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 4 of 17.
“Madam Chair, the Minister of Finance is well aware that his Prime Minister bent the knee to Trump and paid the entry fee to negotiate. That is why he is avoiding the question. Now, in Bill C‑31 , the government is once again bending the knee to President Trump by amending the Global Minimum Tax Act to exempt American companies. Does it trouble the minister that this coincides with a decision by Brookfield, the Prime Minister's baby, to move its headquarters to the United States?”
“Madam Chair, on budget day, the minister no doubt appreciated the way opposition members demonstrated in a compelling and humorous fashion how the government lacked ambition when it came to supporting the media. The Prime Minister said he refused to pay an entry fee to negotiate a trade deal with President Trump, but all it took was a post on President Trump's Truth Social for the Prime Minister to decide to repeal the digital services tax. I would like to know when he will reinstate the digital services tax so we can provide more adequate arts and culture funding. When will the government reinstate the digital services tax instead of capitulating to the U.S. President?”
“Madam Chair, the minister has just told us that there is not a penny in these estimates to reopen the agricultural research centre in the Quebec City region. Farmers in Mirabel and elsewhere will remember that. I would like to know where, in these estimates, the additional $37 million needed for the independent local news fund is to be found. Our francophone media outlets are in crisis, and that money would enable them to weather the storm more effectively, given that their funding has just been cut following a CRTC decision.”
“Madam Chair, I also need reining in. The government has decided to cut funding for agriculture and agri-food research, notably by closing the Quebec Research Centre in the riding of the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and Quebec Lieutenant . This cut is being criticized by the entire agricultural community, and it will hinder productivity gains and research. Where in the budget are the funds to allow us to reopen this research centre immediately?”
“Madam Chair, I thank my colleagues for being here. I send my regards to the minister and thank him for being here. We always appreciate him. Minister, officials from the Department of Finance and the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities gave us a briefing on Bill C‑26 , which you yourself tabled. We were reassured. We understood that the bill would not impose any conditions on the transfer of $1.7 billion to improve housing supply in Quebec. However, in the legislation, the minister has the discretionary power to establish and allocate the amounts as he sees fit. Can the minister confirm that he will not impose any conditions that would infringe on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and that the money will be distributed in such a way as to ensure that Quebec receives its fair share?”
“Does Canada's Minister of Finance believe, yes or no, that one minute and 30 seconds per clause of a budget bill represents a healthy debate in a democracy, when his government tells us that its generational role in history is to defend democracy?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the Minister of Finance a question. I know he will not answer it because he is an expert at avoiding questions. We are debating a bill that is 34 pages long and contains 52 clauses. The minister says he likes to debate. However, by limiting the entire debate to three hours, he is leaving us with three minutes and 27 seconds of debating time per clause in the bill. If we deduct the time the Liberals will take reading the notes written by the minister or the Prime Minister's Office in order to toe the party line, that leaves roughly one minute and 30 seconds for members of Parliament to present their comments on the bill. I hope the minister is looking at me.”
“Can he guarantee that, a week or so before the House rises for the summer, he will not be travelling all over Europe and that he will be sitting here debating bills until the last day? That is the question.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Finance, cannot stand up and say how much he respects his colleagues and then not answer any of their questions. He cannot stand up and say that he respects the House of Commons and then avoid the questions. I asked a simple question, and I know that the minister is a smart man who is capable of understanding it. The government is shutting down debate, saying that they are in a hurry and that things need to move forward. According to the official schedule, the House of Commons is scheduled to sit until June 18. Since we are in a hurry, can the Minister of Finance guarantee that he will be here, sitting in his chair, debating bills until June 18?”
“Given that the government is forcing bills down our throats and cutting off debate in Parliament, will the Minister of Finance commit to ensuring that his party and his government will not adjourn the proceedings of the House of Commons before the June 18 deadline, so that we have all the time we need to debate the bills, since he seems to be in such a hurry?”
