Christine Normandin
Saint-Jean, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, let us look at the Prime Minister 's record so far. He betrayed the climate. He betrayed our culture by leaving billions of dollars on the table. He made multiple concessions to Donald Trump with nothing to show for it.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we take stock of this parliamentary session, there are two things that Quebeckers will remember. The first is how the Prime Minister betrayed the environment by putting an end to Canada's fight against climate change and by pushing the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie to resign.”
“Mr. Speaker, July 1 is fast approaching and, when it comes to tackling the housing crisis, there is a prominent local figure who stands out from the crowd and refuses to give in to fatalism.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are confusing their parliamentary majority with the right to do what they want, when they want. The time allocations never seem to stop, which is especially odd considering that their bills are certain to pass.”
“Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister has nothing but contempt for the work of Parliament. He is ramming through draconian laws using closure. He is concentrating all powers in hands of cabinet. He is using those powers to deregulate industry for the benefit of primarily American companies or to suspend certain laws.”
“His dreams are never an end in themselves, but rather the starting point for great achievements. As he prepares to welcome a new addition to his family, I send him my warmest wishes for happiness. Just like his projects, this new adventure holds great promise for the future. I would like to thank Jean-François.”
The complete record
Every one of 373 lines we hold for Christine Normandin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 8.
“This prevents funding from being received from obscure sources, such as donations from foreign entities. Attempts are being made to interfere with our elections. This is one aspect of the bill that helps counter this interference, which is unfortunately becoming increasingly common. Just look at the work carried out by Justice Hogue, who chaired the foreign interference commission. There are also stricter guidelines for nomination contests. In the wake of what is known in Quebec as the brownie scandal, we expected to see an equivalent measure put in place at the federal level, because Quebec had already quickly stated that it would close this loophole allowing fundraising for certain people in an electoral process, including leadership candidates and nomination contestants.”
“As I was saying, the goals of the reform introduced by Bill C-25 are broad and entirely legitimate, but in our view, they have not been fully achieved. I said we would be generous, so we will talk about the positives. One of the changes to the Canada Elections Act is the end of anonymous donations. The new version of the act will no longer allow it. It used to be allowed. People may not know this, but it used to be possible to make a donation completely anonymously, including through prepaid credit cards or cryptocurrencies that are impossible to trace. The new version of the act states that, should a member of Parliament happen to receive this type of donation, the money would be returned to the donor or destroyed if the donor could not be identified.”
“I will take the liberty of going over the changes affecting my colleagues. The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon will now have a much easier riding name to remember. She will become the hon. member for “Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent”. The member for Jonquière 's riding name will get a little longer, but it will make his constituents happy. He will now be known as the member for “Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets”. The Bloc Québécois already has the maple capital in one of its ridings. Now we officially have the blueberry capital too. The member for Rimouski—La Matapédia is heading in the opposite direction of the future member for “Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent”. From now on, he will be the member for “Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques”. That name includes every single RCM in his riding.”
“More specifically, it seeks to prevent large numbers of candidates from registering, as the protesters from the longest ballot committee have done. The hope is that we avoid ending up with ballots featuring 290 candidates that have to be unfolded like road maps and clog up the ballot boxes. We have worked to find solutions to prevent this from happening again. The bill also aims to strengthen the integrity, security and transparency of federal elections, but once again, there are a few minor pitfalls that I will address later. The bill seeks to update the electoral framework to address the risks of disinformation, foreign interference and cybersecurity. These issues were not yet as prominent during the last review of the Canada Elections Act. The bill also seeks to formally change the names of certain electoral districts.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are leaving for what we hope are greener pastures. I imagine most of them are heading to committee meetings. Hopefully they will go well. There are not many meetings left before the session ends. I would like to say a few words about Bill C-25 . Since we are nearing the end of the process having debated it in the House and discussed it at length in committee, I am not going to leave people in suspense. The Bloc is going to vote in favour of Bill C-25, which has moved forward with relative consensus in both the House and in committee. Everything went smoothly, that much is true. Furthermore, once I have outlined the bill's objectives, I will highlight its strengths. I will save the less positive aspects for last, because there are some. Bill C-25 amends the Canada Elections Act and addresses various issues.”
