Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and thank my colleague for his speech, and I would like to remind the House that it will soon be two years since he was elected. He has been here for a year and a half. I was pleasantly surprised to hear him praise the elimination of carbon pricing on gas, saying that it had a direct impact on buying food, which has to be transported. I know that he has been here for a year and a half, but his current colleagues spent 10 years saying that it was appalling to attack carbon pricing and that we, the Conservatives, had zero respect for the environment. The opposite is true. Since he got off to a good start, since he applauded the fact that his government has done what we have been demanding for years, does he agree with our proposal to immediately abolish all federal taxes that affect transportation?

Mr. Speaker, at a charity event in L'Ancienne‑Lorette this past weekend, I met a senior couple named Pierre and Nicole, who told me about the day-to-day reality they and their adult children are facing. Food prices are going up; rent is going up; transportation costs are going up. That is the reality facing seniors and their adult children as they try to build a prosperous life for their families in Canada. Clearly, the Liberal policies are failing. Will this government face the fact that it should adopt the Conservative economic plan?

Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals' policies were as good as they claim, we would know it, but they are not working. There is a lot of talk, but no real results. Just ask Marie-Pierre, a young woman in her thirties who lives in Lebourgneuf, in my riding. She has a good education, has worked very hard and earns a good living, but she is unable to save enough money to buy a house. The Canadian dream of home ownership has evaporated under this Liberal government. We have a concrete plan to help families and help people buy homes: axe the tax on construction, incentivize municipalities to speed up permits and free up land. When will the Liberal government implement the Conservatives' policies?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. We have had the pleasure of sitting together for 11 years already. I am also very proud that the name of my riding includes an indigenous name: Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk. I listened very carefully to the remarks of my colleague, who is always well informed and always in touch with the constituents she represents in the House. She mentioned that she agrees with the principle of first nations self-determination. I would like to hear her point of view on this in more detail. How far could this go? Would that mean a first nation could become a self-governing country?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister has been running the country for over a year now. My question is very simple: Where are the actual results for Canadians? Canada is the only G7 country that is in a recession. The GDP has contracted in three of the last four quarters. Business capital investment has fallen for five consecutive quarters, and Canada has the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. With a track record like that, it is no wonder the Prime Minister is having a hard time explaining himself, but I would like him to stand up and defend his miserable record to Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I hope this government will take the data from Statistics Canada and the budget into account. This past year, the deficit was twice as high as expected. The cost of living went up. Housing starts have declined since May. Unfortunately, and this may be the worst part of this government's record, 2.2 million Canadians, one-third of them children, have to rely on food banks for food. That is the Liberal record. Can the Prime Minister stand up and defend his record?

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, is being completely mismanaged. As a result, it has become a cakewalk for tax evaders to hack into the accounts of perfectly ordinary, honest people. Unfortunately, when people get hacked, it can takes months and months before the CRA can resolve their issues. I have a simple question for the minister responsible for national revenue. How many cases involving people who were hacked are currently being investigated by the CRA?

