Jean-Denis Garon
Mirabel, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“The government is likely going to keep Parliament in session until very late this Friday. That is okay because it is our job to be here. However, this is happening because the government is not communicating with the opposition parties properly.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is one of those rare instances where Quebec will get its share of the cash, and it is a sign of recognition that the federal government is not good at this, not good at building things. The federal government is not on the ground; it is a government that is far removed from immediate matters.”
“Allowing air passenger complaints to be outsourced to private sector companies chosen by the Minister of Transportation , who is himself buddies with the airlines, which may even choose the companies that will handle complaints about them, was not part of the Liberals' platform.”
“At this point, we are taking the minister's word for it that he has reached an agreement with Quebec and that, based on this agreement, Quebec will receive its share of the funds, no strings attached. However, we had no way of knowing this from reading the bill.”
“The bill also states that amounts are to be paid out “at the times and in the manner that the Minister...considers appropriate.” Now we find ourselves in a situation where we have a vague bill, and we are realizing, after months, that the intent is there, that negotiations are happening, but also that our questions were legitimate.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge all the brave men and women who are here tonight and who will be staying up late. I was joking around earlier with my colleague and neighbour, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles . All kidding aside, I think that she knows that I really like her.”
The complete record
Every one of 824 lines we hold for Jean-Denis Garon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 17.
“Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the parliamentary secretary. With all due respect, I think that implying that no real dialogue happens in the House of Commons is, once again, a bit of a slap in the face to democracy and ultimately sends the message that the House of Commons is just for show and there is no point in going to committee. I believe in democracy. Sometimes people need to meet one another halfway. Sometimes people need to raise their voice, when necessary. I am pleased to see that the parliamentary secretary recognizes that we are not taking a partisan approach. Now I will be a little more partisan, or at least it will seem that way, and remind him that we proposed this measure back in 2022 when inflation was at 7% or 8.5%. We suggested increasing the frequency of payments and doubling the amount at that time.”
“Again, there are some transparency issues with this government. We raise these transparency problems in Parliament. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is listening. He knows that we have concerns about this. I have no doubt that in the coming weeks, the government will make an extra effort to ensure that, as important measures such as this one are introduced, parliamentarians get a chance to monitor the state of public finances adequately and in a timely manner, especially when the government introduces measures like this one that will be financed directly through debt.”
“No budget allocation would be necessary since the change is a change of frequency. It would have no impact on the consolidated revenue fund. Instead, the government continues to send cheques every three months to people who do their grocery shopping every week. Why is the government using people's 2024 income to calculate their benefit amount? It is to make sure that the government knows exactly how many people qualify and so that no new people qualify for the one-time check in the very short term. Food inflation is at an all-time high, but the government is using people's income from before President Trump was elected to determine whether they qualify for support today. We need to look into those issues. As I said, we are in favour of the bill. We think that, generally speaking, it will do more good than harm.”
“Why is there still so little being done about competition? To date, the best the minister has been able to do is create a voluntary code of conduct for grocery stores. That is like keeping a predator unmuzzled but asking it not to bite when it sees prey. There is no way that would ever work. People in Quebec, including farmers, are opposed to how that code of conduct works. Why repeatedly prevent parliamentarians from having accurate information on public finances? This is not a criticism of the measure itself. All it shows is that the government, and the Minister of Finance in particular, is improvising. The minister is particularly good at that. They are improvising at the expense of the most vulnerable, because this measure could have been included directly in the fall budget. Why not send out monthly cheques?”
“Generally, for reasons of budgetary transparency, especially for a measure as important and as permanent as this one, the expenses associated with the program are costed over five years. We are told how these measures will be financed so that we, as parliamentarians, are able to monitor the state of the public finances. That is particularly true at the Standing Committee on Finance. Once again, we still have this issue of transparency, so why did the minister not include this in his spring economic update? That would not have prevented the government from sending cheques to people at the end of June, because that is what the bill says. The budget appropriations are coming, and Parliament will rise at the end of June. This could have been presented in the economic update. This raises questions.”
