Mr. Speaker, when we left the House in December 2024, a number of people were printing out resumés.

In January 2025, a crisis escalated with the United States on three fronts. It was a tariff crisis, which seemed likely but obviously temporary, since tariffs are an intimidation tactic, or a response to an intimidation tactic in the case of retaliatory tariffs. It was a trade crisis in anticipation of a new trade agreement, a free trade agreement that will be less free but will still be a trade agreement. It was also a crisis of fabrications, which we can now say was a joke from the start without being accused of not taking things seriously. It will never be anything more than a joke that was picked up and exploited to sow uncertainty for the benefit of the Liberal election campaign.

All the stops were pulled out during what I call the three big red weekends. I am referring to the Liberal leadership debate, the selection of the Liberal Party leader the following weekend, and the appointment of the Liberal ministers the weekend after that, followed by the election call. The next day, in the midst of a crisis, the Prime Minister himself told Radio-Canada, “No crisis, no Mark Carney”. I know I am not allowed to name him, but since it is a quote, I do not really have a choice.

Yesterday, we laughed so hard it would have made Rock et Belles Oreilles look like undertakers. There was not a word in the throne speech about the tariff crisis, not a word about the trade crisis. Furthermore, some posh foreign sovereign came over making claims about Canadian sovereignty when he is actually the king of another people. What happened to the crisis? There was a crisis going on. The widespread panic it caused was carefully stoked. It served a purpose, but then where did the crisis go?

Was it resolved, as we were led to believe, by he who was already Prime Minister and who is now confirmed in the role? The whole reason he was seeking a mandate is absent from his own throne speech. What we find instead is an unprecedented degree of centralization, both in reality and in intent.

In reality, when it comes to health care, the government is still trying to interfere in pharmacare and dental care, a jurisdiction that belongs to Quebec and the provinces. It seems that, in the thought process of a great economist, efficiency is achieved when a task is assigned to people who know nothing about it, which makes it take longer and cost more. The same reasoning applies to child care. Obviously, there is no increase in health transfers, because a province that is being strangled financially is a province that can be brought low and subjugated.

The government is centralizing environmental issues because it wants to create a giant steamroller that will run a pipeline through Quebec based on Canadian environmental standards. It is ignoring the fact that Quebec has the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, or BAPE, which was created under a provincial law. A law cannot be circumvented. No one can decide to circumvent a law to please a friend.

There is also this idea about one economy, one Canadian economy, naturally. Every Canadian province has its own economic tools that work differently, have different effects and generate different amounts of money from different economic bases. The idea of one economy was unanimously rejected by all elected members of the Quebec National Assembly. Either the government has decided that it could not care less about what elected officials said, or it did not hear those elected officials say no.

Earlier today, during question period, I heard questions that seemingly came from western Canada. I am not sure that they really agree either. I am not convinced that people in the west believe that there should only be one Canadian economy and that they should submit to it.

The same centralizing approach to Canadian multiculturalism is not particularly popular with Quebeckers. Why? It is simply because it denies the distinctiveness of Quebec's language and values, as well as the immigration issues that are unique to Quebec. Our integration challenges are not the same. Obviously, this is true in terms of language, but it is becoming clearer every day that it is also true in terms of values.

The great virtue of the Speech from the Throne is that it is unapologetic. We are told right from the start that, no matter what we say or do, this is the vision that will apply. That stems from ignorance—in the sense of a lack of knowledge, not an unwillingness to learn—about how the parliamentary system works, about the constraints of a legislative process that must ultimately yield power to elected officials and parliamentarians.

That is why I used the following image earlier: It is as though Canada were a bank with branches in Quebec City, Toronto, Edmonton and so on. It is as though Canada were a central bank with branches that take their orders from the head banker. I do not mean any offence by that, but this way of looking at things is upsetting to Quebeckers and Quebec MNAs.

The federal government will say that it is the one with the money. Thanks to the good old fiscal imbalance, the federal government gets more money than it needs to fulfill its responsibilities, and the provinces get less than they need to fulfill theirs, not to mention the fact that the provinces are afraid to raise taxes. The federal government will say that it has the money to force the provinces to surrender their areas of jurisdiction so that everything can be centralized under the federal government, which thinks it knows better than everyone else.

On another note, climate change is real for the 22 Bloc Québécois members of Parliament. Yes, there is such a thing as climate change, which is destroying the environment at a highly accelerated rate, destroying lives and—we will repeat it time and again—costing every family thousands of dollars a year in insurance costs, higher grocery bills, and taxes to repair the damage. Trying to fight climate change costs much more than we could have ever imagined.

It seems logical to assume that the Prime Minister also believed in climate change when he was running Brookfield, because it was a green investment fund on paper. We eventually discovered that the green investment fund was actually a black investment fund, because it invests in oil and gas. There must be an explanation that we do not yet know and that we will find out as soon as we find out about the Prime Minister's personal assets. Did he think that way when he was running Brookfield, or was it a way to attract investors?

Again, the Speech from the Throne does not have a lot to say about the climate and the environment. Our party tends to talk about it a lot. What is more, Repentigny just sent us the Wayne Gretzky of the environment. He is certainly going to stickhandle this issue and force some people in this Parliament to see whether they still have an environmental conscience, especially the former environment and climate change minister.

