- Mar/20/24 4:08:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few points to the question of privilege raised by my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.
As you reflect on the ruling you should give on this question of privilege, I would like to remind you that, with the passage of the British North America Act, the greatest legacy of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George-Étienne Cartier, members have been free to express themselves in the official language of their choice since the first sitting of the Parliament of Canada.
At the beginning of the 20th century, R.B. Bennett's Conservative government created the federal Translation Bureau. Under a law passed in 1934 following an admittedly heated debate, the Translation Bureau was given the responsibility of working with both chambers of Parliament and of acting on their behalf in terms of translations.
Later, John George Diefenbaker's government introduced simultaneous interpretation in the chambers of Parliament to keep a promise made by the Progressive Conservative Party in its 1958 electoral platform. Ironically, at the time, some Liberals were opposed to that change.
In an article commemorating a half century of interpretation in the House, Professor Jean Delisle pointed out that even Lester B. Pearson opposed simultaneous interpretation in Parliament. However, that Liberal opposition evaporated when Mr. Diefenbaker's government asked the House to approve the necessary provisions.
More recently, it was the government of Brian Mulroney, a great statesman whose legacy we examined following his recent sad demise, that passed a new official languages act, the one currently in force. That act, which has quasi-constitutional status thanks to Mr. Mulroney's government, made simultaneous interpretation in the House a right.
It goes without saying that bilingualism and parliamentary bilingualism are a proud legacy of the Conservatives. This NDP-Liberal coalition government, however, scoffs at bilingualism. We absolutely must take a firm and clear stand against any further diminishment of respect for the French language in the House of Commons.
337 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 2:58:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, more and more Quebec families and workers may no longer be able to make ends meet because food is too expensive. Why is food too expensive? Quebec imports food from the rest of Canada. The farmers who grow that food are paying the carbon tax. Food processors are paying the carbon tax. The truckers hauling that food are paying the carbon tax. Guess who ends up paying the bill? Quebec families do. The carbon tax the “Liberal Bloc” wants to drastically increase is also costing Quebeckers dearly.
When will they put an end to this madness?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 2:56:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the manager of a Montreal food bank gave the following explanation after police had to intervene when food bank clients began shoving one another in line because there was not enough food. She said, “They are starving, so they are acting out.” This is Canada after eight years of this Prime Minister. Food banks are overwhelmed and in dire straits because food is too expensive. The Liberal solution is to increase the carbon tax on April 1, with the support of the Bloc Québécois, which will drive up the price of food even further. It is costly to vote for the Bloc Québécois.
When will the Prime Minister put an end to hunger and cancel the 23% tax hike planned for April 1?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 2:52:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is time for the minister to come back down to earth. In the Lower St. Lawrence, 500 farmers were escorted by 200 tractors; in Charlevoix, 200 farmers were escorted by about 100 tractors. There were also demonstrations on the north shore and in Quebec City. This is a heartfelt plea from farmers across Quebec.
As farm closures multiply, the Liberals, backed by the Bloc Québécois, think it is a good idea to raise taxes on diesel.
Will the costly Bloc-Liberal coalition abandon the idea of raising taxes on those who produce food so that Quebeckers can continue to eat local produce?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 2:50:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this Liberal government, Quebec farmers are stretched to the limit. There is a generalized sense of frustration as a result of tax hikes, inflation and carbon pricing, which the Bloc Québécois wants to drastically increase.
I am not the one saying it. Martin Caron, the president of the Union des producteurs agricoles, has been clear. He said that rising interest rates and increased input costs are resulting in a major drop in net farm income, and that there was basically no net income at all in 2024.
Will the members of the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois acknowledge the frustration of farmers and vote against the 23% carbon tax hike on April 1?
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:56:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, where was the minister in July 2019 when two scientists were expelled from Canada by the security agencies? Where was the minister then? It was not last January; it was in 2019. That was over four years ago.
What we learned yesterday is that the Prime Minister ignored four orders of Parliament to produce documents. He took the Speaker of the House to court. This is unprecedented in the history of our country, and it is the worst cover‑up in the history of our country.
Why did the Prime Minister want to protect himself instead of defending the national security of Canadians?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:54:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is a known admirer of China's basic dictatorship.
Over the past eight years, he has allowed research with the Chinese army. He has allowed the Chinese Communist Party to interfere in our elections. He has turned a blind eye to intimidation of the Chinese diaspora.
With the release of the Winnipeg lab documents yesterday, we learned that the Prime Minister also allowed a person who represented “a very serious and credible danger” to compromise Canada's national security.
