Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised that my colleague seems unhappy and is saying that things are not moving fast enough. The changes being made with Bill C-39 are quite extraordinary. The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada is being stripped of its mandate to protect the environment, uphold the rights of indigenous peoples and emphasize collaboration, and the role of assessing pipeline projects is being transferred to the Canada Energy Regulator. The CER's mandate is to keep energy moving safely and efficiently through pipelines. What does my Conservative colleague not like about that? It appears rather contradictory to me. We, on this side, do not agree with that, because we believe that it removes all environmental protections. I would like to hear his thoughts on that.

Mr. Speaker, September 30 is International Translation Day. I would like to take a moment to commend the vital work done by the federal government's translators, interpreters and terminologists. These dedicated individuals work behind the scenes to ensure that parliamentarians can work in their own language and that francophones have access to all democratic institutions and public services. Let us face it. Most of the discussions and documents that come out of this Parliament are in English. We cannot use French as a shield against Donald Trump and then turn around and regard it as an unnecessary expense that needs to be cut. While being a useful tool, artificial intelligence can never replace human judgment and a nuanced understanding of human language. We will not attract the next generation of talent by allowing people's working conditions to deteriorate. A strong internal capacity within the public service is essential to preserving French. We have experienced people with valuable expertise. Let us take care of them.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that Bill C‑39 does not lower environmental standards. Let us imagine a pipeline project in Quebec, like Marinvest. Under Bill C‑39, pipelines are exempt from environmental impact assessments. The only assessment will be the one completed by the energy regulator in Calgary, which has never seen a pipeline it did not like. Worse still, Ottawa wants to be able to allow proponents to start their work before the assessment is complete. How can anyone claim that this is not a step backwards?

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the House is right. The goal of Bill C-39 is not to lower environmental standards. It is to eliminate them. If a pipeline were to go through Quebec, here is what Bill C-39 sets out for the environmental assessment. The energy regulator in Calgary will be the one to make the final decision. It is made up of seven commissioners, and five of the seven come from the oil industry. At the table are TC Energy, Shell, Pembina Pipeline, Canadian Oil Sands Limited and Cenovus Energy. Meanwhile, scientists and Quebeckers do not have a seat at the table. If we are not at the table, are we on the menu?

Madam Speaker, I will start with one of the parliamentary secretary's favourite lines. At the end of the day, it boggles the mind to hear him tell us that his government believes in the right to strike, but that sometimes decisions have to be made and the right to strike will therefore be taken away. That is what he is saying. Worse than that, with Bill C-39, the Liberals not only want to undermine the right to strike, but they do not even want to take responsibility for it. The infamous provision that we have denounced repeatedly over the past few months will now be used by the Canada Industrial Relations Board. The next time we rise in the House to ask this government questions, the parliamentary secretary will tell us—since there is about a 98% chance he will be the one who answers us because he is always here—that the Canada Industrial Relations Board is independent and that it is not the government. That is what the Liberals are doing with Bill C-39. It is not off to a good start. That said, I still think the parliamentary secretary is a nice guy. I even briefly thought I was glad to see him when we shook hands this week. However, what he is telling me brings me back to the harsh reality that we do not often see eye to eye. It is appalling. They claim that Bill C-39 is intended to strengthen the economy, but the measures included in Bill C-39 are not designed to strengthen the economy. They are designed to destroy, weaken or circumvent the laws that protect the public, workers and the environment. The reason that environmental assessment standards were established over the decades and that laws were implemented to create a framework for labour negotiations is because they were necessary. The government cannot sweep that away in five minutes. However, that is what Bill C‑39 does, on the grounds that we are in a crisis, that we need to stand up to President Trump, that we need to be strong and get busy building. The government wants to get things done at lightning speed and flout every law. Since we returned to the House in 2025, the same things have been said about every bill. With every bill, some minister wins the lottery and gets the right to suspend a bunch of laws. We should come up with some kind of tally system to figure out which minister won the right to get rid of the most laws this Parliament. It is pretty mind-boggling, and “mind-boggling” is an extremely polite word choice in the circumstances, because I could come up with few others. This bill is not about the national interest. It is about the personal preferences of the Prime Minister and his friends. That is what it is about. The government is going to pick out projects that were included in Bill C‑5, so-called projects of national interest, and it is going to say that those projects do not need laws. The government is claiming to have a monopoly on the truth and deciding that such and such a project is essential and important. Too bad for workers, too bad for the environment and too bad for everything else. Worse yet, the government is even going to create energy corridors. That is completely ridiculous. The federal government will decide that it can do whatever it wants on certain land. When the Liberals rise to ask us questions later, they will say that we separatists are always looking for trouble. Why do they think we are here? We are here to defend Quebeckers and fight back against terrible bills like these. Laws are not made to be suspended, abolished or circumvented. They are made to regulate community life and protect the common good. The purpose of an environmental assessment is to determine whether a project is safe and whether the resulting drawbacks will be offset by the benefits it brings. Are the drawbacks too significant? Sometimes, of course, when the analysis is conducted by independent scientists, we may not like the answer. That is for sure. However, that is what they are there for. We are not all scientists here. We cannot make decisions like these lightly. This reminds me of how, just before the summer break, the government gave the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food the power to authorize the use of pesticides and herbicides that the agencies responsible had previously declined to approve. What did the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food study in school? How do I find out? Is he qualified to make these decisions? I hope he gets some some good advice, because that is extremely frightening. I do not want to be told 10 years, eight years, five years or even six months down the road that this product really should not have been used, that scientists warned against its use but that the minister decided that it was no big deal and said that it could be used anyway. That is the Canada we are living in. It does not make any sense. That is just one of the many reasons why Quebeckers need to leave Canada. It is because of things like this. I am really looking forward to his response. I hope he will ask me questions because this is not a matter of national interest. What is more, these projects will be exempt from the laws because they are oil and gas projects, energy projects. The next pipeline will sail through the approval process. It will be done within a year at most. We know how these bills work. The government throws hundreds of pages at us and we have just a few hours to analyze them before speaking to them. My understanding of this bill—and this is the icing on the cake—is that the minister even has the power to approve a project before it has been assessed. Not only do they want to fast-track impact assessments and complete them within a year, but they can also turn around and allow construction to begin in the meantime. Imagine a scenario where a project is launched. It is really exciting. A brand-new pipeline is being built to transport oil. The environmental assessment begins while the project is performing well, but after six months, the conclusion is that there are simply too many impacts on this or that ecosystem and that the project either has to change tack or be redesigned. By then it will be too late. The trench will already be dug. This is backwards logic. I might seem less calm than usual. I swear I am trying to stay calm, but when I read things like this, I cannot believe they are actually doing this. Is this really flying under the radar? As for Mr. Trump, everyone says that the Prime Minister is going to save us. It is all well and good to use the tariff crisis as an excuse, but we know what is going on. I want to reassure all parliamentarians here today and everyone watching us at home that we are not against efficiency, effectiveness or economic development. We simply believe that precautions need to be taken. We think that the Prime Minister is currently giving himself powers that make no sense and granting powers to the executive branch that far exceed the mandates given by the people. This is especially true since, yes, the Liberals did win some by-elections this summer, but their majority was essentially created by floor crossers and backroom deals. I feel a need to remind my colleagues of that from time to time. Some folks will tell me to stop saying that, because everyone knows it. Yes, I will continue because that is more or less what real life is all about. I heard the Prime Minister say this week that he has a mandate to do what he is doing. I disagree. My NDP colleague asked earlier where it was written in the Liberal platform. He was right to ask. I would like the parliamentary secretary to respond to that, if he would like to chat with me. Where in their platform did it say that they were going to do this? We did not see that anywhere. I briefly mentioned workers' rights at the start, but what this bill does is crazy. It basically says that workers have the right to strike, but that the strike must not last long or cause any disruptions, that they must not make too much noise—that is specified in the bill—and that the government has the right to decide when it gets to be too much. That means that workers have no rights. If workers go on strike, it is too bad, but that is what the reality of bargaining looks like. First of all, when a strike occurs, it is usually because the employer has acted in bad faith. In any case, typically, though I do not want to generalize, there is no agreement. The parties are at a standstill. Strikes are meant to hurt the employer a little. That is called bargaining power. If there is no power, there will be no gains. The bill says that people have the right to strike, but that they no longer have any power and that they can be stopped at any time. Actually, it gets worse, because the members of the government will not even take the blame for stopping strikers; the Canada Industrial Relations Board will do it for them while they sit with their feet up by the fire and tell themselves that it is not their fault. That is the kind of government we are dealing with. Obviously, members will have guessed that the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C‑39.

