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 9 of 17.
“We are reaching out to them, and we hope with all our hearts that this motion will be adopted so that we never have to move it again.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is clearly demonstrating that this is not a partisan issue. Last year, I myself moved a motion without notice alongside the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk and the NDP member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie . This is not partisan. Of course, the Conservative Party—both progressive conservative and conservative—has been particularly sensitive to our concerns in the past. We are grateful to them, and we are capable of saying so. I do not want to harp on what the Liberals did not do in the past, because today, they have an opportunity to take a step forward. This is an olive branch. We are reaching out to them. I think that was clear in my speech. I think my words have been clear.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am the Bloc Québécois finance critic. I talk to the Minister of Finance . It is certainly not my first instinct to talk to the member for Thérèse‑De Blainville, who is not a minister of anything. When I went to see the people at Paccar, guess what? I talked to them. I shook their hands. We were out there on the ground. Changing the subject is what someone does when they are uncomfortable with today's debate. The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville is changing the subject. I encourage her to reflect on the history of Mirabel, I encourage her to learn more, and I encourage her to perhaps rethink her attitude.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to today's debate. I see the Minister of Transport here. I see other members here. During my speech, I saw members from Quebec who were nearly in tears listening to me. I refuse to believe that the government's position can be summed up by the crude, callous remarks of the member for Thérèse-De Blainville. Things can get a little heated in committee with the Minister of Transport. However, we have had conversations. We have spoken in the hallways and gotten to know each other. I know he is a sensible man. I know he is a sensitive man. I know he is capable of this, and I am sure that he will recommend that his government move on to something else, so that we never have to talk about this again.”
“There is only one step left to take, and I am convinced that the House will have the compassion needed to make it happen.”
“Mr. Speaker, some land was indeed returned. Some was returned in the 1980s under the Mulroney government. Others were returned under the Harper government. The final expropriated plots of land were even returned under the Trudeau government. It was a long process, but throughout it all, the federal government never acknowledged that it was anything more than an administrative error. What the people of Mirabel expect is an apology from the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government of Canada. They want us to recognize that what happened in Mirabel was a crime and that it must never happen again. Once again, the Conservative Party has often been very open and understanding of the people of Mirabel. I think that we have almost finished the marathon today.”
“I think that the first step to ensuring that this does not happen again is simply to acknowledge past mistakes and finally allow these people to move on.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Thérèse-De Blainville for the question. At the beginning of her question, I saw a sensitivity in her that we are not used to seeing. We know how she treated the people at Paccar. We know how she treats those people. I guess she is making progress. It should be noted that 20 minutes after the member posted an article on Facebook about her meeting with the mayor of Mirabel that the mayor herself posted a video on Facebook where she said that for the time being, there was still no public buy-in for the project. However, that is not what we are talking about today. Today, we are talking about something very noble and humble: apologizing. The member tells us that the federal government will not do it again. I want to believe her. I want to believe her good faith.”
“Apologizing is part of life. We often forget that people asking for apologies are people waiting to offer forgiveness. They are people deeply motivated to prevent a 50-year battle from turning into a 100-year battle. People who demand an apology are people with no desire to fight just for the sake of fighting. If this House or this government refuses to apologize to the people of Mirabel, they are not only refusing them an apology, they are depriving them of the opportunity to offer forgiveness in return. As the member for Mirabel, it is my profound belief that this is not the government's intention.”
“While it will not heal them, I think that today we can come full circle historically by asking the government to apologize and not do it again. I am sure that the government will be willing to do that, and I will be the first to invite it to my riding for that purpose. Where I come from, we are welcoming people. Apologies put a stop to indifference. They show an openness to understanding, because unless people spend time with our constituents, they will not understand them. Apologies are like arms ready to open to people who have known nothing in life but pain, struggle, closed doors and politicians who make them feel invisible. Above all else, an apology is an acknowledgement of dignity. Apologizing, admitting to mistakes and starting fresh is one of the first lessons in civility that we teach our children. It is that important.”
“It is the humble role of a private member to bring that humanity to the House and to make the House understand that Mirabel is today a place of remembrance for Quebec and for Canada. It reminds us, as we often say, that this could have happened to each and every one of us. It could have happened in each of our ridings. It could have happened in any one of our towns, and it could happen again. The government has apologized many times. Prime Minister Trudeau apologized to many people and groups for mistakes made and crimes that should not have been committed, and rightly so. We agreed on that. In Mirabel, every time a prime minister rises, makes amends and apologizes on behalf of the Crown to someone else while neglecting us, it reopens old wounds once again.”
