Debates of May 28th, 2025

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the first time in the current Parliament with immense gratitude and humility, honoured to again represent the people of the Yukon in the chamber. I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills.

I want to sincerely thank the citizens of the Yukon for their trust and confidence in me. I was gratified to receive the support of so many constituents, but regardless of whether and where someone placed their vote, I remain committed to representing all Yukoners and to maintaining a strong voice for the Yukon as a commitment to a stronger and united Canada that firmly embraces and includes the north.

I also want to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your election to this esteemed role. I have full confidence that you will guide the members in the House to honour the Athenian spirit that you referred to, a House where we can participate in vigorous and informed debate while maintaining the highest regard for each other as elected representatives of all Canadians.

With respect to my colleagues across the House, both those who are returning and those who are newly elected, I look forward to working with each of them in the spirit of collaboration and respect. I want to give special recognition to the new members of Parliament from generation Z, whose presence in the House is both refreshing and inspiring. They bring a fresh energy that resonates deeply, not only with young Canadians but especially with young Yukoners, who hear their future reflected in those members' voices.

It is a privilege to be back in Parliament representing a territory as unique and vital as the Yukon, a place where the true north is indeed strong and free.

I listened carefully to the Speech from the Throne delivered by His Majesty King Charles. His words carried a powerful message of unity, respect and hope, a reminder of the values that bind us as a nation.

I appreciate the recognition of the land on which we gather. I would like to acknowledge, also with deep gratitude, that we are gathered on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. Let us remember, whenever we speak in this great House, on whose territory we have the privilege to reside. This acknowledgement reminds us that reconciliation is a shared responsibility that we must carry out with sincerity and resolve.

In the Yukon, reconciliation is a commitment we strive to live up to every day. True reconciliation means indigenous peoples must have a real voice and real power over the decisions that shape their lands, their communities and their futures. We will continue to uphold the principle of free, prior and informed consent, not just as policy but as a promise.

Mr. Speaker, you will note that my few minutes on this stage begin and end with the north. As Canada faces unprecedented challenges in this world, these challenges are experienced even more in the north. However, as reflected in the throne speech, this moment also provides us with incredible opportunities for renewal and for thinking big and acting bigger. So, too, do opportunities lie in the north.

We in the north are on the front lines of the climate crisis. Melting permafrost, wildfires, and ecosystem shifts are not tomorrow’s headlines; they are today’s reality in Yukon. However, we are not just experiencing these changes; we are also leading the way with solutions. From renewable energy projects to indigenous-led conservation, Yukon is showing that environmental leadership and economic growth can and must go hand in hand.

We must continue and strengthen our government’s investments in clean energy infrastructure, climate adaptation and indigenous environmental stewardship in the north. Our responsibility is clear: to protect this land for future generations while building a sustainable economy rooted in respect for nature.

Health care is another urgent priority. Too many Yukoners and Canadians across the country, especially those living in rural and remote areas, face long waits, long travel and limited access to the care they need. Canadians need and deserve prompt access to primary care. Mental health and addiction services are stretched too thin, and our prevention efforts are not yet meeting the need. In collaboration with provinces and territories, our government will continue work on these serious gaps in health care access.

A strong Yukon also depends on a just and inclusive economy, one where everyone has a chance to thrive. Economic progress means better education, housing and job opportunities for the Yukoners' youth and for families in the Yukon and across the country.

As highlighted in the Speech from the Throne, the French language is at the heart of the Canadian identity. That said, many people are unaware of the vitality and strength of the Yukon's francophone community. As a proud francophile, I have been privileged to live alongside and work with this dynamic community.

It is striking that the Yukon boasts the third-largest bilingual population per capita in Canada. As the MP for the Yukon, I remain deeply committed to advocating for its needs and ensuring that the community continues to thrive.

Canada indeed respects and celebrates its two official languages and also its multiple indigenous languages. The Yukon, in fact, is home to eight distinct indigenous languages, each a vital expression of culture. Today, all 14 Yukon first nations are actively engaged in efforts to restore and revitalize these languages. As our government continues its commitment to indigenous languages and reconciliation, I remain dedicated to advocating for the resources and support needed to ensure the ongoing renewal and flourishing of Yukon’s original languages.