Madam Speaker, I respect my MP too. Whenever I am here for work, I stay in an apartment located in his riding. That makes him my MP. I receive his householders too. They have far too much writing for my taste, since they are in both languages, but that is his choice. I digress. He brought up the topic of railroads. No one wants to revert to using the labour involved in building that railroad or the conditions of the time. That is what we are discussing today. I was saying that we are not against progress or construction but, over the years, we have adopted standards. We have adopted social standards that must be respected. That is important. Personally, I think that the Liberal government is triggering a major rollback, but I am counting on the member who represents me when I am on the Hill to protect my interests and make my voice heard in this caucus. I know that he cannot do that here, but I ask him to do that in his caucus.

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my colleague and congratulating him on his remarkable efforts in French. It is heartwarming. I would really like to see more people doing that. It works both ways. He mentioned red tape. There is, however, a subtle difference between cutting red tape and scrapping laws and social protections. What the government is doing is scrapping laws and social protections. We generally agree that red tape is an issue when regulations overlap with other regulations again and again. I do not understand why the Conservatives are unhappy with what the Liberals are doing. I thought they would be happy: The Liberals are scrapping all the laws to allow for oil infrastructure projects. I thought they would be happy.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Waterloo. Several members in a row have been practising their French. I am delighted. We can work together. I was saying to the previous speaker that I know that the Liberals are constrained in what they can say in Parliament. However, I hope that these people, who are smart, who are listening and who seem to understand the arguments we are putting forward, will convey to their caucus that we believe the bill should be amended. I hope that the committee study will give us sufficient latitude to amend certain provisions. The bill is so significant and harmful that I struggle to envision us supporting it. I am normally very accommodating, but this bill goes pretty far.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I respect my colleague. He has a sharp mind. He is right to speak out against closure, because this situation is deplorable. It is plain to see that at this rate, the Liberal government will surpass the record set by Stephen Harper's Conservative government. His party apparently holds the record. He can correct me if I am wrong. I was just teasing. The question that I want to ask him is the same one I asked another member. I am very concerned about the minister being given the power to approve a pesticide that has been rejected by Health Canada. The other member replied that he could not answer because he did not know anything about pesticides. What worries me is that that is the whole problem: The minister does not know either. That raises serious concerns for us. What does my colleague think of this situation?

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in Parliament on what we sincerely hope is the last day before we rise for the summer. I would first like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my very gracious and delightful colleague from Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan. To begin, I will also take a moment to offer some acknowledgements, as my colleague before me did. I want to thank everyone around us here, the House staff, especially the interpreters, but also the staff who work for us in our ridings. I want to mention Lyne, Dominique, Zachary, Victor and Thierry. Thierry works in both places. He is here in the whip's office with Carl, Paule, Steeve, Marilène, Marjorie, Michel and Benjamin. What a dream team. I would be remiss if I did not speak to my constituents. I encourage the people of Berthier—Maskinongé to enjoy the summer and to rest, recharge their batteries and spend time with their families. I look forward to seeing them at our local events. I hope that they can enjoy everything our beautiful region has to offer, whether it is the Festival de la truite mouchetée de Saint‑Alexis‑des‑Monts in the coming weeks, the Festi‑Force de Saint‑Jean‑de‑Matha a little later, the Festival de la Galette de Louiseville in the fall, or other happenings in the magnificent Berthier—Maskinongé region. I invite everyone to visit our farmers' markets. It is essential. The people at these markets are the ones who keep our regional economies going. We need to support them. First of all, we will eat better. It is good for our health and the food tastes better. What is more, it is not any more expensive and it brings incredible vitality to our regions. I go to all the markets. There is a good chance people will run into me and we can chat about all sorts of things if we are at the market at the same time. I would like that. My task today is to discuss Bill C-30. That is not as fun because Bill C-30 took no account whatsoever of the Bloc Québécois' demands. In fact, we were not consulted at all. Bill C-30 was introduced at a time when the government had just cobbled together a majority behind the scenes through backroom deals. I do not know if bribes were paid. I cannot say that because we have no proof. However, there must have been some quid pro quo to convince several elected members to cross the floor, which changed the dynamics and altered the outcome of the election. Negotiating and getting things moving is not an issue, but we are supposed to do that and work together over the long term. Personally, I belong to the school of politicians who believe that an election campaign lasts a month and a half, not four years. In between, we are supposed to work together—the Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc Québécois, New Democrats and all the independents—to move bills forward and work for the common good. Working together does not mean changing people's political allegiances overnight so that the government can make all the decisions without consulting the opposition. That is not the mandate the public gave this government. I am still condemning it, and I will continue to do so for as long as I can. The truth is, this grievance is not going away. Bill C-30 includes a lot of problematic provisions, including those related to pesticides. I spoke about this in my questions to my two colleagues who spoke before me. Everyone knows that agriculture and agri-food matter a lot to me. The people who work in these industries are especially important to me. It is on their behalf that I am speaking today as the former agriculture and agri-food critic. We studied this issue extensively. We heard from farmers in committee, and there was one thing that they strongly objected to. They were not asking for the minister to be given the power to provide them with just about any product upon request or to stop hassling them about health and the environment. Never in my life have I met a single, solitary farmer who has said such a thing to me. However, that is what the government is doing today. As for questions and comments earlier, it is rather mind‑boggling to see how the truth comes out in the House. I asked a colleague what he thought about allowing a minister to authorize pesticides that had been rejected by Health Canada. The colleague said he was sorry, but he did not know much about pesticides so he could not answer me. I appreciated the honest response, but it speaks volumes, because the minister does not know anything about them either. How are ministers appointed? They are appointed based on regional representation and based on whether they are a man or a woman. Cabinet needs to be gender-balanced. They are appointed based on a whole range of factors, and that is fine. That is part of politics. However, they are not microbiologists. They are not experts in the effects of crop protection products on the environment and on the people who apply them. I am not just thinking of the environment, but also of the farmers who are going to apply these pesticides to their fields. If anyone can authorize anything and people fall sick in future years, we will be no better off. While I do not want to indulge in populism, I admit that it is a very tempting slippery slope. With bills like this, it would be easy to get caught up in populism. I complained about the fake majority earlier, and I strongly criticize the fact that the opposition is being muzzled. My colleague who spoke before me talked about this: Time allocation has been moved on 10 bills so far, unless I am mistaken. This government is about to beat the Stephen Harper government's record. That is quite a feat. The Conservatives went down in history for that. I see members laughing, but mark my words, the Liberals are going to set a new record. They have made a good start. It is so appalling. We basically have a Conservative Prime Minister dressed up as a Liberal. Is that not the case? We have a Progressive Conservative government and a Conservative opposition. When it comes time to vote on Conservative measures, not many of us vote “nay” anymore. That is my objective analysis of the current makeup of Parliament. What a mind‑boggling situation. I want to come back to pesticides and herbicides. This is also true for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA. The bill would give it more authority and change its mandate so that it is not limited to food safety, but also includes an economic dimension. What does that mean? Does that mean that, if a certain product does not make people sick, then it should be approved because it would be good for the bottom line? How are these statements supposed to be interpreted? I am not making this up. I read out parts of the bill earlier. It is completely ridiculous. I cannot imagine a bill like this passing. What really surprises me is that there has not been much reaction from the media or the public. Perhaps that is because barbecue season is here and people are not paying as much attention to politics, but these laws are going to be implemented anyway. How long will it take before we see the negative impacts? How many blunders will the minister have to make when it comes to approving these products? At the same time, I am not saying that the problems are not real. I exchanged letters with Alberta's minister of agriculture for some time over the past few years. She told me about a significant problem with rodent infestations in the fields and asked me to approve a product that I was unfamiliar with. I told her that we had to rely on the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, now known as the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate, as well as on Health Canada and the experts. I have made the following comparison in the House before, but this reminds me of the pandemic, when our Conservative friends were asking us to adopt motions to lift the health measures in place for air travel. Members will recall that Canada was one of the last countries to lift them. We agreed, but nobody here is an epidemiologist. We are elected officials with a wide range of backgrounds. What did we say back then? We said that we agreed in principle, but that we needed to add a phrase indicating that this needed to be done in accordance with public health guidelines. That way, we would not just be doing things willy-nilly. We should add such a phrase to our Liberal friends' bill to say that the recommendations of the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate must be followed. The problem is not that the analyses and scientists at these agencies are not good. The problem is that they lack resources and are inefficient. I will give a clear example. Just last week, I read that this agency has finally approved a pilot project to spray pesticides using drones. Spraying these pesticides by airplane from much higher altitudes has been authorized for years. They end up spreading everywhere, including places where they are not needed. It took five years for farmers to be granted permission to apply them in small doses using drones, targeting only the specific areas of the field where they are needed. That is what we were criticizing: inefficiency and, at times, a lack of consistency. We were not asking for just any minister to be given the power to make just any decision. That is utter nonsense. It needs to be changed. We are at the end of the session, everything is being rushed through, and this is going to be passed in the next few hours. As a citizen who cares deeply about the environment and the health of my constituents, my duty is to protect the future of our children and grandchildren. I must inform the public about this. This is very serious.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague enjoyed my speech. That is nice. However, I will tell him that the Liberals are going to beat Stephen Harper if they continue on this path. They are going to break the record. That is not the way to do it. In my opinion, if, a few months ago, the Liberals had included in the calendar the bills they wanted to deal with on a priority basis for June instead of forcing us to deal with them two weeks before the end of the parliamentary session, forcing everyone to work until midnight and then get up at 6 a.m. to start all over, that would have made sense. We could have developed a work plan and worked together. They did not even talk to us about Bill C‑30 beforehand. The government should talk to us before introducing bills, and we can make proposals to speed things up.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to my colleague because, unfortunately, in a 10-minute speech, there is not enough time to cover everything, and this is an issue of the utmost importance. The fact that they want to sell the airports simply to improve the bottom line in six months shows that we are dealing with people who cannot see beyond the end of their nose and who figure they will deal with the problems later. If we sell the airports to the private sector, it will increase costs for individuals. Some infrastructure must remain public. Not only do we oppose foreign companies from China or anywhere else buying these assets, but we also believe they should remain public. We must retain control of our strategic infrastructure. This is fundamental.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question because it gives me an opportunity to elaborate on my point, especially if any farmers are listening to us right now and wondering whether we are still working for them. Of course we are. We work for their best interest and in everyone's best interest. We must retain some control. This gives me an opportunity to explain that what we are criticizing is a lack of efficiency. We do not want to take control away. It is important to be guided by science. A whole lot of people in Parliament have been enjoying saying the words “science-based” all week long, but I am not sure whether 25% of them even understand what it means when they say it.

