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 16 of 17.
“Madam Chair, it is approximately 4%. I do not think the minister has the numbers at hand. We will do him a favour. Can the minister tell us which level of government in the United Kingdom manages hospitals?”
“Madam Chair, it took a lot of energy to get the opposite of the truth. I thank the minister. He is very good at that. When the minister does the accounting reform, he is going to separate the capital and operating accounts. What part of the budget is he going to exclude from the calculation of the operating deficit?”
“Madam Chair, with all due respect, I think that is what the minister is presuming. Were these carbon tax rebate cheques that were sent out in the middle of an election to buy votes in eight provinces delivered without the tax that funded them being collected?”
“Madam Chair, I salute my colleagues in the official opposition. I also want to salute the minister. We did not have a chance to talk, and we were not supposed to. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his election. In early January, the incentive program for zero-emission vehicles was suspended. We were told that there was a lack of funding. People in Quebec who bought an electric vehicle could no longer get the federal credit. As a result, dealerships, most of which are SMEs and many of which are located in my riding, have to pay $700,000, $800,000, $900,000 and even $1 million. Dealership associations told us that the minister had personally committed to budget the funds in order to repay the subsidy advances made to customers. Does the minister remember that commitment?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his eloquent speech. It was very good. During the last Parliament, the Bloc Québécois held opposition days on issues we consider important, such as Bill 21, secularism, the oath to the King and the monarchy. Each and every time, the Conservatives stood up and asked us why we were not talking about the real issues. They spoke about the cost of living, how much Quebeckers have in their wallets, the prices Quebeckers are paying. They asked us why we were not talking about money and purchasing power. Tonight, we are doing exactly that. This is a concrete issue, not a symbolic one, and it has a direct impact on our constituents' wallets. The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk has been standing up and giving us election results since 9 o'clock this morning. Why is he not congratulating us?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am surprised by the comments of my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk . We should ask him how many Bloc Québécois seats he thinks it takes to make cheating morally acceptable. I sense some moral ambiguity in my colleague's questions now. I have a question for my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord. We know that the Liberals do not want to pay. Usually, we would expect the reason to be that they have no money. However, they have been playing fast and loose with public funds since they came to power. With no budget in hand, they expect to overshoot the amount provided in the estimates by $38 billion and plan to spend $9 billion on defence. This frenzy of government spending is happening without any transparency to Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers are making an effort when it comes to the environment and the transition, but the rest of Canada has decided to stop trying. I think that is obvious. Now, in this debate, people have made the mistake of thinking that the April 1 cheque that was sent to eight provinces was in some way related to the carbon tax in those eight provinces, even though it no longer existed, or that it was related to the emissions trading system, to the fact that British Columbia had cancelled its tax, and so on. These vote-getting cheques were paid out of the federal consolidated revenue fund and were sent to eight provinces, but not to Quebeckers. There is no connection between those cheques and any carbon pricing policy whatsoever, be it federal or provincial.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague, whom I hold in high regard, said something important in his opening remarks. He said that he does not always agree with the Bloc Québécois. We do not have to agree on everything. However, we must agree that there are facts, things that can be verified as true. Then we can disagree on which policy is the right one. For the purposes of this debate, the Liberals believe that the Earth is flat. They are denying reality while ignoring the facts and the information put out by the Prime Minister 's Office. This is undignified of a parliamentary debate. It simply proves that, in order to buy votes in eight provinces, the current government is willing to cheat the people from Mirabel out of just over $10 million. I will make it my duty to remind them of that.”
“Mr. Speaker, the issue is not that Quebec did not participate. It is that the Liberals created a war room, thought about how they could buy votes, and decided to write cheques to eight provinces. I find it interesting how the member for Winnipeg North phrased his question. He spent the day in the House telling everyone that people had budgeted for this rebate and that they should be treated with respect. That was pretty much his only argument. However, we have just shown him that this was essentially the opposite of the truth, that his argument did not hold water, that it went against the most basic logic and that government basically cheated Quebeckers. Now he is standing up and talking to us about international trade. I appeal to the sense of duty and truth that must guide us as parliamentarians.”
