Madam Speaker, I'll be sharing my time with my friend and associate, the member for Terrebonne.

This is the umpteenth version of an opposition motion on the carbon tax. When I read the motion, I was kind of confused about my Conservative colleagues' intentions. A careful read of the motion eventually reveals that its mover is seeking access to the government's economic analysis of carbon pricing, which was produced by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

In my opinion, the role of a public policy maker, of a lawmaker, is to collect as much information as possible for the purpose of making rational decisions. Despite my reservations, I do not see how the Bloc Québécois could vote against a motion that calls for information, that makes data in the government's possession more transparent, and that promotes clarity and access to information of interest to the public.

I have reservations because I feel that we can distinguish between two types of politicians in the House. There are politicians who are rational and there are politicians who are irrational. That is what I would like to talk to my colleagues about today. In my opinion, an irrational politician is one who takes positions and formulates their remarks not on the basis of facts, truth or science, but often on the basis of simplistic propositions, simplistic observations to complex problems. This is eerily similar to populism and to some of the Conservatives ways of doing things.

To put a face to my remarks, I would like to return to the member for Carleton. I am not the teasing type, like my friend from Timmins—James Bay. I would not take the liberty to say that the member for Carleton spent his life working at Dairy Queen. I find that a bit vulgar, so I will not go there. What I do know, though, is that the member for Carleton has been a member for 20 years. I think it will be 20 years this year. My colleague, the transport minister, is wont to say that we are here for our pensions. I feel that the member for Carleton will have a really nice pension, since he has been here for 20 years. We are talking about a seasoned parliamentarian here.

Although he is a seasoned parliamentarian, I feel that he does not understand how a bill is supposed to work. We saw him yesterday during question period reacting strongly to the Bloc Québécois's questions on the capital gains bill. I saw the opposition leader react strongly while making some disjointed proposals. One can be in favour of a bill, one can want to send it to committee for improvements and at the same time criticize the details and implications of that bill. That is what my Bloc Québécois colleague did yesterday during question period. Surprisingly, the leader of the official opposition does not seem to get this.

During question period yesterday, he reiterated over and over again that if this bill moves forward, the Bloc Québécois will support it. He said that Quebec physicians will flee. I do not know where they will flee to. I do not know if Quebec doctors will go to Ontario. During his remarks in English, he said the opposite. He said that Ontario's doctors would flee. Will Ontario's doctors flee to Quebec? He did not seem to understand that the capital gains thing would apply to everyone. That is the perverse logic of the member for Carleton, who often indulges in fallacious reasoning.

Earlier, in his presentation on opposition day, he said that Quebec wanted to invest $11 billion in a tramway. He said that $11 billion for a tramway represents $28,000 for each and every family. He said he preferred to give $28,000 to every family rather than invest in a tramway. Duller minds might conclude that if they are against the tramway and they live in Quebec City, they will receive $28,000. It is easy to see that this has a perverse effect. The Leader of the Official Opposition does this all the time, associating opposition during question period with decisions made by the government. It is as if, speaking of the $83 billion the government will be investing in the oil industry between now and 2035, I made a flawed calculation like the leader of the official opposition did and asked Canadians whether they preferred to receive that much money rather than invest $83 billion in the oil industry.

I am not in favour of fossil fuels, but I am not stupid enough to get caught up in this type of perverse rhetoric. It makes me think of my philosophy courses in CEGEP. In Philosophy 101, students learn logic. I get the feeling that the member for Carleton did not take that course, and I will explain why. In CEGEP, people learn what a logical fallacy is. I will give an example. The Minister of Transportation has a white beard, Santa Claus has a white beard, therefore the Minister of Transportation is Santa Claus. That is a fallacy, and that is what the Leader of the Opposition constantly resorts to. Why not give him a dose of his own medicine?

Let us look at some of the political events where we could associate untruths with the leader of the official opposition. To keep things simple and to ensure my Conservative friends can understand, we could quickly refer to a saying in Quebec that goes, “you are what you eat”. The member for Carleton eats apples, therefore the member for Carleton is an apple. That is the type of logic the Leader of the Opposition uses. I will give members another example. In Quebec, woke people are against Bill 21. The leader of the official opposition is against Bill 21, therefore the leader of the official opposition is woke. We could do the same thing with the statement he made about the mayor of Montreal. He said that the mayor of Montreal had not built enough housing units and that she was incompetent. I checked. During this period, she built nearly 12,000 housing units in Montreal. The leader of the official opposition, when he was in government, built six housing units. Therefore, if the mayor of Montreal is incompetent because of the number of housing units she built, and if the member for Carleton built six housing units, does that mean that he is incompetent? That is the same simplistic logic.

Then there is the leader of the official opposition's position in light of statements from the member for Peace River—Westlock. The MP for Peace River—Westlock, a proponent of social conservatism within the Conservative Party, was on a podcast where he let people know the true nature of Bernadette. That is an expression we use back home about someone's political views on a woman's right to control her own body. Of all the things the member for Peace River—Westlock said, what interested me most was what he said about cannabis. He said he was against legalizing cannabis. I invite members to follow my reasoning, because it will take us to a very interesting place. In a written statement sent to the Journal de Montréal, the leader of the official opposition said, “To be clear, there will also be no change to the legal status of marijuana under a future Conservative government.” This means that marijuana will be legal under a Conservative government. Hear me out. Marijuana is a drug, so the leader of the official opposition is in favour of decriminalizing drugs. The leader of the official opposition supports wacko and extremist government policies. We are learning something today. It is rather surprising.

The same could be said of Ukraine. We know that the entire Conservative caucus voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. If the Conservative caucus opposes free trade with Ukraine, then it must be pro-Russian. That means the Conservative caucus is pro-Russian. Obviously, the Conservative caucus is pro-Russian and it supports the legalization of drugs. The scales are starting to tip. Honestly, I find it hard to see conservatism in the leader of the official opposition. Things go even further than that. Let me give an example of this lack of even basic logic and the outrageous use of fallacious reasoning, like the leader of the official opposition is doing. Some time ago—

Mario Simard

$572,246.00