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 11 of 17.
“The parliamentary secretary was forced to base his responses and interactions with the parliamentary committee on mistakes made by ChatGPT. I would like my colleague to tell me what this tells us about the seriousness and level of preparation of the Department of Finance and the parliamentary secretary.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the budget, the government uses a definition of investment that does not exist anywhere else in the world. In committee, we pointed out that aspect of Bill C-15 . The member for Whitby , who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, was unable to say where else in the world that definition is used. In the middle of the committee meeting, he consulted ChatGPT. He asked ChatGPT the question. It made a series of mistakes and the member misled the committee because of these mistakes made by ChatGPT. The member was trying to find a single place in the world where the government's definition of investment had been used. They were mistakes. Canada is the only country that uses this definition.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance was bragging about investing $115 billion over five years in his budget. However, if we take a close look at the numbers, we realize that, in fact, there will be only $9 billion in new funding over five years for all of the provinces from coast to coast to coast, including $5 billion earmarked to build hospitals and clinics. That means that the 10 provinces and three territories will receive $4 billion over five years for infrastructure. I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that is enough or whether he supports the provinces' request to invest $100 billion over 10 years. I would also like him to tell me why he thinks there is such a big discrepancy between the Department of Finance's made-up numbers and the reality on the ground.”
“When the government decides to make tax changes, including changes to personal income tax, should it not systematically submit a list of all those who are likely to see the amount of their tax credits change, so that we, as parliamentarians, can understand the real impact of these tax changes on all taxpayers, particularly the most vulnerable?”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4 is the story of a Prime Minister who runs in an election, promises everything but the kitchen sink, comes to sit in Parliament and then introduces a bill too quickly. The bill is poorly crafted and poorly thought out. For example, for the tax cut where the first bracket is reduced by 1%, the government failed to consider all of the potential effects because it worked too quickly. Tax credits, particularly those for people with disabilities, are calculated in proportion to the first bracket rate. As a result, when the government lowered taxes, it also caused the most vulnerable members of society, particularly people with disabilities, to lose more with the tax cut than they gained from it. I would like to know if my colleague agrees with me.”
“I would like my colleague to tell me why, in his opinion, the Prime Minister and the government decided to behave in this manner and why the government tried to take away a GST rebate that had been promised to thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4 sets out a GST rebate for first-time buyers of new homes. The Prime Minister promised this rebate in March, when he was Prime Minister. We went on the campaign trail, then we came back. The Prime Minister finally tabled the notice of ways and means and the bill. Everyone who bought a home between the time the Prime Minister promised this rebate in March and the time of the election was denied the GST rebate. The Bloc Québécois and our Conservative colleagues had to table amendments to force the government to keep its word and grant the GST rebate to those who had been promised it, those who had been naive enough to believe the Prime Minister and who, in the end, would have been forced to pay the full price.”
“The Prime Minister is also discarding other carbon tax policies, including in Alberta. It is the end of the fight against climate. I would like my colleague to tell me whether he believes that this is truly what people voted for.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives rise to say that all Canadians voted in the last election to get rid of the carbon tax. However, the political reality is that people voted for the current Prime Minister because they were afraid of the Leader of the Opposition . They believed that getting rid of the carbon tax was a temporary compromise, even though they still supported the fight against climate change, but thought that things would be worse under the Conservatives. In voting for the Liberals, they were choosing between the lesser of two evils. Today, however, we have a Liberal Prime Minister who is even worse than the Conservatives. He going farther than people dreamed the Conservatives would go. That is exactly what we got with the infamous pipeline agreement.”
“I challenge my colleague to tell me whether he thinks it is appropriate to tell 300 workers not to take their layoff personally and to go to food banks to get something to eat. I would also ask him, in passing, if it is not high time the government implemented a permanent reform of the employment insurance system.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very articulate speech in which he criticized the inappropriate comments that some Conservatives allegedly made about the national school food program. I would like him to know that, when Paccar, a truck manufacturing company in Sainte-Thérèse in my region, recently laid off 300 people, his Liberal colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville told these workers on Mario Dumont's show to seek help from food banks and other organizations if they needed to get back on their feet and, above all, to not to take their job loss personally. She offered no solutions, and the government provided no assistance to these workers. These comments by the member for Thérèse-De Blainville were heard by tens of thousands of people in the region.”
“I want to know whether my colleague agrees with the member for Edmonton West , as he said earlier in his speech, and whether he thinks that the government could have helped the middle class by using other tax tools while ensuring that this tax cut does not necessarily go into the pockets of those who go through all the tax brackets and who already have quite a bit of money in their pockets.”
