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 14 of 17.
“Mr. Speaker, our time might be put to better use if we debated these motions. I would like my colleague to table documents in the House. I would like him to table the Hansard for the day that the House recognized the Manitoba nation. I do not know when it took place. This Parliament recognized Quebec as a nation while the member's own government, which has not changed in 10 years, was right here. Second, when we bring motions here that were unanimously adopted by the National Assembly, our purpose is not for the will of Quebec to become federal policy, rather than “national” policy. Some vocabulary problems exist on both sides of the House. The idea is for Ottawa to step back and let Quebec manage its own affairs, while the federal government does the same.”
“There is no law that everyone agrees on. That is why we debate it again, vote on it again and have elections. There will be elections in Quebec in the fall of next year. I encourage my colleague to stand up for his convictions, and that is what I would say to his constituent.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would first like to stress one thing. We lost seats in the last election. We lose some, we win some. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes it goes down. This teaches us a lesson in humility. I make this appeal to my colleague. We in the Bloc Québécois have come here to table a motion from the Quebec National Assembly. When a Liberal member rises on an opposition day and tables in the House a unanimous motion of the National Assembly to debate it, then we will talk. We will talk about the representativeness of the Quebec legislature. As the Speaker said, I have a lot of experience in the House; that is his assessment. However, I have never seen this happen. This appeal to humility applies to everyone. Furthermore, a law passed is not a law imposed. There is no law that has unanimous support in civil society.”
“People do not have to agree 100% with Bill 96 or any of the other laws, either. That is why we have a democracy; that is why we have elections. These are not easy questions, and that is why we eventually have to make decisions about them. That is why the use of the notwithstanding clause is temporary, and that is why it always needs to be voted on again. That is healthy. I invite the 44 Liberals from Quebec to start respecting Quebec's parliamentary system and the members of the National Assembly. They, too, are elected, and they represent Quebec. Even though we are the only party that brings unanimous National Assembly motions to the House of Commons, I urge the Liberal members to stop thinking that we represent the Bloc's opinion and never represent 125 unanimous MNAs.”
“I know that the member for Bourassa, like others, does not believe in his heart of hearts that we are going to bring back slavery. I apologize for using him as an example. I know he does not believe that we are going to bring back slavery, but perhaps he is winning votes by saying so. That is the issue. He wins votes by calling us racists, by saying that we are exclusionary, that we do not like minority groups, that we only speak French, that we are against religion and that we are going to prevent women from working. He may win votes by doing that, but I would invite him to think hard about that type of rhetoric. When he talks about division, I would invite him to reflect on that type of rhetoric. Does everyone have to agree 100% with what is in Quebec's Bill 21? No.”
“There are lively debates happening in Quebec, outside the federal bubble where 44 Liberal members say they are worth more than 125 members of the National Assembly of Quebec. They are not ashamed that a gentleman from Winnipeg is telling them to stand up and vote against Quebec, not against the Bloc, but against unanimous motions. They tell us they will vote against it if a gentleman from Winnipeg tells them to. They say that we, the Bloc Québécois, are a bunch of hicks, that our ridings are just farmland and that we represent nothing. I congratulate them on their lesson in democracy. The notwithstanding clause is the result of a historic consensus. It is the outcome of a profoundly liberal reflection on democracy, which means that, ultimately, we cannot always rely on judges. That is what this clause says.”
“The declaration that invokes the notwithstanding clause must be re-enacted by a vote every five years. It is not permanent; there are guidelines. The way the notwithstanding clause can be used has already been defined in the Ford decision. The safeguards already exist. What is more, what is completely absurd is that these Liberals act as if we in Quebec need a federal grandpa. When I say “we,” I mean all of us: the member for Bourassa , the member for Québec Centre , the Bloc, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie , everyone, my family, his family, their family. We have lively debates. Kim Thuy, an extraordinary artist who was on TV the other day, was uncomfortable with the debates on immigration in Quebec. Some nice things and not-so-nice things were said. We debated. We have a civil society, journalists, a parliament and courts.”