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C‑269, which was tabled by my colleague from Calgary Centre. One thing I can say is that I have known my colleague very well for seven years now. He was first elected in 2019. He has an MBA, he has a strong grasp of numbers, and he knows the energy sector inside out. This bill addresses precisely these very important issues, namely energy and taxation, as well as their economic and environmental dimensions. Before I continue, I want to acknowledge my colleague from Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, who mentioned earlier that there was a power outage on the north shore. Things are bad when the Manic-5 generating station is down. Needless to say, the people at Hydro-Québec will be sorting this out. Bill C‑269 targets several extremely important objectives. Its first objective concerns the environment. Everyone agrees that we need to reduce our carbon footprint and take a much more environmentally friendly approach. We all agree on that, but the way to win people over is definitely not by imposing or forcing things on them. Like I say all the time: Pulling on a flower will not make it grow faster. What we need are positive incentives based on good old common sense. That is exactly what this bill has. It is also important from a taxation perspective, because we want to let people and companies hold on to more of their money so that they can invest in much more economical and environmentally friendly approaches. We also have to find ways to use the energy that is currently going to waste. This bill will incentivize entrepreneurs to find new, much smarter ways to harness the energy that their business is generating. Essentially, here is what this bill proposes. Businesses generate a tremendous amount of heat as a result of the operations taking place in their facilities, but this heat is wasted. Up to 30% of this waste heat could be used efficiently and intelligently. That is smart because it is nothing new. The energy is already there. It is simply a matter of capturing it, storing it and using it in a meaningful way. When I was preparing the speech I am delivering today, I learned that this involves generating electricity from waste heat. I will not hide the fact that when I saw “waste heat”, I found it somewhat odd, bordering on the absurd, or even a little suspicious. As a result, I would rather talk about recovery, because waste heat is heat that escapes and is lost into the atmosphere, whereas it could be used through recovery. This brings to mind a fundamental principle in economics and ecology, namely that the best energy is the energy we do not consume, or rather, the energy we use because it already exists. That is precisely the objective of this bill. Some will say that the member for Calgary Centre did not invent the principle behind this bill. Of course not. For decades now, if not longer, some companies have been harnessing, capturing, storing and making smart use of the heat generated by their operations. The difference is that there is no incentive for that in the federal plan. We believe that this approach, using or recovering waste heat, should be treated the same as solar and wind energy. It is just common sense. Wind energy has potential, but it is not the answer to everything. Solar energy also has potential, but it is not the answer to everything, either. These come with both challenges and benefits. The same is true of heat recovery. This approach is pragmatic, effective, environmentally friendly and economical. In short, it is a conservative approach. That is why I urge everyone, including my colleagues in the House, to support this bill, because it addresses precisely what brings us all together. Above all, it is meant to be efficient and cost-effective for everyone. In fact, this could affect nearly every industry sector. I am going to have to put on my glasses, because there are so many that I have no choice but to read them. We are talking specifically about heavy industry material handling, cement plants, glass manufacturing, chemicals, paper and forestry, as well as mining, energy, and utilities. In short, it affects just about every sector of the manufacturing industry. Thousands of companies would be able to recover this heat through a tax incentive, and that is what the bill proposes. We are talking about tax incentives. I have to say I am a car enthusiast. People in the automotive industry say it: the greenest cars, aside from100% electric vehicles, of course, are used cars. I say this to make people fully aware and understand that manufacturing a car, whether electric or traditional, has a significant environmental cost, not to mention an environmental impact. Someone who buys a 100% electric used car creates double the benefit, in other words, the environmental impact is lower because it is a used car, and using an electric car certainly produces fewer emissions. It is a win-win situation. We made an announcement over the weekend. Our leader was there, as was our colleague from Ontario, who earlier announced the private member's bill to eliminate the GST on used cars. A vehicle that has already been manufactured and taxed should not be taxed a second, third or fourth time because people want to buy that used vehicle. The GST has already been paid once. It does not need to be paid repeatedly, especially since, from an environmental standpoint, it is always better to buy a used car than a brand new car. All environmentalists say so. This is an environmentally friendly Conservative measure. Yes, we Conservatives are environmentalists because we are taking a pragmatic approach. We are prioritizing people's pocketbooks. A consumer who buys a used car may not necessarily have the means to buy a new one. However, this measure benefits both the consumer buying the car and the environment because a used car is much greener than a brand new one. Any environmentalist will tell us that. They may not say that this is a Conservative approach, but it is. I am saying it. This bill is a step in the right direction. It takes a pragmatic approach. It is meant to put more money in people's pockets and give businesses more funds to reinvest in their operations in order to make them greener, more efficient and more profitable, while ensuring strong environmental protection and sound economic stewardship when it comes to energy management. As I mentioned earlier, this is nothing new. Incentives are already in place in France, and the results are quite promising. As stated in a press release from CEA Liten, “Lower process water consumption (either direct for steam or indirect, such as for wet cooling towers) is an added benefit.” This makes it a win-win situation. Even though there are tax incentives elsewhere and there may be some here in Canada, we believe that this approach, which involves reusing the heat generated by industrial equipment and factory machinery and equipment as an energy source, is feasible. The technology allows for it and it is constantly improving. However, the government still needs to view it as a green approach, just as it does with wind turbines and solar energy. That is why I urge the Liberals to support this bill. If, for some reason, they have any doubts, they should recall that three years ago I introduced Bill C-375. The idea behind that bill was one project, one review. It was common sense. People voted against it, but guess what? A year ago, in the Speech from the Throne, the King acknowledged that it was a good thing. He himself said that the government would implement a law ensuring that there is a single environmental assessment for each project. If the Liberals are recycling my idea for Bill C-375, I invite them to do so immediately for the bill—