Our government is driven by a fundamental belief: A strong economy must work for everyone. Today, too many Canadians are struggling to get ahead, and we are taking action. We are cutting taxes for the middle class, saving two-income families up to $840 a year. We are making home ownership more attainable by cutting the GST on home prices at or below $1 million for first-time homebuyers, delivering savings of up to $50,000 and reducing the GST on homes between $1 million and $1.5 million.

Nationally, we are focused on building a strong, inclusive economy that leaves no one behind. This means lowering the cost of living, making housing more affordable and unlocking opportunities in the skilled trades. We will remove interprovincial and interterritorial trade barriers, invest in nation-building infrastructure and strengthen Canada’s position on the global stage, while safeguarding our sovereignty, borders and values.

Amidst unsettling and increasing global conflicts and insecurity, all eyes are on the Arctic. Thus, I am pleased that the throne speech confirms that Canada will invest to strengthen its presence in the north as this region faces new threats.

In the Yukon, no less than anywhere else in the country, building a strong Canada means working in deep partnership with indigenous partners. That is why I am pleased to see that our government will double the indigenous loan guarantee program from $5 billion to $10 billion, enabling more indigenous communities to become owners of major projects. Together, these are not just government goals; they are our shared priorities, a blueprint for a stronger Yukon and a stronger Canada. As we move forward, I am confident that by working collaboratively within government, with indigenous partners and with communities across Canada, we can meet these challenges head-on.

This moment demands bold action and clear vision. I am proud to be part of a government that shares a commitment to building a secure, prosperous and inclusive Canada, a Canada where Yukon’s voice is heard and where all Canadians can thrive.

As His Majesty stated yesterday, Canada’s national anthem celebrates the true north strong and free. My home, and the home of the 47,000 Yukoners I represent, is the very heart of Canada’s true north. As we build a Canada that is strong, secure, safe and free, I will ensure on behalf of my constituents that the Yukon, with all its rich resources, its pristine environment and its people imbued with the spirit of innovation, community and adventure, this great territory, will be with Canada all the way.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, we witnessed an electioneering ploy that one journalist actually described as crass. It is important to note that the consumer carbon price was scrapped by the former Liberal government. During this election campaign, even though the carbon tax had been scrapped, the government sent $3.7 billion in cheques to Canadians to offset a tax that had been scrapped.

What is worse, those cheques were paid for by all Canadians, including, of course, Quebeckers. However, Quebeckers are the only ones who did not receive these rebate cheques. We are talking about nearly $800 million that came out of Quebeckers' pockets but was sent outside Quebec as a financial rebate for a tax that no longer exists.

Will the Liberal government repay the $800 million that Quebeckers unfairly paid?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his recent election and welcome him to the House.

The carbon tax and affordability are two major challenges for our country. I cannot give a specific answer to his question, but he can ask the government for a response.

Fighting unaffordability and fighting climate change are two of our government's priorities for the months and years ahead.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the many comments by my colleague, who has been a true advocate for northern Canada and, in fact, all regions of the country in many different ways.

The question I have for him is very similar to what I asked the leader of the official opposition. Canadians were very clear. There is a very strong minority mandate, and that requires the government to work with the opposition, where it can, to try to build a consensus, which is so critically important, especially at a time when Canadians are genuinely concerned about issues such as the tariffs, trade and so forth.

I wonder if the member could give insights, from his perspective, into how he would like to see the House move forward with that sense of co-operation.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, that is a really important question. Certainly, what I heard over and over again during the recent electoral campaign was concern, anger and even fear about the threats posed by the tariffs and the instability of the current U.S. administration, which poses an ongoing threat to Canada's economic and, indeed, national sovereignty.

This is a special moment in Canada's history. I think that was noted during the historic throne speech yesterday. There is a call for members on all sides of the House to respond to Canadians' request for unity, determination and courage to protect Canada's sovereignty and economic well-being in this time of enormous challenge.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yukon did not answer the question from my colleague from Repentigny, but it is not that complicated.

