- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Louis-Saint-Laurent
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 61%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $128,105.00
- Government Page
- Jun/14/24 11:52:06 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we will not take any lessons from this government, and especially not from this minister, who has been asleep at the switch for five years while a very serious situation was happening with the green fund at Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC.
We thought things could not get worse, but we were wrong. Yesterday, the Auditor General tabled a report that shows that these people put nearly $400 million in the pockets of Liberal cronies. That is the reality. What is more, $319 million went to the directors of the green fund.
When will the minister finally wake up? The whistle-blower himself recognized that the minister did not act in time.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 12:45:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would ask the member where she was three days ago when the six top guns of the petroleum industry appeared at the environment committee, “top guns” meaning CEOs. I do not want to insult anybody. The key people were at committee, thanks to the Conservatives inviting them, and we asked questions of the those people running the oil and gas industry in Canada.
The Conservatives asked questions about reducing emissions, investing in protections for our environment and in new technologies to ensure we reduce emissions, which is, by the way, the first pillar of our policy on the environment and climate change. We want to reduce emissions by investing in new technologies with fiscal incentives. We want to shine the light on green energy. We want to give all the advantages of our natural resources to Canadians. We want to work hand in hand with first nations.
This is where we stand when we talk about the future of our country based on climate change challenges.
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 12:44:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, indeed, I do enjoy referencing history. Why not reference history again, but this time, very, very recent history?
Our leader is speaking to various media outlets and made a stop at Radio-Canada. We in the Conservative Party are consistent and logical. Allow me to quote what our leader said in an interview this morning: The tramway, no, busses, yes. Some of the bus proposals would work really well, and I would be open to those kinds of proposals. The City of Quebec and the greater Quebec City area will get their fair share of federal investments.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 12:42:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is very sad to hear the member say that. The truth is that the real impact on the economy is terrible, minus $30.5 billion until 2030. There will be a direct impact on family households of $1,800. If everything were perfect with the Liberal carbon tax, we may have seen the real impact of it. However, based on the evaluation made, not by the Conservative Party, the Fraser Institute or L’institut économique de Montréal but by the United Nations, especially scientists around the world, after nine years of the government, Canada is 62 out of 67. I am sorry folks, but it does not work.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 12:32:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge.
I am very pleased to participate in this debate, and I thank my colleagues.
We are gathered here today because Canadians have a right to know, and it is our duty, as the official opposition, to hold the government to account. We want to know the real impact that the Liberal carbon tax is having on Canadians' wallets and on the Canadian economy.
We are holding this debate today to get to the bottom of things, so that people can form an opinion based on the facts, facts that the government wanted to hide.
The government did not just want to hide this information from the public. We are holding this debate today because of what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said about his requests.
I would remind the House that, last week in committee, my colleague from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley questioned the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
My colleague from Manitoba had a very good conversation with the PBO a few days ago in the committee.
I will summarize the exchange that took place at the Standing Committee on Finance.
My colleague said, “Mr. Giroux, in your earlier testimony, you said that you understood that the government had economic analysis on the carbon tax that it has not released. Are you saying that the government has not been transparent with the analysis it has?”
The Parliamentary Budget Officer replied, “I mentioned that the government has economic analysis on the impact of the carbon tax itself and the OBPS, the output-based pricing system. We've seen that—staff in my office—but we've been told explicitly not to disclose it and reference it.”
That last bit is important. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer told the committee.
My colleague from Manitoba went on, “The government has given you their analysis, but they have put a gag on you, basically, saying you can't talk about it.” The PBO replied, “That is my understanding.”
A government is muzzling the Parliamentary Budget Officer. If that is not keeping an iron grip on information to conceal matters that directly affect Canadians, I do not know what is.
That is why we deliberately moved this motion to hold this debate and force the government to do what it did not want to do. It wanted to hide information. The government even told the Parliamentary Budget Officer to shut up. That is what it said. The government told the Parliamentary Budget Officer not to reference it.