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank my colleague from Mirabel for his speech. He began by acknowledging Sylvie D'Amours, who, after three terms as an MNA, will not be running again. I would also like to acknowledge Ms. D'Amours, as well as my provincial colleagues. I would like to acknowledge Éric Caire, who is leaving politics after 19 years, Mario Asselin, who is leaving politics after eight years as an MNA, and Sylvain Lévesque, who is leaving politics after ten years as an MNA. My colleague touched briefly on a point, and I would like him to elaborate on it. He said that Air Canada staff were already prepared to apply certain rules that had not yet been tabled in Parliament, let alone debated or even adopted. Can the member tell us more about this?

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks. He began by marking the 35th anniversary of the Bloc Québécois. I would therefore like to wish everyone in the Bloc Québécois a happy anniversary. Clearly, I am not about to debate the matter, but, since he quoted Lucien Bouchard, I would also like to quote him. Last August, Lucien Bouchard stated that he was not in favour of holding a referendum right away. He said the following: I trust in Mr. Plamondon's [the leader of the Parti Québécois] sound judgment to reconsider the matter and make a decision that is in the public interest... I'm not look to cause him any trouble, but I think Mr. Plamondon should think very carefully before sticking to his commitment to hold a referendum... Does my colleague agree with Lucien Bouchard?

Mr. Speaker, used car prices have doubled over the last seven years. The average price of a used car is now $36,000. That is a lot of money, especially for families in the regions who need a car to get to work and get around. We think only one tax should apply to used cars, but unfortunately, used cars are still also subject to GST. We want to take the GST off used cars. The Liberals have already axed the carbon tax, as the Conservatives were calling for. Do they agree with us that there should be no GST on used cars?

Mr. Speaker, it has been a year since the Prime Minister took office. Over that year, the situation in Canada has deteriorated. Just imagine: Under his leadership as a well-known international banker, the result is that Canada, under this Prime Minister, is the only G20 country in recession. Inflationary spending, red tape and anti-development policies have created this recession and, above all, have led to a cost-of-living crisis. When will we see concrete results for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the member and parliamentary secretary is going to spend the weekend carefully looking over Statistics Canada data, which state that over the past four quarters under the new Prime Minister's leadership, the results have been negative three times. That is the reality. The reality is also that Canada has the worst inflation in the G7. The reality is also that 2.2 million Canadians have to use food banks to eat. That is the reality. The Prime Minister was elected on the promise that he would be judged on the prices at the grocery store. Does he think of those prices when he invoices $1 million to eat on his airplane?

Mr. Speaker, it has been a real pleasure to hear the speech of my colleague, and I deeply appreciate his work for first nations. As everybody know, I am very proud to be a member of the House, because I represent Wendake, in my riding, and I am very proud to have been the representative of its people for the last 18 years here in the House of Commons and before that in the national assembly. Let me remind members that many years ago, on June 11, 2008, Prime Minister Harper apologized for the crimes that had been done at the residential schools, but a lot of things have not been done yet, especially one of the key elements in our policy when we talk about the first nations as partners in prosperity. Could the member explain to Canadians what we mean when we are using the words “partners in prosperity” with respect to first nations?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech, which was clearly very well researched. I also want to congratulate her, not only on her new role, although she has been in that role for a while, but also on a wonderful year, both personally and professionally. In fact, all our colleagues I talk to about are very happy for her. Everyone is pleased with the work done by my colleague. Speaking of election laws, as parliamentarians we are in an extraordinary conflict of interest, since that is our job. That is our job and the reality we face. Our organizations, meaning political parties, are directly affected by the rules we adopt. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on her party's experience over the past year. This is a unique situation, not unlike the well-known 50%-plus-one debate, where a single vote made a difference and the courts were called upon to rule on it. Can my colleague share the lessons we, as a society, were able to learn from this event?