“When there is a consensus, when there are debates, the National Assembly passes a law. The people of Quebec are not complete idiots. We have lively debates involving people of all origins. Despite that, the federal government is saying that the Superior Court has to strike down the law first. Then people would have to go to the Court of Appeal and get it to strike down the law as well, and that challenge would be funded with federal money. It would take five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 12 or 13 years before the case reaches the Supreme Court. Then, when the law is struck down by that court, that is when the notwithstanding clause would be useful and should be used. The federal government wants us to believe that, but the reality here today is that it does not like Bill 21.”
“He is not spouting nonsense like the member for Winnipeg North with his pseudo-intellectual remarks, reading us all kinds of legal articles to tell us that, in the end, it is just a quasi-constitutional issue. The member for Bourassa is honest. At least he said what he thinks. I can tell my colleagues that we hear what is said in the halls of Parliament, and we know that many of them think that way, at least those who think at all. (1715) Since they cannot rewrite the Constitution themselves, they decided to ask the court to ban the pre-emptive use of a provision that was in fact purely designed to be used pre-emptively. They are like kings telling us to install an alarm system in our homes, but to not connect it to the monitoring centre until someone is breaking down the door. This is the constitutional equivalent of that.”
“I take it as a personal insult to me, my family and my vision of interculturalism. In my family, back home, people left their country of origin to escape religious persecution and to avoid seeing religious symbols in public. These people, like many other Quebeckers, believe that this issue should be debated in Quebec City, in a civilized manner. This is an appeal from the heart. It is not written down. I have some papers here, but nothing I am saying is written down. I found the member's words very harsh and undignified. At least he had the honesty to say that his government is against the nowithstanding clause and that he is against it.”
“That is how he wins votes in his riding. That is how he sows division and spits on interculturalism. He says it is fine for his government to protect people's rights by going to the Supreme Court and saying that Quebeckers might use the notwithstanding clause to bring back some form of slavery. We have certainly seen some Quebec bashing—more than ever, in fact. Whenever we think they can go no lower, they do. I urge my colleague to pull himself together and stop making gratuitous accusations. The types of accusations being made by the member would never be tolerated from a sovereignist. Sovereignists have made unfortunate statements. They apologized. They went through a difficult experience. They know what it feels like. Everyone makes mistakes. Why is it tolerated when it comes from a Liberal?”
“In 31 of those, it is there to protect people's rights and ensure that, if they have a small debt, they do not have to go to court and pay $100,000 in legal fees. Does the member realize that? No, he does not, because he is not sticking to the party line. We understood what the member for Québec Centre , a true intellectual, was saying. He talked about balance. That makes sense. However, the member for Bourassa rose and said that the notwithstanding clause should be scrapped and that they hope the Supreme Court will do just that. This is about rewriting the Canadian Constitution. A redo of 1982 would be a betrayal. It would be a betrayal of history, a betrayal of consensus, a betrayal of philosophical liberalism as conceived by Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Jean Chrétien. The member thinks that is okay.”
“According to the member for Bourassa, the members serving in the Quebec National Assembly are garbage. It is mind-boggling that this is tolerated in the federal Parliament. I am also disgusted by his comments about us not being representative of diversity in any way. My wife immigrated here. She was born in Algeria. At home, we speak Kabyle and French. We have mixed origins that are part of our lives. That is what interculturalism is all about. It means being able to live together. When a member rises with a rude, contemptuous, pseudo-intellectual attitude and tries to teach us a life lesson, as if all the Bloc members were from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and we were all descended from one Tremblay ancestor, it is a disgrace to the House and to our democracy. The notwithstanding clause is valid in 41 statutes.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Rimouski—La Matapédia . It is sad to have to speak after the previous member, after hearing a supposedly honourable member. During a debate on a constitutional issue, he initially said in veiled terms that the Bloc Québécois was racist. He said that the Parliament of Quebec was like the Leaning Tower of Pisa and systematically leaned away from minorities. He said that the 44 Liberal members in Ottawa are worth more than the 125 members of the National Assembly. Do people realize how serious his comments are? He just told us that he represents Quebec. He says he represents Quebec's diversity. That is what he just said. He is telling us that the 125 members who voted unanimously on motions in the National Assembly are worthless.”