“It was partly his father's legacy, in whose honour they renamed the Dorval airport, where people can at least watch planes fly. They say this is a new government. I want to believe them, but governments are judged by their actions. (1020) People often talk about the financial cost of major projects. We are told that these projects are expensive, that they need to be fast-tracked and that they are generational investments. That may be true. In the case of the high-speed train project that reopened old wounds in my community, we believe it is a generational project, but there is very little mention of the human costs, of people being uprooted, of shattered lives. Very little is said about the impact, the scars it leaves. These scars are deeply human.”
“It took its time, of course, but it got the job done, and now there is fairer compensation, the right to be listened to, the right to appeal and the right to be heard by a hearing officer before a minister can determine the value of the land. At the time, the government justified what it did in 1969, 1970 and 1971 on the grounds that nothing great would ever be done in Canada again without expropriation. It told us this awful treatment was necessary and that the project had to get done faster. People's lives were destroyed for decades just to speed up a project by a few months or a year. There is a duty of reconciliation. It was all kind of personal for the former prime minister, and I understand that. It was a family thing.”
“That is what revived the high-speed rail project. That is where it all started. Today, we are not talking about a train, but about justice. When we bring up what happened, the Minister of Transport tells me that I am dredging up the past to try to scare people. Can he blame people in my community for still being afraid? The people of Mirabel are people you can talk to. They are really compassionate people. They are people who are capable of listening and thinking, and I am sure they are capable of forgiving, but can anyone really blame them for their lack of confidence in the federal government after the hell they have experienced? In the wake of those events, Canada adopted modern expropriation rules.”
“We have a duty to remember the people who were expropriated who are watching at home today, as well as those who are no longer with us but whose sons, daughters, grandsons, and granddaughters are still around. The federal industry minister is one such person. Battles were fought and lands were returned, but there has never been an apology. I think that these people deserve an apology from the federal government so that they can get closure. That is what the Quebec National Assembly unanimously called for in 2019 on the 50th anniversary of the expropriation. I also moved a motion to this effect last year, which was sponsored with the members for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk . It was a motion without notice that the Liberal Party refused to have tabled, but it is never too late to do the right thing.”
“Brian Mulroney's government, apparently looking for government efficiencies, felt that it made no more sense for the federal government to own this land than for it to own Petro-Canada. It began to transfer land. It returned more than 80,000 acres. When entering the Union des producteurs agricoles building in Sainte-Scholastique, there is a portrait of Brian Mulroney on the wall. Not only do these people remember the bad, they also remember the good. This continued under the Harper government because it kept 11,000 acres in case the airport were to expand. Other lands were returned and finally the last parcels of land were returned last year. There were five left, so the wound is still fairly raw.”
“(1015) Then, walking towards the boundary, which ends in a cul-de-sac because there is an airport fence at the other end, there is a neighbour who is concerned about the quality of his water because of the chemicals that were used to burn down houses. He does not believe that the Montreal airports authority, or Aéroports de Montréal, is being transparent about its water analyses. This is my daily life as the representative for Mirabel. When questioned by the Standing Committee on Finance this week, the Minister of Transport acknowledged that the federal government may have made “mistakes”. I strongly emphasize the word “mistakes”. Opened in 1975, the airport closed its doors to the public 30 years later, after much agony and three decades of broken lives. Three decades of broken lives is not nothing. Of course, some land was returned.”
“These people are no strangers to tragedy. They have scars. In some cases, the land had been farmed for generations, and the woman had inherited the land but her husband had heart problems. He did not have it in him to fight the federal government, and his wife did not want to blow through her inheritance. There were cases of depression, suicide, domestic violence, illness, displacement and tarnished reputations. In the farming community, reputations are built over generations. All of that was destroyed in our community, for no reason. If I were to go see my friend Éric Couvrette, as we walked toward his father's maple grove at the top of the hill, he would point to where his friend's house once stood and say that the federal government burned it down for evacuation drills, and then point to where his aunt's house once stood.”