“Madam Speaker, the Liberals have gotten into the habit of using the words “tax cuts for the middle class” for things that are not tax cuts for the middle class. In 2015, Justin Trudeau promised to lower the tax rate for the second income tax bracket. Those who benefited the most were the people earning more than $200,000 a year, because it is the wealthy taxpayers who go through all the tax brackets and hit the jackpot. Of course, the bill we are debating today reduces the tax rate on the first bracket, which is more aimed at the middle class, but it targets very little. For example, there is nothing in it to help seniors receiving pension benefits, who are on fixed incomes and who are no longer able to work.”
“Once elected, the Prime Minister decided to abandon those people and refund the GST only for homes purchased in May or later. The Prime Minister made a promise in March. He was elected, and in May he announced that he was abandoning these people. Beyond the content of the bill, I would like to know what this type of behaviour tells us about the Prime Minister's character, but above all what it tells us about the value of his word.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton West for his speech. I very much enjoy working with him. Bill C-4 demonstrates the fact that the Prime Minister was willing to promise anything during the election campaign, without having done the math, without knowing how to go about it. This bill was introduced without any attention to detail. My colleague gave a very good example of that. In March, the newly appointed Prime Minister promised a GST rebate for first-time buyers purchasing a new home. However, after the election campaign, he introduced the notice of ways and means as well as the bill, and we realized that all those who had believed the Prime Minister in March and decided to buy a new home would not get the GST rebate.”
“Why did the government need the opposition to remind it in committee that people with disabilities will be paying rather than getting a tax cut? When these people tried to contact the Minister of Finance and National Revenue , why did no one respond to their emails and phone calls? The Bloc Québécois finance critic had to personally put them in touch with the minister.”
“Madam Speaker, there are some good things in Bill C-4 , but basically it is a collection of election promises, including the tax cut. My colleague must know that the amounts of many of the tax credits received by the most vulnerable members of our society, including the disability tax credit, are calculated based on the tax rate for the lowest tax bracket. That means that, under Bill C-4, people who are getting the disability tax credit, among others, will actually lose income. They will lose more in the value of their tax credit than they will save from the tax cut. Is this not a sign that the government designed this measure in a hurry, that it pulled this together at the last minute? Why did the government forget about these people?”
“Rita Léonard-Lafond leaves behind a huge legacy, that of a woman who refused to accept injustice and who stood firm until the end, despite a federal government that, to this day, refuses to officially apologize to the people expropriated from Mirabel. One thing is certain: From up above, her integrity will continue to inspire my work in politics for a long time to come. To her loved ones and all who knew her, I offer my deepest condolences. I want to thank Ms. Léonard-Lafond for everything.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to mark the passing of a remarkable woman from Sainte-Scholastique and an important figure in the history of Quebec, Rita Léonard-Lafond. She was a woman of conviction and courage, who dedicated her entire life to defending her community at the height of the Mirabel expropriation saga. Through her efforts to support the public battles that led to the return of 85,000 acres of land, she became the voice and the face of those who had been expropriated. Her tenacity inspired citizens, elected officials and academics to demand investigations into the Mirabel airport file.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised in March to provide first-time homebuyers with a GST rebate on new homes. When we came back to Parliament after he was elected, he made the GST rebate effective only as of May in the original version of Bill C-4 , which meant that thousands of homebuyers who believed what the Prime Minister said were ineligible for the GST rebate. The Bloc Québécois proposed amendments to the bill, but the Liberals opposed those amendments. They rejected them. We made our case to the Speaker and, finally, thanks to the Bloc Québécois, thousands of first-time homebuyers will get their GST rebates. Can my colleague tell me why the Liberal Party of Canada opposed, both in committee and here in the House, before the Speaker, GST rebates for thousands of first-time homebuyers on new homes?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, who gave an excellent speech, is very familiar with the Official Languages Act. He knows that the effect of the Official Languages Act in Quebec is to treat the anglophone community as a minority on the verge of extinction. This means that Quebeckers' tax dollars end up funding English in Quebec and the integration of immigrants into the anglophone community. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about money being invested in this way in Quebec. We are debating the budget. How should Quebeckers' money be spent when it comes to protecting official languages?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is taking every opportunity to tell us that the budget invests $115 billion in infrastructure. When we actually look at the new funding, the budget lines indicate $9 billion, not $115 billion. The Quebec finance department, which is assessing the new amounts, estimated that to be $22 billion over 10 years. Of the $9 billion over five years that we calculated, $5 billion is for hospital infrastructure. That leaves $4 billion over five years from coast to coast to coast. Can my colleague explain to me why the Minister of Finance is telling Canadians that there is $115 billion in new money for infrastructure when the real figure is $9 billion? Does she not find that the Minister of Finance sometimes has a difficult relationship with the truth?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that chances of the government meeting its spending reduction targets are roughly 7%. I will give an example. At the Canada Revenue Agency, the software that is currently being used to process our taxes dates back to the 1980s. Apparently, it is on a black screen with purple text. After not doing any modernization for decades, now the government wants to introduce artificial intelligence and reduce the number of workers at the Canada Revenue Agency. We are told that this is going to save money while providing better service. This is one example that comes to mind when we consider whether the Liberals are likely to meet their spending reduction targets. Does my colleague think the Liberals are going to meet their spending reduction targets?”