Will the Prime Minister finally admit that he tried to hide the documents to protect himself, not to protect Canadians?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 4:11:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the problem is that the NDP blindly supports all of this government's financial decisions.
There are more civil servants and there are more subcontractors. Unfortunately, services are worse than they were prior to 2015. Every Canadian in every riding can confirm this. People are lining up for passports. People are waiting months and weeks for Service Canada. People are waiting weeks for immigration.
I think the NDP should show some restraint before they start throwing stones.
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 4:09:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the plank is in the eye of the person who just asked me if I could see the plank in mine.
We did indeed vote against that, but it was a vote of non-confidence in this government because even then we already had doubts about its ability to manage public money, Canadians' money.
My colleague's position is to defend the leader of the Bloc Québécois, who said, “We are not going to scrutinize everything the government spends. We just tell it to go ahead and hand out the money”.
If that is how the Bloc Québécois is going to run a country, I think it is going to have a hard time balancing its budget.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 4:07:39 p.m.
- Watch
That is appalling, Madam Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition was clear today. Yes, we need to investigate all of the contracts that were awarded. The member for Winnipeg North is talking about a few million dollars under the Conservatives. Yes, he is right.
However, we are talking about a total of $250 million that this government allegedly paid to GC Strategies, $250 million. The Liberals doubled the amounts that are given to consultants. They are now spending $20 billion a year on consultants when the public service has grown in size.
I think it is rather ironic to hear the member for Winnipeg North trying to lecture us when I have in front of me the report on ArriveCAN that indicates that the Liberals have no control over public spending.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 3:56:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Brantford—Brant.
Before I begin my speech, I would like to acknowledge the great French spoken by my colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge, who gave his entire speech in French. I wanted to point that out because it is greatly appreciated by all francophones in the House when our colleagues give speeches in the language of Molière.
The common-sense plan of the Conservative Party, the official opposition, is to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Why, after eight years of this NDP-Liberal government, which we now know is increasingly supported by the Bloc Québécois, do we need a plan that seems so simple? It is because this government has failed at every turn.
The government has failed to stand up for Canadians and the much-vaunted middle class, while Canadians are turning to food banks. There are two million Canadians a month going to food banks. It is so serious that food banks in the regions do not have enough food to feed the people lining up outside their doors.
Worse still, today we learned from a report by Second Harvest that one million more people are expected to use food banks in the coming months. This situation is unacceptable. This is where eight years of this Liberal government has gotten us, with the help of the NDP and, as we have heard before and as I will discuss again later on, with the help of the Bloc Québécois.
Today's opposition motion is an example of what we would rather not be doing. We would like to talk more about Canadians who are unable to afford a home, about young Canadians who cannot imagine a day when they could afford a home, about Canadians who are using food banks or families forced to make hard choices at the grocery store.
Nevertheless, here we are again, forced to talk about a Liberal scandal. This time, the Liberal scandal stems from a report by the Auditor General of Canada. The report was requested by the opposition parties in November 2022, over a year ago. This damning and disastrous report focuses on the government's failure to properly manage public finances.
I have the report in my hands. Honestly, I think I am going to ask for the permission and unanimous consent of the House to table it, along with my notes. I have included so many notes about what went wrong with the ArriveCAN app that the Liberals would do well to take a look.
I can see that my colleague from Winnipeg North is quite anxious to see my notes. At the end of my speech, I will probably ask for the report to be tabled so he can read it and maybe change his position. Maybe the member for Winnipeg North will tell his Prime Minister to be transparent for once. When the RCMP calls the Prime Minister's office, which it has not yet done, to ask if it would be possible to get access to all the documents in his possession regarding the ArriveCAN app, he should not hide behind cabinet confidence and refuse to hand over these documents.
Today, during question period, we heard the ministers answer our questions about the arrive scam app, saying that they would collaborate and that they have always been co-operative in all the investigations. That is the problem: the RCMP's numerous investigations into the Prime Minister's actions.
This morning, the RCMP commissioner appeared before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I sit on that committee with my colleague from Brantford—Brant. We were not really surprised to learn that the Prime Minister's Office was not very co-operative when it came time to release the documents. It did not want to waive cabinet confidence in the Aga Khan island case or in the SNC‑Lavalin case. As a result, the RCMP commissioner and the investigator who was accompanying him told us that they could not definitively absolve the Prime Minister of having committed a crime because they did not get access to all the information.
The commissioner made it very clear that the RCMP could not say whether a crime was committed in the SNC‑Lavalin case because it did not have access to all the information. He was asked another question: Are we to understand that the Prime Minister did not commit a crime?