“However, they went so far as to shirk their responsibilities by pointing out that the people—who sometimes became tenants on their own land, in some cases for 18 years—had gotten a good deal on their rent from the federal government. Why were they complaining? They were able to rent their land and the federal government was such a good landlord. That tragedy is still being felt to this day. Unlike similar lots in Quebec, some of these remain uncultivated woodlands because tenant farmers were unable to invest in clearing them. Some of Quebec's most fertile land today remains uncultivated woodland because those people were denied the right to invest. Some were tenants on their own land for two decades. They never received any compensation for the improvements they had to make to their land to earn a living.”
“This reminds us of an unfortunate economic reality. During an expropriation, when the people whose land is being expropriated are not protected by laws and when those laws are weakened, it is the buyer who sets the price and it is the buyer who has the upper hand. Today we are talking about access to home ownership, a recurring theme in the House. In Mirabel, in the 1970s, the recurring theme was properties that were being stolen, purchased at bargain basement prices, from people who had many children, who were well-established in their communities, who had a reputation in the agricultural community. They were in fact unable to find alternative housing with the amounts they were being offered, and that was when they knew when they had to move out. Government appraisers acknowledged, and this is true, that this was unfair.”
“There are also reports of cases like that of Ernest Courcelle, who was offered $40,000 for his land. He wanted to negotiate the price, so the federal government showed up at his door one morning and told him that if he did not agree today, if he did not sign today, it would be $10,000 tomorrow. These cases are not made up, and there are hundreds and hundreds of them. In short, dozens of public servants came to steal Mirabel, an act that is an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada, not to mention arbitrary. There is the example of the Rhéaume brothers, whose lands and homes were identical, built by the same people in the same year, and which were across from each other. One brother was offered $63,000 for his land and the other brother was offered $133,000 for his land. It was non-negotiable, otherwise the offers would be reduced.”
“There is the example of Françoise Drapeau-Monette, who is listening to us today, and who was offered $1,000 for a 20‑foot by 20‑foot parcel of land, while the price in the region was over $3,000, according to independent appraisers. The federal government was paying for an airport and needed one-twentieth of what it was taking from humble Canadians at a 70% discount. History shows that if a landowner had the audacity to want to negotiate a price, federal appraisers would come back and threaten them with lower prices. For the sake of speeding things up, for the sake of a project that we were told was transformational, for the sake of bringing in modernity, the government wanted to force the people back home to accept the first offer. Things had to move quickly.”
“(1010) While people were being kept on as tenants in their own homes, they had to ask the federal government for permission to do anything, such as replacing the roof, building a barn, even painting a wall. There are stories of people who had to ask officials for permission just to put up wallpaper in the kitchen. They were required to ask the federal government for approval to paint their little girl's bedroom pink, and the officials would tell them they would prefer it to be blue or white. That was the level of psychological abuse that the victims of the federal government's expropriation powers were subjected to. This federal government acquired those lands at bargain prices. We have examples, documented by historians.”
“The federal appraisers were accommodating. Since they did not actually need all that land to build the airport, people lived in limbo. Some, once expropriated, became tenants in their own homes. In fact, many did, unable to clear their land or improve their farms. They lived day to day, barely getting by, waiting for the moment when some official from Ottawa would knock on their door and tell them to leave, maybe even burning the house down, as they had seen happen to the homes of their neighbours and their children's friends. This was in a farming community where families live close together, where a father, to leave a house and land for his children, would build a new house across the road. That is what happened in Mirabel.”
“I would like my friends in the rest of Canada to know that the area taken from Mirabel was three and a half times the city of Vancouver, nearly two thirds of the city of Toronto today or half of the city of Edmonton. I hope that people understand that everyone back home knew that it was theft and that it was unreasonable. What was expropriated was 20 times the size of New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, 33 times the size of London's Heathrow, 25 times the size of today's Vancouver Airport, and 25 times the size of Los Angeles Airport. It was, as I said, a theft, and a theft without fair compensation. Back home, when compensation was given, those with the right political connections were worth more than ordinary folks, as the parish priest used to say, and the offers were not negotiable.”