“Mr. Speaker, my question has two parts. First, our colleague from Bourassa mentioned earlier that, in his opinion, Quebec's National Assembly is like the leaning tower of Pisa in that it is always leaning in the same direction, against minorities. That is an extremely serious allegation. I would like to know whether the member for Québec Centre shares this opinion about the Quebec National Assembly. I would like to know whether, in his opinion, this also applies to Bill 21. Second, the member for Québec Centre said that the notwithstanding clause should be used in exceptional cases and that it is being used more frequently than before. However, after 1982, René Lévesque's government used it systematically in each of its bills. I would therefore like to know how my colleague defines the word “exceptional”.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will use my turn to denounce the outrageous remarks made earlier by the member for Winnipeg North . He said that if the Bloc did not agree with the Liberal Party line, they had no place here. To the member for Winnipeg North, some elected members have value and others do not. He stands up and gives us lessons in democracy. Beyond that, if he thinks that Bloc Québécois members have no place here because they defend the consensus of the National Assembly of Quebec, what does that say about the Quebec members of Parliament who are elected on the other side, who follow this party line, and who, time and time again, day after day, week after week, stand up to vote against unanimous motions adopted by the 125 duly elected members who make up their national parliament in Quebec City?”
“Instead of having the courage to reopen the Constitution and discuss it, he prefers to say that he is a sore loser and that his government will make sure that judges do the dirty work.”
“Mr. Speaker, before the parliamentary secretary lectured us on morality, he did something that he does not often do: He opened up to us and told us the truth. He said that when there were constitutional negotiations, he was in the Manitoba legislature. He said that the Constitution was a compromise that included the notwithstanding clause, and that he did not like that compromise because it reflected the balance of power at the time. He is not happy with the Constitution because he lost. What he is telling us is that, since the balance of power is not the same today, he wants to use the courts and the judiciary, rather than democracy and Parliament, to ensure that the courts make a different interpretation of section 33, even if it is absolutely clear, written in black and white. Is my colleague not showing a lack of courage?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring things back down to earth. That is often necessary with the Liberals. As the leader of the Bloc Québécois said, in the past 43 years, the notwithstanding clause has been used more than a hundred times. Even if we accept the crazy and illogical idea that it cannot be used pre-emptively, which was the reason it was created in the first place, why has this new legal idea has not been raised once before the courts in 43 years, until Bill 21, Quebec's Act respecting the laicity of the State, came along?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to wish a remarkable young lady from my riding, Arielle Courcy, a happy 13th birthday. That being said, civil society, the media and the government have been very critical of the United States, which is experiencing an institutional breakdown. How can we criticize our neighbours to the south when we ourselves have a government that is backsliding on the environment to the point that it no longer respects its international treaties, including the Paris Agreement?”
“Mr. Speaker, I understood from my colleague's previous intervention that she wanted an apology. My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé did not ask for an apology. He asked for a simple correction from the minister . Her comments were unbecoming of a minister and unworthy of the status of French as an official language in the House. I think that, in the Liberals' supposed spirit of co-operation, she should just withdraw her statement.”
“On behalf of the people of Mirabel, the House and the Bloc Québécois, I would like to express my deepest condolences to Annick, Olivia, Maël, Mr. and Mrs. Charbonneau and Mayor François Bélanger. May his work continue to inspire us.”
“Mr. Speaker, on July 1, we learned of the sudden death of Patrick Charbonneau, the mayor of Mirabel, at the age of 46. Patrick was more than an elected official; he was a caring, passionate man with a real desire to serve his community. After entering politics in 2013, he always worked with integrity, vision, compassion and an approachable warmth. Patrick was a friend, an ally, a trusted partner who always showed up, a person who was deeply human, ambitious, funny and committed. He wanted to change things, and he did it with the big heart he was known for. Above all, he was a loving father and a devoted family man. He often talked about his children with unaffected tenderness. His love for them was palpable. We will remember him for his laugh, his quick wit, his generosity and everything he accomplished for Mirabel and the region.”
“Second, I would like to know why the bill does not include any provisions allowing customs officers to patrol between border crossings, as requested by the community, along the longest demilitarized border in the world.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are talking about border security. That is all well and good, but things have gotten to this point thanks to 10 years of Liberal neglect. Now, the people protecting the border, the customs officers, are telling us, through their union, that we could need up to 3,000 more officers at the border. Meanwhile, the government has promised 1,000. This was not even mentioned in the throne speech, and so far, not a single officer has been hired. My question is twofold. First, I would like to know how it is that the Prime Minister has had time to announce funding for defence, to travel around the world four times and purchase submarines, but has not had time to hire the 2,000 to 3,000 officers needed.”