The commissioner was quick to say that the RCMP could not say that either, because it did not have access to the information that would have enabled it to do so. That is unbelievable. Today, the ministers were quick to tell us that they would pass on the information about ArriveCAN.
In another scandal, a committee mainly made up of Liberal MPs and external people that was working on the much-talked-about case of the Winnipeg lab concluded that all of the documents should be made public, because this situation affected all Canadians and because the subjects did not really impact national security. This decision was made a few days ago. Where are the documents? They are not even capable of releasing and disclosing documents that a committee determined would not jeopardize national security. Members will have to forgive me if I am a little skeptical about the Prime Minister's willingness to get to the bottom of what happened with ArriveCAN.
There is a reason we moved this motion today. The government should have paid $60,000 for an app that ended up costing Canadian taxpayers at least $60 million—maybe more; we do not know yet. Meanwhile, Canadians are struggling to put food on the table, keep a roof over their heads and make ends meet, so we cannot let this slide. I think the Liberals need to be transparent for once.
Today, the RCMP confirmed that it is investigating the entire ArriveCAN affair, not just the allegations that public servants reported. The RCMP is investigating everything in the Auditor General's report. The Auditor General was very critical of the government. I will quote a couple of sentences from the report. There is so much in the report that 10 minutes is not enough time to cover it all.
The “At a Glance” section states:
The Canada Border Services Agency's documentation, financial records, and controls were so poor that we were unable to determine the precise cost of the ArriveCAN application.
It goes on to say:
...we are concerned that essential information, such as clear deliverables...was missing. We found that details about the work performed were often missing on invoices and supporting time sheets submitted by contractors that the agency approved.
So far, I am still in the “At a Glance” section. To continue:
We found no evidence to show that some Canada Border Services Agency employees complied with the agency's Code of Conduct by disclosing that they had been invited to dinners and other activities by contractors.
It also says:
There was no formal agreement between the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency from April 2020 to July 2021...
It also states:
We estimated that the average per diem cost for the ArriveCAN external resources was $1,090, whereas the average daily cost for equivalent IT positions in the Government of Canada was $675.
This continues on every page of the report:
Canada Border Services Agency officials have expressed concerns that $12.2 million of the $[60]‑million estimate could be unrelated to ArriveCAN.
They managed to spend money on an app, but that money did not even go to ArriveCAN, and no one can say where the money went. That is what eight years of Liberal management looks like.
I could go on and on. This quote is really telling. In the section entitled “Missing documentation for non‑competitive contracts”, it states, “We found that documentation was missing on the initial discussions and interactions between the Canada Border Services Agency and GC Strategies”. GC Strategies is a two-person company that operates out of a basement and gets IT contracts, but has no IT expertise.
This is just a glimpse of the Auditor General's scathing, damning report on ArriveCAN.
I think that the government needs to show more respect for Canadians. It must disclose the costs related to the app by March 18. That is the goal of our motion today.
If the Liberals have any respect for Canadians, then they will vote in favour of our motion.
1465 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 2:59:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if my colleague were more aware of what is happening in Canada, he would know that after eight years under this Liberal Prime Minister, two million people are going to food banks every month. Food banks are now lining up to get the food they need to feed the lines of hungry people. That is what Canada looks like under this Prime Minister.
The Liberal government, with Bloc support, managed to find a way to spend at least $60 million on an app that was supposed to cost $80,000.
I will repeat my question. Is the Prime Minister going to voluntarily co-operate with the RCMP, or is he going to cover up the arrive scam yet again?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/27/24 2:58:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, that is the Conservative common sense plan.
Common sense is also knowing the extent of the Liberal arrive scam disaster. Even though the Liberals can count on the Bloc Québécois to close their eyes to millions of dollars in spending, the Conservatives want to shed light on the arrive scam scandal.
Will the Prime Minister co-operate with the RCMP in its investigation into arrive scam or will he once again refuse to fully co-operate with the police, as he did in the cases of the Aga Khan's island and SNC-Lavalin?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:50:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell me why this Prime Minister, with the support of the leader of the Bloc Québécois, has put the country deeper into debt than all the other prime ministers before him combined?
The leader of the Bloc Québécois chose to vote in favour of spending $24 million on the Prime Minister's arrive scam. I am not the one saying so. It was the leader of the Bloc Québécois who said, “We are not going to scrutinize everything the government spends”. They told the government to go ahead and spend the money.
It is like listening to the Liberal Minister of Finance. Voting for the Bloc Québécois is very, very costly.
Does the Prime Minister realize that he and the Bloc Québécois are costing Quebeckers too much and that they are not worth the cost or the corruption?
