“The budget officer says the government will likely fail to meet its goal of lowering the deficit compared to the economy. The deficit could be $6.5 billion higher than planned. I want to know what my colleague thinks about that.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has cast doubt on the government’s ability to maintain one of its fiscal anchors, namely its target to reduce the deficit-to-GDP ratio. She predicts that the deficit will be $6.5 billion higher than projected in the economic update. She does also predict that the debt-to-GDP ratio will fall from 2% to 1.5% by the 2030-31 fiscal year, but she estimates that there is less than a 1% chance that Ottawa will achieve an annual reduction in the deficit-to-GDP ratio. What are my colleague’s thoughts on that?”

“The government is cutting science and research funding to save up to $35 million over five years. This small saving will not help our huge deficit. At the same time, the budget bill allows more pesticides, but cutting research means we will not know if they harm our health. Is the member worried about this?”

“Mr. Speaker, when it comes to supply and appropriations, a major issue for me in the past year has been the announcement about budget cuts to science and research. This will save the government approximately $27 million to $35 million over five years. Will saving this amount over five years really make a difference when we know that the deficit is over $70 billion? The government will save a mere $27 million to $35 million by making cuts to science and research. What we are also seeing today in Bill C-30 is that the government is going to permit the use of more pesticides without knowing what kind of cocktail this will create and without knowing what impact it will have on human health, because the government is also making cuts to the science and research that would help find alternatives. Is my colleague concerned about that?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 26 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I want to know where the member's party stands on increasing the old age pension for seniors aged 65 to 74. It would cost just over $3 billion a year and would help seniors who cannot easily earn more money.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question to determine his party’s position on a request that is very important to the Bloc Québécois and that was brought to me again yesterday. I was in the Magdalen Islands, and some seniors came to see me to ask about the status of the Bloc Québécois’s request to increase the old age security pension for seniors aged 65 to 74. This would cost just over $3 billion per year and would be good for our seniors, whose purchasing power has been eroded and who are not always in a position to earn more. What is my colleague’s position on our request?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 34 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“The government gives billions of dollars to the oil and gas industry, but gives nothing to forestry. Oil and gas hurts the planet, while forestry helps fight climate change. I want to know why we keep funding the industry that pollutes instead of the one that helps.”