Unfortunately, this brings back very sad memories of a time long ago when one Quebec politician could tell another to shut up. Sadly, we are seeing the same thing happening again today, in 2024, under this Liberal government.
What did we find out next? This morning, just a few minutes before the House started, the government stated that it had released the documents in question. What does this partial documentation tell us? The news for Canadians is very bad. It says in black and white that the carbon tax's true impact on the economy is minus $30.5 billion until 2030.
If I were in government, I might not be very proud of these numbers either, but numbers and facts are stubborn. We Conservatives have been pushing for months to get the real numbers. We are adding even more pressure with today's debate. With a bit of theatrics, the government tabled the documents a few minutes before the House began sitting.
As the Leader of the Opposition said, painting a somewhat graphic and rather gross picture, it was as painful for them as having a tooth pulled, and for good reason, because the tooth was rotten.
Canada's gross domestic product, or GDP, will drop by $30.5 billion by 2030. That is the real effect of the Liberal carbon tax. This was not the first time the Parliamentary Budget Officer highlighted the fact that the carbon tax is going to cost Canadians a lot of money, much more than the government claimed when it said it was going to put the money back into their pockets.
It is pretty amazing. These people keep telling us that there is a price on pollution but they are putting money back into people's pockets.
That is because they collect the money, take out a little bit and put the rest back in the taxpayers' pockets. Do they think people are stupid?
In any case, I can say one thing: Canada's mayors did not find it funny. A few days ago, the Prime Minister was invited to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, or FCM. Once again, he repeated his famous line about Canadians getting more money back than they pay. Canada's mayors did not find it funny and started heckling him.
The Prime Minister responded, “Ha ha”. That was his response. His arrogance is unfortunate. It is insulting to Canadians.
On May 5, in an interview on CTV's Power Play, the Parliamentary Budget Officer had this to say:
“A vast majority of people will be worse off under a carbon pricing regime than without, and we don't expect that to change.”
In the same interview, he went on to say the following:
“The overall conclusions that the vast majority of households are worse off with the carbon pricing regime than without, that I'm confident will still remain. That is based on our own preliminary analysis but also on discussion we've had on discussions with government officials and also stakeholders.”
This is not the first time the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that the Liberal carbon tax is having a negative impact on taxpayers' wallets. He costed the negative impact on the Canadian economy and estimates that Canada's GDP will take a $30.5-billion hit by 2030.
Earlier a minister tabled a series of documents and I asked him some questions about those documents. It reminded me that there is another document that I have been trying to table in the House for months, specifically the report presented to COP28 in December entitled “Climate Change Performance Index 2024”. It shows the results of 67 countries around the world and their actual effectiveness in the fight against climate change. Where does Canada rank after nine years under the Liberal government? On a list of 67 countries, after nine years of a Liberal government, Canada's Liberal effectiveness, as analyzed by scientists around the world, ranks 62nd out of 67 countries. Meanwhile, the Liberals are lecturing everyone else. They say that we are not nice, but they are good. They are so good that Canada ranks 62nd after nine years of this government's management. For months I have been calling for this document to be tabled. The Liberals keep refusing. That is not nice.
What did the minister say in answer to my question about that? He said that the member, referring to me, knows very well that oil development in Alberta is hurting our track record. The cat is out of the bag. That is the minister's problem. In his ideal world, there would be no more oil anywhere. I do not know what planet he is living on, but that is not the reality. Perhaps his ultimate dream is to completely shut down Canada's oil industry, but what will happen if we do that? Oil development will happen elsewhere. Shutting down Canada's industry tomorrow morning will not change much. That is the problem. We need oil.
I am a Quebecker and I keep an eye on what is happening in my province. According to HEC Montréal's numbers, last year, Quebeckers consumed 19 billion litres of oil, which represents an increase of 7%. That is not good news or bad news, it is a fact. The numbers are there. Everyone can draw their own conclusions.