We have an oil and gas government that was elected on an oil and gas agenda because it told people that now was not the time to talk about the environment, the French language, immigration, values, seniors or anything else. It said that there was no time to talk about anything because we were in a crisis. The crisis seems to be over, judging from the Speech from the Throne. Now we will surely be able to talk about those things.

In any case, our party is going to talk about them, because a model that strikes a balance between the economy and the environment has more wealth-generating potential in the long run than a model that costs more to repair than it makes in profits. Even the profits that are generated are concentrated in the hands of a few individuals and spent on fancy yachts sailing the Mediterranean. This does nothing for taxpayers who constantly pay more for less.

Still, we must find a way to co-operate. Canadians and Quebeckers wanted a Prime Minister with a background in banking to negotiate with the United States.

As the process begins, questions have emerged. A tax that was not paid has cost $4 billion to reimburse. That is a new one. How a sum that was not paid out can be reimbursed is hard for me to fathom, yet it put $4 billion in the pockets of Canadians. As I see it, Canada excluded Quebec. Quebeckers did not receive a cent because they have their own carbon pricing system. The rebate had nothing to do with the carbon tax, however. The ruse was not particularly honest.

I would therefore remind Parliament that Canada owes the people of Quebec $800 million. That is a fact. Until it is paid, we will continue to speak out. The government had the nerve to tell Quebeckers that they made up that figure, that it had been proven to be false, and the government handed out cheques to buy votes, but not to them, because they are just Quebeckers.

Then there are the $6 billion in tax cuts. A bill will be introduced to that effect, but it is useless. The Minister of Finance said there would be an economic update in the fall and a budget next spring. The Prime Minister said there would be a budget this fall instead. Since the tax cuts cannot take effect until January 1, 2026, the fall budget will include the tax cuts. That makes the bill unnecessary, unless the government is trying to create more smoke and mirrors, a bit like it did with the King and annexation, for example.

The $20 billion in revenue from retaliatory tariffs is also being dropped. No one knows much about the details. The $20-billion ballpark figure is fairly well known. That means another $30 billion will be added to Canada's deficit this year. That is quite significant. Justin Trudeau must be kicking himself for holding back; he could have done a lot worse. There is no economic update or budget, and yet we are supposed to go on believing that we have not been taken for a ride.

Recognition of Quebec's distinct character is another issue. I would remind the House that we spent the election campaign talking about eight sectors which, although not exclusive to the Quebec economy, are specific to it. These are aluminum, critical minerals, supply management, aerospace, forestry, clean energy and culture. Quebec's culture is very different, and it is not being swallowed up by another culture. In any case, we are better at resisting, and the other is not the same other. There are also the fisheries.

We discussed a range of solutions. It is unbelievable. The word “solutions” is not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, except in very broad and vague principles. There is the wage subsidy, which is loosely based on the COVID‑19 model, research and technology transfers for businesses to make them more competitive, and market diversification. I went to Europe and talked about market diversification with representatives of European countries. There is purchasing power, especially for retirees, productivity, reserving of public contracts, which could have been done many years ago, support for small and medium-sized businesses, the military sector, public contracts and maintaining purchasing power. I cannot believe that I know more about economics than the new high priest does. I am an anthropologist.

However, we presented a number of solutions. I was very involved in creating these solutions so that they could be discussed and debated. There is no mention of this, aside from the words “supply management”. We will come back to that. The principle of supply management was never at stake, but parts of it were eliminated. It is like telling someone that they are not going to take their house away, but that they are taking their garage, and tomorrow they will come and take their bedroom, and then the kitchen. It will still be their house, but all they will have left is the foundation and basement. That is more or less what is happening.

That is what needs to be protected in full, but I think we need a test to prove that we can work this out together. That is why I asked earlier about what happened to the crisis.

Nevertheless, we listened to Quebeckers, and we promised to try very hard to collaborate, to find a way forward and as much common ground as possible. We promised to start from how Canada sees itself and how Quebec sees itself, but we do not have a monopoly on how Quebec sees itself. We are going to argue over which group is bigger, but the Quebec National Assembly has made it very clear that its members are all Quebeckers. It is the only assembly that speaks only for Quebec. That matters, and we need to listen to them.

There are differences because other people will come at things from Canada's perspective and we will come at things from Quebec's perspective. There will always be issues around language, values, the immigration model, small and medium-sized businesses, and the environment. We will do everything we can to get along, because Quebeckers will be watching and we will speak on their behalf.

We will agree or we will use what Quebeckers gave us, for now, namely the balance of power in the committees. Here, given the makeup of Parliament, we have a certain weight. In every committee chaired by the Liberals, if the Liberals do not agree with the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois will have the votes that make the difference. Generally speaking, if they agree, that is not good news for Quebec. We will have to negotiate.

I want to repeat in good faith that we are prepared to negotiate and find common ground. Either we will agree before being compelled to use the balance of power, or we will agree afterward, because things might get heated in committee.

As a test of good faith, I propose an amendment to the Conservative amendment to the Speech from the Throne:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following:

“, with respect for the areas of jurisdiction and the institutions of Quebec and the provinces”

Yves-François Blanchet

$506,879.00