Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport mentioned wanting to use the available expertise to accelerate projects of national interest. Speaking of expertise, Canada's chief science adviser told the Standing Committee on Science and Research that she had never been consulted about projects of national interest. It is funny. The minister is talking about expertise, but he is not consulting his own expert, who is paid with public money. Instead of trying to convince us that he is using available expertise, can he simply confirm that he uses it only when it suits his narrative?

Mr. Speaker, allow me to remind the Conservative leader of a few things that seem to be moving well. The first are the several Conservative members who crossed the floor to the Liberals. That even made it possible to deliver a majority, for the first time in history, after a minority government was elected in Parliament. The other things that are moving quite well are all the Conservative ideas that are being taken up by the Liberals. It is quite striking. The Conservative Party also promises to build energy, electricity and rail corridors. The Liberal Party is proposing the same thing in Bill C‑39. The Conservatives claim to support Quebec's autonomy. Will they put their foot down and ensure that Quebec's wishes as to whether or not we want this type of project on our territory are respected?

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that we are witnessing an ecological betrayal. We know that the Prime Minister is not just anyone. He worked at Brookfield. Most importantly, he is the United Nation's former special envoy on climate. However, he is the one buying a second pipeline with public funds and disregarding all of Canada's environmental laws for the sake of projects that are in the so-called national interest. If that is not a betrayal, my colleagues will have to let me know the strongest word there is to judge, observe and analyze that situation. I would like my colleague from Joliette to explain his point of view. Is the government turning the environment into a pipe dream by trying to take advantage of the tariff crisis to push things that could never have been done before?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou has some good stories to share about his summer, but that is not the subject of the bill we are currently discussing. I would like you to call him to order.