“Members will recall Jean‑Paul Raymond and Rita Léonard‑Lafond, who passed away last fall and to whom I paid tribute in the House. They are heroes for defending the expropriated. However, even as a group, they never managed to find out why the area expropriated was so large, so unnecessarily large, so aggressively large. We now know that Ottawa knew it was over-expropriating and that it was a land grab. Ottawa must have known. We now know that it knew, but it was obvious. In Mirabel, 97,000 acres of land were expropriated. I would like Quebeckers to understand that what the federal government stole was the equivalent of the island of Laval.”
“Pierre Elliott Trudeau came to Mirabel and promised us that we would be stepping into the modern world with all the good things that came with that. When Pierre Elliott Trudeau left the room, people did not feel reassured because their questions had not been answered, and yet the question they were asking were very simple. They wanted to know when they would have to leave, how much money they would get and how they would be paid. They wanted to know whether they would have to go work in a shop in Montreal and where their children would go to school. These were real questions that went unanswered at the time, even though they were entirely legitimate. The people of my riding eventually came together in the early 1970s to defend the expropriated. They founded the CIAC, the Centre d'information et d'action communautaire.”
“At that time, Sainte-Scholastique and Sainte-Monique ceased to exist and Saint-Augustin, Saint-Benoît, Saint-Canut, Saint-Hermas, Saint-Janvier, Saint-Jérusalem, Saint-Antoine-des-Laurentides, Sainte-Sophie, Saint-Placide, Saint-André-d'Argenteuil, Lachute and Sainte-Thérèse-Ouest were also affected. The people affected by this were fathers, mothers, children, uncles, aunts, farmers, teachers, agronomists and mechanics. On March 27, 1969, these 10,000 people all become the expropriated people of Mirabel, a label and an identity that will follow them their whole lives. Following the announcement, the federal government went to Sainte-Scholastique. There, federal minister Jean Marchand announced between 75,000 and 100,000 jobs, a windfall of jobs that never materialized, or at least not on a permanent basis. We were promised modernity.”
“Motion moved: That the House call on the government to apologize to those whose land was expropriated in Mirabel, to acknowledge the collective trauma these expropriations caused for thousands of Quebeckers who were forced to abandon their homes, their communities and their livelihoods, and to urge the government not to undertake such expropriations again without public consultation, social licence and appropriate compensation. He said: Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to take people back to March 27, 1961, the day when Mirabel supposedly entered the modern world, the day when 14 municipalities and towns were dismantled. That day, the federal government delivered 3,126 expropriation notices and took possession of 97,000 acres of land. According to estimate, these expropriations affected between 1,700 and 3,000 families.”
“Mr. Speaker, very quickly, at the height of the inflation crisis in 2022, when inflation was at 6%, 7%, 8%, the Bloc Québécois had called for that. We also called for the frequency of the cheques to be increased. At the time, the minister said that was inappropriate. All of a sudden, for the same reasons, it became appropriate. As the saying goes, it helps to sleep on it. The minister needed several hundred nights to sleep on it. We congratulate him for seeing common sense. The Minister of Finance has reformed the Competition Act, but I think it should have been done a long time ago. Indeed, Canada has a serious competition problem in the retail sector, but also throughout the entire supply chain.”
“We sometimes get the impression that we are being denied our privilege as parliamentarians to ask questions, and situations like that can sometimes create unnecessary tension. Regardless of my opinion that some of the Conservatives' questions yesterday were not very good, I think that the Minister of Finance did not always act in the service of democracy. I hold him in very high regard, and I think he can do better.”
“Mr. Speaker, we know that no one can be asked to do the impossible. We cannot ask the minister to move mountains, although the minister has an unfortunate tendency to create expectations that are impossible to fulfill. It is true that the Conservatives questioned him about this in committee yesterday. I say this in a non-partisan way. It is a fact that tensions sometimes rise in committees. It is a fact that the questions are sometimes difficult, although at times the ministers ask for it. When a minister avoids answering a question, wastes time or tries to prevent a member from the other side from asking questions, the result is frustration and a disservice to democracy.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is quite the question. My colleague is referring to the bill introduced by the member for Terrebonne , which did not amend any section of any act. The purpose of the bill was to have Ottawa do what it is already doing. In my riding, the people of Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac have experienced flooding. The Liberals wanted the people of Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac to have a nice app to let them know that it was raining when there was already 10 feet of water in their homes. What is step number one when talking about climate change? Do not buy pipelines. Tax carbon. Make sure people pay the right price for pollution. Take action. We call that scientific consensus. My colleague will soon be defending his doctoral thesis. He must know about this. It is called scientific consensus.”