A tax was scrapped, and then a rebate cheque was sent out to offset payments that had not been made. So much for sound fiscal management. This measure is going to cost Canadian taxpayers $3.7 billion. The worst part is that Quebeckers did not get that cheque, but they are going to have to pay $800 million to reimburse Canadians who did not pay the tax.

Can someone explain to me what goes through the Liberals' minds when it comes to managing public finances?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I will mention again that this government is committed to addressing both the affordability crisis and the climate crisis at the same time. We will tackle these priorities with strength and determination.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In accordance with Standing Order 43(2)(a), I would like to split all remaining Conservative Party of Canada slots.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my thoughts and the thoughts of my constituents in support of the Speech from the Throne. I welcome you in that chair, and I look forward to working with all members of the House on the really important work we have to do.

When I first ran back in 2014-15 to become a candidate for the Liberal Party, and then went on to become a member of Parliament for the best riding in Canada, Mississauga—Erin Mills, the main objective I had as a 28-year-old first-generation immigrant, young racialized woman and lawyer was to make sure that every single Canadian had equality of opportunity and the ability to utilize what we build here in Parliament and as government as a foundation to make sure they succeed and that all Canadians succeed, because when one Canadian is successful, all of us are successful. I was really happy to hear the Speech from the Throne and am happy to talk about what it means to be Canadian, to talk about not only Canadian sovereignty and identity, but also the uniqueness of how we support one another and build community together.

When I first moved to Canada as a young, impressionable 12-year-old girl coming from England, I was really surprised at how respectful our Canadian communities were. My front neighbours did not look like my side neighbours or my back neighbours, yet we continue to be one of the most peaceful and respectful communities in the world, as noted by leading organizations and the United Nations as well. I always wondered why that was, and I spent a lot of time working with volunteer organizations as a kid, whether it was my local library, food banks or art galleries, trying to understand what makes Canadians who we are. How are we so peaceful? How are we able to bring our differences together and utilize them for the betterment of each and every one of us? The reality of this over the past 25-year journey has been that it is not a flip of a switch, but a consistent, constant, determinative effort among all levels of government, civil society, grassroots organizations and indeed individual Canadians to make sure that we continue to build bridges among one another.

Right now, Canada stands at a precipice. We are standing in a very insecure time. That is not because of who we are. A lot of it has to do with external factors. What the King's speech really highlighted for me is what the action plan is going to look like going forward to make sure that we maintain our sovereignty and decrease instability and make sure not only that each and every Canadian has equality of opportunity to do everything and succeed in everything they want to succeed in, but also that those who are less fortunate and need that extra foundation also have that support.

In my 10 years in Parliament, I have served as a member of the justice committee and the chair of the justice committee. I have served on the access to information, privacy and ethics committee and the public accounts committee. I have served on the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, as a former chair of the all-party women's caucus, as the vice-chair for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and most recently as the parliamentary secretary for national revenue. I have a solid understanding of what it takes for Parliament to come together and find the concrete solutions that each and every single member here in our chamber has heard about from our constituents.

I can talk about the dire need for housing and affordability to make sure that equality of opportunity exists for a single mom who is having a difficult time putting food on the table because she is a single earner. As to precarious housing, there are those who really need housing and cannot afford it. There are young people who need jobs in order to get a leg up within our communities and grow our economy.

We must make sure that Canada represents itself in a strong way on the international front as well, not only in how we deal with our neighbours to the south, but also in how we deal with significant challenges across the world, whether they are about Gaza, Ukraine, China, Russia, Sudan or Yemen. Ultimately, Canada needs to stand by the rule of law internationally and make sure that we are doing right by our partners and allies. That comes from having a consistent, solid and significant approach to how we do business here in this House.

My colleague from Winnipeg North mentioned that we have a strong minority, but I disagree with that, because I do not think we have a strong minority. If each and every one of us in this Parliament puts aside partisan differences, comes together to build a strong, united Canada and talks about the interests of each and every one of our constituents first and foremost, then we are not a minority. We are the representatives of who we are as Canadians, what our identity is and where we need to go to protect Canada's sovereignty, to protect Canada strong and free.

