Xavier Barsalou-Duval
Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I would love to have the opportunity to live in la-la land like my colleague opposite, but I think the reality is somewhat different from what he described in his speech. Let us get back to the matter at hand.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us look back on the last couple of weeks. The chair of the transport committee was the guest of honour of the Canada Truck Operators Association, or CTOA, which is a Driver Inc. lobby group. The Liberals forced the committee to go in camera to prevent any discussion about Driver Inc.”
“Mr. Speaker, for the first time in recent history, more than 100 people died on our roads last year in accidents involving heavy-duty trucks. There were 102 fatalities. That is nearly 20% higher than the average for the previous five years. What has changed recently that could explain this? The answer is, of course, Driver Inc.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix on his speech today. This week, I had the opportunity to sit with him briefly on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, of which I assume he is a full member.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. We might say that he tirelessly defends his party with all the enthusiasm he is known for. That said, although we may not agree on much, I am going to take the liberty of asking him a question.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. Today's debate on Build Canada Homes has led me to reflect on why the government created this agency. The fact is that it did so because of the current housing crisis. What caused the housing crisis?”
The complete record
Every one of 556 lines we hold for Xavier Barsalou-Duval, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 12.
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, the first nations should be consulted beforehand. I think it is up to them to decide what they do or do not want to get involved with. Second, there are serious issues with this bill. I find it worrisome to see my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk take all these very important elements so lightly. I hope he will come to his senses before it comes time to vote.”
“Mr. Speaker, what I find sad is that, when faced with these challenges, what Quebeckers and Canadians voted for in the last election was a minority government. When I went door to door, a lot of voters said they hoped that people would co-operate and work together. However, what we are seeing is a government that is imposing time allocation on a bill that would fundamentally change the way the government operates. Should we accept this without asking any questions and without anyone being able to look at what is in this bill? To me, that is deeply concerning.”
“I move: Amendment That the motion be amended: (a) in paragraph (b)(ii), by replacing the words “at 3:30 p.m.” with the words “at 10 a.m.”; (b) in subparagraph (b)(ii)(B), by replacing the words “until 5:30 p.m.” with the words “until 11:59 p.m.”; (c) by adding the following after subparagraph (b)(ii)(C): “(D) the following people be summoned to appear as witnesses for a minimum of one hour each at one of the two committee meetings: (i) the Prime Minister, (ii) the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy, (iii) the Minister of Transport and Internal Trade, (iv) the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, (v) the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations;”. All those people could come explain the bill to the committee. We would also—”
“Worse still, it would put this government in untenable situations where it could easily be influenced by lobbyists with their own particular agendas. The minister would be very susceptible to this, because there would be no one to block him and no checks and balances. I could go on at length, but, unfortunately, I am out of time. In conclusion, I would say that shutting down debate on the motion before us is just one reason for that, so I would like to move an amendment that could make it a little better. (1305) The amendment reads as follows.”
“What we were critical of and what everyone wanted to be protected from was a government that acts arbitrarily, imposes its agenda without consulting or listening to anyone, and governs by decree. What we have before us is a government that wants to govern by decree. How are projects chosen? It is by decree. How are the criteria set? They are being set by the minister alone. How can existing laws not apply to major projects? They are excluded by decree. This government wants to govern by decree, and now it wants to impose a gag order. It is unacceptable for a Parliament to pass such legislation. This bill absolutely needs to be thoroughly studied in committee by experts. This bill undermines our democratic institutions and public institutions.”
“The government could add the Canada Labour Code and not comply with it for these major projects. It could no longer comply with the Income Tax Act and people would not have to pay taxes. It could no longer comply with the Criminal Code. That is not written in the bill and it does not say that the government will do that. However, if it chooses to do so, the way this bill is currently written would allow it. That is completely scandalous and unacceptable. I cannot believe that my peers in the Conservative Party of Canada, or anyone else, would support this and say that there is no problem, that they would hand the government a blank cheque and that the government could do whatever it wants for all eternity. Worse still, it shows that this government is taking cues from the government south of the border.”
