Yves-François Blanchet

“The Prime Minister is willing to make deals with the United Arab Emirates and visit Turkey to support its leader, who abuses human rights. Yet he refuses to let Quebec's premier speak about Quebec in Quebec. This sends a terrible message to the world.”

“Mr. Speaker, Paul Saint‑Pierre Plamondon is no less the premier of Quebec than the Prime Minister is the prime minister of Canada. Entering into agreements with the United Arab Emirates is no obstacle for the Prime Minister, and neither is going to Turkey to support Erdoğan. Visiting Erdoğan and telling him that we share common values is no problem, even though he is an enemy of human rights and targets his country’s LGBTQ community and free press. However, giving the floor to the Premier of Quebec to talk about Quebec in Quebec is out of the question. Does the Prime Minister realize the kind of message and images he is sending around the world?”

“This week, the Prime Minister gave a grand welcome to the Crown Prince of the United Arab Emirates, even though that country funds violent groups in Sudan. In the same week, he refused to let Quebec's premier speak at a summit in Montreal. I want the Prime Minister to explain why he honours the UAE while giving nothing to Quebec.”

“Mr. Speaker, this week, the Prime Minister hosted a grand banquet for the Crown Prince of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed, arranged a photo op on Parliament Hill and even provided a mounted escort. Let us not forget that the United Arab Emirates is currently funding violence in Sudan, including violence perpetrated by a group that commits torture, rape and summary executions. This week, that same Prime Minister also refused to allow the Premier of Quebec to speak at the Canada-European Union summit in Montreal. How can the Prime Minister justify bestowing such honours on the United Arab Emirates while offering nothing to Quebec?”

“The federal government blocked Quebec's premier from speaking at an international summit in Montreal. Ottawa says Quebec does not need to be heard at international meetings. I want to know if the Prime Minister thinks he speaks for Quebec.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that that lines up with what we were hearing in Quebec this morning. The Premier of Quebec asked to give a speech at a summit examining issues like culture, workforce mobility, the fight against global warming, and agriculture. The Premier of Quebec is entitled to take the floor in the largest francophone city in North America. Ottawa’s response was that no, Quebec’s voice does not need to be heard at international fora. Does the Prime Minister claim to speak for the Government of Quebec as well?”

“The Prime Minister offered to work with Quebec's premier, but now he is silencing him at the summit in Montreal. I want the Prime Minister to explain why he is doing this.”

“Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the Parti Québécois’ election victory, the Prime Minister telephoned the Premier of Quebec to offer his congratulations and express his desire to work together on key priorities, including the economy, housing, support for workers and homelessness. It was a gesture of goodwill, but that collaborative spirit appears to have been short-lived. How can the Prime Minister justify muzzling the Premier of Quebec on his own turf, during the Canada–Europe summit taking place this week in Montreal?”

“This bill gives the government too much power and hurts the environment. It could let ministers control all of Quebec without ever asking Quebec first. I want the Prime Minister to admit this bill goes against Quebec's interests.”

“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Liberal ministers showed up in committee to defend the abuses of power in Bill C‑39, a bill that even Stephen Harper would not have dared dream of introducing, as La Presse editorial writer Paul Journet noted yesterday. In theory, according to one minister’s testimony, all of Quebec could become a region of national interest, even though the Liberals obviously do not see why they would go that far. That is how much power the bill gives them at the expense of the environment. Does the Prime Minister realize that his bill is clearly contrary to Quebec’s national interest when Quebec was never consulted?”

“I oppose the Prime Minister's new pipeline. It will cost Quebeckers at least $9 billion, which is more than Quebec's whole deficit. That money will just go to American owners of western oil companies.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that the largest project for Quebec is actually in Newfoundland and Labrador. The cost of the Prime Minister’s new pipeline is currently estimated at $40 billion. We can only imagine how much it will actually end up costing. Quebeckers’ share of the bill for this gift for the American-owned oil companies in western Canada will come out to at least $9 billion. That is more than Quebec’s entire deficit. That means money coming out of the pockets of Quebeckers and going into the pockets of American shareholders of western Canadian oil companies, supposedly to ensure independence from the Americans, even though there is no tariff on oil. If this is the Prime Minister’s idea of a strong Canada, why is he so determined to not—”

“I oppose this bill. It weakens environmental rules just to build a pipeline for western oil companies and please Alberta separatists. A plan like this ignores Quebec and will anger people there.”

“Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑39 seems to reveal the Prime Minister’s real priority in building his Canada strong. It is really about building a pipeline for western oil companies by suspending environmental laws. The Prime Minister is not hiding the fact that he is doing this to appease the Alberta separatists. If Bill C‑39 is good for appeasing Alberta separatists, perhaps it will also be good for enraging Quebec sovereignists. Given that this government’s biggest and most costly achievement is the pipeline to American oil companies, what place would Quebec have in its strong Canada?”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Opposition question in Question Period

  Respect 75 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “he is doing this to appease the Alberta separatists”.

  See full analysis →

“I want the Prime Minister to change this bill. He must promise that it will protect Quebec's powers, that it will not be permanent, and that nothing will happen in Quebec without its clear consent.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is not evident. Asking for something to be clarified is not synonymous with opposing it. Will the Prime Minister commit to fixing or amending Bill C‑39 to state that the existing areas of jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces will remain intact, that despite Bill C‑39, or even with Bill C‑39, the application will not be permanent, and that nothing that is done in Quebec will be done without Quebec’s express consent?”

“This bill takes power away from Quebec and the provinces, especially over the environment. It lets one minister ignore provincial laws. I want the Prime Minister to confirm this is true.”

“Mr. Speaker, first, there were projects of national interest. Then there were corridors of national interest. Now there are regions of national interest. The Bloc Québécois, experts and media outlets know that, with Bill C‑39, the federal government is permanently taking over jurisdiction from Quebec and the provinces, particularly regarding the environment, and suspending its own laws based on the judgment of a single minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that this interpretation is accurate?”

“The government sold off airports and is now selling off ports. It is also letting oil companies run a fake environmental review process, giving rich global corporations control of our resources. Things were bad under Justin Trudeau, and they are no better under the new Prime Minister. Liberal members should not support this.”

“Mr. Speaker, first they privatized airports, now they are privatizing ports. What is more, the government is entrusting the oil companies with a sham environmental assessment process, basically handing over control of Quebec’s and Canada’s resources to an international financial oligarchy. Things were already bad enough under Justin Trudeau. They are no better under the new Prime Minister. How can anyone who was happy as a Liberal MP under Justin Trudeau be in complete agreement with the new Prime Minister?”

“I oppose this bill. It automatically approves oil and nuclear projects in advance, which will destroy years of environmental and labour protections.”

“Mr. Speaker, when it comes to taxation, labour rights and the labour code, and the environment, Bill C‑39 is a brutal step backward. Tucked into this bill are provisions saying that oil and nuclear projects will be automatically approved and, even worse, that this will be done in advance. Does the government realize that the framework protecting the people of Quebec and Canada, which took so many years to build, will be destroyed in just 24 hours?”

“I worked in culture for 20 years. Making big tech companies help pay for culture does not raise costs for users, and that money helps Quebec and Canada. Europe already does this. The Prime Minister's policy is not working, and he should rethink it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to add two points. First, I was in the cultural sector for 20 years in a professional capacity. I know a thing or two about it. Second, corporate contributions have no impact on the cost for users because they are investments the companies would have made anyway. They are funnelled into Quebec and Canada. Given that the Prime Minister wants to build closer ties with Europe, which places great importance on the contribution of businesses and Internet giants to culture, should he not reconsider his policy, which is not working?”