“Mr. Speaker, one thing that is not part of the current debate is the clear disparity between the forestry industry and the oil and gas industry when it comes to the funds the government allocates to these two different industries. The oil and gas industry gets billions of dollars in subsidies, while the forestry industry gets nothing. We know full well that the forestry industry is the industry best positioned to combat greenhouse gases and that the oil and gas industry is the industry that is most harmful to the planet. Does my colleague think it makes sense that, year after year, budget after budget, appropriation after appropriation, we subsidize the industry that pollutes rather than the one that is better for the planet?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The government is giving itself too much power to bypass laws. It wants cabinet to be able to approve banned pesticides without proper science, and it wants to ignore environmental rules and property rights to build high-speed rail. The government is also ignoring small businesses, underfunding agriculture, and rushing bills through without enough debate. It needs to stop doing this and work with opposition parties.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean. I am sure he will make very good use of that time. Since we are talking about the estimates today, we can address any aspect of the use of public funds. I want to briefly revisit our disappointment regarding the implementation of the budget, Bill C-31, among others, and the lack of response to one of our main concerns. There is something I do not understand. We keep saying that our SMEs need help. We also keep trying to explain to people in other Canadian provinces, in English-speaking Canada, that Quebec’s economic fabric is unique because of its SMEs, which need support. We believe that the wage subsidy would be helpful in the current climate, given the new tariffs. However, we have not received a response. It is radio silence. There were no consultations before the budget measures were introduced. The government continues to subsidize the oil industry at every opportunity. Once again, these bills give the government even more power, including discretionary powers, which, to be perfectly honest, are frightening. Anyone who looked at the media this morning saw the news about crop protection products, herbicides and pesticides. I know what I am talking about, since I was the agriculture and agri-food critic for a long time. We studied these issues extensively at committee. What we were seeing, particularly with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA, which is now called the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate, or PRD, was a lack of efficiency. Whenever there was an emergency on a farm and an emergency registration was requested, it got delayed. It can take years, because the staff are in no rush, because there are not enough resources, or for any number of reasons. For three or four years, we had been studying the possibility of allowing drones to be used to spray pesticides, even though these same pesticides are already approved to be sprayed by plane. Planes spray pesticides at higher altitudes, over larger areas and using larger quantities. Logically, drone spraying will require a smaller quantity of pesticides and be able to focus on specific parts of the field. That is exactly what we want. It takes three or four years to approve that. We are scratching our heads and wondering why. That is what we were calling out. What is the government doing now to address the problem? It is saying that when the PRD rejects a product, cabinet can decide to authorize it for economic reasons. This is a very slippery slope, one that is reminiscent of what we have seen in previous bills. In just about every bill we vote on, the government gives its ministers the power to override other laws. This is extremely concerning. I do not believe that allowing cabinet to decide to authorize banned products will increase public confidence. We already use several products that are banned in Europe. What we need are resources and efficiency at the PRD and the CFIA. We must not give elected officials, who are not scientists, the power to authorize the use of toxic products. Let us be honest: These products are used to kill pests or eliminate diseases. That is what they do. The people who apply these products are our farmers, the people who feed us. When products are banned, it is often not only because of their effects on the soil, but also because of the risks they pose to the people applying them. What they are saying is, too bad, saving the crop is more important. I do not feel that we are reacting strongly enough to this change. I believe there is a major problem with undemocratic governance right now. The Liberal government continually grants itself the power to override the application of laws. Things are not moving quickly enough in Canada. We are not efficient enough. It is not that complicated. The government is going to run this country like a business. If a law slows things down, then the government will get rid of it. That is what it is doing with the Alto high‑speed rail project. If members watched the press scrums today, then they saw my leader’s response. We have no choice but to oppose this project because it is being handled all wrong and because the government is infringing on the rights of our constituents. As the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, I cannot sit idly by while my constituents are treated like second‑class citizens because the government wants to run a train through their land and it wants the project to be completed quickly without any delays. The government is going to take away these citizens’ right to speak to an independent hearing officer and their right to object to the price offered for the land. What is more, the government knows that the railway may have to cross sensitive areas, such as the Lanoraie peat bog. It figured that with the high-speed rail project, it is easy. It just needed to add a line to the bill stating that an environmental assessment is not required. That is how Canada is being run right now. I think the public will eventually realize this, as this bad habit of granting absolute powers continues to repeat itself. We are drifting away from democracy. That is what I think. Parliaments have passed laws over the years. I am not saying we should not adapt our laws. I am not saying we should not review and assess them regularly. If 28 regulations have been added and none have ever been removed, perhaps one or two could make way for the new ones that address the same issue. That is possible. However, we need to be smart about this. We need to take our time. The opposition parties need to be consulted. We need to have healthy, thorough debates. That is not what is happening right now. Instead, time allocation is imposed, so we do not have enough time. It is being rushed through. They want to go on vacation. It is summer, and it is almost time to wrap up our work, but the government still wants to get its seven, eight, 10 or 12 bills passed. That means we have to stay until midnight and get it done. That is the situation we find ourselves in. I dream of a world where election campaigns last a month and a half, like they are supposed to, and where, in between elections, elected officials work together for the common good. In that world, the party in power would not be able to negotiate with members to secure a majority and then do whatever it wants without consulting anyone else. That is what we are currently experiencing. That is what I am experiencing, and it is dangerous. I have said it before, but I will say it again and again, because it seems that some members on the other side of the House are not listening. The Bloc Québécois is a constructive opposition. We do not just sit around whining. We have come up with proposals. One good idea would be to eliminate the oil subsidies. The Liberals are listening to us so much that they are increasing that funding. There are wage subsidies, as I mentioned earlier. There is EI reform. When people lose their jobs, 40% of them are ineligible for benefits. That is outright theft because they have paid into the system. They are required to do so, but they do not qualify. It would be like me charging people for home insurance while telling them I will never pay out. I am not sure they would keep paying me for long, unless they did not check their bills. We do check them. There are the cheques that were sent out during the election campaign, for which we have requested reimbursement. There is the influx of refugees we took in. I am going to talk about agriculture again, because I miss it a little. I saw the UPA people today at their press conference opposing high‑speed rail. They have a point. Research centres have been closed. The government should be investing in research and innovation, not making cuts. At a time when cabinet is being given the power to approve whatever crop protection products it wants, the agencies responsible for regulating and approving them are facing cuts. What should be happening is the opposite. Personally, I dream of a government that makes agriculture a priority. The fact that less than 1% of the budget goes to agriculture in a country like Canada is shameful. It should be at least 2%. Agriculture is the foundation for everything. Defence is about to get 5%. Do members know how cities were captured in the Middle Ages? They were not attacked; they were encircled, and the besieging army simply waited until all the food inside was gone. That is the way a territory is weakened. It may have the best army in the world, but if it does not have the means to feed it, if it does not have free-flowing international trade and is not self-sufficient when it comes to food, it will have a big problem. We need to make wise choices and, for goodness’ sake, stop this shift toward authoritarianism.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a motion