“We are talking about the migratory bird sanctuary regulations, the Dominion water power regulations, the wildlife area regulations, the marine mammal regulations, the port authorities operations regulations, the metal and diamond mining effluent regulations and the migratory birds regulations, 2022. That is scary enough. We might say that, with a list like that, anything goes. However, that is not all. Clause 21 of Bill C‑5 states that the Governor in Council may, by order, add any other act or regulation to this schedule, without any public debate, without going through Parliament and without consulting anyone. What could those acts be? What acts could be affected? It could be the Official Languages Act, and then bilingualism and francophone rights would no longer be respected.”
“There is a whole list in schedule 2 of the bill. There are 33 statutes, including the Fisheries Act, the Indian Act, the International River Improvements Act, the National Capital Act, the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, the Dominion Water Power Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, the Canada Transportation Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Species at Risk Act, the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, and the Impact Assessment Act. As if that were not enough, there are also regulations that are not automatically applicable to these major projects.”
“It just means that someone talked to them about it first. That is all that it means. On the basis of consultation alone, the minister can decide that he has enough information to proceed with an order in council and make the project in question a priority. He can circumvent everything and disregard laws that we thought were unassailable. (1300) What happens when a project is on a list? The project is automatically approved. It had not even been analyzed when the Governor in Council issued an order for the project to be added to the list and approved. It stops there, no public debate, no questions. Before it is even debated and reviewed, before any environmental assessments are done, without any regard for processes, the project is automatically approved. That is real progress. What legislation would not apply to these major projects?”
“The minister makes a list, and that is that. He decides which projects will be exempt from the law. How do projects get on that list? It is done by order in council. That means there is no public debate. No one can question whether it is a good or bad project. The minister can wake up one morning and decide that it is a good project. He does not need to ask anyone's permission. Actually, that is not quite true. He has to consult the first nations and the provinces, but all he has to do is consult them and that is it. He does not have to do anything else. He just has to consult them and that is the end of it. What does it mean to consult? It does not mean that everyone agrees. It does not mean that Quebec agrees to be steamrolled. It does not mean that the first nations agree to have projects imposed on them.”
“The bill provides some indications, but it does not specify exactly what those projects are, nor does it define the criteria. The criteria in the bill are suggested criteria. They are recommendations. The minister can choose whether to consider them or not. It is up to him. That is absolutely crazy, but that is how it is. In theory, the criteria are to strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security; provide economic benefits to Canada; have a high likelihood of successful execution; advance the interests of indigenous peoples; and contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada's objectives with respect to climate change. However, these are non-binding objectives. The minister can basically do what he wants in terms of the application of these criteria. The decision is at his discretion.”
“The federal government is recognizing provincial jurisdictions and telling us that it will not get in the provinces' way. The government is removing barriers. In fact, it is removing its own barriers. I personally do not want any federally imposed barriers, and I do not think many of my Bloc Québécois colleagues do either, so that is a good thing and we support it. Part 2 is another story. That part requires a very thorough analysis, and that is why we really want to split this bill. Part 2 of the bill would essentially make it so that certain laws do not apply to major projects that are deemed to be in the national interest. What are those so-called national interest projects, and how will they be chosen? Well, we just do not know.”
“Almost no member of civil society has had the opportunity to carefully analyze or comment on the bill, including the media and experts in the various fields affected by the bill's provisions. The fact that the government is already imposing a gag order on us is really very serious and problematic. Keep in mind that this is a major bill, not some harmless little piece of legislation. What is the aim of this two-part bill? We do not have a real problem with part 1, despite the somewhat provocative way in which the Liberals presented it. This part, which deals with the free trade of goods and services and labour mobility, is ultimately not a bad thing, since it involves the federal government withdrawing from certain jurisdictions.”
“Passing this bill will radically change how the federal government functions and how major projects are approved once presented to us. That, too, is cause for concern. Even more concerning is that the wording of the motion states, among other things, that parliamentary committees will have only a day and a half to examine the bill, and that witnesses will be heard at a time when it is no longer even possible to propose amendments. That is crazy, but that is what is being presented today and what a majority of members in the House seem prepared accept, on both the Liberal and Conservative sides. I am rather surprised by all of this, because it is a denial of democracy. The government is trying to ram through a bill that was never publicly debated.”
