Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

“The Trans Mountain pipeline cost $34 billion instead of $6 billion, so it will lose money. I want to know if the member supports the government spending public money to buy pipelines.”

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

“The government requires foreign worker papers in 60 days, but takes 64 days to process them. The government must extend these deadlines while applications are being processed. When it closes a file by mistake, it should reopen it for free without making people start over.”

“Madam Speaker, it is simple: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada requires LMIAs in 60 days, but the service standard is 64 days. Obviously, this is not working, but Ottawa would rather blame the businesses than clean up its own mess. It is infuriating. The government must extend its deadlines when provided with proof that an LMIA is being processed. When it closes cases by error, it should at least allow them to be reopened at no cost and without having to begin the process all over again. Is it going to fix this disaster?”

“Local French-language news is in crisis and losing staff in my region. The government's plan failed, and the latest update provides no help. I want to know what the minister will do right now to support these news outlets.”

“Madam Speaker, the media industry is going through a crisis right now. The government had introduced a levy in July but ultimately did not go forward with it. The government believed that would put it in a better position to negotiate tariffs with the Americans. That plan failed. Later on, the economic update failed to include anything to support local and regional French-language news outlets. In my region, the Lower St. Lawrence, TVA Group has seen its staff at the station shrink from 30 to eight in the space of two years. Local and regional news coverage is being eroded, yet the latest economic update contains nothing to support these news outlets. Can the minister tell us what he is planning to do right now? The crisis is only getting worse.”

“Toronto has a big public transit problem because people cannot afford to live near downtown. The government cut billions of dollars from public transit funding. I want the member to explain how her government can claim to support public transit after these cuts.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke to us about the importance of Toronto, which receives a large number of visitors. She mentioned $28 million per year. However, the problem in Toronto, aside from the housing crisis, is the mobility crisis. People can no longer even afford to buy houses right downtown. They have to move to the suburbs, yet the federal government cut $5 billion from the Canada public transit fund in its latest budget. Moreover, in the most recent economic update, the $3 billion that had been allocated is no longer earmarked for the Canada public transit fund, but has instead been folded into the generalized funding pot for infrastructure. I would like my colleague to tell us frankly, for the benefit of the people she represents, whether she truly believes her government is supporting public transit when it cuts funding and reallocates dedicated public transit funding to infrastructure in general.”

“The finance minister says he wants Canada to lead in innovation, but he is cutting millions of dollars from college research. I want him to explain how a country can lead in innovation while cutting funding for science.”

“Mr. Speaker, in the last budget and economic update, the Minister of Finance boasted about wanting to make Canada a global leader in innovation. However, in his last budget, he cut $40 million from the college and community innovation program. We reminded him of that and pointed out the inconsistency. The Liberals say they want to be leaders, but then they turn around and make cuts. The minister ended up reversing course in the economic update. He announced funding that basically reduces the cuts, but the program’s budget is still being cut by $5 million. I would like the Minister of Finance to answer the following question. Does he know of any country in the world that wants to excel in innovation but that is cutting its investments in science and research?”

“The government spent $300 million on a medical software that nobody uses, and now they are dropping it. Liberal members blocked a vote to have the health minister explain this to our committee. I want the minister to come answer our questions.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are again taking advantage of their new majority, which they engineered by enticing floor crossers. This time, they are silencing the opposition with respect to PrescribeIT, a software designed to interfere with health care and prescribe medication. After wasting $300 million on it, the Liberals are abandoning it because nobody is using it. Yesterday, in committee, I moved a motion calling on the Minister of Health to appear and explain this fiasco. The Liberals used their majority to prevent us from putting it to a vote. Will the minister explain herself before the committee and denounce the censorship—”

“The government is moving sexual offence cases from the military to civilian courts. But the civilian courts do not have enough judges. I want the government to appoint more judges and give the courts more resources.”

“Mr. Speaker, the government is transferring sexual offence cases to the civilian courts. They are being taken out of the military system. The problem is that the government is already incapable of making the justice system work, especially when it comes to appointing judges. Quebec is short five judges and Canada is short 27. Victims do not need a change in system. They need justice. For that to happen, the federal government must do its job: It must appoint judges. Does the government intend to appoint judges as quickly as possible and give the system the resources it needs, instead of just passing the buck?”

“The minority government is acting like a majority government. It wants to add more of its own members to committees and cut speaking time for opposition parties. I want to know if my colleague is worried this will make it harder to expose new scandals.”

“Mr. Speaker, the world is upside down. We are experiencing something never seen before because this is the first time it has happened in Canada’s history. A government elected as a minority has managed to persuade members from different parties to join its minority government ranks and transform it into a majority government. Not only that, but the government wants to change the committees’ composition. It calls it a matter of tradition. In addition to expanding the committees by not just one but two additional government members, the government will be reducing the opposition parties’ speaking time. Is my colleague concerned that he might not be able to uncover potential new scandals?”

“The Liberals hold 51% of the seats in the House, but they want 58% of the seats on committees. I want the member to explain why the Liberals are giving themselves more power than they actually have.”

“Mr. Speaker, during her speech, my colleague said that the parties’ representation on committees must reflect their representation in the House. The Liberals hold 51% of the seats in the House, but they want 58% of the seats in committees. Can my colleague explain to me how she can say in her speech that she wants committees to operate like the House, when in reality, the Liberals are giving themselves much more power with this new majority that they engineered by enticing floor crossers?”

• Vague
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Clarity 43 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Steven MacKinnon

“The government claims it is following tradition by taking a majority on committees, even though voters did not give them one. But Parliament also has a tradition of talking to opposition parties, and the government did not do that. Did they forget this tradition?”

“Mr. Speaker, the government is saying that it respects tradition and that this is why it should have a majority on committees, despite the will of the people, who did not give the government that majority. I simply wish to remind the government that there is also a tradition here in Parliament of consulting the opposition parties. Today, however, there has been no such consultation. Can my colleague tell me whether, by any chance, he has forgotten that consulting the opposition parties is one of Parliament’s traditions?”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →