Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, it is rare for me to agree with my Conservative colleagues, but I do agree with them on one point. There is appalling ineffectiveness within the government. Allow me give an example. We have just come through an election campaign in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, where it was made clear to the government that the funding, the liquidity support it wanted to provide to the forestry sector, is not working. The government was asked to lower the eligibility threshold from $2 million in annual revenue to $1 million. I have been checking for the past two weeks to see if anyone in Quebec has accessed this liquidity. No one has. This is appallingly ineffective. Meanwhile, the government is in the process of equipping itself with the tools to circumvent environmental laws. Ultimately, I have my doubts about both the Build Canada Homes strategy, as my colleague pointed out, and the strategy for providing access to liquidity for those in the forestry sector. No one is seeing any results yet. This is a terrible failure on the part of this government.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague read the bill carefully. I did. It gives the government the option of launching oil or gas infrastructure projects without completing environmental assessments first. Here is a very telling example. Back home, the GNL Québec project was turned down. Its proponents had said that they would respect the environmental assessments. However, when their proposal was flatly refused, they turned around and sued the government. I am loathe to think what would happen if an oil and gas project got off the ground, with infrastructure construction under way, only to find out that the project was a no-go and had to be shut down. That would lead to devastating lawsuits for the government. Is my colleague aware of that?

Mr. Speaker, the reality is not what my colleague claims. The only oil and gas infrastructure projects that have been carried out were only possible because the government agreed to invest public funds in them. Back home in Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, as soon as developers started asking for public money for the liquefied natural gas project, the LNG project, the Government of Quebec lost interest. People know full well that over the long term, with the energy transition under way, these very expensive infrastructure projects are not profitable. That is the problem. We are going to end up in a scenario where environmental assessments have been scrapped and people can pretty much do whatever they want with infrastructure projects that are not profitable. Does my colleague agree?

Mr. Speaker, I find this debate rather fascinating. All day, my Conservative colleagues have been arguing that the government is not allowing oil and gas projects to move forward quickly enough. They can hardly say that it is a good idea to get rid of environmental assessments so that oil and gas projects can move forward. However, there is one thing that I hope we agree on, and I would like my colleague to give me a clear answer. On several occasions, the leader of the official opposition has said that big oil companies that let the public pay for their infrastructure are receiving corporate welfare. Does my colleague agree with us that it is unacceptable that public money is being used to pay for oil and gas infrastructure?

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague entirely. While the intention may be commendable, the indicators suggest that the assistance may not reach the people who are struggling the most. As legislators, the last thing we want is to help greedy oil and gas companies make bigger profits. We definitely need a mechanism to ensure that the tax relief goes directly to the most vulnerable. I have a solution, and I wonder if my colleague would agree with me. Instead of sending oil and gas companies billions of dollars in tax credits and support, would it not be better to increase old age security for the most vulnerable, for seniors struggling to put food on the table with nothing but the GIS and OAS to rely on? That might be a better solution.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is a right time for implementing such a measure, but we also need indicators to prove that it will have the desired effect on the most vulnerable. That part is a bit more difficult. We are in favour of helping people who are struggling to afford housing, clothing and food in these difficult times. Gas is an essential consumer good. However, it is still important to make sure that this measure will not help the greedy oil and gas companies rack up even bigger profits. There is already a dedicated policy of giving those companies billions of dollars in support. I, for one, think that the government could make an effort to support seniors as well and increase old age security by ending its support for oil and gas companies. Perhaps my colleague is in favour of that.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague astutely pointed out that the measure we are discussing this evening is tied to the current situation. He also talked about the measures the government has put in place to help people cope with the cost of living, even though we do not agree on everything. However, there is one matter the Liberal government often overlooks, namely, the issue of seniors. Those who have suffered the most in the wake of the pandemic are seniors aged 65 to 74, who continue to suffer from inequity and whose purchasing power has never increased. Since my colleague started off by saying that the government should help people when they are going through tough times or facing difficult economic conditions, does he agree with me that increasing old age security for people aged 65 to 74 would be a good measure?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has a bad habit of saying one thing and doing another. For example, in his campaign platform, the phrase “climate change” appeared 28 times, while the word “pipeline” did not appear even once, yet it is his pipeline that takes priority. Another example is that he said he would deal with the tariffs imposed by Donald Trump last July. In the meantime, he keeps making concessions to Donald Trump, who was still insisting as recently as yesterday that he wants nothing to do with free trade. Does the Prime Minister think he can keep saying one thing and doing another for much longer?