“Mr. Speaker, sometimes we are asked what the Bloc Québécois is good for. At the very least, it is good for having members of Parliament who do not steal $814 million from Quebeckers to write cheques for Canadians. Right now, there are 44 Liberal members from Quebec. All 44 of them voted to steal from Quebeckers, as did the 11 Conservatives from Quebec. They all rejected the National Assembly's unanimous motion calling on the government to pay back that money. Clearly, these members do not stand up for Quebeckers. The real question is not what the Bloc Québécois is good for, but what these people are good for.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals and the Conservatives all voted to make Quebeckers pay $814 million in bogus Canada carbon rebate cheques. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed it, saying that the funds will obviously be drawn from the consolidated revenue fund. Worse still, Quebeckers are going to keep paying. The Parliamentary Budget Officer also said that there was no doubt that there would be interest to pay on that amount because, in a deficit situation, every additional expenditure results in additional borrowing. Why are the Liberals and Conservatives stealing from Quebeckers?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is a right-wing Conservative. He talks about freedom ad nauseam. What always surprises me about these right-wing Conservatives is that they become communists when it comes to taking public money and sending it to the oil and gas industry, with subsidies for small modular nuclear reactors that make oil with nuclear power, or with subsidies for research and development for carbon capture. The taxpayer would even have to pay the oil and gas companies to sequester their own carbon. We are talking tens of billions of dollars over the next 10 years. How does my colleague reconcile the fact that he repeats the word freedom every time he opens his mouth with the fact that, when it comes to pouring public money into oil and gas companies, he essentially becomes a communist?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is a member from Quebec. She must know that, when the Parliamentary Budget Officer appeared before the Standing Committee on National Finance, he confirmed that during the election campaign, there were so-called carbon tax rebates in eight provinces on a tax that had not been collected. That is further proof that Quebeckers were robbed of $814 million. I know that we never get a clear answer. However, I would like to ask my colleague if she trusts the Parliamentary Budget Officer or not.”
“Madam Speaker, what the Conservatives are doing is incomprehensible. They are telling us that the Liberals are stealing their ideas, so we are proposing that they study the bill in committee. The Conservative position in the debate is that the Liberals are not going far enough. They have an opportunity to improve Bill C‑5 and have even more of their ideas stolen, but they are passing it up. I think they will pay for it one day.”
“Madam Speaker, you can put a new label on a jar of expired peanut butter, but it is still the same old stuff in the jar. Members need to stop telling me that this is a new government. We have not talked about oil per se. I talked about environmental regulations because it seems to me that, for the Conservatives and the Liberals today, environmental regulations are only good when they do not do their job and when they let everything go through. We are questioning the processes by which projects are approved and the fact that many laws that are very important to protecting Canadians can be suspended. We are calling for a committee. My colleague will see in committee whether we oppose everything.”
“The Conservatives also voted against a motion about stealing money from Quebeckers. I am not the one to ask why the Liberals are afraid of transparency. She should ask her own party. She should also ask her party leadership why they are not doing their job as the official opposition and why a party with only 22 seats needs to do it for them.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake is someone I really enjoyed working with. We are far from agreeing on everything, but she is always very easy to work with. I must remind her that in Quebec, we are obviously celebrating our national holiday, which, coincidentally, falls on Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. We wish a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day to all francophones in Canada. The Liberal government is worn out, and to claim that it is new is untrue. It has been around for around 10 years. I will be very direct and honest with my colleague: The Conservatives' job is to monitor this government. However, only three weeks in, the Conservatives voted in favour of a closure motion. They also voted for closure on the closure. It is like a bad movie: boring and lacking suspense.”
“Madam Chair, my colleague does not seem to have understood my speech, even though we have excellent interpreters with us. Actually, it seems he did not listen to my speech. Here is what I asked: Where in the Liberal election platform does it say that a sentence on the front page replaces the will of the legislator and the work done in committee? I did not get an answer to that. Our colleague rises and says that we are the only ones against this bill. What we want is to study this bill, call witnesses and accomplish our parliamentary work. As I said, I know that the Conservatives support this bill. I know that we think differently on the matter, and I respect that. What I respect less is the fact that they are undermining parliamentary work that might lead us to pass a better version of the bill.”