“However, when delivery companies like DoorDash charge too much or give bad service, the Competition Bureau gets on their case, takes them to court, conducts a special investigation and demands refunds. What we are discussing here is a veritable scandal. I urge the government to reconsider. It cannot be said often enough: Quebeckers are being cheated. Under the circumstances, I am asking for the unanimous consent of the House to table, in both official languages, the dictionary definition of cheat. My colleagues will then see that the current situation fits that definition perfectly.”
“The member for Winnipeg North told us that this morning. He is the Liberals' St. Jude, the patron saint of lost causes. If the church did not already have a patron saint of lost causes, he would be canonized. When he rises, it is because all hope is lost. The premise of the argument is that, since the price of gas has dropped, people need compensation. This is what it has come to. What is the point of debating here when that is the premise? No one even realizes how outrageous it is anymore. Here we are, talking about a robbery, about things written down in black and white by the Prime Minister's Office, yet it has somehow become banal. Parliament may pass the motion, but the Liberals could not care less. They are not going to respect the will of Parliament.”
“The day after the leaders' debate, the then Minister of Environment and Climate Change said on LCN in Quebec that Quebeckers were paying less per tonne of CO 2 in their own system and therefore were not entitled to the cheques. Of course, an environment minister is not supposed to understand what a cap is. It is normal that he does not understand what it is. However, on April 1, the Liberals said that in eight provinces, even if they paid 0¢ per tonne of CO 2 , people were entitled to cheques. I taught logic and mathematics at university. Here, we are not even at public policy and critical thinking 101. Now, the government is telling us that people need to be able to budget, which is why it gave them those cheques. It says that it lowered the price of gas, but this is so hard on people that they need a cheque.”
“In 2023, when the Liberals bought votes in Atlantic Canada, the then minister of environment and climate change, who is now the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture , said there would be no more carve-outs. Today, there is no more program, full stop, and yet we have not even changed governments. Now the new Prime Minister has come along and is trying to justify himself. During the election campaign, the Liberals realized that they had handed out cheques at Quebeckers' expense. That is what we told the Prime Minister during the leaders' debate. The Prime Minister was unable to respond. The Liberals then went to work to refine their arguments. Liberals can think hard when they put their minds to it. That is an important prerequisite. As we will see, the argument has changed.”
“On top of that, they took money from Quebeckers to subsidize half of these people's heat pumps. They buy votes. That is what they do. I would like someone to explain to me why a vote for a Liberal, bought with public funds, is worth more in the Atlantic provinces than in Ontario, and why a vote in Quebec is worth nothing. It is because these people take Quebeckers for granted. That is exactly what is happening. What the Liberals are telling us is that Quebeckers have their own system and that they needed to budget. The Liberals' argument to justify their opposition to our motion, even though such opposition is impossible to justify, is like a Pokémon: It evolves, but it does not get any prettier.”
“That is what it did. That is why the Quebec National Assembly has spoken out on the issue. Quebeckers and British Columbians are being treated unfairly. This is not the first time votes have been bought using that program. The first time was in 2023. Members will recall that the Liberals were at the very bottom of the polls. What did they decide to do? They decided to stop charging the carbon tax on home heating oil, which is used primarily in the Atlantic provinces. One might think that they would have reduced the amounts paid out in those provinces accordingly. If the carbon tax is lower, the amount of the cheques should also be lower. Well, I will end the suspense. They doubled a portion of the cheque. They lowered the tax, but they increased the amount of the cheque. They bought votes.”
“The same team that wrote that in the legislation, in the Department of Finance documents, wrote the absurd speeches we heard from the member for Winnipeg North and the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles . We could list a bunch of ridings where people are being told to say that. It clearly says “prior to the collection period”. They are telling us that Quebeckers did not pay the carbon tax, that they have their own system and that is why they are not getting a cheque. What do these people not understand? When the cheque was sent on April 1, each of the eight provinces where people received cheques had their own systems. There is no longer any system. (1605) The government sent cheques to people in provinces that no longer had a system. The federal government issued those cheques anyway, using funds from its consolidated revenue fund.”