If oil production in Canada were to be shut down tomorrow morning, other places would produce it. Who stands to gain if the Liberal government's dream, the minister's dream, comes true? Unfortunately, the Canadian economy does not figure heavily in the minister's dreams. The planet does not stand to gain, but Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other countries do. That is the big problem with Liberal dogmatism, in contrast to the Conservatives' pragmatism.
When the Liberals say that the carbon tax will reduce emissions, that is not true. What it will reduce is the amount of money in taxpayers' pockets. The Canadian economy will suffer because of this.
1461 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 11:08:44 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his commentary and remarks, which I greatly appreciate.
A little later I will get back to the tabling of the documents, but basically, we feel that the documents released this morning are only partial. They are not complete, and they do not get to the bottom of the matter. That is why we often ask the minister to tell us precisely what the true effect is of the carbon tax in terms of directly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is what we would like to know.
As for the real effect and the effectiveness of the carbon tax, I would like to table a document. Since the member tabled a number of documents, I am sure he will not mind if I table in the House a document entitled Climate Change Performance Index, or CCPI. As he knows very well, this document was presented at the last COP, which he attended. According to the CCPI, after nine years of this Liberal government, Canada ranks 62 out of 67 countries for greenhouse gas emissions.
The Liberal policies are not working.
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 5:29:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear my friend, the member for Winnipeg North, speak. I cannot believe that he can talk on any issue for 10 minutes to 20 minutes. He always has something to say, but nothing very serious.
We know for sure that in the House there are people who have been elected with the support of foreign countries that are not fans of Canada. We know that, but what we do not know is who they are. We think that it would be a good idea to have the names, which is not a position that my colleague supports. That is what democracy is all about. I understand what he is talking about, as I am sure he understands what I am talking about.
The point is, can the member assure this country that no cabinet minister is on the damn list?
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/10/24 12:41:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his speech. I would also like to thank the member for Trois-Rivières and the Bloc Québécois for their proposal today that focused on this theme.
Unfortunately, foreign powers have already won. Foreign powers made sure that there are people here in the House who got elected with their support and assistance. I am not the one saying it. It is the judge.
We know that this is a very sensitive issue for everyone, because nobody knows who is involved. That said, does the minister understand and accept the fact that, in order to lift the cloud of suspicion that is hanging over the 337 people sitting in the House, these individuals who were elected with the help and support of foreign powers hostile to our country must be clearly identified?
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/24 11:57:15 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, just two days ago, the Deputy Prime Minister, in her legendary modesty, was bragging about housing. She is totally out of touch with the reality of Canadians. The housing numbers are staggering. The average rental cost has risen by almost 10% to $2,202 per month. Two-bedroom apartments have increased by 12%. It costs $2,233 to rent a two-bedroom apartment in Canada. This government excels at announcements, bureaucracy and spending, but certainly not when it comes to helping Canadians.
When will this government really take action to help Canadians after doing nothing for nine years?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/24 11:25:07 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, taking this seriously would mean telling us whether any ministers were elected because of foreign interference, yes or no.
Meanwhile, there is also the matter of crime. Over the past nine years under this government, the crime rate has gone up in Canada, particularly in urban centres. In Laval, the crime rate is over 10%. In Montreal, 112,000 offences were committed.
Unfortunately, crime is not going away. The other problem is that criminals can serve their sentence at home, rather than in prison, thanks to Bill C‑5 that was passed. Members will recall, sadly, that the Bloc Québécois supported Bill C‑5.
When will the government take real action to ensure that criminals serve their sentence behind bars rather than at home?
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/24 11:23:54 a.m.
- Watch
The foreign influence affair is very serious. The report released by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians is clear. Members of the House of Commons were elected to this place with the support and assistance of a foreign power that is hostile to Canadian interests. People need to know who these individuals are, so it is important to identify them. Until they are identified, a cloud of suspicion will hang over the House. Ultimately it is the Prime Minister who has the power to tell us.