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand part of my colleague's argument, and I would like her to explain it. She criticized the government for shutting down debate and shutting off the cameras. However, in June of last year, the Liberals did the same thing during the study of Bill C-5 on projects of national interest. Who supported that closure motion? It was supported by her party, the Conservative Party. I would simply like her to explain why it was okay to turn off the cameras and support the closure motion last year, but it is no longer acceptable this year.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to take a few moments to acknowledge a tragedy that deeply shook my region, the Lower St. Lawrence, yesterday morning. A major fire ravaged the Fibel et fils farm in Saint‑Éloi in Les Basques RCM. Our thoughts are with the Filion family and the entire team at Fibel et fils farm, who have been deeply affected by this tragedy. The farm lost its herd and the result of 45 years of hard work, which is a huge challenge for them. Beyond the material losses, the loss of these animals, which farmers care for and pay attention to every day, makes this situation even more heartbreaking. Behind every farm is a family, generations of work, expertise that is passed down from generation to generation and a vital contribution to our food security. Thankfully, no lives were lost. I also want to recognize the remarkable work of the firefighters who made it possible to protect the neighbouring buildings in spite of particularly difficult conditions. I want to express my solidarity with the Filion family, their loved ones and the entire agricultural community that was affected by this event. In the Lower St. Lawrence, when one of our own is struck by a tragedy, the entire community comes together. Our hearts go out to them at this particularly challenging time. Returning to the subject at hand, I would like to speak to Bill S-201, which aims to establish a national framework for sickle cell disease. I want to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois recognizes that this is a serious condition and that it is important to raise awareness about this reality. We also acknowledge the remarkable work of those living with the condition, their caregivers, organizations and health care professionals who support them on a daily basis. I would also like to highlight the work of Senator Marie-Françoise Mégie, who has championed this bill with determination in order to raise awareness of a condition that is still all too often misunderstood by the general public. Sickle cell disease is a chronic genetic condition that affects red blood cells and can lead to severe pain, serious complications and a reduced life expectancy. In Canada, nearly 6,000 people are affected by this condition. It is of particular concern to people of African and Caribbean descent, but also certain populations in the Middle East, South-East Asia and South America. It is therefore entirely legitimate to seek to raise awareness, improve support for those affected and promote research. Moreover, as Professor Jude Mary Cénat, director of the Interdisciplinary Centre for Black Health, pointed out, Bill S-201 addresses decades-long neglect of a disease that remains far too little understood. That said, the Bloc Québécois believes that the government must respect the division of powers when addressing this issue. Health care falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of Quebec. Several aspects of the bill directly affect responsibilities that already belong to the Government of Quebec. These include the training of health care professionals, the establishment of national standards for diagnosis and treatment, and public awareness campaigns. Quebec has always been clear. It intends to remain the lead authority on public health policies within its territory. Quebec did not wait for Ottawa to take action. Quebec has already developed its own screening model, its own clinical tools, and its own network of expertise to support people with sickle cell disease. When a province already has the programs, expertise, and infrastructure necessary to meet the needs of its population, a national framework should recognize this reality rather than seek to standardize approaches. Sickle cell disease is already part of Quebec's neonatal blood screening program. An improved version of this program has been in place since April 2025 to enable faster and more accurate screening for all newborns. Quebec's ministry of health and social services has also developed several guides, best practices, and tools for health care professionals. Families also have access to educational resources to help them better understand the disease and the available treatments. Quebec already has recognized expertise and a set of measures tailored to its reality. That is why we are concerned that Bill S‑201 does not more fully recognize Quebec's unique characteristics. We believe that the federal government should focus on areas that fall squarely within its jurisdiction, rather than trying to impose national standards in an area for which it has neither management responsibility nor accountability for the consequences. That does not mean that Ottawa has no responsibility, on the contrary. The problem is not a lack of national strategies. Rather, the problem is that Ottawa too often gets involved in areas that are outside its jurisdiction, while neglecting some of its own responsibilities. If Ottawa really wants to help improve care, it should start by adequately funding health care. The federal government was originally supposed to cover about 50% of health care costs. Today, its actual contribution is closer to 22%. The real problem is not a lack of national strategies, but rather a lack of funding. Before creating more national frameworks, Ottawa should start by meeting its financial commitments to Quebec. Quebec does not need a new federal national framework. What it needs is the federal government to respect its jurisdiction, increase health transfers and do its part. The federal government already funds research through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. If it wants to make a difference, then it should make sure that sickle cell research is supported. Several stakeholders have pointed out that this disease has long received less attention and funding than other comparable genetic diseases. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research already has the tools it needs to support researchers, promote scientific breakthroughs and improve treatments for patients. That is where the federal government should focus its efforts rather than trying to intervene in the organization of Quebec's health network. As for the data collection mechanisms set out in the bill, they will have to comply with Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and applicable privacy rules. The federal government should also look at its own programs to better meet the needs of people with sickle cell disease. I am thinking in particular of tax credits for caregivers and disability benefits. Some serious forms of the disease lead to significant limitations, and it is entirely reasonable to ensure that people who are affected can fully benefit from existing federal programs. We also believe that the federal government needs to be realistic when it comes to public drug plans. They fall under Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, and Quebec already has its own plan. It is therefore up to Quebec to determine which drugs and treatments it covers. Once again, Ottawa should first ensure that its own programs adequately meet the needs of the people affected rather than trying to intervene in areas outside its jurisdiction. Ultimately, the question is not whether we should support people with sickle cell disease. Obviously the answer to that is “yes”. The real question is how to do it effectively. For the Bloc Québécois, the answer is simple. The government needs to fully respect Quebec's powers, increase health transfers and shoulder the responsibilities that truly fall to Ottawa. Quebec did not wait around for this bill in order to take action. It already screens for the disease, supports families, backs health care professionals and contributes to the advancement of scientific knowledge. Therefore, we hope that any measure arising from this national framework will be implemented with Quebec's consent and in full respect of its powers. Let us help patients. Let us support families. Let us promote research. However, let us not use patients' suffering as a pretext to further centralize health care decisions. It is in this spirit that we wish to see the bill amended so that it fully recognizes Quebec's responsibilities and the work it is already doing.