“Mr. Speaker, not only does that have nothing to do with my question, it has nothing to do with the business of the House either. Contrary to Europe, the Prime Minister capitulated on streaming levies. Contrary to France, he capitulated on the digital services tax. He exempted American multinationals from the global minimum tax. He ended his countertariffs. He is trying to persuade the provinces to end their boycott of American alcohol. He is making every effort to appease Donald Trump, but the outcome is always more concessions. The renewal of CUSMA is now entirely off the table. Does the Prime Minister realize that his weakness strategy is not paying off?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister sacrificed the future of francophone culture at the hands of Donald Trump. He is completely giving up on the 10-year struggle to get American web giants to help fund creative works and news. What has he gotten in return? All he has gotten is yet another escalation of hostilities from Washington. After seeing Canada surrender on the culture issue, President Trump responded yesterday by saying that he is not looking to renew CUSMA. Does the Prime Minister realize that he sacrificed culture for nothing?”
“Motion Mr. Speaker, this time, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, a member of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying from the House of Commons may have a dissenting or supplementary opinion appended to its first report by tabling it with the Clerk of the House by July 10, 2026, and that, in such a case, the Clerk of the House shall forward such dissenting or supplementary opinion to the Clerk of the Senate so that it may be deemed to have been tabled in both Houses; that a message be sent to the Senate informing it that this House has adopted this order, and inviting it to adopt provisions to give effect to this order.”
“Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, a member of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying— Some hon. members: No.”
“Mr. Speaker, for CUSMA, the Prime Minister's concessions to the Americans go even further. Through Bill C-5 , he has granted himself the power to suspend laws in order to build new pipelines. The big winners are the shareholders of oil companies, 60% of whom are American. Under Bill C-30 , he is granting himself the power to re-approve banned pesticides. The big winner is Bayer, which sells Monsanto's American seeds and pesticides. The Prime Minister is concentrating power in his own hands, but it is the Americans who are benefiting from it. Is that really his definition of Canada strong?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps granting concession after concession to Donald Trump. By July, the PM had already scrapped the digital services tax on U.S. tech giants. In August, he dropped Canada's retaliatory tariffs. This week, he cancelled the levy on American online broadcasters, and he did all of this without getting anything in return. The Prime Minister met with Quebec and the provinces today, and rumour has it that he brought up their boycott of American alcohol. Did the Prime Minister ask them to follow his lead and grant further concessions?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at the Prime Minister's recent record. The Prime Minister is turning his back on culture in favour of digital giants like Netflix and Amazon. The Prime Minister is abandoning the fight against climate change in favour of the oil companies' American shareholders. The Prime Minister is handing control of pesticides over to multinational agrochemical companies. No prime minister has ever deregulated so extensively for the benefit of large foreign corporations. Is selling out to the highest foreign bidder what he means by building Canada strong?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is abandoning Quebec culture to please the web giants and Donald Trump. First, he scrapped the digital services tax, which represents a loss of $1.4 billion per year, in exchange for absolutely nothing. Today, he is ordering the CRTC to waive every penny of the levies charged to streaming platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime, and yet the European Union imposes levies on streaming platforms and they comply without any significant cost increases for their customers. Why is the Prime Minister in such a hurry to leave our culture at Donald Trump's mercy?”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister's $600 million is paid for by citizens. The minister is replacing billions of dollars in contributions from platforms like Netflix with $600 million from taxpayers' pockets. Regardless of whether citizens are subscribers or not, they are still going to pay. However, other countries around the world are demanding significant payments from streaming platforms and they have not seen a significant increase in bills. Quebec had the courage to stand up to the web giants. When will the federal government show the same courage?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is neglecting culture yet again. After scrapping the digital services tax last summer without getting anything in return, yesterday he scrapped the proposed increase in levies on tech giants for Quebec cultural production. His first instinct in dealing with Donald Trump was to hand out billions of dollars in gifts to the tech giants and pass the bill on to taxpayers. It took less than 24 hours of negotiations in Washington for the Prime Minister to agree to that sacrifice. Why is he so eager to capitulate when it comes to the future of Quebec culture?”
