Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What was said earlier requires a response. I question the intent of the motion.
Mr. Généreux is basically saying that we're putting on a show here. I agree, but I'm obviously not the only one. When you read the motion, you see that it's about validating all kinds of things. Mr. Généreux is a “chief validator”. These are all validation points. We want to look at the entire government strategy. That's quite a validation!
How is it that here, the government strategies that gave Canadians' money to the oil companies have never been validated? The Standing Committee on Natural Resources will probably do it, but we're not exactly duplicating the committee. In any case, when this kind of issue is raised there, there's a filibuster. How is it that these subsidies to oil companies aren't being validated, just to see if everything is going well?
I'll get to the motion shortly.
Mr. Poilievre is opposed to industrial subsidies of any kind. That's quite a validation! We really want to make sure that all is well when it comes to industrial subsidies and government strategy. I'm putting on quite a show, aren't I? The implication is that I was being dishonest. It may have been colourful—we are what we are—but it was certainly not dishonest.
Let's talk about climate change. I'm going to have the kindness, decorum and class not to name him, but I remember walking on Parliament Hill with a Conservative who told me that in his province it was already snowing in September; he then turned to me to say, in English, of course, that some people claim that the planet is warming. Do you want me to give you more anecdotes like that? Western Conservatives were interviewed. Of course, the Conservative Party of Canada has the Quebec wing, but it's almost capable of holding its caucuses in a photo booth. The reality is that the west calls the shots, and Quebec shouts. That's how it works.
Yes, the Conservatives are opposed to industrial subsidies. They're not just opposed to the government's strategy. The Conservative leader said that they were opposed to any government subsidy and industrial development strategy, whereas the United States has one, and we agree that they're not communists. China is something else, but European countries have one too.
So what's this business about only wanting to validate things? We have the right to question the intent of a motion and to point out what's missing. They tell us that Quebec wants to do it, and they're talking about the Parti Québécois. I don't know why, but they've been very interested in the PQ in recent weeks. Maybe they're afraid, and they certainly have reason to be. They say the PQ wants to study this. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary can confirm this, but so far, I think Ottawa has invested a total of zero dollars, taxes included, in Northvolt, because it's a production subsidy.
I'm not announcing my personal position or that of the Bloc Québécois on the form of this agreement between Quebec City and Ottawa, but one thing is certain: Just because the Quebec National Assembly is asking to study an issue doesn't mean that we in the federal Parliament should take the time we should be devoting to the issue of privacy and AI to study the issue, when the federal government hasn't yet invested a single cent in this project. That logic is completely lofty. Are we going to meddle in Quebec City's affairs because the National Assembly is studying a health or education issue? How many times has the Bloc Québécois said this?
I repeat that this is not a show, that the Conservatives' position is clear and that the wording of the motion isn't even subtle. I don't see under what circumstances we could make intelligent use of our time by doing this in the first place.
I would remind you that Bill 25 was passed in Quebec. We're waiting for some alignment on privacy issues. The National Assembly is also very concerned about this.
Right now, we're completely stuck, because we're moving from one motion to the next. We know what the Conservatives are up to. Since they figure they'll be in power in who knows how many weeks, they decide to block everything in the hope that they will be able to do whatever they want.
The reality is that everyone here is paid from the public purse. We have resources, and we receive competent witnesses and officials. We invite them to testify, but we send them home. We don't care about them and their schedules when we could be working. It isn't the content of the motion that's important, it's the use of our time.
Don't tell me I'm putting on a show. If the tone I use, the way I speak and, of course, the coffee can help members wake up—the meeting starts early—all the better.
That said, it's anything but a show.