Mr. Speaker, now it is my turn to wish my colleagues safe travels back to their ridings and a summer filled with sunny days, BBQs and corn boils. This session, we saw opposition members crossing the floor almost as often as we saw the Prime Minister crossing the Atlantic. We now have a majority government and a Prime Minister with a whole lot of air miles. That caused a lot of upheaval and so it is time to step back and take a little break. I want to thank all those who help us to do our jobs as parliamentarians, starting with the indispensable interpreters and the entire translation team, who remind us that we are not the only ones who take French seriously in Ottawa. I want to thank them. I also want to sincerely thank the entire team of clerks, law clerks and analysts who help us to be as effective and well-informed as possible in both the House and committee. I would like to thank the pages, the members of the Parliamentary Protective Service, the wonderful cafeteria staff and the maintenance crew, without whom we would never be able to use the parliamentary elevators, although I do not often take them, and the IT technicians, without whom we would never be able to unlock our phones after changing our password for the 40th time in three weeks. Did I put three exclamation points or four? I forget. I want to thank the entire Sergeant-at-Arms' team, the shuttle drivers and all the House staff I may have unintentionally overlooked. I would also like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, as well as those who occupy the chair in your absence. You are all outstanding in this role. We greatly appreciate your impartiality, most of the time, indeed nearly all of the time. We are grateful for your work. I thank my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois and in all the other parties, as well as the independent members. The government House leader and the Conservative whip will surely allow me to point out that we are working for the common good, but in the meantime, we are also preparing the country of Quebec. That is an important clarification. I thank the ministerial staff, the staff working in constituency offices and our assistants on the Hill. At the same time, I would like to say a quick word of acknowledgement for my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, who has decided to move on to explore new horizons. Our esteemed comrade-in-arms will be missed. I want to thank our constituents for the honour of allowing us to represent them. I also want to thank our family members, who sometimes miss us when we are not around, but later realize that our absence can be a refreshing experience too. On behalf of myself and the Bloc Québécois, I wish all Quebeckers a wonderful national holiday. I also wish all of our brothers and sisters in francophone minority communities across Canada a very happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. Lastly, to our first nations brothers and sisters, have a wonderful June 21. I hope everyone has a great summer, and I look forward to seeing my colleagues again in September.

Mr. Speaker, another day, another example of anti-democratic behaviour from this Prime Minister. Today, he is muzzling the opposition to pass Bill C-22, which contains serious privacy violations. Yesterday, he shut down the debate on Bill C-30, which allows him to approve pesticides that were previously banned by Health Canada. It is simple. Since June 1, the Prime Minister has moved time allocation on no fewer than nine bills. This Prime Minister is muzzling all the parliamentarians who want to do their jobs. Does he realize that his majority does not give him the right to subvert democracy?

Mr. Speaker, bad projects do not deserve support. The Prime Minister has a majority. He spends the majority of his time travelling, but he also has a majority in the House. All of his bills are guaranteed to pass. All he is doing with these repeated time allocation motions is preventing MPs from doing their job. All he is doing is trying to push things through so quickly that civil society does not realize what is happening. The reason the Prime Minister is rushing so much is to keep people from noticing the deregulation and abuse of power hidden within his laws. Why is the Prime Minister incapable of respecting Parliament and democracy?

Mr. Speaker, what troubles me about Bill C‑30 are the changes regarding the approval of pesticides and herbicides. Under this bill, for economic reasons or in emergency situations, cabinet will be allowed to decide whether to use hazardous products. These people are not scientists and do not know what impact the use of these chemicals could have on nature, the environment, the plants intended for human consumption and, most importantly, the workers who will be spreading them. I have serious concerns about this. That was not what agricultural groups were complaining about. Their issue was with the inefficiency of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which is now known as the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate. Rather than making this body more efficient, the government is going to let the minister decide when hazardous products can be applied. What does my colleague think about that? Can she offer me any reassurance? I am still not reassured.

