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 17 of 17.
“When two people negotiate, if someone puts something on the table, it stays on the table. Now they are telling us that if supply management is on the table, they will hold out. However, the last three times they told us they were going to hold out, they did not, and nearly 20% of our market was sold to the Americans for compensation. Having a business' list of customers sold off in exchange for a cheque, which is what they did to our dairy farmers, is not a career plan; it is a retirement plan. We need to protect our supply management system. They talk about creating one economy out of 13. As we know, that is the Liberal line they keep repeating. The Prime Minister 's cabinet prints that in bold and underlined and they repeat it. What problem do we have with that? What problem does the National Assembly of Quebec have with that?”
“negotiators are appointed by Congress. The bulk of negotiations are handled not by politicians, but by professional negotiators within the departments. That is a good thing, considering that the last time Liberal politicians went down to Mar-a-Lago to negotiate with President Donald Trump, they were treated to a T-bone steak with ketchup followed by threats of annexation. The task needs to be entrusted to non-elected professionals who are required to perform their work transparently and appointed by Parliament. The Americans will respect that. The matter is urgent. (1655) No matter what their reason is for not supporting a bill to protect supply management, it is basically an admission of failure. After all, the Canadian government is not going to be the one deciding what is on the table.”
“The second reason they gave us for not protecting supply management is that it would take time to get through the House and that, by the time the bill received royal assent two years from now, the negotiations would be over. Still, the government claims that in just two years, it can build an energy corridor in a country the size of a continent, make major infrastructure investments, build a port way up at Hudson Bay and launch a major federal project office, while consulting all indigenous peoples. It says that, yet it seems that two years is not enough time for this same government to move fast enough to pass a bill that has already been drafted, introduced, put on notice and passed. Apparently, the government lacks faith in its senators. The Americans will respect this legislative approach because U.S.”
“The first reason they gave us is that there is no point in doing this through a bill, because bills can be undone. Someone can introduce another bill and undo the first one. Imagine if I took my car to a mechanic, and the mechanic refused to repair it on the grounds that it would break again eventually. That is pretty much the same thing. While we are at it, we might as well stop regulating firearms and stop amending the Criminal Code. What are we here for as legislators if not to pass legislation? This is what they tell us every time. The Bloc Québécois has introduced this bill 13 times. If the government had said yes the first time, we would have the bill by now.”
“We are not sure what happened, but in the beginning, he said he would protect supply management. I believe that is his intention. I want to believe it. He told us that we do not need a bill. Then he realized that Parliament exists, even though it is not always obvious that he knows that. He realized that a bill had already been drafted, that a bill was already ready to go and that it was two senators short of being passed. During the leaders' debate, he said that the Liberals would vote for the bill. Now, the Liberals are back in the House saying that they will protect supply management, but not through legislation. They came up with new reasons. Yesterday in the House, the Liberals gave us new reasons not to fully protect supply management through legislation.”
“The Liberals say they are going to approve everything in two years. They are introducing a huge bill that could infringe on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces in many ways. We will have to study it. In short, that is the Liberal plan. No budget is being presented, and no budget forecasts are being made. Bankers are not what they used to be. What immediate action do we need to take to protect our economy? We must fully protect supply management through legislation. That is what we need to do. There has been progress, but the Liberal discourse has me worried. We know that, in the beginning, the Prime Minister was new to this, that he was taking one step forward and one step back. He was being advised and sometimes he listened to the adviser and sometimes he did not.”
“I guess we have to wait and see, because it changes all the time. The risk is that we are being told that, in two years, we will be able to approve all sorts of projects that will quickly save the economy. We are told that the projects are going to go ahead and that is the only way we are going to get by. We have seen this strategy before. It was called the Canada Infrastructure Bank. That bank had the same mandate for the same projects, and the provinces were all in on it. Everyone was happy. Supposedly, many projects were going to be implemented, including public transit projects. However, things went so wrong that when the minister appeared before the committee, we asked him why he was not changing the name of the bank, since it was no longer even a bank and was not building any infrastructure. That is how badly it was working.”