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mirabel, the one they call “the MP with the golden voice”, just like little Joselito, and whom the people of Alto call “le député du petit train de l'amour”. It is a pleasure to speak today to express the Bloc Québécois's support for Bill C-26. The Bloc Québécois has often advocated for an unconditional transfer of $1.7 billion to the provinces and territories and that is what this bill provides. This money will go directly to the territories to address the major housing crisis we are currently facing, without going through any new structures. That is the best part, that this money is not going through new structures, action plans, or some sort of federal entity as we saw with Build Canada Homes. Not long ago, in fact, I rose to speak to Build Canada Homes. We quickly realized that although this initiative had its appeal, with $7.3 billion to invest, it was slowing down social housing construction. I gave the example, in my riding, of a group called Loge m'entraide, which received funds from the SHQ, or Société d'habitation du Québec, for a major project, and was waiting for an answer about the federal government's contribution through the affordable housing fund. As often happens with federal initiatives, CMHC's affordable housing fund was set aside with assurances that a new initiative was on the way. The new initiative never materialized and had to be picked up by Build Canada Homes, with the result that the Loge m'entraide project is now in limbo. However, that is not what we are seeing with Bill C-26. It provides a direct transfer to the provinces, as we have been calling for, rather than, as is often the case with the federal government, a proliferation of top-down structures and criteria imposed by Ottawa, without Ottawa necessarily being familiar with the specific challenges faced by the provinces and municipalities. We have said many times that the federal government should instead focus on straightforward, unconditional and predictable transfers to the provinces. That is what we are seeing with Bill C‑26, I might add. However, my job is certainly not to sing the government’s praises, so I would like to take this opportunity to address a glaring problem: federal interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Why can I do this in the context of Bill C-26? Because it is, in a way, the exception that proves the rule. There is something glaringly obvious when we look at this bill and past legislation in the context of Canadian federalism. I do not need to talk about predatory federalism, which we have often seen and involves an encroachment on areas of jurisdiction, but there is something glaringly obvious in the fact that the federal government has repeatedly acted in an unjust and unfair manner when transferring funds. This gives me an opportunity to once again address the most glaring injustice in the federation: the fiscal imbalance. We need to talk about this again because the reason the government can transfer $1.7 billion dollars at this point is that it has the fiscal capacity to do so. It has that fiscal capacity because of the fiscal imbalance. It has more revenue than expenses. What I mean by the fiscal imbalance is quite simple. Virtually all of the public services governments are required to provide are delivered by the provinces and Quebec, yet the federal government's tax base allows it to collect 60% of the total tax revenue. Essentially, the provinces and Quebec provide most of the services, such as education, health care and social programs, to name just a few, but the federal government's social mandate is typically limited to old age security benefits and family benefits. Note that employment insurance is not included because the employment insurance fund is not financed through taxation. It is funded by employers and workers. The federal government has no social mission and a lot of revenue. The provinces and Quebec have a lot of social missions, a lot of spending and little revenue. That is the fiscal imbalance at work. That is why, year in and year out, over the past 10 to 15 years, the government has had to focus on transfer programs to the provinces. These transfers were often accompanied by the federal government's involvement in areas of jurisdiction that it knew very little about, through strategies that were not always efficient. We have seen examples of that. Like me, we have experienced that. We could talk about the dental insurance program, which was a disaster. However, the worst disaster in the federation is the fiscal imbalance, which mainly affects health care. I want to emphasize that point because it seems to me that we have not talked about it in a while. If memory serves, 1969 is when the public health care system was put in place. For every dollar invested in health care, 50¢ came from the provinces and 50¢ came from the federal government. The Bloc Québécois has fought this battle. We have come back to this issue on numerous occasions over the past few years because barely 22% of today's funding for our health care systems comes from the federal government. When only 22% of funding comes from the federal government, this implies that the remainder is borne by the provinces. Health care is the Quebec government's most important responsibility and the largest budget item. Looking at the current projections, it quickly becomes clear that between 42% and 45% of the Quebec government's total budget is devoted to a single responsibility: health care. This means that there is just over 50% of the budget left to cover all the government's other responsibilities such as education, the fight against poverty, the needs of local authorities, infrastructure requirements or support for Quebeckers. The federal government sometimes implements industrial strategies to support businesses, but they are not always appropriate. Allow me to give a rather striking example. We are currently experiencing one of the worst slumps in Canada's economic history due to our relations with the United States. The two hardest hit sectors are Quebec's forestry industry and the aluminum sector. The situation in Quebec's forestry industry is the worst. With the combination of countervailing duties, anti-dumping duties and additional tariffs of 10%, 45% of these companies' profit margins are going right down the drain. They have no access to them given the tariff issue with the United States. The other major problem affects the aluminum industry, which is being hit with 50% tariffs. What was the federal government's strategic response? It said that we needed to export more energy. That is rather shocking. The strategic response of the level of government with the greatest fiscal capacity was not to look at which sectors were most affected. Instead, the government looked at what opportunities were available to it. The government had an opportunity to advance the energy sector, one of its primary missions. It therefore chose to support the oil and gas industry, even though that industry was not affected by the crisis. It is true. The oil and gas industry is the only one that has not been affected by the crisis. Here is what I find even more shocking. When we look at the ownership structure of the oil and gas industry, we see that most of the companies belong to Americans. The federal government has therefore decided to invest Quebeckers' money in strategies aimed at supporting the only sector of the economy that is harming Quebec. This is an example of one of the federal government's major investments. This is of direct concern to the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, since he arrived just as I was talking about that. The federal government is making this investment using its fiscal capacity, but it is hurting Quebec. We will therefore take the $1.7 billion, since it is being paid out unconditionally, but once again it strikes me as a counter-example that proves that we are in a predatory federalist system. I would love to hear the member for Winnipeg North contradict what I just said.

Mr. Speaker, that is a new one. I did not see that coming. Equalization payments must be calculated on a per capita basis, and there are more people in Quebec than in Manitoba. I would urge my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, to take into account the fact that, every year, the Quebec government runs a trade deficit with the oil-producing provinces. Every year, the Quebec government probably sends far more money to Alberta than Albertans can send to Quebec. As for the major investments that were made—yes, it is not a surprise—if the government had not used $34 billion to buy a pipeline and instead made major investments in any other economy, we might be in a different situation today. We have paid for our energy infrastructure. It was Quebec, it was Hydro-Québec, that paid for its own energy infrastructure. It was not the entire federation. That is worse than equalization.

Mr. Speaker, the greatest benefit anyone can have in life is political autonomy. My neighbour is not the one who decides what I do with my earnings, how I use that money, how I will make it grow. I am the one who makes those decisions. As I said earlier, politically, we are subject to a level of government that makes decisions that are contrary to our best interest. The government's response to the tariff crisis is one example of that. The only sector with no tariffs is the energy sector. All of the government's strategies focus on the energy sector, and that is what Quebeckers' money is being used for. This proves that the only way to succeed is to have political autonomy, and the only way we can achieve that is through independence.

Mr. Speaker, it definitely is a trap. It is such a trap that it has even been documented. They call it “Dutch disease”. Quebec's manufacturing sector lost most of its jobs because the energy sector bumped up the value of the Canadian dollar. We are the ones who paid the price. I remember the former NDP leader speaking out against that. As soon as he came close to power, however, he chose to pander to the rest of Canada and pretend Dutch disease no longer existed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé on his speech. He talked about how big some ridings are. I know that he is known for being very good about travelling around to different parts of his riding. Everyone there knows him and loves him. He also talked about political financing. Would this bill not have been a good opportunity to review our political financing system, which is not particularly fair to people who want to participate constructively in the democratic debate? I would like him to elaborate on that.