“This is a critical time, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, I do not think people realize the extent of it. The public does not understand, and neither do the members of this House. We have only been sitting in this House for three weeks and the government is already imposing a gag order, even though it is a minority government. The bill under closure has not been debated. There has not been a single hour, a single minute, or even a single second of debate, and they are already imposing a gag order on us. Normally, when a gag order is imposed, it is because Parliament is deadlocked or because there is a real emergency, a fire is raging and everyone agrees that it should be passed without a hitch. However, that is not the case here. What is worse, they want to impose a gag order on something that will be profoundly transformative.”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers did not give the Liberals a blank cheque. They elected a minority government. However, by invoking closure on Bill C-5 , the Liberals are essentially asking for a blank cheque. They want a blank cheque to govern by decree, to decide everything related to energy projects and to impose pipelines on Quebeckers without Quebec's consent and without a serious environmental assessment. They also want free rein to pass the bill without debate or study. Will the Liberals respect Quebeckers and let Parliament do its work?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, who is the first Liberal member from Quebec to have the courage to rise in the House. However, I am not sure whether he fully understands his government's decision. As he said, Quebec is not subject to the carbon tax. Considering that we did not pay the carbon tax, we are not entitled to the rebate. However, in April, May and June, when there was no carbon tax, Ottawa still sent out cheques. This means that Quebeckers paid for the elimination of the carbon tax in Canada. That is what it amounts to. It means that the people in my colleague's riding paid $10 million out of their own pockets to people making less of an effort to fight climate change. Is my colleague going to explain that to his constituents? I think it might not go down very well.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech, but I wish she had spoken more about the opposition day motion than Bill C-4 . Before I ask my question, I would first like to apologize to my colleague. Earlier today, when she asked me a question about my speech on the Bloc Québécois opposition day motion, I came down on her, saying that she would have to explain to her constituents why $10 million was diverted from her riding and given to the rest of Canada. I thought she was a Quebec MP, but she represents an Ontario riding. Consequently, her riding actually benefited from the diversion of those funds. I would like to know whether my colleague can tell me why no Quebec Liberal MP has risen today to speak on this issue. Is her party preventing them from speaking, or are they ashamed of their position?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize that members have some latitude while debating issues in the House. However, that freedom should not be unlimited. I would like to know if you could ask the member to focus her remarks on the motion before us on this opposition day. Liberal members have many opportunities to debate government bills, but opposition days are few and far between.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been following this debate since the beginning of today's opposition day. It started at 10 o'clock this morning. It is now one o'clock in the afternoon, and there are still several hours of debate to go before the end of the day. There was something that struck me. Since the beginning of the sitting, not a single Liberal member from Quebec has risen to speak about this. Not a single one has spoken up. However, there are 44 of them. What does that mean?”
“What message is the government sending when it decides to issue cheques for a tax that people are not paying, and when it makes people who are still fighting climate change pay for those cheques?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my colleague's speech because it is a real farce. He is telling us that his government is still keen on fighting climate change after it eliminated the carbon tax for individuals and after one of the first things that the Prime Minister did once he was elected was to meet with the oil and gas companies. Now the government has tabled Bill C-5 , which will give any minister responsible for the Major Projects Management Office the discretion to exempt any oil project from environmental standards. That makes no sense. To get back to today's motion, what we want is to be reimbursed for the $814 million that Quebec paid to the rest of Canada while it still had a carbon exchange program.”
“Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his election. I am glad to see that, in his case, he still speaks French. We all know what often happens to francophones outside Quebec. The assimilation rate is quite disturbing, after all. My question for my colleague is about today's motion specifically. His lack of solidarity is disappointing. Perhaps he will understand if I put it this way: Does he think it would be right for the federal treasury to send out cheques to everyone in Canada except people in Sudbury, even if the people of Sudbury helped fund those cheques?”
“Madam Speaker, I again rise on a point of order. I do not think the member opposite understood you, because he is still reading his speech on Bill C‑4. The government has many days and ample time to introduce and debate bills. The opposition, for its part, has just one opposition day per session. He should be discussing today's opposition motion, rather than a bill.”
“Madam Speaker, I have been listening to my colleague opposite's speech from the beginning, and I think you might point out to him that he gave the wrong speech, because he is talking about Bill C‑4 and not the opposition motion before us today.”
