Jean-Denis Garon

“The government's new loans help big industries, but they leave out small businesses that need help right now to keep their workers. I want my colleague to tell me if she thinks the government really did enough to protect these smaller businesses.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I work together on the Standing Committee on Finance. Things have been going well, at least so far. We will make sure it stays that way. My colleague mentioned the auto industry in her riding and many other large industries that have a certain degree of resilience and are able to secure the loans ranging from $2 million to $50 million that were announced yesterday. For our part, we are worried about the smaller businesses, which have never seen anything close to a $2-million loan and which will have to shut down tomorrow morning, in a week, or in two weeks if they cannot maintain that employment relationship. We believe that these businesses, which are part of the fabric of Quebec’s small and medium-sized enterprises, were not covered by the announcement made yesterday. Point (d) of the motion calls on the government to take all necessary measures to mitigate the impact. I would like my colleague to tell me whether she believes that yesterday’s announcement included all the necessary measures.”

“A train company is pressuring people in Mirabel to let workers onto their land at any time. The government needs to pause this project and talk to the community first instead of intimidating residents.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Alto steamroller is barrelling down on the people of Mirabel for the high-speed train project. At first, Alto employees were knocking on people’s doors to ask permission to perform inspections on their property, but now, they are sending letters to try to buy unlimited access to properties for three years, day or night, for $1,500. Imagine how stressful that is for citizens who have not been consulted, but who are being visited by employees and receiving letters implying that their property will be expropriated. Will the government pause the Alto project and try to earn social licence instead of intimidating people in their own homes?”

“Furniture makers told us today that the government's new help is not enough. The government was not prepared for the April 6 order and still does not have a real plan to help these businesses. I want our leader to talk about why the government was so unprepared.”

“Mr. Speaker, people representing the furniture industry are on Parliament Hill today. My colleagues and I met with them this morning. I know that people from the industry are meeting with colleagues from the other parties as well. When we met with them, they basically told us that the measures announced yesterday would not go very far for very long. They also told us that time is ticking and that it may already be too late. The furniture industry, like industry in general, is surprised that the federal government did not even have a strategy on hand to prepare for what happened on April 6. Today, a month later, there is still no sector-specific strategy to help businesses deal with this new executive order. I would like to hear what the leader of the Bloc Québécois has to say about the fact that the government was so unprepared, even though it seems to have a strategy for just about everything except what happened on April 6.”

“The government is using members who switched parties to shut down debate and undo committee work. The minister only reads from a script. I want him to answer without his notes and tell us if he truly thinks this is democratic.”

“Mr. Speaker, this government, which was elected as a minority government, bought itself a majority by getting members to cross the floor. It is taking the democratic work of a committee and undoing it. Today, it is using the majority it bought to impose a gag order, but that is not the worst part. We have here a minister who is simply repeating the same old lines and who cannot answer a single one of our questions without reading from a script prepared by his staff. I would like the minister to stand up, leave his notes on his desk and tell us honestly whether he believes that what the Liberals are doing today is democratic.”

“The member's question is off topic. House rules say questions must stay on topic, and I want the Speaker to rule on this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I say this with all due respect for the historical events the member is referring to, but we are debating a time allocation motion. I think it is written in the Standing Orders that we must not ask questions that are off topic. That is in the Standing Orders, and this is not a point of debate. Mr. Speaker, I invite you to make a ruling on this.”

“The government is using this motion to give itself an unfair majority on committees. Can the government leader name any other time this was done? I want him to explain why they are doing it now.”

“Mr. Speaker, our colleagues opposite are certainly not wrong to say that the composition of committees should reflect the composition of the House. It is true that, according to British parliamentary tradition, a majority in the House normally means a majority on committees. However, that does not mean we have to agree with how things are done. We understand that the government has a short fuse and wants to limit debate. Now, I would like the House leader opposite if he can share any recent examples, from either this Parliament or the provincial legislatures, of governments with very slim majorities that have used motions or gag orders to give themselves a supermajority on committees by adding two members instead of one. I would like him to explain why the government decided unilaterally to grant itself a much larger majority on committees than its majority in the House. I would like to know whether this is in keeping with British House traditions.”

“The government should not pay for defence by cutting money for health care, public transit, and media. They can afford these things if they stop giving money to oil companies and American tech companies.”

“Mr. Speaker, the economic update is also an opportunity to remind the Liberals that the tariff crisis is not the only crisis happening right now. Yes, we have to invest in defence, but that is no reason to cut health care funding, which they plan to do starting in 2028. It is no reason to abandon our media. It is no reason to cut funding for public transit. The Liberals can tackle all of these crises if they stop subsidizing oil companies and capitulating to U.S. web and digital giants. Will they take a stand?”

“I want to congratulate the Mirabel chamber of commerce on its 50th anniversary. It does important work supporting local businesses and the economy.”

“Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 50th anniversary of the Chambre de commerce et d’industrie de Mirabel. This is a major milestone that deserves to be acknowledged. For 50 years, Mirabel’s chamber of commerce has been deeply involved in the community. Since I was elected in 2021, I have seen an organization that listens to its members, that is innovative and that is essential to the region’s economic development. It is able to pool Mirabel’s strengths, whether in agriculture, aeronautics or its many SMEs, and build strong ties between these sectors. It is no coincidence that it was nominated for an award this year by the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec in the categories of recruitment and chamber of the year for organizations with up to 400 members. This recognition confirms the calibre of its work and its tangible impact on the ground. I would like to commend all the directors who have served on its board over the years, as well as the executive director, Geneviève Brault-Sabourin, and her entire team. On behalf of the people of Mirabel, I congratulate the chamber of commerce on its 50th anniversary, and I hope for at least 50 more years.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Member's statement

  Signal 42 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 →

“This bill ignores an important recommendation to let victims choose between military and civilian courts. The committee agreed to this change, but the government rejected it. The government is not taking victims' rights seriously.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the first allegations against General Vance came out in 2015. The Harper government gave him a promotion. This has been going on for over 10 years. It is now 2026. We got the reports from justices Arbour and Fish, and Justice Deschamps examined suggestions for legislative changes. However, in the bill before us today, the government has decided to ignore a major recommendation made by Justice Arbour, namely that a victim be given a choice between the military and civilian justice systems. When we asked the Liberals earlier why they ignored this amendment, which was not only discussed in good faith but also adopted by the committee, they simply replied that it is all well and good to work in good faith, but we cannot always get what we want. What does that say about what the government thinks of victims’ rights?”