“These one-time cheques and this increase will cost about as much as it would cost to put an end to the discrimination between the two classes of seniors. However, only a few weeks ago, the government said that enhancing old age security was too expensive. I understand that it is a matter of making political choices. Sooner or later, the government will have to take responsibility for the fact that it made a political choice to not support seniors and that it was not a budget issue, given the facts as we know them today. Second, why introduce this bill a few days before the Conservative Party convention, when everyone knew that the official opposition was going to devote its time this session to the cost of living? That does not detract from the merits of the bill, but it does make us wonder why this was not included in the fall budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, for your sake, I will only take five minutes and 25 seconds. As I said earlier, we support the bill because times are hard and food inflation is real. Prices have gone up faster than inflation. Even when price increases do slow down, prices will remain high. It is often children who are affected, and this credit has been designed to support families in particular. As I said, I have a few things I want to note. First, there is the problem of consistency. How does the government have more than $4 billion to spend on cheques within the next 12 months? As I said, I am not presuming anything, but the Liberals have made a habit of sending out one-time cheques just before an election.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say they will discuss matters directly with citizens, but in their Bill C-15 , they put a gun to their heads. People back home are not excited to know that they may be sent an expropriation notice via email. They are not excited to know that they will not be able to dispute these notices for 30 days. The Liberals want to get rid of the requirement to hold public hearings and conduct impact studies. They want to maintain control over the land in question for two years. Worse yet, they want to unilaterally set the purchase price of the land. It is all in Bill C-15. This is a throwback to the 1960s for Mirabel. Will the government back down on these measures?”
“Mr. Speaker, the residents of Mirabel are once again being threatened with expropriation by the federal government. First it was the white elephant that is the airport and now it is the high-speed train. A new rail corridor was announced for the train at the last minute, and it is going right through my community. There were zero consultations with elected officials, farmers or the residents of Mirabel. Just like the train, these consultations are passing straight through Mirabel without stopping, even though the rail line will apparently need to go through the homes of people who are still traumatized by the expropriations of 1969. As a first step, will the government ensure that real consultations are held in Mirabel?”
“This means that for every dollar of net income earned in a year, Canadians have $1.76 in debt. That also masks the growing wealth inequality. Today, the richest 20% of Canadians hold 70% of the wealth. Why am I saying this? First, because I have 50 seconds left, that part is true, but also to say that this measure falls short. I will have the opportunity to finish my comments after question period.”
“That is not exactly realistic. I am using biblical references because I know the Conservatives will like that and that it is very educational. People are struggling to put food on the table. That is what the debt levels are telling us. These people will pay 22% interest while waiting for their cheques to come in. Furthermore, beyond the band-aid solution put forward today, the Prime Minister has also refused to regulate interchange fees that small businesses have to contend with, and which are passed on to customers. Extremely high interchange fees stem from limited competition in the banking sector and are therefore passed on to customers, who can now use this cheque to pay these fees. We get it. That is the logical conclusion of things. Canadians currently have a debt-to-income ratio of 176%.”
“First, we asked for an increase in the GST rebate when inflation, as measured by the consumer price index, exceeded the Bank of Canada's target range, or above 3%. We also asked for something important, and that is where there is a real missed opportunity in this bill. We asked for the cheque to be paid more frequently. Rather than being sent every three months, we wanted people to receive their cheque every month. That is important. In a context where people cannot pay for groceries, where they are forced to buy groceries on credit, to go into debt and to pay 22% interest to banks, which are friends with the Prime Minister , where people are having trouble buying groceries every week, how can we tell them that they will only get help every three months? Should they just go hungry for 89 days and kill the fatted calf on the 90th day?”
“The cheque being sent out just before June alone—I do not want to sound cynical, but we have seen the Liberals write cheques just before elections before, and we hope that is not the intention here—represents $3.1 billion in the current fiscal year. The government will then make this measure permanent by increasing the amount of the cheque known as the GST rebate by 25% each year. Although the government is renaming this cheque, the GST rebate cheque is a measure that was introduced when the GST was created, and it remains the same measure. It should be noted that the Bloc Québécois requested a similar measure in 2022, in the midst of an inflation crisis. At the time, the Bloc Québécois asked for two things.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will try to make the most of the five minutes I have before question period. The situation with Bill C‑19 is a bit like Groundhog Day. The Liberals have decided to send out cheques and this is not the first time they have done so. This time, we have to give the government credit. In the midst of a purchasing power and cost of living crisis where people know that, even if inflation is kept under control, prices have gone up and will not be coming back down, the cheques will help give some relief to those who need it most, particularly families with children. However, as I was saying earlier, this is an expensive measure.”
“Mr. Speaker, this measure will cost just over $4 billion in the first year alone. For several years now, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for a 10% increase in OAS benefits for seniors aged 65 to 74 to put an end to the discrimination that the Liberals instituted between two classes of seniors. Our request costs exactly, or almost exactly, the same amount as the benefit being announced today. The government has repeatedly told us that our request was too expensive and that our seniors cost the federal government too much money. How can the federal government tell us that Quebec seniors cost too much money, when it has now somehow managed to scrounge up $4 billion? Where is the logic in that?”
