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 6 of 17.
“This recognition confirms the calibre of its work and its tangible impact on the ground. I would like to commend all the directors who have served on its board over the years, as well as the executive director, Geneviève Brault-Sabourin, and her entire team. On behalf of the people of Mirabel, I congratulate the chamber of commerce on its 50th anniversary, and I hope for at least 50 more years.”
“Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 50th anniversary of the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Mirabel. This is a major milestone that deserves to be acknowledged. For 50 years, Mirabel's chamber of commerce has been deeply involved in the community. Since I was elected in 2021, I have seen an organization that listens to its members, that is innovative and that is essential to the region's economic development. It is able to pool Mirabel's strengths, whether in agriculture, aeronautics or its many SMEs, and build strong ties between these sectors. It is no coincidence that it was nominated for an award this year by the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec in the categories of recruitment and chamber of the year for organizations with up to 400 members.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the first allegations against General Vance came out in 2015. The Harper government gave him a promotion. This has been going on for over 10 years. It is now 2026. We got the reports from justices Arbour and Fish, and Justice Deschamps examined suggestions for legislative changes. However, in the bill before us today, the government has decided to ignore a major recommendation made by Justice Arbour, namely that a victim be given a choice between the military and civilian justice systems. When we asked the Liberals earlier why they ignored this amendment, which was not only discussed in good faith but also adopted by the committee, they simply replied that it is all well and good to work in good faith, but we cannot always get what we want.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is 2026. The first allegations against General Vance date back to 2015. At the time, rather than taking action, the Harper government gave him a promotion. Since then, we have had the Arbour, Deschamps and Fish reports, and yet here we are, still talking about this crisis in Canada's military justice system. I have two questions. First, I would like to know why all the governments, and by that I mean the Harper government, the Trudeau government and today's government, have shown so little concern for this issue. Second, in my colleague's opinion, why did the government refuse to consider the Bloc Québécois's amendment that sought to give victims a choice between the military and civilian justice systems in circumstances where these victims' trust in the current military justice system may be undermined?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase the question that I asked earlier since I did not get an answer from the Liberals. Through this bill, the government is creating an office for a commissioner whose decisions will not be binding. Under this legislation, what will the consequences be if the government fails to respect the commissioner's recommendations?”
“Mr. Speaker, we obviously agree that it is important to implement modern treaties. Although we support Bill C-10 , in a way it is also disappointing that we have had to resort to this measure to ensure that the treaties are properly implemented. This legislation establishes an office of a commissioner. The commissioner will be able to make recommendations and submit a report. However, this commissioner lacks any real authority. I would like my colleague to explain to me, in practical and technical terms, what the consequences would be for a government if it simply decided to ignore the commissioner's recommendations.”
“Mr. Speaker, members will recall that Bill C‑2 was split, in part because certain aspects of the bill were unacceptable. Today, it is back as Bill C‑22 . One unacceptable part of Bill C‑2 was that it used reasonable suspicion, rather than reasonable belief, to allow authorities to obtain information simply by getting a court order. A number of experts spoke out about this and told us that it could be a slippery slope. I would like to know why the government is coming back with the same threshold as before and whether the government is open to amendments to perhaps compromise and rethink this threshold.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. He raised some very valid points in many respects. I would like to know what he thinks of a government that wants to grant more powers to police and intelligence services but that has just slashed the budget of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, which is supposed to monitor those services, to save a few pennies. How can the government say that those people need more powers while also cutting this agency's funding?”
“Continuing to run up deficits and increase spending recklessly, day after day, every time the Conservatives move an opposition motion is totally at odds with what the Prime Minister says on a daily basis.”
“Mr. Speaker, this reminds me of the discussion we had yesterday and the witnesses we heard from at the finance committee. We all agreed that Canada has a productivity problem and that we need to grow our collective wealth. We also have to make sure that people's income, especially that of the poorest 20% of households, rises faster than the cost of living. That calls for private investment. We also agree that there is a deficit and that we will not wipe it out in two or three years. We are all realistic about that. However, every dollar the government borrows is a resource that is not necessarily available for loans to the private sector and for more productive investments. The long-term plan has to focus on productivity.”
“It is like a dog chasing its tail. It is not going to get very far. I think we need to take a step-by-step approach and act responsibly. We need policies that incentivize a transition. No one here in Parliament has ever said that we will suddenly stop needing oil and gas one day. That has never happened.”
