Martin Champoux
Drummond, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Some might say that this is impossible, because that would mean that I had to have started at the age of five or six, and they would not be far off. In any case, I spent many years in this fascinating industry.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-268 , which is sponsored by the member for Compton—Stanstead . This is a bill that I am particularly interested in, given my professional background. The bill concerns the spectrum policy framework for Canada. The French word for spectrum is “spectre”.”
“When we check with companies that provide mobile phone services, we often get responses that do not accurately reflect the situation on the ground. We have seen this happen. I, for one, have been told that my region has 100% coverage and that there is no reason for there to be any problems.”
“In recent years, municipalities have begun implementing regulations to prevent owners from leaving vacant downtown lots unused. These lots must be developed because we need the space to alleviate congestion and we lack space to build housing. The same principle applies here.”
“We need to reach everyone. The argument we often hear from the industry is that 99% of the country is covered, that 99% of people have access to LTE or 5G technology, and that soon people will have access to the next technology. It might be 6G; who knows. Now, 99% does seem like a lot of people. Yes, that is true. It is good.”
“For now, obviously, that is not yet the case. There would be a process to ensure the accuracy of mobile coverage data provided by telecommunications companies as well as data on network deployment. In short, there would be more transparency, more efficiency and a better overview of the situation. These are easy things to put in place.”
The complete record
Every one of 449 lines we hold for Martin Champoux, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 9.
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean asked a question earlier about the digital services tax and the weakness shown by the Prime Minister , who held out for only 24 hours before obeying a tweet from the U.S. President and eliminating the digital services tax. The Bloc Québécois put forward a proposal to save the cultural industry and the media sector, especially the news media, which are currently in crisis. This tax could become a 3% levy that would generate billions of dollars and could help save culture and the media. This is an easy solution that would cost taxpayers nothing. This suggestion went nowhere, because the government refused to listen. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. It would be an easy and accessible solution.”
“Mr. Speaker, yes, but there is nothing for private broadcasters. In order to please the very powerful American president, the Prime Minister decided to abolish the digital services tax. The revenue from that tax could have been used to create a fund to provide long-term support to the cultural and media sectors. That would have helped TVA, which is in great need. Not only did the Liberals refuse to create a fund, but they also did absolutely nothing to secure the future of private television in Quebec and Canada. Why have the Liberals abandoned private broadcasters?”
“I would like to know whether the Conservative Party is stating that Canada is still importing oil from Russia, despite the ban. Is that the party's position?”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier, the member for York Centre said in his speech that Canada is importing oil and oil products from Russia. I asked him to clarify and to give some numbers because I know that that is not allowed. Canada has been banning oil imports from Russia since 2022, and we have not imported any oil from there since 2019. He told me that Canada imported oil from Russia last year and that we also imported oil from Venezuela. It is all well and good to have debates and disagreements, but we need to make sure that they are based on facts. If it is true that Canada is still importing oil from Russia or Venezuela in various ways, using loopholes that I am not aware of, as a supporter of Ukraine, I think that is totally unacceptable and that it should be denounced.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not sure you want even the insults to go through the Chair. It would be nice if people could show a little restraint. I listened with interest to my Conservative colleague's speech. He said something that brought a question to mind. He said we import oil from Russia. I am not sure whether that is true. I know that there has been a ban on Russian oil imports since 2022 and that we have not imported any since 2019. If it is true that we are still importing petroleum products from Russia, then I would like my colleague to back up that statement with some figures. What exactly are we importing from Russia? That is illegal in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier, my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj asked my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles a very respectful question. He spoke to her about the fisheries fund, which is an issue of great concern to the people of Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands. He asked her why the fisheries fund was not included in the budget, given how important it is to the industry. My colleague across the way responded somewhat aggressively, referring to the spring election that brought 44 Liberal members to power in Quebec, and she saw fit to respond with something about the airport in the Magdalen Islands. My colleague's question was about the fisheries fund. Why is it not included in the budget? Can my colleague give a respectful answer to a respectful question?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think you should give my colleague from New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury more time. It is always entertaining when he gives us his answers. I congratulate him on his speech. Many people criticize the Liberal government's new budget for being very conservative. The budget contains a number of measures, and I would like to ask my colleague which of those measures he is happiest with. We will see if this really is a conservative budget. We will put that to the test. The biggest line item is defence at $56 billion. Tax cuts come to $28 billion, and public service cuts total $51 billion. There is no money for the environment, but there are billions of dollars in tax credits for oil companies. Which of these conservative measures does my Conservative colleague like the most?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague—a former Quebec finance minister, economist and former banker—on his speech. The Liberal government's budget contains some creative accounting of Olympic proportions. It passes off expenditures as capital investments. Here is an example: Security for FIFA is considered a capital investment, not an expense. The budget contains other examples like that, and it will be really interesting to dig them all up. Is my colleague opposite, who is an economist, a former finance minister and a banker, not embarrassed to have his name associated with a budget that contains such creative accounting, to put it politely?”