Mr. Speaker, June 12 is Quebec buy local day. To celebrate, I invite my colleagues to treat themselves to an unforgettable getaway at Auberge Saint-Mathieu, an inn in Saint-Mathieu-du-Parc that is renowned for its superlative cuisine. After earning a green star from the famous Michelin Guide last year, this exceptional establishment was honoured once again this year with its first Michelin red star. These prestigious accolades recognize not only culinary excellence and refined flavours, but also this idyllic resort's deep commitment to sustainable gastronomy. At this country inn nestled in a picture-perfect forest, chef Samy Benabed, who also won the Michelin Guide Quebec 2026 Young Chef Award, crafts locally sourced cuisine, harmoniously blending smoky barbecue aromas with Quebec spices and citrus fruits. Congratulations to the entire team on this inspiring blend of flavours, local ingredients, and respect for the environment.

Mr. Speaker, changes to the New Horizons for Seniors program are threatening hundreds of community projects. Organizations have barely a month to register as a business, obtain a registration number and then submit their projects. Otherwise, they will be disqualified. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Seniors responded to this concern by telling them to figure it out themselves, that there is still plenty of time. For these volunteers who have no resources, July 14 may as well be tomorrow. Will the government delay its changes instead of treating our community organizations with contempt?

Mr. Speaker, anyone who has ever dealt with the Canada Revenue Agency or Service Canada knows that it is never that straightforward. We are talking about volunteers who take care of seniors, not experts on red tape. All the minister is being asked to do is to postpone her reform until the organizations that are eligible to register have a chance to do so, with enough time to ensure that the smallest local organizations that cannot register are not unfairly disqualified. Is it too much to ask that a little empathy be shown for our volunteers?

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to note that the Bloc Québécois members share all the sentiments that have been expressed today regarding the police officers who lost their lives in Ontario. I think that is important. I also want to acknowledge my dear friend Normand Branchaud, who is celebrating 60 years as a musician this weekend. He is an extraordinary individual who bought his first harmonica with three and a half dollars that he earned by running errands. I congratulate him. I have a question for my colleague. Is music a big part of his life?

Mr. Speaker, this time I will ask my colleague a question that relates to the topic at hand. That said, I really liked his previous answer, which I am sure will be greatly appreciated. My colleague referred earlier to the vote we took during the previous Parliament to maintain Quebec's political representation at 78 ridings. We know that the demographic weight of the Quebec nation will continue to decline in the federal Parliament. There are groups currently putting pressure on the government to introduce some form of proportional representation in the electoral process. There is the issue of multiple candidates. Bill C-25 directly addresses the issue. Does my colleague think that, because the Constitution cannot be amended in Canada, it would be realistic at some point to embark on a process to introduce an element of proportionality into our voting system? That would certainly reassure our constituents.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about democracy, and the purpose of the bill is to make things simpler. The Bloc Québécois believes that public funding for political parties should be reinstated because the tax refund basically amounts to public funding anyway. Who among us can afford to donate $1,750 to a political party? That is completely ridiculous. What does the member think about reinstating public funding for political parties, particularly in light of the fact that it was eliminated by a former Conservative government?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying hello to a dear friend who will be celebrating a 60-year career this weekend. His name is Normand Branchaud. Early in life, Ti-Nor got his first harmonica for the modest sum of $3.50 by running errands in the village. At age 17, he made his first appearance before an audience at the École Rinfret in Sainte-Ursule and then got up on the back of a truck in a church parking lot one June 24. What a way to kick off a career. He would go on to perform with the Dassonicks, Les Jags and the Cousins Branchaud, and his prolific musical career now continues with the FADOQ Band, which occasionally allows me the honour of joining in. He is also an honorary member of La Bottine Souriante, the band that has made a star of his son Jean-François. Ti-Nor is a fantastic comedic storyteller who still has a lot of music left in him. He often says that he will not stop playing music until his eyes close for the last time, but I bet he will find a way to keep playing on the other side. Hats off to Ti-Nor, and I send him my congratulations on his 60 years in music. With that out of the way, I will return to today's topic, namely Bill C-25, which would amend the Canada Elections Act. We have worked hard to support this bill. It is good to ban foreign influence because it poses a significant risk. Electoral disinformation, spreading false information, is something we have already seen in past elections. Voters have received fake messages directing them to the wrong address, the senders knowing full well that many of them would be discouraged from going on to the correct address if they encountered a problem. I see the member for Terrebonne over there. She went through quite an unusual byelection with 48 candidates, I believe. I do not remember the exact number. It was nuts. One thing this bill would do is put a stop to that. To handle that particular situation, Elections Canada created blank ballots and asked voters to write in the name of their chosen candidate. This approach could lead to error or misinterpretation, especially when people are holding a list of candidates long enough to hit the floor. People with low literacy skills could make mistakes. This kind of thing must not happen again. That is why something had to be done. The bill would also ban “brownies” from leadership races, which used to be legal, apparently. That is hard to fathom. When I heard about it, I was gobsmacked. Obviously something has to be done about it. However, one particular measure worries us, and that is removing the option for a voter to sign more than one nomination form. I think the government has made a mistake. I find this rather regrettable. The Bloc Québécois raised this issue and proposed an amendment, but it was not adopted. There is a problem here. A voter who agrees to sign a nomination form will know that they can sign only one. This is almost like making their vote public. However, it is the voter's privilege to keep their vote secret. I think the government should have preserved that principle. Then there is the issue of more difficult ridings or certain areas where it sometimes takes our candidates time to collect the necessary signatures. This bill would limit people by allowing them to sign only one nomination form. I believe I have said this in the House before, but I think members will be proud of my democratic credentials: I once signed the form of my own political opponent, because I believe in democracy. The guy was nice, I enjoy debating people and I want my constituents to have choices. I think that the government has erred on that score. The ban on accepting anonymous political contributions is a big win, however. I fail to understand why it was legal before. We also support increasing administrative monetary penalties for certain violations. The names of certain ridings are changing. That is the case for three ridings currently held by the Bloc Québécois. Some of our members asked for these changes after consulting with their constituents, local elected officials and the wider community. They came to a consensus. I assume in good faith that the other members from the other political parties did the same thing. The riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon will be called “Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent” going forward. It is a lovely name. The riding of Jonquière will be known as “Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets”. Why not? It is quite poetic. As for the riding of Rimouski—La Matapédia, its member bucked the general trend and proposed expanding the name, because his riding covers such a vast territory. In order to ensure that the riding name reflected everyone in it, the name chosen was “Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques”. I will close with this. I am sure members heard the question I asked my Conservative colleague. Other changes could have been made, including restoring public funding for political parties. Quebec is doing it. Once again, Quebec is ahead of federal legislation. Donations are limited to $100 per person. There is no tax credit, and public funding is paid out based on the number of votes received. That takes the pressure off. In contrast, the federal system allows for a maximum donation of $1,750. As I said in my question earlier, few of us and few of our constituents can afford to donate $1,750. That means that some people with more money might think that, by giving such a significant amount, they might have more influence on the elected member in the future, even if the member is not corrupt. Objectively, we should review that and lower these amounts. That would be very important. There are other things that could have been done. My colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj spoke earlier about the size of the ridings. I just talked about “Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques”. The breath I just took to say the name of the riding helps us understand how big a geographical area it covers. This is getting to be a problem for conscientious members who believe that, in order to represent people, we need to know them. In order to get to know them, we need to meet with them often. In order to meet with them often, we need to travel around our riding. I am lucky in my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé. It has 37 municipalities, which is a lot, but they are concentrated in a fairly small area. I can drive across my riding in an hour and 15 minutes or an hour and a half. Not all members are so lucky. Still, an hour and 15 minutes or an hour and a half by car is not next door. That means that, on any given day in my riding, driving for three hours is routine. It takes me 50 minutes to get to the office, and I live in my riding. It is clear that this is a problem. We should keep this in mind going forward. If we want to revise the method or perhaps introduce proportionality into our electoral system, we will need to keep this in mind. It would be good if the percentage of votes were better represented in Parliament. Some of the more marginal parties that still receive a significant share of the vote could be represented. Conversely, we have to make sure that we do not create distance between members and their constituents, the people they represent, because that is fundamental; it is extremely important. That is what allows us to do our work effectively, while keeping both feet on the ground. That is all I have to say on the matter. We are, of course, in favour of the bill, but we have reservations about limiting the number of signatures.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague from—and I will take the liberty of referring to the riding by its future name—“Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets”. I do not know if my colleague heard me earlier, but I mentioned that the name is quite poetic. Bravo to our poet from the north. I did also speak about political party financing. I mentioned earlier that few people can afford the maximum donation of $1,750. We have to be realistic. Furthermore, people who can afford it may have an ulterior motive when they donate. They may think they will have some influence over that elected official. I am not saying everyone does that, and I am sure there are people who make this kind of donation who do not think that way. I commend them. However, the risk exists. That is why Quebec amended its law, capping donations at $100 and reinstating public funding for political parties. I think it would be very wise to reinstate public funding for political parties to ensure a healthy democracy.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes Canada looks to what is being done in Quebec, although it typically takes too long to do so, child care being one example. Indeed, we are often out in front. I often say in my speeches that the country of Quebec already exists. I am sure my colleague would agree. We are already very different in terms of our culture, how we organize ourselves, our political culture and our entrepreneurial culture. The fact that we are already a country is also clear from our more progressive and social democratic measures. Child care centres are a good example of this. Perhaps we can see what happens when I officially call on the members opposite—government members who have the power to do this—to set up a committee to review political party funding and even the voting system. Fundamentally, what the people behind this bill want is a more representative voting system. I think that discussion is warranted. We should have it. I call on them to do this and, as always, I am open to collaboration.

