Jean-Denis Garon

Not analysed yet

A requested analysis is usually ready within half an hour; come back to this page or reload it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my regards to all my colleagues who are here today for this important debate, which is on last year’s budget, just two days before the next budget. I would like to digress for just a moment and mention that the Premier of Quebec, Mr. St‑Pierre Plamondon, made some important appointments today to very senior government posts. I would like to take a moment to commend my cousin, Isabelle Garon. When I was a little boy, I used to call her my big cousin. She will be working very closely with the Premier and will be responsible for his priorities and major projects. I have always been proud to be a Garon, to be part of a family that has served Quebec for generations, especially since my cousin was, until very recently, a senior vice-president in the president’s office at Desjardins. I am pleased to see that, in flagship companies like Desjardins, which is a big co-operative, there are people who want to pursue their careers by serving Quebec. That makes me very proud. I want to sincerely congratulate Isabelle Garon and everyone else who was appointed today. As I said at the outset, today we are talking about last year’s budget. We were told that it would be generational and that it would be urgent. However, 362 days later, we are still debating Bill C-31, the second budget implementation bill. Today, the Bloc Québécois presented its expectations for the next budget. The budget will of course be tabled in two days. I had some conversations with the Minister of Finance, as basic courtesy dictates. What is surprising is that, once again this year, we have to resubmit requests that we made in the past. For example, we are calling for Quebec to be reimbursed for the phony carbon tax rebate that was used to buy votes during the election campaign and partly paid for with Quebec taxpayers’ money. Our share amounts to $814 million. We are still having to ask for it. That money would allow the Government of Quebec to take additional measures to ease the pressure of the high cost of living in Quebec. Let us also consider the costs incurred by Quebec because of the influx of asylum seekers. We know that the federal government acknowledges its responsibility. An initial small payment was made, but Quebec City is still owed significant amounts of money that could be used to deliver better services and help ease the cost of living burden for Quebeckers. We are still making those requests, but most of all, we are trying to make the most effective use of taxpayers’ dollars in order to help people get through this cost of living crisis. We know that interest rates have risen again, and the Bank of Canada tells us that inflation will remain higher, around 3%, possibly throughout 2027. That is something that hits people directly in their wallets. For someone in the riding of Mirabel, inflation is not an economic indicator. It shows up on grocery store shelves. We are proposing a significant increase to the much-touted groceries and cost of living benefit. We resubmit these requests year after year because they eventually work. Sometimes governments end up listening. For example, last year, the Minister of Finance introduced the new groceries and cost of living benefit. That was something the Bloc Québécois had suggested when the war in Ukraine first broke out. It took several years, but it finally happened. Today we are calling for that benefit to be enhanced, because the Bloc Québécois’s primary concern is the people who vote for us, the voters and citizens across Quebec who are going through this cost of living crisis. Earlier on, my colleague, the member for Montcalm, mentioned the poor oil companies that are living on bread and water these days, having a hard time, unable to make ends meet. Obviously, the member for Montcalm was showing off his trademark sarcastic wit. These oil companies are getting billions of dollars in subsidies. Mr. Speaker, I know that the oil industry is active in your riding of Lac‑Saint‑Louis. One thing is clear, however: The United States has a predilection for this industry at the moment, considering that it was spared from the tariffs. A big portion of our oil output goes to the United States. Why is it that instead of helping people make the transition, the government is granting money to these companies, which are owned primarily by American shareholders? It is a fair question, not for or against the industry. It is a common sense question. Why is the government helping this sector? In Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, the steel, aluminum and phosphate sectors have seen funding under the critical minerals strategy held back by government-imposed regulatory measures. The government should be helping these people. They are the ones really bearing the brunt of the tariff crisis. The growth data clearly show that the oil sector is doing anything but struggling at the moment. We are therefore reiterating our proposals. They have been costed and are self-financing. This is a responsible and thoughtful approach, and we are proud to stand behind it. Now, will the government listen to us? During committee consideration of Bill C-31 last week, the parliamentary secretary and member for Whitby, a very sweet man, would tell us with a smile, every time the opposition tabled an amendment, that we had done a good job, that the Liberals agreed with the principle of our amendments, but that they would nevertheless be voting against them. The message was clear: Our amendments were doomed to be tossed out like garbage, purely on principle. That was essentially it. At the end of the day, what does that amount to? I even heard the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and Quebec Lieutenant say that the only thing he knows for certain when he gets up in the morning is that the Bloc Québécois will be complaining about something. We have pages and pages and pages of costed proposals for the people we represent, but will it all be tossed in the trash, just like our amendments during the committee study of Bill C‑31? I invite people to watch the video of that meeting. It is sad to see how the government treats members of Parliament. It is sad because, when it comes to pesticides, we know it is important to farmers to have access to products that support agricultural productivity. What did we ask for in our amendments? We wanted the government to release the scientific studies it used to authorize pesticides that were previously banned. That was too much to ask, apparently. The Liberals supported it in principle, but opposition amendments are always one step away from the trash, unfortunately. On the air transportation file, the Liberals are planning to outsource work the government should be doing. They are now contracting out work that they have not been able to do for years. We said the people handling complaints should have to meet clear criteria. That was too complicated, apparently. In parliamentary committees, the shredder is always close at hand. We said that an airline should have to pay interest if it withholds money it owes people, just as any customer would have to do. The member opposite is reacting to that. She cannot believe that her own party voted against that. I see her. She cannot believe it, and neither can we. We also said that complaints should be assigned at random, rather than by a third party selected by the airline. Airline passengers’ rights always end up in the shredder too. We raised questions about the global minimum tax. Companies that make profits in Canada but are headquartered in the United States should also contribute to the common good, since they have economic activity here, to ensure there is no unfairness toward companies that are based here. However, the Prime Minister created a special regime for the Americans, just as he did with supply management permits and the levy on digital giants. He rolled over. It is too hard for him to stand up to the U.S. President, so Bill C‑31 includes a special tax regime for the United States, for the very companies that are suffocating our media ecosystem. Under the Canadian Income Tax Act, which is extremely simple, as everyone knows, there are dollar thresholds for accessing the accelerated dispute resolution mechanism. This mechanism can be used for cases below a certain threshold. We asked that the thresholds be indexed to inflation so that we would not have to pass new legislation on that every year. In fact, the Quebec bar association proposed that idea. The government replied that if the thresholds were indexed, it would mean that the numbers would go from $50,000 to numbers that are not round numbers, that is, with cents. Since the government thinks that is too complicated, the whole idea went into the trash bin. It is hard to work constructively in a Parliament where the Prime Minister is on an authoritarian rampage and showing contempt for Parliament. The Prime Minister has nothing but contempt for the work of parliamentarians, especially when they do their work diligently. That is how last year’s budget was handled by Bill C‑31 this year. Today, I am calling on the members opposite to start recognizing the quality of the work being done on our side. Obviously, without significant amendments, it is impossible for us to vote in favour of Bill C‑31.