Patrick Bonin
Repentigny, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, it is official: Quebec has its own Leonardo da Vinci. I am talking about Jérôme Dupras, a researcher, professor, musician, and now, Quebec's chief scientist.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer is embarrassing. The Liberals continue to veer off course. The consultation documents for Quebeckers on the decommissioning of the Gentilly-1 nuclear reactor are in English only.”
“Mr. Speaker, the event of the year is the Liberals' climate betrayal. Their record includes the pipeline agreement with Alberta. It includes ending environmental impact assessments. It includes pipelines and offshore drilling with no regard for protected areas or endangered species.”
“This renowned scientist and influential artist is also a remarkable environmental entrepreneur and an exceptional communicator. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, and from one environmental activist to another, I wish my friend every success. May Quebec benefit from his sound advice.”
“Mr. Speaker, as the member for Repentigny, I can only echo the previous comments made by my colleague. There are three towns in the riding of Repentigny: Charlemagne, Repentigny, and L'Assomption. Saint-Sulpice used to be part of the riding. My colleague mentioned community of interest. Saint-Sulpice is part of the L'Assomption RCM.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his speech. I would also like to congratulate the minister who introduced this bill. I would like to reiterate how important it is to the Bloc Québécois that we support this bill.”
The complete record
Every one of 466 lines we hold for Patrick Bonin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 10.
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 has several parts and amends a number of laws. Among other things, it allows for the inspection of goods destined for export. This is a welcome measure, in our opinion, because we remember that it was one of the reasons for the lack of action in fighting auto theft, particularly at the port of Montreal. However, there is not a single word about increasing the number of customs officers. The customs officers' union told us there is a shortage of 2,000 to 3,000 officers, and there is every indication the government will not be able to adequately inspect all exports in order to fight auto theft. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑5 does not just circumvent environmental assessments. It also enables oil companies to violate 13 laws and seven regulations that mainly concern the environment. With Bill C‑5, there is no longer any need to comply with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Fisheries Act, the marine mammal regulations, and many more. Worse still, proposed section 21 states that Ottawa can suspend any other act by order in council, like Donald Trump. Is there even one law that the Liberals are not prepared to flout to please the oil companies?”
“Mr. Speaker, like many others, we think the way the program was cancelled is completely unacceptable. There was no predictability for the industry. The government acted very quickly when it could have sent a warning about where the program was headed rather than cancelling it overnight. Today, only the Government of Quebec funds the purchase of electric vehicles, which are very beneficial. We would like the federal government to get back to doing that. That obviously requires a budget. One of the reasons we asked for a budget is that programs like this cannot be rolled out. We hope that the program will be improved to help individuals, including the less fortunate, buy an electric vehicle. That is why we are calling for an upgrade to the action plan that targets society as a whole to improve sustainable mobility in the country.”
“Nevertheless, the entire life cycle certainly needs to be improved, including the mineral extraction stage. We completely agree with that. All of this must also be reduced as much as possible at the source, of course.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to provide my colleague with some of the studies that have been done on this subject, including by Hydro‑Québec, an organization that we are very proud of. Four out of five factors used in the full life-cycle analysis of vehicles show that electric vehicles are much better. This is true not only in terms of greenhouse gas emissions when compared to gas‑powered vehicles, but also in terms of the natural resources used. Gas‑powered vehicles burn and therefore use much greater quantities of natural resources than do electric vehicles, whose lithium batteries are 99% recyclable. As for cobalt, I will tell my colleague that cobalt is used in gas‑powered vehicles at the oil refining stage and that not all electric vehicles contain cobalt.”
“Mr. Speaker, having standards in place means an increasing number of electric vehicles and higher demand for them. It then becomes more attractive to develop a system that more and more people are using. Quebec is indeed an example when it comes to the number of charging stations available. The current system allows builders who do not meet their electric vehicle sales quota to invest in installing charging stations instead and thereby contribute to expanding the essential charging station system that we need. As for the number of charging stations that are needed, I do not have that figure right now, but I would be happy to come back with a response later. By all accounts, Quebec is ahead of several other provinces on this and we think that the federal government—”
“It has said no to new oil and gas exploration and development, and yes to solutions that move us away from oil and gas. From an economic and societal point of view, we are talking about more than $10 billion in imports. The biggest deficit in Quebec's trade balance comes from importing oil. We are choosing this large deficit instead of, among other things, powering up Hydro-Québec and keeping our money at home through renewable energy. That is the kind of societal project we need. We do not need more oil and gas, as the Conservatives are proposing.”