“The problem is that we are unable to do our job as parliamentarians because neither the government nor the ministers give us the sort of respect we need to do our job. That is upsetting. It is also upsetting to see the Conservatives supporting this process.”
“Do people realize that this gentleman is behaving like the majority shareholder of Canada, like the CEO of Canada? I want to look the Conservatives in the eye and tell them that they should be ashamed to hand him such power. No budget was tabled. The Liberals' fiscal framework was flawed and incompetently put together. The government budgeted an expected $20 billion in revenues from retaliatory tariffs. That amount currently stands at $1.6 billion. Obviously, we are not going to get to $20 billion. The tax cuts were supposed to be paid from that amount. This framework was in the Liberals' election platform. Why is no budget being tabled? Why is that no substitute for legislators? That is the problem.”
“Although they support the bill, and we understand why, the Conservatives are voting to muzzle Parliament. The new trend among Liberals is to tell us that everything was in their election platform and that replaces the work normally done by legislators. Was it written in their election platform? Where in the Liberal election platform did it say that the platform would replace legislators if the Liberals were elected, even as a minority? The problem in all this is that we have a Prime Minister who fails to grasp that he is the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister thinks he is a CEO. He thinks he can show contempt for the House. He thinks he can show contempt for our work. He thinks he can show contempt for our committees. He thinks he is a CEO, but fortunately, he is only a minority shareholder. His party does not have a majority of seats.”
“It is a cult of personality. The Prime Minister appoints the minister he wants and the minister can select the projects. After that, he can do bogus assessments. When he adds his project in a schedule and to a list, all the legislation that might have been able to protect the public, the environment and the ecosystems are suspended. The Liberals tell us that is what we are going to do to build Canada strong. They need to stop saying that. When the pipeline is built, Donald Trump will no longer have been in power for six or seven years. This gives certain companies incredible lobbying power over the minister. This gives the Prime Minister discretionary power. The Liberals are telling us that no minister will be appearing before the committee. The Liberal ministers are too busy to come testify.”
“The notice of ways and means motion means that people are already entitled to the tax cut. It is now in effect. We have all the time we need to properly study the bill and invite witnesses to appear before the committee, particularly with regard to the housing measures, about which we have technical questions to ask. The tax cut is already in effect. In this case, the Liberals and the Conservatives have an unhealthy relationship with the truth. The same goes for Bill C‑5 , which should have been split in two. In that case, the ministers will not be lying in committee because they will not be appearing before the committee. We know that there is a cult of personality among the Liberals. The Liberals could almost have a Mao-Zedong-style poster of the Prime Minister and everyone would prostrate themselves before him.”
“Earlier, the Conservative member for Bow River said that the Conservatives were going to vote with the Liberals and that they never expected the Liberals to steal so many of their ideas. They are not stealing ideas, but they are stealing from Quebeckers. Where in the Liberal platform did it say that Quebeckers would be robbed? Where in the Conservative platform did it say that they were going to steal $814 million from Quebeckers? I am being told that the Liberals stole this idea from the Conservative platform. It is this murky relationship with the truth that is preventing us from carrying out the business of supply properly. That is to say nothing of the government's Bill C‑4 , which will pass with little or no study. The Liberals say it is urgent because people need the tax cut immediately.”
“Senator Forest asked again if everyone would pay, then, including Quebeckers. Mr. Giroux, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, answered that that was exactly right. (1920) The Parliamentary Budget Officer would make a good finance minister, because he knows what he is talking about, he tells us the truth and he says things clearly. The corollary to what was said yesterday at the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance is that Quebeckers paid for the Liberals to buy votes. The Liberals bought votes. They handed out rebate cheques. However, it was not a rebate, because if something was not paid, then it cannot be rebated. Quebeckers were robbed, and they need to be reimbursed. That is how the business of supply works. We moved a motion, and the Conservatives joined forces with the Liberals to steal from Quebeckers.”
