Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his wonderful speech. He mentioned the sovereign wealth fund, which the government refers to as the Canada Strong fund. We do not seem to hear anything about this fund anymore. That lasted two or three days. When the Liberals announced this fund with great fanfare, they immediately compared it to the sovereign wealth funds of Norway and Saudi Arabia. Perhaps my colleague can do a better job of explaining it than I can, but I think that the government misled the population by comparing the fund that it put in place to the sovereign wealth funds of Norway and Saudi Arabia. Could my colleague briefly explain why those funds are different?

Mr. Speaker, we hear it all the time, but this time it is especially true. I am pleased to rise to speak to the long-awaited Bill C‑26. It took a long time to understand the actual impact of Bill C‑26. Even though the bill contains too few details for us to judge, the government refused to provide us with information or answer our questions for two months. These were two months wasted, and here we are studying the bill under a time allocation only a few days before summer. What is Bill C‑26? With only one clause, a person might think it insignificant, but that is far from true. The first subclause of this one-clause bill provides the following: The Minister of Finance may make payments to the provinces and territories, the total of which is equal to $1.‍713 billion, for the purpose of improving housing supply. This is wonderful, but the second sentence, less so. The amount of each payment is to be determined by the Minister of Finance. The second subclause provides the following: Any amount payable under subsection (1) may be paid by the Minister of Finance out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund at the times and in the manner that the Minister of Finance considers appropriate. The words “at the times and in the manner that the Minister of Finance considers appropriate” carry serious consequences, but I will return to that later. Let us start with the positive. Bill C-26 finally provides funding that will go directly to the provinces and territories for housing without going through a new federal structure or entity such as Build Canada Homes. Once the bill receives royal assent, the transfer will essentially be unconditional, as long as Quebec and the provinces use it for housing initiatives. That is a good thing. There continue to be acute housing needs, and only a transfer that does not come with unnecessary conditions can get projects off the ground quickly instead of sparking a protracted tug-of-war between Quebec City and Ottawa. This means that $1.7 billion will be going directly to provincial governments to support the housing supply. That is exactly what the government should have done for all of its housing initiatives, because the housing situation is not the same in Rimouski, Montreal, Val-d'Or, Sept-Îles, Alma, Dolbeau or Roberval. It is even less so from one province to the next. To claim that a centralized structure in Ottawa can impose a uniform vision that works everywhere is to profoundly misunderstand regional realities and the constitutional division of powers. We saw this with the programs managed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. When Ottawa selected projects, Quebec systematically received less than its share. It was only when there was a transfer with an envelope set aside for each province that things went smoothly. I am thinking here of the rapid housing initiative. Not only that, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated in his December report on Build Canada Homes that “[Build Canada Homes] will add about 26,000 units over five years, representing a 2.1 per cent increase in housing completions relative to [the Parliamentary Budget Officer's] baseline projection.” An increase of 2.1% as a result of $7.3 billion in spending is a pretty expensive percentage. It is $3.5 billion to be exact. We are supposed to believe with these estimates that Ottawa knows better than the provinces when it comes to housing, which, I repeat, is within their own jurisdiction. We would have been quite happy to vote on this bill sooner, if only the government had been transparent and provided us with the details we requested two months ago, instead of dragging its feet as usual. In fact, we have had to keep pressing it for these answers ever since the bill was introduced in March. We know the federal government well. I have been an MP for seven years. When a transfer is announced, it usually comes with strings attached, even when funds are transferred for areas of jurisdiction that are not federal. Details about potential hidden conditions are exactly what we have been trying to obtain for two months, as I said. The bill, with its single clause, makes no mention of this. However, it contains this magical phrase, which is magnificent, “at the times and in the manner that the Minister of Finance considers appropriate.” The press release announcing Bill C-26 was just as vague. It mentioned the build communities strong fund and a “requirement on provinces and territories to reduce development fees and other charges to homebuilding.” What does that mean, exactly? Is this $1.7 billion part of the build communities strong fund? Is it a mandatory requirement for accessing the fund? Is it simply a guideline? Nothing is clear. We are in the dark. Unfortunately, experience has taught us to be cautious. All too often, vague wording hides requirements that are, in fact, very real. Beyond the issue of the terms, there was another equally crucial issue: Quebec's share. When nothing is set in black and white for Quebec, we know how it ends. Quebec is almost always underfunded in federal housing initiatives. That is why we need a clear guarantee that Quebec will receive at least its share, proportional to its population. The second sentence of the bill states that the amount of each payment is to be determined by the minister. That is far from a guarantee. We asked the Minister of Finance and National Revenue about this two weeks ago during the business of supply. He assured us that Quebec would receive its fair share, that the Government of Quebec was aware of the amount and had approved it. We are somewhat reassured by that answer, but it took two months to get it. We are nearing the end of this parliamentary session. We are debating under a closure motion. Meanwhile, the situation remains urgent. Housing needs have not diminished, and projects have not progressed any faster. Worse still, this delay comes at a particularly critical time for Quebec. As my colleagues are aware, the October general election in Quebec is fast approaching. Once the election campaign gets under way, the government will be restricted to dealing with day-to-day business. We hope that the Parti Québécois will win the next election. I look forward to debating the merits of a referendum on Quebec independence with my colleague from Winnipeg North. This is going to be fun. Now, I will get back to my speech. In order to actually get the funding provided for in the bill where it needs to go, Quebec first has to sign an agreement with Ottawa and then it has to sign funding agreements with the municipalities. We are running out of time if we want shovels in the ground this spring, but the Prime Minister's refusal to discuss the matter has caused a two-month delay. I will say it again. I do not know how many times I have said that we are two months behind, but that is what is happening. I am not making that up. Because of this, we could miss an entire construction season. Not only that, but if we look at the January 21 agreement between Ottawa and Quebec under the Canada housing infrastructure fund, we really do have cause for concern. In that case, the agreement was two years late because Ottawa wanted to impose conditions, so that was a job well done, as usual. There is also cause for concern because, as my colleague mentioned, Quebec only got about $1 billion, when the total envelope was $6 billion. My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue is much smarter than I am, but we still have the same numbers. As he said, that represents 16% of the envelope, which is far less than Quebec's demographic weight in Canada, which is about 22%. The Union des municipalités du Québec has estimated that Quebec should have received $1.3 billion, but it received $1 billion. That means there is a shortfall of $300 million. I am used to speaking in the House. It will soon be seven years. I am used to it. I always say that when something is good, we vote for it, and when it is not good, we vote against it. I am talking about Quebec, of course. In this case, we will vote in favour of the bill. We would have liked to have voted in favour of the bill sooner. We would have liked to have done so following a proper parliamentary and democratic debate, without debate being curtailed. I do not understand the government's position on this matter, and that is unfortunate, but we will be there. We will carry on. We will be there just to be there, as former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau used to say. We will be there just to be there.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to do what the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons does during question period. I am going to deflect the question and not answer it. My colleague across the way forgets one thing. I imagine he knows his history. In 1870, when Manitoba joined the Canadian Confederation, 50% of its population was francophone. Today, the francophone population is about 2.5% to 2.7%. Why is that? It is because, for years, Manitoba laws prohibited French instruction in public schools. My colleague opposite has a French last name. I will not name him, since I am not allowed to. Today, however, he does not speak French. Do members know why he does not speak French? It is because learning French in school was prohibited. It is because of the Canadian Confederation that the member opposite now speaks English rather than French.