“Again, our bill is simple. It simply aims to repeal the abomination and democratic aberration that is the Clarity Act. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Second, following a referendum, the Clarity Act allows the House to rule that the majority was not clear, that there was no majority because of the turnout, the percentage of votes in favour of the secessionist option or the substance of the debates. In short, the House of Commons can tell millions of people that their voice did not count based on 343 votes in the House with a potential majority of a few votes off from 50% plus one. Bill C‑279 also aims to uphold certain basic democratic principles, which were reiterated by the National Assembly of Quebec when it voted unanimously in favour of the principle. That means both federalists and separatists, across all parties, are rejecting the Clarity Act and pointing out that 50% plus one is a clear majority and that, in the case of Quebec, it is up to Quebec alone to decide its future.”
“Bill C‑279. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce C‑279, An Act to repeal the Clarity Act . She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to introduce Bill C‑279, an act to repeal the Clarity Act. This bill simply seeks to repeal the federal Clarity Act, which allows Parliament to override the will of the people by a simple majority vote of 50% plus one. The Clarity Act does two things. First, it allows the House of Commons to determine whether a referendum question is sufficiently clear before a referendum takes place. This is particularly paternalistic and impugns the intelligence of the public by assuming that people are unable to think for themselves and understand a question.”
“Mr. Speaker, clearly, the minister still does not have the figures. We want figures for this year, because this is the year the Liberals announced a new pipeline and new LNG projects, cut Alberta's industrial carbon price, scrapped the oil and gas emissions cap, suspended the clean electricity regulations, cancelled the carbon tax, and the list goes on. Today, even though they do not have any figures measuring the impact of this backtracking, the Liberals keep insisting that they are going to meet their climate targets. How are we supposed to believe that?”
“Mr. Speaker, we know that the Liberals keep backtracking on environmental issues time and again. Their backtracking even led the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie to resign. Despite all this backtracking, the Liberals keep repeating that they will meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets. We are wondering how. That is why, last Thursday, the Bloc Québécois demanded to see the figures the Liberals are using as the basis for their claim that emissions will fall despite all the measures they have sacrificed. The minister did not have that data. Now does she have the figures on the impact of the backtracking announced this year?”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebec's elected officials have condemned the Prime Minister 's drift toward authoritarianism with his Clarity Act. I would like to draw his attention to a reaction that might inspire him. The leader of the Quebec Liberals said, “We in the Liberal Party of Quebec are both federalists and democrats”. Yes, it is possible to be a federalist, a democrat, and a Liberal all at once. It is possible to hold multiple principles simultaneously. The Prime Minister , on the other hand, is merely a Liberal, in addition to being paternalistic and anti-democratic. Will the Liberals bring him back down to earth and ask him to repeal the Clarity Act?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously condemned the Prime Minister for his authoritarian statement that 50% of the votes cast plus one would not be enough in a referendum. It reaffirmed its support for Quebec's Bill 99, which defines a clear majority as 50% plus one, just like all democratic votes around the world. It declared that no parliament or government may impose constraint on the democratic will of the Quebec people to determine their own future. Does the Prime Minister understand Quebec's message, and will he respect the foundations of democracy?”
“Mr. Speaker, respecting democracy means not only avoiding interfering in referendum questions, but also avoiding interfering in the people's answer. A clear majority is 50% of the votes plus one. As the Prime Minister knows, all his laws are passed with a majority of 50% plus one. His own majority is 50% plus one. Even his own parliamentary secretary for justice said that the rule is 50% plus one. That is democracy, except for referendums apparently, because of the Clarity Act. Will the Prime Minister stop this drift away from democracy?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has to respect democracy, but yesterday he did the opposite by announcing that he would use the Clarity Act to meddle in Alberta's referendum question. The provinces and Quebec have the right to ask their citizens any question they choose in a referendum. Citizens have the right to answer freely, and the majority wins with 50% of the vote plus one. Only two groups are involved: the government asking the question and the citizens answering it. That is democracy, plain and simple. Will the Prime Minister respect that?”
