Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe
Lac-Saint-Jean, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“It mentioned the build communities strong fund and a “requirement on provinces and territories to reduce development fees and other charges to homebuilding.” What does that mean, exactly? Is this $1.7 billion part of the build communities strong fund? Is it a mandatory requirement for accessing the fund? Is it simply a guideline?”
“Once the election campaign gets under way, the government will be restricted to dealing with day-to-day business. We hope that the Parti Québécois will win the next election. I look forward to debating the merits of a referendum on Quebec independence with my colleague from Winnipeg North . This is going to be fun.”
“The second sentence of the bill states that the amount of each payment is to be determined by the minister. That is far from a guarantee. We asked the Minister of Finance and National Revenue about this two weeks ago during the business of supply.”
“Mr. Speaker, these people had to fight to speak French. They had to hide to speak French. They were forbidden from speaking French at school. It was prohibited under Manitoban law. I recently attended the International Uyghur Forum in Berlin.”
“Mr. Speaker, we hear it all the time, but this time it is especially true. I am pleased to rise to speak to the long-awaited Bill C‑26 . It took a long time to understand the actual impact of Bill C‑26.”
“Not only that, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated in his December report on Build Canada Homes that “[Build Canada Homes] will add about 26,000 units over five years, representing a 2.1 per cent increase in housing completions relative to [the Parliamentary Budget Officer's] baseline projection.” An increase of 2.1% as a resul…”
The complete record
Every one of 440 lines we hold for Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 9.
“Mr. Speaker, I would like someone to explain to me how Bill 21 is not at stake, because if the federal government is successful, this legislation could be struck down. I would like my colleague to realize how important the issue we are debating today is. If the result of the federal government's action is that Bill 21 is struck down, will my colleague be able to explain to his constituents that his government has managed to overturn a Quebec law?”
“Mr. Speaker, the real question in today's debate is this, and I want to put it to my colleague: Will my colleague be happy if Bill 21 is struck down as a result of the federal government's intervention, its factum, before the Supreme Court?”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister obviously did not watch the report. The problem is not the universities; the problem is international organized crime. Criminals are taking advantage of Immigration, Citizenship and Refugees Canada's negligence to make hundreds of millions of dollars. Border services know that this money is being used to prop up a criminal organization in the Ivory Coast, and even to fund terrorist activities. While Europe is fighting this network, which it calls the African mafia, Ottawa treats it like the problem is students cutting class. It is easy to understand why Canada is a prime target. When will Ottawa take responsibility?”
“Mr. Speaker, Radio-Canada has made a shocking revelation. Members of organized crime are entering Canada on student visas and getting rich off fraud, car theft, identity theft and so on. Once again, instead of taking responsibility, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is burying its head in the sand. In its response to the report, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, blamed the universities, even though screening the identities of those entering Canada, including foreign students, is solely the federal government's responsibility. IRCC is responsible. When will it start working to combat organized crime instead of blaming universities?”
“Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that this is a rather lengthy bill. It is no less than 130 pages long and affects around 15 acts and a number of departments. We are going to have to do an extremely thorough job. There is one thing I have not heard my Conservative friends talk about as much. My colleague could surely enlighten me on their concerns, their understanding or their position when it comes to parts 6 to 9 of Bill C‑2 , the parts regarding immigration laws. I would like to know the Conservative Party's position on the immigration aspect of Bill C‑2.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lethbridge for her passionate speech. I think this is a very emotional topic for her. I understand her and I congratulate her on this speech. This bill will likely end up in committee. Does my colleague think we need to make a lot of changes to it? Will the parties have to work as a team to ensure that this bill can be passed in the House? If the Liberals do not accept the amendments and the bill is presented to the House as it currently stands, will it be acceptable to vote for this bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to say more about this topic, because it is quite surprising. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons says this is a new government, but I do not believe this is the first time I have seen him. He has been rising in the House for some time, and, all of a sudden, he is saying that we need to tighten our borders and toughen up the asylum seeker program. In June 2024, when he was in office, the former immigration minister announced to great fanfare that a committee would be set up to distribute asylum seekers across Canada. He said that some provinces were doing much more than their share based on their demographic weight, that is, their population. Where is this committee on the distribution of asylum seekers now? That is my question for my colleague.