It is going to be a very interesting Parliament, I am sure. It is going to be a challenge to bring everyone together. I think this Speech from the Throne sets out key priorities to help us find common ground so we can put aside our partisan differences and actually talk about and find concrete solutions for the people who elected us and put us here in this chamber. I am willing to do that work, and I hope that all of my colleagues across all aisles here are willing to do that work also.

In conclusion, the priorities that have been outlined in the Speech from the Throne represent the voices I heard in my constituency when I knocked on doors. They represent the conversations I had with my local mayor in Mississauga. They represent the conversations I had with our provincial parliamentarians in Ontario. They represent each and every person whose ideologies and fears were validated and heard through the Speech from the Throne.

Going forward over this term, this is an excellent plan for making sure that each and every Canadian has the equality of opportunity to thrive and has the foundation needed to succeed, grow a family and be able to live a happy, united and strong Canadian life.

I look forward to the questions that my colleagues have for me.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the member's comments and suggestions on the throne speech and working together.

I have a very simple question. A lot of people in Canada are trying to figure out who this Liberal Party is. With this throne speech, it really is confusing, because there are things that were talked about during the campaign that are so different from what was talked about in the previous Liberal government. Of course, a lot things that were talked about in the campaign were actually things that we brought forward, so the question I have for the member is this: Which Conservative policy does she think is the best policy the Liberals took away from the Conservative Party?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his re-election.

The people of Canada spoke, and they elected a Liberal government. They also rejected Pierre Poilievre and his Conservative policies.

When I talk about making sure that we work together collaboratively, I am talking on behalf of what I heard from constituents in my riding, who are saying, “Hey folks, we want you to get your stuff together. We want you to work together. We want you to represent all Canadian voices and one Canadian identity and make sure that you get things done in this Parliament.” I challenge the member: Can we do it or not?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by my colleague, whom I hold in high regard.

She talked about the precarious situation facing Canada and the external threats coming from the United States. I find it quite amusing to see the Liberal Party discovering the benefits of sovereignty. It is really quite interesting.

I have a very simple question for my colleague. There is a francophone nation in North America surrounded by anglophones, and its future is constantly under threat. I wonder if she is aware of the challenges facing Quebec today and whether that might make her a little more sympathetic to Quebec's quest for national independence.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. It gives me an opportunity to practise my French.

Quebec identity and francophone identity are part of Canadian identity, and we are going to continue to make sure that every single Canadian is well represented. I have francophones in my riding, just as New Brunswick does, just as the Atlantic provinces do, just as Alberta does and just as the rest of Canada does. French and the francophonie are very much part of Canadian identity, and I want to make sure that we are collective here in Canada as we deal with our external threats.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments in regard to one Canada. It is estimated that we could save somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200 billion if in fact we were successful at continuing to work with indigenous leaders, but in particular our provinces and territories, to look at ways in which we can take down those internal barriers. We have actually made the commitment that by July 1 those federal barriers are going to be taken down.

I am wondering if the member can just amplify or provide her perspective on the importance of promoting and encouraging that one Canadian economy.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North, who, I believe, still holds the record for the most words spoken in this chamber.

It is about one Canadian identity. It is about one Canadian economy. When we talk about removing barriers, we are also talking about indirectly impacting other issues that arise from these barriers. It is not just about the economy; it is about labour and it is about movement of people and how we can provide services. For example, a lawyer in Ontario should be able to practise all across the country. A business that is functioning out of Saskatchewan should be able to provide business all over the country. It is not only about leveraging our resources for the better; it is about uniting Canadians, connecting Canadians and building a stronger Canada for everybody.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

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”

[The Acting Speaker, Pat Kelly]

The subamendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Beauce.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the temporary foreign worker program is essential for the regions and incredibly important for the Beauce region.

The Liberals were short on details in the throne speech. A number of cuts have already been made to the program in the past.

What is the Bloc's position on the temporary foreign worker program?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of temporary immigration is quite complex. In my mind, the intention is always virtuous, or could be. However, it can sometimes be exploited for very questionable purposes.

In the case of asylum seekers, for example, it is a humanitarian issue. We have a responsibility there. However, Quebec is overburdened for the time being. When it comes to foreign students, it is essential for them and often for their countries, but it is also essential for Quebec's university network, for example. In the case of temporary foreign workers, temporary immigration is essential for several economic sectors, particularly in the regions.