Mr. Speaker, these people had to fight to speak French. They had to hide to speak French. They were forbidden from speaking French at school. It was prohibited under Manitoban law. I recently attended the International Uyghur Forum in Berlin. While I was there, I met the prime minister of Tibet in exile, who told me that day schools and residential schools currently exist in China where Tibetans are prohibited from learning Tibetan. He told me that it was like what we lived through in Canada, in Manitoba and Ontario. The prime minister in exile of the Parliament of Tibet used Canada as an example of mass, coercive francophone assimilation. The member opposite is proud of that. He is proud that he lost his language. His family lost its language because of a ban on learning French in his birth province. It is incredible.

Mr. Speaker, what happened was that he was hanged. I am not kidding. Louis Riel was hanged because he was fighting for his people. There are statues standing today. Liberal hero Sir John A. Macdonald had Louis Riel hanged. Today, some members opposite rise in celebration of Sir John A. Macdonald. It is unbelievable. A member for Manitoba is applauding Sir John A. Macdonald, who hanged a man who was fighting for his people and for his language.

Mr. Speaker, one thing that is not part of the current debate is the clear disparity between the forestry industry and the oil and gas industry when it comes to the funds the government allocates to these two different industries. The oil and gas industry gets billions of dollars in subsidies, while the forestry industry gets nothing. We know full well that the forestry industry is the industry best positioned to combat greenhouse gases and that the oil and gas industry is the industry that is most harmful to the planet. Does my colleague think it makes sense that, year after year, budget after budget, appropriation after appropriation, we subsidize the industry that pollutes rather than the one that is better for the planet?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and especially for his last answer, which I think was quite intelligent, and full of common sense and wisdom. As my colleague also said in his speech, at the Bloc Québécois, and in Lac‑Saint‑Jean in particular, we are not satisfied with simply noting that economic challenges exist. We propose ambitious but above all achievable ideas to help our regional economy grow. It is in that spirit that I wish to draw the attention of the House to a very real opportunity for our region. A unit or subunit of the Canadian Armed Forces reserve is being established in northern Lac‑Saint‑Jean. At a time when the federal government is announcing historic investments in defence and looking to increase its military personnel to 39,000 members by 2032, Lac‑Saint‑Jean has everything that a reserve unit needs. The project being considered in Saint‑Félicien has strong local and regional support. In fact, the mayor of Saint‑Félicien was here on the Hill today to promote this great project with people from the Department of National Defence. I should mention that this work had already begun several years ago. A feasibility study had confirmed the project's potential, but the 2021 federal election put a halt to the process. There had even been discussions in the early 2000s. Today, however, the timing has never been better. The federal government is seeking to strengthen the capabilities of the Canadian Armed Forces, increase the recruitment of reservists and invest more in defence. Our project is directly aligned with these objectives and will generate lasting economic benefits for the Lac-Saint-Jean region. It is a win-win opportunity for both the Department of National Defence and our region. Moreover, Canada's new defence industrial strategy raises the important question of the capacity of our regions to support growth and meet the current needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. This is precisely where Lac-Saint-Jean stands out. This riding, which I am proud to represent, has very real strengths: solid regional support, clearly expressed by municipal and regional elected officials; infrastructure already in place that can tangibly support training, recruitment and operational support activities; and above all an engaged population. We are not starting from scratch. We are talking about a region that is already organized and structured, and that is capable of hosting a reserve project. Of particular note is the strategic location of Saint‑Félicien and northern Lac‑Saint‑Jean, which truly serve as the gateway to more northern regions. At a time when Arctic and northern sovereignty issues are becoming increasingly important, this location is turning into a real asset to the government's proposed strategy. In my riding, we have ambitious but achievable ideas for growing our regional economy. This is the first time I have spoken about this initiative, I know, but there is nothing improvised about it. It is a solid, well-documented project that can have a real impact on achieving federal defence objectives. Moreover, this kind of project is not of military interest only; it also has a role to play in stimulating regional development, maintaining a federal presence in our regions and creating economic benefits for our communities. Indeed, the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean has five times fewer federal jobs than average compared to other Canadian regions. This was confirmed by the study we commissioned, so it is clearly an inequity that must be addressed. The establishment of a military reserve is a golden opportunity to create jobs, retain our young talent, diversify our economy and strengthen the political weight of our regions. I repeat: In my riding, we have ideas that are ambitious but above all achievable for growing our regional economy, because in Lac-Saint-Jean, we are not content to be mere observers. We want to be key players in the development of our communities. If the government is serious about its approach and truly wants to achieve the Canadian Armed Forces' modernization and growth objectives, it must absolutely focus on regions like ours. One thing is certain: The federal government will not be able to meet its recruitment goals by limiting itself to major urban centres. Regions therefore have an essential role to play. As mentioned earlier, Lac-Saint-Jean has the infrastructure and resources to host a reserve unit. This project, as I said, is realistic, relevant and beneficial for everyone. In closing, the message I bring today is quite simple. Lac-Saint-Jean is ready and can truly do its part. I sincerely hope this government will heed my call. Speaking of which, I have to say that it took months, if not years, before the federal government lifted a finger to help the forestry industry. When it finally did, it still stubbornly refused to address the lumber industry's top priority, which is for the government to buy back the countervailing and anti-dumping duties that are sitting idle in the United States and implement a loan and loan guarantee program to match the amounts being withheld by the United States. When it comes to the forestry industry, the current government lacks one thing: an understanding of the situation faced by people who make a living from the forest. I understand that situation. Before I was lucky enough to represent the people of Lac-Saint-Jean, I worked on the