Mr. Speaker, the sad reality is that Canada is in a recession. While the Liberals refuse to acknowledge this and continue to play with words, Canadians are facing very real hardships. A total of 2.2 million Canadians, a third of whom are children, rely on food banks. Canada has the worst food inflation in the G7. Housing is no longer affordable, and young people are giving up on the dream of home ownership. The overall economy is not doing any better. Productivity is tanking, businesses are investing less, and this marks the fifth negative quarter. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that the labour market has weakened and that businesses are postponing their investment plans because of increased uncertainty. Banks are forecasting dismal growth of 0.8% according to Scotiabank and 0.5% according to BMO. That is the reality for all Canadians. Since the Prime Minister took office, we have had three negative quarters. Unfortunately, yes, Canada is in a recession. When will we see real results for all Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting speech. He mentioned the Alto high-speed rail project between Quebec City and Toronto. For years and years, there were plans for a high-frequency train, but then an outgoing prime minister waved a magic wand and suddenly it became a high-speed train. My colleague raised a very important point. Land is currently being expropriated in a place that already has an extremely painful history with expropriation: Mirabel. The folks at Alto could not have done a worse job of handling this than they are doing now. Can the member, who represents an agricultural riding, tell us what impact it has on farmers when the government irresponsibly expropriates land?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said he is lucky to represent the people of his riding, Lac-Saint-Jean. I would like to gently correct him. As far as I know, he did not win the lottery to get here. He has duly earned the respect and support of his constituents. My colleague highlighted how ineffective this government has been over the last 11 years, but looking forward, I was excited about the proposal he brought forward. It is great to hear a Bloc Québécois MP from Lac-Saint-Jean speak so enthusiastically about the future of Canada's north. I find that very interesting. He also talked about the federal government's impact on his region. I do not want to start a war between Lac-Saint-Jean and Saguenay, but could my colleague talk about the importance of the Bagotville military base, which Canada established during the Second World War precisely to protect the aluminum industry that made it possible to build the aircraft that would liberate the world from Nazism?

Mr. Speaker, we have to be proud of our history when we talk about aerospace, because, as my colleague highlighted, we were the fourth country to have a satellite, Alouette I, in 1962, and we were the people who built it. We built the lunar modules' landing gear in Longueuil, Quebec. Six lunar modules are still up there, each resting on four legs that were made in Longueuil. We should be proud of Canada's aerospace history and legacy. I would like my colleague's opinion on the following. How is it that, this year, the federal government is unfortunately misspending $200 million on Canada's aerospace industry?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my loquacious colleague. He is very eloquent. He always has something to say, even when he has nothing to say. The reason we have concerns about this is that $200 million is being spent in a very unusual way on a place that is not developed at all. It has been like that for years now. Does he think that the $200 million spent on what has been done so far should be commended, or would he say, conversely, that we are off to a bad start? Out of respect for the Canadian aerospace industry, which has roots in our country dating back 60 years and which is part of the future of Canada's economic development, does he think that the site in Nova Scotia is off to a good start?

Madam Speaker, here is yesterday's reality, today's reality and, unfortunately, likely tomorrow's reality: Canada is the only G7 country, and in fact the only G20 country, that is in a recession. Take the issue of housing. We have hyperinflation that continues to have a devastating impact on our young people. The dream of home ownership is drifting out of reach for young people, and one in three families will not be able to make all their mortgage payments this year. That is the reality. Can the minister acknowledge that?