“The Conservatives, who were heavily criticized for months and years by the Liberals, demonized that tax. A new Prime Minister arrives and says: I want to win an election and the only thing that matters to me are the polls. The guy wrote a book called Values . He comes to power and might call his biography Polls . That is what happened. The Liberals decided to buy an election. They eliminated the tax. As we have said before and we will say again, the law was clear. The Department of Finance documents clearly state that payments made in April defer the fuel charge proceeds from April to June. They indicate that the cheque is always paid prior to the collection period. The people who wrote the documents are the same people in the Prime Minister's Office who wrote the speeches we just heard today. It is the same staff.”
“Paul Journet, a well known and respected editorial writer at La Presse , summed it up well last week. He said that initially there was a deal in Canada. The federal government said: I will buy Trans Mountain, I will take care of this pipeline that no one wants and in which no one wants to invest—like most pipeline projects actually—and in exchange the provinces will commit to pricing pollution. Some provinces did not do that. In some cases, it already existed. Ontario took one step forward, one step back. Finally, the federal government had to fill in the gaps and come up with its own program. What happened next? The money came. At great expense to public funds, Quebeckers paid for the pipeline. We are talking about $32 billion, $33 billion or $34 billion in public funds. It is an absolute boondoggle. What happened?”
“Not even 22% of military contracts go to Quebec, even though we have the aerospace industry and the icebreaker expertise at the Davie shipyard. In the bilateral health agreements, Quebec does not even have the money from its own taxes to pay for diabetes medication because the federal government thinks it is more important to meddle in other people's affairs than to help normal, sick people. This time, Quebeckers are being cheated of $814 million. The member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères said earlier that this represents more than $10 million per riding. I do not know if the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles realizes that the federal government is about to steal $10 million from people who just voted for her. How did this all get started?”
“The federal government has cheated people more than once, according to the definition I have here. It is a habit. It is crazy that we are here in the House saying that Quebeckers are being cheated by the federal government and almost finding it normal. When the 1998 ice storm happened, I did not even have the right to vote. The federal government still owes Quebec some $484 million, as well as $500 million for social assistance for people who entered at Roxham. These are unpaid cheques. Anyone who does not pay their credit card bill gets cut off, but not the federal government. There is no aerospace policy, even though the auto sector quickly received $4 billion as soon as something happened. The Trans Mountain pipeline for western Canada is over $30 billion.”
“Mr. Speaker, in addition to greeting you, I would like to take this opportunity to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rivière-du-Nord . I listened to the previous member give a speech that was completely off topic for all 10 minutes. I was wondering how to start. I went to the dictionary and looked up the word “cheat”. That is a strong word. It is important to define it. It is defined as to “gain an advantage over or deprive of something by using unfair or deceitful methods; defraud”, or to “deprive someone of something to which they are entitled”. A government that decides not to pay what it owes to Quebeckers is cheating them. For regular people, that is in the Criminal Code. That is what the Liberals are about to do, based on what we understand from their remarks today.”
“Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the member has been given time but the motion concerns a specific topic. My colleague is completely off topic. I would like to know if she is going to shift direction and talk about the motion we are debating today.”
“Does he have an opinion about the Bloc Québécois's request that the Quebec government be allowed to appoint negotiators to sit at the table with the federal government? Currently, there is a complete lack of transparency in almost everything the government is doing, including on budgetary matters.”
“Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing from the government benches is that negotiations are progressing and that there may even be direct negotiations going on between the Prime Minister and President Trump. However, in Canada, there is a total lack of transparency when it comes to trade negotiations. Agreements are negotiated behind closed doors. Parliament does not even get to vote on the substance, only on the implementation. Although there are elements in the negotiation plans and the draft agreements that fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, delegates appointed by Quebec and the provincial governments are not invited to participate. I wonder whether my colleague can share his thoughts about that.”
“The whole situation is abnormal, as is the lack of a budget, the lack of an economic statement and the spending spree that the government is proposing here, without allowing us to do our job as parliamentarians. Right now, the House is calling for a budget, but the first act of the new Prime Minister is to show a profound lack of respect for a request from the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his election. In fact, in another life, he was my own city councillor. That said, my colleague argues that it is not at all customary for a government to get elected, open Parliament and immediately table a budget. He may be right about not tabling an entire budget, but it is customary to table an economic statement. It is customary to give information to the House. I see him writing on his sheet, and he is going to say that I am wrong. Let us suppose that I am wrong; even so, there are not many examples of governments that open Parliament, do not table a budget, but then, without presenting a budget, spend $26 billion on tax cuts, $38 billion on additional credits and $9 billion on defence.”
“When he is asked if there will be a budget, he replies that an announcement will be made in such and such a riding. The Minister of Finance is not interested in public finances. He is interested in making announcements. My colleague said in her speech that the government has made some great announcements. A government needs a budget to govern. Does my colleague believe that her government should present a budget this spring, as any responsible government would do?”
“Mr. Speaker, although my colleague's speech was very interesting and very good, I would like to address two things that she said. First, she mentioned that old refrain from the election campaign, specifically “think big, be Canadian”. In other words, Canada has to be “big”. The President of the United States is a bad guy, and the situation is urgent. Then my colleague regurgitated all the old measures that were in the budget presented six months ago by the minister who replaced the former finance minister, who resigned because the previous budget was so bad. We keep hearing how serious the situation is. It was pretty obvious in question period today that the Minister of Finance has no interest in drafting a budget. He is interested in one thing: making announcements.”
“Mr. Speaker, the $9 billion in spending is in addition to the $26 billion over five years in tax cuts. Add to that the $4 billion for the GST exemption for new homes. All that is in addition to the $38 billion more in appropriations for the cost of the federal government. That alone is more than Quebec's total annual health care budget. The Liberals are asking us to support it without a budget being tabled. That is totally irresponsible. Why is the government trying to hide the state of its finances from us?”
“I would also like to congratulate my friend Francine Charles, city councillor for ward 6, for receiving the Francine Ruest‑Jutras award, which recognizes women's excellence in municipal politics. This award highlights what we already knew about Francine, which is her great vision and outstanding commitment to the community. Lastly, I would like to congratulate my friend François Robillard, mayor of Sainte‑Marthe‑sur‑le‑Lac, who was honoured for his 20 years in municipal politics. These dear friends can be proud. I commend them for their dedication. Long live municipal engagement!”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to say how proud I am of the awards received by the City of Mirabel and the mayor of Sainte‑Marthe‑sur‑le‑Lac at the 2025 Municipal Conference of the Union des municipalités du Québec, or UMQ. First, there is the Ovation municipale award in the climate future category in recognition of the ingenuity and creativity behind the work to reduce the ecological footprint of the Bois de Belle‑Rivière regional educational park. I wish to congratulate the entire municipal council, mayor Patrick Charbonneau, Stéphane Michaud, CEO of the Corporation de la protection de l'environnement de Mirabel, and Jacques Bellerose, park president.”
“Mr. Speaker, steel and aluminum tariffs are doubling, and 2,000 forestry jobs have been lost. The trade war is heating up. Our industries and workers need support. We need a budget. Yesterday, the throne speech was adopted on the condition that at least a budget update would be adopted. Today, the Liberals are being asked to respect their own throne speech. Will they keep their word for once and immediately table an economic update with relief measures?”
“However, it is not true that every regulation adopted by a province's executive or legislature for a specific reason is a barrier, that it is its main purpose. Right now, what the Government of Canada is trying to do is indirectly grab all of the regulatory power that is needed at times to maintain and strengthen Quebeckers' vision for society, particularly when it comes to the environment.”
“Madam Speaker, I will quickly read the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Comeau: The need to maintain balance embodied in the federalism principle supports an interpretation of s. 121 that prohibits laws directed at curtailing the passage of goods over interprovincial borders, but allows legislatures to pass laws to achieve other goals within their powers, even though the laws may have the incidental effect of impeding the passage of goods over interprovincial borders. Why am I reading the Supreme Court ruling? It is because the Supreme Court says there are barriers. It is true that Quebec introduced its own bill to break down some barriers. It is true that some regulations do create barriers.”
“Madam Speaker, when my colleague was asking her question, she made a slip of the tongue that I am going to keep and reuse. Instead of saying, “one economy out of 13”, she said, “one government out of 13”. She said that the Liberals wanted to create one government instead of 13, and not one economy. That is what they are trying to do. Canada's nature and geography mean that there will always be multiple economies. There is a Texan economy, but it is in the United States. There is a Californian economy, which has a carbon exchange with Quebec, but it is also in the United States. There are distinct economies. What the Liberals are trying to do is walk all over Quebec, centralize everything and form one government instead of 13. Generally speaking, that is bad news for the economy.”