“Mr. Speaker, contempt is when one considers a person, group or thing inferior. It is a feeling of superiority. When the government of a province or Quebec asks its people a question, it is up to the Government of Quebec or that provincial government to decide on the question, and it is up to the people to answer it. Ottawa has no business getting involved. Ottawa is interfering simply because it believes itself to be superior to everyone. There are two options: Either Ottawa respects the democratic process that is under way, or it interferes and confirms its contempt for the people. What will it do?”
“Mr. Speaker, Ottawa is currently reviewing the question that the Alberta government will put to its population in a referendum to see if it is appropriate, because Ottawa knows so much better than anyone else what kind of question should be asked. Ottawa knows what is clear and what is unclear to ordinary people. The federal government is so superior, so much better. Good thing the government is here to look after us and to explain things we are capable of understanding. Does the government realize that the Clarity Act is nothing but a demonstration of contempt for the populace and the provinces?”
“Mr. Speaker, there must be some Conservatives who are itching to cross the floor. They see themselves in a Prime Minister who promotes the monarchy and the oil sands. We now understand the Liberals' vision. Canada's future is based on dirty 19th‑century fossil fuels. Now at least we know where we stand. My question is simple: Why do the members in that party who still believe in the fight against climate change not just leave? What are they waiting for?”
“Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the Liberals have decided to speed up pipeline construction by cutting red tape: too many rules, too much hemming and hawing, too much focus on reducing greenhouse gases and social acceptance. Canada has oil, so we are going to make a fortune, and to heck with the regulations. The Conservatives are losing the battle for the hearts of oil lovers. Soon enough, the Liberals will be the ones wearing “I love oil and gas” pins. If there is a single Liberal left who believes in the environment, what on earth are they doing in this party?”
“Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question from the Bloc Québécois during question period, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons pointed out the Prime Minister 's absence. I would like you to either remind him of the rules or withhold his dessert when you send him to the Centre Block dungeons.”
“Mr. Speaker, no one is going to refuse the support, but it is poorly targeted. To quote the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, “For businesses whose survival is currently in jeopardy, this is not enough.” When support measures leave the most vulnerable businesses behind, I would not call that a success. That is a failure. As Desjardins has shown, the businesses most at risk are disproportionately those in Quebec. Quebeckers are the ones at risk. When will a wage subsidy be introduced to protect them?”
“Mr. Speaker, a month ago today, Donald Trump made utterly indefensible changes to his tariffs. Desjardins has shown that Quebeckers are the ones paying the price. Quebec is being hit twice as hard as the rest of the country. A quarter of our manufactured goods are now affected. The employers of 170,000 Quebeckers have been targeted since April 6. That is why Quebeckers need a wage subsidy, to protect jobs and offer businesses some relief. We have been asking for this for a month now. When is the government going to take action?”
“What matters to them is bulldozing over decisions and, most of all, throwing out not only the opinions of the opposition parties, but also the opinions of the many witnesses who came to the committee, in what were likely highly difficult, emotionally charged circumstances, to make reasonable, justified requests, which we transposed into reasonable, justified amendments. The Liberals say that they could not care less and that they know better than we do. Unfortunately, this gives us a strong sense of what to expect in the next three and a half years.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a bit rich to hear the government say that the time has come to move quickly, considering that the issue has been dragging on for 11 years and that the government tried to sweep the misconduct scandal under the carpet. The government has just told us that since our work in committee is not to its liking, it is going to impose closure. I repeat, the Liberals are imposing closure to overturn the committee's decisions, one of which was supported by all the committee members, including the government members. It has finally become clear that substance does not matter to the Liberals.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the Bloc Québécois's proposal was in line with what Justice Arbour had recommended, while also taking into account the requests of several victims who appeared before the committee. However, the work done by Justice Arbour, who also appeared before the committee at the time regarding Bill C-66 , dates back five years. The context may have changed since then. It would have been nice to hear from her again in committee, but she would not necessarily have had the opportunity to interview new members of the forces. In any case, as I mentioned, the Bloc Québécois's proposal was in line with Justice Arbour's recommendations, but it allowed for a choice in cases where it applied at the request of victims. It was a thoughtful, non-partisan and balanced proposal.”