Mr. Speaker, it is rather unfortunate, but Canada does not take these things into account when it reviews the electoral map. As elected officials, we can meet with members of the electoral commission. They will listen to what we have to say about changes to the riding boundaries. In my case, I was very lucky during the last election. The beautiful area of Saint-Sulpice was added to my riding. In fact, I would like to say hello to the people there. I am very pleased to represent them. It is a gorgeous spot on the St. Lawrence. Every day, I learn more about this magical little corner of the country. However, that means that there is now a fourth RCM in Berthier—Maskinongé, in addition to the city of Trois-Rivières. I am a very versatile and adaptable person. I can represent the specific interests of these people, but it requires a great deal of flexibility on my part because Saint-Sulpice is part of the Montreal metropolitan area. It is in the same riding as Pointe-du-Lac, which is the part of Trois-Rivières that I have the honour to represent. It is another equally wonderful part of the country filled with people I adore, but they have different challenges and perspectives. We need to be more versatile. Perhaps we should take a closer look at Quebec's electoral boundaries during the next electoral redistribution, unless we have become an independent country by then. Let us hope so, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the first part of my colleague's question, I must unfortunately inform him that I now represent the people of Saint-Sulpice. I love them and I am keeping them. The advantage is that it forces me and my colleague from Repentigny to work together, which is very positive, but it can be more difficult when people come from different political parties. Sometimes, it is even harder if they do not get along. In our case, of course, we are in perfect harmony. I will now talk about proportionality. People need to feel that their vote counts for something. Some people vote for a party that never stands a chance of winning the election. Some ridings are considered strongholds. This concept exists in Quebec, it exists in Canada and it exists pretty much everywhere. In those places, the same political party always wins, because a large segment of the population has rather fixed views. I see one of my colleagues over there who has been an MP for a very long time. It would be surprising if he lost his riding. There are some voters who might want to vote for another political party because they have never had the privilege of meeting the friendly MP who represents them. Sometimes, they do not bother to vote because they tell themselves it does not make a difference. That is where the danger lies. Proportional representation would ensure that, overall, there would be a balance and that the public's vote would be better represented in Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague from Terrebonne to talk to me about the following. At first, there were a lot of objections to the bill. People said it would detract from freedom of expression, that there was a risk of abuse, and so on. I think that we found the right solution by reinstating the Attorney General's consent to prosecute the offence. That way, with the Attorney General's judgment, we avoid the possibility of frivolous charges and ensure that any charges brought truly target people who promote hatred. I would like her to respond to that.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the members of the Bloc Québécois stand with the members who expressed their full solidarity with our colleague from Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata earlier. Our hearts go out to him. I believe that this spirit of collegiality and solidarity is fundamental to the House. In the same vein, I would like to call your attention to the fact that, in responding to my colleague from Drummond, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture claimed that the Bloc Québécois members have been here since the party's founding “getting absolutely nothing done”. The truth is that we work hard.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean. I am sure he will make very good use of that time. Since we are talking about the estimates today, we can address any aspect of the use of public funds. I want to briefly revisit our disappointment regarding the implementation of the budget, Bill C-31, among others, and the lack of response to one of our main concerns. There is something I do not understand. We keep saying that our SMEs need help. We also keep trying to explain to people in other Canadian provinces, in English-speaking Canada, that Quebec's economic fabric is unique because of its SMEs, which need support. We believe that the wage subsidy would be helpful in the current climate, given the new tariffs. However, we have not received a response. It is radio silence. There were no consultations before the budget measures were introduced. The government continues to subsidize the oil industry at every opportunity. Once again, these bills give the government even more power, including discretionary powers, which, to be perfectly honest, are frightening. Anyone who looked at the media this morning saw the news about crop protection products, herbicides and pesticides. I know what I am talking about, since I was the agriculture and agri-food critic for a long time. We studied these issues extensively at committee. What we were seeing, particularly with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA, which is now called the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate, or PRD, was a lack of efficiency. Whenever there was an emergency on a farm and an emergency registration was requested, it got delayed. It can take years, because the staff are in no rush, because there are not enough resources, or for any number of reasons. For three or four years, we had been studying the possibility of allowing drones to be used to spray pesticides, even though these same pesticides are already approved to be sprayed by plane. Planes spray pesticides at higher altitudes, over larger areas and using larger quantities. Logically, drone spraying will require a smaller quantity of pesticides and be able to focus on specific parts of the field. That is exactly what we want. It takes three or four years to approve that. We are scratching our heads and wondering why. That is what we were calling out. What is the government doing now to address the problem? It is saying that when the PRD rejects a product, cabinet can decide to authorize it for economic reasons. This is a very slippery slope, one that is reminiscent of what we have seen in previous bills. In just about every bill we vote on, the government gives its ministers the power to override other laws. This is extremely concerning. I do not believe that allowing cabinet to decide to authorize banned products will increase public confidence. We already use several products that are banned in Europe. What we need are resources and efficiency at the PRD and the CFIA. We must not give elected officials, who are not scientists, the power to authorize the use of toxic products. Let us be honest: These products are used to kill pests or eliminate diseases. That is what they do. The people who apply these products are our farmers, the people who feed us. When products are banned, it is often not only because of their effects on the soil, but also because of the risks they pose to the people applying them. What they are saying is, too bad, saving the crop is more important. I do not feel that we are reacting strongly enough to this change. I believe there is a major problem with undemocratic governance right now. The Liberal government continually grants itself the power to override the application of laws. Things are not moving quickly enough in Canada. We are not efficient enough. It is not that complicated. The government is going to run this country like a business. If a law slows things down, then the government will get rid of it. That is what it is doing with the Alto high‑speed rail project. If members watched the press scrums today, then they saw my leader's response. We have no choice but to oppose this project because it is being handled all wrong and because the government is infringing on the rights of our constituents. As the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, I cannot sit idly by while my constituents are treated like second‑class citizens because the government wants to run a train through their land and it wants the project to be completed quickly without any delays. The government is going to take away these citizens' right to speak to an independent hearing officer and their right to object to the price offered for the land. What is more, the government knows that the railway may have to cross sensitive areas, such as the Lanoraie peat bog. It figured that with the high-speed rail project, it is easy. It just needed to add a line to the bill stating that an environmental assessment is not required. That is how Canada is being run right now. I think the public will eventually realize this, as this bad habit of granting absolute powers continues to repeat itself. We are drifting away from democracy. That is what I think. Parliaments have passed laws over the years. I am not saying we should not adapt our laws. I am not saying we should not review and assess them regularly. If 28 regulations have been added and none have ever been removed, perhaps one or two could make way for the new ones that address the same issue. That is possible. However, we need to be smart about this. We need to take our time. The opposition parties need to be consulted. We need to have healthy, thorough debates. That is not what is happening right now. Instead, time allocation is imposed, so we do not have enough time. It is being rushed through. They want to go on vacation. It is summer, and it is almost time to wrap up our work, but the government still wants to get its seven, eight, 10 or 12 bills passed. That means we have to stay until midnight and get it done. That is the situation we find ourselves in. I dream of a world where election campaigns last a month and a half, like they are supposed to, and where, in between elections, elected officials work together for the common good. In that world, the party in power would not be able to negotiate with members to secure a majority and then do whatever it wants without consulting anyone else. That is what we are currently experiencing. That is what I am experiencing, and it is dangerous. I have said it before, but I will say it again and again, because it seems that some members on the other side of the House are not listening. The Bloc Québécois is a constructive opposition. We do not just sit around whining. We have come up with proposals. One good idea would be to eliminate the oil subsidies. The Liberals are listening to us so much that they are increasing that funding. There are wage subsidies, as I mentioned earlier. There is EI reform. When people lose their jobs, 40% of them are ineligible for benefits. That is outright theft because they have paid into the system. They are required to do so, but they do not qualify. It would be like me charging people for home insurance while telling them I will never pay out. I am not sure they would keep paying me for long, unless they did not check their bills. We do check them. There are the cheques that were sent out during the election campaign, for which we have requested reimbursement. There is the influx of refugees we took in. I am going to talk about agriculture again, because I miss it a little. I saw the UPA people today at their press conference opposing high‑speed rail. They have a point. Research centres have been closed. The government should be investing in research and innovation, not making cuts. At a time when cabinet is being given the power to approve whatever crop protection products it wants, the agencies responsible for regulating and approving them are facing cuts. What should be happening is the opposite. Personally, I dream of a government that makes agriculture a priority. The fact that less than 1% of the budget goes to agriculture in a country like Canada is shameful. It should be at least 2%. Agriculture is the foundation for everything. Defence is about to get 5%. Do members know how cities were captured in the Middle Ages? They were not attacked; they were encircled, and the besieging army simply waited until all the food inside was gone. That is the way a territory is weakened. It may have the best army in the world, but if it does not have the means to feed it, if it does not have free-flowing international trade and is not self-sufficient when it comes to food, it will have a big problem. We need to make wise choices and, for goodness' sake, stop this shift toward authoritarianism.