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by pointing out that June 15, 2026, marks the 35th anniversary of the founding of the Bloc Québécois. In Sorel, on June 15, 1991, in the wake of the failure of the Meech Lake accord, Lucien Bouchard and members from Quebec from various backgrounds chose to come together to give Quebec its own voice in Ottawa. Lucien Bouchard put it very clearly, in a way that has stood the test of time: “The Bloc Québécois is the only way for us to do away with the harms of dual legitimacy. The truth is that there are two peoples, two loyalties and two visions of the country. There is a country missing in this country. Quebec is missing.” Thirty-five years later, this observation still resonates. Every time that Ottawa forgets about Quebec's priorities, every time that the regions are treated as an afterthought, every time that Quebec has to remind the government that it is a nation, the entire reason for the Bloc Québécois's existence is confirmed. Today, Bill C‑30 is another example of that. Not surprisingly, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill. We are not voting against it because it is entirely bad. Some of the measures are a step in the right direction. However, a budget implementation bill must be judged as a whole and, taken as a whole, Bill C-30 fails to address the most pressing needs of Quebec and our regions. For regions like mine, the Lower St. Lawrence, this economic update is notable primarily for what it does not contain. While Quebeckers are fighting for survival, and while the aluminum, steel, timber and processing sectors are suffering the repercussions of new trade barriers, the government is tabling an economic update that does not rise to the challenge. In eastern Quebec, this directly affects our forestry businesses, our manufacturers and the workers who sustain our communities. There are no support programs for the affected sectors and no real plan to protect jobs, as if this crisis can simply wait, yet the Bloc Québécois has proposed concrete measures to support the sectors affected by American tariffs, to help the elderly, to protect our regional media and to finally reform EI. None of these proposals were retained. We also called for correcting the injustice created between seniors 65 to 74 and those 75 and older. In a region like the Lower St. Lawrence, this issue has a real impact. At 74, groceries cost the same as they do at 75. Housing costs the same. Heating costs the same, and yet, Ottawa continues to treat these seniors differently. The Bloc Québécois believes there should not be two categories of seniors. Our seniors have worked their entire lives. They have built our communities. They deserve to be treated fairly. We also called for meaningful support for regional and French-language media. In eastern Quebec, we have seen regional news coverage lose ground. When regional newscasts are no longer broadcast from within our region, it is a wake-up call. The government has chosen to concede to the web giants and forgo revenue that could have been used to support local news, culture and French-language media. This economic update includes no concrete measures to further support regional media or protect local news. Once again, it is the regions that are left holding the bag. In a region where agriculture plays an important role in the local economy, we are also concerned about the proposed changes to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to the Pest Control Products Act. The government wants to weigh economic considerations against public health and environmental protection. For the Bloc Québécois, health care decisions must not be driven by politics. They must be based on science. Public health must never become an economic adjustment variable. I now want to talk about employment insurance. The government is extending certain provisions for seasonal workers until 2028. That is better than nothing. However, it still falls short of the comprehensive reform that regions have been seeking for decades. Seasonality is not a temporary phenomenon in the Lower St. Lawrence. It is part of our economic reality. In 2028, our forestry, agriculture, tourism and marine industries will still need workers. The conditions that justify these provisions will still be there. Why then are temporary solutions still being applied to a permanent problem? Why is uncertainty allowed to persist year after year? Why are these protections not being permanently enshrined in law? The Bloc Québécois is calling for real EI reform, permanent reform, systemic reform, reform that will finally eliminate the spring gap for thousands of workers. Seasonal workers are not a temporary problem. They are at the heart of our regions' economies. Ultimately, this bill does not address the priorities of regions like ours. It does not address the challenges raised by U.S. tariffs, the expectations of seasonal workers, the pressing needs of seniors or the difficulties facing our regional media. It also raises serious concerns about public health and environmental protection. People back home are not asking us for the moon. They are asking us to listen to them, to take their reality into account and to come up with practical answers to the challenges they face in their daily lives. Unfortunately, this bill provides them with no such answers. For that reason, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C‑30.