Mr. Speaker, earlier, in his speech, my colleague referred to the size of certain ridings. When the electoral map is redrawn, there are two concepts. First, there is the concept of the quotient, which is the population base, and then there is the concept of community of interest. Unfortunately, the latter is rarely respected, much less used, when an electoral map is redrawn. As a result, communities that have no similar economic interests sometimes wind up lumped together. That is what happened in my riding. A rather major distinction is made in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. Residents come from either Saguenay or Lac-Saint-Jean. Unfortunately, when the map was redrawn, they took small communities from Lac-Saint-Jean and lumped them in with Saguenay, causing an uproar. We will work hard to represent these people as they deserve, but I think it is important to support this idea of community of interest. Can my colleague elaborate on that?

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I will be sharing my time with the ever-energetic member for South Shore—St. Margarets. I want to talk about a recurring pattern with this government, one that I have observed since the beginning of this Parliament. There are two crises that are affecting us. I will focus on two major crises, although there may be more. The first is the housing crisis, and the second is the tariff crisis. In a previous life, when I was studying philosophy, we were given a definition of “crisis” that was quite simple. It is when a body goes through a period that puts it on the brink of life or death. Responding to a crisis means ensuring the survival of a body. If nothing is done, then that body will die. That was a definition that I had in my philosophy courses. What does that imply? Why do I raise this? It is because during a crisis, what is needed is prompt action that produces results. The best example is perhaps a heart attack. If someone has a heart attack, they would not be satisfied with me telling them not to worry and to keep breathing because it will eventually pass. They would want prompt action. They would want medical care to stay alive. What I am seeing today from the government is precisely a lack of prompt action. Now we have Build Canada Homes, and I will give an example. Loge m'entraide, an organization in my riding that received funding from the Société d'habitation du Québec, or SHQ, to build social housing, was supposed to receive money from the affordable housing fund, or AHF, which was administered by CMHC. That was at the beginning, in 2024. This organization received its SHQ funding. CMHC officials said that if SHQ funding was secured, then AHF funding would be coming. Several months passed. The affordable housing fund disappeared. The government said that it would reach a new agreement with the provinces and that it would then follow up to see whether SHQ projects would qualify. Now, after 18 months, Loge m'entraide is still waiting for federal funding. The government scrapped the AHF, which was supposed to be refinanced by the government in the budget. However, what we learned from the budget is that there would be a new program instead. This new program was going to solve all the problems. This new program is called Build Canada Homes, but in the meantime, no social housing is being built in my riding because the federal government is unable to respond to the crisis. Another point that strikes me as essential is that, throughout the election campaign and even afterward, I heard the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources say that there is one sector that has been particularly affected by tariffs since 2017, and that is the forestry sector. We were already dealing with U.S. tariffs even before the tariff crisis. These two people told us that they knew that the lumber sector was particularly affected, but that they were going to resolve this issue through a major initiative. The Prime Minister said that during the election campaign. The Minister of Natural Resources repeated it ad nauseam. They said they were going to resolve it through a major initiative that would allow homes to be built using Canadian lumber. I am a guy who is all about co-operation. I thought to myself that we have been asking for this since I arrived here in 2019 and that this government may have understood that it had to support the forestry industry. However, where do we stand today? If I look at the Build Canada Homes bill, is there anything that clearly states that Canadian wood has to be used? I do not know whether anyone else has seen that, but I have not. Apart from the Liberal Party's lip service, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that construction will be done with wood. This brings us to another major crisis, the softwood lumber crisis, which mainly affects Quebec, but also Ontario to some extent as well as British Columbia. However, there is absolutely nothing in there to suggest that the federal government wants to prioritize wood as a material, apart from the statements that have been made. I say that because it is very important; I remember that in 2025, for the first time, a federal government said in response to the softwood lumber crisis that it would provide liquidity. In August 2025, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources said that there would be a liquidity program for people in the forestry sector who are going through one of the worst crises they have ever experienced. Eight or nine months later, people in my riding have contacted me to express interest in accessing the Business Development Bank of Canada, or BDC, program, but it is still vague and the rules are so hard to understand that no one I know can access it. Eight or nine months on, we are in a crisis, as I said earlier. If a person has a heart attack, they want an immediate response. Eight or nine months later, absolutely nothing has been done to support the forestry sector. Then, the federal government announces that it is going to launch a broad strategy to use wood in building construction. How is it going to use wood in building construction when the majority of businesses, whether small sawmills or lumber producers, are shutting down? How can the same momentum be recreated when companies in the forestry sector are being left to die? We sat down and came up with proposals. We are in collaboration mode. It is true that we sometimes criticize the government's measures in the House. However, we gave the government a suggestion. The first thing that we did was to go and see people in the forestry sector to tell them that there will be business opportunities. The government wants to launch a major construction project, and so we asked business owners in the industry what they have to offer. These people told us that, before they can offer anything, they have to keep their companies afloat and get through the tariff crisis with the United States, and that the best way to do that would be for the government to cover some of the anti-dumping and countervailing duties at the end of each month. Today, more than $13 billion is being held captive, in trust, at the border by the Americans. That amount belongs to the forestry sector. If we could inject that $13 billion into this sector, everybody would be thrilled. However, this $13 billion is being held captive. People in the forestry sector are accommodating. They do not want to get that money back right away. They want to exhaust all available recourse with the international trade tribunals. In the meantime, they are asking the government to take care of 50% of these countervailing and anti-dumping duties and tariffs at the end of each month. A 10% tariff brings the total tariff amount to 45%. Furthermore, this is not a subsidy, because this problem will eventually be resolved. The forestry industry is asking the government to adopt this proposal so that it can keep its ecosystem alive. When construction starts up again, forestry companies will be there and they will not have all disappeared. The government rejected this proposal. The government was given another proposal to maintain the ecosystem and the value chain that allows us to use wood in construction. The proposal was for the government to provide the equivalent of a wage subsidy, which would be an easy thing for the government to do. The government also rejected this proposal. Last week, the government announced with great fanfare what the task force strategy entailed. It is very interesting. The government talked about $10 billion over 10 years. Will this amount actually be distributed? I do not know, but it was announced with great fanfare. Are there any conclusive solutions and results today that will allow the forestry sector to respond to what will be a vast construction site for the Build Canada Homes projects? There is absolutely nothing. In closing, Build Canada Homes is a great strategy but, at the end of the day, absolutely nothing is being done. This government likes to talk about what it wants to do but is very slow to take action. That is what is disappointing. I look forward to hearing my colleagues' questions on this matter. I also look forward to seeing their record so far.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I am in collaboration mode, but I am not seeing any results. I sometimes wonder about the government's interest in the forestry industry. What struck me the most about the “Canada Strong for All” fiscal update is that the words “forest” and “forestry” appear only nine times. However, a search for the words “oil” or “oil company” shows that they appear 130 times. “Canada for all” seems to be Canada focused on western Canada's energy sector. It is not Canada focused on the forestry sector. As we know, politics is a balance of power, and unfortunately, when it comes down to the forestry industry, right now our balance of power is non‑existent.