“A small donation, given at the discretion of each person according to their means, no more, is all that is asked. Most importantly, the poppy is worn over the heart, where we guard the precious memory of the thousands of men and women who stood as a bulwark to defend our values and our democracy.”
“Mr. Speaker, every year, on November 11, we have a duty to remember those who served in uniform and those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the armed conflicts Canada has been involved in over the decades. This year is a very special one for me. I was asked to serve as the poppy campaign's honorary chair for Branch 51 of the Royal Canadian Legion in Drummondville. I proudly accepted because, as MP for Drummond, I am well aware of how much our veterans need the support of their legion. I accepted the offer because I believe that we collectively owe our veterans recognition and respect for their service. Poppies are available everywhere until November 11. Look for them in grocery stores, shopping malls and stores of all kinds. They cost very little for the good that they do.”
“Even the Bloc Québécois can find some positive things in the bill. Does my colleague not agree that we should start by sending this bill to committee and improving it as much as possible? Then, well, we will see what happens after that.”
“Madam Speaker, the Liberals take a lot of flack. I would agree that the government is quite often clumsy and imperfect. There may even be some incompetence in certain areas. However, the Conservatives are claiming that a Supreme Court ruling is due to the policies of the government that has been in power for the past 10 years. I would remind my colleague that the Supreme Court assesses the constitutional validity of legislation. If we want to be credible when debating such a serious issue, no one should be making up ridiculous theories for partisan purposes. My question for my colleague is this. Bill C-14 does not go nearly as far as the Conservatives would like. The Conservatives want to take a much more aggressive approach to justice and parole. Bill C-14 does move things forward somewhat. It does improve certain things.”
“Earlier, I heard the Conservative member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith say, at the end of her speech, that she did not see how her party would be able to support Bill C‑238 . Things do not look good for the bill, because, as my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord said earlier, the Bloc Québécois does not intend to support this bill either, because it is not clear and because, once again, the federal government is trying to get involved in something that is already working fairly well. It may need improvement, but it is not through a bill—”
“There is now no time limit for filing claims for sexual violence, domestic violence or violence suffered during childhood. Several improvements have been made to facilitate victims' access to compensation. Victims are top of mind. They are the ones who need empathy. They are the ones who need the support of the community, society and organizations. This bill proposes that organizations also be eligible for the restitution ordered to be paid to the victims. Does this not seem like an odd situation? It is a situation where victims will be shortchanged because the funds granted in the ruling will likely be split so that both the organizations and the victims can get a little bit. This idea seems misjudged to me, even bizarre.”
“This puts victims in competition with the organizations that help and support them. It is a bit of a strange bill. It is a bit odd. We can sense the good intentions behind it. We know, of course, that there are no bad intentions behind this bill introduced by the member for Sudbury . However, this misjudged bill could ultimately cause harm to the victims. In 2021, Quebec reviewed the law that established the crime victims assistance fund, which provides financial support to organizations such as CAVACs. A new law was passed in 2021, and it broadened the definition of “victim” to include more people who are victims of crime. While there are direct victims, there are also people around them who suffer serious consequences as a result of a criminal act.”
