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 5 of 8.
“Mr. Speaker, according to the government, 85,000 pensioners are experiencing problems with their OAS because of the Cúram software, the same software that has incurred almost $5 billion in cost overruns. It has produced 85,000 victims and cost $5 billion more in public funds than anticipated, yet the Liberals are acting like there is nothing wrong. They are treating 85,000 people as though they are rare and isolated cases, and they think it is normal to blow the budget like that without explanation. When will there be an independent public inquiry into Cúram?”
“To say that the time we spend debating something in the House is filibustering is a bit of an insult to the work of parliamentarians.”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, it is true that both the government side and the official opposition side sometimes tend to equate the time spent studying a bill with wasted time. In some cases, they seem to see them as one and the same. If we spend a lot of time studying a bill, that is seen as filibustering. However, the reason we spend a lot of time studying matters like Bill C-15 , which is about 630 pages long, is clearly that it involves a lot of work—all the more reason to refer it to several committees. Should that be considered filibustering? I do not think so. Similarly, when the Conservatives debate a Bloc Québécois amendment on hate speech over several sittings, maybe we could call them out for filibustering, although it is not something I think we should do systematically.”
“It would have been beneficial to hear from more people in the field explaining the vital role that rehabilitation and prevention have in crime reduction.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question raises many issues, but I would like to circle back to what I said earlier. The objectives of this bill, as my colleague from La Prairie—Atateken clearly described, were to improve public confidence in the justice system and to strike a balance between various existing rights, including the public's right to feel safe and the accused's right, despite everything, to have a fair hearing and be presumed innocent. This delicate balance is often very difficult to achieve, so we would have been justified in taking the time to thoroughly analyze the bill with help from experts in the field. Furthermore, as I mentioned in my speech, it is wishful thinking to believe that the law can do everything. We cannot solve all the world's problems with legislation alone.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree in principle. As I was saying, we are voting in favour of the bill. However, if we are going to have confidence in the administration of justice, then we also need to have confidence in the bill and we would have benefited from more time to review it properly. It may be a bit pretentious of the government to say that the bills it introduces are perfect from the get-go. This may be a denial of the role of parliamentarians, which is to ensure that bills reflect the views of the population as a whole. The parties we represent have opposing views in some cases and similar views in others. I think we missed a great opportunity to boost public confidence if we had been able to do a more thorough job from the outset.”
“The retention period is also two years if no charges are laid at the end of the investigation, so we have the same retention period for very different situations. If we had had more time, we could have discussed whether to review these retention periods so that a retention period might be 90 days in one case, one year in another and two years in a third case. Because of time constraints, we were unable to have this discussion on issues that may seem trivial but that actually do fill in some legal gaps. Once again, I find it so unfortunate that parliamentarians were forced to work against extremely tight deadlines for purely partisan reasons, given that both sides of the House wanted to pass Bill C-14 quickly. (1040) Unfortunately, some corners may have been cut a bit.”
“There were already provisions stipulating that, in the event of an absolute discharge, for example, a young person's record had to be kept for one year. The record is no longer retained after one year. After an acquittal or the dismissal of a charge, the record is kept for two months. However, there was no time frame for retaining records in cases where no charges were laid. The retention time for records was established by case law, and there seemed to be some ambiguity in that regard. Bill C-14 corrected this by stipulating that the retention period would be two years, but this still creates problems. The record is kept for two years if no charges are laid, but the legislation also already provides for a retention period of two years if an extrajudicial measure is imposed on the young person.”
“We believe it is important to have an obligation to review the bill again and within a relatively short period of time. The five-year review of the bill is a very welcome idea. However, I want to come back to what I was saying earlier, which is that a little more time would probably have been useful. Some people may have held back from tabling amendments that might have seemed minor in order to focus on the major amendments, knowing that the deadline was quite short and that we might not have been able to study them for lack of time. I will give an example that may rather trivial but that could have been discussed had there been more time. It again has to do with the YCJA. One of the legislative gaps in the YCJA had to do with the retention period for youth records.”
