“This bill protects government workers from being sued by citizens when they make mistakes in good faith. This takes away citizens' rights and allows incompetence. I want to know what my colleague thinks about this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. We can agree that Bill C‑31 covers a great many things. There is one part that particularly bothers me. It is that public servants will be allowed to make mistakes. One of the divisions of Bill C‑31 introduces a new form of immunity. What does that immunity mean? It means that if a citizen has been wronged, they cannot sue a public servant, an official or an employee if the mistake was made in good faith. That means it allows incompetence, it allows mediocrity, and citizens are being stripped of their rights. What does my colleague think about that?”

“This bill stops the government from reviewing pesticides every 15 years. Over 70% of people in Quebec oppose bringing back pesticides that were banned for being dangerous to people and the environment. I want the member to say if he really thinks stopping these safety checks protects science, public health, and the environment.”

“Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague. He raised a rather important point. A budget contains more than just budgetary promises. That is true. Under Bill C-31, the government wants to suspend the re-evaluation of pesticides, which was normally required every 15 years. However, members know that Quebeckers are strongly opposed to the use of pesticides in Quebec. A recent poll shows that over 70% of Quebeckers oppose the government reintroducing pesticides that were banned because they were dangerous to humans and harmful to our environment. I would like our colleague to comment on this today. Does he believe that it is in the interest of science, in the interest of protecting public health and protecting the environment for his government to stop evaluating pesticides and to reintroduce some that were previously banned?”

“I want the member to explain how we have economic control when our major projects are owned by foreign companies. For example, LNG Canada is fully funded and owned by companies from other countries. Those owners will make decisions for their own interests, not for Quebec or Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to clarify these economic sovereignty concepts for us. The government wants to propose major projects. I just mentioned LNG Canada as an example. This project is owned by foreign interests, including Shell, in the United Kingdom, Petronas, in Malaysia, PetroChina, in China, Mitsubishi, in Japan and Kogas, in South Korea. It is wholly financed by foreign capital. I would therefore like my colleague to clarify how we can be masters in our own home, as he proposes, and strengthen our economic sovereignty, when the major projects of national interest that we are building are owned by foreign interests. The decisions that these companies make will be based not on our interests, but on theirs, which are not the interests of people here, in Quebec or in Canada. Considering my colleague’s expertise in investment and his professional experience in the financial field, can he shed some light on this issue, in the public interest?”

“This government is spending and borrowing twice as much as the previous government, and wasting our economic advantage. I want to know if my colleague thinks this spending is worth all the debt it creates.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s speech addressed this government’s debt load. For 10 years, we denounced the policies of Justin Trudeau’s government, which relied on massive borrowing. In light of last year’s budget and what will be announced tomorrow, the current Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance, after incurring twice the debt and spending twice as much as their predecessors, make the Trudeau government look positively frugal. Are these spending choices really worth the level of debt they are producing? The government takes pride in saying that we are in the best or in one of the best positions in the G7 or in the western world, yet it fritters away this advantage from one budget to the next. What does my hon. colleague think about that?”