“Madam Speaker, it is funny because, over the weekend, I thought I would get my colleague's cellphone number to say hello, since we are working on a joint file in a municipality. I would like to take this opportunity to tell her that I know she is very much appreciated. Now, to answer the question more specifically, I would say that that is precisely the issue. My colleague is asking me whether I will vote in favour of the throne speech. I read the throne speech. Perhaps she can tell me which page mentions aeronautics. There is no policy on it, and there is no mention of it. All the aeronautics companies are in my riding, but I am being asked if I will vote in favour of a throne speech that makes no mention of that field. That gives me pause, and it underscores the importance of the Bloc Québécois in the House.”
“I am guessing it is in his top drawer, but at some point, the Prime Minister and advisers told him to hide it away until the fall. I am fairly confident that it could be done pretty quickly.”
“Madam Speaker, time is running out to introduce a budget. The Liberals have pushed things far enough, and it is hard to backtrack. There were no pre-budget consultations. Now they find themselves having to draft a budget without having heard from anyone. They spent their campaign scaring people. The solution is a budget update. At the very least, we need to know where we are at with revenue and spending. How much revenue will tariffs generate? How is the government going to pay for tax cuts? We need a summary document that would enable Parliament to do its job properly. I think the government can provide a pared-down budget while we wait for the fall edition. As I said, I am pretty sure that the Minister of Finance had already worked on this.”
“We are asked if we want to collaborate, provided they do not table a budget. We are asked if we want to collaborate, provided we do what they say. The government is in a minority. We have always collaborated. We have always worked in a spirit of openness. An hon. member: Oh, oh. Jean‑Denis Garon: Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North will be able to ask a question since there will be another round. We can collaborate, but they need to understand that in my speech I talked about major priorities that would help Quebec's economy, Canada's economy in general. There was no mention of that in the Speech from the Throne and saying so does not amount to political activism.”
“Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague. She is my neighbour, so we are bound to run into each other. It is funny because during the election campaign, someone new arrived in the region. We looked into it. We saw that early in her career she was at a large consulting firm that practised tax evasion. We wondered if she took part in that. She did not so we did not give her a hard time about it. That said, we found out that she spent her entire career appointed by Liberals in all sorts of embassies, all sorts of organizations, so maybe repackaged is not quite the right word. We could talk about it more over a beer. I imagine we do not live far from one another. That is always the way with the Liberals. We are asked if we want to collaborate, provided we vote with them.”
“There is no strategy for this long-cycle industry. Do they realize how privileged we are to have such an industry here? This industry is present in my riding, Mirabel, and in Longueuil—Saint-Hubert , whose member is playing on his phone. Do the Liberals realize what a privilege it is to have such an industry in a country the size of Canada, which, given its GDP, should not even be part of the G7? I believe there is a lot of work to be done. There are intelligent people with good ideas on both sides of the House. That is a good thing because the government is a minority. I, personally, am all in favour of cross-party collaboration. However, we are going to have to share ideas. We will need to go beyond rhetoric, pipelines, “one economy out of 13” and other things that, frankly, make no economic sense.”
“Why are we one of the only countries in the world capable of manufacturing an aircraft or a helicopter from A to Z, in a long-cycle, high-value-added industry, where more than half of the research and development jobs are in Quebec, and yet we have no government strategy? Why is Bombardier is able to produce reconnaissance planes that are purchased by a number of countries, but Canada chooses to pay more to buy from Boeing? That is what it did a few months ago, without going through a call for tenders, to buy aircraft that were about to become obsolete. The other countries that are buying this military equipment from Bombardier are asking us why our own country is not buying it. Why is there no strategy? We asked the then minister of industry, but he did not know. The Liberals will not tell us.”
“According to HEC Montréal's Centre for Productivity and Prosperity, the main reason people in Newfoundland do not do business with people in British Columbia is not because we have 13 economies instead of one. It is because those two places are as far apart as Quebec is from Venezuela, which is something to consider if they want to build a pipeline. That is the situation. There is one last thing I would like to address. We have to promote Quebec's businesses and business sectors. Why does the auto sector get $4 billion the moment they say “ouch”? Why has oil become a “nation-building project” when we do not have a national aerospace strategy?”