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this speech addressed the specific motion under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The government should stop giving tax breaks to oil companies. It should also increase pension payments for seniors aged 65 to 74. It claims that is too expensive, but it still plans to spend billions on high-speed rail.”

“Mr. Speaker, despite his poor reasoning, I still find the parliamentary secretary quite likeable. If he were being fair, he would admit that the excise tax exemption is lining the pockets of oil companies. That is what we have always said, and it is what we have been saying for years: The government needs to stop giving these companies tax breaks. They are vultures. They will siphon off every last bit. The government keeps talking about the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, but this is simply a rebranding of the family allowance. This is not all new funding. Yes, the amounts have increased. However, does the government know a good way to stimulate the economy, get it moving and help people who really need it? It involves indexing the OAS for people aged 65 to 74, just as it is for those aged 75 and over. I am being told that $3 billion a year is too expensive, but it would seem that $200 billion for high-speed rail is not too expensive. I do not know which is more important to the Liberals, but these people need money, and I am talking about less than $100 a month.”

“I am worried the government will take too much land from people in my riding for the Alto train project. The train only needs 60 metres, but the government is looking at a 10-kilometre area. I want to know if the government plans to take extra land just to sell it later for profit.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again thank my esteemed colleague for that very interesting question. What happened in Mirabel with the supposedly international airport that never came to be was that the government had to return nearly 90% of the land that it stole from people. People had to buy it back at today’s prices. That is what happened. Now, Alto is coming to our area, even though Mirabel still bears the scars of past expropriations. I do not want Berthier—Maskinongé to experience that kind of horror. Alto is coming to my area and terrorizing people along a 10-kilometre-wide stretch. The government is telling us not to worry because Alto only needs 60 metres. First of all, there is going to be a construction site around that 60 metres. Second, if only 60 metres is needed, then why take a stretch 10 kilometres wide? It looks like the government is planning to take more land than it needs. Is it going to try to resell the land around this train through land speculation to fund this huge project?”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“The government keeps passing bills that give ministers more personal power and bypass other laws. I am asking my colleague what risks he sees with this move away from democracy.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thought my colleague’s speech was very interesting, especially the first part, when he talked about drifting away from democracy. It resonated with me, because I was elected last year and I have noticed that, month after month, the government keeps introducing legislation to bypass lots of other legislation, saying that, from now on, as much power as possible is going to be placed under certain ministers’ discretion. What risk does my colleague see in all that?”