“As I have shown, we must keep in mind that fighting climate change also means reducing health costs which everyone has to pay, both financially and in human terms. Everyone has a grandmother or a grandfather, who is often the first to be affected by poor air quality. The same is true for young children as they develop. Unfortunately, the Conservatives and car manufacturers are not proposing accountability. In economic terms, we are talking about more than $10-billion worth of imported oil every year for Quebec alone. We have everything to gain from a societal point of view by turning the corner and freeing ourselves from fossil fuels in Quebec, which has joined the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance. The Government of Quebec has very clearly said that we must reduce our dependence on oil.”
“There are national statistics on mortality rates due to poor air quality. We are talking about 2,000 premature deaths. We must add to that what we call comorbidity, in other words, people with cardiovascular problems, people who end up having days off work, people who end up hospitalized or having to go to the emergency room. These air quality impacts amount to billions of dollars. Fighting climate change also means making sure that we reduce our dependence on oil and improve air quality by reducing emissions related to the combustion of oil. As I was saying, more than 2,000 people die prematurely every year in Montreal alone, according to the statistics. When people switch from a gas-powered vehicle to an electric one, emissions drop to zero because there is no combustion.”
“We also need to tackle the vehicle fleet. We need to renew the fleet with more fuel-efficient vehicles, such as light-duty vehicles, which are part of the problem. One solution that would be promising in many ways for Quebec and all of Canada is transportation electrification. This would help the fight against climate change by significantly reducing emissions. According to a life cycle assessment by Hydro-Québec, EVs produce almost 65% fewer GHGs over the first 150,000 kilometres. Compared with a gas-powered vehicle, an EV powered with Quebec's renewable electricity produces almost 80% fewer GHGs over 300,000 kilometres. From a climate action perspective, there is no doubt that this is an avenue we need to look to. As far as health is concerned, unfortunately, the Conservatives do not have much to say about current issues.”
“We are right in the middle of experiencing the impacts of climate change, particularly wildfires. To prevent the situation from getting even worse, we need to respect science and reduce emissions in the transportation sector and other sectors. Most credible climate scientists agree on a target of net zero by 2050. We need to cut back considerably. We need to try to stop consuming oil and gas now, or at least in the next 25 years. The deadline is coming up fast. Science is telling us to cut global emissions by half, or almost half, by 2030. We are behind schedule. Regarding the transportation sector, unfortunately, we cannot force everyone to take the bus. We need to provide more funding for alternatives to solo car rides, including public transportation, car sharing, carpooling and active transportation.”
“Obviously, we will talk a little later about the fight against climate change, the fact that the transportation sector is a problem and the fact that electric vehicles are part of the solution, but not the only one. However, it is wishful thinking to imagine that Canada could achieve its objectives by eliminating regulations, measures and programs when the country is already not on track to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets. More specifically, it is proof of the Conservatives' total unwillingness to fight climate change and to hold this government accountable for what the World Health Organization says is the single greatest threat facing humanity. (1120) The single greatest health threat facing humanity is climate change. This is not fiction, it is reality.”
“The past very clearly shows that this is not how things work. We need to regulate manufacturers and make them responsible for offering more and more vehicles, as well as smaller electric vehicles, which is a problem right now. As for the propaganda we are hearing today, we have heard both the oil companies and the Conservatives say that people will not be allowed to choose what vehicle to buy. They are suggesting that, starting in 2035, gas-powered cars could be seized. They are saying that the government could seize a gas-powered vehicle owned by an individual. That is just not true. We are talking about new vehicles. By 2035, new gas-powered vehicles will no longer be sold. That is 10 years from now, and the technology is already in place today to replace gas-powered vehicles with electric vehicles. The gains are significant.”