When will he do that?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 2:56:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let us be serious. Does the minister realize that the Liberal scandal involving Sustainable Development Technology Canada's green fund is reminiscent of the sponsorship scandal?
I am not the one saying that. It was a public official who testified during the Auditor General's investigation and who also said that the government is completely incompetent.
Will the minister rise again and say that he did not see anything or some such thing? The reality is that Canadians want the truth and they want all the documents. Will the government give them to the RCMP, yes or no?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 2:55:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for years Canadians have been struggling because of this Liberal government, yet close friends of the Liberals have been profiting.
What is the latest discovery about those Liberal friends? It involves the use of the Sustainable Development Technology Canada green fund. Liberal friends have taken it upon themselves to dip both hands in the cookie jar. According to the Auditor General, $123 million of taxpayers' money was misused. To get to the bottom of this, those documents need to be seen.
Is the government going to give the RCMP access to all the documents so it can get to the bottom of this scandal?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased and honoured to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-378, a private member's bill born of the initiative and experience of my brilliant colleague from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.
I want to commend my colleague from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis for her initiative. She is leveraging her experience in the provincial government here in the House of Commons in a noble and relevant way in order to improve Canadian labour relations.
This bill seeks to enable people who have worked and who have left their job or who have ceased to be employed to file a complaint regarding harassment or violence within two years of leaving. Right now, the deadline is just three months. In her bill, the member suggests extending the deadline to two years. This proposal is based on her experience in Quebec, which I will talk about later, but also on conclusive evidence. Harassment and violence can have long-term and even delayed effects.
I am reminded of the sad and unfortunate story of a woman who was a victim of sexual violence and did not report it immediately. It took years before she filed a complaint. Unfortunately, the case was never heard. What a sad state of affairs. In cases of violence and harassment in a professional environment, we believe that two years is how long it takes for the person to assess the consequences of what they have suffered and file a complaint. We are talking about making a complaint here. This is not about writing a blank cheque and claiming everything has been sorted out. A well-calibrated assessment process is required.
In Canada, there has been a three-month time limit in place since 2021. Various provinces have laws on this subject. In Quebec, the deadline is two years. In Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador, the deadline is one year. It is six months in British Columbia. As the member so aptly put it earlier, other countries such as Belgium and France have a time limit of five or six years. In Australia, it can be as little as two years. In the U.S., in several states, the time limit is six months.
This is not new for Canada, but it is important to understand that this initiative flows from what happened in Quebec in 2018. I will elaborate on that.
Thanks to the well-deserved support, assistance and confidence of her constituents, the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis served in the National Assembly for nearly 14 years. She was an MNA, a minister, an opposition MNA and a member of the government. I even had the pleasure of sitting down with her when I was a journalist and asking her some questions. We were both journalists at one time.
That being said, why am I talking about this? Because the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis is introducing this bill today thanks to her experience as minister of labour in Quebec, and all Canadians can now benefit from that experience. She took the time to work closely with employers, departmental officials, public service officials and union leaders to make sure that she was introducing a bill that would work in Quebec. It does.
In 2018, during the final days of the Couillard government, the National Assembly passed her bill unanimously. Unanimous motions in the National Assembly are not that unusual, but bills that pass unanimously are a little rarer. Everyone agreed on Bill 176 because the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis had done a serious and thorough job of it for the common good.
Today, six years later, we have a law that works. Like all legislation, it requires review, but it has stood the test of time. I would even say that it transcends partisanship. In fact, the law was created under the auspices of a government of a certain political stripe, but, for the past six years in Quebec, a government of another stripe in the National Assembly has been leading the work and leading Quebec. That is democracy.
When a bill is good, it stands the test of time and rallies the support of all parties.
Earlier, one of my Bloc Québécois colleagues referred to a completely different subject, when we are talking here about people's work. We are talking about cases of harassment and violence. This is more about human beings than about tax management. He decided to share that thought, and that is on him.