“Mr. Speaker, regardless of the content of the bill, we know that today we are dealing with a government and a Minister of Finance for whom the democratic process is purely cosmetic. During the committee's study on Driver Inc. truckers, we saw them shut down debate. We have seen them curtail the work of committees and impose in camera proceedings. As soon as they had their majority, their first move was to order an in camera meeting. The Minister of Finance tells us that this bill contains important measures. We agree. We are willing to debate them. We are willing to discuss them, even though the government is not giving us the chance to do so. The government will likely tell us that time is of the essence and that we will not have enough time to pass all these measures.”
“With all due respect, I would argue that that is not the case. These provisions pertain to a distinct area of public policy, introduce substantive and independent changes, and are not essential to the implementation of the budget. Accordingly, I respectfully ask that you exercise the authority granted to you under section 69.1 to order that division 17 of Bill C-31 be put to a separate vote and studied by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Thank you for your attention.”
“As the Speaker acknowledged in the aforementioned ruling, the mere fact that a measure appears in a budget implementation bill is not sufficient in itself to establish the required connection if that measure introduces independent and substantial changes in public policy. Furthermore, in that same ruling, the Speaker emphasized the importance of protecting members' right to vote in an informed and separate manner on legislative matters that are not intrinsically linked. Lumping these amendments to the Canada Transportation Act together with a series of budget measures limits the House's ability to fully review these changes and to vote on them individually. The question on which you will have to rule is this. Do the provisions of division 17 have a sufficiently close connection to the overall bill to justify a single vote?”
“This division introduces substantial amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, particularly with regard to how complaints are handled in the airline industry. These are regulatory and structural measures that establish new mechanisms and fall within a distinct area of public policy. First, these provisions are not merely budget implementation measures. Second, they are not attached to a fiscal or financial measure. Third, they are not strictly required in order to implement the budget. Fourth, this measure was not even part of the budget in November 2025. Rather, it constitutes a separate legislative package that could perfectly well be the subject of a stand-alone bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, I invoke Standing Order 69.1 of the House of Commons to ask you to divide division 17, which amends the Canada Transportation Act, in Bill C-31 , a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget. As your predecessor reminded us in his ruling of January 30, 2024, the objective of Standing Order 69.1 is to enable the House to vote separately on provisions from an omnibus bill that are not closely related, either by their nature, their objective or their integration into a cohesive budgetary policy. In his ruling, the Chair also emphasized that the central criterion is the ability to identify a clear and common theme and the need to preserve members' rights to vote separately on legislative proposals that are, in fact, separate. This is precisely the case with division 17 of Bill C-31.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since I applauded the Airbus announcement on LCN this morning at 6:35 a.m., I would ask you to recognize that the Minister of Transport intentionally misled the House and, as a result, I would ask you to send him to spend some time in the Centre Block dungeons at his own expense.”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, businesses are not going to get help quickly that way. The program is not agile enough. I did not say that the program was all bad. I said that these two programs were never designed to handle a situation as urgent as the one we are facing today. That is what I said. These are good tools for doing something, but not for doing what needs to be done today.”
“Mr. Speaker, if there is one sector that does not need government support, it is the energy sector, particularly in the west. I believe that the oil companies are getting about $10 billion a year in subsidies for small modular reactors that make it possible to produce even more oil. The accelerated capital cost allowance has also been expanded to include enhanced oil recovery, which basically involves injecting CO 2 underground to extract even more oil. Mr. Speaker, I know that you like oil, and I am not stopping you from liking oil, but it is the subsidies to oil companies that are problematic and that could be put to better use. That is why I am happy to talk about them.”
“It was not a company that was told that it needed to invest in its productivity in the short term to get through the crisis. There are aspects of the market that far exceed what that company could have done. Unfortunately, it is too late. Maybe the lessons we learn from this will help save other jobs in other companies.”