“What the Conservatives are proposing is to eliminate any obligation for manufacturers to market these vehicles. Following COVID-19, there was a shortage of vehicles, and many people had to wait nearly two years for an EV. Few models were available, and the most affordable ones were not being offered. Why did it take so long to get these vehicles here? Due to a shortage and problems with the supply of parts, among other things, manufacturers were forced to prioritize markets where there were rules requiring them to provide EVs. That means that places where there was no obligation to sell EVs came last. That is why there were delays and consumers had no options. It is completely illogical to think that if we allow EV manufacturers to operate as a free market, there will be more EVs.”
“I think that if elected officials want to take part in a substantive debate and act responsibly, they should tell their constituents the truth and stop promoting what amounts to pro-oil propaganda. Unfortunately, there are auto manufacturers in Canada that are not working for Canadians, on a number of levels. For example, they have put only a limited range of small, affordable vehicles on the market. This goes for both gas-powered and electric vehicles. Most of the EVs on the market, few of which are manufactured here, are large vehicles. They are extremely expensive, and the middle class cannot afford them. New vehicles are becoming more and more expensive in general. One of the major problems we have in terms of vehicle availability is that the manufacturers are not putting them on the market of their own volition.”
“Mr. Speaker, what a fascinating debate this is. Unfortunately, I think we need to reframe it and recognize it for what it really is. The oil and gas companies and carmarkers both here in Canada and around the world are waging a campaign against any government action that would result in lower oil consumption. Let us be clear: Most of the arguments being put forward by my Conservative colleagues today are taken directly out of the oil industry's playbook. The oil industry is fighting to hang onto its market share in the face of a rapid global technological evolution and a rise in EV sales. Many of the remarks we are hearing today are a distortion of the truth.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear what my hon. colleague has to say in light of her extensive experience. I believe she has had the good fortune of working alongside governments for many years, if not decades. Does she recall ever having seen anything like the government's plan in terms of powers and the danger of weakening environmental protections?”
“Mr. Speaker, what is clear in this bill is that despite what the Prime Minister says, Quebec's environmental sovereignty is not recognized. That threatens Quebec's power to say no to projects, to ensure that robust environmental assessments are done, and that is why we are asking for a real debate. We are going to propose amendments. We hope that the Liberals and the Conservatives will be open to improving this bill, because in its current form, it is running us straight into a wall with respect to the environment.”
“We are going to stand up to defend the people who elected us and who are asking us to protect the environment, who are asking us to grow the economy while protecting the environment, not destroying it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understood the question and I am not sure it was directed to me. I think it is important to remember that the Earth is not flat and that climate change is real. Even if the Conservatives want to bury their heads in the sand and insist that it is not real, that there is nothing we need to do and that we can keep sidestepping environmental assessments, pre-approving projects and rolling out the red carpet for oil and gas companies, the reality of the forest fires that are currently ravaging western Canada will not change. The fact that last year was the most expensive year ever for Insurance Bureau of Canada insurance claims will not change. We are going to be responsible.”
“I would be concerned if I were the member for Bourassa, and I look forward to speaking with him and explaining the extent of the democratic decline we are experiencing.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment made by my colleague from Bourassa. However, I would invite him to take another look at the bill. It is very clear that a proponent will be able to submit a project to the government and that the minister responsible will be able to issue an order declaring it a project of national interest without any information being made public, without any individual being informed and without any details about the project being disclosed. This bill could even result in Canada's impact assessment law being thrown out so that the government would not have to comply with it. Why is the government putting this in a bill if it has no intention of throwing it out?”
“Breaking one's own laws for no reason is not only a serious mistake, it is something that everyone here should oppose. It is definitely cause for concern. What is apparent, however, is that people are are blinded by oil, gas and the fantasy of infinite growth without a second thought for future or even current generations. That is what we are witnessing. Naturally, the Bloc Québécois will be presenting a series of amendments. We are constructive, and we hope that the government and the opposition will be reasonable and responsible. Right now, the government is using a bazooka. This bill actually looks a lot like the War Measures Act in terms of the powers the government is giving itself.”