Madam Speaker, of course, on this side of the House, we are always pleased when Canadians find jobs. However, as of right now, there has been a net loss of 24,500 jobs since the beginning of the year. I also want to talk about young people. The reality is that youth unemployment has gone up. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was scathing yesterday when he said that the odds of this government hitting its fiscal anchor of reducing the deficit is less than 1%. That is the reality we get with this government. Is the government capable of admitting that, yes, Canada is the only G7 country that is in a recession?

Madam Speaker, of course I respect Statistics Canada. In fact, I asked that Statistics Canada's report confirming that Canada is in a recession be tabled, but the members opposite said no. That is a real shame. The reality is also that the banks have bad news. The Bank of Montreal predicted yesterday that over the next year, Canada will experience the worst economic growth in the G7, yet the government still refuses to talk about a recession. Is there a minister who has the courage, honour and dignity to acknowledge that Canada is, in fact, the only country in the G7 and G20 that is in a recession?

Madam Speaker, I was unable to hear my colleague's entire speech, but he said certain things that deserve to be acknowledged. First, he spoke about Daniel Johnson, leader of the Union Nationale and premier of Quebec from 1966 to 1968, who passed away on the day the magnificent Manic‑5 generating station was due to be inaugurated. I would like to point out that today marks exactly 60 years since Mr. Johnson was elected. Some will recall that this 1966 election was particularly notable because there was an incredible discrepancy between the percentage of votes and the percentage of MNAs elected. There was the famous question posed by Pierre Nadeau to Daniel Johnson on election night. Mr. Nadeau asked him whether he was aware that Premier Lesage did not recognize the victory. Mr. Johnson replied that, although Jean Lesage might not recognize the victory, he himself recognized that he had won. My colleague also spoke of the Constitution. I agree with his remarks. The Constitution must be respected. The Constitution quite clearly defines federal and provincial jurisdictions. When it is followed, things go well. To support this claim, I would remind the House that, during the 1981 constitutional debate, Conservative Party leader Mr. Clark allowed the provinces to join the debate. Speaking of Mr. Clark, I want to mention that today is his 87th birthday. Does my colleague know that, although Quebec never signed the Constitution, which is extremely unfortunate for all of Quebec, it nevertheless managed to take full control over its affairs? I have to say that I would not have signed either. That said, let us hope that jurisdictions will be respected, which has not been the case over the past 11 years.

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I do not at all appreciate the government's decision to invoke closure on this debate. Nobody wins when the government limits debate on a bill, especially one that deals directly with justice. When it comes to the basic principles of this bill, we all agree that we need to ensure greater protection and get tougher on crime. As always, the devil is in the details. That is particularly true when it comes to justice and crime. We are all in favour of tougher laws. We all agree that we need to better protect victims and that we need to crack down on criminals, especially in cases involving sex crimes or other related offences. Does the minister agree that, unfortunately, democracy as a whole loses when the government shuts down debate on such a sensitive subject?

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned a situation earlier and wondered whether it was the Harper government that established free trade with South Korea. The answer is a categorical yes. Members may recall that, under the visionary leadership of Ed Fast, the then minister of international trade, Canada, under Mr. Harper, had free trade agreements with 40 or so nations. Plus, back in 1988, when free trade with the United States was being debated, we received the support of Quebeckers, especially prominent Quebeckers like Bernard Landry and Jacques Parizeau, who spoke out in favour of free trade. I would appreciate it if the member could explain why free trade is important for Canada and especially for Quebec.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in today's debate on Canada's economic future, particularly with regard to the reality facing all Canadians as we speak, because yes, sadly, Canada is in a recession. It is with great joy and pleasure that I will share my time with my distinguished colleague from Calgary Crowfoot, and I thank all those who are vigilant, unlike myself, who have unfortunately dropped the ball. In that regard, I will have a few words to say about people who have dropped the ball. We are not happy to note that Canada is in a recession. As all economists know, a country is in a recession when its gross domestic product, or GDP, is negative for two consecutive quarters. Some may seek to qualify this particular recession, but, mathematically speaking and quite clearly, it is defined as follows: If the GDP is down for two consecutive quarters, it is a recession, and that is what we are dealing with. Some have tried to quibble over this definition of a recession. However, beyond the quibbling, there is the reality of the hardships faced by Canadians—hardships that have plagued Canada for far too long. We have the worst food inflation among G7 countries. Every month, 2.2 million Canadians turn to food banks for food. Let us not forget that we are in Canada. Of that number, one-third are children. Families, fathers and mothers, cannot afford to provide for themselves and must resort to visiting food banks. I want to mention some folks in my riding, including people at Amélie et Frédérick and community fridges in Val‑Bélair, L'Ancienne‑Lorette and Loretteville on Racine. These people are working hard to provide food aid, and God knows their work is essential. We are fortunate that these volunteers with various charities in every riding, especially my riding, Louis‑Saint‑Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, are thinking of the least fortunate. The thing is, these folks are telling me that the people who donated to food banks for years are now the ones coming to food banks so they can feed their families properly. Unfortunately, Canada also has the second-highest unemployment rate among G7 countries. That is the reality in Canada. Those are the problems Canadians are facing. This confirms the sad reality that Canada is in a recession: those 112,000 jobs that were lost since the beginning of the year. There is the reality faced by entrepreneurs who want to invest but are dealing with serious concerns about economic stability. They cannot invest in an environment that is not stable, and the Canadian economy is currently losing momentum. We can also see the impact in trade flows. Some $20 billion in investment has left Canada, on top of the $1 trillion in investment that has not been made in Canada over the past 10 years under Justin Trudeau and the current Prime Minister. That is why we feel that the Canadian economy is weakening, that it is declining and that it is in recession. It is also important to understand that, over the last 10 years, Liberal governance has, unfortunately, not changed much. Take a look at what happened between 2015 and 2025, and from 2025 until today. Unfortunately, we are still on the same track. The government spends without restraint, it shows no concern for properly managing the money of Canadians who pay GST every day and their taxes every month, when our primary responsibility, as parliamentarians, is to ensure that the money is spent wisely. We have been living beyond our means for nearly 11 years. The debt has risen by $1 trillion, which is almost twice the total debt accumulated over the previous 125 years. That is the reality of Liberal management: $1 trillion in additional debt. Last week, I had an exchange with the Minister of Finance during committee of the whole. I reminded him that he is the third-most senior minister in the government, since the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy and the Minister of Industry were both appointed ministers as soon as Mr. Trudeau was elected. Six months later, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, the current Minister of Finance, was appointed. Today, as Minister of Finance, he is responsible for debts totalling $1 trillion, because that $1 trillion in debt has accumulated over the past 10 years. That is money we do not have. That is money that had to be printed. That is debt we are passing on to our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren, who have not yet been born but who will have to pay for it. That is why we must be careful. That is why we need a positive, winning strategy for Canadians. Our Conservative approach is basically to leave more money in the pockets of Canadians. Two months ago, we started a debate about transportation and gas taxes. That affects all Canadians, not just those who have a gas-powered car. We know that the goods we buy, like food, do not fall from the sky. These goods are transported, and, in many cases, gas is involved. This gas tax affects all Canadians. Our proposal was very clear: Abolish all federal taxes for the entire year. That would leave $5 billion more in the pockets of Canadians. We believe that people are better at managing their money than the government, to whom they send their money in the form of taxes. The government used our idea to fuel theirs, no pun intended. They decided to temporarily cut the excise tax by 10¢ for a few months. To paraphrase Neil Armstrong's words in reverse, cutting the tax may be a giant leap for the Liberals, but it is a small step for taxpayers. That is why we need to go much further. Our approach is to abolish all federal taxes. That would leave $5 billion more in the pockets of Canadians. That is how we can help people. We also wanted to unlock the full potential of Canada's natural resources. I have had plenty of opportunities to discuss this in my time here and on prior occasions when I was in the National Assembly. I am an ardent fan and strongly in favour of all the natural resources we have and all energy sources. When I talk about energy, I mean green energy, renewable energy and so-called fossil fuels. Canada has it all. Canada has every energy source that countries would go to war over. Canada has all the natural resources it needs to achieve its own and the planet's full potential. Canada is ready to go. Unfortunately, the government spent a decade holding back the development that Canada needs, that Canadians need and that the whole world needs. The whole world needs more energy. It needs the natural resources and rare materials that Canada has. The way I see it, there is no such thing as going too far with any of this. Furthermore, we must continue to open the door to free trade with countries around the world. As I mentioned a few moments ago, that has been the case in Canada since Brian Mulroney's terms in office, since the 1988 free trade agreement and since Jean Chrétien's efforts to extend that North American agreement. I am also proud to add that, under Stephen Harper, we truly broke down barriers by concluding agreements with nearly 40 countries, and that is a good thing. I am very pleased to see that the current government is following in those footsteps. We must continue in this direction, while recognizing that Canada is a champion of free trade. If free trade creates real wealth for Canadians, then it should go hand in hand with lower taxes and lower taxation. If we are capable of that, if we are a global model for free trade, then we should also practise free trade within our own country. I therefore urge the government to go further. That is why, unfortunately, Canada is in a recession. Canada deserves better.