“Mr. Speaker, I did not talk about that investigation specifically, but it is clear that it is a problem. It is clear that the Minister of Finance was right to take that initiative. Just because we are opening our borders and there is a type of free market between the countries does not mean that everything coming into our country is competitive. There are problems with Chinese products. That is true for the furniture sector. Some pieces of furniture are coming in almost 95% assembled. A bit of Canadian upholstery gets added, and then the furniture gets resold as a Canadian product for re-export. That is a problem. My thoughts are with the employees as well. The company that closed its doors was not a company with productivity or governance issues.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is a macroeconomist. This explains why he lacks an eye for detail in certain areas. In the case of the wage subsidy, its purpose is to allow the business to pause operations while production is halted, in a context where the EI system is inadequate or where its actuarial structure means that if these workers were covered, then smaller SMEs would end up being taxed more heavily. It is an effective mechanism that supports workers, maintains employment linkages and acknowledges, as the government has said, that this is an artificial crisis created by the Americans and that it is temporary.”
“Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes, for the most vulnerable businesses. Similarly, I would like to point out that it is not equally easy for all types of businesses to diversify and seek out new export markets. A large manufacturing company has the resources to do so, but a smaller company often exports a larger proportion of its production to the United States. It is therefore more difficult, takes more time, and involves greater risks. It is also far from clear in the very short term whether these loans for one, two or three years are the solution. These businesses know that they are going to have to become more productive or diversify. However, a three-year time frame for small and medium-sized businesses is, in many cases, highly unrealistic.”
“How many businesses were not able to pay, or are still unable to pay, even if they were profitable and were closed during the pandemic? I think that we need to learn from these lessons when it comes to smaller businesses.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am in touch with wood processing plants in my riding that have been somewhat impacted for a long time. Some sectors have been subjected to 50% tariffs for a long time, and we know that a solution cannot come fast enough. The aeronautics and aerospace industries have been relatively spared, at least for the time being. In Mirabel, we have been lucky, but small businesses are worried. They have two points that they want to raise, and that is not rhetoric. Their first point is that they are not informed. They learn about tariffs on TV, on the radio and from Bloc Québécois members, because the Bloc Québécois is on top of things. Their second point is that they cannot hope to survive with only a loan, especially the smallest businesses. I want to end by mentioning the pandemic emergency loan.”
“Above all, they need a detailed understanding of the tariffs, including the number of businesses, industries and sectors affected. They need to know the average tariff, and the average by province and by region. They need to know the number of companies affected. There are smart people on both sides of the House; not all of them, but some. I jest. I am trying to make people laugh because I know my colleagues like that. People are capable of coming up with good ideas, but they need a road map, and it is typically up to the government to provide that. That is the intention behind our motion. I think it is important to listen to the other side. This is all constructive. I would like to take a few moments to say that some people I hold in high regard are on Parliament Hill today. I cannot say where they are, but I can give them my regards.”
“Everyone here has to understand that for a company with 22 employees, managed by a limited number of staff, the prospect of paying $300 or $400 in legal or consulting fees just to grasp what is going on with these tariffs is a problem. The departments in the best position to inform these companies are Global Affairs Canada and the Department of Finance. There needs to be a single point of service. Someone who owns a small business has to be able to get precise information by phone. That also forces the government to keep up with the times because right now it always seems to be lagging behind, out of date. It gives the impression that the math does not add up, that the tariff rates quoted over the phone are somehow blurred with confusion. When the survival of their business is at stake, owners need a single point of service.”
“In order to make buying local a factor, a binding policy is needed. The duty refund program for re-exporters needs to be accelerated and simplified. Currently, some products containing steel and aluminum cross the border two, three, four or five times. That is the nature of the Canada-U.S. border. Folks pay the fees over and over again and, eventually, get them refunded. In the meantime, those companies do not have that liquidity. The program is not agile enough. It is not fast enough. This solution would also be revenue neutral, because the program already exists. Businesses need a single point of service where they can turn for help.”
“Part of the countervailing duties in the forestry industry must be bought back. These people are sending money that is held in trust to the United States, and they end up winning in court and getting the money back later. It is an asset, but they cannot use it as collateral to secure financing. That is an issue. The government could buy back some of those assets with its cash reserves and allow the forestry industry to continue operating. There needs to be a binding buy local policy. As for the “buy Canadian” slogan, “Canadian” for me is a brand of beer. The Liberals do not have a real buy local policy. They have a strategy that is riddled with holes and full of exceptions. If it is not binding, then people will only look at one thing, and the government will only look at one thing: the price.”