Madam Speaker, what the parliamentary secretary just said is extremely insulting. He now says he is offering it to everyone, but the measure he is offering to seniors is temporary. The purchasing power of seniors is a permanent problem, however. If he does not understand that after all these years as a member of Parliament, I wonder what he is doing here. I invite my colleague to go out into the community to meet with seniors, and I invite him to ask them if they have to make agonizing choices today between paying their rent, buying medication, groceries or clothes. Then he will come back and tell us things like he just did. I think he is going to be in for a big surprise, as we say in Quebec.

Madam Speaker, it comes as no surprise that the member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent—Akiawenhrahk will be voting “no” in the next referendum. I, on the other hand, will be voting “yes” in case anyone was wondering where my political interests lie. That said, what is even more ridiculous is that my colleague is asking me these types of questions when he knows full well that this is not a matter for debate in the House of Commons. However, I hope that my clear and straightforward answers have helped to reassure him.

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on his French. It is fairly easy to understand. The Liberals have rigged a majority. That is not insignificant. It is a historical first. Does anyone know what else is a historical first? The government has run the biggest deficit in history, totalling $78 billion. That said, they have done such outstanding work that that deficit will be $10 billion less. This government is currently doing the exact opposite of what it promised during the first election, which took place in April 2025. The main problem is that the government said it would resolve the crisis with the Americans. However, at present, nothing has been resolved. Concession after concession is being made, mainly at Quebec's expense. Our economy is the hardest hit compared to the rest of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to sit with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Science and Research. We share certain rural boundaries and we have an awareness of some of our mutual realities. I would like to talk to him about the EI issue. The Liberals, who were in power back then, have been promising a reform since 2015. The Trudeau government said so in 2015. Then, during the 2019 campaign, it said it again. In 2021, the budget even promised that the reform would get done. Here we are, in 2026, and we are still waiting. The government is offering temporary solutions to a permanent problem. Does my colleague truly believe that he is building Canada strong by proposing temporary solutions to a permanent problem?