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. One part of his speech really caught my attention, and that was when he referred to part 11 of the bill. If the bill were applied as it is currently written, it would prohibit cash transactions of more than $10,000. The hon. member referred to his riding, which is rural. I have also heard indigenous community leaders express their concerns about this part, specifically because cash transactions are more common in a number of indigenous communities, for example. Is my colleague also aware of this reality? In his opinion, should there not be an amendment to that part of the bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to repeat a question I asked a Liberal colleague on the same subject and for which I do not believe I received a suitable response. It is a simple question. Many groups that we met for Bill C‑2 shared their apprehensions over some clauses in the bill that, according to them, might be unconstitutional. I doubt that we the only ones they shared that with. They must have shared that with colleagues in the party currently in power. Do members of the Liberal Party, within the government, the executive, realize that there are constitutionality issues with certain clauses as the bill is currently written?”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. Not everyone takes long vacations, and all summer long, I met with groups that will be affected by Bill C‑2 . For these meetings, I was joined by my colleagues from Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon and Rivière-du-Nord , because we will all be sharing the task of studying Bill C‑2 if it goes to committee, as we hope it will. My question is quite simple. All of the groups we met with raised serious doubts about the validity of certain clauses that would not even stand up in court. Some provisions do raise legal questions. For example, it will not be possible to compel the minister and his staff to appear before the Refugee Protection Division. There is no explanation as to why or how that will be done in court.”
“Mr. Speaker, we unfortunately did not have time to hear the entire question. All we can say is that Bill C‑3 will correct an injustice once and for all. The amendments from Bill C‑71 are already included in Bill C‑3. In fact, it is as though we were passing Bill C‑71 without the parliamentary obstruction that took place at the time. I think that now is the time to do it.”
“Mr. Speaker, we put forward proposals regarding temporary foreign workers and the measures that were implemented last fall. We asked for the government to restore the previous measures, for example, to allow Quebec companies to hire up to 20% of their workforce as temporary foreign workers, except in Montreal and Laval. That is what we mean when we talk about unilateral measures. The problem is that the government always uses a bazooka instead of a scalpel when it comes to immigration. To that end, the Bloc Québécois has good suggestions that are in keeping with the reality of entrepreneurs, newcomers and foreign workers, which is the most important thing. I am asking the government to listen to us. We are here to work, co-operate and make constructive suggestions. We hope that the government will listen, but not just to us.”
“Mr. Speaker, if there are good amendments, I will consider them and support them. If they are bad, I will consider them and not support them. That is pretty much it. This should not have dragged on since 2009, however. The Liberals were a majority from 2015 to 2019. They could have fixed this mistake promptly. Sadly, however, they made no effort whatsoever to address this injustice. Today, they are pleased to introduce this bill, and I can understand why. Still, why did it take them more than 15 years to correct such a ridiculous mistake? It was a blatant injustice, yet it took them 15 years to make it right. When the time comes to reform the asylum seeker system, how long is that going to take? That is the problem at the moment with the Liberal government and its way of managing the immigration system.”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously, this is not the most urgent priority. As I mentioned earlier, over the past 10 years, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has been the most dysfunctional department in the federal government. There have been seven immigration ministers in 10 years. When a ship is sinking, changing captains is not going to help. A new ship must be built. The problems with immigration are systemic. In 2022, the immigration minister announced with great fanfare an $85‑million investment in his department to hire staff. In December 2024, he cut 3,300 jobs in his department. That is how he was managing the immigration system.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will seriously study all of the amendments that are tabled. I already see a few problems around these two issues, such as the fact that the government wants to make it so that people have to spend three consecutive years in Canada to get their citizenship. For one thing, this would limit their right to move. What happens if someone wants to spend a week in Cuba? They blow their three consecutive years. I am open to considering my colleague's amendments. I doubt that the three consecutive years requirement would stand up in court. However, there could be another way forward. We will study the matter together in committee and call in experts to tell us what is and is not feasible. As I said, I am open to considering the amendments.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her election. If this bill is passed, an injustice will certainly be corrected. Yes, these things take time. Sometimes, however, they do not take long enough. Would my colleague like to talk about Bill C‑5 ? It makes no sense. That kind of bill should take plenty of time. Unfortunately, the government decided otherwise. That said, I believe that Bill C‑3 should be passed quickly, but it should still go through all the usual stages of a bill.”