“In his economic update, the finance minister asked us to take his hand and dance with him. We have been extending our own hand for so long our shoulder is hurting. What are we asking for? We are asking for a wage subsidy so that these small businesses can survive, a subsidy that would be revenue neutral if we consider the fact that the laid-off workers will get EI benefits. We are also calling for permanent safeguard tariffs against dumping. We are all familiar with the issue of Asian furniture today. There is a decline in global demand and a slowdown. Dumping is a problem. Safeguard tariffs are needed, but they must be more permanent, especially with Asia, so that we are not constantly renegotiating them and that the unions are not always having to monitor whether they have been renegotiated.”
“The Steelworkers are telling us that we need to look after the workers, that we need a wage subsidy and that EI has not been overhauled since who knows when. I do not even know if I was old enough to vote the last time it was overhauled, and I am not getting any younger. We are on the right track. (1615) People in the furniture industry told us that it was already too late, that we could not possibly ask them to completely overhaul their production in a short time frame. A mattress manufacturer told me that there is no such thing as a queen-size bed in Europe because European standards are different. How is he supposed to get a loan to produce and export within two months mattresses that his machines cannot even make while facing an immediate crisis?”
“The Bloc Québécois is proposing measures to complement yesterday's proposals, which address the most vulnerable part of our industrial fabric in a Quebec which, as Jacques Parizeau said, has an economy with a large number of SMEs in the regions. Although there are many towns and regions that are home to major industries, they are full of small suppliers who need help. Earlier today, I met with representatives from the furniture industry. I know they were also meeting with the Liberals, but they told us we are on the right track. I also met with people from the United Steelworkers today, and they said we are on the right track. Now, the government is telling us that export manufacturers and Jean Simard are happy. Of course they are. The measures announced yesterday will benefit large companies. However, there is something missing.”
“It is not like businesses can just say they are investing, apply for a loan and increase productivity by 30% within a month. That is not how it works. Productivity is a long-term thing. Some small manufacturing businesses export exclusively to the United States. They do not have the resources to modernize their operations right away. As of April 6, their U.S. customers have to pay 25% more. For this measure to work, businesses would have to boost productivity enough to lower costs by 25% immediately. Again, that is not how it works. This is a medium-term measure. What about the wage subsidy? When a business gets hit with a 25% tariff, that is not its fault. Some businesses are very productive, but there are limits to what they can do when they have to deal with a 25% tariff.”
“These loans may be good for large businesses that are on solid financial footing and for which interest rates and the cost of financing are not an issue. For small businesses that are crushed by debt, however, it is hopeless, and that is a problem. There are people, workers, fathers and mothers who are being left behind. The second part is the most problematic in the short term, but it is interesting in the long term. A lot is happening in the short term, though. Businesses have started closing. The crisis has hit BRP, South Shore Furniture, Bestar and many more. The crisis has hit, and businesses are shutting down for good. The government says it will pump $500 million into the regional tariff response initiative so businesses can boost productivity, train workers and buy machinery. The thing is, boosting productivity takes time.”
“If we push these people toward EI, we break the employment relationship, we weaken businesses, it costs the public treasury money anyway, if not the same amount as a wage subsidy, and, ultimately, it will lead to higher payroll taxes for small businesses, businesses that are not even affected by tariffs. That, in itself, is a problem. The government needs to leave the EI fund alone and provide wage subsidies. How much would wage subsidies cost? That needs to be evaluated. If we pro-rate the number of closures based on a projected duration, and compare it to what happened during the pandemic, we probably end up with an amount that is lower than the suspension of the fuel excise tax that the government announced in order to keep businesses afloat and retain jobs. I want to come back to what my colleague said in her previous speech.”