“Here is why: At the time of the energy east pipeline, the CEO, who is one of the highest-paid non-profit CEOs in Canada, complained that TransCanada was not giving him money. Perhaps he held off complaining about the others because they were giving him money. The other study that was held up as proof that this plan will have infinite benefits was done by the International Monetary Fund. It is an econometric, statistical study. It was very intelligent, a well-crafted academic document that was summarized by the National Bank of Canada and published widely during the election campaign. It made the rounds. Those folks engaged in a thought experiment and asked themselves what Canada's GDP would be if there were no more provinces and no more geographic borders.”
“It can be done, preparations can be made, but evidently the government does not budget. That is what it is for. It is for the economy of tomorrow. What is the government doing instead? It is talking to us about pipelines, oil and gas, when our energy security is already taken care of. As for the plan for one economy instead of 13, the economic benefits were calculated by the Montreal Economic Institute, or MEI, though they were not verified. Between 1999 and 2019, the MEI defended the oil and gas industry 97.5% of the time during its media appearances. This information comes from a doctoral thesis. I am one of those people who reads them. The MEI said that climate science was mafia science. While we do not know who funds this institute, some people assume that it is backed by oil companies.”
“There is no more money for universities, for CEGEPs, for vocational training, for assistance to businesses, for support, for adjusting our tax system. It is a tragedy. (1700) When we say that we need higher health transfers and that the deal with the federal government is that 35% of health costs should be paid for through unconditional transfers, that is what the funds are for. The government tells us that health transfers have increased. Granted, an agreement was entered into with the federal government, but the amount is not enough. When the Prime Minister met behind closed doors with the provincial premiers in Saskatoon, was he aware that each and every one of them has called on the federal government to increase those health transfers to 35%? That could be done over several years if the government budgeted for it.”
“It is a geographic reality. Canada is a big country, and Ottawa is far away. It is a geographic reality. How can we ensure that the provinces and Quebec can do their job so that we can move on to the economy of tomorrow? They need to have the means. The reality is that in Quebec's public finances today, health care eats up approximately half of the Government of Quebec's program spending. Technology is costing more and more, the population is aging, infrastructure is failing and, as health care takes up more and more room in the Government of Quebec's program spending, there is less and less money for the children I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. They are the ones who cannot vote yet, the ones who are going to work, study and grow in the most competitive economy in the history of humanity.”
“We have been saying it for a long time: We need to be competitive. We need to be more productive. We need to invest in training. We need to invest in education, modernization, automation, home automation and artificial intelligence. We need to invest in our universities, our CEGEPs, our vocational training programs. We need to do all kinds of things to make Quebeckers and Canadians produce more per hour worked. That is what we need to do. It is also the solution to the labour shortage. That is the job of Quebec and the provinces, but there is a specific agreement with Quebec on workforce training. The same goes for taxation. If we want to attract investment, we need a competitive tax system, we need to be able to offer export assistance programs, and Quebec has a role to play in that. Quebec knows what it is doing.”
“There is free trade, but let us not forget that even the Supreme Court, in Comeau, said that if we had perfect free trade within Canada, that would prevent the provinces from regulating in a way that protects the public. Saying that it takes just one economy is just cheap rhetoric to tell people to give up their jurisdictions, allow pipelines through, or they will be seen as Trumpists and just as bad as the orange man to the south. That is what we are being accused of. If they want us to work together, then this sort of rhetoric needs to stop. They cannot tell us that they want everyone in Canada to sit at the same table and work together and celebrate the good times all while they keep up the rhetoric of creating one economy out of 13. What do we need to do to address the crisis?”
“That rhetoric suggests to Quebeckers and people from the other provinces that if the provinces and Quebec do not give up their jurisdictions and do not allow Ottawa to walk all over them, then they are rejecting the others and engaging in protectionism. The Liberal government makes it sound like there is a guard at the Quebec border with a fleur-de-lis on his face and a blue cape at his back monitoring the containers, examining them gun in hand and sending them back to Manitoba. I have the data in front of me. Quebec's biggest trading partner is Ontario. Our imports and exports are higher with the rest of Canada than they are with the rest of the world, including the United States.”