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:49:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. After eight years, this Prime Minister is not worth the cost or the crime of corruption.
The leader of the Bloc Québécois has just shown his true colours. Not only does he want to keep this Prime Minister in office for a long time to come, but he voted eight times to send more money to corrupt arrive scam companies for an app that he knew should only have cost $80,000. Even so, he and the Bloc Québécois voted for $24 million in additional spending. Voting for the Bloc Québécois is costly.
Will the Prime Minister admit that he and the Bloc Québécois are just not worth the cost?
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 11:22:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the minister is denying the truth. I quoted newspaper articles that have been published since the Auditor General brought to light this scandal that saw Canadians pay $60 million for an app that should have cost only $80,000.
Radio-Canada found that GC Strategies, this infamous company that does not do IT work and that was paid close to $20 million to develop a useless app, actually got a lot more money than that. We are talking about $258 million.
Will the Prime Minister, who is not worth the cost, give the RCMP and the parliamentary committee access to all of the documents so that we can finally get to the bottom of this matter?
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 11:21:46 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is ultimately the one responsible for the arrive scam scandal, his useless app that was supposed to cost $80,000 and ended up costing 750 times more. No one believes the Prime Minister's excuses anymore.
A former NDP leader said, “The scam of the century: [the Prime Minister] gave millions to a company with four employees”. One headline reads, “Arrive Scam: A $59-million-plus scandal thanks to the [Liberal] government's laissez-faire attitude”. La Presse called it “The tip of the iceberg of wasteful spending”.
After eight years, who in this government will finally dare to stand up and tell the Prime Minister that he is not worth the cost or the corruption?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 11:01:13 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for 95 years, the Écho de Frontenac newspaper has been an important part of people's lives in Lac‑Mégantic and the Granit MCR.
Founded in 1929 by J. Édouard Fortin, the local independent newspaper was acquired by Louis‑Philippe Poulin two years later and has remained in the family ever since.
A truly independent weekly, the Écho de Frontenac gets support from its subscribers and its local commercial partners. I want to pay tribute to Gaétan Poulin, who served as managing editor and publisher from 1967 until his death in fall 2023.
A staunch defender of the French language and passionate historian, Mr. Poulin enforced the values of truth, objectivity and justice at Écho de Frontenac, values that are still in place at the newspaper today. Thanks to the current team at Écho de Frontenac, the young and not-so-young have access to reliable quality content that remains accessible and relatable to its audience.
It is an honour today to be able to draw attention to the hard work of Suzanne Poulin, who took over as publisher, and that of all the dedicated employees who care about Écho de Frontenac and ensure it showcases local news. Long live this essential witness of the Granit community, and happy 95th anniversary.
225 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C‑354, which was introduced by the Bloc Québécois.
The Bloc Québécois's bill seems pretty straightforward. It states:
The Commission shall consult with the Government of Quebec about the cultural distinctiveness of Quebec and with the governments of the other provinces about the French-speaking markets in those provinces before furthering the objects and exercising the powers referred to in subsection (1) in respect of the aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system that concern those matters.
This seems like a fairly simple request for consultation, and it would require the CRTC to consult Quebec and the provinces.
Of course, I support the principle that the Government of Quebec should have the opportunity to express itself, especially when it comes to Quebec's cultural distinctiveness. The Government of Quebec and the National Assembly of Quebec are not shy about making their position known, especially when it comes to protecting the French language and Quebec culture.
As Conservatives, we on this side of the House recognize that French is the only official language that is in decline in Canada. As such, we have an essential role to play in protecting it.
To continue the debate, I would like to come back to Bill C-11, which amended the Broadcasting Act. The Government of Quebec had called for specific amendments to this bill so that Quebec's concerns would be heard.
In February 2023, Quebec's minister of culture and communications, Mathieu Lacombe, wrote to the then minister of Canadian heritage. I will read some excerpts from that letter to provide some context for the Bloc Québécois bill. At the time, the Bloc refused, for months, to convey this request from Quebec's elected officials to the House of Commons.
I will now quote Minister Mathieu Lacombe:
It is essential, both in Bill C‑11 and in its implementation by the CRTC, that Quebec's cultural distinctiveness and the unique reality of the French-language market be adequately considered. I would like to reiterate our demand that a formal, mandatory mechanism for consultation with the Government of Quebec be set out in the act to that effect....[Quebec] must always have its say before any instructions are given to the CRTC to direct its actions under this act when its actions are likely to affect companies providing services in Quebec or likely to have an impact on the Quebec market....