“We should not rush to let people without scientific knowledge make decisions about approving products like pesticides. People could make bad choices because of pressure from lobby groups, and that will hurt our children and our land later.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is not much time to assess this risk. The risk is that anyone can make decisions about anything. Let me draw a parallel. During COVID‑19, members of the Conservative Party wanted us to vote on motions that would lift the health measures in place for air travel. We agreed, but we had the wisdom to concede that we were not microbiologists or epidemiologists. We therefore asked to include wording to the effect of “with the consent of public health authorities”. The danger is that uninformed people will make decisions—under pressure from lobby groups or economic pressures—to approve products, including crop protection products that will be used on our land. Later, our children and grandchildren end up paying the price. It is terrifyingly serious.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I want the government to put a military reserve unit in Lac-Saint-Jean. My region has the buildings and workers to help the military grow, and it would create needed jobs. I also want the government to give real financial help to our forestry workers instead of giving billions to oil and gas companies.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and especially for his last answer, which I think was quite intelligent, and full of common sense and wisdom. As my colleague also said in his speech, at the Bloc Québécois, and in Lac‑Saint‑Jean in particular, we are not satisfied with simply noting that economic challenges exist. We propose ambitious but above all achievable ideas to help our regional economy grow. It is in that spirit that I wish to draw the attention of the House to a very real opportunity for our region. A unit or subunit of the Canadian Armed Forces reserve is being established in northern Lac‑Saint‑Jean. At a time when the federal government is announcing historic investments in defence and looking to increase its military personnel to 39,000 members by 2032, Lac‑Saint‑Jean has everything that a reserve unit needs. The project being considered in Saint‑Félicien has strong local and regional support. In fact, the mayor of Saint‑Félicien was here on the Hill today to promote this great project with people from the Department of National Defence. I should mention that this work had already begun several years ago. A feasibility study had confirmed the project’s potential, but the 2021 federal election put a halt to the process. There had even been discussions in the early 2000s. Today, however, the timing has never been better. The federal government is seeking to strengthen the capabilities of the Canadian Armed Forces, increase the recruitment of reservists and invest more in defence. Our project is directly aligned with these objectives and will generate lasting economic benefits for the Lac-Saint-Jean region. It is a win-win opportunity for both the Department of National Defence and our region. Moreover, Canada’s new defence industrial strategy raises the important question of the capacity of our regions to support growth and meet the current needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. This is precisely where Lac-Saint-Jean stands out. This riding, which I am proud to represent, has very real strengths: solid regional support, clearly expressed by municipal and regional elected officials; infrastructure already in place that can tangibly support training, recruitment and operational support activities; and above all an engaged population. We are not starting from scratch. We are talking about a region that is already organized and structured, and that is capable of hosting a reserve project. Of particular note is the strategic location of Saint‑Félicien and northern Lac‑Saint‑Jean, which truly serve as the gateway to more northern regions. At a time when Arctic and northern sovereignty issues are becoming increasingly important, this location is turning into a real asset to the government’s proposed strategy. In my riding, we have ambitious but achievable ideas for growing our regional economy. This is the first time I have spoken about this initiative, I know, but there is nothing improvised about it. It is a solid, well-documented project that can have a real impact on achieving federal defence objectives. Moreover, this kind of project is not of military interest only; it also has a role to play in stimulating regional development, maintaining a federal presence in our regions and creating economic benefits for our communities. Indeed, the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean has five times fewer federal jobs than average compared to other Canadian regions. This was confirmed by the study we commissioned, so it is clearly an inequity that must be addressed. The establishment of a military reserve is a golden