Business of Supply  Madam Speaker, members keep telling us that, during the Harper era, there was such open federalism that it undercut the separatist movement. However, a certain premier of Quebec, Jean Charest, who later became the darling of the Quebec wing of the Conservative Party, said that it was not as open as all that, that our choices were being dictated and that we were not happy.

Privilege  Mr. Speaker, as a number of speakers before us have said, we could clearly be talking about something that has more of an effect on our constituents. It goes without saying that this matter, this episode, must not be very enthralling for the public. In fact, they must be about as interested in this as they are in Denis Coderre hiking the Camino de Santiago, which says a lot.

Privilege  Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague put a lot of blame on the Conservatives. He told us that there was a year where the Conservative Speaker was also partisan. That may be true. Perhaps there is a double standard here. However, that in itself is not an argument to defend anything unacceptable that is currently happening.

Business of Supply  I listened very carefully to the Leader of the Opposition telling us that he has discovered a past, present and future passion for provincial autonomy. Under the Harper government, that may not have been how Premier Charest, the darling of Quebec Conservatives, felt about it, but never mind.

Business of Supply  Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague opposite. On the subject of aerospace and this week's announcement, I think he is missing a few small details. First, there were two announcements in one. The good thing is that we have an innovation zone, and that is Quebec City's doing.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023  Madam Speaker, are the final two minutes of this Tuesday supposed to be the highlight of the show? Were we meant to save the best for last? If so, I think I am going to disappoint a lot of people, given how little time I have left. To begin, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to split my time.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023  Madam Speaker, I say hello to Liberal illusionism and hello to Canadian junk progressivism. This budgetary smokescreen hides Ottawa's two main obsessions: using our money to support the oil and gas companies despite fine pseudo-environmental speeches that sound good at social gatherings, and invading the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1  Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment about balancing the budget. I know that there are all sorts of examples in history, including Quebec's history, where perhaps too many eggs were broken to make an omelette. We know that fiscal austerity or zero deficit efforts have been made, often much more violently in other countries of the world, especially developing countries, to the detriment of those who are struggling the most and at the expense of public services.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1  Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. He talked about huge expenditures, massive spending, and rightly so. He also talked about inflation and how it is getting harder and harder for some people to get by, while others are lining their pockets. I may have missed it at one point or another, but I did not hear him talk about the gifts this budget gives to oil companies.

Business of Supply  Madam Speaker, this morning, I asked the leader of the official opposition if he could explain the difference between legalization, decriminalization and diversion. He answered, “There really is no difference. It is just semantics”. I know that my colleague had an illustrious career in law.

Business of Supply  Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech that the City of Montreal had voted in favour of decriminalizing drugs. If that is true, why does point (b) of the Conservative motion use the phrase “make...legal” instead? That is my first question. My second question is as follows: Can the Leader of the Opposition explain to us, using neutral and objective language, the difference between legalization, decriminalization and diversion?

Privilege  Mr. Speaker, I too want to express my full support for the member, who has first-hand experience with interference and threats to his own family. I think all our colleagues here feel the same way. Having said that, we now need to turn those feelings into action. I think the member will agree with me.

Petitions  Mr. Speaker, my colleague is not that far away from me, but I am struggling to hear him. There is some annoying background noise.

Pharmacare Act  Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to our colleague's speech. I liked the “Ottawa knows best” criticism. It is true that Ottawa, usually after crises like the one we are currently in, always tends to centralize, to leverage its authority in order to achieve greater uniformity, to deploy its powers in a tentacle-like manner, spreading everywhere, and to impose its priorities, values and rules on the the provinces.

Pharmacare Act  Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague is a member from Quebec. The members of the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously requested a right to opt out of the pharmacare program with compensation. This means that we are not opposed to Canada having its own program. They say that as Quebeckers, we have the expertise and experience in social programs, we definitely do not want this program to be managed like the borders or the passports.