paper machines at what was then known as the Resolu mill and which is now called the Domtar mill. I know what life is like for those people. Forestry workers get up very early in the morning and work 12‑hour shifts on a 3‑2‑2‑3 rotation schedule. Does anyone on the other side know what a 3‑2‑2‑3 rotation schedule is? It is three day shifts and two days of leave followed by two night shifts and three days of leave, and then the whole thing starts again but this time with three night shifts and two days of leave followed by two days shifts and three days of leave. That is what life looks like for pulp and paper mill workers. What does life look like for a guy who harvests lumber? He wonders whether he will have enough money when he gets back to make the payments on his machinery, which costs a fortune. When a sawmill worker wakes up one morning only to be told that there is going to be a temporary shutdown after all, that is what life is like in the forestry sector. For small forestry communities, it also means that everyone is laid off. For the mechanic, the guy at the corner store or the town's grocery store, it means that people can no longer spend their money there. It means that they will move elsewhere to find work. It means that schools will close. That is the reality for people in the forestry industry. Meanwhile, the government is telling us that it is going to announce $10 billion over 10 years. We are talking about $10 billion over 10 years that are not even funded for the forestry industry. The government just gave $14 billion to the oil and gas industry for one year, and yet they are telling me that the government is taking action for the forestry industry. The reality for people in the forestry industry is that this industry is in crisis. The time to help them is now. Meanwhile, the government is singing the praises of its Minister of Finance, who is actually the member for a region where forestry is a key industry. It is hard to believe. This Minister of Finance is flinging money at the oil and gas industry while sawmills are shutting down in his own backyard. That is the reality for the forestry industry. It is downright shocking and frankly bizarre to see what this government's attitude has been for years. It will not raise a finger to help the forestry industry, to help workers. What is more, those workers are the lifeblood of the industry that is in the best position to fight greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, yet the government is giving money to the industry that is in the worst position to do those things. In fact, the industry it is giving money to is actually making climate change worse. That is just insane. I hope the government will eventually understand what workers are going through. I hope it will eventually realize that this industry is circular. First, workers need to go get the lumber. Then they need to haul it back by truck. Then they process it into wood chips, which are put through pulpers to make pulp. They also have to make kraft pulp. Then it is sent to the sawmills. This government has no idea. It does not realize how important this is to Quebec's forestry regions. I will stop there.

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague listened to the question, he would have realized that I want a Canadian Armed Forces reserve unit in Saint-Félicien, in northern Lac-Saint-Jean. He said I was wrong about the forestry industry, but he is the one who is completely off base. Sawmills are closing right now. I invite him to come meet the workers who have just lost their jobs, who have just been laid off because the government did nothing. It did not stand up to the Americans over the illegal countervailing duties. That is what happened. We are in the middle of the sixth trade war, and they are still wondering what they are going to do to respond to this affront from the Americans. They have not done a thing. Meanwhile, when the auto industry gets hit with tariffs, they write a cheque during the election campaign. It took them a week to respond. They are doing absolutely nothing for the forestry industry, even though we have been subject to tariffs for years. Honestly, that is pretty weak.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows his history well. That is indeed the reason why the Bagotville base was created. It was to protect the aluminum smelters, which were a key sector in the war effort. Indeed, there are good federal jobs, but my colleagues should know that these jobs are in La Baie. Speaking of La Baie and Saint-Félicien, the drive between the two locations still takes a good two and a half hours. The drive between my town, Alma, and my colleague's riding is shorter. That should give you some idea. Still, it is a long way, which is why we commissioned this study proving that northern Lac-Saint-Jean is under-represented when it comes to federal jobs. As for protecting Canada's north, my dream is that the Quebec army and the Canadian army will one day conduct joint exercises to defend the Arctic.

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. In fact, I have to say that the government is being open. We had meetings today. I hope that, in addition to this political openness, there will be openness on the part of the Department of National Defence. I am certain that we can convince people at the Department of National Defence to create this unit or subunit. We have the support, which is rare, of the mayor of Roberval, the mayor of Dolbeau-Mistassini, the reeve of the Domaine‑du‑Roy RCM, and the reeve of the Maria‑Chapdelaine RCM. Many municipalities will be voting on resolutions at their city councils to support this idea. Saint‑Félicien has a CEGEP and reservists get 50% of their post-secondary education paid for by the army when they pursue this opportunity. In short, I think this is a great project for northern Lac‑Saint‑Jean.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, whom I hold in high regard and who, I would point out, knows his figures. Whenever he looks closely at public finances, we can always be sure that he will uncover wasteful spending by this federal government, as he demonstrated in his speech. One of the most glaring examples of wasteful government spending was when the federal government used the money from the carbon tax, which it had scrapped, to issue a rebate. Quebec had paid for that, but it never received anything in return. Does my colleague agree that providing a rebate of a tax that was never paid is a clear example of wasting public funds? I would like my colleague to answer this very specific question.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the opposite side of the House comes from a city that is home to the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, which is an extraordinary museum, by the way. The problem is that, in the 2023 budget, this government announced its intention to introduce much tougher anti-forced labour legislation. That same intention was included in the 2024 budget, but, suddenly, since the new Prime Minister took office, this intention does not appear in the 2025 budget. It has been abandoned. That means that today, we are voting on appropriations that do not include funds earmarked for strengthening anti-forced labour legislation. How can my colleague, who has the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in his own city, accept such an about-face by his government?