opportunity to create jobs, retain our young talent, diversify our economy and strengthen the political weight of our regions. I repeat: In my riding, we have ideas that are ambitious but above all achievable for growing our regional economy, because in Lac-Saint-Jean, we are not content to be mere observers. We want to be key players in the development of our communities. If the government is serious about its approach and truly wants to achieve the Canadian Armed Forces’ modernization and growth objectives, it must absolutely focus on regions like ours. One thing is certain: The federal government will not be able to meet its recruitment goals by limiting itself to major urban centres. Regions therefore have an essential role to play. As mentioned earlier, Lac-Saint-Jean has the infrastructure and resources to host a reserve unit. This project, as I said, is realistic, relevant and beneficial for everyone. In closing, the message I bring today is quite simple. Lac-Saint-Jean is ready and can truly do its part. I sincerely hope this government will heed my call. Speaking of which, I have to say that it took months, if not years, before the federal government lifted a finger to help the forestry industry. When it finally did, it still stubbornly refused to address the lumber industry’s top priority, which is for the government to buy back the countervailing and anti-dumping duties that are sitting idle in the United States and implement a loan and loan guarantee program to match the amounts being withheld by the United States. When it comes to the forestry industry, the current government lacks one thing: an understanding of the situation faced by people who make a living from the forest. I understand that situation. Before I was lucky enough to represent the people of Lac-Saint-Jean, I worked on the paper machines at what was then known as the Resolu mill and which is now called the Domtar mill. I know what life is like for those people. Forestry workers get up very early in the morning and work 12‑hour shifts on a 3‑2‑2‑3 rotation schedule. Does anyone on the other side know what a 3‑2‑2‑3 rotation schedule is? It is three day shifts and two days of leave followed by two night shifts and three days of leave, and then the whole thing starts again but this time with three night shifts and two days of leave followed by two days shifts and three days of leave. That is what life looks like for pulp and paper mill workers. What does life look like for a guy who harvests lumber? He wonders whether he will have enough money when he gets back to make the payments on his machinery, which costs a fortune. When a sawmill worker wakes up one morning only to be told that there is going to be a temporary shutdown after all, that is what life is like in the forestry sector. For small forestry communities, it also means that everyone is laid off. For the mechanic, the guy at the corner store or the town’s grocery store, it means that people can no longer spend their money there. It means that they will move elsewhere to find work. It means that schools will close. That is the reality for people in the forestry industry. Meanwhile, the government is telling us that it is going to announce $10 billion over 10 years. We are talking about $10 billion over 10 years that are not even funded for the forestry industry. The government just gave $14 billion to the oil and gas industry for one year, and yet they are telling me that the government is taking action for the forestry industry. The reality for people in the forestry industry is that this industry is in crisis. The time to help them is now. Meanwhile, the government is singing the praises of its Minister of Finance, who is actually the member for a region where forestry is a key industry. It is hard to believe. This Minister of Finance is flinging money at the oil and gas industry while sawmills are shutting down in his own backyard. That is the reality for the forestry industry. It is downright shocking and frankly bizarre to see what this government’s attitude has been for years. It will not raise a finger to help the forestry industry, to help workers. What is more, those workers are the lifeblood of the industry that is in the best position to fight greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, yet the government is giving money to the industry that is in the worst position to do those things. In fact, the industry it is giving money to is actually making climate change worse. That is just insane. I hope the government will eventually understand what workers are going through. I hope it will eventually realize that this industry is circular. First, workers need to go get the lumber. Then they need to haul it back by truck. Then they process it into wood chips, which are put through pulpers to make pulp. They also have to make kraft pulp. Then it is sent to the sawmills. This government has no idea. It does not realize how important this is to Quebec’s forestry regions. I will stop there.”