Mr. Speaker, before I address Bill C‑265, I would like to take a few moments to highlight a major milestone for my region: the 50th anniversary of Culture Bas-Saint-Laurent. I would have liked to be there with its members to celebrate the anniversary in person, but I wanted their contribution to be recognized here in the House of Commons. The 50th anniversary of Culture Bas-Saint-Laurent is an essential reminder of what sets us apart as a region. Let us not forget that Culture Bas-Saint-Laurent grew out of the very first cultural council in Quebec. For 50 years, the organization has been opening doors, bringing the cultural community together and contributing to raising the Lower St. Lawrence region's profile. I want to commend all the people who have kept the organization going all these years: the artists, the cultural workers, the partner organizations, the volunteers and everyone who believes in the power of culture to boost our communities. As the member for Rimouski—La Matapédia, a riding that includes La Mitis, Les Basques and La Neigette, I want to acknowledge the enormous contribution that Culture Bas-Saint-Laurent has made to our region. I wish Culture Bas-Saint-Laurent a very happy 50th anniversary and many more years of success. Many happy returns. I will now continue with the topic at hand today, Bill C‑265. The Bloc Québécois has done its job since the official first reading of this bill in the House on March 11. We have taken the time to carefully analyze all of the proposed amendments to the Food and Drugs Act with a view to creating a list of pre-approved therapeutic products under Health Canada's special access program. Let me be clear from the outset: The Bloc Québécois will be supporting this bill at second reading. The idea behind this bill is simple. It will enable certain seriously ill patients to access treatments more quickly when standard options have been exhausted. It addresses a reality that many of us have witnessed in our ridings: patients with serious or life-threatening illnesses who have exhausted all therapeutic options and wish to access a promising treatment that is sometimes already available elsewhere in the world. In those situations, every day counts. Every administrative delay becomes an additional burden for people who are fighting for their lives. We understand the legitimate desire to have access to alternative treatments when all else has failed. No one wants a patient to be denied a treatment option simply because administrative procedures move more slowly than their disease is progressing. I think many of my colleagues will relate to what I am about to say. At one time or another, we have all received a call or an email from a family desperately seeking a solution for a loved one who is seriously ill. Behind these requests are people who are almost out of options and who are still hoping for one more chance. The special access program was created for just this kind of situation. It is intended to provide access to certain treatments when conventional options are no longer sufficient and the patient's condition requires it. When we look at the path leading to the approval of a new drug, we quickly realize how complex the process is. From research to discovery, through clinical trials, regulatory reviews and approval by Health Canada, before a drug even makes it onto pharmacy shelves, it is clear that the process is like something out of The Twelve Tasks of Asterix. The creation of a list of drugs pre-approved for the special access program could help reduce the time required to process requests, in particular by easing the administrative burden. In principle, this is a step forward that deserves our support. However, the commendable intent aside, we have a duty to examine this bill diligently and judiciously to ensure that this measure is feasible and truly accessible to everyone. Quebec already has its own mechanisms for providing exceptional access to drugs under certain circumstances. This shows that our health care systems are already striving to strike a balance between access to treatment and the responsible management of public resources. That is why it is essential that Quebec be fully involved in any reform affecting access to treatment. First, we have concerns about how Quebec and the provinces have been left out of this process, even though they are the ones responsible for administering health care and, more importantly, managing drug plans. Facilitating access to a drug is one thing. Ensuring that it is truly accessible to members of the public, regardless of their financial situation, is quite another. Without close collaboration with Quebec and the provinces, the government could end up reinforcing inequality when it comes to access to care. Let us not forget that, under the existing special access program, drug prices are set by the manufacturer, so it is possible that some costs might have to be borne by hospitals, public or private insurers, or even, in some cases, patients or their families. We need to ensure that it is not just the wealthiest patients who are able to access these treatments, while others have to do without. That would go against a fundamental principle of our health care system, which is accessibility. Speeding up access to a drug should not mean sticking the provinces and Quebec, health care institutions or families with the bill. We cannot create a system where there is hope for everyone but where only those who can pay can really benefit from it. Innovation is important, but so is fairness, which is why we want to know whether there are any mechanisms planned to take into account the cost and coverage of these drugs. I would also like to hear what the sponsor of the bill has to say on the matter. Does he believe that the special access program's current mechanisms are sufficient to ensure financial accessibility, or does he think adjustments will need to be made? We agree that certain drugs should be made available more quickly, but certainly not at the expense of Quebec and the provinces, hospitals or even patients. Second, we must consider the delicate balance between rapid access and patient safety. Health Canada must continue to rigorously evaluate drugs before they are distributed. In health care, nothing should ever be used as an excuse to bypass the science. Urgency must never override caution. When a person is vulnerable and their options are limited, our collective responsibility is all the greater. We must offer hope, but not under just any conditions. Furthermore, Canada is already one of the most expensive countries for prescription drugs. There is no magic solution. Improving access to new treatments quickly often comes at a significant cost. We must therefore proceed with caution. We do need to move faster, but without driving up costs or cutting corners on safety. Lastly, a number of questions remain about the conditions for adding drugs to this list. In particular, we wish to hear from experts regarding the criteria for adding a drug to the list, the composition of the advisory committee that will be responsible for making recommendations, the follow-up mechanisms that will ensure patient safety, and ethical considerations regarding access to these new treatments. The Bloc Québécois intends to take all the time that is needed to hear from experts, health care professionals, researchers and all stakeholders at the committee stage. Bill C‑265 is ultimately about patients who are running out of options and searching for one more chance. When someone is seriously ill, hope means a lot. Our role as legislators is to ensure that this hope is based on real, fair access. That is why we support the principle of Bill C‑265. Yes, we need to improve access to innovative treatments when conventional options have been exhausted. Yes, we need to reduce red tape when it becomes an unnecessary barrier. However, we must also ensure that these treatments remain accessible to everyone, regardless of income, and that Quebec and the provinces are fully involved in the process. We must also uphold the highest standards of safety and scientific evaluation because, when it comes to public health, public trust is paramount. We will act openly and diligently, in the belief that better access to treatment must never come at the expense of fairness.