Mr. Speaker, despite his poor reasoning, I still find the parliamentary secretary quite likeable. If he were being fair, he would admit that the excise tax exemption is lining the pockets of oil companies. That is what we have always said, and it is what we have been saying for years: The government needs to stop giving these companies tax breaks. They are vultures. They will siphon off every last bit. The government keeps talking about the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, but this is simply a rebranding of the family allowance. This is not all new funding. Yes, the amounts have increased. However, does the government know a good way to stimulate the economy, get it moving and help people who really need it? It involves indexing the OAS for people aged 65 to 74, just as it is for those aged 75 and over. I am being told that $3 billion a year is too expensive, but it would seem that $200 billion for high-speed rail is not too expensive. I do not know which is more important to the Liberals, but these people need money, and I am talking about less than $100 a month.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again thank my esteemed colleague for that very interesting question. What happened in Mirabel with the supposedly international airport that never came to be was that the government had to return nearly 90% of the land that it stole from people. People had to buy it back at today's prices. That is what happened. Now, Alto is coming to our area, even though Mirabel still bears the scars of past expropriations. I do not want Berthier—Maskinongé to experience that kind of horror. Alto is coming to my area and terrorizing people along a 10-kilometre-wide stretch. The government is telling us not to worry because Alto only needs 60 metres. First of all, there is going to be a construction site around that 60 metres. Second, if only 60 metres is needed, then why take a stretch 10 kilometres wide? It looks like the government is planning to take more land than it needs. Is it going to try to resell the land around this train through land speculation to fund this huge project?

Mr. Speaker, that is not much time to assess this risk. The risk is that anyone can make decisions about anything. Let me draw a parallel. During COVID‑19, members of the Conservative Party wanted us to vote on motions that would lift the health measures in place for air travel. We agreed, but we had the wisdom to concede that we were not microbiologists or epidemiologists. We therefore asked to include wording to the effect of “with the consent of public health authorities”. The danger is that uninformed people will make decisions—under pressure from lobby groups or economic pressures—to approve products, including crop protection products that will be used on our land. Later, our children and grandchildren end up paying the price. It is terrifyingly serious.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised some good points. I liked the part where he talked about the protections that Quebec offers consumers. I would like to talk to him about the business world. Berthier—Maskinongé witnessed a minor miracle this morning. It was the grand reopening of Duchesne et Fils, which had been under the protection of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for months. All of the elected officials, namely the MNA, the RCM's reeve, the mayor and myself, worked as a team and helped Groupe Zohar, the company that took over. We were happy. The employees' faces looked so different today compared to a few weeks ago, when a press conference was held to sound the alarm and point out that more time was needed. This is the kind of thing we need to do. Companies, Quebec's SMEs, need help. Firms are going out of business. That is what made this morning's event so special. Would my colleague not agree that our wage subsidy proposal, which I keep bringing up here every chance I get, would help with that?

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague was here earlier when I asked my question about businesses, but the Bloc Québécois believes that small businesses in Quebec and, of course, across the rest of Canada need direct, rapid, effective support to avoid going under. Over the past few weeks, we have seen furniture businesses closing down. I mentioned earlier that a very happy event took place this morning in Berthier—Maskinongé. The Duchesne et Fils plant in Yamachiche reopened after the company sought protection under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Thanks to the collaborative efforts of elected officials, we succeeded in applying pressure and making sure the company that took over had favourable conditions to make it work. I want to take this opportunity to recognize them and thank them again, along with the people at the business support centre, who had a major impact on this file. We succeeded in saving one business, but we are worried about other businesses that are closing down and about businesses that have not gone under yet but that are struggling. I would like to know whether my colleague supports our proposal for a wage subsidy to keep the economic fabric of our regions from unravelling.

Madam Speaker, Ottawa is once again bowing to pressure from Washington. The government wants to cancel a levy increase and allow Netflix, Amazon and other streaming platforms to get out of paying their fair share towards funding culture. The Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions is concerned about this situation. It stated: “Ottawa's decision...represents a major and deeply troubling setback in the face of U.S. pressure on Canada's cultural sovereignty.” Who is in charge of cultural policy in this country: the Prime Minister or Donald Trump?