“I want an army reserve unit in Saint-Félicien. The government is also failing our forestry industry. Sawmills are closing and people are losing their jobs because the government did not fight American tariffs. The government quickly gave money to the auto industry, but it does nothing to help forestry.”

“Mr. Speaker, if my colleague listened to the question, he would have realized that I want a Canadian Armed Forces reserve unit in Saint-Félicien, in northern Lac-Saint-Jean. He said I was wrong about the forestry industry, but he is the one who is completely off base. Sawmills are closing right now. I invite him to come meet the workers who have just lost their jobs, who have just been laid off because the government did nothing. It did not stand up to the Americans over the illegal countervailing duties. That is what happened. We are in the middle of the sixth trade war, and they are still wondering what they are going to do to respond to this affront from the Americans. They have not done a thing. Meanwhile, when the auto industry gets hit with tariffs, they write a cheque during the election campaign. It took them a week to respond. They are doing absolutely nothing for the forestry industry, even though we have been subject to tariffs for years. Honestly, that is pretty weak.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 43 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Northern Lac-Saint-Jean does not get its fair share of federal jobs. They are too far away in La Baie. Also, I hope a Quebec army and the Canadian army will train together one day to protect the Arctic.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows his history well. That is indeed the reason why the Bagotville base was created. It was to protect the aluminum smelters, which were a key sector in the war effort. Indeed, there are good federal jobs, but my colleagues should know that these jobs are in La Baie. Speaking of La Baie and Saint-Félicien, the drive between the two locations still takes a good two and a half hours. The drive between my town, Alma, and my colleague’s riding is shorter. That should give you some idea. Still, it is a long way, which is why we commissioned this study proving that northern Lac-Saint-Jean is under-represented when it comes to federal jobs. As for protecting Canada’s north, my dream is that the Quebec army and the Canadian army will one day conduct joint exercises to defend the Arctic.”

“Building a base in Lac-Saint-Jean would help with military recruitment and give jobs to people who need them. I want to know if the government will support this plan.”

“Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with what our colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk was saying. Our colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean has not won the lottery. He is lucky, it is true, because he comes from a fine riding, but the people of Lac-Saint-Jean are truly lucky to be able to count on him. I can see that he knows the issues very well. To his credit, he spoke about them with passion. I find it hard to believe the government would turn a deaf ear to these requests. As the MP for Lac-Saint-Jean explained, establishing a base in Lac-Saint-Jean would meet the desired recruitment targets and enable people who have lost their jobs to find new ones. It is a win-win situation. I listened to him and I cannot believe that there has not already been some indication from members of the government that they are going to move forward, that they like the idea, that people can count on them, that they will be there. However, that does not seem to be the case. Does my colleague have any idea how the government will respond to this proposal, which is sound and is in everyone’s interest?”

“I want the military to create a new reserve unit in northern Lac-Saint-Jean. Local leaders support this plan, and it will help college students get their schooling paid for.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. In fact, I have to say that the government is being open. We had meetings today. I hope that, in addition to this political openness, there will be openness on the part of the Department of National Defence. I am certain that we can convince people at the Department of National Defence to create this unit or subunit. We have the support, which is rare, of the mayor of Roberval, the mayor of Dolbeau-Mistassini, the reeve of the Domaine‑du‑Roy RCM, and the reeve of the Maria‑Chapdelaine RCM. Many municipalities will be voting on resolutions at their city councils to support this idea. Saint‑Félicien has a CEGEP and reservists get 50% of their post-secondary education paid for by the army when they pursue this opportunity. In short, I think this is a great project for northern Lac‑Saint‑Jean.”

“A business in my riding was saved from bankruptcy because local leaders worked together to help. Small businesses in Quebec need help so they do not close. I want to know if my colleague agrees that a wage subsidy would help keep these businesses open.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised some good points. I liked the part where he talked about the protections that Quebec offers consumers. I would like to talk to him about the business world. Berthier—Maskinongé witnessed a minor miracle this morning. It was the grand reopening of Duchesne et Fils, which had been under the protection of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for months. All of the elected officials, namely the MNA, the RCM’s reeve, the mayor and myself, worked as a team and helped Groupe Zohar, the company that took over. We were happy. The employees’ faces looked so different today compared to a few weeks ago, when a press conference was held to sound the alarm and point out that more time was needed. This is the kind of thing we need to do. Companies, Quebec’s SMEs, need help. Firms are going out of business. That is what made this morning’s event so special. Would my colleague not agree that our wage subsidy proposal, which I keep bringing up here every chance I get, would help with that?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The government just spent an extra $60 billion on defence in 10 months. Canada waited too long to do its part, and now it is rushing to spend this money. I worry this money will be wasted or used badly. Does the member agree that Canada acted too late?”