“Mr. Speaker, we probably have the highest food inflation in the G7. Between 1984 and today, the number of grocery chains in Canada dropped from 13 to five, including Walmart and Costco, so the Liberals have had plenty of time to increase competition in the retail grocery sector. What does my colleague think Ottawa should do to increase competition as quickly as possible, not only in the grocery sector, but in the economy in general?”
“Does my colleague agree that the federal government needs to do more since it is responsible for the Criminal Code, but the provinces have to pay for the administration of justice?”
“Mr. Speaker, ever since the Jordan decision, when the Supreme Court determined what constituted a reasonable time frame in which to try an accused, criminals who have committed serious crimes have been released into the community due to a lack of judicial resources. This is unacceptable. Under the bill, relaxed criteria would allow judges to reassess the reasonable time frame issue. Ultimately, we need to understand that the provinces lack the financial resources to build more courtrooms, hire more prosecutors, hire more clerks, hire more stenographers and have more resources. This bill is not a permanent solution to the problem, but it is a good temporary step.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is true that Ottawa writes the Criminal Code, but the provinces are the ones that administer justice. If we really want justice for victims, then we need a justice system that works. That takes courthouses, courtrooms, stenographers and bailiffs. It takes resources. Does my colleague agree that the federal government is not doing enough to fund the justice system and to help the provinces better fund the justice system? Until Ottawa provides more funding to help the provinces better administer their justice systems, victims will be the ones who suffer, regardless of what legislation we pass and how good it may be.”
“The Bloc Québécois will be voting against the bill. Of course, we will always be open-minded when it comes to considering bills that do not encroach on provincial jurisdictions.”
“Everyone knows the provinces need some breathing room. In short, I am not saying that this is not a good bill or that its goal is not worthy. I do not think its purpose is bad. I just think the priorities are wrong, this is the wrong time for it, it encroaches on provincial jurisdiction and there is nothing in it that Quebec is not already doing very well. I will conclude by saying that interprovincial trade is the most far-fetched argument for this bill. Someone will have to explain to me how adding a layer of federal bureaucracy to price labelling, whether at convenience stores, grocery stores or gas stations, will help interprovincial trade. I have never gotten the impression that goods are labelled at the factory before they cross the border. For all these reasons, I will be voting against this bill.”
“If the government wants to give Quebeckers a break, it needs to help the Quebec government fulfill its fundamental responsibilities under the Constitution by increasing unconditional health transfers, social transfers and so on. When the Bloc Québécois asks for these things, what is the response? First, the federal government tells the Bloc Québécois that it has no money. Then, a week later, the federal government comes out with a plan to spend that same amount of money, but with conditions that encroach on provincial jurisdiction. That is all relevant. If the government wants people to be able to afford groceries, if it wants to boost spending power, there are two ways to do that: either increase income or reduce the cost of the goods people spend their income on, as well as the tax burden.”
“(1810) However, at the end of the day, we must face reality. When a Quebec taxpayer receive their paycheque, after taxes and after their contributions, ultimately, even though there is a federal government, a provincial government and a municipal government, there is only one taxpayer. In Quebec, we are currently experiencing multiple crises at the same time, in the education sector, the health sector and the infrastructure sector. We know that our population is aging. We know that, given the pressures of this aging population, the years 2025 to 2035 may be the most challenging that we have seen in decades in terms of Quebec's public finances.”
“We had to fight with the Minister of Finance and National Revenue to find out when he would table a budget, but price transparency, that is important. At the Prime Minister's Office, there is a whole floor dedicated to managing the Prime Minister 's conflicts of interest, yet price transparency is of the utmost importance to the federal government. At some point, a recalibration will need to be done and the federal government will have to start looking after its own affairs. The Conservatives were talking earlier. They like to say that, if we want to ensure that people can buy groceries, the important thing is to put money back in their pockets. The Conservatives, of course, like to talk about inflationary deficits and all sorts of things that, from a purely macroeconomic perspective, are more or less true most of the time.”