Madam Speaker, he should take a look at our platform. It is full of proposals about culture. Here is what the Société des auteurs et autrices de radio, télévision et cinéma said concerning the Prime Minister's cultural capitulation: “this announcement cuts us to the core, because it suggests that our industry is nothing but a bargaining chip”. Those are their words, not ours. The Prime Minister had already capitulated on the digital services tax to the tune of $1.4 billion a year. Today, he is capitulating on the $2 billion a year in levies payable by streaming platforms. Whey are the Liberals always so eager to capitulate when it comes to protecting francophone culture in North America?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you in the chair. Today, I am speaking to Bill C-20 on Build Canada Homes or, as it was originally mistranslated in French, “Bâtir Maisons Canada”. It is not in the Bloc's nature to agree to the creation of federal Crown corporations that encroach on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. I would remind all members that housing is under Quebec's jurisdiction. However, there is always context, and the current situation is extremely serious. The housing crisis that has been raging for some time is appalling. There is crippling inflation, which means people are struggling to find housing and often, or even regularly, have to cut back on other expenses. This is a serious crisis. That is the first factor. The second factor is that the federal government has finally, in the end, reached an agreement with the Quebec government. That is one of the factors that may lead the Bloc Québécois to accept such measures. The agreement very clearly states that Quebec's jurisdiction, priorities and legislative framework will be respected, along with the Build Canada Homes investment policy framework. An agreement has been reached, an urgent need exists and funds are available. We are talking about $1 billion, after all. We cannot, in good conscience, say that we are rejecting the money in accordance with a general policy. The context here allows us to approve this bill, as we did at second reading. At second reading, my colleague from Joliette—Manawan gave an interesting quote. I really like quoting this man. He is brilliant, intelligent and humble at the same time. My colleague commended the government and the minister for trying to speed up efforts to address the affordable housing issue, and I share his sentiment. We therefore applaud the effort and the investment, and we will support this bill because something needs to be done about housing, especially affordable housing. That said, we have some concerns. Affordable housing is not social housing. Build Canada Homes is focusing strongly on affordable housing. The government is creating a structure that will inevitably encroach on areas outside federal jurisdiction and giving it very broad powers. Among other things, Build Canada Homes will have the power to become a shareholder or partner of private companies operating in the area of affordable housing. We have concerns about that, and I must express them in the House. What does that mean in the long term? It is a bit like the current agreement with Quebec. It exists, but how long will it last? Will it be renewed and will it still respect Quebec's jurisdiction? Unfortunately, Canadian history has taught us that the federal government generally has a hard time respecting Quebec's jurisdiction. That is why we are on alert. All of this background information is intended to highlight this fact. Something has to be done about housing. There is no getting around that. The billion dollars that will be sent to Quebec will, I hope, provide some general relief, as long as this structure is effective. Speaking of effectiveness and structures, I would now like to talk about the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which already exists. Its mandate includes funding, program creation, support, and planning and validating this type of housing project. Why create a new structure? We have raised that question before and I am raising it again today because we never really got an answer. The Liberals talk about agility, or perhaps they just wanted to create something new. Governments love to say that they are responsible for creating one structure or another. Often, they create things and put the word “Canada” on it three or four times so that it sounds good when they say it. In this case, we are talking about Build Canada Homes. My argument about adding “Canada” to the names of things does not apply here because the “C” in CMHC already stands for Canada. CMHC stands for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, so this is not about adding Canada to the name. Why then, do the Liberals want to create a new structure that operates in the same areas? More importantly, the CMHC is at risk of losing a lot of its funding and programs. The government is telling us that it will maintain the current funding levels and any initiatives that have already been announced. I honestly have to commend the government for that, because at least it is not cutting programs mid-stream. However, that means that these programs will disappear when the funding runs out, and that raises concerns. I am thinking, in particular, about the rapid housing initiative, which is working well. People had better take full advantage of it while it is still around, because it is not every day that a member of the Bloc Québécois says that a program is working well. If I am saying it, then it must be true. In that case, why sunset that program? We are concerned about all of these things. This new structure is causing concern not only among Bloc Québécois MPs, but also among community organizations like FRAPRU, the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, a housing rights organization. Build Canada Homes is allowed to become a shareholder or partner in housing projects, and that is causing concern among FRAPRU's members. They said, “The cat is out of the bag. After promising to build affordable housing with Build Canada Homes, the government's new strategy...is starting to become clear. Build Canada Homes is an investment bank, plain and simple.” These comments were reported by my esteemed colleague from Joliette—Manawan. That sums up the situation well. It goes without saying that we will be on our guard and will carry out our role as a constructive opposition by monitoring the work of this entity and ensuring that it does not start to disregard Quebec's jurisdiction or cast its net too wide. This federal government has a tendency to overreach and it has far too much money relative to its responsibilities, yet it still manages to run up record deficits and accumulate stratospheric debts. We must keep a close eye on it because it will meddle in whatever areas it can. Again, housing is the responsibility of the Quebec government. I would like to quote Quebec premier Daniel Johnson. This is not a recent quote. He said this in 1967, a short time before I was born. Quebec considers the following areas to fall within its exclusive jurisdiction: culture, adult education, university research, trade training programs, industry-cooperative training programs, and training programs for the unemployed; urban development and housing; municipal structure; municipal powers; and land use planning. That pretty much sums up what I just said, and as I mentioned, this is not a new issue. I was not even born yet, and I am not exactly young anymore. I am not old, but I am not that young either. There would be a role for the federal government if everyone here made an effort to respect the Constitution, which is rather ironic. I hear a member telling me he agrees. He might disagree with the rest of my statement, but it will be fun. We are pretty much the only ones here who want to the Constitution to be upheld. It is funny because we are the only ones who did not sign it. We all remember that it was done behind our backs in the middle of the night. It is still a pretty scandalous affair. I think I have managed to get one of my colleagues thinking. I am quite proud of myself. Originally, the federal government's role was to transfer money to these jurisdictions, because it had a monopoly on taxation powers. Over time, attempts were made to balance the situation, but they never offset the shortfall. This is the crux of the problem with Canada's federal structure, which is a federation, not a confederation. That was another historical rip-off. The government has too much power and more money than its responsibilities require, so it tends to take advantage of the situation to shine in the public eye. Its members love making announcements from a sun-drenched balcony, hair blowing in the wind. I use that sentence a lot, but the image speaks for itself. The government wants to tell Canadians that it is generous and that it is going to hand out billions of dollars. That way, it gets credit and hopes that votes will follow. I am guessing that is the reasoning. However, it would be nice if the contract that was signed behind our backs was respected. The Bloc Québécois has enough class to say that we are are stuck with that, and that we are going to play by the rules until the day comes that everyone knows about already. It should surprise no one that our goal is not to stay here. Our goal is for the Government of Quebec to assume its full powers and manage its responsibilities. I will use the example of Build Canada Homes. We are saying today that, yes, we will take the billion dollars. We need it, because the crisis is urgent. Ottawa has an agreement with the Quebec government stipulating that decisions will be made by the Government of Quebec based on its jurisdictions and priorities. We agree. However, if we take a step back, $1 billion out of $6 billion represents 16.6% of the amount Canada allocated through Build Canada Homes, even though Quebeckers represent around 22% of the population. That means that while Quebeckers are paying 22%, they will receive only 16.6%. I know that I am going to get questions from government members, who will tell me that we are being ungrateful and that we should be happy and stop whining. I would like them to think about those numbers. I am sure that the thousands of people who are watching us at home agree that this does not make any sense. If Quebec had control over all of its economic levers, then we would have a lot more money to put into housing. We would also do things more effectively because we are more in touch with the people. When we say that this falls under Quebec's jurisdiction, it is because the provincial governments and the Government of Quebec are closer to the people and they are in a better position to provide services. The municipalities are even closer to the people. This should be done in partnership with municipal governments. Who knows the needs of a community better than its municipal officials? That is true as long as they are doing their job properly and they are in touch with people in their community. When the federal government comes in with its heavy-handed approach and imposes its priorities, we always have to insist that it respect our jurisdictions. That is why we are always raising concerns. I hope that people are listening. I think that the parliamentary secretary is listening carefully. I am very pleased because I know that he will likely go and tell his caucus that what the guy from Berthier—Maskinongé said made a lot of sense and that his government should be vigilant. At least that is my hope, because I am sure Manitoba must also have regional priorities. All that the federal government would have do is simply transfer the money, but because it would not get enough credit, it creates structures instead. Having an agreement with Quebec is important. However, it is appalling that every time we talk about housing—and the same holds for many other sectors, but housing in particular—the timelines grow longer. I remember that my former colleague, Denis Trudel, who I can call by name today because he is sadly no longer with us, long criticized this situation in his role as housing critic. I believe that it took four years the last time to reach an agreement with Quebec, even though the other provinces had already received the money. I could be wrong about the number of years, but it is around that many. It took nearly two years for the Canada housing infrastructure fund. The general funds have been released, but agreements still need to be reached. It is frustrating, exhausting and discouraging to see the federal government make announcements and reach agreements after a few months with other provinces, but not with Quebec. Why? It is because the federal government wants to stick its nose into everything and that does not bother Canadians in other provinces. For them, the government is the federal government. This does not bother the provincial governments, because they have far fewer responsibilities than the Quebec government. I invite people from other provinces who might be listening to take a look at Quebec's administrative structure and its social and economic fabric. They will see that the country of Quebec already exists. I often say this, and people sometimes think I am joking, but I really mean it. Regional county municipalities, or RCMs, do not exist anywhere else. They are groupings of municipalities meant to foster greater regional cohesion. I will give an anecdotal example regarding electoral redistribution. The riding of Berthier—Maskinongé already had three RCMs and one city. I explained to the commissioner that I really wanted to properly represent the people of Saint-Sulpice, whom I salute by the way and whom I am very pleased to represent, but that, for the sake of territorial cohesion, it might be better to give me a larger area of land, such as Matawinie, which I already shared with my esteemed colleague from Joliette—Manawan. When I explained that to the commissioner, he said it made sense. When I asked him if he had any questions, he said no, that everything was very clear, that I had made a good point and that he would look into it. When I received the card a month later, I realized that he had not listened to me. It is no big deal, because Saint-Sulpice is a beautiful part of the country. I have come to know a lot of people there, and I am very proud to represent them. However, this just goes to show that Canada could not care less about RCMs. They are not in its DNA, whereas they are a reality in Quebec. When it comes to supporting businesses, we are trying to explain to people in the other provinces that Quebec's economic fabric is different from the rest of Canada. In Quebec, we have a very high concentration of small and medium-sized businesses that need more targeted support, including the infamous wage subsidy. The wage subsidy is like OAS for seniors aged 65 to 74. We will not give up on this. I know that some people are sick and tired of hearing us talk about this, but we will not stop, because we stand up for such worthy causes. Wage subsidies are intended to maintain the employment relationship between businesses and employees. As for the old age pension for people aged 65 to 74, it is intended to ensure fairness among seniors so that different categories based on age do not exist. That is age-based discrimination. It is an election promise and a housing measure. We want to work together, but we are putting the government on notice. We are asking the government to honour its commitments. I do not want to have to go on the attack again in three years when the agreement expires because Build Canada Homes might want to extend its reach into areas of Quebec's jurisdiction. Two years to reach an agreement is a long time. We do not want any further delays. Some people sometimes think we are here to block everything or to show that nothing works. However, we often simply point out that things rarely work. The next time federal funds are released, I would like to see less red tape, a quicker response to Quebec's specific requests and no attempt to impose federal conditions on Quebec's economy, society and politics. I am extending this olive branch to the parliamentary secretary. I assume he will accept it warmly and that he hears the message I am sending today. I am very keen to see what sort of question he will ask me. That said, we are separatists. I know some people do not like it when I talk about that, but I do because it is my job. I mentioned earlier that we are going to take the billion dollars injected into Build Canada Homes because we want to make constructive progress here while awaiting Quebec's independence. I pointed out to members that this figure represents 16.6% of the total amount Canada has invested in Build Canada Homes. Quebec accounts for approximately 22% of the population. Once again, we are not receiving the full amount that should be coming to us. We will gladly take it and try to make it work, but there is still some missing. My separatist argument stands. We would not have had to wait two years for a policy to be implemented if we had not had to negotiate with a federal government that does not understand Quebec's reality and that wants to impose its own rules and its own way of doing things. That is the essence of my speech today. I thank my colleagues for their attention, and I impatiently await their questions.