He talked about the carbon exchange. I am not passing judgment, just presenting the facts. After 10 years, we have noticed some things, even in Quebec. The Quebec environment minister himself, Benoit Charette, said that, since the carbon exchange is an exchange between two states, namely, Quebec, which has 8 million people, and California, which has 30 million people, Quebec is still paying California $230 million this year under that system. I am not passing judgment, just presenting the facts.
Someone else spoke of this subject with some judgment. His name is Sylvain Gaudreault, former member of the National Assembly for Jonquière. He is a former senior minister, a leadership candidate, and one time leader of the official opposition. I respect him a lot and hold him in high regard. Even though he supports it, he described the carbon exchange as a $230-million “flight of capital”.
If some people want to fight that battle, let them, but facts are stubborn. Quebeckers listening to us today may just be finding out that the carbon exchange, paid for with their tax dollars and all that, amounts to $230 million going to California, as the Quebec environment minister says.
One thing is sure. Since 2018, workers who have experienced an injustice in the workplace, including harassment and violence, have had a tool that allows them to file a complaint even after two years. We know that when it comes to violence and harassment, the effects are not always immediate. They can begin later. Thanks to the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, Quebec workers are very fortunate to be able to use this tool, which was adopted in 2018 on the initiative of this member, who is now proposing the exact same approach to the House that has worked so well in Quebec.
What happened? The government side and the second opposition party, the NDP, are in agreement. I am very proud to be a member of the official opposition. I am very proud to be a Conservative member, and I am very proud to sit with the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis. She brings experience, expertise and a wealth of knowledge. Above all, she brings what she has given to Quebeckers and is sharing it with everyone. That is a good thing.
All too often, we have debates that go around in circles, that do not lead anywhere and that are more ideological and dogmatic than pragmatic. In this case, we have a golden opportunity to make progress that will benefit workers.
I know I will have another minute. I look forward to speaking for another minute when we resume this debate.
1242 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/24 3:06:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in the same report, a senior official accuses this government of outright incompetence and says that the scandal rivals the sponsorship scandal, a phrase that brings back bad memories for all Canadians, especially the Liberal Party.
I urge the minister to tread carefully, because on November 11, the whistle-blower said, “The minister said, on the record and multiple times, that he was briefed on the outcome only on August 27, but that's definitively not true. He lied at the ethics committee.”
Who should we believe, the whistle-blower or the minister?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/24 3:05:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General released another report yesterday about another Liberal scandal. This time, it is was about Sustainable Development Technology Canada's green fund.
According to the report, administrators gave themselves funding 186 times, $123 million was paid out inappropriately, and half of that should never have been paid out in the first place.
There is only one way to get to the bottom of this situation. Does the minister agree with our proposal to have the RCMP investigate?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 1:46:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis, and for good reason. He thanked all those who worked in committee and in the House to move his bill forward. That happened because someone opposite wanted it to happen and took the necessary steps to make it work. I am talking about the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. I would also like to remind the House that, in less than four weeks, at the end of June, he will be celebrating the 20th anniversary of his election to the House of Commons.
I knew that I had seen him somewhere before. I was a journalist when the Right Hon. Paul Martin became prime minister. There was a large gathering in Montreal for the prime minister. Obviously, I would have to assume that the member for Lac-Saint-Louis was there.
Why are we supporting this bill? There are three major reasons.
The first is that it does not cost anything. That is important to us. We have an excellent federal public service. These people are equipped to ensure that the necessary steps are taken and that the work is done with the provinces and municipalities. This can be accomplished using the department's existing budget. That is important to us.