Madam Speaker, I have a fairly simple question for my colleague. Why did the Liberals refuse to consider objective criteria when it comes to peace bonds? It would have been one way to better prevent criminal harassment. This is an important issue, particularly for victims.

Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 78(3), commonly known as time allocation, is currently the Liberals' favourite dish. What we just witnessed is something that the Liberals have now done multiple times. Bill C‑25 is intended to increase public trust in Parliament and its institutions by preventing excessively long ballots, which can cause confusion. I would like the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader to tell us whether he truly believes that this is the way to strengthen public trust in Parliament. What his government is currently doing is just the opposite: It is quashing debate by resorting to time allocation for one bill after another and even for the economic update. I would like my college to tell me explicitly whether he thinks this will strengthen public trust in Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. My colleague did not get to finish his speech, but I imagine he had a great deal more to say. It is actually quite remarkable that Bill C-25, which amends an act, also changes the names of certain ridings. It has been over a year and a half since the last election. I made a promise to my constituents to give the riding a name that better represents it. I wanted it to be called Rimouski—Neigette—La Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques. The current name, Rimouski—La Matapédia, does not reflect the entire territory. I would simply like my colleague to tell me whether he agrees, based on his experience, that it would have made more sense not to wait a year and a half before changing the riding names. This work could have been done a long time ago, rather than putting it off indefinitely.

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. He really enjoyed quoting data from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I would like to ask him a question on that. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that if, tomorrow morning, we were to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline project in western Canada, which is now operational, we would lose money. The project was initially expected to cost about $6 billion, but ultimately cost us $34 billion instead. That means it is not profitable. If we buy a pipeline and have to sell it again, we lose money. I would like my colleague to be clear. Does he support the government using public funds to buy pipeline projects?

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives keep saying that investments are needed in fossil fuels. They are in favour of approving a new pipeline project in western Canada. As members will recall, the Trudeau government purchased a pipeline that cost $34 billion, and if the government were to sell it tomorrow, it would ultimately lose money. I wonder if my colleague thinks that using public funds to buy a new pipeline should be regarded as inflationary spending.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is overstepping once again. He wants to be able to re-authorize, by order in council, pesticides that have been banned on scientific grounds. In a provision buried in the omnibus budget Bill C‑30, he wants to give himself the right to overturn Health Canada's decisions by invoking undefined concepts such as economic security. Researchers and health and environmental organizations are unanimous: this is an anti-science measure serving the interests of large agrochemical companies. They are here today to ask for one thing. Will the government remove this provision from Bill C‑30?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are hiding a measure in Bill C‑30 that allows pesticides banned for scientific reasons to be re-authorized. This is the biggest setback since the Pest Control Products Act was created in 2002. Not only is the Minister of Health not upset about this, she even boasted that she was the only minister to ever attend a CropLife Canada event. CropLife Canada is an association of agrochemical companies that includes the pesticide giant Bayer. Why is the Minister of Health standing up for the profits of multinationals instead of standing up for public health?

Madam Speaker, a mix-up between two government departments is hurting our businesses and their temporary foreign workers. When our small and medium-sized businesses want to renew their employees' work permits through Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, they must submit a labour market impact assessment, or LMIA, within 60 days. However, Service Canada is the one that issues LMIA approvals. Since the Service Canada process takes more than 60 days, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada closes the files. As a result, in Rimouski, two workers at Armoires Perreault have been left without pay. A day care centre was denied two workers after waiting more than 100 days. Will the government stop punishing these people for its own mistakes?