Mr. Speaker, some things are indeed ridiculous. Public funds are being wasted and there are financial scandals with this government. It never ends. One of the things that the leader of my colleague's party has said is that he is against corporate welfare. This was in response to a question from my colleague from Jonquière ahout whether the government should stop subsidizing the oil and gas industry, which is getting $14 billion this year. The Conservative leader agreed and said that we need to fight corporate welfare. Will my colleague proclaim loud and clear, like his leader, that one of the current government's worst financial scandals in the estimates we are voting on is that there is a subsidy of $14 billion that is coming out of taxpayers' pockets and going directly into the pockets of those who are making the biggest record profits, namely oil and gas companies?

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke from the heart and his speech was incredibly genuine. It was an excellent speech. I have a rather simple question for him. This motion is not just about medals. In fact, it deals more with our ability to properly recognize and honour the men and women who have accepted risks, dangers and injuries to protect peace and democracy. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

Madam Speaker, whenever the opposition parties move concurrence in a report, the member for Winnipeg North tells us that it is an important matter, but that it should have been debated at a different time. However, he still takes 10 or 20 minutes to tell us that it should have be debated at another time. I find it hard to follow the member for Winnipeg North. He tells us that we should debate this at another time in order to save time. If the member for Winnipeg North did not take the floor, we would already be saving time, would we not? I put the question to the member for Winnipeg North.

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my wonderful colleague from Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères. I am pleased to speak today in support of the motion to create an independent Canadian military honours review board. This motion raises a fundamental issue, namely, how to recognize acts of bravery performed by the women and men who have served in the Canadian military. For years, veterans, families, military historians and veterans' organizations have been calling for an independent mechanism to review cases when new evidence shows that an error or omission may have occurred. We know that this is a very real concern. More than 16,000 people signed a petition calling for the establishment of such a body. We also know that a delegation led by former chief of the defence staff and retired general Rick Hillier came to Parliament Hill to request a review of several dozen cases dating back to the First World War. These requests are not motivated by a desire to rewrite history. They are based on a fairly simple principle: When new evidence emerges, when the historical context is better understood or when previously unavailable testimony surfaces, there must be a credible independent mechanism that can review certain decisions. The Bloc Québécois believes that this request is more than reasonable. Moreover, the government itself recognizes that there is a problem. In its official response to the petition tabled in the House, it committed to examining the establishment of an independent board to review certain cases related to the mission in Afghanistan. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence recently reiterated this commitment in the House. Therefore, the question is not whether we should act, but rather how and when we should act. The criticisms of the current system are well known. First, many people object to how inflexible the decisions are and complain that the process takes way too long. In too many cases, recognition is granted too late, sometimes even after the individual in question has passed away. When a member of the armed forces performs an act of exceptional courage, recognition should follow within a reasonable timeframe. This country's heroes deserve to be honoured while they are still living. Second, many veterans criticize the process's lack of transparency. The criteria, decision-making mechanisms and reasons for refusal are often difficult for the people involved to understand. The lack of transparency gives rise to confusion and, in many cases, a deep sense of injustice. Third, a number of veterans feel that their experiences and those of their comrades are not properly taken into account. Who better than those who have served in the field to assess the true worth of an act of bravery? It is high time these criticisms were heard. Beyond administrative procedures and the decorations themselves, what is at stake here is honour, duty, and the promise the state makes to those who agree to serve their country. Military decorations are not merely symbols, nor are they merely ceremonial symbols. They represent official recognition of service to society. In military culture, the concepts of honour, merit, sacrifice and duty are paramount. Military honours embody these values. For many veterans, these honours serve as a reminder that the sacrifices they made have not been forgotten. This recognition is particularly important when service members return home. Many veterans must cope daily with physical injuries, psychological trauma, or significant challenges related to their recovery. In this context, knowing that their service is recognized helps preserve their dignity and the sense that their sacrifice was not in vain. As the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, I would like to take a moment to highlight the outstanding work carried out by the members of the Royal Canadian Legion in our region. In Alma and across Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, legions play a vital role in supporting veterans and their families. They uphold the duty to remember, organize commemorative ceremonies for occasions such as Remembrance Day, and ensure that the sacrifices made by our military are never forgotten. For them and for us, acknowledging acts of bravery is about more than merely handing out medals. It is about a nation's gratitude to the men and women who agreed to serve, sometimes while risking their lives. Members of the legion constantly remind us about the importance of fairly and effectively recognizing the courage, dedication and sacrifice of veterans. For decades, veterans have been raising concerns about access to services, administrative delays, physical injuries, mental health and the support available to them after their military career ends. In addition, certain controversies have had a profound effect on the veteran community, including contested commemorative projects or the way that decisions were made. I am thinking specifically of my highly esteemed former colleague Luc Desilets, who repeatedly complained about the federal government's persistent incompetence in managing commemorative projects. After the bungled Afghanistan memorial monument, the Highway of Heroes project once again showed a flagrant lack of due diligence and respect toward the people it claims to honour. The Victoria Cross matter also comes to mind. It is a clear illustration of this issue. We have spoken about it before. The Victoria Cross was created in 1993 as Canada's highest military honour, yet none have yet been awarded since its inception. This raises legitimate questions. Many observers believe that certain acts performed during the Afghanistan mission may have met the criteria for this exceptional honour. The case of Master Corporal Jess Larochelle is often cited as an example in this debate. It is not our role today to determine which cases should be approved or denied. That role falls to a rigorous and credible evaluation mechanism. However, it is our responsibility to ensure that such a mechanism exists. That is precisely the objective of the mission before us. The creation of a military honours review board would provide a pathway for reconsideration when new evidence warrants a review. It would enhance the transparency of the system, improve veterans' confidence, and help ensure that decisions truly reflect the facts. Above all, it would send a clear message to those who are serving today that our society will never forget their sacrifices. Again, this motion is not just about medals. It is about our ability to properly honour those who have accepted the risks, dangers and sometimes injuries involved in defending freedom and democracy. When a society asks its military members to show courage, it also has a duty to show gratitude. For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will support this motion and urges all members of Parliament to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that fundamental question. In the file before us today, this is obviously a situation where the government should have acted a long time ago, but it did not. Of course, there are many other files where rhetoric and image are prioritized over results. However, when it comes to recognizing the sacrifice of the men and women who fought to defend peace, democracy and freedom for the country they made a commitment to, the government has no excuse for dragging its heels, yet that is what it has done. This motion is an opportunity for the government to step up. We are reaching out to the government. We want to work together toward the same goals. We owe it to our veterans, to those who fought for freedom and democracy. It is our duty as a country. We asked them to be brave. We have a duty to recognize this bravery.

Madam Speaker, like the Liberal Party members, the Bloc Québécois and all of its members of Parliament will, of course, support this motion, as I said in my speech, in fact. This is not breaking news. We supported it in committee as well. I believe the committee members voted unanimously in favour of the motion. Let us take this opportunity to speed things up. Let us do it. Unanimity in Parliament is rare. It does not happen often. This is a perfect example. This is why I think it is important to debate it today. We can show that we are actually capable of agreeing on a particular issue sometimes. Now that we have momentum and all-party collaboration, let us use that to do right by the people we represent as quickly as possible.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that excellent question. That is unfortunate because there has been a clear opportunity on the table for a very long time. As my colleague just said, this is not the first time such a proposal has been put forward. Legions and other veterans' organizations have been calling for such a mechanism for a very long time. It is not right that the Victoria Cross has never been awarded to anyone here since its inception. Unfortunately, I cannot understand what the government is doing, but it always instills doubt in people's minds when they do not see the government taking quick action on things that should be no‑brainers.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech and for his answers to our colleagues' questions. I want to put the ball back in his court, as he asked me a very similar question earlier. Why are we once again being forced to move concurrence in a committee report in the House in order to give it further impetus with a unanimous vote when the government could have taken action much earlier? After all, arguments have been presented to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, petitions have been tabled, not to mention all the witnesses who came to tell their stories. I think it is good that we are doing this today. It is great. However, why are we being forced to proceed this way when it seems so obvious to me that this is something that should have been done a long time ago?

Madam Speaker, tech giants are profiting from the Canadian market and raking in billions of dollars in profits. They already have the resources to adapt to the parameters of a legislation like the one Canada is proposing. They already have all the resources. However, from what I understand of the Conservative motion, even before negotiating a trade agreement, the government should give up its convictions when it comes to defending Quebec's culture and identity. Am I to understand that the Conservatives are so afraid of Donald Trump that, before they even start negotiating, they are abandoning their principles when it comes to culture and identity?

Madam Speaker, I really do feel that these two parties are one and the same. As members may recall, last January, this Liberal government completely abandoned the cultural sector by failing to implement the 3% tax on digital products, which would have generated an additional $1.5 billion for the cultural sector. Why did the government do that? It was because Donald Trump posted a tweet. The Prime Minister thought that if the government did not implement this tax, the U.S. would return to the negotiating table. The result was a complete failure. Today's Conservative party proposal uses the same strategy—scrapping a tax that will generate revenue for the cultural sector—so as not to upset Donald Trump. Why would a failed Liberal proposal work just because the Conservatives are suggesting it?

Madam Speaker, this is surprising, because the parliamentary secretary's main argument is that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, cannot be told what to do. He does not even say whether he agrees with the 15% or not. All he says is that the CRTC cannot be directed to do anything. My colleague says that the cultural sector must not be abandoned. It remains to be seen whether past actions are any indication of the future, but in July 2025, the Liberals scrapped the digital services tax, which would have generated $1.5 billion that would have been reinvested in the cultural sector. If any government has let the cultural sector down, it is this Liberal government, which did so as recently as last year, because Donald Trump wrote a tweet and the government expected to go back to the bargaining table. The hope was that the government would get something in return for scrapping this tax. Can the parliamentary secretary tell me what the government got in return for scrapping that 3% digital services tax? I would like to hear his answer, because I think it was a big fat zero.

Madam Speaker, it is pretty clear to me that the Conservative motion is completely off base when it comes to Quebec and francophone culture and production, among other things. I wonder if my colleague could talk about the fact that the Conservatives are not the only ones abandoning the cultural sector. This Liberal government also turned its back on culture when it eliminated the 3% tax on digital products last July. It was in the Liberal election platform, but barely three months after getting elected, they reversed course, hoping that would get them back to the negotiating table with Donald Trump. I would like to ask my colleague the following question. How much revenue was ultimately lost because this government eliminated the digital services tax, despite its election promise to keep it?

Madam Speaker, here is what I want to know. The fourth point of the Conservative motion basically says that we are scared of Donald Trump, that we should lower the tax and overrule the CRTC's decision because we are scared of Donald Trump. The Liberals did just that last July. They repealed the digital services tax out of fear of Donald Trump. They believed they would get something in return. In the end, they got diddly-squat. I love that expression. If it did not work for the Liberals, why do the Conservatives think it will work for them?