“By including firearms in the definition of violent offences, we are opening the door for judges to have greater discretion in ordering the detention of youth. This is a provision that will have a real and tangible impact on the ground and will be useful. We are very pleased that the Bloc Québécois amendment was adopted. Another amendment that was adopted called for the bill to be reviewed in five years. This was done so a committee could review the implementation of the bill and any issues that may have arisen. The committee could then make recommendations on new provisions or amendments in light of the rights set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that are being amended by the bill, particularly, as I was saying, the presumption of innocence, since there is a reverse onus in certain cases for certain crimes.”
“They are getting younger and younger and this is happening earlier and earlier in the continuum of violence whether the crimes are committed with firearms or the individual is in possession of firearms. One of the Bloc Québécois's proposed amendments was accepted. It sought to broaden the definition of violent offence in the YCJA to include when an act is committed with a firearm. This has a major advantage in court. The problem we had before this inclusion was that a judge could not, in a case involving an offence committed with a firearm, order the detention of a young person unless the Crown prosecutor pleaded an exceptional provision. It was therefore necessary to plead an exception in order to have a youth detained for committing a crime with a firearm.”
“Before committing a crime, no one considers the fact that the sentence is now 15 years in prison when it used to be 10, and then decides not to commit the crime because 10 years would have been fine but 15 years is too long. We might have a tendency at times to think that everything can be solved through legislation. (1035) That being said, Bill C-14 is not all bad. We are voting in favour of it. We managed to improve it through amendments. One of those amendments addresses something that is at the heart of our new daily reality, namely the issue of firearms. Unfortunately, in recent years there has been a rise in gun crimes, particularly among young people.”
“In some cases, this could perhaps have been done unanimously in committee. Some recommendations would probably have been very interesting to hear, but we did not have that opportunity because everything was done so quickly. Nevertheless, I would like to make another point. When it comes to criminal law, we sometimes tend to fall back on wishful thinking, imagining that everything can be done through legislation and that this will solve problems that should really be solved through prevention or rehabilitation measures, which generally require more funding, more money. We are content to pass cosmetic legislation, which only gives the public a false sense of security. I will give a very basic example. Increasing a sentence from 10 years to 15 years for a given crime will not necessarily reduce the incidence of that crime.”
“They wanted to be able to say that Bill C-14 has been passed, and too bad if we did it quickly, too bad if we cut corners, too bad if we have to redo the work later because we overlooked certain aspects, and even too bad if the Supreme Court eventually has to review certain provisions because we did not have time to analyze them properly and, more importantly, to properly discuss them with the people on the ground who will be applying them on a daily basis. There are several aspects of the bill that affect what lawyers, Crown prosecutors and criminal defence attorneys do every day. I find it very unfortunate that more time was not taken to hear from them to find out whether they had any additional recommendations that could have been implemented to improve the bill.”
“After that, we conducted a clause-by-clause study that took just one sitting. From 5 p.m. until about midnight we got through the whole thing in one go, because that was all the time we had. The decision had been made that it would be a short study. I would argue that this is a shameful way of doing things, because it kind of invalidates the whole purpose of the role of MPs, which is to do a good job as legislators, in favour of something that is much more political and partisan. Both sides were determined to come out ahead.”
“I would say that this is where the problem lies. Corners were cut for political purposes, and I find that more than unfortunate. This bill is important, not to mention substantial. At 40 pages long, it contains 84 clauses pertaining to both the Criminal Code and the YCJA, the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Some of the amendments, those that cleared up legal uncertainties and filled in gaps, were entirely welcome. Others, however, touched on crucial aspects of criminal law, including the presumption of innocence. Following an agreement between the Liberals and the Conservatives, we ended up finding a way to set aside the debate of Bill C-9 on hate speech in order to discuss Bill C-14 at lightning speed. We ended up studying this hefty bill in committee, where we heard from witnesses during just two two-hour sessions.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by referring back to the response I received from the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas when I asked him how we came to be debating Bill C-14 at the report stage today. As mentioned, there has been a lot of talk about Bill C-9 in committee but, unfortunately, nothing has come of it because the Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment that sought to remove the religious exception as an excuse for promoting hatred. This frustrated the Conservatives, to use my colleague's wording, and as a result, we wasted a lot of time on this bill. As also mentioned, Bill C-14 was a bill that the public wanted, that the Conservatives wanted, and that the Liberals wanted. Bill C-14 had to be passed quickly, which is why the two parties reached an agreement to speed up the process of getting it passed.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague on how we got to the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill. As a result of a mutual agreement between the Liberals and the Conservatives, only two sittings were held where we could hear from witnesses, followed by one sitting for a clause-by-clause study. Due to the Conservatives' filibuster, in part, of Bill C-9 , it was a way forward to get to Bill C-14 . Does the Conservative member think that having only two sittings to hear from witnesses is enough for such a substantial bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, by the government's own estimates, 85,000 pensioners are affected by problems with the Cúram software, and yet the ministers keep telling us just to give them the names if we know of people who are having problems. According to the government's own data, there are 85,000 people having problems. As if that were not enough, the cost of the software jumped from $1.75 billion to $6.6 billion, but the government keeps saying that, no, this is not a cost overrun, it simply includes contingency planning and inflation. Do the Liberals really think inflation is to blame? This warrants a public inquiry. When will the Liberals call a public inquiry?”
“Mr. Speaker, by the government's own estimates, the Cúram software is causing 85,000 retirees problems with their old age pensions. The government has been aware of the problem since June, but it is still refusing to do anything about it. At the same time, the cost of Cúram has skyrocketed from the initial budget of $1.75 billion to $6.6 billion as of last June. These 85,000 seniors are victims of a software that cost almost $5 billion more than it was supposed to, but according to the Liberals, there is nothing to see here and we should move on. Our patience is wearing thin. Will the Prime Minister order a public inquiry into Cúram?”
“Mr. Speaker, there was a time when the Liberals told Quebeckers to stay in Canada or lose their pension. Now, they are telling Quebeckers to stay in Canada even if they are no longer receiving their pension. What is more, they will pay a fortune for this fiasco, because the Cúram software has already incurred nearly $5 billion in cost overruns. Denying pensioners their OAS is expensive. How come every time the federal government gets involved we end up with skyrocketing costs and no service?”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister revealed that 85,000 pensioners have been having issues with their OAS benefits because of the Cúram software, in some cases for nine months. The government was warned by its own public servants as early as this summer. However, the government today seems content to say that, if people have indeed been affected, we should give them their names. When there are 85,000 names, these are no longer isolated cases. This is turning into another fiasco, like Phoenix or the passport crisis. Why did the Liberals wait until 85,000 people were affected before taking action?”
“Mr. Speaker, that simply supports the theory that the government wants to move much too quickly, likely for the sake of interests that are completely at odds with those of the people, but that is not all. Aside from dealing with environmental studies, the Impact Assessment Act seeks to better understand the health, social and economic impacts of a project. However, the government is prepared to scrap all that with this bill. That is already set out in Bill C‑15 . It completely sets that aside when convenient. If the government wants to move quickly, it is to serve other interests than those of the people. That is what keeps us up at night. It is not the project itself that is the issue, but the way in which it is likely to be carried out.”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, there are several examples we could give. It seems we have devoted a few Bloc Québécois opposition days to calling for an apology, including for the October crisis. We were not exactly told that it was inexcusable. Apologizing for the Acadians also seems challenging. In this case, I find it completely mind-boggling. We are told that what happened 50 years ago is inexcusable, but no one is willing to offer an apology.”
“People are asking questions and will not have all the answers. They will certainly not have enough time to properly assert their rights.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a problem with the speed at which it is being done. It was only recently announced that the consultations would be taking place from January 15 to the end of March. We are told that there will eventually be a second, more definitive route and that the next consultations, in the fall, will be on that second route. Things are moving extremely quickly for something that affects a very sensitive and specific segment of the Quebec population, but that resonates everywhere. Once again, this has been dragging on for more than 10 years. It makes us wonder whether the only reason things are moving so quickly is to allow Alto's senior management to check the right boxes at the end of the year and receive the bonuses that go with it. That shows contempt for the entire population.”
“It is about recognizing the trauma experienced by the people of Mirabel 50 years ago, apologizing to them, and ensuring that it never happens again.”
“I will not have time to go into the next point in detail, but I know my colleagues have already done so. A whole lot of provisions governing major projects and expropriations are completely set aside in Bill C‑15. That will allow this project to move forward much too quickly. The project itself is not fundamentally bad, but it is not always possible to do something quickly and do it well. This is a striking example of that. The government is giving itself a lot of leeway, and that is why we have concerns about the upcoming bill. We fear it will be rushed through without any real consultation and that, in the end, the government will do exactly the opposite of what is in our motion, which is quite simple.”
“When farmers are on their land, working or preparing their fields, they do not have time to submit briefs on such short notice. The same goes for municipalities, most of which have newly elected councils. They are just beginning their debates and the implementation of their budget. The consultation period is very, very short. The format of consultation is also problematic. They want to host happy hours and to present the major components of the project online. Is that really consultation? After that, the next step would be in the fall. There will be about nine months between the first part and the second part of the consultations, for a project that has been discussed for more than 10 years. We are in a situation where the saying “let us slow down to speed up” really applies.”
“People are panicking, particularly in Mirabel, a place whose wounds from the expropriation that people experienced 50 years ago have yet to heal. Knowing that they may not be able to resell their homes, even if the rail line does not end up passing through their property, and that they will not be able to renovate, repair or do any work until they find out whether there will actually be an expropriation, creates anxiety and panic that serve absolutely no purpose. That is what happens when the government moves too quickly, ignoring the scars of the past I talked about and showing a kind of disdain, or perhaps a lack of knowledge of history. The minister insists that there will be consultations. The initial round of consultation is to take place between January 15 and March 29. We have just learned that there will be consultations.”
“In another response to my colleague, the Minister of Transport said this: Mr. Speaker, in fact, consultations were held and there will be more. We are consulting all the mayors and community stakeholders in the Lower Laurentians, across the entire region, as well as in Quebec and Ontario. Guess what? Canadians are excited about this new technology, this progress. Come on. My colleague is comparing an international airport to a small corridor that is 60 metres wide. Give me a break. What he forgot to mention is that those 60 metres will be located in a 10-kilometre-wide corridor where a right of first refusal may apply. Alto is reserving this corridor for the high-speed train, and it informed people of this through email.”
“The financial offer made to them will be non-negotiable. For example, a farmer who has a right of first refusal imposed on his land would not even be able to farm it. Who would want to buy such land? That alone will have a huge impact on the price. There is also the fact that sections 9 and 10 of the Expropriation Act require the appropriate minister to hold public hearings on a planned expropriation, but Bill C-15 explicitly repeals that obligation. That means what the government is saying is that there will be no public hearings like there are under Quebec law. The Minister of Transport said earlier that if we agreed with what happened in Quebec City, we should agree with what is happening here. I am tempted to say that he was misleading the House, and not just the House.”
“His answer tells us a lot. I will not say that he is trying to mislead the House because that would be giving his comments more weight than they deserve. The law he is referring to allows people in Quebec who receive an expropriation notice to challenge that decision, either the right to expropriate or the amount that will be allocated, before Quebec's administrative tribunal or the Quebec Superior Court. (1600) Meanwhile, the government used Bill C-15 to amend the Expropriation Act so that the transport minister can set a price without a hearing, so there is no comparison between the two acts. Alto, the company responsible for the project, is giving itself a right of first refusal, which will limit what owners are able to do with their property. This will limit the choice of buyers.”