“Nothing we do is ever good enough for the federal government. On the issue of food labelling, what did we do wrong? My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue said it earlier: Quebec launched a reform to improve transparency. It is not perfect, but it ensures that prices are clearly displayed and that consumers know what they are buying in terms of quantity. When we know how much we are paying per 100 grams, we can pay less. It reduces opportunities for what is known as shrinkflation, the practice of putting fewer grams in every box while raising the price. Quebec has done that. Can someone explain to me how a national framework, which is simply an encroachment on the powers of Quebec and the provinces, is going to improve anything? The government is talking about price transparency, yet there is no budgetary transparency.”
“The same goes for dental care, which Quebec does better than Ottawa. We use an automatic system to issue payments, but nothing we do is ever good enough for the federal government. The same goes for infrastructure and housing. When Ottawa comes up with its national housing strategy, it takes three or four years to get it off the ground. Finally, the thing gets done, and the program that the Bloc Québécois called for, the rapid housing initiative, is a reality. It comes with no conditions, and it is the only program that gets social housing built quickly, because Quebec is the only province that has permanent social and community housing construction programs. It is the same thing for the child care centres. The federal government goes and tells the provinces what to do, even Quebec, which developed the system in the first place.”
“If food prices have risen, it is certainly not because of a lack of competition. It is certainly not because in 1984 there were 13 major grocery chains and today there are only four or five, including Costco and Walmart. No, that is not why. It is because the provinces are still getting it wrong. The federal government tells us the same thing about health care. If hospitals are underperforming, it is not because of inadequate funding from Ottawa; it is because 10 provinces and three territories are useless. If the government interferes in university affairs, the provinces are told it is because they cannot manage their universities or because the universities cannot manage themselves. They can never do enough equity, diversity and inclusion to suit the federal government, so it has to stick its nose into their business.”
“That way, no one would ever want to give him a slap. Mr. Tremblay understood that. After nearly two centuries of history, the federal government still does not understand that if it wants to avoid getting slapped in the face, it needs to mind its own business. Price regulation is consumer law. According to the Claude Masse Foundation and the book Le droit de la consommation , “Consumer law is entirely based on the legal institution of the contract, whether verbal or written. This does not mean that the only legal protections for consumers are contractual in nature, but rather that there would be no consumer law without contracts.” It is civil law. For some time now, the federal government has been blaming the provinces for all of society's problems. Everything is always the provinces' fault.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is a somewhat unexpected turn of events, but since some members did not use all of their speaking time, I will take the liberty of adding a few remarks. Let me begin with a story. I grew up just north of the riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue in a village called Lebel-sur-Quévillon. The population of the village was about 4,000 at the time. An older gentleman named Mr. Tremblay lived there. He was a legend. Everyone knew Mr. Tremblay. Everyone who lived in Lebel-sur-Quévillon had met Mr. Tremblay at one point or another. What was special about this man was that he lived to be 116 years old. Obviously, that is impressive. I was still a kid when he died, and I asked my father to explain why Mr. Tremblay lived to be 116 years old. My father told me that it was simple: Mr. Tremblay minded his own business.”
“To what extent does my colleague believe that the minister's approach will address this issue from a legal perspective, even beyond the issue of budgets?”
“Madam Speaker, in the Jordan decision, the Supreme Court established reasonable time limits in which trials must be held. I understand that, in the bill, the minister is expanding the criteria that the court will have to consider when it redefines what constitutes reasonable time limits. I am wondering about the possibility that, ultimately, at the end of the exercise, with these new criteria, the Supreme Court will again propose reasonable time limits that will be difficult to meet. I am wondering whether this might be a bit of an exercise in futility and whether, sooner or later, we will be forced into having another debate on the use of the notwithstanding clause to put an end to the abuses that have been caused by the Jordan decision.”
“Madam Speaker, we know that the minister has often been slow to appoint judges, even though there is no shortage of Liberal donors who are willing to take those jobs. As a result, with the Jordan decision, some criminals have been released. We know the story behind the Jordan decision. Did the minister ever consider using the notwithstanding clause to get around the Jordan decision in order to get justice for victims, if only while waiting for this bill, which broadens the criteria that judges will have to consider when applying Jordan?”
“However, it is currently a minority Parliament, at least for now. How can he come along and say that he needs a Parliament and then sign treaties behind almost everyone's back? Basically, he needs a Parliament as long as members keep their mouths shut, do not give their opinion and do not do any work on the issues. I invite each and every member here to reconsider their position. By voting against this bill, they are voting for less democracy, less transparency and less accountability. The Liberals said it today: They feel that more democracy is a burden without benefit. I put my face on a poster during the election because I believe in democracy and because I think we have a role to play as members of Parliament. I commend the member for Jonquière for writing and introducing this bill. It is a deeply democratic bill.”