“What I like about Bill C-238 is that it finally opens up a conversation about what victims go through after experiencing a crime. Victim compensation programs already exist in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. These programs are generally managed by the provinces. Quebec has its CAVACs, or crime victims assistance centres, to help victims, as their name implies. These organizations are subsidized. Bill C-238 proposes that organizations should now also receive compensation that is generally reserved for victims. I do not think that the judge, in their ruling, will double or triple the compensation intended for the victim. I think the judge will have to make a choice, if such a bill is accepted. No extra money will be put on the table by the people convicted of the acts in question.”
“Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-238 . First of all, I want to acknowledge and congratulate the new mayors and municipal councillors who were just elected in my magnificent riding of Drummond. I also want to give a special shout-out to Drummondville's new mayor, Jean-François Houle, who is a trained lawyer. One of the challenges awaiting him is to calm public fears about community safety, a concern shared by residents in many Quebec cities. Although Drummondville is by no means a city where people feel unsafe, this concern exists nonetheless. It is going to be a challenge for all of Quebec's elected municipal officials. We talk a lot about safety, and it is frequently covered in political news, yet little is said about victims.”
“Madam Speaker, yes, it is important to make criminals pay. Yes, it is important to support organizations that help victims, that provide victims with assistance. However, there already exists a process that works for victims. The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which my colleague referred to, does indeed affirm the right to restitution. The same Canadian Victims Bill of Rights also defines a victim as an individual who has suffered harm and is entitled to this remedy. It seems to me that this bill complicates matters by adding something, like adding another dancer in a two-person dance like the tango. It complicates matters rather than simplify them. In a sense, victims will have to compete with community organizations for compensation, even though everyone agrees that community organizations have other things to worry about.”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Oshawa for her speech. I would like to acknowledge her concern for victims of domestic violence. This is an issue that affects us all and one on which we must all stand together. That is why I think there are some interesting aspects to Bill C‑14 . When Parliament resumed this fall, the Conservatives introduced Bill C‑242 , another bill that deals with pretty much the same subject. I would like to ask my colleague whether the Conservative Party will work together with the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals in committee to improve the bill before us, to fix its flaws, so that we can find common ground and finally help communities to feel safe. People do not feel safe right now. I would like to know whether the Conservatives will co-operate, even though this is not their pet project, their bill.”
“We also have to think about criminal organizations. One of the Bloc Québécois's recommendations was to create an organized crime registry and another was to facilitate the seizure of assets. We are discussing reversing the burden of proof, but that burden of proof could be reversed in relation to property obtained by crime, so as to avoid being unable to recover property obtained by crime—”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Winnipeg North for doing such a great job getting our Conservative colleagues all worked up. It happens every time: As soon as he gets up to give a speech, emotions run high in the opposition benches. It livens things up a bit in the House of Commons, and we should be grateful to him for that, even if we do not always agree with what he says. As we have been saying all morning, I think we all agree on the principle of Bill C‑14 . We also agree that it needs to go to committee so that we can improve it and discuss certain points that concern us. The Bloc Québécois agrees with the idea, as I said, but we have made some suggestions for reducing crime in Quebec and Canada in order to make neighbourhoods safer. Crime is not committed only by petty criminals.”
“We want to send it to committee to debate it because the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois have some ideas for improving it. I think this is an important issue that all parties should have a say in. There is also another thing that the Liberals are not doing and that they should be doing to keep Quebeckers and Canadians safe, and that is addressing the issue of judicial vacancies. They have been slow to appoint judges, which means that the number of detainees and inmates awaiting trial in prison is growing. That does not help address issues of violence. Does my colleague think that perhaps, at some point, the government could shake a leg and speed up the non-partisan, neutral appointment of judges?”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague made several interesting points in her speech. First, she said that the Liberals are not going to change the Constitution just because they do not like a law. In that regard, I would like to draw the House's attention to Bill 21, which was passed by the Quebec National Assembly and which the government is challenging all the way up to the Supreme Court because it disagrees with this use of the notwithstanding clause. There is not just that. My colleague also said that this should not be a partisan debate, when she spent half her speech attacking the Conservatives' positions and saying that they are making this a partisan issue. I would like to mention, once again, that the Bloc Québécois supports the idea of Bill C‑14 .”