Mr. Speaker, our position is quite simple: We want more housing construction, and we want support for the forestry industry. Our criticisms concern the government's slow response. If it does not take immediate action to support forestry, this industry will lose its lifeblood. Small regions like mine, whether in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, Abitibi or the north shore, are being hollowed out and will pay the price. The government is turning a deaf ear and is unwilling to listen to the industry's legitimate demands. It is still making announcements rather than responding to the crisis. We are still going to vote in favour of this initiative. If it comes to fruition and is good for everyone, then we will not vote against it. The goal is not to oppose for the sake of opposing. That is not what we do.

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. The answer is quite simple: The federal government has never been willing to fight for softwood lumber. We are at the mercy of the Americans. Not only that, but we also have an economic sector that is currently unable to access federal assistance, because it is constantly being referred to Global Affairs Canada and told no. What the federal government has been doing for the past few years is unconscionable. It has allowed the situation to deteriorate, and now we are facing deeply troubling consolidations in the forestry sector.

Mr. Speaker, it seems like it is always the same old story. The federal government is proposing strategies, like the Build Canada Homes program. It is also proposing to retool the forestry sector, but that will not happen in six months. It will take 10 years to see results. The federal government is not agile enough to act in a timely manner. That is why, in my speech earlier, I gave the example of the affordable housing fund, which has gone from CMHC to Build Canada Homes, meaning that, today, projects that would have received this funding 10 or so months ago are now stuck waiting. That is the problem with these initiatives. Perhaps my colleague is seeing the same thing in her own riding.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question in the same vein. Earlier in my speech, I said that the government was adding a layer of bureaucracy. In the past, there used to be programs managed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC. In my riding, I see a lot of social housing development projects that are unfortunately not being funded. They have funding from Quebec through the Société d'habitation du Québec, or SHQ, but they have not received federal funding for several months because they have been asked to wait for Build Canada Homes. CMHC used to be able to provide funding, however. Does my colleague agree that there is an added layer of complexity here? Perhaps he is seeing the same type of problem in his own riding, where projects are ready to move forward but are being held up by the slow federal government.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that, as with anything, the simplest solution is usually to entrust these matters to the levels of government that are in the best position to meet the needs. Yes, the federal government and the Government of Quebec signed an agreement for housing, but Quebec knows its own housing needs best. That includes social housing and other types of housing. Unfortunately, Build Canada Homes will add another layer of bureaucracy. That is neither efficient nor effective. It will slow down the entire process. My colleague is a member of Parliament from Ontario. I wonder if the same applies in his province.

Mr. Speaker, one thing that has come up a lot this evening is the fact that, unfortunately, the government makes many announcements, but it is neither effective nor efficient. I gave the example of an organization in my riding, Loge m'entraide, which was supposed to receive its funding through CMHC. Unfortunately, it was told to wait and see whether that CMHC program would be funded again. Now the organization has been told to wait for Build Canada Homes to take over. The federal government is now delaying the construction of social housing in my riding. I wonder if my colleague is experiencing the same thing, because right now, the delays mean that social housing projects may have to wait up to 18 months to see the light of day.

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports the bill, but I agree with my colleague that it adds another layer of complexity. My riding is home to some social housing projects that were supposed to be funded by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Now we are waiting for the funding, because the program has been deprioritized or sidelined by Build Canada Homes. As of today, we are still waiting for a response from Build Canada Homes regarding funding that was due years ago. There has already been a delay, and now a new structure is being added. The government appears to have rushed this process. I am wondering whether my colleague has any similar examples in her riding.

Madam Speaker, this year, we are celebrating the 100th anniversary of Arvida, an iconic industrial town in the Saguenay region. Founded in 1926, Arvida is considered an outstanding example of urban planning. It is known for its innovative architecture and the remarkable diversity of its working-class neighbourhoods, which are unique in the history of industrial towns. Arvida has played a pivotal role in Quebec's development by making a major contribution to aluminum production. Its legacy is recognized in several ways: It has been designated a Canadian national historic site and a Quebec heritage site, and more recently, it was recognized by the Quebec National Assembly for its exceptional contribution to Quebec's cultural history and for its potential to be added to the tentative list of UNESCO world heritage sites. I want to commend Carl Dufour and the Arvida Heritage Committee. Thanks to their commitment, Arvida is getting the recognition it deserves. On this 100th anniversary, we are celebrating a legacy that reflects the important role that the aluminum industry and our local expertise play in the economy. Happy anniversary, everyone.