“In the regions, in our villages, there are few options nearby, especially for people who do not have a car and who cannot get around easily. Today, there are five. That is what the minister told us while he was saying that we were not interested in the long term. Yes, we want to help people. Yes, we know it is urgent. However, this government suffers from a serious lack of vision, as I demonstrated today.”
“Not only did he not answer, but he came back and told us that we are not interested in the long term, when in fact, if there is one thing that really develops over the long term, it is competition. That is long-term work. We are not being short-sighted. I pressed the minister again on this point, and how did he respond? He had a hard time and it took him several seconds. He rambled for a while and ended by saying that he would ask the Competition Bureau to be vigilant. Canada's Minister of Finance was saying that we, the opposition members, are just whining and that we are not interested in the long term. In 1984, the year I turned two and the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel—Alnôbak was first elected, there were 13 major grocery store chains in Canada. Today, there are five, and I am being generous by including Walmart and Costco.”
“Canada's Minister of Finance believes that there is an oligopoly in the grocery sector—everyone make a note of this—because there is a shortage of shopping centres in Canada. According to the minister, grocery stores do not want to have a storefront, they do not want to buy buildings, they do not do business with real estate trusts. No, they swear by our malls. When the minister goes to the United States, he tells these companies to come to Canada, and they tell him they do not like our malls. That is what the Minister of Finance of Canada, a G7 country, said. I asked the minister to name a single measure the government could implement to improve competition in Canada's food retail sector.”
“He told us something worth remembering though, especially coming from that minister. He told us that we never showed interest in the long term, that the only thing we cared about was the thing right in front of our noses, and that we did not give a second thought to the long term. I asked him a question. Last night, in committee, I reminded him that when he was the industry minister, he promised us that the government would attract foreign grocery chains to Canada, because there were only five here. I asked him where we could find the new chain that the government had convinced to set up shop. He replied that the problem in Canada is that shopping centre leases contain exclusivity clauses, that he had abolished them in his legislation and that that was why there were no new grocery stores.”
“However, my Conservative colleague asked the minister whether, in his view, two parents earning minimum wage who have three children and who receive family benefits would be eligible for the cheque. The minister looked through his notes, he looked through his things, he had sticky notes everywhere. She replied for him that the answer is no. Although we agree with the measure, it is appropriate to criticize how it is being carried out so we can improve it for next time. The minister started attacking the opposition and refusing to answer questions. University colleagues of mine who were watching the committee meeting asked me why we allowed a minister to behave like that instead of answering questions, considering our parliamentary privilege. The minister went on the attack, saying that we never propose anything.”
“He says he cannot afford it. (1710) However, today, he is announcing $4.1 billion for next year for the one-time cheque and the payments. The measure would cost about $3.9 billion or $4 billion. The minister is confirming that not helping seniors, particularly by not ending this discrimination, is a deliberate political choice. The Liberals will have to take responsibility for this as of today because they have given us the proof. Yesterday, in committee, the minister criticized the opposition and did not answer questions. I thought he was quite harsh on my Conservative colleague who asked him a question. I do not recall the province in question, and the minimum wage differs from one province to the next.”
“In this case, the government has managed to get unanimous support, and yet it is still attacking us and yelling at us. I think this is a good time to suggest an attitude adjustment. That is my dad talking, and he is a really great guy. We have to consider the cost of the measure, of course. This raises the question about seniors. For several years now, we have been calling for an end to the two classes of seniors. The retirement age in Canada is 65. However, seniors aged 65 to 74 do not receive the same OAS amount as those aged 75 and over. For a long time now, the minister has been saying that it is too expensive, that he cannot afford it and that helping people would bankrupt the government. What he is not saying is that he has made a political choice not to help seniors and not to put an end to this discrimination.”
“People are going to get their money because we are unanimous. What we are saying is that the form of the transfer is important and we think it deserves some thought. These people spend their time telling us that we never make any suggestions, that all we do is complain. We are saying that they have done well but that the money needs to be paid out faster, more frequently, and then they turn around and tell us that the only thing that matters is getting money to the people and it does not matter how often they get their cheques. When I was growing up, my father would sometimes tell me that I needed an attitude adjustment. He did not say that very often, because I did not often deserve it, but he would sometimes tell me that I had a bad attitude.”