Mr. Speaker, by claiming that standing up for culture is a trade irritant, as the Conservatives do in point (iv) of their motion, they are also giving up on linguistic and cultural diversity and, above all, accepting English American culture as the standard. If the Conservatives do not have that cultural sensitivity, is it because they have already embraced that standard? Is it because, for them, the culture we are talking about is the U.S. culture?

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my Liberal colleague's speech. He is telling us that the Liberals want to defend culture. From the beginning, the Liberals' argument about the Conservative motion has been that they cannot intervene in the CRTC's decisions, since it is an independent body. The logical question is this: If they cannot intervene, that is one thing, but if they had the power to intervene, what would they do? Would they ask the CRTC to reverse that decision or not? That is the important question. Their answer will tell me whether or not they are protectors of culture.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to acknowledge the invaluable presence on Parliament Hill of the great political figure, former prisoner of conscience and steadfast Russian opposition activist Vladimir Kara-Murza. On April 17, 2023, the Moscow City Court sentenced Mr. Kara-Murza to 25 years in prison for high treason. To this day, this is the harshest prison sentence ever imposed on a political prisoner in Putin's Russia. This August will mark the second anniversary of his release. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the work of the Montreal-based Raoul Wallenberg Centre, founded by lawyer, former justice minister and personal friend Irwin Cotler, as well as the efforts of all the parliamentarians who rallied to his cause. Since regaining his freedom, Mr. Kara-Murza has actively resumed his leading role in defending democracy and the rights of thousands of political prisoners. Vladimir Kara-Murza may rest assured that the Bloc Québécois will always stand with him in his fight for freedom and justice.

Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague just demonstrated that we are putting forward proposals that come from the front lines, and that there is no reason why this government should not listen to them and implement them. There is one thing I would like to ask my colleague. It seems to me that almost exactly a year ago, this government was elected on the sole promise of ending the tariff war by June at the latest. It then pushed that deadline back to July, and then to September. A year later, the government has not only failed to resolve the tariff crisis, which has only grown worse, but it also refuses to listen to the opposition parties, who are proposing good-faith solutions. I would like my colleague to share his thoughts on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing today is really something. The parliamentary secretary is telling us that we should not rush into an agreement. However, we were told in April 2025 that there was a deadline. The Prime Minister himself said that the tariff issue would be resolved by June 2025. He then extended the deadline to July and then again to September. If what my colleague says is true, that would mean that the promises that were made at the time should never have been made. Does my colleague agree that the government should never have promised Quebeckers and Canadians that the tariff crisis would be resolved in April and that this promise has not been kept?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Beauce comes from a region that has indeed been hard hit by the current situation, but also by the government's failure to respond. My colleague mentioned the proposals put forward by the opposition parties in good faith to improve the situation quickly. Does my colleague support the Bloc Québécois's proposal to immediately and quickly establish a wage subsidy mechanism for businesses affected by the current illegal U.S. tariffs?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. I really appreciate her work, and we are both members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. That said, I am having a hard time understanding the Conservative Party of Canada's position on today's motion. Like us, the Conservative Party has clearly concluded that this government is unable to fulfill the promise it made a year ago to resolve the tariff crisis. That crisis has only gotten worse. The Conservatives' response to our motion is that they do not support the Bloc Québécois's proposed temporary measures. They think the only response to this situation is to come to some agreement with the Americans, but, over the past year, this government proven itself incapable of doing that. That being the case, should we not proceed with the Bloc's proposed measures to protect our jobs, our workers and our industries, at least until there is an agreement? I think the Conservative Party has an opportunity to support this approach now.

Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly simple question for the parliamentary secretary. We are here in good faith. The Bloc Québécois always comes forward with proposals. We are not an opposition party that opposes everything just for the sake of opposing it. We come forward with proposals. One of the proposals we put forward—which, incidentally, comes from several stakeholders currently affected by the tariffs—is a wage subsidy program designed for businesses impacted by the tariffs. This would help retain jobs and preserve expertise. It would ease the transition until an agreement is reached with the Americans. On this specific point, does my colleague support the Bloc Québécois's proposal to implement such a wage subsidy? If he does not support this proposal, I would like him to explain why.