Madam Speaker, for once, the parliamentary secretary anticipated my response quite well. We can both agree on that, but we will also have to agree to disagree. That said, as I mentioned in my speech, we are here to salvage something from the wreckage. We are defending Quebec and trying to get as much as we can for our people. That is what we are doing today. We will take that billion dollars. My colleague mentioned programs that work and working together. I gave an example of such a program in my speech. I hope he appreciated that. The rapid housing initiative is working. It has worked in the past and it is still working. Why get rid of it? Why replace it with an unknown quantity? When a program is working, we should invest in it and leave well enough alone.

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question, which was very long but very interesting. It is always interesting to dialogue with colleagues who are cultured and give historical dates. It is wonderful. It is quite a coincidence that I am talking about Mr. Johnson when it is the 60th anniversary of when he was first elected and, at the same time it is also Mr. Clark's 87th birthday. I had not made the connection. This is wonderful. My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk said that Quebec has been able to thrive. Fortunately, Quebec developed its own autonomy by introducing the single tax return, among other things. My colleague will be happy to hear me mention Maurice Duplessis, who established that. People often talk about Mr. Duplessis in a negative light, but he also had a very positive side, which in no way detracts from his darker side. He did, after all, get some things done, and Quebec has developed gradually. We have been developing on our own. My colleague says we can grow to our full potential, but in this case, we will be growing at 16.6% instead of 22%. We manage to get things done because we are very smart and very strong. The day we become independent and have full control of our finances, people will be very impressed by everything we manage to achieve and by how quickly we manage to do it.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my “original whip”. Today is the first time I have called her by her nickname in public. I want to thank her for her thoughtful question and the wise counsel that she kindly gives me on a regular basis. She is right to talk about Quebec's uniqueness, its specificity and the diversity of its models. We would like to see more respect for those things. We do not understand why it takes two or four years to reach an agreement. That is the problem. The federal government needs to understand that. We need flexibility. I am going to make a constructive proposal to the government, and I hope that the parliamentary secretary is taking notes. The difference between the 22% and the 16.6% could be transferred to Quebec. That way, we could take care of our diversity, as my colleague explained so well.

Madam Speaker, I apologize to my Conservative colleagues from Quebec, but my colleague is gradually becoming my favourite Conservative. Not only is her French exemplary, but she is also very receptive. I would like other members of the House to take a lesson from her. She has only been here for a short time, but she is already doing extraordinary work. I commend her and I appreciate the fact that she understood the gist of my message. Her question is very relevant and very intelligent. She can rest assured that we are very resourceful. We are going to turn things around quickly and manage our own affairs. As I was telling my other colleague earlier, we are capable of doing things well, faster and better if we have all the means at our disposal. I think the people in her province would certainly benefit from the same flexibility.