“(1610) That is why we need a wage subsidy that maintains the employment relationship, especially since, if these people are laid off, they will have to rely on employment insurance. Let us not forget that employment insurance has long been in need of reform. They keep rolling out one pilot project after another, one temporary measure after another. We need reform. As for public funds, these people are going to need employment insurance. The EI fund is already under strain. From an actuarial standpoint, it has to break even over a seven-year period. As members will recall, we experienced what is known as a pandemic from 2020 to 2022, which led to increases in payroll taxes in order to restore balance in the fund. This fund is not designed to withstand two crises in seven years.”
“What they do need is to keep their staff employed. They employ welders and technicians. These are not people who need to go back to school. These people are productive. If they temporarily close their business or have to suspend production for a while in the midst of a labour shortage, they will lose these people, who will go somewhere else. The government told us that there would be an agreement. Where is the agreement? When will an agreement be finalized? We understand that there is uncertainty for everyone, including in the negotiation process. However, these businesses are seeing their workers leave. This does nothing for them. It jeopardizes their survival.”
“What the government did was say that there will be no interest in the first year, that interest will be lower in the second year, and that loans will have to be paid back after three years. Why is the government doing this? It is doing this for two reasons. First, the government did not think to come up with a new program tailored to the new tariffs. They instead looked to see what program they could resurrect to funnel money into it so they could make an announcement on Monday, yesterday, because they overlooked workers in the budget update. That is essentially what happened. We are hearing from business owners. The member for Joliette—Manawan shared stories of business owners who said they had never had loans for $2 million. They had never had that in their entire lives. They are not able to obtain those loans and do not need them.”
“We were calling for measures, including a wage subsidy for the businesses hardest hit by the new tariffs. The government did not provide anything in the budget update, and instead chose to introduce different measures. That was done yesterday by the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Artificial Intelligence . What are these measures? Criticizing the government's decisions and actions is not necessarily partisan. There are very specific reasons why we think that these measures may be good in the medium and long terms. What is the government doing? First, it is putting $1 billion into business loans. Our smallest, most affected and most vulnerable businesses are already over-leveraged and unable to take on more debt.”
“Under the president's new tariff structure, if steel or aluminum represents more than 15% of the value of a product, even just 16%, the tariff is a flat 25%. This is a direct attack on very small businesses that are in growth mode and that represent the economic future of our regions in many ways. Many of them are also suppliers to larger companies. Aerospace has a presence in my riding. A lot is at stake in Montérégie, Lanaudière and Beauce as well. That is what President Trump attacked. I suspect he knew it, in a way. The point of tariffs is to do damage. When one country goes on and on about being protected, about how tariffs have virtually no impact except on certain sectors, then the people on the other side may eventually decide to do more damage.”
“We are being forced to consult university studies and banks, and there is a problem with the information and with mapping the impact of these new tariffs. In the requests we have submitted to the government, we are asking it to provide us with a clear picture so that we know who is affected by the tariffs, in which sector, in which province and at what rate, so that we can propose constructive solutions. What has President Trump decided to do? With his new tariff calculations, he has decided to destroy what is, in a sense, the most valuable aspect of the natural resources sector. Why? It is because, for years, Quebec has wanted to get involved in secondary and tertiary processing. We do not just want to produce wood, iron and steel. We want to produce things like furniture and machines. We want to do secondary and tertiary processing.”
“While we accept that these reports are written slightly in advance, the report again said that the tariffs are roughly 5%. However, if we look at the independent study done by the University of Calgary, which has to be read carefully and with steel and aluminum thresholds properly interpreted, or if we look at the study produced by Desjardins Group, which expresses concern for its member businesses, we realize that the average tariff for Quebec's economy is close to 10%. That is the very same tariff under the agreement signed by Europe, which the government calls a bad deal. (1605) The average is 10%, and approximately one-quarter of all Quebec exports are currently subject to tariffs. My colleague has presented different figures. I admit that we do not have exact figures, because the government is not providing them.”