This letter that came from the Government of Quebec was sent to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Unfortunately, as far as we can tell, it seems that no one in the Liberal government saw fit to respond to this request. There was complete radio silence after that letter.
However, on this side of the House, the Conservatives heard this plea. The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent and the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles rose in the House several times to urge the government to receive the Quebec minister in committee in order to hear what Quebec was asking for and determine how Bill C‑11 could contribute to ensuring that the act takes Quebec's cultural distinctiveness into account. That is something tangible. We had a tangible request from Quebec to be heard on a bill that would have considerable repercussions on Quebec's cultural distinctiveness and on Quebec's language. We felt it was important to grant this request and allow the Quebec minister to come testify in committee.
Allow me to quote an article from La Presse from February 14, 2023. That was a year ago almost to the day. The headline of the article read, “Broadcasting Act reform: Conservative Party supports Quebec's request for a say”. That about sums it up.
I think La Presse hit the nail pretty much on the head. I will read some of the article:
The Conservative Party is urging the [Prime Minister's] government to refer Bill C‑11, which seeks to modernize the Broadcasting Act, to a parliamentary committee in order to examine Quebec's request for the bill to include a mandatory mechanism requiring the province to be consulted to ensure that the CRTC protects Quebec's cultural distinctiveness.
That article was written by Joël‑Denis Bellavance, someone who reliably reports the facts.
A little further on in the article, it talks about what happened here in the House of Commons when we discussed this issue. It states, and I quote:
In the House of Commons on Tuesday, the Conservative member [for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles] and his colleague [from Louis-Saint-Laurent] both questioned [the heritage minister] on this subject and urged him to consider Quebec's “legitimate request”.
The article goes on to quote the question that was asked that day:
“[The] Quebec government is urging the Liberal government to include a mechanism for mandatory consultation in Bill C-11 to ensure the protection of Quebec culture....Do the Prime Minister and the Bloc agree with Minister Lacombe when it comes to Quebec culture and the fact that the government needs to send the bill to committee?” asked the member [for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles].
That is a very legitimate question that was asked in response to the letter published the day before by journalist Joël-Denis Bellavance.
The answer given by the then minister of heritage was rather cold. It was more of a diversionary tactic. The minister completely avoided my colleague's question. Instead, he chose to go on the attack and to completely avoid answering the simple question about the fact that the Quebec minister of culture and communications was asking to appear before the parliamentary committee.
During the same question period, my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent raised the issue again. I would like to quote from the article and the question at the same time:
“[H]ow can a member from Quebec, a minister from Quebec, refuse to listen to the demands of the Government of Quebec? I understand that the purpose of Bill C-11 is to centralize power in Ottawa, with help from the Bloc Québécois, which I might have to start calling the ‘centralist bloc’”, fumed [my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent].
Members will understand the reason for his anger, not only toward the governing party, the Liberal Party, but also toward the Bloc Québécois. The Liberal minister came out with a sledgehammer argument. Instead of answering the question and granting the Quebec minister of culture and communications' legitimate request to appear in committee, the then minister of heritage accused the Conservative Party of trying to stall the bill's passage again. It was as though asking to hear from the minister of a duly elected government was not a good enough reason to slightly delay a bill's passage in order to find out what Quebec had to say. That is unacceptable.
In his letter, Minister Lacombe argued that, as the “heartland of the French language and francophone culture in America”, Quebec considered it “vital to have a say in these instructions”. It seems to me that the committee should have listened to what Minister Lacombe had to say.
My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent moved a motion in committee. Unsurprisingly, the Liberal Party voted against that motion, which was intended to allow a discussion of the amendments proposed by the Senate and Quebec's request. Again unsurprisingly, the NDP sided with the Liberals. How did the Bloc Québécois member vote in committee? Did he seize the opportunity to be the voice of reason, speaking on behalf of Quebec and Quebeckers? After a formal letter from the Government of Quebec and a unanimous motion from the National Assembly, which side did the Bloc Québécois take?
The answer will shock everyone, even our our viewers: The Bloc Québécois voted against the common-sense motion moved by my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, which would have allowed the voice of a Quebec minister to be heard in committee. At the time, not only did we agree in principle, but we took concrete action to ensure that the Government of Quebec would be heard.
Now let us see how negotiations unfold in committee, so we can find out whether everyone really meant what they said.
1437 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 3:13:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after what was undoubtedly a difficult week for the government, one could say that the upcoming one is very timely for government members.
In the meantime, however, we still have one sitting of the House to go. I would like to ask the government House leader to tell us what business is planned for tomorrow and for when we return from what I hope will be a relaxing break week for the government.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