“That is why I am asking my colleagues to be diligent and to take their parliamentary work seriously. We know exactly where each party stands on this bill. We will listen to the amendments, if there are any. I think that we should definitely avoid filibustering this issue at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I urge my colleagues to do the same. That does not meant we will not propose amendments, of course, but let us be serious and diligent, and let us address problems that are very urgent, not just for newcomers, but also for the communities that welcome them, like the ones in Quebec.”
“I would remind the House that in 2024, the former immigration minister announced with great fanfare that he was going to form a committee and that arrangements would be made to distribute asylum seekers across Canada. That is what he said at a major press conference. A solution had been found, and the committee was going to be set up. Since then, there has been radio silence. We have heard nothing more about it, and no solutions have ever been proposed. (1135) In the meantime, it is Quebec and Ontario once again that have to take care of welcoming the vast majority of asylum seekers. Again, there are issues that need to be addressed. Bill C-3 will tie up the committee, but it had better not tie it up for months because there are far too many other things that need to be addressed.”
“We need to do something about the reforms that were put in place for temporary foreign workers, because they are not working. We need to do something about asylum seekers. We need to help them get their claims dealt with a lot more quickly, and most importantly, we need to distribute asylum seekers more evenly across Canada. Currently, Quebec and Ontario are doing much more than their share and, unfortunately, their intake capacity is overwhelmed. It is not right that asylum seekers arriving in Montreal should end up homeless right away because there is no money to house them properly. In the meantime, there are provinces in the rest of Canada that are doing absolutely nothing. They are not doing their part to take in asylum seekers.”
“This is obviously an additional challenge for integrating newcomers. We want immigration to succeed in Quebec, but right now, the federal government is acting as though Quebec were identical to all other Canadian provinces. Even among the other Canadian provinces, there are differences when it comes to integrating newcomers. The realities are not the same. The territories that make up the country known as Canada are completely different and have completely different realities. The federal government is taking the same approach to immigration as it is taking with its new “one Canadian economy out of 13” plan. It is doing the same thing. The federal government seems to think that there is only one reality when it comes to immigration. That does not make any sense. As I was saying, we need to do something about application processing times.”
“I am thinking about the refugee system in particular. Is it reasonable for someone who has applied for asylum to have to wait four, five or six years? We saw one case where someone waited 12 years before their asylum application was processed. That person waited 12 years in a G7 country. Wait times for work permit extensions are currently skyrocketing. I think they are now at 256 days. The measures that were rolled out in the fall for temporary foreign workers were a total fiasco for the Quebec regions. The immigration policies put in place by this government are one-size-fits-all, as though Calgary, Moose Jaw, Toronto, Montreal and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean all had the same realities. One-size-fits-all immigration measures do not work, especially in Quebec, where French language courses must be offered.”
“Let us make one last reform, once and for all. We have to get it right this time, as a matter of equality, justice and principle. These families have been waiting long enough, and they deserve to have us working on their behalf. That said, I think everyone agrees that we should not pass this bill under time allocation. As I said, we can pass it swiftly and efficiently while being thorough because we know exactly where all the parties that will sit on the committee stand on the issue. We know how all the parties will vote on the third reading of this bill. I think we should move forward fairly quickly. As I said earlier when I asked my colleague a question, there are some urgent issues. The fundamental structure of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration needs to be changed with respect to several programs.”
“That is what we see every time we check. It is not right that in 2022, 17 years after the first reform to fix lost Canadians' status, we are still talking about a bill to fix lost Canadians' status. That is completely mind-boggling. The public must sometimes wonder what we do here. That is not right. In a situation like this, it is up to the government to come up with a solution that would allow individuals to regularize their status and regain their dignity once and for all, like all other citizens. It is a matter of principle. I said so at the beginning of my speech. As parliamentarians, we have to tackle our constituents' issues with a strong sense of duty, without getting into childish debates for purely dogmatic reasons. The “lost Canadians” problem should never have happened. I repeat, citizenship must apply equally to all.”
