not wait for help from the federal government. The Quebec parental insurance plan provides between 15 and 18 weeks of benefits after the type of situation my colleague mentioned, whether it was a spontaneous miscarriage or a planned termination. There is an adjustment that varies depending on the situation, but all that is to say that this is a good measure. However, just because there is one small measure in a sea of bad measures does not mean that we are going to support this budget. When things are good, we have to say so. When they are not so good, we should not be shy about saying so either.

190 words

May/9/24 9:23:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is a saying that goes, “If you want something done right, do it yourself”. That is good, because the Bloc Québécois is a separatist party. It is in favour of independence. It wants to take care of its own business by itself, for itself, without needing anything from a federal government that does not always share Quebec's priorities. As my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton just said, this is clearly a direct attack on Quebec's jurisdictions. The government no longer wants to let us make decisions for ourselves, by ourselves, for the well-being of our people and in accordance with our priorities. There is no way we can vote in favour of something that is not in line with our constituents' priorities. Our autonomy is being compromised. There was not even any consultation. That is completely unacceptable. We are therefore well within our rights to vote against this bill, another brazen attack on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

170 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

May/9/24 9:12:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, a leopard cannot change its spots. Once again, it is clear that the Liberal government is trying to interfere in Quebec's affairs and fantasizing about taking over jurisdictions that do not belong to it and in which it has no expertise. Why? Maybe it is trying to justify its existence and appear relevant. Budget 2024 and this bill are perfect examples of that. That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C‑59. Let me say this loud and clear: The federal government's unabashed assault on Quebec's jurisdictions is scandalous. By choosing to create a federal department of municipal affairs, which it calls the department of housing, infrastructure and communities, Ottawa is announcing yet more interference in how Quebec runs its internal affairs. The size of the public service has jumped by 42%, or 109,000 public servants, and the tax burden has increased by $20 billion, but the Liberal government wants to make the public service even bigger, doubling its army of highly paid public servants, whose thankless task it will be to interfere in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, and who will give the federal government the organizational capacity to impose even more conditions on Quebec and municipalities. It is readily apparent that this massive public servant hiring campaign will make it easier to coordinate the centralization of power and decision-making in Ottawa. The father of the current Prime Minister, the member for Papineau, tried a similar approach when he created the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs in 1971. The experiment was a dismal failure. As the saying goes, like father, like son. We need the humility to learn from our past mistakes in order to avoid repeating them. As a proud regionalist and elected official in a riding that includes 39 municipalities and three regional county municipalities, commonly known as RCMs, I know what I am talking about. Many of them are already having a hard time getting what they are owed from the federal government, because of funding that never arrives on time or cuts in financial support for the cultural sector, for example. Why complicate the process with more delays, costs, disputes and even more delays? Municipalities need fast, effective and direct action to address the various issues. They are the ones that deliver services most directly to the public. The federal government, however, is doing the exact opposite by adding more layers of red tape that will only increase costs and lengthen delays. I should also point out that the Parliamentary Budget Officer recently said, about federal services, “public services themselves appear to have deteriorated. Not all of them are at the level one would expect from the public service.” Do my fellow citizens really want the federal government to manage more things? Well, no. The really sad thing about this part of Bill C‑59 is that the Liberals are offering a solution that no one asked for instead of meeting expectations within their own areas of jurisdiction, and that is really detrimental. I feel like I am repeating myself, but the housing crisis we are currently experiencing, which is dragging on because of half measures that do not solve the problem, must be addressed quickly. People are suffering. Social housing in particular has been chronically underfunded since the 1990s, yet the federal government is not stepping up. Instead, it is trying to take even more responsibility despite its ineffectiveness and incompetence in other matters. The vacancy rate in Rimouski is 0.6%. A balanced market sits at 3%. That means it is almost impossible to find housing. Families are living in motels. It is disgraceful. It is not just in my riding, either. My colleagues and neighbours throughout the Lower St. Lawrence are in similar situations, with a rate of 0.7% in Rivière-du-Loup and 1.2% in Matane. The answer is simple. We are asking the federal government to stop trying to manage everything, to stop micromanaging, and to simply do what is expected of it, which is to transfer the money to the Quebec government, unconditionally. Then we can tackle the crisis and try to resolve it. The Bloc Québécois is not going to make concessions. We will stand firm. Let us now talk about the second major concern that we have with this bill. While we want to do away with fossil fuels, the Liberals are reminding us that they are great allies of the oil companies by adding a $30.3-billion subsidy in the form of tax credits paid for by taxpayers. I am talking about the taxpayers who are watching us at home this evening. That $30.3 billion belongs to them. This is not really surprising. We know that Suncor had a hand in drafting the government's policy. The image that comes to mind is that of a firefighter arsonist. In Rimouski, these same super wealthy companies are increasing the cost of gas for residents, sometimes by up to 20¢ overnight. They have a virtual monopoly and yet they are putting a huge burden on the shoulders of those who depend on their vehicles to get around, make a living and get to work. I already know that some members will tell me that those individuals can just use public transit to get around. They are right, but when the federal government abandons the regions to focus on large urban centres, then public transit in the regions is obviously not sufficient to offer a real alternative to vehicle use. The Lower St. Lawrence has practically no trains or buses anymore. The number of weekly private bus departures has gone from 6,000 to 882 since 1981. That is an 85% drop. I met the heads of Via Rail recently. They told me that the trains that go to Rimouski have been in service since the 1950s or 1960s, that the rail cars are at the end of their useful life and that these lines will have to be shut down in a few years if the federal government does not invest in them soon. That means we are going to lose one of our last links to the rest of Quebec if the government continues to do nothing. This situation has been going on for too long. Budget 2024 was not the boost we were looking for to save the regional connections. I get the impression that we are going backward. Our ancestors who built the railway must be rolling over in their graves looking at their descendants shutting it down, when we do not even have an alternative in place. Is the federal government waiting to swoop in at the last minute like a hero at the risk of further isolating the regions? I will not get into the fact that there are virtually no flights in the regions. The wonderful corporate citizens at Air Canada took advantage of the public health crisis to cease their operations in June 2020 and they never came back to our region, or to the Mont-Joli regional airport, more specifically. As a result of all of these transportation problems, some of my constituents now even have to take a taxi to Quebec City to get hospital services. I hold the federal government responsible for that, because it is refusing to abide by its agreement to cover 50% of Quebec's health care costs, which compromises access to health care and the development of these kinds of services in the regions. Now, if the billions of dollars earmarked for oil companies had instead been allocated to transportation, imagine how much the government could have actually improved the situation. We see that the government's priorities are not always in the right place and that the regions still do not matter to the Liberals. They basically never do. Consequently, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-59, which both encroaches on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and demonstrates the full extent of the Liberal government's hypocrisy. There has never been a more centralizing government. I get the impression that it wants to revise the definition of a confederation. We are no longer in a confederation; we are under a central government that wants to appropriate all the powers and change the rules of the game without consulting the players. I would even go so far as to say that the rules of the game are constitutional agreements. We cannot take it lightly when agreements with partners are not being upheld. The government claims to want meaningful collaboration with its partners, yet it does not even respect its own agreements with its so-called partners. Moreover, we will not support the creation of a department whose main task will be to interfere more aggressively in Quebec's jurisdictions and double the government's army of public servants. Nor will we support the $30.3 billion subsidy to ultrarich oil companies that will undoubtedly compromise our ecosystems and slow down the energy transition that Quebec is spearheading. That concludes my speech. I welcome questions and comments from my colleagues.

1548 words