“The Duplessis era, for example, was no stranger to scandals involving agreements made behind closed doors. This bill is the antithesis of transparency and slams the door shut on public participation. Proponents are going to submit their projects to the government in private, and the government is going to come to terms with them. No information will be made public. Decisions will be made and projects will be designated as being in the national interest. They will be pre-approved before environmental assessments are even done. That is unheard of. Pre-approvals will be handed out before projects are even assessed. How will we know whether these projects will impact communities if the communities have no say? In this country's history of environmental assessments, the government has never before proposed taking such a huge step backwards.”
“It is rushing through the consultation process, limiting the number of people who will be heard and limiting the number of questions. As a result, it is limiting opportunities to improve this bill. That is what democracy is for. Unfortunately, even within the government, I can see that there are concerns. The member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country is a third current government member who has expressed reservations. In his opinion, Bill C‑5 gives the government extraordinary powers because of the trade war, but it is giving itself powers for five years, and that is too long. Why have those powers for five years if the free trade agreement will be settled in two? There is nothing in this bill that justifies what the government is doing. We have witnessed bouts of anti-democratic behaviour before.”
“The current member for Beaches—East York , a former Liberal cabinet minister, warned his colleagues about what he called economic growth at all costs during a debate on closure. He said that the government's response to Trump is leading it to sacrifice other important values. We are not the ones saying so; that was a Liberal member who is concerned that the government is moving forward without any justification by using undemocratic strategies such as closure. As for the former environment minister and present Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture , he refused today to say whether he supports the bill in its current form. Why? Because he wants amendments. The current minister refuses to say whether he supports the bill in its current form because amendments need to be made. What is the government doing?”
“The feds will decide on Quebec's behalf what the national projects will be, without any mandatory criteria. That is very clear. Fighting climate change is one of the factors that may be considered, emphasis on “may”. In other words, the government may choose to disregard such factors completely, build oil pipelines, build gas pipelines, develop oil and gas expansion projects and forget about fighting climate change, as it has done since it came to power. That is what this bill will do. People will say that the Bloc Québécois is fearmongering, but first nations have very clear concerns. That was the first nations national chief talking, after all. When I see that, I realize something is going on.”
“Why did the Prime Minister not write very clearly that he would seek a consensus and ensure that the provinces and the first nations agree with the projects that will be identified as being in the national interest? He did not include that because he does not want that to happen. He intends to give himself superpowers that would allow him to impose pipeline projects despite the refusal of a province or a first nation. If the Prime Minister's intention is clear and it is to seek a consensus, then he needs to include that in his bill, but it is not there. (2215) Then, it says that so-called projects of national interest will be selected by order. The government will decide by itself, as it sees fit, what projects will be of so-called national interest. There will be no mandatory criteria.”
“First nations have spoken up and said that what is currently being presented is wrong. First nations have not been consulted. The government is rushing things through without any justification. This is the beginning of a new term. There is currently no urgency. There are not even any projects on the table. No proponents have came forward with any projects. The government is being utterly undemocratic. Despite what the government says, it is not true that the bill states that consensus will be required for these projects to move forward and for them to be recognized as projects of national interest. The Prime Minister said that there should certainly be consensus for the projects and no project would move forward if the provinces do not agree. In the bill, the word consensus is not mentioned once.”
“It is moving full speed ahead with a system that even Stephen Harper would have been embarrassed to introduce, a system that slavishly caves to the demands of the oil and gas sector to speed up approvals and remove barriers and environmental protections. That is what we are talking about here today. We have a bill that has two parts. The Bloc Québécois was wise to ask that the two parts of this bill be split. For the first part, on trade, we said that we would be able to reach a consensus, that some improvements are needed, but that it is reasonable. As the adults in the room, we figured that we would do our job as elected representatives. What Canadians expect from us is to take a close look at the bill, study it and ask questions properly, but that is not what is happening at all. We are not the only ones to notice this.”
“In fact, during the election campaign, the Liberals did not show Canadians any clear proposal to scrap 13 environmental laws whose scope goes far beyond the environment. That legislation includes the Indian Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994. It also includes seven regulations that the government is giving itself the right to completely ignore. It is giving itself the right to no longer have to obey laws that were democratically passed in the House. Furthermore, how is this government currently operating? It is operating on a time allocation, at full speed. It is silencing parliamentarians to prevent us from even asking questions or hearing from witnesses.”