“For my part, I stand in solidarity with the poor in Quebec, not just those in English Canada, especially since Quebeckers are footing the bill.”
“Madam Speaker, I am glad my colleague opposite has asked that question again because I was champing at the bit to answer when my colleague from Saint‑Jean asked it. He is telling us that the rebate was planned and that the poorest Canadians might have needed it and that it would have been unfortunate to take that away from them. There is absolutely nothing stopping a government from implementing policies to help those in greatest need. That policy did not help the neediest, though; it helped everyone. Everyone in English Canada received a cheque. The only ones who didn't receive a cheque are the people of Quebec, and the poorest people in Quebec were once again left in greater need by the federal government.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague raised a very good question. In fact, I really think that Quebeckers did not know about it. I think that is the first reason. It received very little media coverage. Very little was said about it because, during the election campaign, all the attention was focused on the American threat. We were told that Canada had to be united, that we had to set aside all our convictions and what we cared about, and that the important thing was that we vote red. That is in large part what happened. I would not say that this was the case everywhere, because a number of ridings still chose to support other parties such as the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the NDP. That is why the government does not have a majority. It is a minority government. I hope that, together, we will make the government listen to reason.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which has nothing to do with the motion before us today. Perhaps she is ashamed of her party's position, because she would not be able to explain to her constituents why $10 million earmarked for her riding was allocated to the rest of Canada. To answer my colleague's question, yes, this proposal was acceptable to us. We voted in favour of the ways and means motion, if I am not mistaken. I would even add that eliminating the GST for first‑time homebuyers was part of our own election platform. My colleague cannot therefore accuse us of disagreeing with it and failing to talk about it. It was part of our platform, and we talked about it during the election campaign. We even voted in favour of the ways and means motion. As for my colleague, will she vote in favour of our motion?”
“That is why, on April 23, 2025, the Quebec National Assembly voted unanimously in favour of a motion calling on the federal government to reimburse Quebec for the $814 million it made Quebec pay. It is not just the Bloc Québécois that is speaking out against this. The National Assembly did so unanimously. We are talking about the Coalition Avenir Québec, which forms the government, the Parti Québécois, Québec Solidaire and the Liberal Party of Quebec, which often gets along quite well with the federal Liberal Party. Everyone was saying that it made no sense. I really hope that the House will listen to reason and decide to pay back the money it owes Quebec.”
“I would like to see the 44 Liberal MPs go to their ridings to explain to their taxpayers, constituents and fellow citizens that their government abolished the carbon tax in the other provinces and that, so as not to hurt the people who were getting cheques, it made every riding in Quebec send $10 million to English Canada, even though Quebeckers were not getting anything and that all of this was perfectly normal. That is how Canada works, is it not? I am pretty sure that their constituents would not be happy to hear that, because it is outright misappropriation of funds. Quebec is becoming poorer because of this. Quebeckers are being treated like second-class citizens.”
“Later, many other journalists started asking questions and writing about this situation, because it was found that $800 million out of the $3.7 billion had indeed been taken from Quebeckers' pockets and sent to the rest of Canada. What is $800 million? It amounts to about $10 million forcibly taken from every riding in Quebec to write a cheque to English Canada, to make English Canadians richer. It has been said that Quebeckers are poorer. Now, there is no question as to why. In fact, we are less and less poor because we are in a good situation, but some people enjoyed saying it. This is proof of how the government is managing this situation.”
“What is more, we are paying twice; we are paying through the carbon exchange and through the carbon rebate cheque that English Canada gave itself. Journalists have spoken out about this situation. For example, on April 10, Hélène Buzzetti was the first to raise this point in her Coops de l’information column. She said it made no sense and that, when she saw it, she checked to see if the story was true. She had to find out for herself, and it was confirmed. Another business reporter, Michel Girard, also said the same thing in Le Journal de Montréal. He said that it made no sense and that Quebeckers had been taken for a ride. Meanwhile, it was complete radio silence from the Liberals. There was no problem. Everything was fine.”