“Does the member not think that this should give us pause and that, despite the need for innovation, the bill may be going a little too far?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the passionate member for Bourassa for his very interesting speech. He spoke about innovation, and he is right: We may disagree on how to go about it, but innovation is important. Speaking of innovation, the budget implementation bill includes a provision hidden deep in the bill, on page 301, under clause 208. The bill would give a minister absolute power to suspend any federal law or regulation—except the Criminal Code, thank goodness—without having to give any specific reason. Does my colleague not think that this deserves a thorough review in committee, at the very least? Does he not think that this could appear to be an abuse of executive power? It is somewhat similar to what happened with Bill C-5 . They claimed it was urgent, but the urgency of resorting to Bill C-5 has yet to materialize.”
“It is all well and good to legislate, to talk about the problem and to speak out against it, but we also need to make investments, especially investments that are in line with the Quebec model and Quebec's approach to rehabilitation. As far as I know, that money is not in the budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, the vote-buying scheme during the election campaign cost billions of dollars, between $4 billion and $5 billion. Quebeckers paid for 22% of this total with their own taxes. That amount did not come from carbon tax revenues; it came from the consolidated revenue fund. I know it is strange to say it that way, but the tax was rebated in advance. That is how the program was designed in order to make it socially acceptable. Quebeckers paid out of their own pockets for a carbon tax rebate that was never collected. As far as crime is concerned, there is a lot of talk about crime, about the issues and about what we see on the streets. We have to differentiate between fact and fiction. However, one thing is clear: I do not recall seeing any significant investments in the budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that Quebeckers need quality health care. I also think that the most vulnerable Quebeckers, who are seeing bungalows in Mirabel going for $800,000 or $900,000, need housing. What I am also seeing is that Quebeckers were robbed by the federal government of $814 million, which could have helped them get through the crisis on a daily basis. What I am seeing is that the Bloc Québécois' demands were designed to meet all of Quebeckers' daily needs. However, the government decided not to pick up the phone and negotiate. Instead, it has turned its back on Quebec. That is what I am seeing.”
“I met with representatives from L3Harris two weeks ago. Unions, employers and everyone in my riding can see that the government's indecision is costing well-paying jobs in the Lower Laurentians. That is unacceptable.”
“Mr. Speaker, during question period these past few days, the Minister of Industry has been rising in the House and attacking me, saying that there was money for defence and that I was working against my riding. However, the Liberal government is causing the loss of 500 defence jobs in Mirabel because it is incapable of making any kind of decision regarding which fighter jet it is going to purchase. At L3Harris Technologies, between 500 and 600 people might lose their jobs in January. The defence staff, the army and several others have publicly said that a quick decision was needed. However, the government prefers to waffle and risk layoffs in Mirabel. The Liberals stand here and tell me that voting for the budget will save jobs. What I am telling them is that they need to start getting out and speaking with folks.”
“If the government wants the Bloc Québécois's support, the committee stage offers another opportunity to include the demands of Quebeckers and the Bloc Québécois.”
“That means that the $78-billion deficit is a minimum. If anyone needed reasons for voting down the budget, there are a few. Now, we know the Liberals' answers, written down on little cards by the Prime Minister's Office for Liberal members to read out to us like broken records. They say they are giving the Magdalen Islands a runway and building a shark pavilion, and then they want to know how we would dare vote against the budget. That is why we, as an opposition party, worked out our priorities. The government had our priorities a month in advance but no constructive phone calls were made. The government has another chance, also known as the Standing Committee on Finance. We have six requests.”
“They are saying that recruiting military personnel is a capital investment and that expanding an early retirement program at CBSA counts as capital. They are saying that tax credits for carbon capture count as capital. I have studied economics my entire life. Either the Liberals are out to lunch, or there is not a single economist in Canada who knows what capital is. These are examples of current expenditures. Furthermore, the Liberals are telling us that there will be a $78.5-billion deficit. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that there is a 7% chance that they will reach that target, because they would need to cut $60 billion over five years to achieve it. They have identified $10 billion, but some people do not even think they will even be able to achieve half of that amount.”
“This weekend, Le Journal de Montréal published a comprehensive report on poverty among retirees. We were asking for fairness. We asked that the OAS benefit be the same for seniors aged 65 to 74 as it is for seniors aged 75 and over, but the Liberals are mystified that we voted against the budget. There is nothing for first-time home buyers who do not have a mommy or daddy or grandma or grandpa to max their tax-free savings account for first-time home buyers to fuel bidding wars in the real estate market. There is nothing. Our proposal would have cost about $200 million to implement from coast to coast. That is another reason to vote against the budget. On top of that, we have to add in the Liberals' creative accounting. They are saying that FIFA games count as an investment.”
“This included their Liberal friend Pablo Rodriguez, who voted with the Liberals when he was a minister, but then began voting with the Bloc Québécois when he became an independent member because he realized that he had never defended the interests of Quebec. There are 42 Liberal members across the aisle who are voting against Quebec and against the National Assembly, because they are getting their voting instructions from Toronto and Saskatchewan. That is another reason to vote against the budget. There is nothing for seniors. The Liberals are the ones who created two classes of seniors. The legal age of retirement in Canada is 65. The Liberals boast about having brought the age back to 65. However, between 65 and 74, it is not good to be retired. People have to wait until they reach 75 to be treated the same as other retirees.”
“We called for the $814 million stolen from Quebec to be paid back to Quebeckers, but that is not in the budget. That is another reason to vote against the budget. The Liberals bought votes by using the consolidated revenue fund in Ottawa to pay people in seven provinces for carbon tax rebates that no one ever paid. Quebeckers contributed $814 million to the vote-buying in provinces other than Quebec, and the Minister of Finance and National Revenue told Quebeckers to take a hike. In the same breath, he said he was mystified that the Bloc Québécois was voting against the budget. The 125 members of the National Assembly unanimously called for that money to be paid back.”
“There is not a penny for the rapid housing initiative, even though Quebec is the only province with permanent social and community housing construction programs. What is more, Quebec generally does not receive its share of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's programs, which is 22% of the envelope. We had asked that this envelope, which works for housing, to be refinanced, but there is nothing in the budget. Instead, the government chose to create a new entity, a new bureaucracy, known as Build Canada Homes. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is going to be in on it, yet it is not even a bank and has never actually built infrastructure. The only good thing about its name is that it is Canadian. They are trying to tell us that this will result in faster housing construction, even though the solution already exists.”
“That means today, the federal government is telling Quebeckers that they have to choose between paying more Quebec taxes, making do with reduced services and increasing Quebec's debt. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government keeps telling the House that Canada has the best debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, yet he neglects to include provincial debt. He counts the federal debt and ignores the provincial debt. Under the Maastricht treaty, a country's debt includes the debts of its non-central entities. By no international standard does the government's math make any sense, but that does not stop it from boasting. (1700) The government is telling the provinces that they should incur debt on Ottawa's behalf so that it can maintain a good debt-to-GDP ratio.”
“He replied that the government had not yet given him enough information to come up with an exact number. However, he clarified that this amount falls far short of the $115 billion requested. It is one thing for the Minister of Finance and National Revenue to make the rounds of every TV network in Canada, exaggerating, indulging in hyperbole and putting on a show. However, the reality is that people were not heard. That is one reason to vote against this bill. The same goes for health transfers. The one-off agreements with the provinces that the Trudeau government signed are about to expire. As a result, health transfers are going to decrease starting next year and grow at a slower rate than system spending.”
“That represents $10 billion a year, or $2.2 billion a year for Quebec. That is not a lot. When we look at the budget, how much new money is there for infrastructure over five years? Over five years, we have $9 billion. We need to take $5 billion out of that to build hospitals. As my colleague from Montcalm said earlier today, how can we build hospitals from coast to coast to coast with only $5 billion? That is what it costs for a single hospital. In fact, new infrastructure investment is $4 billion. The Government of Quebec has done its own calculations and estimates the projected amount to be $22 billion over 10 years, which is consistent with our own calculation. Today, at the Standing Committee on Finance, we asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer how much new funding was planned for infrastructure.”
“Proposed section 12 states on page 301 that as soon as a minister thinks it might be good for innovation, they can suspend any provision of a federal law or federal regulation other than the Criminal Code. This is no joke. According to the budget bill, what was hidden from the public in the budget is that, if this measure is adopted, a minister could wake up one morning and decide to suspend environmental laws, transportation safety laws, and foreign policy laws. A minister can do whatever they want. It was not even in the budget speech. Reading the implementation bill, we realize that voting against it was absolutely the right thing to do. Why did we vote against it? Allow me to give a few reasons. Quebec and the provinces asked for $100 billion in infrastructure over 10 years.”
“Not only did we vote against the budget, but now we have no doubt that we made the right choice. Following the vote on the speech, the budget implementation bill was introduced. We realized that this government's lack of transparency went much further than we originally thought. In the spring, and with the support of the Conservatives, they passed Bill C-5 under closure, claiming that it was urgent for their major projects of national interest. We knew there was no urgency, that they did not even need to use it. Today, however, the 603-page budget bill reveals on page 301 how far this government is willing to go to circumvent Parliament and flout laws, regulations, and democracy.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois voted against the budget speech. In fact, 22 Bloc members stood up and remained true to their values and their word. A month before the budget, we made it clear to the government what our expectations were. The government refused to discuss anything, negotiate or speak with us. It refused to listen to Quebeckers' concerns. The day we voted against the budget, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Minister of Finance and National Revenue used the word "mystified". They were mystified that we had voted against the budget. It was even La Presse's word of the week. Those folks are so out of touch that, for a month, they refused to speak with the opposition parties so, in the end, they governed by mystification. That is how it played out.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North , who is more interested in chatting and fooling around than he is in listening to the debate, did not include the provinces in the debt-to-GDP ratio he gave us for Canada. That omission obscures the fact that, if provincial debt is included, Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio is 10% higher than Germany's. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons compared us to Japan, which is a unitary state. He ignored the fact that by insufficiently indexing health transfers, the federal government is shifting the financial burden to the provinces. Talking about Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio without including the provinces is misinformation. Would my colleague agree with that?”
“Mr. Speaker, as we saw in the budget, health transfers will be indexed at a rate that is lower than the increase in system costs. This means that, at the end of the day, Quebec taxpayers will either have to pay more taxes or receive poorer quality services. The other alternative is that Quebec will have to take on more debt to finance health care services. The government, through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons , continues to misinform the public by saying that Canada has the best debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, when that does not include the provinces. The Liberals are comparing us to Japan, which is a unitary state. When provincial debts are included— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Starting with this year's amount, including tax points, if system costs increase by 6% and transfers increase by 5%, there will be a 1% difference that will build up over time, and that is very serious, whether my colleague is right or wrong about transfer levels and tax points.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North does not know what he is talking about. He is talking about the transfer levels, while we are taking about the discrepancy in the transfers. We are not talking about the level once tax points are taken into account; we are talking about the discrepancy. What we want the government to understand is that, if system costs increase by 6% but transfers only increase by 5%, the government is disengaging because of that discrepancy, regardless of the tax points or the level. Maybe the Liberals should get their wages frozen for seven or eight years so they can understand what it feels like when the amount of money somebody receives does not grow at the same rate as the cost of living or the cost of providing services. We are not talking about the level of transfers, but the rate at which they increase.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the federal government is borrowing money at Quebeckers' expense. If we look at the public debt of the average Quebecker, we see that the average Quebecker owes nearly twice as much in federal debt as in Quebec debt. That is Canada's legacy to Quebeckers. Now, will it be $78 billion or $79 billion? I think it could be more, because the government told us that it would find a way to cut spending by $50 billion. It has identified $10 billion in cuts, and maybe only half of that will be feasible. We saw in the budget lock-up that public servants do not even know what the government's plans are. They should have already found $800 million to cut a month ago. What worries me is the lack of transparency and planning and the fact that no one knows where we are going to be in three months' time with this government.”
“Rather than acknowledging that, they lecture us, even though they were the ones who said no to Quebec and turned their backs on our people. They go through their little shopping list, while one of their own tells people to go back to school even though the government has abandoned them. I invite my colleague to take a good look at his party and acknowledge that it does not defend the interests of Quebeckers.”
“Mr. Speaker, in my region, the now Liberal riding of Thérèse-De Blainville has lost 300 jobs at Paccar. What was the Liberal member's response? On October 23, at 7:36 a.m., on Mario Dumont's show, she suggested that these workers call community organizations and food banks, that they come up with a plan A, B or C, that they not take it personally, that they find another job, that they go back to school and that they go work somewhere else. The government members rise, but they do not understand that, as members of the opposition, we cannot find fault with all 500 pages of a budget. That is why we set priorities and why we are consistent and transparent. That is why we submitted our priorities in advance.”