“However, the signing of the Kyoto accord was so important that Jean Chrétien said he would put it to a vote in Parliament as a matter of legitimacy. We are talking about the anti-democratic Jean Chrétien, someone who weaponized the immigration process during the referendum, who tried to influence the CBC and Radio-Canada during the referendum period, who had no qualms about toying with democracy. Even he, however, considered it important for the legitimacy of the Kyoto treaty to put it to a vote in Parliament. That says something. Personally, I think elected officials have a role to play. The Prime Minister called an election. A fixed date election was already scheduled, but he decided to call an election anyway. The reason was that he needed a new Parliament in order to have a stronger mandate.”
“Right now, we have a situation where cabinet does everything, on its own, in secret. Even Liberal MPs do not know what is going on. A few cabinet ministers know, but Liberal members have no idea what is going on. The Prime Minister makes the rounds; the negotiators are the ones with the executive power, the ones who make all the decisions and issue all the mandates. Ultimately, they send us a treaty and tell us not to amend it or offer our advice, that we are to vote for its ratification. We are presented with a fait accompli, and that is the unacceptable part. It undermines the democratic legitimacy of treaties. There was a time during Confederation, including the time when Mackenzie King was in power, that the practice was to submit treaties to Parliament. We have lost that tradition.”
“They will definitely understand if Parliament says that supply management is not on the table, if that mandate comes from Parliament. They will understand that. That is their mentality. They are used to it. I remember that, at the time, the member for Compton—Stanstead , who worked for the then agriculture minister during the previous Parliament, told us that it was pointless, that we did not need supply management legislation, that we would be able to strike it out in another act anyway and that it was useless. Finally, they woke up. They realized that a vote in Parliament might be worth something after all, and that the work done by MPs might have value. In the end, the law was passed, and the negotiating mandate changed. What are elected officials for? We are not just voting fodder.”
“(1135) However, when given the opportunity to express their views on the new international trade conditions, they say that they prefer to mind their own business, that they will be voting fodder, that they will vote as they are told and that they are not very interested. Meanwhile, they are still telling their constituents to visit the official Canada Gazette website. It is terrible. The idea of giving MPs the right to vote on negotiating mandates has already been endorsed this year in the area of supply management. We tabled several bills on supply management and we have been explaining to Liberal MPs for a long time that, in the United States, mandates come from the U.S. Congress. We have reached the point where the Americans are giving us lessons in democracy.”
“The member tells them that consultation is so important that they have to go to the Canada Gazette site, but how can a person, an MP, tell us that this is important when the Liberals are going to vote and essentially tell us that their own voices do not matter? Elected members should be judged by their actions. How can the Liberal members from Quebec be promoting consultation when we know that they will be voting against this bill and basically saying that their voices do not carry any weight in Parliament? I cannot understand that. These people were elected by telling us that the world had changed, that the international trade situation had changed, that democracy was in jeopardy.”
“He is trying to impose conditions on international trade by bypassing elected officials. Meanwhile, Canada has a Prime Minister who can negotiate a treaty without even consulting elected officials once it is finalized. That is surprising, and I do not understand how a member of the House of Commons could oppose a bill like this, especially since the Liberals, including some Liberals from Quebec, keep claiming to be the champions of consultation. I do not believe that there was any ill intent, but the member for Thérèse-De Blainville , who is very active on social media, recently posted a video in which she tells people that consultation on trade agreements is extremely important, so much so that she invites her constituents to go to the Canada Gazette website to share their opinions on CUSMA.”
“If someone were to walk down the street and ask people whether they think the House of Commons has a say when it comes to treaties, the answer would almost certainly be yes. In a democracy, no one would believe that the Prime Minister and his gang do all this in secret, that treaties are imposed on us and that we vote only on their implementation. Voters expect a measure of democracy, but when we demand that democracy, what does the government say? The member for Don Valley West said something earlier that will not soon be forgotten. He said that the current situation, where there is no transparency, is a balanced situation. He added, and I quote, that democracy is a burden without benefit. He said that in English. Our neighbours to the south have a president, Mr. Trump, who is trying to bypass the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Senate.”
“That is only three weeks. If the Minister of Finance can wait four months to table a budget, then government members should be able to wait three weeks while the House of Commons is consulted on treaties. We also also asking that the treaties be published in the Canada Gazette. Right now, the government is asking citizens to share their opinions on CUSMA on the Canada Gazette website, but it does not to want to publish treaties in the Canada Gazette. That does not make any sense. Finally, for major treaties, we are asking that the government hold a vote in the House of Commons and consult civil society. When I read the bill, I thought it was quite obvious that this is about a basic democratic process.”