“We asked him once, twice, three times, four times, but the minister refused to answer. That is clear proof of the strange relationship he has with the truth, to say the least. Yesterday, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Mr. Giroux, was in the Senate. According to the Senate committee blues, Mr. Giroux said, “The Canadian carbon rebate, or CCR, is an advance payment to offset what people will pay for the carbon tax. Since the rebate was paid in April, but the carbon tax is no longer being collected, the money will come from the consolidated revenue because there will no longer be a fuel tax rebate or surcharge. The money will come from the consolidated revenue fund.” It will therefore come out of the consolidated revenue fund, and Quebeckers will pay for it. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said yesterday in the Senate.”
“The Liberals do not know what they are going to announce from one week to the next. There might be good news on the military spending front. We do not even know if they came up with that the day before, the day before that, or three days prior. We do not know. The same applies to reimbursing Quebeckers for the rebate on the carbon tax that the eight other provinces did not pay. During the election campaign, the Liberals said that they would abolish the carbon tax while giving an advance rebate to provinces where the tax had not been collected. During the consideration of the business of supply, we told the Minister of Finance that he owed Quebeckers $814 million. We asked him many times to confirm that these cheques had been sent out before the tax was collected.”
“We asked him whether the government intends to pay back the dealerships the money they are owed, given that they are small businesses. There are some in my constituency, and people have been talking to me about it. The parliamentary secretary congratulated me. He told me to keep lobbying in the corridors and that I would get there eventually. Twenty minutes later, I read a newspaper article saying that the minister had announced that the program would be reinstated. However, the funding is still not there. With the Liberals, we have to see the money to believe it. However, at least there has been an announcement. It is not easy getting honesty and truth out of the Liberals. Frankly, the conclusion we have come to from studying the appropriations is that the government makes decisions on a whim.”
“The Minister of Finance is not supposed to be a door-to-door vacuum salesman. He is the Minister of Finance. We spoke to him on Thursday about how he had run out of funds for subsidies under the incentives for zero-emission vehicles program. We talked to him about how he had made a promise to car dealers in Quebec and about how they had advanced 70% of the money owed by the federal government out of their own pockets. We asked the minister whether he intended to keep his promise and fund the missing subsidies. The minister, who never answers a question, floundered. He did not answer. He was all over the place. In the end, he never did answer the question. Today, we put the question back to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons , whom we love because he puts on a very good show.”
“Once the House adjourns in this very troubling democratic context, I cannot wait to spend time on the ground visiting the people who elected me. I am really looking forward to it. I began my speech this way because we need to find moments of joy in the House. We need to find them because what is happening in the House is sad. The business of supply is sad. The situation is sad, and what is even sadder is that I forgot to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé. Sharing my time with my adored whip is another moment of joy. We need to find these little moments. This is one of them. The business of supply is very sad. It is hard to get the truth out of ministers and the government. I will give one example that I referred to when I asked a question earlier.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to wish you a good evening. It may be a long night for you as well. Since this may be my last speech before the House adjourns in the next few days, I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone in my riding a very happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day and national holiday. We are going to celebrate in style. We are going to celebrate our national holiday, our French-speaking nation in Quebec. We will be celebrating from Saint-Placide, Kanesatake and Oka to Saint-Joseph-du-Lac. We will be celebrating in Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac and in all areas of Mirabel, as well as in Saint-Eustache. There is a new part of my riding in Saint-Eustache, and I fully intend to get involved there. I would like to tell all my constituents that I look forward to seeing them.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague is once again talking to us about the opposition motion. I am looking at the orders of the day. We have reached the debate on the main estimates. It is hard to tell whether my colleague knows where we are on the agenda. I will ask a very simple questions. Can my colleague tell us what the main estimates and the supplementary estimates are?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to say hello to my colleague and wish him a good evening. It could be a long night. I understand from my colleague that he had a good career in the energy sector and in the business world and that he has now been elected as a Conservative member of Parliament. This is his first term. Since taking office, since we have been sitting, he voted with the Liberals last week to steal $814 million from Quebeckers. This week, he voted with the Liberals to support a gag order, and then to support a gag order on the gag order to short-circuit the work of Parliament. I would like to know whether, as a new member, he was expecting to vote with the Liberals so often and whether that surprises him.”
“How can they not be uncomfortable saying such a thing about the estimates and doing something completely different for everything else, under the pretext that one line in the Liberal election platform mentioned what is in Bill C-5? I would like my colleague to tell me about the feelings and emotions he experiences when he tells us contradictory things like that.”