Madam Speaker, let us be clear. The Prime Minister of Canada regards Quebec culture as nothing more than an annoying trade barrier. The Quebec government says that, in the context of the CUSMA negotiations, this sends a signal that Ottawa is prepared to compromise on our culture. Quebec is also considering its own options for making streaming platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime contribute financially, since the federal government is capitulating to the Americans. Do the Liberals realize that they are sending a message to Quebeckers that they can rely on no one but themselves to safeguard the future of our culture?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C‑263. Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill, even though some colleagues in the House seem to support it. We do not support this type of bill, because it clearly encroaches on Quebec's jurisdictions. As well, a similar system already exists in Quebec. Let us be clear, we are not against the alert, much less against leaving seniors to fend for themselves. However, since a similar system is already in place in Quebec, we have no choice but to vote against the bill. In our opinion, the bill could create additional bureaucracy or risk weakening protocols among police forces by trying to standardize and centralize procedures in Ottawa. We want Quebec, the provinces and the territories to create and adopt a silver alert protocol on their terms. We oppose any standardized effort led by Ottawa that disregards local and regional realities in Quebec or in Canada. Many examples have shown that, when too many levels of government are involved, chains of command and approval become longer and far less efficient and that this can sometimes even leave the door open to disaster. One example is the disastrous situation that occurred with the truckers on Parliament Hill, when the federal government basically shut down the Hill for several weeks through its inaction and lack of coordination with law enforcement. As the saying goes, “less is more”. Our police officers already have a lot of power. We just need to let them do their job and carry out their planning. The Bloc Québécois consulted with various people regarding this bill, including Pierre Lynch from the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, or the AQDR. According to him, Quebec's silver alert system is working very well. He also pointed out that, in difficult budgetary times, the federal government should not be creating costly protocols that would undermine the efforts that Quebec and the other provinces have made to set up silver alert systems. He said that it is important to keep in mind that the ultimate goal of such a protocol is to find people safe and sound. Mr. Lynch also believes that a prescriptive framework should not interfere with the system that Quebec and Ontario police forces have spent years carefully building. It should be noted that in missing persons cases, police forces in Quebec and across Canada already work together and coordinate efforts if there is a possibility that an older adult may have left their province of residence. Taking all these factors into account, we are left with the impression that Bill C‑263 is, in a sense, trying to reinvent the wheel and force Quebec, the provinces and the territories to operate under a single protocol, namely, the federal protocol. However, Quebec did not wait for the federal government to act. The silver alert was launched as a pilot project in June 2022 in three Quebec RCMs: Drummond, Joliette, and Vallée-de-l'Or. The announcement was made in June 2022 by Marguerite Blais, a former Coalition Avenir Québec MNA and the then minister responsible for seniors and caregivers. As soon as it was launched, the project received support from the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec and the AQDR. Following several tragic incidents in Quebec in which seniors died or went missing, Minister Blais had made this a ministerial priority. Quebec did not wait for the federal government to act. Subsequent consultations and pilot projects led to the establishment of protocols that were quickly implemented, and the results were conclusive. In February, Sonia Bélanger, Quebec's minister of health and minister responsible for social services, decided to expand the silver alert to cover the entire province of Quebec. The Federation of Quebec Alzheimer Societies also applauded the Quebec government's decision to implement a provincewide silver alert. The organization also noted that cognitive disorders will affect nearly 240,000 Quebeckers over the next 14 years. Quebec's initiative will therefore address a growing need. The first instance of a silver alert in Quebec was officially recorded on February 27, 2026, following the pilot phase, after the silver alert was extended to cover the whole province. The missing person was a 91-year-old resident of Plessisville. The Sûreté du Québec issued the silver alert, and within 24 hours of its broadcast, the man was located in the Kamouraska region. Since there is only a short period that can be analyzed, it should be noted that we do not yet have access to data at the Quebec level, nor to the number of official cases that have been the subject of a silver alert. We can, however, expect that these statistics will become available in the coming years and that we will be able to ascertain the effectiveness of silver alerts in Quebec. In conclusion, I would say that we could support this bill if it were aimed at encouraging common protocols that draw inspiration from the success of the Quebec model for troubling disappearances. Unfortunately, the bill instead seems aimed at creating a purely Canadian solution, led by Ottawa. We cannot support an attempt to change something that is already working in Quebec and to alter initiatives that have already been put in place by the Quebec government. I would also note that, under the Constitution, the federal government is responsible for criminal law, national security and border control, but not for provincial and municipal police forces, and certainly not for the administration of justice and law enforcement. Once again, this amounts to interference in areas under Quebec's jurisdiction. We need to put an end to this constant reflex to centralize everything in Ottawa. The constitutional division of powers is clear, and it is up to the other governments to establish this type of policy, as we know. These days, everything costs more when Ottawa gets involved. We have seen plenty of examples of this here. No one can deny that these days, so I do not see why the federal government would interfere in something that Quebec has already put in place and that is working very well. That is why we will not be supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, part of the reason for the economic slowdown is the tariff war we are engaged in with the United States. It is all well and good to criticize the government, but we also have to make proposals from time to time. One sector that has undoubtedly been hit harder than the others is the softwood lumber sector. A solution has been circulating for some time now. It was developed in collaboration with forestry companies and the major unions. The program involves buying back some of the anti-dumping countervailing duties. I am sure my Conservative colleagues are familiar with the proposal. Do they agree that the Canadian economy and the forestry sector should be given a boost by implementing a program to buy back the anti-dumping countervailing duties?

Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed to see the member for Winnipeg North rewriting history in every one of his speeches. Earlier, he referred to the fact that the Prime Minister was unable to resolve the tariff crisis during his first few months in office, yet that is exactly what the Prime Minister had promised during the election campaign: With his background, he would be able to resolve this tariff crisis. It is easy to say, in retrospect, that it was impossible, but it was still an election promise that was very important to him at the time. However, I will set that aside. I will simply point out to the parliamentary secretary that the situation in the forestry sector is currently untenable. Solutions exist. The province most affected by the tariff dispute is Quebec, with its aluminum and forestry sectors. Among these solutions is a buyback program that has been supported by everyone in the forestry sector, yet the government continues to turn a deaf ear. I would like to know how my colleague can explain this lack of responsiveness on the part of the government and the lack of action we are seeing in the forestry sector.