“Madam Speaker, let me start by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-14 . However, we still have some concerns about the text of the bill, including the discretion that it gives to judges to reverse the burden of proof for certain crimes. These include some serious crimes for which it would be justifiable for a judge to keep the accused in remand. However, some crimes on this list, like auto theft, are not necessarily violent crimes or crimes committed by people who pose a danger to public safety. I was wondering, does the government not feel that the definition of violent crime it has adopted with respect to this specific reverse onus criterion is a bit too broad?”
“This is why it is important for Quebec to have maximum flexibility in enforcing its own citizenship and integration policy. We believe that Quebec will not truly be free until it becomes independent. This will put an end to the mixed messages. Immigrants who choose Quebec will no longer be coming to a Canadian province, but to a francophone country. Until then, however, Quebec must be exempted from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. That is why I am very proud to support Bill C-245 , which my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères introduced in the House this morning.”
“In their February 8, 2007, manifesto entitled “En finir avec le multiculturalisme”, Quebec intellectuals Charles Courtois, Dominic Courtois, Robert Laplante, Danic Parenteau and Guillaume Rousseau stated the following: We think that Quebeckers want to see the principles of equality and public secularism affirmed, putting the emphasis on a common culture and providing inspiration for the principles of integration and the methods of dispute resolution. The Charter of the French Language already does this in part, but in order to do so fully, Quebec needs to have its own citizenship.... For now, new Quebeckers are sworn in as new Canadian citizens without being encouraged to integrate into the Quebec nation. This is not what inclusion means to Quebec.”
“In its preliminary submission to the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, the Conseil des relations interculturelles du Québec highlighted this confusion: However, the efforts made by the Government of Quebec to define and promote its own model of integration came up against the ideology of multiculturalism, which was sometimes interpreted by certain groups as the possibility of living one's own culture according to the rationale of separate development....the ideological way of thinking that emerged in the 1970s, which presented society as a mosaic of cultures, has since been encouraging certain groups to develop beliefs that clash with Quebec's vision. People arriving in Quebec receive two contradictory messages. Instead of laying blame, as some are wont to do, the Bloc Québécois thinks it would be better to make the messages clearer.”
“It prides itself on an approach to welcoming and integrating newcomers that focuses on the importance of certain basic values and upholds French as the language of the people. This conflicts with the definition of a Canada that presents itself as bilingual and multicultural.”
“In a February 2008 article in Le Monde diplomatique, Louise Beaudoin explained why the Quebec integration model and the Canadian one are incompatible: For nearly 30 years, Canada and Quebec have had two [completely] different approaches to integration. The federal multiculturalism policy, which is modelled on the British approach, promotes cultural diversity based on ethnicity and encourages people to seek out their own community of origin. In contrast, Quebec opted for a model based on interculturalism, a cultural exchange within the framework of the common values of a pluralistic nation with a francophone majority. These two clearly conflicting visions are irreconcilable. This is confusing to newcomers. They see Quebec as a French-speaking nation that exists within a bilingual country that promotes bilingualism.”
“This challenge is met with respect for individual, cultural and religious differences. There is no better example to illustrate the difference between Canada's approach and Quebec's approach. Quebec is a French-speaking, democratic and pluralist society based on the rule of law, which means that everyone has the same value and dignity as well as the same right to protection under the law. Knowledge and respect for the values of Quebec society are necessary for adapting to Quebec's environment and fully participating in it. Integration is achieved through full participation, which multiculturalism inhibits.”
“The Quebec model of integration goes beyond simple citizenship designed to promote the development and peaceful coexistence of cultural minorities in a vacuum by bringing these minorities to enter the symbolic and institutional space occupied by the nation. In other words, contrary to Canada's approach, which talks about preserving the identity of minorities without integration, Quebec's approach supports integration based on the learning of the French language, the official language and language common to the citizenry, and on the adherence to a set of fundamental principles. According to the Quebec department of immigration and cultural communities: An intercultural society's challenge is a collective one: to ensure harmony by maintaining and adopting the values and principles of action that unite all citizens.”
“Quebec's approach is that we should get to know one another better, talk to one another and build a society together. To do that, we have to get along. That is why Quebec asks immigrants to recognize the French fact, to learn the French language and to acknowledge that it is the language of our shared spaces. That is why Quebec also insists on the need to respect the key foundations of Quebec society, such as the separation of church and state, gender equality, and the existence of a historical cultural heritage. That heritage is multicultural, but not multiculturalist. There is a difference. (1145) Before 2003, there was even talk of a civil pact.”
“Out of fear that multiculturalism could cause society to fracture into separate solitudes, Quebec has always rejected the Canadian approach, especially because it trivializes Quebec's place within Canada, contrary to what many of my colleagues here claim. It denies the very existence of the Quebec nation, contrary once again to what has been said in the House on several occasions. As far back as 1971, Robert Bourassa wrote in a letter to Pierre Elliott Trudeau that “that notion hardly seems compatible with Quebec's reality”. It was true 50 years ago, and it is just as true today. As we can see from the Quebec government's rejection of multiculturalism, Quebec's focus is on integration. Cultural pluralism, cultural diversity, provides riches to be shared.”
“In other words, there is no point in integrating. In Quebec, multiculturalism is not a policy of integration, it is a policy of disintegration. It is a policy that creates a fragmented society where people who come from diverse cultures merely exist side by side, instead of allowing for the development of a society that integrates newcomers in order to enrich a common culture—the key word being “enrich”. The truth is that multiculturalism rejects the idea of a common culture by fostering the coexistence of multiple cultures. Although it is defined as a model of integration, it actually promotes cohabitation based on indifference or even tolerance, rather than respect for differences, and this invariably leads to ghettoization.”
“The federal government could have been an ally to the phenomenon of Quebec, or what I would even go as far as to call the miracle of Quebec. Ottawa could also have used its powers to allow Quebec's distinct identity to develop. Members will recall the “Meech Lake-Charlottetown” fiasco. Instead, Ottawa is hindering Quebec and undermining Quebec's efforts to create a unifying Quebec culture. One of Ottawa's worst attacks on the Quebec nation, on what we are collectively, is multiculturalism. Multiculturalism flies in the face of the Quebec phenomenon and the existence of a common culture. That is the reality. On the Government of Canada website, in the “Canadian Identity and Society” section, there is a page that says that multiculturalism “ensures that all citizens maintain their identities [and] take pride in their ancestry”.”
“Ottawa sees that as an attack on the federal government and on Canada's identity, even though multiculturalism is just one option among many, one possible way to live together in a society. Social mores can change over time if people take time to think and reflect. People have the right to question concepts. In Quebec, the simple truth is that multiculturalism has never worked. Quebec is the only nation of its kind in the world. It is inhabited by eight million francophones on a continent of almost 400 million anglophones. Demographically speaking, we should have disappeared over time. It is true that Quebec is a historical anomaly, and this has been said before. Nevertheless, Quebec needs all possible tools to survive, starting with independence.”
“I have had the honour of representing the people of Drummond for six years, but I have never seen a speech change the position of a federal party in the House of Commons, no matter how eloquent, relevant, articulate, well argued and reasonable the speech was and no matter how good the arguments in it were. We proposed that prayer be replaced by a moment of reflection and that parliamentarians be allowed to say a silent prayer of their choice, but no, we were not allowed to touch that, just as we were not allowed to touch the monarchy, the position of Governor General, multiculturalism, or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with the exception of section 33. We do want to touch section 33, the notwithstanding clause. Canada has its sacred cows. Quebec has always said that multiculturalism does not work for it.”
“Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères for tabling this bill, which shows once again that the Bloc Québécois really listens to what Quebeckers want. What do Quebeckers want? What the current Government of Quebec and the vast majority of the Quebec National Assembly want is for Quebec to be able to choose its own integration model. Even though, like my colleague, I am calling on the other parties to support our bill, I must admit that I have some doubts about whether our efforts will pan out.”
“They may have been extreme in the first version, but they could have been useful, particularly in the fight against terrorism and serious crime.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech. Unlike the Liberals, I have been listening to my Conservative colleagues' speeches all day. I find that they offer interesting perspectives. At the very least, they are contributing to the debate that the Liberals have decided to prolong today. That is to their credit, because we can sometimes engage in discussions with them without necessarily always agreeing with them. Earlier, I heard my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong talk about the fact that some aspects of Bill C‑2 were not included in Bill C‑12 . She was referring in particular to provisions making it possible to search mail or to access personal information, for example. I would like to know whether my Conservative colleague agrees that there might have been a way to study some of these provisions in committee.”
“Does my colleague agree that this type of measure could have been included in Bill C‑12 and that we could have examined it productively and constructively, contrary to what the Liberals are doing today?”
“Mr. Speaker, this is just sad. The Liberals are adding another day of debate on their bill, Bill C‑12 , but they are not rising. They are not giving speeches. They are just sitting there. When it is time to ask questions, theirs have nothing to do with the bill. I would ask the government to get serious so we know we are not doing our job for nothing. I have a question for my colleague. I put this same question to his colleague earlier. Bill C‑2 contained some measures and parts that we found worthwhile and that could have been discussed in committee, but they were all removed from this version of Bill C‑12. For example, part 16 allowed access to the private information of a person suspected of using proceeds of crime to finance terrorist or criminal activities. We thought it was a worthwhile measure, one worth discussing.”
“I understand that this was a special circumstance, but did my colleague think it was acceptable to include such a measure in the previous version of the bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, I just want to say that I find it rich of the Liberals to add a day of debate on Bill C-12 and then not put up any speakers for the day. When it comes time to ask questions after a speech, we can debate the ideas that were presented, but we cannot deny the fact that the Conservatives are addressing the issue on the agenda. I find it especially deplorable that the Liberals are not taking advantage of an opportunity they created to discuss the bill before us, their bill, which is highly questionable at that. In that regard, the previous version of the bill, Bill C-2 , included a part 16 on the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. It authorized the collection of personal information for individuals suspected of funding terrorist or criminal activities.”
“I would like my colleague to comment on this specific measure that remedies an existing problem, namely, one way illegal refugees kept getting to stay in Canada.”
“Madam Speaker, I understand why the Liberals and the Conservatives are squabbling, but I still think that there are some worthwhile aspects to Bill C-12 . I am thinking, for example, of a situation that the Bloc Québécois has often spoken out about in recent years, and that is how refugees who entered the country irregularly between official border crossings and hid for 14 days were given the right to claim asylum, despite the safe third country agreement. Bill C‑12 seems to remedy that. There are a few measures like that one that I thought the Conservatives would be happy about, even though they are naturally inclined to oppose anything proposed by the Liberals, sometimes with good reason.”
“I would like my colleague to clarify whether she has any data showing that proximity to schools and early childhood centres has a real impact on increasing consumption of products such as fentanyl.”
“Madam Speaker, there are real concerns, but situations are sometimes exaggerated in order to stir up public opinion, and I find that questionable. My colleague spoke about supervised injection sites, saying that the Liberals are practically deliberately setting them up near schools and early childhood centres. I found her wording a little questionable, although I agree that it is a sensitive issue. While it is totally inappropriate for supervised injection sites to be located in close proximity to schools and early childhood centres, there are no figures that I know of that prove that fentanyl use increases when such sites are located near schools.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am a little concerned because I am watching the Liberals, and I see them cutting measures that could generate billions of dollars in revenue, such as the digital services tax, which has been eliminated, as well as countertariffs, which we have not seen at all. The same can be said of the Conservatives. When I asked the Leader of the Opposition earlier what he would do to put money back into the pockets of Quebeckers and Canadians, he again talked about reducing the size of government and making cuts. I would like to ask my colleague what concrete measures will be taken to reinvest in the economy, to stimulate the economy and to encourage entrepreneurs to invest and grow. I do not hear any mention of this in the Conservatives' speeches today.”
“Mr. Speaker, my apologies, I know that. I suppose I must have forgotten that this government is the same as the last. I apologize for my blunder. I withdraw the remark. This former finance minister chose to resign rather than propose a budget with an outrageous $42-billion deficit. We are about to see a budget tabled with a deficit of nearly $100 billion. How is it that the $42 billion was so outrageous that it forced the then minister to step down, and now, $100 billion is okay? The government is bragging and saying that everything is fine and dandy. I would like the member for Trois‑Rivières to comment on that.”