“We are here working for Quebeckers who care about Quebec's future, and not just when it is time to cater to their electoral ambitions. There are specific examples in Quebec. Take Jean-François, a Quebecker born outside Canada when his father was completing his doctorate in the United States. Even though he returned to Quebec when he was three months old and spent his entire life in Quebec, Jean-François's daughter was not automatically eligible for Canadian citizenship. This type of situation causes undue stress for families who should not have had to deal with the federal government's lax approach. (1130) Despite what it says, this government is the same as its predecessor. This is not a new government. This government is piling up delays in processing citizenship and immigration applications for just about every program.”
“(e) restore citizenship to persons who lost their citizenship because they did not make an application to retain it under the former section 8 of that Act or because they made an application under that section that was not approved... This refers to this notorious and completely ridiculous provision that has been on the books since 2009. Normally, former Bill C‑71 should have received royal assent a long time ago, but parliamentary obstruction has gotten us to where we are today. People, women and children have had to wait because of political games and bickering between the federal parties. Crass, petty politics have been on full display in this Parliament over the past year. The Bloc Québécois is here to work for our people.”
“They are men, women, military spouses, children of soldiers, children born abroad, members of indigenous and Chinese-Canadian communities, people who fell through the cracks because previous reforms did not properly fix the act. Bill C‑3 seeks to ensure that past wrongs will not be repeated. The bill seeks to amend the Citizenship Act to, among other things: (a) ensure that citizenship by descent is conferred on all persons who were born outside Canada before the coming into force of this enactment to a parent who was a citizen; (b) confer citizenship by descent on persons born outside Canada after the first generation... (c) allow citizenship to be granted...to all persons born outside Canada who were adopted before the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who was a citizen...”
“Let us be frank: the federal apparatus is not really the most efficient when it comes to managing Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada files. I think the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is undoubtedly the most dysfunctional department in the entire federal government. We need only look back to find examples of how slow the federal administration is. There was a legislative reform in 2005, another one in 2009 and yet another in 2015. How many reforms will it take before we get rid of such ridiculous rules as losing one's citizenship because of a failure to reapply before the age of 28? Currently, there are many citizens who were forgotten during those reforms.”
“In this case, the Canadian government has failed in meeting its obligations to its citizens. This situation cannot be allowed to continue because citizenship must apply equally to all. This is simply a matter of principle that we are debating today. I do not believe I am alone in thinking that it is profoundly unfair that, in 2022, people can lose their citizenship for reasons that they probably do not even know exist. These provisions are from another time when there were questionable ideas about what it meant to be a citizen of Canada. Since time has not remedied the situation and since the reforms of the past have not been prescriptive enough, then politicians must weigh in. We know the path to reclaiming Canadian citizenship is far too complex.”
“If we think about it, this bill is perfectly in line with what our contemporary vision of citizenship should be. Once citizenship has been duly granted, it should never be taken away from an individual, unless it is for reasons of national security. Only a citizen can freely renounce his or her citizenship, and the government should not strip anyone of their citizenship based on a mere formality, such as the need to file to retain their citizenship by their 28th birthday. Like all parties in the House, the Bloc Québécois supports and defends the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that all are equal before the law. In fact, citizenship is an egalitarian legal status granted to all members of the same community. It confers privileges as well as duties.”
“I am saying that the bill should be passed swiftly, but following the usual process, meaning we should study it in committee and hear expert testimony. I will listen to amendments by members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We will study them and, as I said, rigorously analyze the bill. Afterwards, we will have discussions, but we already know what to expect, given that we have already been having these conversations in committee for many years. (1125) We want to ensure that the scope of the legislation remains as we intend it to be. I think that, already, we can expect that there will not be many amendments, since Bill C‑3 essentially incorporates the amendments that were already proposed to Bill C‑71 .”
“Bill C‑3 corrects an oversight in the 2009 amendment to the Citizenship Act, which missed a golden opportunity to do away with the requirement for these people to apply to retain their citizenship when they turned 28. That measure in the 2009 amendment to the act was completely arbitrary and should have been removed. At the risk of ruining the surprise, and for the sake of consistency, I will say that, since we were in favour of Bill S‑245 and Bill C‑71 , we are also in favour of Bill C‑3 . We believe it should be passed swiftly, but only after a thorough study. By that, I mean that we need to be efficient, but we absolutely must not pass this bill under closure. I urge all parties not to use what I feel is an undemocratic tool that most parties in the House enjoy using, depending on the Parliament and the whim of the government.”