“It depends on us to stand up for it, which is exactly what this bill does. In Canada, members of Parliament have no power when trade agreements are signed. Members do not have a say. In his grandiose speech at the 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos, the Prime Minister said that if we are not at the table, we are on the menu. Right now, when a trade agreement is signed, every member of the House is on the menu. They are the roast at the dinner. They are lying on the table with an apple in their mouth. They do not have a voice at the table. This bill simply seeks to rectify this situation. What we are asking for is the systematic tabling of treaties in the House of Commons. That is key. It is simple. We are asking that treaties be tabled in the House of Commons and that there be a requirement to wait 21 days so consultations can take place.”
“Madam Speaker, since this is the first time I am rising to speak in 2026, I want to start by wishing you a happy new year. I wish you all the best. May you have good health and may it continue. You know you have my best wishes. I also want to take this opportunity to wish a happy new year to everyone in the beautiful riding of Mirabel, to our local businesses, some of which are going through tough times, and to our community organizations. We have witnessed a show of solidarity. We are all very compassionate. We experienced this sense of community over the holidays, and we hope that it continues. I wish everyone in my riding a happy 2026. We have a bill before us today that is essentially about democracy. In short, what this bill does is call for more democracy. Barack Obama used to say that democracy is not self-executing.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very informative speech. What he forgot to mention is that, when it came time to vote on the budget, the Conservatives wanted to avoid an election so badly that they hid some members, including their House leader, behind the curtains. On voting day, they were hiding behind the curtains and in the washrooms to abstain from voting and ensure that the budget passed. It was when they realized that the NDP and the Green Party had caved that they came out to vote. All 22 of the Bloc Québécois members voted against it. I want my colleague to answer the following question. If the budget is so horrible, what was his House leader doing hiding in the washrooms on voting day?”
“There are plenty of reasons to oppose this budget, but at a certain point, when they start contradicting the governor of the central bank in a debate, is that not an example of the Conservatives indulging in a bit of disinformation from time to time?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Finance heard from the governor of the central bank, Mr. Macklem. The Conservatives asked him whether he thought that the industrial carbon tax was contributing to inflation. The Governor of the Bank of Canada confirmed that, unlike the consumer carbon tax, the carbon tax for large emitters did not generate any form of inflation, as this involves commodities that are often exported. When the Conservatives kept hammering away and tried again to get the governor of the central bank to say that it was contributing to inflation, he replied in English that if they were looking for inflation, they should look elsewhere.”
“Mr. Speaker, we know that this budget was put together in a hurry and that the Minister of Finance was not ready. The deficit will reach almost $80 billion this year alone. Now, to meet their deficit targets, the Liberals must find $50 billion in budget cuts over five years. Of the $50 billion in budget cuts, they have identified only $10 billion, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer and other observers believe they will have difficulty implementing even half of that $10 billion. I would like to know if my colleague thinks the government will be able to meet its spending reduction targets. If he does not think the government will be able to do that, is he concerned that the deficits will be significantly higher than the $78.5 billion already announced?”
“Does my colleague not find that, in a way, the minister is behaving a bit like some of the people we are seeing in the U.S. administration these days?”
“Mr. Speaker, at the Standing Committee on Finance, when the Parliamentary Budget Officer, an independent official appointed by consensus by Parliament, issued reservations about the budget, the response from the Minister of Finance , who was in front of me, was simply to undermine the credibility of the institution, to say that the Parliamentary Budget Officer was entitled to his opinion, that it was an opinion like any other, and that what he said ultimately had little value. The same thing happened recently in a press release where the Minister of Finance continues to undermine the credibility of an institution that is essential to our parliamentary work. I would like to know if my colleague agrees with the Prime Minister 's approach, his lack of respect toward parliamentary institutions.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague quite rightly referred to the report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, an independent officer of Parliament, which says that the federal government's programs will enable it to meet only 2% to 3% of its targets. Last week, during a Standing Committee on Finance hearing, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and member for Whitby decided to filibuster right in the middle of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's testimony. The Liberals are so averse to facts, averse to science and averse to serious figures that the parliamentary secretary to the minister decided to silence an officer of Parliament in the middle of a Standing Committee on Finance meeting. I would really like my colleague to share his thoughts on this type of behaviour from the government.”