“That is what we have. The Liberals had time to table a budget, or even just a budget statement. It could be something shorter. The previous finance minister got us used to shorter updates. (1650) I worked with the Minister of Finance and National Revenue when he was industry minister. We worked on his Bill C‑27 on artificial intelligence. He is a brilliant man and a pleasure to work with. We call him the Energizer bunny because he is super energetic, but his drawback is that he has a tendency to not finish what he starts. I think that in some drawer in his office there is a half-finished budget. He has certainly started working on it. Why will he not table it? It could be a budget statement. Instead of doing that, the government is turning into an oil projects department. Maybe in the end, it will be all about vacuum cleaners.”
“They are not even doing the bare minimum of what needs to be done in the first week of a sitting, yet the Liberals tell us there is a precedent. Earlier, I heard the member for Winnipeg North talk about Stephen Harper as though he were a disease in need of a cure. That is the precedent he gave for not tabling a budget. At the time, Mr. Harper's government had just arrived after years and years of Liberal governments. The senior public service had been appointed by the Liberals. There was no cabinet. These people had not sat in the House. There was no global crisis. What is more, the election was not called because a budget needed to be tabled. That is not what happened. That is the precedent we are being given for not tabling a budget. This is a 10-year-old, worn-out government, repackaged under a new name and with a new CEO.”
“They found a new leader and formed a new cabinet, including some ministers who were around for the length of a reality TV show. One of the ministers who had been around longer was the Minister of Finance . He was told to draft a budget because that is all he has to do. He was told to work on the budget because we were going to have a new government and a new Parliament, and we could not table estimates without a budget. Why? It is a matter of transparency. In our work as elected officials, especially in opposition, our main tool is information. The government has the information, such as the budget forecasts, the deficits, the debts, the revenue; when we are not given that information, we cannot do our job.”
“This work must be respected. I would like to thank the campaigners, everyone who supported me and, of course, the citizens of all the municipalities in my riding and their elected officials. We have worked on many files, but some are not finished. I will continue to carry them. I carry them with me, in my heart, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I will be worthy of them. Being the member for Mirabel is one of my greatest honours in life. It is hard to find the words to express how fortunate we are to be doing this work. There was talk of elections. Everyone knows that there was an election recently. The circumstances were unusual, with the arrival of Donald Trump, tariffs and a new Prime Minister with new polls. Under those circumstances, we were told that we needed an election quickly. What did the Liberals do?”
“I would like to take this opportunity to thank all 82,525 voters in the riding of Mirabel for their trust. I include those who voted for another party, those who did not vote and their children, those who will be voting in a few years, those to whom we must leave a clean and healthy planet and a healthy environment. We do not count them in our voters, but they exist. I would like to thank out supporters, because before being members of Parliament, before being elected, we are first and foremost political advocates, carriers of a cause and ideas that we hold dear. We devote a great deal of our lives to them. However, there are costs. A few minutes ago, my wife texted me to tell me that my six-month-old boy had just sat up for the first time. I was happy, but it shows how much we sacrifice to be here, for our ideas.”
“Madam Speaker, you have handed me a golden opportunity to say hello. You know how much I appreciate you, and I am delighted to see you again. Congratulations on your election to this position. Please know that you are in my thoughts. I also congratulate all my colleagues who have been elected. It is true in life, it is true in love, it is true in general, but it is especially true in politics: One should never take anything for granted. Over the past few months, we have learned that we cannot take democracy for granted. I am a sovereignist, a separatist here in the House. Our voices must be heard. It is a voice from Quebec. We are lucky to live in a democracy. We are lucky to be able to share these ideas and debate them. It is a great privilege.”
“Does this not prove that there is a fiscal imbalance and that, basically, this central government in Ottawa has far too much money for the responsibilities it has?”
“Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his election and thank him for his speech. When you watch the news, at least in Quebec, the situation is crystal clear. Health care is in crisis. At the height of summer, emergency rooms are overwhelmed. Psychiatric services cannot keep up. People who are homeless need services on the street. My colleague talked about the government's fiscal and budgetary responsibilities. The government justified the election by citing the urgent need to properly budget. The first thing this government did was introduce a tax cut without presenting a budget and without saying where it would find the money. Here in Ottawa, the Liberals keep telling us that everything will continue to function, as though money were growing on trees, without even presenting a budget or, at the very least, an economic update.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague gave a very good speech with a smile on his face. I have to say that throughout his speech, I kept thinking about how his first and last names, which I cannot say here, are so similar to Miles Davis, one of my favourite musicians. This brought the following question to mind. Does my colleague not think that, given the crisis we are experiencing with the United States, calling an election and coming back with just a throne speech and not presenting a budget, despite the economic emergency, feels a bit like improvisation?”
“Mr. Speaker, my friend, the member for Whitby, whom I congratulate and salute, was one of the main standard-bearers of the Trudeau government's environmental policy. I have here a mailer he sent his constituents in June 2022. In it, he defended the carbon tax and rebates for zero-emission vehicles, for which there are no tax credits anymore. He also sponsored a motion to speed up the passage of Senator Galvez's climate-aligned finance bill. The member was one of the main standard-bearers of those policies. Today, he belongs to a government that thinks, as the member for Guelph said, that the energy transition goes hand in hand with increasing our oil production. That is an open question. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“In light of that, will my colleague, as a representative of Quebec, support the Quebec government in its calls for health transfers to be increased unconditionally from 24% to 35% of system costs immediately and, I repeat, unconditionally?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Beauce and pass on best wishes directly from the people of Mirabel, which was recently named the maple capital of the world. However, good maple syrup can be found everywhere. Ottawa often automatically thinks that the federal government can fix everything. However, my colleague spoke about helping businesses, cutting taxes and making our economy more competitive. To do that, the provinces and Quebec must be able to be more fiscally competitive. The fact that health care costs account for almost half of the Quebec government's program spending prevents us from being competitive for our businesses.”
“However, the Liberals are telling us here today, through the member for Compton—Stanstead, that they will not be supporting our bill. That is what we are hearing. Will my Conservative colleague commit to supporting a bill to fully protect supply management in order to tie our negotiators' hands when they are told to fold?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his re-election. We need legislation to protect supply management because the Canadian government does not decide what is on the table during a negotiation. Each party decides what it is putting on the table. The Americans have announced that supply management will be on the table. I listened to my colleague from Compton—Stanstead , and the rhetoric has changed. At first, the Liberals were saying what would not be on the table. Now, my colleague is saying that they are going to hold the line when it is on the table. The last time they told us they would hold the line, they folded. Ultimately, they sold off a share of the market. I know that this is important to her. I know that it is important to her predecessor.”
“Does my colleague think that the federal government should increase health transfers to cover 35% of the cost of the system? Does he agree that the federal government should be sending those transfers with no strings attached?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague on his election. Earlier, the Liberal member for Egmont gave a speech that I thought was absolutely outrageous. He said that health is not just a provincial jurisdiction, even though section 92 of the Constitution says that it is. Ottawa got involved because changes in government revenues allowed it to meddle in provincial affairs. All of the provincial and territorial premiers have called for the government to increase its contribution for health to cover 35% of the cost of the system, but the Liberal government has never respected that part of the contract. Now, today, the Liberals are telling us that Ottawa has done nothing wrong and that it is the provinces' fault if they are struggling to provide people with health care.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the member for Guelph on her election. What she said in her speech is very noble. She began by saying that she got into politics for her children, to whom she wanted to leave a cleaner, healthier world, a world where global warming might be below 1.5°C. The International Energy Agency has been quite clear that if we want to prevent global warming from exceeding 1.5°C, then the world cannot start any new oil projects. For the sake of her children, is my colleague prepared to sit down with the Prime Minister and tell him that she will oppose any major infrastructure project that will result in increasing the production of Canadian oil?”