“We will see how all this leads us to vote on this bill, which is otherwise crucial and could have been handled in a very different way.”
“In the past, that was decided by consensus. The Liberals betrayed the legacy of the House in that regard. It is hardly surprising to us anymore when they pull such a stunt, because we have seen them doing these kinds of things for almost a week now. However, I think it is unspeakably sad for the people the bill is primarily aimed at: the victims who took the time to come and testify before the committee, even though it must have been emotionally draining. These victims are being told by the government that muzzling the House was not enough; they are going to muzzle the victims as well. If I were a victim today, I would be outraged by the government's behaviour, and I hope it realizes that. I still dare to hope that it will reconsider its decision regarding the amendments.”
“We did not just pull this recommendation out of thin air. The recommendation to create an office of the inspector general came from former Colonel Michel Drapeau, who spoke about this at length in committee. All of this work was done rigorously and conscientiously. We also listened to from the people for whom this bill was intended, who waited so long for this bill. I am completely dumbfounded by the government's approach today. The government offered us an olive branch following the three by-elections on April 13 and said that it would take the viewpoints of the opposition parties into consideration, that it would work collaboratively. However, it quickly changed its mind when, for example, it decided to unilaterally change the composition of committees, when that is something on which there should be consensus in Parliament.”
“The chair of the committee ruled that it was out of scope, that it went too far, that it was beyond the scope of the bill. The entire committee, including the Liberals who had voted in favour of this Bloc Québécois recommendation, agreed to overturn the chair's ruling. We now see that today in the House, the Liberals, who now have a majority, are going to try to overturn the committee's decision to overturn the chair's ruling and go back to the original version of the bill. The same thing happened with another proposal put forward by the Bloc Québécois, which sought to ensure that military judges would automatically cease to be members of the Canadian Armed Forces at the time of their appointment in order to ensure their independence. That recommendation was also made by the Barreau du Québec. It came out of the Fish report.”
“Today, the government is taking advantage of its majority to set aside the work that was done in committee and to set aside the committee members' vote to adopt the amendment that the Bloc Québécois had proposed as a compromise. I am interested in hearing how the member for Nunavut, who is now on the government side, will vote on this matter. Even though the NDP does not have a seat on this committee, she took the time to attend the meeting, make a recommendation and request permission to be heard and have her recommendation be debated. The goal of her recommendation was for people to have freedom of choice. Now that she is on the government side, I am looking forward to seeing how she will vote. The same thing was done with some Bloc Québécois's proposals, including one to establish an office of the inspector general for misconduct.”
“We had nevertheless established guidelines to avoid situations where, for example, multiple victims might have made different choices if the decision had simply been left entirely up to them. The goal was to prevent one victim from opting for a court martial while another chose a civilian court. We would still respect their wishes. I had replaced my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton on the committee that day, and I recall that even the NDP was involved, through the member for Nunavut , who had also proposed an amendment so that victims could exercise their freedom of choice in the context of a decision regarding the court that would hear their case.”
“(1555) I will now read the clause of the bill as amended by the Bloc Québécois: Choice of victim (2) Despite any other provision of this Act and any other law, the victim of an offence referred to in any of paragraphs (1)(d) to (h), or an individual acting on their behalf, may choose whether the person charged with the offence is to be tried by a court martial or a civil court. We had raised the possibility of this option. We suggested, through a legislative amendment, that the civilian court take into account the nature of the offence, the circumstances under which it was committed, and other factors in deciding whether, at the victim's request, the case should instead be heard by a court martial.”
“Some of them told us that it was important for certain cases to be handled by the military system for reasons related to deadlines or evidence or to avoid revictimizing someone by forcing them to restart a process that was already well under way. In some cases, the reasons concerned complexity or trust in the system. These are all good reasons. Victims said that they would still rather choose for themselves. In collaboration with other parties, the Bloc Québécois submitted a recommendation aimed at striking the proper balance.”
