“The Prime Minister travels the world and signs trade deals that affect Quebec, but he leaves Quebec's premier out of the talks. He has time for parties and meetings. He should be able to find one hour in his schedule to answer questions at our committee.”

“Mr. Speaker, we have a Prime Minister who has plenty of time to have plenty of meetings in many places around the world. He is even meeting with the European Union soon, and he will try to sign trade agreements on things that are the responsibility of Quebec. They will be implemented in Quebec, yet the Premier of Quebec, who represents the Quebec government, is only invited to a cocktail party. If the Prime Minister has time for cocktails and if he has time for meetings, then why can he not find the time to come to the parliamentary committee and show some deference to the parliamentary system? I know he has ministers. I know he has people around him. Some people think he has a good team. That is an opinion, and it needs to be confirmed. Nonetheless, why is it that, in this time of crisis, in this time of great transformation, the Prime Minister is able to find 15% to cut from the public service, but is unable to find a mere 15% to cut from his daily schedule in order to free up time to appear before a parliamentary committee for just one hour and show the deference he is expected to show toward the parliamentary system?”

“A member pointed out that the Prime Minister is not here. Our rules say we cannot talk about someone's absence, even if it is true.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. One of my colleagues just referred to the Prime Minister’s absence from the chamber. We are not allowed to mention the Prime Minister’s absence from the chamber, even if it is true.”

“The Prime Minister travels the world and misses most debates in Parliament. He brings a big investment company along with him, but he will not answer to us. He should come to committee to explain his plans, including spending $150 billion on a project that has no business case and destroys farmland in Quebec. I want to hear what the member thinks about this.”

“Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said that Stephen Harper never appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance. However, Stephen Harper did not have a 27% attendance rate at House of Commons debates. The fact remains that the Prime Minister travels all over the world. He is involved in foreign policy. He is always closely followed by Brookfield, whether in Saudi Arabia, India or at an announcement about condos in British Columbia. We even wonder whether this company might not be his economic and political right-hand man. However, he does not come to talk to us. He could come talk to us in committee about his vision of investment, or rather his obsession with investment. He is willing to invest $150 billion in the Alto project, although there is no business case, and to destroy the 2% of farmland we have left in Quebec. I would like to hear the member’s comments on my remarks.”

“The government is dropping its values just to win a trade war. It is making deals with countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, which abuse human rights. I want the member to answer if we really share values with these governments.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Bourassa, with whom I have the good fortune to serve on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. He spoke about what a responsible government does. He said we needed to diversify our alliances abroad. He said that while we do not control what happens outside our borders, we can control our choices. Now to my question. Does he think that we share common values with the Erdogan regime when it comes to democracy, respect for human rights, the rule of law and freedom of expression? Can my colleague tell me if we share the same values as, for example, Saudi Arabia, where there is outright gender apartheid? Does my colleague think that Mohamed bin Zayed is involved in what is happening in Sudan? He was welcomed with a huge banquet last night, but at the same time, he was condemned this morning in a press release. Is my colleague telling me that, if the current tariff crisis had occurred in the 1980s, his government would have signed deals with South Africa, which was under the apartheid regime? So far, that is what I see. I see a government that is setting aside its principles and values under the pretext of a trade war. Members are talking about what a responsible government does. They are rewriting history. It is Orwellian. I would like him to answer my question.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 8 of 100

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

  See full analysis →