“Mr. Speaker, I take issue with the question itself. The structure of the question seems like sophistry. What the member is saying is that because the transition will take time, there is no point in doing it step by step and we should abandon the attempt altogether and just drown ourselves in oil. We have consistently acknowledged that this will take time. We have not said that all pipelines must be shut down. We have said, and this is consistent with the International Energy Agency's position, that we should not undertake new projects. We need to embark on a transition to secure the new energy that we need, taking a step-by-step approach. What the Conservatives are saying is that since this cannot be done right away, there is no point in doing it at all, because people will suffer if the whole thing cannot be done right away.”
“I am even wondering why the government did not decide to tell us this morning that it might need to rethink the format of this cheque in order to be consistent. Saying one thing three weeks ago and saying something else today is no way to be consistent in formulating public policy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am quite fond of the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. It is a pleasure to work with him. The answer is yes. That is why we voted in favour of that benefit and that is why we welcomed that cheque. That is exactly what we were saying. This cheque, which is the former GST rebate, takes into account household composition, family allowances and income. It is targeted, and it is the kind of measure that we want because we can redistribute more money while spending less. What surprises me is that, just a few weeks ago, the government acknowledged that this was the right approach, but today, on this Conservative opposition day, it has decided that implementing targeted measures is no longer the way to go. I find this inconsistency hard to understand.”
“The oil and gas we use is almost exclusively North American. We cannot have a government that talks about productivity and yet continues to make our businesses more vulnerable to fluctuating oil prices. I think it is high time that this Parliament started thinking about the long term. I was elected nearly five years ago, and I have yet to see that happen.”
“What is the point of lowering the price of gas if cars blow a tire every time people drive down a public road? There is a cost associated with that, which affects households. I would like to touch on one last thing related to rising gas prices, and that is productivity. Oil and gas are production inputs, and when a shock like the one we are currently experiencing occurs, it has a negative impact on productivity. The Prime Minister and the government keep telling us that we need to increase our productivity. One of the best ways to do that is to stop being so vulnerable to fluctuating oil prices. When oil prices go up, production costs more, we produce less per worker and we are less able to increase wages. That harms investment. The government is in the oil business. Our oil and gas supply is secure.”
“No one has any idea how much public money is being spent anymore. Meanwhile, the real purchasing power of households is also being affected by access to health care and access to education services. We need to increase productivity. We need to support the provinces' ability to provide these services and offer preschool, primary, secondary and university education. The provinces are being squeezed. Funds have been allocated for public transit. However, as my colleague, the transport critic, said several times, the money is stuck in Ottawa. That is part of the long-term solution. We need infrastructure. It is clear from the state of our streets that we have an infrastructure problem. The money needs to be transferred to the provinces.”
“If the government takes temporary measures every time the price of gas fluctuates, instead of adopting long-term measures for the energy transition, the long term will become a long sequence of short-term measures that do not solve the underlying problems, and the most vulnerable households will grow even more vulnerable with every crisis. This is exactly what we are seeing today: a predominance of short‑term policies in Parliament for political gain, though it is true that some households will benefit in this case. I want to say one thing. The government previously announced a deficit of $80 billion. A few weeks ago, it added a vote‑buying cheque, which it called the grocery rebate, that represents a total of $4 billion to $5 billion. The measure announced today adds $2.5 billion in new spending.”
“For months, the Conservatives have been saying that the industrial carbon tax should be eliminated to lower the price at the pump. The governor of the central bank, Mr. Macklem, actually told the committee that this tax mainly applies to imported products and would not have any impact on inflation. He practically had to pound his fist on the table in the middle of the committee meeting to get the message through to the Conservatives that if he wanted to lower the cost of living for households, he would look elsewhere. It is important to note that. What should be done? Obviously, the focus should be on the households that are the most vulnerable to these fluctuations. That is how a long-term solution will be found.”
“Even the most conservative Conservatives are crossing the floor. They used to table this type of motion to put on a political show, but now, each time they rise to table a motion like this, the government imitates them. I do not want anyone listening this morning to imagine that the Prime Minister was concerned about households' purchasing power two days ago. He is concerned about getting Conservative members over to his side. Every time he plays this game, every time the government does something the Conservatives have been calling for, people cross the floor. That is why I urge the Conservatives to be cautious, because they are pushing the Liberal government to become increasingly conservative at their own expense. As I said, this is populist.”
“We will also have to see whether oil companies decide to pass on the tax cut to consumers. When people are forced to use their cars to get to work because they do not have access to public transit and cannot afford small electric vehicles, they are extremely vulnerable in the short term. Their demand for gas is fixed, and they are at the oil companies' mercy. There is nothing in the proposals from either side that would protect these people. It seems like the gas stations were the ones getting a handout today. (1130) The Conservative motion veers back into populism and tries to make people believe that gas prices can be drastically lowered with the snap of a finger. I would urge the Conservatives to be cautious, because we are in a political environment where the Liberal government has turned into a Conservative government.”