“The Liberals wasted all that time, and now they suddenly want to get it done, so they are throwing a gag order in our face. This gag order has specific and shocking consequences. In many respects, the work has been done in committee. In particular, witnesses commented on the importance of the government's decision to transfer sexual misconduct cases from courts martial to civilian courts in accordance with Justice Arbour's recommendation and the amendments set out in Bill C‑11. The witnesses told us that the vast majority of victims would have preferred it if they could still choose which court would handle their case.”
“I decided I was going to start reading the bill in detail, knowing that it would end up at the Standing Committee on National Defence once the government put it on the agenda for debate in the House, which it did not do until September. The bill was introduced in March, and the government did not bring it up for debate until September 2024. Each of the major parties at the time—the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP—was given a single opportunity to speak. After that, the government never brought the bill back into the House before the prime minister resigned. The House sat from September through December, but the bill was never brought up again. Members will recall that the prime minister resigned, Parliament was prorogued and an election was called. Now we have the new version, Bill C-11 .”
“Justice Arbour replied that this had already been done, but, in good faith, she nevertheless decided to do it again, in order to update Justice Deschamps' work and also to include Justice Fish's work. The aim was to present recommendations aimed at reforming the CAF's legal environment. At that time, I was a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence. We hoped that all this would lead to a bill aimed at reforming the CAF's legal system. It took some time, but it eventually arrived. In March 2024, the government finally introduced Bill C-66 , which aimed to overhaul the judicial system. We thought this bill would be brought before the House because it was so important. We had been talking about it for so long. Everyone was waiting and waiting.”
“Back in February 2021, we learned from media reports that, as early as 2018, the government had been receiving information alleging sexual offences committed by the new chief of the defence staff, but the government kept a lid on that at the time. The chief of the defence staff retired in 2021, shortly before the scandal exploded. Then, in April of that same year, 2021, Justice Fish submitted a report containing recommendations specifically aimed at cleaning up the armed forces. Following that, after the Liberals had engaged in a very, very long filibuster in committee in an attempt to keep the Vance file under wraps, we got a new defence minister, who seemed keen to take the bull by the horns. She asked Justice Arbour to revisit the work that had been done.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by going over the timeline of the bill we are debating today and by looking at the fact that the government is shutting down debate and completely undermining the hard work completed in committee by opposition and government members alike. If we look back at the relatively recent past, we can see that the whole issue of changes to the military justice system stems in particular from the report by Justice Deschamps, which was published on March 27, 2015, about 11 years ago. It was a scathing report dealing with misconduct in the armed forces. It was around the same time that Jonathan Vance was appointed chief of the defence staff by the Conservative government of the day. Not long after that, a huge scandal broke out involving Jonathan Vance. Members may recall that.”
“Mr. Speaker, we will work together on the first step. However, to quote the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, “For businesses whose survival is currently in jeopardy, this is not enough. They need to have the cash flow necessary to maintain their day-to-day operations, not take on more debt or make investments that will only benefit them in the medium to long term.” We repeat: Immediate assistance and a wage subsidy are needed to prevent layoffs. When will the government finally do something?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have obviously understood that overlooking our businesses and the tariff crisis as they did in their economic update was outrageous. Unfortunately, today's announcement seems improvised. It will not help the SMEs hardest hit by the revised U.S. tariff schedule. All businesses are saying the same thing: They do not want more loans; they are already in debt. In the very, very near future, in addition to assistance with modernization, they will need cash most of all to survive. This is a first step, but will the government confirm that it is not going to stop there and that it will immediately get back to the drawing board?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of buzz in Ottawa about building a new pipeline in western Canada, but no one in the private sector is interested because demand for oil is going to peak in 2029. It is not profitable. What is profitable is investing in the transition, funding clean technologies, and funding climate change adaptation, yet the Prime Minister of Canada tells us that, in the name of Canadian nationalism, we should add $10 billion in public funds to build a new pipeline, even though it is not profitable. If the private sector does not think it is profitable, then why would the government invest Quebeckers' money in it?”