Mr. Speaker, it is such a pleasure today to be able to speak about the remarkable career of the member for North Vancouver—Capilano. I was surprised today when I looked up information about my colleague to try to find things I did not know about him. We share a similar background in political science and philosophy. Maybe that is why we get along so well. As members know, my colleague was the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. That is how we got to know each other. What I did not know was that, in the 1990s, he was part of Roy Romanow's team as a constitutional negotiator and an expert in federal-provincial relations. For a Quebecker, knowing Roy Romanow is not a good thing. However, let us not hold it against anyone. I got to know the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie in the private sector. That happens to us all. I especially want to highlight the fact that he has been a non-partisan parliamentarian. Debates in the House of Commons can often be heated. With the exception of his responses regarding the carbon tax, my friend, the member for North Vancouver—Capilano, generally responded candidly to the questions put to him. I also observed that non-partisanship in the work we did with him. It is thanks to him that we were able to add phosphate to the list of critical minerals. That was essential for my region. There was also the program to build greener homes, which faced some challenges. He was always very helpful and always open to assisting colleagues, even those on the opposition side. The two billion trees program did not go as smoothly, but he always defended it adroitly. I believe he can be proud of everything he has done in defence of the environment. He has been a resource for many people in various groups. Even when attempts were made to undermine his credibility, it was quite difficult to do so, which suggests that the member for North Vancouver—Capilano had a strong reputation among environmental groups. I have often wondered, when people talk about zero-emission vehicles, whether anyone actually owns a hydrogen-powered vehicle. The member for North Vancouver—Capilano is the only person I know in Canada who does. I would also like to thank him for a trip we took to Berlin, where we were able to meet with representatives from Siemens. The problem was that people at Siemens thought I was part of the government, so they felt free to speak frankly to the member for North Vancouver—Capilano about what they thought of a hydrogen strategy involving carbon capture and storage. At that moment, even though it was not the answer they were expecting, the member did not lose his composure. It was a demonstration of true non-partisanship and a certain degree of trust. I sincerely thank him for that. Earlier, in his speech, he talked about how grateful he is that he learned French. He managed to do that during his time in office. I think that is very much to his credit, and I want to share a brief story. On one occasion, the member for North Vancouver—Capilano asked his assistant why I was talking to him in English when I always spoke to the member in French. I must admit that this is a sign of respect for a francophone. I will explain to him why I prefer to speak to a minister in French. The reason is that, often, when someone is not speaking in their mother tongue, there are small nuances that they do not properly grasp. I will give him an example that he is very familiar with. We were chatting after I found out that he was likely going to be appointed ambassador. I asked him how his wife was taking the news, whether she would be going with him and whether she would be giving up her job. He told me that, yes, she would be going with him because she loves having new adventures. “Having new adventures” has a bit of a different meaning in French. That is why I always speak in my mother tongue. My father had two life mottos. They should be taken with a grain of salt, but my father always told me that I should not trust anyone who does not drink but that I could trust a man who laughs heartily. The member for North Vancouver—Capilano has always had a hearty laugh ever since I have known him. That says a lot about him and shows how friendly and likeable he is. I will conclude by saying that my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean and I very much hope there is a guest room in Brussels. We are trying to broaden our networks. We have joked a lot about this. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I wish him every success in his new role. It will be a pleasure to work alongside him again.

Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous. I do not know if the Conservatives realize that their motion is an insult to Quebeckers and francophones. I hope they have talked to their Quebec colleagues, because this motion is insulting. Essentially, they are saying that we francophones are an international trade irritant. Ask anyone what the difference is between English-speaking Canadian culture and American culture, and they will say that there is no difference. They watch the same movies and listen to the same music. Ask a francophone, and the answer will be very different. That is what the member is saying even though we are the ones bearing the brunt of the U.S. tariffs on aluminum and lumber. On top of that, they have the nerve to tell us that our culture is an irritant. If I were them, I would be ashamed.

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's greatest treasure is its culture. It is the thing that has kept us afloat in a sea of anglophones. It is expressed in our music and in our films. It represents our collective imagination. Faced with the American steamroller, we need support to maintain this culture. We are a francophone drop in an anglophone ocean, and it is insulting to hear the Conservatives refer to us a trade irritant. I did not hear Quebec's Conservative MPs say much about this motion this morning, and I can guarantee that the leader of the official opposition is going to speak to it later. Few francophone members are going to stand with him on this; it would be a disgrace for any francophone MP to support this motion.

Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to reduce the debt and support people as they cope with inflation, all he has to do is stop funding the state-sponsored cronyism in the oil and gas sector that he defends tooth and nail. The motion before us today is an insult to francophones, who form a cultural minority. If they wish to preserve their cultural expressions, they need funding. What the Leader of the Opposition is telling us is that, from a trade point of view, we are a nuisance. He should be ashamed for saying that.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Liberal member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie announced that he is leaving politics. He is leaving politics because he had little to no influence on the Prime Minister's pro-oil decisions. He pointed out that, during the last election, the Liberal platform mentioned “climate change” 28 times but did not mention “pipeline” once. Voters were outrageously deceived. As the member himself said, “I can tell you that I'm not the only one who's uncomfortable with what's happening”. I wonder, where are the others and why are they hiding?

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that 60 Liberal members formed an environmental caucus. Now that the new pipeline has been announced and the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie has resigned, they are nowhere to be found. One of the caucus co-chairs even said that the mandate of the environmental caucus is not to promote environmental issues. We could not make this stuff up. Just think: Their aim is not to promote environmental causes, but simply to bring members together for some good conversations. Wow. This reminds me of the old hot stove league. Is that why they are defending policies—

Mr. Speaker, we have seen this in the past. What do oil companies do when the government cuts fuel taxes? They boost their refining margins. We need to put a mechanism in place if we want to have a direct impact on the price of oil. The best mechanism would perhaps be some type of price management system to ensure that the gluttonous oil and gas sectors do not take advantage of the fact that the government is giving the public tax credits or tax cuts to unduly increase their refining margins. It seems like that would be somewhat more productive than what my Conservative colleagues are proposing today. I look forward to hearing my colleague's thoughts on that.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague 100%. What happened every time the government was lenient with the oil and gas industry by saying it would bring prices at the pump down for consumers? The oil and gas industry turned around and boosted its refining margins, essentially pocketing the tax cut. That is just obscene, especially considering that these huge corporations raked in record profits in 2022, 2023 and 2024, profits that were turned into dividends, most of which went to the United States because their shareholders are American. The government is still investing in this sector. I would like my colleague to comment on that. It is utterly indecent.

Mr. Speaker, earlier in his speech, my colleague referred to Enbridge's CEO. There is a quote I like from the Enbridge CEO. He said he was not willing to take the financial risks that come with a pipeline. The CEO of Enbridge believes that, if a pipeline is to be built, it should be paid for with public money. The pipeline project they are talking about and for which the government wants to repeal a law that protects nature is nothing more than a fantasy. I would like my colleague to enlighten me. Does he agree that it is up to all taxpayers to pay for oil and gas infrastructure that will benefit the oil companies? Also, before throwing out regulations like these, should he not ensure that, at the very least, someone is prepared to be the proponent of a project like the pipeline?

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-264, which simply seeks to repeal the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act. When I look at this, I see an irrational bill that can perhaps only be explained by an ideological mindset we are seeing more and more of, one that amounts to saying that anything goes for the oil industry. I will explain what I mean when I say that “anything goes for the oil industry.” The idea occurred to me earlier when I asked my colleague a question and he replied—and I am going to take the liberty of speaking in English, which I never do here—“I believe in pipelines.” That is quite the statement. I am a fan of Dostoevsky. This makes me think of a novel by Dostoevsky called Demons, which came out at the end of the 19th century, where Dostoevsky, in the face of ideological excesses, poses a rather simple question: Is everything permitted? Is everything permitted in the name of an ideology? What strikes me today about this downward spiral we are currently experiencing whenever there is a crisis—be it in response to the tariff crisis, or even when we were going through the COVID-19 pandemic, or a crisis of national unity—is the fact that anything goes. The only solution the Liberal and Conservative parties can come up with to address these issues is to support the gas and oil sector and call for more state intervention to develop oil infrastructure. The truth is that we are living in a completely absurd situation for this to be happening. We are in a tariff war with the Americans. What are the two economic sectors most affected by this tariff crisis? They are in Quebec. These are the aluminum industry, facing 50% tariffs, and the softwood lumber sector, facing around 45% in combined countervailing duties, anti-dumping duties and tariffs. These are the two sectors most affected by the current tariff dispute with the United States. What has been the government's response to this threat? It has been to say that we need to invest in our energy sector and increase energy exports. That is what the government has chosen. It signed a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Alberta, and now we are faced with a bill like the one my colleague just introduced. There seems to be a sort of one-upmanship going on between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Who is willing to go the furthest to support the oil and gas sector? That is what is going on. I do not think we would have seen a bill like this a few months ago if the government had not fallen into the trap of the memorandum of understanding with Alberta. I have seen this kind of one-upmanship many times over the past several years. When I arrived here in 2019, what surprised me was hearing my Conservative colleagues shouting day in and day out, “build a pipeline”. Even though hydroelectricity is important to us, I doubt I would ever see a Quebecker in the National Assembly shouting for the construction of power lines. This is not a lifestyle. It is not a political project. Another thing that struck me was seeing my Conservative colleagues wearing buttons that read “I love oil & gas”. When I was a boy of 16 or 17, I had a button from my favourite rock band. That rock band represented my identity. It was important to me. Later on, and this still happens in the Bloc Québécois, we wear symbols that are specific to Quebec. We stick Quebec flags on our computers. That is because of our identity. If we were to define what is Quebec's identity, we would speak about culture and language. For some Conservatives, one part of their identity is the oil and gas sector. That is rather surprising in the current context. In fact, it runs quite deep. I remember one of my Conservative colleagues moving a motion stating that oil is irreplaceable. We debated that for an entire day. If I were asked to think about something that is irreplaceable for me, I would first and foremost think about my wife and son. Perhaps after that, I would mention water, air and the essentials of life. I would certainly not think about oil. I asked whether this is a situation where anything goes. What we are seeing today is akin to saying that oil is irreplaceable. This would repeal legislation that was put in place to protect the environment in order to promote the oil sector's agenda for the sake of a hypothetical pipeline. That is the question that I asked my colleague earlier. He spoke about the CEO of Enbridge, who described the difficulties involved in building oil and gas infrastructure. However, the Enbridge CEO also said that he personally was not prepared to take on the economic risks of building infrastructure. That is where a reasonable Conservative would draw the line. I enjoyed hearing the leader of the official opposition straight-out say that corporate welfare exists and that companies want their infrastructure paid for. Those are not my words. Those are the words of the leader of the official opposition. It is up to those companies to pay. However, oil and gas sector officials are saying that, in fact, it should fall on the government to assume the economic risk associated with this infrastructure. It is outrageous. When we look at the numbers from 2021 to 2024, the oil and gas sector raked in $131 billion in profits. Not so long ago, at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, we heard from representatives of the major unions that support the energy sector because they have workers in that sector They told us that we are seeing a dramatic increase in production while there are fewer jobs. How is that possible? It is possible because the people at these big oil and gas companies are greedy and are willing to invest in the automation of their processes to cut jobs and production costs. However, they are not willing to invest in infrastructure. Today, we are being presented with a motion that asks us to scrap environmental regulations. Who stands to gain from this? It is certainly not the public. This is to make life easier for the oil and gas giants. In return, they come asking us to pay for their infrastructure. It is absolutely outrageous. I do not understand how we got here. Even though we are in a crisis, I do not understand how people who are supposed to be rational, whether they are Liberals or Conservatives, have reached this point. I would like to conclude by saying the following. As members know, I have a great deal of respect for the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. Many people have been critical of the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. He may make an announcement tomorrow. I know that the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie is a well-intentioned person. I know he has decided to do something that is not often done in the environmental movement, namely, to set aside certain convictions in order to be pragmatic. He thought he would try to bring about concrete change. There is something very simple in politics: A person either sticks to their convictions, or they choose to set their convictions aside for a moment to try to advance their ideas in a more responsible way. I get the impression that the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie has reached a point of no return and that today he is going to return to his old convictions. He has realized that the government may have gone too far. In my opinion, the bill proposed by my colleague is a manifestation of the current excesses in the oil and gas sector. I sincerely hope that a large number of members of the House will vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister and his Minister of Justice confirmed that any future referendum will be subject to the undemocratic Clarity Act. They want to pick the question and decide what constitutes a majority. We would remind them that a democratic majority is 50% of the votes plus one. That is the rule wherever democracy exists. We would also remind them that the difference between a democracy and a banana republic is that in a banana republic, the government interferes with its citizens' democratic choice. Is the government going to respect democracy?

Mr. Speaker, they were not that clear yesterday. We will say it again: Democracy means 50% of the votes plus one. That is the threshold everywhere, for the laws passed here, for elections, for the people who are here. It is the same for everyone. An attack on that is an attack, in Quebec's case, on a people's right to self-determination. It is an attack on Quebec's Bill 99, which establishes the rule of 50% plus one for any referendum and which has stood up in court. It is an attack on the principle of free elections. Will the Liberals stop sliding toward authoritarianism and respect democracy?

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to something. My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé clearly described the new dynamic in his speech. Now that the Liberals have a majority, they sometimes forget that democracy is not about saying, “I won, so shut up”. They still have to listen to what the opposition parties have to say. I know that my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, who is also our whip, is very wise. I would like to hear his thoughts on what it means, for both this bill and our work as legislators in general, to have a government that does not necessarily listen to the opposition parties.