“Mr. Speaker, today I would like to come back to Bill C-5 , a bill that has been described by Ecojustice, a recognized Canadian environmental law organization, as giving the Prime Minister sweeping powers not seen before in the history of modern Canadian environmental law. What is being presented today as a bill the Liberals claim Canadians are asking for goes much further than anything announced during the election campaign. The government is literally overhauling the project approval system. It is overhauling the environmental assessment system. It is completely changing the laws it put in place to protect the environment and the health of Canadians. It is doing all this without any mandate.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave a brilliant presentation. I would like him to come back to the notion of free, prior and informed consent by first nations. The government keeps saying that it is going to consult with first nations, but the bill only mentions the word “consultation”. Can my hon. colleague help the government understand the difference between consultation and obtaining free, prior and informed consent?”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 , as it currently stands, would allow the federal government to say that it will consult Quebec, for example. Quebec says no, it does not want a pipeline project within its borders. However, there is absolutely nothing in Bill C‑5 to indicate that a consensus or Quebec's approval would be required before a pipeline could be built. Is the member aware of this reality? Does he agree that the provinces should have the final say on projects located within their borders?”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 has given rise to a Conservative-Liberal coalition working for the oil companies. After years of saying that the Liberals are the devil incarnate, the Conservatives are now eating out of their hands. They are willing to pass Liberal bills. They are even prepared to adopt Liberal gag orders. They are prepared to do anything as long as it is in the interest of the oil companies, but not in the interest of Quebeckers. Quebec did not vote for this. Why did the Liberals lie to Quebeckers during the election and not tell them that they were going to govern with the Conservatives?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think we need to be clear today: The government is talking nonsense. The Liberals' election platform does not state that they will stifle democratic debate in the House, or that they will prevent the opposition parties from doing their job and studying in committee a bill aimed at giving the government superpowers. They are proposing what almost amounts to war measures. They want to repeal their own laws, which were adopted democratically, to give up the fight against climate change and threaten the environment and Canadians' health without public debate. That was not in the Liberals' election platform. I would like them to tell us where it says that, because no one voted for that.”
“Mr. Speaker, this government is hiding behind an election platform, saying that it promised these measures. Yet nowhere in the platform does it mention that the government would be moving a motion to amend 13 laws and 7 regulations, including environmental legislation, in an effort to weaken environmental protection and accelerate the approval of projects such as oil pipelines. Ecojustice speaks of superpowers awarded the government, and says that this is a first in the modern history of environmental law. Even Stephen Harper would not have dared propose these kinds of measures. Can the government explain why it is in such a hurry to muzzle Parliament and push through a project that is not in the public interest?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government use of contractors and overspending problem is nothing new. It is even a growing problem. After all, the Auditor General mentions $18 million being paid to private companies for IT services. Quebec is currently holding a public inquiry on the SAAQclic fiasco. This project went about $500 million over budget. When we compare the two situations, we see that Ottawa can go billions over budget and no one says a word. There is a motion on the floor today, but we need to remember that Ottawa provides hardly any services itself, aside from passports, which it has a hard time delivering. Rather than having Ottawa invest more and more and take Canadians to the cleaners, what does the member think of the idea of Ottawa tackling the fiscal imbalance and sending money and taxes into the coffers—”
“Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to reiterate that the Bloc Québécois supports both main points of the motion. I commend my Conservative colleague for clearly re-explaining why this is important. Taxpayers should get their money back if no work was done. However, the Auditor General is not necessarily saying that the work was not done, just that at this point, there is no documentation to show that the work was done and delivered. It is clear that some of the work was not done. It remains to be seen what work actually was done. My question concerns the reference to “within 100 days” in the motion. I would ask my hon. colleague if he does not think it is a little unrealistic to talk about 100 days. Looking at the Liberals' track record, there are some sad examples where they have not been able to recover the money, unfortunately.”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, every one of the 44 Liberals from Quebec voted to steal $814 million from Quebeckers. The Liberals from Quebec voted to make Quebeckers pay for election goodies for Canadians. The Liberals from Quebec voted against the Quebec National Assembly's unanimous demand that Quebeckers be reimbursed. The Liberals, elected by Quebeckers who were afraid that the Conservatives would drag us back to the Stone Age, abolished the carbon tax and rewarded Canadians with our money. Are they not ashamed to be working against their constituents?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his election and on his first speech in the House in this new Parliament. The Bloc Québécois also considers it important to fight inflation and protect consumer purchasing power. This bill eliminates consumer carbon pricing. Both the government and the Parliamentary Budget Officer were very clear: More than 90% of Canadians were receiving more money from the rebate than what they were paying, and less fortunate and middle-class Canadians were receiving even more than what they were paying. I would like my colleague to explain how he thinks supporting the elimination of carbon pricing will improve the cost of living.”