“I wonder about their real intentions and I wonder how they will vote on our opposition day motion. The Minister of Transportation , who is also the Leader of the Government government in the House of Commons, somewhat set the stage this week regarding the government's approach to this issue. I would like to quote some of the answers he gave to my colleague from Mirabel during oral question period. He said this: Mr. Speaker, why did the member not stand up to oppose Quebec's Act Respecting Expropriation, which made it possible to build and complete the Réseau express métropolitain? The bill is based on the exact wording of that Quebec act and Ontario's legislation, which also allows for the development of public transit projects. This is not new, and we are obviously going to negotiate directly with the property owners.”
“The second point of our motion reads as follows: [That the House call on the government] to acknowledge the collective trauma these expropriations caused for thousands of Quebeckers who were forced to abandon their homes, their communities and their livelihoods... My colleague from Mirabel , among others, gave some striking examples of this this morning. Even on the government benches, they were talking about this trauma. It seems easy enough to acknowledge. Finally, the motion says: [That the House] urge the government not to undertake such expropriations again without public consultation, social licence and appropriate compensation. The Liberals are telling us that this is what they want to do. Why is it a problem, then, for them to support the motion?”
“I find it interesting that when asked about the content of our motion, no one seems willing to commit. However, our motion is quite simple, and I would be curious to know which part of the motion makes them hesitate to say right away that they are willing to vote in favour of what we are proposing today. Our motion reads as follows: That the House call on the government to apologize to those whose land was expropriated in Mirabel. It is also a unanimous request from the Quebec National Assembly. We are constantly being told that it was a disaster and that it must never happen again. In that case, what would it mean to offer an apology?”
“The government is telling us that it is going to hold consultations. However, in a project already riddled with cost overruns, the government is not even listening to its own officials when they say that there are flaws, that the software they have implemented is poorly designed. We therefore have to wonder whether the government will really listen to the public. The government keeps telling us that it will follow best practices, that it will ensure that the studies, consultations and discussions with the public are conducted properly. However, at the same time, the government has given itself the right to completely rewrite these best practices. It is on the ice and rewriting the rules of the game in the middle of play. I listened to most of the speeches by the Liberals today.”
“All of this is taking place in a rather interesting historical context, because, not so long ago, the Prime Minister gave a rather intriguing speech at the Quebec Citadel in which his rewriting of the facts showed, at best, a lack of knowledge about Quebec's history and, at worst, contempt for it. We therefore have to wonder whether the government cares at all about Quebec's reality or whether it is just focused on moving forward as quickly as possible with the high-speed rail project. At the risk of repeating what my colleagues have already said, we support that project. What we have a problem with is the approach that is being taken. From what we have seen, there is cause for concern when the government gets involved in a project. We are seeing that right now with the Cúram software.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that it is a pleasure to rise today to speak during our opposition day debate, except that I am doing so because the people of Mirabel, and potentially other places in Canada, are experiencing a situation that is distressing, to say the least. Our motion today stems from the idea expressed in a simple quote: those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That is exactly what we want to do with our opposition day. We want to ensure that, at a minimum, history is properly understood, and by offering an apology, we can provide assurances that it has been understood so that we can avoid repeating the same acts that were catastrophic in Mirabel, among other places, some 50 years ago.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have been sounding the alarm for months. In a document provided to La Presse, the union said that Cúram is causing problems similar to the ones people experienced during the Phoenix fiasco, but on a broader scale. That is not all. According to the union report, a procedure clearly indicates that agents must not tell clients that payment delays or errors are related to Cúram. Did the government order public servants to lie rather than resolve the problem?”
“Mr. Speaker, some pensioners have not received their OAS payments for nine months because of the Cúram software, and the government is ignoring them. However, today we learned that the pensioners are not the only ones being ignored. The government is also ignoring the opinions of its own officials. In an internal survey, more than half of them gave that software a score of one out of 10. Some 89% felt that Cúram had hindered, rather than improved, services to the public. When will the Liberals pull their heads out of the sand and fix the problem?”