Now, there is no denying that there are problems with each of these three types of temporary immigration. I mentioned the intake of asylum seekers, even though I think that we have a duty in this regard. Every province should take a number proportional to its population. When it comes to foreign students, claiming refugee protection has become a way of getting around the rules, so we need to find a solution to that problem. There are also issues in the case of temporary foreign workers. There are temporary foreign workers who end up being not so temporary, whose permits are renewed again and again and who end up settling here, which creates problems with integration and breaks down the social fabric. I am not blaming anyone for that because we are responsible for our own system. The responsibility does not lie with those who want to benefit from it. I do not in any way want us to give up something that is good for them and that is presumably good for Canada and definitely good for Quebec. Even if the end goal is laudable, before we make any dogmatic or electioneering statements about cuts in that regard, we need to have discussions about how to go about that without hurting these people, their savings—to a certain extent—and the economic needs of Quebec and Canadian businesses.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent the people of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I would like to know how he and his team intend to work with the government on the common interests of Quebec and Canada, which are both strong and free, on the more specific issues of tariffs and the trade war with our neighbours to the south.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although the member claims to have been listening carefully, I get the impression that she was not paying attention. I already miss the former member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

The answer can basically be found in the last sentence. It refers to the Canadian government doing what it wants to do while respecting Quebec's jurisdictions and institutions. We will not have much of an issue with that. I realize that that nullifies 80% of the throne speech. If it is done in accordance with their Constitution—mine would have only the word “Quebec” written on it—if it is done while respecting Quebec's jurisdictions and institutions, such as the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, the BAPE, for example, we will not have any issues. We can settle this through serious conversations amongst people who listen to one another.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have asked my leader a question, but since we did not confer together earlier, I do not expect any kudos for the quality of my question or my hard work.

In fact, what I have to say is quite simple. We heard this question and we know that Ottawa has a long history of using crises to further centralize power. We have also heard multiple times about different Trojan horses, like not having 13 economies but only one, even though Quebec has been trying since the 1960s to build an economy, a separate model for its institutions, its own approach to the community sector, its own approach to the social sector, and its own approach to SMEs.

What is my colleague's response to hearing the Prime Minister, time and again, speak of nothing but unity when he was asked this question today? Although the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a motion expressing its concerns, they seem to have no effect on him at all.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will take the part of the question that speaks to me the most.

Quebec's economy is vastly different from the Canadian economy. Just over 60 years ago, we were French Canadians on English Canada's payroll. A bit more than 60 years have gone by since René Lévesque's defining act, the nationalization of electricity. This was the first powerful economic tool belonging to Quebeckers, and it became an ecological model. Today, thanks to geography—we are not inherently more virtuous—in Quebec we are able to reconcile economic development with clean energy.

Canada is stuck on the environmental lie that the future of Canada is an east-west oil economy. Not a single serious economist thinks that. Trade in North America is done between the north and the south and there are attempts to export to other places. An SME economy based on regional resources that are processed as much as possible is inherently different. I really made a point of saying all that during the campaign. Now, instead of having five weeks with relatively little space, I have four years with a larger space, which I will fully occupy.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the campaign, my constituents expressed deep concern about the rising crime in our community.

Did the Bloc Québécois see anything in the throne speech that would address this serious issue facing our country and our communities?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure we will always agree with the Conservatives on how to go about this.

We still believe that someone should be removed from society for preventive purposes when necessary. Preventive action is a must, but there seems to be a certain amount of negligence with regard to crime and the root causes of crime. Our weak response to crime is concerning.

I am approaching this issue from the perspective of young families. I am thinking of people who have children and fear that their children, once they start school, will be bullied or become bullies. It is worse in high school. There is a fear of bullying, violence, and a culture of violence that takes up far too much space. That is where we need to start taking action. When it is clear that something different needs to happen with certain individuals, strong measures need to be taken. We need to ensure that one fundamental right of citizens acting in good faith is fully respected, and that is the right to feel safe and to actually be safe in our streets and in our schools.