Mr. Speaker, I should mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Shefford. One year ago, the government was elected on a single, simple promise: to fix the tariff crisis. We all remember the departure of former prime minister Trudeau and the arrival of the new Prime Minister, who was portrayed as the man who would save us from the Trump administration, as a businessman who could hold his own against the most formidable negotiators. One year on, however, it is clear that the promise has not been fulfilled. Where are the results? Again, the members of this government and the Prime Minister were elected one year ago, almost to the day, purely on the strength of a promise to end the tariff crisis. In April 2025, the Prime Minister promised that the crisis would end in June. Then he pushed it back to July. Then he pushed it back to September. Now a year has passed and not only is the tariff war still going, but it has escalated thanks to Mr. Trump's recent executive orders. Worse still, we were presented with one of the most absurd ideas ever last week: Borrow $25 million on Quebeckers' collective credit card and create a supposedly sovereign fund that is neither sovereign nor independent. That speaks volumes about the government's long-term vision. Right now, it raises the question of whether we are dealing with pure improvisation. The icing on the cake is that on April 6, the Trump administration issued a new executive order. There is now a flat 25% tariff on the full value of the export if the percentage of Canadian steel, aluminum or copper in the product exceeds 15% of the total composition. As a result, many products protected by CUSMA that were not taxed before are being taxed today. When we asked the Prime Minister about this issue—when my leader asked about it, I was right beside him—we realized that he did not even know about it. Amazing. He did not even know about an executive order signed two weeks earlier. According to a study by Desjardins, this new 25% tariff applies to one-quarter of exports to the U.S. It is significant. There are exemptions, like for the aerospace sector and products that contain American steel or aluminum, but, for the most part, this new American surtax is hitting our industries much harder than previous ones. The cumulative effect is very clear. It is the added value of our economy that is being taxed—skilled trades, engineering and local processing. Washington is no longer taxing our exports; it is taxing what we are building. That is unprecedented. The people had put so much faith in this Prime Minister and his government to put an end to the tariff war, but the result, as I said earlier, has been an escalation of that war. What are we doing in the meantime? The Bloc Québécois proposed a series of measures when the so-called economic update was being drafted. The government did not use a single one of them. These measures would have been easy to implement, would have barely cost anything and would have directly helped the people most impacted by the tariff crisis in Quebec: workers and SMEs. Today, we are back at it again for the sake of our workers and businesses, who are sick of waiting for this government. After months of waiting, on May 4, the government finally announced new measures: $1 billion in loans and $500 million for economic development agencies. It is worth mentioning something here, because the government does not seem to realize that it is missing the mark. Although I do want to acknowledge that these agencies are very useful, they do not address the concerns of businesses that are already in debt. The problem is that with this announcement, the government is helping businesses that will be affected in the future, not the ones already being affected by the crisis. We estimate that Quebec businesses alone have lost about $8 billion in one year. The $1.5‑billion measure announced by the government is woefully inadequate. I would remind the House that ahead of the economic update, the Bloc Québécois proposed numerous measures to support businesses. For the benefit of my Liberal friends, I will outline some of the seven measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois to support workers and businesses severely impacted by the tariff crisis. The first of our demands is the one that resonates most with the public. It is to implement a wage subsidy program modelled after the one rolled out during the pandemic to prevent layoffs, maintain employment relationships, and protect the expertise within businesses during the tariff crisis. The Bloc Québécois's second proposal is to impose safeguard tariffs to protect the hardest-hit sectors, including the softwood lumber, aluminum and steel industries, from cheap imports. These tariffs would apply to products from the United States or any other source that resorts to harmful trade practices, such as dumping, as my colleagues mentioned earlier, or the misrepresentation of Canadian origin. We proposed another measure, and that is buying back a portion of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties that softwood lumber manufacturers pay when they export to the United States. We proposed this measure a long time ago. It was also proposed by the industry and supported by the various unions representing workers in this industry. We could also stimulate the secondary and tertiary processing of our resources. The Bloc Québécois always aligns its proposals with industry demands. AluQuébec, the secretariat of Quebec's aluminum industry cluster, is calling on governments to implement an urgent response on three fronts: subsidies or interest-free loans, preferential procurement rules for Quebec, and anti-dumping quotas or duties on imports. The CEO, Charlotte Laramée, says that the aluminum processing sector deserves the same treatment as the steel sector, and that includes immediate protection against unfair competition. For their part, steelworkers and the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, or FCCQ, are taking the same stance. The CEO of the FCCQ, Véronique Proulx, sent a clear message when she said, and I quote: “For businesses whose survival is currently in jeopardy, this is not enough. They need to have the cash flow necessary to maintain their day-to-day operations, not take on more debt or make investments that will only benefit them in the medium to long term”. In the latest economic update, however, the government did not include any targeted measures for businesses affected by Donald Trump's illegal tariffs. On the contrary, the Liberals patted themselves on the back for taking in more than $10.1 billion in tariffs in 2025‑26 and redistributing $5.7 billion. Wow. That means that $4.4 billion in countertariff revenue is sitting idle in Ottawa's coffers while SMEs are going out of business. The Liberals are celebrating that. The government clearly has the tools, but as my colleague from Joliette—Manawan said earlier, it does not have the will. Real solutions do exist, though. Another proposal that the Bloc Québécois made was a wage subsidy program for businesses affected by the tariffs. We calculate that the government could allocate $5.5 billion for such a measure. This is an expediture that could easily be offset by cutting back on the numerous subsidies going to oil and gas companies, since they are making record profits anyway thanks to rising global oil prices. Their costs are not going up, so these multinational corporations are pocketing the difference. Not providing wage subsidies in response to the ongoing tariff war is tantamount to condoning the inevitable wave of layoffs, letting decades of expertise go to waste, and permanently crippling whole industrial clusters in Quebec and Canada. The Bloc Québécois's request today is very simple. The revenue generated by our retaliatory tariffs must be redistributed, as a priority, to the workers and businesses that are bearing the brunt of these measures. It must not be diluted in centralizing programs that encroach on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction or subsidize fossil fuels. For every dollar collected on the targeted imports, a significant portion must be used to maintain wages here, keep factories open, and keep our regions alive. What needs to be made clear today is that the real urgency is not to maximize returns on a fund that will bet on oil and gas. The real urgency lies with our workers, our small and medium-sized businesses, and our regions, which are bearing the brunt of a trade crisis triggered by Donald Trump's decisions. With just a fraction of those $25 billion, we could take action now. We could set up a special fund to immediately support businesses hit by tariffs, protect jobs, support retraining and give our small and medium-sized businesses the means to weather the storm. That is what a responsible response looks like. That is what rising to the challenge look like. Instead, the government seems to be taking a different path. Either it does not believe in its ability to negotiate an agreement that will put an end to these unfair tariffs, or it has already accepted that our economy must slowly adapt to a new reality where our traditional markets and our SMEs—which form the economic fabric of Quebec and keep it afloat—no longer matter to the government. We need answers now. We need a government that chooses to defend jobs, support businesses and invest in the future. Ultimately, the question is simple: Will the government choose to wait, or will it choose to act? We choose to act. We are doing it for our workers, for our SMEs, for our businesses, for Quebec and for our regions. Everything the Bloc Québécois does is done out of love for Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's question about the government's approach, but it is all theoretical and only exists on paper. We are not seeing results in real life. If my colleague visits my riding and sits down in the offices of Petit Paris, Resolute-Domtar or Arbec for a chat, he will find out that this situation is not working for them. We support the idea of helping our businesses, of course, because no one is against good things. However, the Bloc is offering clear proposals that would improve the situation and that are largely based on requests made by stakeholders directly affected by the tariffs. I hope the Liberal government will take the hand we are holding out today.