“Mr. Speaker, the infamous Cúram software, which is depriving retirees of their OAS benefits, is costing a lot more than its market value. The cost overrun has reached almost $5 billion. To give members some idea, that is roughly 10 times the cost of the SAAQclic scandal, for poorly performing software. At that price, when problems prevent seniors from receiving their pension benefits and enjoying their retirement, I would expect the government to step in and do something.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are pensioners who applied for their old age security benefits nine months ago and have yet to receive a penny. That is because the government refuses to deal with the glitches in its new Cúram software. It has been aware of the problems since June, and yet as recently as Thursday, the government House leader told us that mistakes would be fixed “if there are any”. There are indeed mistakes. Officials are telling us there are; pensioners are telling us there are. How many alarm bells will it take before the government does something?”
“Mr. Speaker, we can confirm that, in addition to the cost, there are indeed mistakes. Once again, Ottawa is driving people crazy. On the one hand, there are people aged 65 and over who deferred their pensions and have been deprived of cheques for nine months once they finally asked for them. On the other hand, there are people who are receiving too many cheques, returning them and still being sent T4As. Meanwhile, the government is doing nothing, even though its own public servants warned it that the software was full of bugs and has been since June. When will the government take action?”
“Mr. Speaker, for days now, we have been warning the government that problems with the new Cúram software are preventing retirees from receiving their old age security benefits. At first, the Liberals told us that we were fearmongering. However, yesterday, they admitted that the problem does exist, but that it is affecting only 30 people or so. Well, according to journalist Marie-Ève Fournier, there is chaos in Ottawa. She says that over the course of her career, she has rarely been swamped with so many stories from distraught people. When will the government pull its head out of the sand?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a little historical reminder: There is a reason why these questions are being asked in a Parliament in Ottawa. It is because English speakers chose to burn down the Parliament in Montreal rather than compensate French Canadians who had their farms burned down during the revolts of 1837 and 1838. That is quite the partnership. The Liberal Quebec Lieutenant defended the Prime Minister saying that it was just a different take on history. History is about facts, not opinions. Instead of defending the Prime Minister's alternative facts, could he not teach him our history?”
“Mr. Speaker, judging by what the Prime Minister said, the purpose of the ban on French language instruction in the Maritimes, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario was not to erase us but to bring us together. When Quebeckers were removed from power and business, it was for their own good. When the founder of Canada said that Louis Riel should be hanged even if every dog in Quebec barked in his favour, we just misinterpreted his love for puppies. When will the Prime Minister actually learn our history?”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers and French Canadians learned a lot last Thursday. According to the Prime Minister , the battle of the Plains of Abraham was not an English conquest, but the beginning of a great partnership. In his mind, the ancestors of Quebeckers and English Canadians rose from the battlefield that morning and decided that they had to stop fighting, celebrate their differences and build Canada. If the Prime Minister wants to write new Heritage Minutes , could he at least bone up on his history instead of rewriting it?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals do not have a prime minister, they have a CEO. He does not listen to social priorities like health care or seniors. He does not listen to the ministers who are resigning just to be heard. He does not listen to voters, given his Conservative budget. He does not listen to Quebeckers who voted for him because they were afraid of Donald Trump, given that all he has to say about his relationship with Washington is “Who cares?” He is a CEO. However, if a real CEO racked up such a huge deficit, they would be fired. Will the Liberals remind him that we are in a democratic Parliament?”
“Mr. Speaker, this year we will be presenting a shareholders' report instead of our usual session review, because Canada has essentially become a business. Under this Prime Minister , the Liberals are not even pretending anymore. The fight against climate change is over. The environment is a roadblock to trade. Bill C-5 , Bill C-15 and Bill S-4 throw compliance with the law out the window because it slows down business. Quebec's distinctiveness does not matter anymore. The Prime Minister joined the challenge to Bill 21 as fast as he dropped his French lessons. Are the Liberals aware that Quebeckers did not vote for their Canada Inc.?”