“In Quebec, not only did we keep the carbon exchange, but we also paid the carbon rebate to everyone who paid a carbon tax. Basically, we are paying for the carbon exchange, we are paying for the carbon tax in English Canada, and now we are also paying indirectly for all the impacts of climate change. Everyone pays for that, but like it or not, when we have policies aimed at tackling climate change, we end up reducing the impacts of climate change. Basically, the Liberal government has just told English Canada that it is now party time, and it can pollute as it pleases. Quebeckers are therefore being forced to fund financial irresponsibility, but especially Canada's environmental irresponsibility. It is reverse equalization; it is a polluter-paid approach. Those who pollute less pay for English Canada. That is serious.”
“We nevertheless made that expenditure and, since then, we have added other expenditures. For example, cancellation of the capital gains tax was supposed to be implemented; supplementary estimates were supposed to be tabled in the House, and individuals received a tax cut. All of this was done without a budget. We keep spending without knowing what our revenues are. We may get a surprise next fall. Since the carbon tax was no longer being collected, we Quebeckers are the ones who paid for this. From coast to coast to coast, the federal government sent nice cheques to English Canada to show its generosity. Basically, what the government did was take our money, pay people with it and then pretend to be Santa Claus, while Quebeckers ended up being the Christmas turkeys. Everyone got a cheque except Quebeckers.”
“He must have thought we were gullible and tried to pull a fast one on us. At the end of the day, I think he succeeded. That is why we are coming back to this subject today. We hope the House will support us. It is not just the Bloc Québécois that should be outraged by this, but all Quebec MPs from other political parties, as well as all MPs outside Quebec who have even a minimal sense of justice and fairness, at the end of the day. (1030) The cheques announced by the Prime Minister were supposed to cover the period from April to June 2025, during which there was no more carbon tax. This cost the federal treasury $3.7 billion at a time when, as we know, the deficit is already astronomical. The Conservatives should take notice, since they bring this up all the time.”
“As luck would have it, April 22 was six days before the vote and people in English Canada received $3.7 billion regardless of the absence of revenue. In other words, those payments were directly added to the debt. Quebeckers were saddled with debt to enrich English Canada. That is exactly what happened. The Liberals did not include that in their election expenses. At $3.7 billion, I can say that they would have far exceeded the spending limit. That was during the campaign; it was an obviously political decision, and clearly acknowledged as such. In fact, when asked during the election, the Prime Minister said that, since they do not pay the tax, Quebeckers would not receive a cheque. However, Canadians, who no longer paid a carbon tax, still received the cheque from us. That is the reality.”
“However, members of the government opposite are crafty little operators. During the election, the Liberals were trying to make themselves look good. The timing was perfect. Instead of cancelling the cheque after the tax revenue was abolished, they decided they would still honour payments that were due on April 22, since that would fall right in the middle of the campaign. Normally, one plus one equals two, or one minus one equals zero, in this case. However, the Liberals decided not to cancel the remaining payment on April 22. I would note that payments are made in advance for the following months. The Liberals said they were going to keep this payment so that people would be in a good mood during the election.”
“That means that citizens of English Canada no longer pay a carbon tax, while there is still a carbon exchange in Quebec. What is important is that the federal government said that it would return 90% of revenues from the carbon tax to Canadians, and that their costs would therefore go down. According to the government, 80% of people who were paying the carbon tax were receiving more than what they paid. Financially, that might look like a good deal. In general, people were receiving a cheque to offset the carbon tax they paid. The problem is that, in theory, when they eliminated the carbon tax, they should also have eliminated the cheque, because 90% of the revenues used to cover that cheque no longer exist. It made sense, it was logical. That is what should have happened.”