“He practically poured his heart out to us, saying that people need the money, that it is important they get the money and that the timing of the cheque is not that important. Why are OAS and GIS benefits paid out once a month? Why is it that the benefits that go to those who have the least cash in their pockets and who need it most urgently are paid out monthly? Why is this benefit, which is getting a name change to reflect its enhanced role, not being paid out on a monthly basis? The minister told me that it was too expensive to administer but, in the same breath, he said that his government is very happy because the money is automatically transferred into people's bank accounts. The Liberals need to think about that. I say this for the benefit of the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou, because he has mentioned that two or three times.”
“He assures me that this is not the case. I hope we can believe him. I was pleased that he confirmed that. I think it is in the public interest. I am taking a chance and trusting a Liberal. Time will tell whether I was right. It is the beginning of a new year. We in the Bloc Québécois are full of good faith. A number of things happened yesterday in committee when we were studying this bill. As my colleague from Joliette—Manawan noted several times, we asked the minister why he was not considering making the cheques monthly. As I pointed out in committee, economic theory suggests that this would be a good thing. The government is increasing the GST rebate cheques by quite a bit. It is getting to be quite a lot of money, because people buy groceries every week. Earlier, I saw the member for Beauport—Limoilou get very emotional.”
“The Minister of Finance and National Revenue is proposing to send a cheque to people before June because of the high cost of living and the high cost of groceries. There has been a dramatic increase in the cost of living. However, this may not be the ideal way to design such a policy. I think it would have been better if the government had permanently increased the GST rebate, but this is what the minister chose to do. Yesterday, I put the minister on notice. As members know, I am an idealist. I am not cynical. I believe in human goodness. I told the minister that we were familiar with his one-off cheques. We all remember the $500 cheque for seniors before the 2021 election. We remember the fake carbon rebate cheques in 2025. I asked him if his election signs would be ready when the cheques go out in June.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate and I can see that people here are getting worked up. The Liberals and the Conservatives are shouting at each other. I am surprised by that, because this motion was adopted unanimously. We adopted it at first and second readings of the bill, which was sent to committee. We are now at third reading. I think that we can offer legitimate criticisms of the government, supply chain management, taxation and all sorts of things, and I agree with some of those criticisms, but, in the context of this bill, I think that we all already agreed that we should help people in the very near future. This measure has two components. The first is a 25% increase for several years in the GST rebate cheque that goes out every three months. The second component is a one-off cheque.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague's answers are interesting because, when we asked him whether he was in favour of increasing OAS benefits for seniors aged 65 to 74, who are facing discrimination, he told us that the government is focusing on what would have an impact. He thinks that helping seniors has no impact. Those are his words. I would like him to explain why, in his opinion, helping seniors aged 65 to 74 who are facing discrimination would not have enough of an impact.”
“Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that the two main items in the market basket of individuals and families are housing and groceries. In terms of housing, we have a government that has implemented immigration policies and thresholds that they themselves recognize are inappropriate and are, in fact, impediments to successful immigration, which involves people coming here and having all the tools they need to thrive, find a job, find housing and so on. Clearly, the Liberals like to say that they are a new government but it is still the same old government that has been in power for 10 years, even though they have a new leader. It is the same party. In fact, I believe that the Liberals are in part responsible for the increase in the cost of the most important items in Quebeckers' market basket.”
“That is why it is a good measure. Now, on the matter of sending out temporary cheques to solve a permanent problem, I agree that this may not be the most appropriate measure at present.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is asking an interesting question on the short term versus the long term. Obviously, we have a permanent problem. The price increases are here to stay. Sending out one-time cheques to address a permanent problem may seem like an attempt to curry favour with voters. Now, members need to understand that the government finally, after 10 years in power, took a few little steps to improve competition in this country. We supported this, and I personally participated in studying it at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. Competition, however, is a long-term issue. It takes time for new companies and new investments to enter the arena. Right now, as we know, the circumstances surrounding international trade are not very conducive to foreign direct investment, among other things.”
“We were told that it was a bad idea. I guess a thousand nights or so can bring good counsel. I am glad that the Liberals have finally decided to implement a measure like this.”