“Today, I will speak not only for Quebeckers, but also for a good many Canadians whose IRCC files have been stalled for too long. As the Bloc Québécois critic for immigration, refugees and citizenship, I want to talk about Canadian citizenship. That might seem odd coming from someone from my party, but it affects everyone here and a good many Quebeckers. I want to talk today about the people we now refer to as “lost Canadians”, those who lost their citizenship because of an often little-known but truly ridiculous provision. According to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration's estimates, there are still between 100 and 200 people who have not yet regained their citizenship. They are the last group of “lost Canadians”.”
“Bill C‑3 was introduced as a fallback, because Bill S‑245 and even Bill C‑71, unfortunately, could not get across the finish line. While unfortunate, it was partly due to some crass partisanship on the part of certain political parties. In this regard, I must point out the following. In spite of my occasional differences of opinion with my colleagues from the other parties represented in the House, as members know, I try not to get caught up in that. I am not in the habit of obstructing during committee meetings. I would even say that, especially with this kind of issue, working across party lines often helps us get results. Personally, it helps me do my work even better for the people of Lac-Saint-Jean whom I have had the honour of representing in the House since 2019.”
“Bills S‑245 and C‑71 basically sought to restore citizenship to all these people who had lost their status due to the overly complex and often unjust provisions of previous Canadian laws. This idea is taken up again in Bill C‑3, which was recently introduced by the government. In fact, Bill C‑3 incorporates all of the amendments proposed to Bill C‑71 in the previous Parliament, which sought to correct these injustices and errors in the major legislation that is the Citizenship Act. The bill responds to an Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling which declared that the first-generation limit on citizenship applicable to the children of Canadians born abroad is unconstitutional. The government then had six months to amend the law.”
“Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that this will be the last time I give a speech on such a bill at second reading. That is a lot, considering Bill S‑245 and Bill C‑71 . That brings us to Bill C‑3 . I hope this will be resolved once and for all. A few months ago, I stood in the House to speak to Bill C‑71, which was in fact a reintroduction of Bill S‑245, which sought to correct a historic wrong by granting citizenship to Canadians whose cases had slipped through the cracks. I spoke about children of Canadian parents who had been born abroad and lost their citizenship because of changes in the federal rules or for other reasons that struck me as hard to justify at the time.”
“Should we not be dealing with other urgent issues involving the immigration system? We have known for 10 years how people will vote on this bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, I wish you could take part in this debate. That is the last time I will say it. I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I was obviously already somewhat familiar with his position on the matter, since I also worked on Bill S‑245 and Bill C‑71 . Right now, we are working on Bill C‑3 . We have been working on this issue for years, so I think we all know where everyone stands. Does my colleague agree with me that the bill should be sent to committee quickly? When the time comes to send it to committee, it will need to be considered quickly, as well as thoroughly, of course. We need to move on. Does the member believe, as I do, that the immigration system is completely dysfunctional right now? We need only think of the asylum system, work permits and temporary foreign workers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would also like to welcome my colleague from Elgin—St. Thomas—London South to the House. I enjoyed his speech. Can my colleague tell me how we have gotten to this point? In his opinion, why is the government introducing a bill that I would call too radical for the current situation, a bill that will amend about 15 acts and attack legislation affecting three different departments? Can he tell me what this government has done over the past 10 years to show that it takes border security and our refugee system seriously? I would like to hear his answer.”