“Mr. Speaker, I hear the Conservatives talking about eliminating carbon pricing. I hear them talking about pipelines, increasing oil and gas production and scrapping the emissions cap. I would like to know whether the Conservatives and the member are essentially looking to get rid of every last measure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, every last measure to combat climate change. Would that make them happy?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what the member has to say about the fact that he and his colleagues just defeated a motion to respect a unanimous resolution by the National Assembly of Quebec calling on the government to return the $814 million that was stolen from Quebeckers. What does he think of his leader's idea that a province should have no veto power so, for example, it could not say no to a pipeline that might be imposed by the federal government?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his election. I know that we do not agree on everything, including what to do to help our society transition. How fast should we go while following the science and fighting climate change to limit things like the forest fires we are currently seeing? I would like him to talk about the possibility of a pipeline project being imposed on Quebec. I understand that your leader was proposing that the federal government could impose a pipeline project—”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate seeing the extent to which the Liberals have decided to abandon the fight against climate change and are rushing, with their first bills, to eliminate consumer carbon pricing and, above all, to not replace it with anything. Since they have formed government, they have been slowly dismantling the climate change action plan that the previous government had passed and that was already flawed and not nearly ambitious enough. What is the carbon tax being replaced with given that, once eliminated, emissions reductions will automatically cease? Can the Liberals and the member explain to me why the government is backing away from the fight against climate change, while western Canada is in flames and it is directly related to climate change? Are they really abandoning Canadians and Quebeckers?”
“Mr. Speaker, no matter where members come from, even if they are from outside Quebec, I hope they will rise and support this motion. This is a matter of justice, and I am sure that no one in Canada would want to be played for a fool the way Quebeckers have been. The members from Quebec, more than anyone else, should stand up proudly and support our motion.”
“I hope that you will set aside your ideology to defend Quebeckers' wallets in this situation and that you will ensure that the government changes its position.”
“Mr. Speaker, I salute my hon. colleague and congratulate him on what I believe is his seventh consecutive election win. Let us be clear, today's debate is about $814 million that was taken out of Quebeckers' pockets to pay for election handouts to Canadians. The debate is not about who won the leaders' debate or whether the fact that it was mentioned in the leaders' debate and 44 members were still elected justifies the action that was taken. If we ask Quebeckers today, I am sure they will all say that it is completely unfair. They will ask to be reimbursed for those cheques. I expect the Conservative members to be very clear and to get over their past position on the carbon tax. Today's issue is not the carbon tax, but an election handout paid for out of the pockets of Quebeckers.”
“Mr. Speaker, the comments I have been hearing from the opposite side of the House since the debate started are quite outrageous. It kind of seems like the hon. member is taking us for fools. We are absolutely not opposed to the idea of helping people who are struggling with the cost of living. The problem today is that money was taken from Quebeckers and given to Canadians. That is the problem. I fail to understand what the member does not get about that. I cannot make it clearer: Election goodies were paid for by Quebeckers, but they themselves did not receive a cent. That is the problem. No matter how my colleague says it, he is not going to take us for fools. Quebeckers paid for vote-buying cheques. The Liberals must do the right thing, back off and send cheques back to Quebec.”
“We are talking here about public funds that were used in a discriminatory manner for electoral purposes, and I think a red line was crossed. The least we can do is discuss the matter, but the most important thing is for members to vote in favour of this motion today.”