Mr. Speaker, earlier, my colleagues from Berthier—Maskinongé and Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon pointed out in their speeches that, with its new majority, the government has a frustrating tendency to no longer listen to the opposition parties. That is what happened with this bill. Some amendments were set aside. I know that the member for Winnipeg North enjoys sparring in the House. Since he rises on just about every issue, he can probably tell me whether the government's new way of doing things involves ignoring the opposition parties' opinions and adopting an “I won, so shut up” attitude.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his bill, which is intrinsically valuable and very interesting. I only have a small concern that I wish to share. Generally speaking, prescription drugs and health are areas of jurisdiction that fall to Quebec and the provinces. When we look at this bill more closely, it is clear that it is lacking a process for carrying out direct consultation. Perhaps the member should have included some form of consultation with Quebec and the provinces in the bill. Is that maybe coming later?

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Bill C-265. It is worth emphasizing that the intention behind this bill is a very noble one. Facilitating access to therapeutic products for patients seeking access to innovative drugs or therapies when that is their only remaining option is a highly commendable objective, it must be said. I would like to point out that many members, like myself, have probably, at one time or another in their careers, received letters from patients who wanted access to a drug that is not available in Canada but is available elsewhere in the world. I am sure that all my colleagues also understand that everyone wants to have access to the best treatment when they are fighting for their lives. For this reason, the Bloc Québécois will be supporting my colleague's bill. The bill will streamline applications submitted under Health Canada's special access program. Creating a list of pre-approved drugs will make it easier to process applications. This program allows a physician or dentist to request access to a drug that is not available for sale in Canada. To qualify, certain criteria must be met. First, the drug must be requested in an emergency situation, in other words for someone suffering from a serious or life-threatening illness. This program is a last resort, since it means that all other attempts have failed and that the medication is not available in Canada. The manufacturer sets the cost of the drug. In some cases, it may be offered free of charge, but it is possible that certain costs might have to be borne by hospitals, public or private insurers, or even, in some cases, by patients or their families. Applications submitted under the SAP are reviewed based on a variety of criteria, including the level of urgency, available alternatives, medical history, and evidence of the new drug's safety and efficacy. The bill would streamline the processing of these applications, as the list of approved drugs would reduce the administrative burden associated with assessing the safety and efficacy of a new drug. In theory, this would help reduce processing times. However, we have some concerns regarding the effects of this bill. First, Quebec and the provinces are not included in this initiative. That is what I pointed out to my colleague in my question earlier. As everyone knows, they are the ones that run our health care systems, especially our drug insurance programs. For access to these drugs to become a reality, it is imperative that Quebec and the provinces be consulted so that they can harmonize their systems. Otherwise, only the wealthiest individuals will be able to access drugs, which runs counter to a fundamental principle at the heart of the Canada Health Act: the principle of accessibility. We would like to know whether the sponsor of the bill considers the current cost provisions in the SAP to be sufficient. This is certainly something that can also be looked at in committee. Quebec already has a program that allows patients, under specific conditions, to access drugs not covered by the Régie de l'assurance-maladie du Québec. It is known as the exceptional medications and exceptional patient program. It does not provide access to drugs that are not marketed in Canada, but it does provide access to drugs that are not on the list of insurable drugs. The bill would therefore not interfere with Quebec's programs. We still want Quebec and the provinces to be consulted, because it is the hospitals and doctors in the provinces who will have to navigate this program. As for the procedures for adding drugs to the list, we will need to address ethical questions surrounding the creation of the advisory committee and the application process. To that end, the Bloc Québécois will take the time to consult with experts and stakeholders during the committee review of the bill. We will therefore wait until the committee stage to decide on the next steps.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a great man. Gérald Savard has served as the mayor of the municipality of Bégin for nearly 30 years. He is descended from a long line of public servants. Like his father and grandfather, he has dedicated his life to serving the people of his municipality. Gérald also served as reeve of the Fjord-du-Saguenay RCM for 13 years, during which he dedicated himself to developing our region. Gérald often spoke of Lucien Bouchard, who he said once told him that in order to succeed in politics, one must love people and act with courage. I can assure everyone that Gérald has always been known for his abiding love for the residents of Bégin and for his genuine interest in the people of our region. Today I especially want to acknowledge Gérald's exemplary courage and perseverance. Despite a terminal cancer diagnosis, he continues to serve as mayor with the same passion and dedication he has shown for the past 30 years. On behalf of everyone back home, and with the utmost respect, I wish to offer our most sincere congratulations on his exceptional career.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals passed Bill C-5 to expedite so-called projects of national interest. That allows the government to get around laws that could hinder the construction of pipelines. Now, the government has a new solution: To speed up its pipelines, it is simply going to tear up the regulations. If the regulatory framework is slowing down the construction of oil pipelines, then the government is just going to scrap the regulatory framework. The Liberals are the ones who set the target of achieving net zero by 2050. Do they realize that it is their own fault that they are going to fail miserably?

Mr. Speaker, earlier in his speech, my colleague spoke at length about market diversification and access to the liquidity measures being proposed by the government. The member for Mirabel did a very good job instructing us earlier on the long-term effects of these measures. However, businesses in the aluminum industry and forestry sector need short-term help here and now. One solution that everyone seems to support amounts to the equivalent of a wage subsidy. This would maintain the employment relationship and give businesses some breathing room. I do not understand why the government is closed to the idea. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague will probably agree with me. Once again, we have proof that Quebec is trapped in the Canadian straitjacket. In 2008, during the financial crisis, money was there for the automotive sector. Today, the logic goes like this: The government is rushing to take action for the auto sector, and the same goes for the energy sector, by which I mean oil and gas. However, when it comes to supporting Quebec's economy, the response is very, very feeble. I know a solution for that. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts. What would be the best solution for Quebec today?

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague from Winnipeg North say earlier that we need to support workers. We in the Bloc Québécois stand up day after day because we support Quebec workers. The main problem is that our colleagues opposite stand up and say that they are here to build Canada. Unfortunately, from what I have seen since the last election, they are here to build Canada while ignoring Quebec. All they talk about is oil and gas and the auto sector. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the double standard. In Quebec, the tariffs are hitting the forestry and aluminum sectors the hardest, but we are still waiting for a response from the government that lives up to our expectations.