“This was not talked about enough during the election and that is why we are talking about it today. In fact, as soon as he took office, to show he was not like the previous government, and, let us face it, in a bit of a Trumpian manner, the Liberal Prime Minister 's first act of was to have himself photographed holding pen to paper in his office. That was his way of saying, "Look, I have power, I make the decisions", just like his counterpart south of the border. He was aping the U.S. President, who is not an example to follow, in my opinion, but who seems to be a source of inspiration for the Liberals. On March 14, 2025, the Prime Minister signed an order eliminating the carbon tax. With the stroke of a pen, it was done. Carbon pricing for individuals fell to zero dollars. The order took effect two weeks later, on April 1.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague for her brilliant speech. It was the first speech of the day, and I think we are off to a good start. I hope that the coming speeches will live up to the standard she set. Today we are debating the Bloc Québécois's motion on the infamous carbon rebate. Why are we discussing this today? Because it is a major issue for Quebec and, more importantly, for Quebeckers' wallets. In the House, we often hear the other parties say that the carbon tax or the carbon exchange is costing us. I would tell them that climate change is costing us, but what costs even more is voting Liberal. The Liberals decided to take the money from the carbon rebate, send it out to every Canadian and have Quebec pay for it. That is a real scandal.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Conservative member's speech. I have to say that this does not happen every day, but I agree with much of what he said today. I would like to ask him about one thing in particular. Throughout the election, the Liberals sold us the new Prime Minister as a magician. He was going to solve our problems, he was extraordinarily talented, he could do anything, and everything was easy for him. If the Prime Minister is so good and so extraordinary, how does my colleague explain the fact that he is unable to draw up a budget?”
“On top of that, they are asking us for new spending. They are asking us for a lot of things, but there is no budget. Does the member opposite not feel that the Liberals are being somewhat inconsistent? Their actions do not seem to match their words.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech in the House. I have not seen him often in the past, so I assume that he is a newly elected member. The member told us that he wants to get moving and that he is part of a government that is taking action. I find that interesting to hear. It is basically true, and we can see that. The government has introduced a few bills so far. These are fairly substantial bills. What is more, the Liberals would like to see these bills passed by July 1. They have tabled a notice of ways and means, Bill C‑4 and Bill C‑5 , among other things. The Liberals are certainly proactive when it comes to asking the House for things. The problem is that the committees are not even sitting. This means that we cannot even analyze the bills that the Liberals want us to pass by July 1.”
“Madam Speaker, like many Conservative Party members, my colleague has a great deal to say about the infamous carbon tax. The subject is clearly inevitable in the context of the bill, since it contains a section on eliminating the carbon tax for individuals. In fact, the government eliminated the carbon tax for individuals, but it still sent cheques giving Canadians refunds for taxes they never paid. That means that these cheques were paid for out of federal revenues, meaning Quebeckers contributed. What does my colleague think about the fact that cheques were handed out to buy votes in the rest of Canada and that Quebeckers paid for them?”
“Madam Speaker, I have spent a lot of time listening to speeches from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons since the beginning of this Parliament, and it is just getting started. I should also point out that we heard from him a lot in the previous Parliament, as well. What fascinates me is how he always speaks with such conviction. He truly believes what he is saying. I find that interesting, because he has spent the past four years selling us the NDP platform, with his hand on his heart and the utmost conviction. Now he is selling us the Conservative Party platform, with his hand on his heart and the utmost conviction. Can he explain how he manages to swing from one extreme to the other so easily and with such conviction?”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague is surely among the people who voted to ask the government to present a budget before the summer, because that is one of the things both the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party were calling for. I know that the member has been in office for quite a few years. Does he think that when the House votes in favour of something, it has any value? Is that something the government should take into account, or does it not matter?”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague from Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie said that he met a woman named Manon who was having trouble making ends meet. I thought that was interesting. We have a government that decided to request new funding for new spending. However, it does not have a budget. I am pretty sure that if Manon wants to be able to pay her rent and buy groceries, she has no choice but to make a budget, or nothing will add up. In my colleague's view, what would Manon think of a government that spends money without having a plan or a budget?”
“It leaves people wondering why so many people are able to pay a reasonable price while others take advantage of the situation and charge excessive prices. Something really needs to be done about non-market housing. That is not to say that there is no place at all for the private sector. I think it is also important to respect the initiative of entrepreneurs who want to build housing. However, the government needs to provide a framework and invest to help those who cannot afford housing in the current market.”
“Madam Speaker, that is also a very good question. We specifically mentioned a target in our election platform. If I am not mistaken, that target was approximately 20% of non-market housing. If this goal were reached, it would lead to a significant number of non-market homes, which could greatly improve the situation and help many people who do not have the same financial means as others. At the moment, the percentage of non-market homes is 3.5%. That is ver low and has no real effect on the rest of the market. The reality is that when there is non-market housing that is protected from speculation, there are people who are able to put a roof over their heads at a reasonable price. When that number becomes high enough, it ends up having an effect on the rest of the market.”