“When South Shore Furniture closed, the Minister of Finance suggested that it was due to the new tariffs—and that was the case—but that the company also had other management and governance issues and that it was partly their own fault. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Jean‑Denis Garon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance suggested that. As usual, the Liberals are acting in bad faith. We eventually realized that it was a company that had won awards for its management and administration, so there was nothing to it. The tariff calculation in the economic update was wrong. The Liberals were still using the old tariffs. I do not have the document with me, but the economic update says that the tariffs are around 5%. We heard from the Governor of the Bank of Canada yesterday. He released the bank's monetary policy report.”
“When I rent a thriller and there is no climax at the end, I sometimes feel as though I have been taken for a ride. That was the economic update. There were no measures to help these businesses. There was interference in workforce training. There was a sovereign wealth fund with no funding, no objectives, no governance rules, no private investment that would be attracted to the sovereign wealth fund. They had time to think about all sorts of things over the past month, but they never thought about the workers. We wondered what was going to happen. During the pre-budget consultations, we made a number of constructive requests.”
“People tried to get information from the government, but it was hard to get. We then asked the government some questions. The first week, the leader of the Bloc Québécois asked the Prime Minister what he was going to do about the United States' new way of calculating tariffs, which meant that some businesses went from paying almost no tariffs to paying 25% tariffs, or just about the highest rate in the world. That day, the Prime Minister basically had no idea what we were talking about, and he was quite honest with us. He said that he would get back to us. We were patient. We waited a week and then we asked the Prime Minister more questions. On April 21, we asked him whether he was going to let these businesses quietly die? The answer was that we had to wait for the economic update, so we waited for the economic update.”
“Since President Trump announced the new tariffs on April 6, there have been many closures in the furniture sector. Businesses like Bestar and South Shore Furniture come to mind. We have asked the government to follow up. We have asked for it to do something. That was a month ago. There was some resistance at first, but we feel as though the discussion is moving forward. However, the clock is ticking. I think it is important for us to look at the timeline to understand just how far behind the government is in terms of taking action. President Trump's executive order was issued on April 6. That was about a month ago. From the very first day the order was issued, some businesses were confused and turned to customs and tax consultants to try to find out what it all meant. Even the consultants and lawyers did not know what was happening.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague just touched on the point I was going to start with when she said that we talk a lot about companies, industry and big name corporations, but that the reason we are having this debate today is, first and foremost, for the people who work, for the workers. Since the start of this tariff crisis, 9,700 jobs have been lost in Quebec. I am talking about well-paying, skilled jobs, often in our regions. Until very recently, we could say we had been spared because CUSMA protected 85% of our exports, although some sectors were more severely affected. The reality in Quebec today is that 441,000 manufacturing jobs are at stake. These are fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters. These are people we have a responsibility to protect. When we hear about businesses closing, these are the folks we need to think about.”
“Point (d) of the motion calls on the government to take all necessary measures to mitigate the impact. I would like my colleague to tell me whether she believes that yesterday's announcement included all the necessary measures.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I work together on the Standing Committee on Finance. Things have been going well, at least so far. We will make sure it stays that way. My colleague mentioned the auto industry in her riding and many other large industries that have a certain degree of resilience and are able to secure the loans ranging from $2 million to $50 million that were announced yesterday. For our part, we are worried about the smaller businesses, which have never seen anything close to a $2-million loan and which will have to shut down tomorrow morning, in a week, or in two weeks if they cannot maintain that employment relationship. We believe that these businesses, which are part of the fabric of Quebec's small and medium-sized enterprises, were not covered by the announcement made yesterday.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Alto steamroller is barrelling down on the people of Mirabel for the high-speed train project. At first, Alto employees were knocking on people's doors to ask permission to perform inspections on their property, but now, they are sending letters to try to buy unlimited access to properties for three years, day or night, for $1,500. Imagine how stressful that is for citizens who have not been consulted, but who are being visited by employees and receiving letters implying that their property will be expropriated. Will the government pause the Alto project and try to earn social licence instead of intimidating people in their own homes?”
“I would like to hear what the leader of the Bloc Québécois has to say about the fact that the government was so unprepared, even though it seems to have a strategy for just about everything except what happened on April 6.”