The second reason is that this bill is based on a principle that is near and dear to us: collaboration between the different levels of government, coordination and information sharing. That is exactly what we are talking about. Obviously, we recognize that every place has its own unique characteristics. Each province has its own expertise. Sometimes, a province may have several completely different kinds of expertise. The expertise in northern Saskatchewan and southern Saskatchewan can be dramatically different. The same goes for Quebec, the Maritimes and British Columbia. In short, our country is magnificent. It is large, vast, distinct and different. That is why we need to share best practices to inspire people to take the most effective approaches used in a specific location and transpose them to another context. That takes coordination, collaboration and information sharing.
Here is the third reason why we support this bill. The leader of Canada's Conservatives, the member for Carleton, said something important last September in his keynote speech at our national convention. It was his first major speech to all Conservative Party supporters. More than 2,500 supporters from all 338 ridings gathered in my part of the country, in Quebec City. The future prime minister of Canada, the member for Carleton, spoke to a group of grassroots supporters about the realities we are facing today. He sent a clear message that we need to face the realities and impacts of climate change, which is real and requires that we work together.
The main purpose of this bill is to enable us to work better, to get to know each other better, to exchange ideas and to learn from one another's experiences as we face the new challenges of climate change and learn about the best approaches to take when dealing with spills and floods. As the member for Lac-Saint-Louis put it so well, his riding is very familiar with this reality, as the name suggests.
This does not happen as much as it did before, but when I take the plane in Dorval, most of the time we fly over bodies of water. It is a chance for me to see the power of Quebec's water resources. Quebec is a beautiful land that is just covered in lakes.
Two weeks ago, I went to Val-d'Or. I did the return leg from Val-d'Or to Quebec City with a local company, Air Liaison. The flight was just over an hour and went very smoothly. We flew over La Vérendrye Park and all of that. It is incredible to see all the lakes that we have. We have a country of land and water and we can be very proud of that. This also gives us responsibilities.
From our point of view, this bill is a step in the right direction. If by chance Canadians give us the honour of putting their trust in us, we will be very happy to work with this new body that will be charged with exchanging information that is essential for the future of Canada.
734 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 12:42:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to see you in that chair.
I appreciated my colleague's speech very much. He was elected for the first time in 2015. He mentioned his age. I did not think he was that young. The member raises a very important question regarding the necessary coordination when an election is called. We know that we have three levels of government in Canada: municipal, provincial and federal. We try to avoid creating bottlenecks whenever possible.
On the other hand, we recognize that Canada has 10 provinces and tens of thousands of municipalities, each with their own agenda. We recognize that. However, in this specific case, given the timing of the municipal elections in Quebec, we can plainly see that we are headed for a perfect storm in the name of a theoretically fixed-date federal election.
I believe that the same timing issue happened in the last election, in 2021. Members may recall that the Prime Minister called an election during the fourth wave of the pandemic, after a year and a half of a minority government. The current minority government is now in its third year and he will draw things out for a fourth one.
I want to draw members' attention to what my colleague said. Some members will have reached the six-year mark by the next election. What a coincidence. The government is proposing to have the next election after the supposed fixed date. I wonder if my colleague would be open to examining the proposal to hold the election 10 days before the fixed date. In that case, some members might not get their pension.
276 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 11:24:49 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will say it again: inflation, taxes and mortgage rates. For nine years, this government has had no control over spending, over inflationary budgets and over deficits that feed inflation and increase interest rates. Plus, we know that they have invented new taxes. Worse, their friends in the Bloc Québécois want to drastically increase the carbon tax, which they have not denied until now.
When will these people understand that Quebeckers are sick and tired of paying taxes and, more importantly, of having additional taxes imposed on them?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 11:23:39 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, CAA‑Québec conducted a poll of its members about their summer vacation plans. Unfortunately, the result was brutal. According to the Journal de Québéc, “inflation, the price of gas and mortgage renewals are putting a damper on Quebeckers' vacation plans”. Those are exactly the three themes we tackle here on behalf of Canadians every day during question period and they are exactly the three themes this Liberal government keeps washing its hands of.
When will this government understand that Quebeckers and Canadians have had it with this irresponsible management?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