“For people who are less well off, filling up at the gas station puts a strain on their budget. Obviously, one plus one equals two. As my colleague from Joliette—Manawan has said, the Conservative Party cannot complain endlessly about the deficit, say that the government cannot balance its budget, and call for a return to a balanced budget while also proposing such measures. Just discussing the substance of the motion undermines their own credibility. Today, the government proposed a temporary measure to suspend the excise tax on gas. Will that help the poorest people, who are grappling with higher gas prices? Perhaps. Is this the best measure? Is it sufficiently targeted? Probably not. Is it going to be a very costly way of redistributing a small amount of money to the poorest households? We will have to wait and see.”
“First, we have the poorest people, whose incomes are stagnating, who are faced with significant fluctuations in gas prices but still have to fill up their tanks. Then we have the 80% of people whose incomes have increased, while on average and over the long term, gas prices have remained fairly stable overall. What is happening with these people, the ones who can cope with these fluctuations? We are in a situation where the number of vehicles is increasing faster than the population and where vehicles' size and fuel consumption have almost doubled over the past 20 or 25 years. Some people with incomes are polluting more and more, yet today, the government is proposing to gift them with a measure made all the worse by what the official opposition is proposing.”
“The government did not suspend the excise tax on gasoline at the time, mainly because there were no Conservatives ready to cross the floor. There was no need to attract them. It was not that important to the government. That is where we are today. We have a problem with fluctuating gas prices. I was at committee yesterday with the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin . We heard from experts who said that, over the years, household incomes and real purchasing power have increased for some but not all households. Roughly 75% or 80% of the wealthiest, or least poor, Canadians have seen their incomes rise, while nearly 20% of people in Quebec and Canada have seen their incomes stagnate. Those 20% are the most vulnerable. There is a double phenomenon happening here.”
“I also recently looked at some data from Statistics Canada on the price of a litre of unleaded gas at a self-service gas station in the Montreal census metropolitan area for the past 20 years, and I adjusted the data to real 2025 dollars. What is surprising is that, in the long term, the price of gas goes up very little on average. Rising gas prices are not the problem. What we are seeing is that the price of gas goes up and down a lot. We know that households are always vulnerable to price increases and price decreases and that they cannot predict those prices and budget for them, which is what worries me. This happened shortly after the pandemic, when gas prices were almost $2 a litre in today's dollars.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette—Manawan for giving an excellent and very informative speech, as usual. His answers to the questions were equally insightful. We are here to discuss gas prices, because the situation today is truly troubling, distressing and worrisome for families. One of the reasons we are discussing this issue today, if not the only reason, is President Trump's Iran excursion, to put it politely, which has made the Strait of Hormuz impassable today. Roughly one-fifth of the world's oil and gas transits through the strait and supplies many of our trading partners. This troubling situation is affecting the price of a barrel of oil and has had a knock-on effect on the price at the pump, which recently jumped by $2. We understand why people at home are worried, especially people who have to fill up their cars.”
“Mr. Speaker, in an article in La Presse this weekend, Éric Ouellet, a member of the Barreau du Québec, wrote: The fact that hate speech may be perceived as enjoying greater protection because of its religious nature undermines the credibility of the legal system. He goes on to say: The real systemic risk is not an overuse of prosecution, but rather the normalization of rhetoric that targets protected groups under the guise of religious legitimacy. I would like to know if my colleague agrees that the existing religious exemption in the Criminal Code is likely to undermine the credibility of the rule of law, which is so important to Quebeckers and Canadians.”
“Again, I think the federal Parliament should acknowledge this fact and ensure that while the House debates possible amendments to the Criminal Code, resources are transferred to the provinces as soon as possible so that these additional resources can be used to enforce existing legislation more swiftly, which would strengthen public confidence in the system.”
“However, for the most part, judges are the ones who see all the evidence and they are best able to make these decisions, and in most cases, the system works relatively well. Then there is the issue of judicial resources. As I said earlier, restricting certain decisions to the superior courts can compromise the way the legal system operates. There is an issue with court resources. There are also issues with the appointment of judges, the number of judges, access to justice and the appointment of clerks. Resources are needed. For years, the Bloc Québécois—especially my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord , who has repeatedly raised the issue—has called for more resources to be transferred to the provinces, which are responsible for enforcing the Criminal Code. It is easy for us to pass legislation in the House, but provinces have to enforce it.”