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why we moved today's motion. We all know the government promised to end the tariff war and reach an agreement with the United States quickly. That was a year ago. Unfortunately, it is not happening, and we cannot pretend that it will happen anytime soon. That is exactly why we put this proposal forward today. We hope all members of the House will agree with the wording of the motion. I cannot imagine anyone—Conservative, Liberal or independent—voting against this motion. It is reasonable, it is based on stakeholder proposals and it will have an immediate and direct impact on the current crisis. It will save jobs, save businesses large and small, and keep Quebec's regions alive.

Mr. Speaker, in my view, it is essential that the government agree to our request, which is not only a Bloc Québécois request, but also what many SMEs and various industrial and economic sectors have been calling for. What is interesting about this measure is that it does not call for any new mechanisms to be developed. They were already developed during the pandemic. In fact, one of the reasons put forward for doing so during the pandemic was to maintain these employment relationships so that businesses would not lose their employees in the midst of a labour shortage in occupations that are difficult to fill, frankly. It is hard to find welders, machinists, mechanics and electrical engineers, for example. There is a real need to put this in place quickly. I hope the government is listening to what we are doing. This is not at all political. It is truly a proposal for the benefit of our businesses and our workers. I am convinced that, if the government is serious, it will agree to our request and implement this quickly.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Shefford gave an excellent speech. She is known for being present in her community and for fighting for her constituents day in and day out for nearly six and a half years, if not longer. The Liberals are telling us that the measures that have been put in place are enough and that they will truly make a difference. When my colleague speaks with business leaders and workers in her riding, is she hearing the same thing on the ground, that the government has done enough to counter the current tariff war with the Americans?

Mr. Speaker, this time almost a year ago, this government and this Prime Minister were elected purely on a promise to resolve the tariff crisis. The Prime Minister told us that it would be resolved in June. Then he said it would be in July. In the end, he said that it might happen in September. A year later, not only has the tariff crisis not been resolved, but it has gotten worse with Donald Trump's executive order and the April 6 tariffs. We understand that this government set the bar far too high when it came to negotiating. We now see that the government is incapable of keeping its promises. In the meantime, while we wait for an agreement with the Americans, should the government's priority not be to take quick, effective and easy-to-implement measures that would help our businesses, our SMEs and Quebec's economic fabric, as well as our workers?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition. I believe he hit the nail on the head when he started his speech by describing the new Canada Strong fund as a “gimmick”. I would like to thank him on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. The Leader of the Opposition has economic expertise. I have heard many MPs and ministers, and even the Liberal Prime Minister, compare the new Canada Strong fund to Norway's sovereign wealth fund. Could the Leader of the Opposition explain the difference between the sovereign wealth fund—Norway's genuine sovereign wealth fund—and the sovereign wealth fund of the new Liberal government?

Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing today is astounding. In response to a question my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères asked earlier, the hon. member opposite had the nerve to say that Canada's new sovereign wealth fund is similar to Norway's, when, as my colleague explained so well, the two are nothing alike. There is something else that is a little unusual about the Liberals' argument regarding this new sovereign wealth fund. They claim that this fund is sovereign and independent. However everyone knows perfectly well that these projects will be funded through the Major Projects Office and that they will be the direct result of the Prime Minister's decisions. The Liberals themselves have said so. When they say that this fund is independent, how can they justify that in a clear, transparent and honest way?

Mr. Speaker, my question for my hon. colleague is pretty obvious. Some people are criticizing us for joining forces with the Conservatives because we are against the idea. That has nothing to do with it. We analyzed the government's proposal, and it says this is similar to other funds in other countries. Not one of those funds was paid for by borrowing money and paying interest. Not only is this not a sovereign wealth fund, it is also not a politically independent fund because, at the end of the day, the projects will be selected by the Prime Minister. What does this fund have to do with Norway's sovereign wealth fund, Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund or Singapore's sovereign wealth fund? I would like my colleague to explain to our Liberal colleagues just how off the mark their comparison is.

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I always love hearing the Liberals and Conservatives argue over which of them has built the most pipelines. As they see it, the climate crisis is over. Climate change does not exist for either party. Incidentally, my colleague opposite said during his speech that he was really pleased that the Major Projects Office is located in the Prairies, because that is where the major projects are going to be. He is confirming that the government is going to use that money to accelerate the climate crisis, with no benefit to Quebec, but using the money of Quebeckers. Is that his vision of a strong Canada?

Mr. Speaker, Canada's new sovereign wealth fund is neither sovereign nor independent, and yet my colleague continues to compare it to Norway's sovereign wealth fund. The only thing these two funds have in common—because they do indeed have one thing in common—is the name. My question is very specific, and I would like my colleague to answer it. If the government buys a cat and tells everyone it is a horse, does he think people will call it a horse or a cat?

Mr. Speaker, a number of things do not add up in the Liberals' arguments. First, we are told that this fund is similar, and even comparable, to Norway's sovereign wealth fund, when we know full well that Norway did not go into debt to finance its own fund. Second, we are told that this fund will be independent, when we know full well that it will fund only projects that come from the Major Projects Office and that the Prime Minister will decide which projects are referred to the Major Projects Office. Obviously, this fund will be politically influenced. Why are the Liberals trying to tell us they bought a cat, when it is actually a horse? Why do they think everyone will believe it is a cat when it is really a horse?

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for my colleague. The government and the Prime Minister were elected a year ago, almost to the day, on essentially a single promise: to end the trade war. In April 2025, the Prime Minister promised us that the matter would be settled by June. He then postponed it to July and then September. In the end, here we are a year later, and not only is the trade war still going on, but it has gotten worse with Mr. Trump's recent executive orders. The only thing this government can come up with is to borrow $25 billion and create a fund that is neither sovereign nor independent. What does that say about the government's long-term vision?