“There would be no need to make new legislation. In any case, we will study the bill thoroughly. Does my colleague agree that the government could take action now through regulations giving border services officers more powers?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Eglinton—Lawrence on his election. He seems like a serious parliamentarian who wants to work constructively. That is exactly how the Bloc Québécois operates. We work constructively on bills. This bill is going to take time. It will require thorough and rigorous study. In the meantime, we have proposals that could help us now at the border. There is something I want to ask. The Bloc Québécois has made a proposal that responds to the request of the union representing border services officers. Our proposal is to give officers the power to patrol outside border crossings, as the union is calling for. It could be done through regulations right away. Would my colleague agree that the government could take immediate action by making regulations to allow this?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be quick. I asked the member for Winnipeg North a question earlier. It is not that complicated. The CBSA union wants this, the officers want this and the Bloc Québécois supports this demand: the ability to patrol between border crossings. It would not require new legislation. It could be done through regulations. My question is, why does the government not do this right now? There is no justification for taking so much time. It could act now, immediately. Why not do this right away?”
“However, there are things that can be done now, at the administrative level, as requested by the union representing border service officers. We could allow officers to patrol outside border crossings, as they are requesting. Is this a solution that could be considered?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I am very pleased to see you in the Speaker's chair. However, I must also say that I would have liked to see you take part in today's debate in your former role as immigration critic. I would have liked to see someone as thorough as you participate in the debate on a bill of this nature. The Liberals are concerned about borders. Finally. After 10 years, they are finally realizing that the refugee system is not working. They would not have introduced such a bill otherwise. This is obviously a step in the right direction. However, it will take time. This bill is 130 pages long, amends some 15 laws and affects at least three departments. It is going to take work, and the government will not be invoking closure.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North just told us that he was proud to represent Quebec. I have a simple question for him: Is the National Assembly of Quebec important to him? If so, does he think that when 125 elected members from Quebec call— I will stop there because this is a big moment for us right now. I am being told that the Bloc Québécois bill on supply management has been adopted in the Senate. Supply management is a done deal. I forgot my question, but I say bravo. I am happy. I hope that my colleague from Winnipeg North is happy too. The Bloc Québécois bill to fully protect supply management has just been approved by the Senate. That is a Bloc Québécois victory. An hon. member: Hear, hear.”
“If the member wants to work for people, he should not work to help others steal from them. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague said he wants to work on behalf of workers, on behalf of hard-working people. This kind of talk really hits home for me. Before I was elected, I worked in a pulp and paper mill. I am probably one of the only members in the House who never sat in a university classroom, so this kind of discourse resonates with me. I am also here to work for the workers, for my friends at the mill. They look to me and expect me to do a good job. When people have their money stolen, it upsets my friends at the mill. The member wants to work for workers, for those who work hard, who get up every morning and work 12-hour shifts at night and on weekends. I am therefore wondering why he voted with the Liberals to prevent Quebec from getting $814 million, when the Parliamentary Budget Officer said it was theft. That surprises me.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is fantastic, because we were told that the Prime Minister is a master at managing public finances. I might be forced to admit that is true, since none of these members are following up on what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said about the rebate paid out on a carbon tax that was never collected. None of these Liberal members is repeating the Quebec National Assembly's call for a reimbursement of the $814 million. I have to wonder if being a master at managing public finances means robbing Quebec. That is my question for the member.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague just said that she has full confidence in the Government of Quebec. The Government of Quebec and all the other parties at the National Assembly, or all 125 elected members from Quebec, called for the reimbursement of $814 million. Like the Parliamentary Budget Officer, they understood that we were robbed. Since my colleague has confidence in the Government of Quebec, should she not have voted in favour of our motion, which sought to give Quebeckers back their $814 million?”
“Madam Speaker, the Liberals are saying that since it is written in their platform, they are doing it. In their election platform, in their leader's speeches, during the leaders' debates and during the election campaign, they kept talking about seniors. They said that they would help seniors financially. The Liberals are in the habit of stealing bits and pieces of every party's platform. In fact, their party is referred to as the chameleon party. It is not really the Liberal Party. They look for items in each platform to get themselves reelected every time. The Liberals all but said in their election platform and during the election campaign that they would provide financial assistance for seniors. Is my colleague aware of anything that has been done to improve seniors' finances since the Prime Minister has been in office?”
“Madam Speaker, in the last Parliament, we saw the NDP vote with the Liberals to adopt one closure motion after another. Then we saw what happened in the last general election. Does my colleague think that the Liberals are playing the same game with the Conservatives as they did with the NDP, by forcing them to vote with them to adopt one closure motion after another? Are the Conservatives not shooting themselves in the foot by doing that?”