“The Bloc Québécois will obviously be voting against Bill C-242, not because it is completely inappropriate, but because we believe that we must be very careful about reversing the burden of proof and calling into question the presumption of innocence. Although we believe that some reforms need to be made to the Criminal Code, we do not think that this bill is the best way of going about that. Before I close, I would just like to point out two things. First, there is the issue of judicial discretion. People need to trust the justice system and they need to trust judges. Of course, mistakes happen. Of course, sometimes, things go too far. Of course, sometimes judges make headline-worthy mistakes.”
“Tenth, the bill proposes to do the following: (j) make it a condition that those who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents deposit their passports in order to be released Judges can already order the deposit of passports under subsection 515(4) of the Criminal Code, and from what I am told, this happens fairly frequently. That section reads: When making an order under subsection (2), the justice may direct the accused to comply with one or more of the following conditions specified in the order:...(f) deposit all their passports as specified in the order; I do not want to say that the bill is pointless, but some aspects of it are clearly redundant.”
“They are as follows: (a) where the detention is necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court...b) where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public...and (c) if the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, including (i) the apparent strength of the prosecution's case, (ii) the gravity of the offence, (iii) the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence...and (iv) the fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment The Criminal Code already takes that into account.”
“Nine, the bill proposes to do the following: i) require that a justice assessing judicial interim release consider whether or not an accused is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident and, if not, whether they may attempt to leave the country; We know that judges can already deny bail if they determine that the accused really does represent a flight risk. In fact, bail is not granted in many cases. Subsection 515(10) of the Criminal Code already sets out three cases in which an accused person may be denied bail.”
“As we can see, we are not only dealing with principles here, but also with the operation of our justice system. Seventh, the bill proposes to do the following: g) provide for the expiry of the interim release of an accused upon their conviction of an indictable offence while they await sentencing; This is not uncommon for legal decisions. We cannot assume that judges are not already doing the very things included in this bill as they deem appropriate. Eighth, the bill proposes to do the following: h) prohibit those who have been convicted of an indictable offence in the last ten years from being named as a surety; That is fine.”
“Sixth, the bill proposes to do the following: (f) require that only a superior court judge may determine, on a reverse-onus basis [which I mentioned earlier], whether to permit the interim release of an accused if the accused was charged with a major offence while they were on release in respect of another major offence and if they were convicted of a major offence in the last ten years; (1115) This simply seeks to make it so that only superior court judges can authorize release on bail. Once again, this complicates the justice system's operation because, as we all know, criminal cases are not heard exclusively by superior courts. The Court of Quebec also hears them. Obviously, there are access to justice issues and backlog issues, and we are by no means certain that adding this constraint will necessarily serve the interests of justice.”
“This does not mean that the accused is automatically released when other offences are committed but, once again, it would remove a great deal of discretion from the courts, which are in a position to assess the evidence before making such a decision. Furthermore, this would mean that a person charged with the offences listed could not be released, whether arrested with or without a warrant.”
“As I said, the burden of proof can be reversed under certain circumstances, but depending on the circumstances, it could make it impossible for victims to provide evidence, and that seems problematic. Fifth, the bill proposes to do the following: (e) prevent those charged with a major offence from being released after arrest This would significantly restrict the discretion and decision-making power of judges in various courts. Currently, the Criminal Code provides that the only offences for which the accused cannot be released are treason, intimidating Parliament, mutiny, sedition, piracy and murder. The Conservatives want to add a whole list of other offences to this.”
“Second, the bill proposes to do the following: (b) add the protection of the public as a consideration However, this does not mean that existing legislation and the government's proposals do not take public safety into account. Third, the bill proposes to do the following: (c) add several violent indictable offences...for the determination of judicial interim release. Fourth, the bill seeks to prohibit release or allow additional restrictions within the judicial system for a very specific list of offences. Accordingly, the bill is proposing to do the following: (d) create a list of major offences, composed of violent reverse-onus offences; That is problematic in itself.”
“It seems to suggest that the principle of restraint does not ensure the protection of the public. However, when considering the legal implications of this provision, it appears that it would violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly section 11(d) of the charter. It calls into question the principle of the presumption of innocence. Certain circumstances call for the use of reverse onus. I have used this myself, in Bill C‑290 , a bill I introduced in the previous Parliament that aimed to protect whistle-blowers. It is meant to be used in situations where it is impossible for a victim to prove their case. However, in this case, it seems fairly unacceptable to us.”