“Mr. Speaker, with regard to defence spending, what has been done over the past few months is pretty spectacular. The government has invested an additional $60 billion in the space of 10 months. What I have to point out is that Canada was a laggard and had not been doing its part since 2014. Our fear is that one big push can come with certain risks, such as the risk of abuse, the risk that the money will be invested unwisely. Is my colleague willing to acknowledge that Canada was dragging its feet and that it only woke up when global instability spiked?”

“I want a military reserve unit set up in Saint-Félicien. The military is spending more money and recruiting, so I am asking my colleague to support this project.”

“Mr. Speaker, I mentioned a project earlier that we support. It involves setting up a reserve unit in the northern part of the Lac-Saint-Jean region. Right now, the Department of National Defence is looking to spend more money and recruit more people. If I pass the file on to my colleague, could she put in a good word for me and lend her support to the reserve unit project in Saint‑Félicien?”

“The government wastes public money. It gave out carbon tax rebates using money that Quebec paid into, but Quebec never got anything back. I want my colleague to tell me if he agrees that this was a waste of public funds.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, whom I hold in high regard and who, I would point out, knows his figures. Whenever he looks closely at public finances, we can always be sure that he will uncover wasteful spending by this federal government, as he demonstrated in his speech. One of the most glaring examples of wasteful government spending was when the federal government used the money from the carbon tax, which it had scrapped, to issue a rebate. Quebec had paid for that, but it never received anything in return. Does my colleague agree that providing a rebate of a tax that was never paid is a clear example of wasting public funds? I would like my colleague to answer this very specific question.”

“The federal government took Quebec taxpayers' money to pay for carbon rebates in western Canada, but Quebec got nothing. Quebec is owed $814 million. The government also refuses to help all seniors equally. I want to know if my colleague thinks the government should respect taxpayers more.”

“Mr. Speaker, what I see when it comes to these investments is that there is a significant gap. The Liberals constantly claim that they are there for Canadians. It reached a point where it was comical. I remember the former prime minister saying that the government was there to help and would continue to help in order to help. He seemed to be talking in circles. Quebec has made certain demands. During the last campaign, the Prime Minister gave a lot of money to communities in western Canada as a rebate for a carbon tax that was never paid in the first place. That payment was made using Quebeckers’ tax money, yet Quebec did not get a penny. According to our estimates, Quebec is owed $814 million. The federal government ignored that demand, but we did not let that deter us. We also asked for help for seniors, who worked hard all their lives. The federal government refuses to budge and is maintaining the two classes of seniors. What is my colleague’s view on this? Should the Liberal government not show a bit more respect for taxpayers?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 4 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The government gives more money to seniors aged 75 and older than to seniors aged 65 to 74. I want the government to treat them equally and increase pensions by 10 percent for seniors under 75. Why did the government leave them out?”

“Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleague, I can hear how enthusiastic he is about his government’s budget measures. I am listening to him tell us how great things are going and how wonderful life is. However, there is one thing I do not understand, so maybe my colleague can explain it to me. If his government is having so much success with the economy, why is it happening at our seniors’ expense? Why did the Liberal government decide a few years ago that seniors aged 65 to 74 should be treated less well than those aged 75 and over? It would not cost a fortune to fix this. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for a fix for years. As a gesture of solidarity, could this government recognize how much these seniors have contributed to the Canadian economy and boost their purchasing power to match that of seniors aged 75 and over? Could it increase old age security at the same time? The Bloc Québécois has been calling for seniors’ pensions to be increased by 10%, which is not that much. I would love to hear my colleague’s thoughts. Can he tell me why the government did that?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →