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 13 of 17.
“The Minister of Finance and National Revenue gave his word to our car dealers that they would be reimbursed for any rebates already given to customers for the purchase of EVs. Then he presented the estimates, but the money was not in those estimates. We had to fight for it. It is hard to believe that the Prime Minister was once a UN special climate envoy. There are days when I look at him here, in the House, and think how miscast he is. The Prime Minister wrote a book called Values: Building a Better World for All . He spent much of his life talking about important values, claiming that boosting the value of the stock market or the amount of money in our pockets was not all that mattered in life.”
“The federal tax did not apply in Quebec, and it still does not apply. It may be detrimental to our trade relationships because, starting next year, Europe will start enforcing its carbon border adjustment policy. Quebeckers will foot the tax bill for Canadians once again. Industrial carbon pricing is at risk. The government has backpedalled when it comes to energy retrofits and electric vehicles. However, it needs to take action. There are phases in the development of new technologies. The early phases are expensive, and more measures need to be adopted. However, the government is backpedalling on such measures. The government woke up one Monday morning and decided that it is over.”
“Why does the government never talk to us about the possibility of enhancing AgriRecovery? In the previous Parliament, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé hounded the Minister of Agriculture for months because of extreme weather events in Quebec. There were some in my riding. Farms were flooded in Saint‑Janvier. We are facing challenges, and we have had droughts this year. The program was designed to use Canada-wide criteria, and, because it was so convoluted, no action was taken. The current government has no idea what it is doing in the fight against climate change because this government is interested in just one thing: winning as many seats as possible and going with the flow, no pun intended, going wherever the wind blows it. This government eliminated the carbon tax. Quebec still has its own system.”
“Understandably, when I go to my constituents and talk to them about policies to fight climate change, to adapt to it and mitigate its effects, people do not ask for an empty national policy with no budget and no teeth that does not amend the environmental legislation. No one ever asks me for that. This government is not taking action. It was doing a little bit to fight climate change, promote adaptation and provide assistance, but this government is losing more and more ground. This kind of national strategy looks a bit like greenwashing. The government says it wants everybody to sit down, plot together, think about this issue and write a report so people think we are taking action. Droughts are happening, and there are ways to deal with them. Our farmers experience this every day. Here is an example.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Terrebonne for introducing this bill. This subject is very important to me. As members know, I am the member for the riding of Mirabel. A large part of my riding borders the Lac des Deux Montagnes. Folks in my riding are very familiar with extreme weather events that have a devastating impact on our built heritage and people's lives. As everyone knows, in 2019, extreme weather events caused the Lac des Deux Montagnes to flood 2,500 homes with more than 60 inches of water, or much more in some places. Six thousand people were displaced. Lawsuits are still going. The financial toll was in the millions or tens of millions of dollars.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would never question the Chair's good faith or way of working, but we can still assume that his decision will have consequences. From what I understand, the parties may not share the same opinion on two categories of amendments. The parties do not seem to have the same opinion on the number of days of continuous residence in Canada as on the other qualification criteria, including the citizenship test, the security assessment, the language test, and so on. Grouping them together could force some members to unwillingly vote against amendments they support.”
“In response, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue said that the Parliamentary Budget Officer was entitled to his opinion, but that he, the minister, would rather read the newspaper. I think Canada has lessons to learn. I am not certain that they need to come from communist Vietnam, but we have lessons to learn from many places.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think it is useful for us as parliamentarians to know how many people will be affected by the legislation. The fact that the government says that it has done no calculations whatsoever gives us some idea of just how unprepared it is. I am concerned that the government is increasingly unwilling to let the opposition know how much things cost. The proof is that it appointed an interim parliamentary budget officer when it had had seven years to find one. A few weeks after appointing him, the Liberals began to publicly disparage him, both during question period and in committee. In committee, the Parliamentary Budget Officer presented carefully calculated, evidence-based figures.”
“I said that we have to read bills carefully and be scrupulous parliamentarians, and that is how we improve the quality of our debates. I stand by what I said.”
“Mr. Speaker, do you see what is going on? Insults are being tossed back and forth. Here are the facts on these amendments. The committee determined that, for a person to be considered to have a substantial connection to Canada, they must have lived in Canada for a certain number of days over a certain period of time. Anyone over the age of 18 has to be able to speak an official language, undergo a security screening, and so on. That, incidentally, is what the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides. My colleague did say that we were practically attacking her own family. I imagine that she did not mean it but feels emotional about it. In fact, a Canadian student who travels abroad, gives birth, comes back to the country and has a life here is by no means targeted by these amendments.”
“Saying that we are racist, against immigration, no longer interested in having people study abroad, and depriving the children of Canadian diplomats of their Canadian citizenship is like rejecting the Citizenship Act itself. I think that these amendments make sense, are consistent with the superior court ruling, and need to be passed.”
“The question that the committee members then asked themselves was: what is a substantial connection? The court asked for clarity. The court said that not everyone can be rejected outright. The committee therefore put forward the same definition as for naturalized persons. How does it logically occur to a legislator that substantial connection for a person born abroad who comes to Canada is now defined, but that this definition of a substantial connection no longer has any value if the parents of the person born abroad also lived abroad for a long time? I, for one, believe that these amendments make sense. They are consistent. They align the criteria required by the court with the Citizenship Act, which governs the naturalization process.”
“Proposed amendments called for a background check, as is required for naturalization, and an official language test in French or English. We would prefer French in Quebec, but we are still in Canada. These rules do not even apply to children under the age of 18. To suggest that a Canadian could go study in the United States, have a child there, come back here and leave their child at the border is straight-up disinformation. Could it be that people did not read the bill before coming here to call us names? What the Ontario Superior Court said in its ruling was that a person born abroad to Canadian parents had to have a substantial connection to Canada and that their parents had to have a substantial connection to Canada. “Substantial” is the operative word for citizenship to be passed on.”
“This would affect between 80,000 and 300,000 people with a large confidence interval. The Parliamentary Budget Officer told us honestly that it was at least 80,000, but it could be as many as 300,000. The committee members therefore decided that they would apply rules that are already agreed upon in Canada. If we allow people to have spent 1,095 days of their entire life in Canada without requiring those to be consecutive, that means that a 50-year-old person could have spent their three weeks of vacation here their entire life, without ever having worked or made a significant contribution to the Canadian economy, and the unamended version of the bill would apply to them. Canada is not a summer camp, so it stands to reason that people should be required to have lived here for 1,095 consecutive days.”
“Our job as opposition parliamentarians is to keep the government in check, so we ask questions. The first question was whether Bill C‑3 , in its original form, affected very many people and whether it might allow a bunch of people to apply for citizenship without ever having set foot in Canada. The minister said that that was impossible to estimate. The minister arrived at committee unprepared. She did not know her bill. She did not know her numbers. The minister seemed to think that her inability to estimate something meant that it was impossible to estimate. If she is unable to build a space shuttle on her own, then space shuttles do not exist. That is how she thinks. The Parliamentary Budget Officer came and told us that this would affect 115,000 people. Economists certainly understand that these things can be estimated.”
“A court told us that we could not systematically deprive the children of Canadians born abroad of their citizenship. Then the Ontario Superior Court of Justice said that rules were needed, and clear rules at that. The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration got to work and decided that it would establish clear rules. (1730) What did the committee members do? They figured they would just apply rules similar to the ones imposed on naturalized Canadians. Is the parliamentary secretary across the way, the one playing with her notes, is she saying that we are calling naturalized people terrorists? Is she saying that she opposes immigration rules for naturalized individuals, like my wife, for example? These are low-level debates. We need not take these things personally. Things were not great in committee.”
“It would only be fair if second- and third-generation children had to meet the same requirements for naturalization, but now we are once again being labelled anti-immigration racists. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons says that we are living on another planet. I would like him to say which one. Since this debate began, not a single Liberal has been able to explain why they oppose these amendments. There were Bloc members and Conservative members. People came prepared to debate. It has been substantive. We have the right to disagree. Those folks over there cannot say why they oppose the amendments. We have a problem because the work was done in committee. An assessment had to be done. Here is the timeline of events.”
“One member even claimed that the Conservatives were treating her child like a terrorist because of these amendments, which are clear. The parliamentary secretary went to study abroad, outside Canada. In her lifetime, over a five-year continuous period, she very likely spent 1,095 consecutive days in Canada. In any case, she has been eligible since the election. Upon their return, the child would have to take a test if he or she is of age. Actually, I wonder if the child was not a minor and if, in the case that had the parliamentary secretary all worked up, any of these amendments applied. Most likely, none of them did. Now she says that her child is being treated like a terrorist. The member for Bourassa says that we are against immigration. We need rules when it comes to immigration. There are borders. There are rules.”
“They woke up the next morning and the reset button switched to the “on” position. They told us that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration studied Bill C‑3 , that it heard from witnesses, like the minister and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and that there are amendments that do not distort the bill, that are in order and that fulfill the court's requirements. Today, we are being told that all the committee's work can be torn down. That is the typical Liberal way. They never debate on the substance of the issue. They attack, insult and irritate people, and address substantive issues as little as possible. That is exactly what we are seeing today, and yet we are being told that we are the ones acting in bad faith.”
“We know that when Canada subsidizes Westinghouse small modular reactors to increase production in the oil sands, the Prime Minister gets rich. We know that when he abolishes the digital services tax, even though he has a blind trust, he is lining his own pockets. These were legitimate questions. A report came in from a committee. The illustrious member for Winnipeg North told us, yesterday and all afternoon, that we should be debating Bill C‑3 instead and that the House of Commons is not a place for debate. He told us that we were wasting our time here and that we should let committees do their work, because committees are good, members study the issues there and do good work, and we should not be debating that in the House. The Liberal switch flipped to the “off” position yesterday, and they went to bed.”
“Mr. Speaker, once again, I am pleased to speak here today. This debate is somewhat surreal. I am standing here yet, given the nature of the debate, I feel as though I am somewhere up in the stratosphere, floating in a space shuttle. We know how Liberals think. Liberals have a switch with two positions: “off” and “on”. They think one thing on Monday, switch to “off” that evening and then to “on” the next day. Then they think something else the following day. They might be in favour of a carbon tax before the election but against it afterwards. What these people do is win elections. They win them by changing their ideas and opinions and by having no values. I have proof. Yesterday, we were supposed to debate Bill C‑3 , but a committee report on ethics came in. We have a Prime Minister who holds shares in more than 900 companies.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is sad when debates become personal. What we just heard from the parliamentary secretary is rather appalling. As far as the proposed amendments are concerned, since my colleague has likely spent 1,095 consecutive days in Canada, she would be eligible. Her child may have to take a test to be eligible. I am sure he can pass a test. I would like to know where in this debate anyone accused another person of being a terrorist. Does this lady realize that she is in a position of executive power? Does she understand the weight of her words? Does she realize how much she is embarrassing her government and how awkward it is?”
“Mr. Speaker, on immigration, there needs to be consistency between the various legislative measures. Those hoping to become naturalized have to fulfill certain requirements. They are required to have lived in the country for 1,095 days over a period of five years. A security assessment is done, a language test is administered, and a citizenship test is completed. Those are the rules. That is exactly why want we want the same criteria to be applied when normalizing the citizenship of people who may never have set foot on Canadian soil. I would like my colleague to explain to me how the government can come to the conclusion that these standards are valid for a naturalized person, but that in the situation before us, suddenly, they no longer make sense, and citizenship could be granted to almost anyone.”
“However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that this measure could affect about 115,000 people and that this figure could even be as high as 300,000. I would like my colleague to tell me who is out of touch here.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering about the Liberals' tone and attitude in this debate. First, they are trying to turn the debate on Bill C‑3 into a debate on immigration, when it is a debate on the conditions that lead to citizenship. A few seconds ago, the member for Winnipeg North stood up and said that the opposition was out of touch. However, the minister was invited to appear before the committee and was asked about the impact of the bill as it stood before the amendments. All she was asked was how many people would be affected by this measure. We are accused of being out of touch, but the minister showed up at committee and had no idea how many people would be affected. She told us that this figure was impossible to determine.”
“I would like to know whether my colleague shares my interpretation of events and whether he thinks that what the Liberals did earlier today in this debate is simply disinformation to mislead Canadians for partisan purposes.”
“Mr. Speaker, in his previous speech, the member for Bourassa was once again a bit theatrical when he said that the amendments adopted in committee would distort the bill. This shows that he is both incompetent and disingenuous. Why do I say “incompetent”? The member knows full well that the amendments were accepted by the Chair. This means that they do not change the nature of the bill. The member is being disingenuous, because he knows full well that the judge's ruling left it up to Parliament to decide what constituted a substantial connection to Canada that would allow certain children born abroad to qualify for Canadian citizenship. These amendments are exactly and precisely what the courts have asked for. They are also entirely consistent with the nature and purpose of the bill.”
“Now today, just a day later, we are being told that the House is the place to revisit amendments adopted in committee and simply dismiss the work that has been done. Which Liberals are we to believe? Are we to believe the ones from yesterday or the ones from today?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday we debated a committee report here in the House. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons stood up and told us the debate had no place here in the House. He said that the committees would handle this, that they were capable of doing their job and that, when the committee in question completes its work, the government would take note of its recommendations here, in the House. In summary, he told us we were wasting our time debating this topic in the House. Today we are debating Bill C‑3 , which has come back to us at report stage with amendments. The committee did its job: It heard witnesses, it reached a consensus and amendments were adopted. The Parliamentary Budget Officer appeared before the committee, as did the minister, who did not even know the statistics.”
“Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister and the mathematician across the way said that they were reaching out to the opposition, we thought it was so that we could work together not so that we could get slapped around. That promise is broken with threats of an election. Some will say that this is not the only broken promise. The Prime Minister also promised to protect us from Donald Trump. However, unlike the negotiations with Donald Trump, the Prime Minister has complete control over his budget negotiations. We are experiencing crises in health care, quality of life for seniors, housing, home ownership, infrastructure, and so on. Why not solve these crises together in the budget instead of making threats?”
“Mr. Speaker, the cat is out of the bag. Yesterday, the government House leader openly threatened a Christmas election if the House does not support his budget as it stands. The Liberals did not hold any pre-budget consultations, did not hear from any witnesses in committee and did not include any of the opposition's demands in the budget. Now, they are already resorting to blackmail instead of trying to come to an agreement. Quebeckers elected a minority government. That means an agreement has to be reached with the other parties. Why will the Liberals not get to work instead of threatening an election?”
“I am not accusing the Prime Minister of anything, but this is something that people are wondering about: How separate should the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government be from journalism and wealth? That is a valid question when a prime minister tells us that the government needs to promote small modular reactors to more easily extract oil in Alberta and we know that, in his blind trust, he has shares in oil and shares in Westinghouse, which manufactures these reactors. Why should wealth be kept less separate from politics than all of the other functions that we keep separate from it?”
“Madam Speaker, I am hearing some government members say that we are complaining over nothing and that the arrival of the new Prime Minister in an old government does not change anything, despite the fact that the new Prime Minister was the head of a corporation that has interests in hundreds of companies. Here is what I am wondering: Should everyone be allowed to go into politics? We know that there must be a separation between the legislative, executive and judicial branches, and we would not see journalists going into politics because they would have to choose between two roles. Sometimes, people have to make a choice. Today, we are seeing oligarchs around the world getting into politics. I am thinking of the crisis south of the border.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals met with party leaders about the budget after it had already been written. They did not talk to Quebeckers either. There were no pre-budget consultations. No witnesses were heard in committee. After a year and a half without a budget, the Liberals worked alone, not even meeting with a single stakeholder from Quebec's various social and economic groups. Now they are surprised when we tell them that they are not meeting Quebeckers' needs. Contrary to what they say, the Liberals know what they need to do to get our support. The real question is, do they actually want us to support their budget?”
“It is a symbol of determination and collective success that reflects the entrepreneurial spirit of the Quebec people. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I invite the House to join me in wishing a fantastic 125th anniversary to Desjardins Group. I raise my glass to 125 more years and beyond.”
“Mr. Speaker, this year we are celebrating the 125th anniversary of the pride of Quebec: Desjardins Group. Founded in Lévis in 1900 by Alphonse Desjardins, it was the quiet revolution before the Quiet Revolution. While anglophone banks turned their backs on French Canadians and predatory lending was wreaking havoc, Alphonse Desjardins drew inspiration from the European co-operative model to create a fund for and by the people. Over the years, credit unions have helped our people, farmers, labourers, gain access to credit, in addition to participating in the birth and growth of several local gems such as Sico, Vachon, Cascades and, of course, Cirque du Soleil. Today, Desjardins has deep roots in our regions, our villages and our towns.”
“Mr. Speaker, the situation is not improving at the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA. Yesterday, the Auditor General confirmed what we already knew, that the CRA is not even answering the phone anymore. Worse still, the Auditor General revealed that when people do manage to get though to the agency, they are only being given correct information 17% of the time. In concrete terms, this means that we are just as likely to get an accurate answer from the CRA as we are to get an answer in French from the Prime Minister . When will the minister fix this fiasco?”
“On behalf of the Bloc Québécois and my constituents, I invite the House to join me in wishing La Petite Maison de Pointe-Calumet a very happy anniversary. I want to thank all those who have been fostering hope and solidarity there for 30 years now. What they do makes all the difference.”
“Mr. Speaker, as you will see, community spirit runs deep in my riding. This year, we are celebrating the 30th anniversary of La Petite Maison de Pointe-Calumet, which was founded in 1995 by Diane Grenier. It has grown over the years thanks to the commitment of passionate people like current director Mélissa Corbeil and her hard-working team. With more than 550 people receiving assistance and dozens of volunteers helping out, the organization provides support to families, children and seniors on a daily basis through projects such as the community garden, collective kitchens, food aid and educational kits that make learning about important issues fun for the whole family. At La Petite Maison de Pointe-Calumet, the expression “it takes a village to raise a child” takes on its full meaning.”
“At the same time, we are being told that all the other measures that were unacceptable are not being removed, that the government is still interested in them and that the government is ultimately going to come back to Parliament with these measures, such as allowing the police to open mail. Could my colleague please explain which measures were in Bill C‑2 but are not in Bill C‑12 and which ones he would like to see again in another bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, we all agree that we need better controls at the border and that this requires many new measures. Bill C‑12 is the new version of Bill C‑2 , which created a significant backlash in civil society because many people outside Parliament and in the opposition believed that, in an attempt to strengthen border protections, the government would be infringing on certain rights and trampling on the privacy of many people. It seemed a bit contradictory. Earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety told us that the government removed from the bill many of the elements that civil society and the opposition found unacceptable in order to table Bill C‑12, on which there is a broader consensus.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑12 is the new version of Bill C‑2 , with fewer irritants. The reason we have Bill C‑12 before us today is that there has been a huge backlash in civil society against Bill C‑2 and the privacy violations it entailed, particularly with respect to the police opening mail. This led to the introduction of Bill C‑12, which is much more balanced. Many of the irritants that bothered us, the Conservatives and civil society have been removed. That is why we are able to work on it again today. I would like my colleague to tell me whether he thinks that this type of work, namely reintroducing a bill when the opposition parties speak for civil society, is one of the advantages of having a minority government.”
“Mr. Speaker, this budget also has to tackle the major challenges of our time. One of those challenges is housing, which requires an unconditional, long-term transfer to Quebec for the construction of social and community housing. Another challenge is access to home ownership, which requires loans for first-time buyers to cover their down payment. Then there is infrastructure, which requires a new, unconditional transfer specific to Quebec. These budget requests cannot be ignored because the challenges cannot be ignored. Can we count on the government this November 4?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has made six budget-related demands, which can be summarized as follows: Quebec must be given the means to take care of Quebeckers. That means an unconditional increase in health transfers. Due to the cost of living, it means an OAS increase for seniors aged 65 to 74. Quebeckers must also be reimbursed the $814 million that the federal government stole from us to give out bogus carbon rebate cheques during the election. Those are our conditions. Will the government agree to Quebec's demands?”
“Mr. Speaker, allow me to take a second to thank my colleague for her speech. I think it is the kind of speech that sets the tone we need to hear in the House of Commons. Bill C‑10 is an important piece of legislation. It represents a significant milestone in modern treaty implementation and monitoring. Not long ago, we celebrated the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. I admit that this day always makes me a little uncomfortable, because in my riding, like many others, situations arise, including environmental situations, that lead people to call on the federal government the other 364 days of the year, yet it never answers. After families are left in insecurity and people are abandoned to environmental harm, then people are expected to celebrate reconciliation. I wonder whether my colleague has any comments on that situation.”
“Why, for 10 years, were the Liberals so uninterested in military justice, which is so important to the most vulnerable people and members of our armed forces?”
“Mr. Speaker, once again, this is an interesting and necessary bill, but we have to wonder why it took 10 years to introduce it. First, the Liberals requested so many reports that they virtually ran out of former Supreme Court justices to ask. They asked for a bunch of reports. Then they introduced a bill and let it die on the Order Paper. It would be fair to ask whether the Liberals were simply not interested in military justice, because when the Canadian Forces ombudsman tried to meet with Minister Sajjan, not only did the minister refuse to meet with him, but he did everything but hide in washrooms and broom closets to avoid meeting with the ombudsman. My question for my colleague is this.”
“Does my colleague not find this to be a clear demonstration of the disregard for women, among others, in the Canadian Army?”
“Mr. Speaker, in March 2015, and I would like to point out that we are in 2025, former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps tabled a scathing report on sexual abuse and allegations of sexual misconduct in the armed forces. A month later, the Harper government appointed Jonathan Vance as chief of the defence staff. Then there was the Fish report, but the government was not satisfied with that report so it asked former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour to produce a new report. Justice Arbour herself was surprised that she was being asked to redo work that had already been done. It is now 2025, and earlier I heard a Liberal member tell us that change takes time, and yet it took 10 years to introduce a bill to protect the most vulnerable members of our armed forces.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government may not be MAGA, but I think it is populist. It has a lack of respect for the institutions that have been established, a lack of respect for provincial legislatures, a lack of respect for the law, a lack of respect for the Constitution and a lack of respect for precedents. I think that needs to change.”