“The Criminal Code currently provides for the principle of restraint, which is as follows: 493.1 In making a decision under this Part, a peace officer, justice or judge shall give primary consideration to the release of the accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions that are appropriate in the circumstances, including conditions that are reasonably practicable for the accused to comply with, while taking into account [other] grounds.... The bill aims to replace this principle with what is called the principle of public safety and protection, which the bill describes as follows: 493.1 In making a decision under this Part, a peace officer, justice or judge shall give primary consideration to the protection and safety of the public. The wording in this part of the bill seems to be somewhat misleading.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my regard to my colleagues on this Monday morning. I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C-242 regarding interim release. I read the bill and examined it very closely. In short, this bill seeks to do 12 different things. Let us start with the first one. First, it is important to remember that the bill seeks to replace the principle of restraint in section 493.1 of the Criminal Code with the principle of protection of the public.”
“Mr. Speaker, while the minister is working on being inspiring, Alto is doing nothing to reassure the people of Terrebonne. On the contrary, its CEO has confirmed to the media that there will be expropriations. That is not very inspiring to hear. Alto's CEO said he hopes that expropriation will not be the primary tool. In other words, people along the route in Terrebonne will get offers, and if they are not happy, well, Alto will use the tools granted by the Liberals to expropriate the land. That is not a negotiation. Why will the Liberals not include the people of Terrebonne in the discussion rather than threatening them?”
“Mr. Speaker, the people of Terrebonne are worried about expropriation for the high-speed rail project, and they are right to worry, because in Bill C-15 , the Liberals weakened the Expropriation Act specifically to limit the rights of property owners along the rail alignment. The mayor of Terrebonne is calling for real consultations. The Lanaudière chapter of the Union des producteurs agricoles is afraid that our best farmland will be cut in half and then abandoned. Everyone is worried. Why are the Liberals making expropriation easier and treating the people of Terrebonne like second-class citizens instead of working to earn social licence?”
“That is what Parliament is for. That is how it should work. Here is the question I want to ask my colleague. Why does he think the Conservatives are continuing to spread disinformation? Does he think they might be using this as a way to obtain election financing?”
“Mr. Speaker, today, I myself took a telephone call at my office here on the Hill from a person who was calling to say that I should vote against Bill C‑9 . At the end of the conversation, the person said that they hoped that I would find it in my heart to change my mind. I replied that I hoped that they would use their intellect to read the bill, because they had been infected with Conservative misinformation. They had never read the bill in any form. According to the misinformation that is being spread by the Conservatives, no witnesses came to talk about the religious exemption. I watched meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights again, and the member for Rivière-du-Nord asked each witness questions about the religious exemption. Some were for it and some were against it. There were opinions on both sides.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us put ourselves in the shoes of the people of Terrebonne, Mascouche and Mirabel. Alto's CEO is confirming that there will be expropriations, but he is hopeful that it will not be the primary tool that is used. So he is confirming that it could happen. Our people want respect. The towns of Terrebonne, Mascouche and Mirabel want real consultation on the route. They want real local economic spinoffs. The north shore is not going to lie down and be bullied into accepting the high-speed rail. Will the Liberals finally demand that Alto seek social licence?”
“Mr. Speaker, expropriations will not make the high-speed rail project a success. What is needed is social licence. However, let us look at how the CEO of Alto responded to concerned farmers. He confirmed that there will be expropriations but said that he hopes that they will not be the primary tool. He hopes that expropriation will not be the primary tool. He confirmed that Alto has the means to expropriate land and that it will do so, if necessary. At this point, that almost sounds like a threat. When will the government show some respect for the people of the north shore and hold meaningful discussions with them?”
“I firmly believe that Adil Charkaoui deliberately used that protection in the Criminal Code to push things a lot further than any other citizen could, and I think that, as legislators, we really need to focus on the intentions of those individuals.”
“Madam Speaker, I am not a lawyer, but from what I understand, the Crown always has a strategy. When charges are laid or a decision is made to not lay charges, authorities always try to use the strategy that is most likely to lead to a conviction. However, there is one thing we are seeing. We are legislators, and what we are seeing is that this is a hate crime. It is hate speech based on a religious text. Sometimes a prayer is said at a protest just to hide behind the law. I personally am convinced that that was the intention. I was protesting with local farmers about the Alto high-speed rail project two weeks ago, and no one said any prayers. We obeyed the law and did not hide behind it.”
“Madam Speaker, there is a fairly simple mathematical reality to crime statistics. The statistics we read always skew low because they reflect crimes that are reported. That is what happened with sexual crimes at one point. When people started talking about sex crimes and awareness grew, the number of crimes reported went up because victims knew they would be listened to. How many people have been in situations that went unreported, situations involving social coercion? We do not know. However, one thing we do know is that the statistics for religious hate crimes are alarming. All Quebeckers and Canadians must be made aware of this situation.”