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the comments by my colleague from Winnipeg North, even if they are wrong. The problem is, where are the results? People are asking for real results. I am sure the member remembers well the campaign promise by the leader of the Liberal Party 15 months ago. He said it would be elbows up and he told America we would be strong again. When he got elected, he went to the White House. What did he do? It was far from elbows up. He was humble. What did he do a week ago? He went to New York. What did he say? He said we will make America great again. Who can believe it? This is the truth. This is the reality. Imagine if a Conservative had said that in New York. Those guys would have been in a nuclear war against us. The truth is that this country needs real effects and real results—

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for standing up for the businesses in his riding and in his part of the country. He does a good job of representing those people, unlike what we have seen over the past 10 years. I want to point out that we think that all natural resources should be developed properly. The best way for the government to help businesses is to find markets for them, support them in their search for new markets and reduce the related tax burden. Giving out hundreds of thousands of dollars and subsidies is not going to help. Instead, the government needs to help businesses develop markets and ensure that they have more money in their coffers so that they can invest in the future with the help and support of governments. The government needs to give them more room to act by opening up markets. Canada has representatives around the world, so lumber from the Gaspé region could be sold around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his hard work, which I appreciate. I have known him for the last 10 years. He works hard for Canadians and the people in his riding. Let me be clear about this. Unfortunately, for all of the promises made by the Liberals, especially the Prime Minister we have right now who, in campaigns from coast to coast a year ago, said his way was the right way, it would be elbows up and we would be very strong because he knew about the banking system, there have been no results yet.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the sad reality for Canadians is that Canada is in a recession. Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. Canada has the worst food inflation in the G7 and the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. That is the reality. That is the result of Canada's Liberal Prime Minister, who was supposed to be an economic magician. In the end, it is not working. Why is the Liberal Prime Minister's Canada in a recession when the other G7 countries are not?

Mr. Speaker, that is all well and good, but the problem is that it is not working. One in three families is struggling to pay their mortgage every month. That is what the Liberal government has done to Canadians. Some 2.2 million Canadians are going to food banks every month. That is the way things are under the Liberal government and the economist turned Prime Minister. Some 112,000 jobs have been lost. Every country in the world is facing economic crises and threats from Mr. Trump, so why is Canada the only G7 country in a recession?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise a question of privilege regarding the misleading remarks made on Friday, during question period, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. Friday morning, the government's statistics agency, Statistics Canada, released data on the gross domestic product, or GDP, for the first quarter of 2026, confirming that Canada's GDP had declined by 0.1%. That decrease follows a 1% contraction of economic output over the fourth quarter of 2025. The definition that economists generally accept is that there is a recession when there is negative GDP growth, that is, the economy has shrunk for two consecutive quarters. In reality, this is the third of the past four quarters to show such a contraction for the Canadian economy. I will put it simply: Canada is in a recession. This topic naturally raised concerns during question period on Friday. It will no doubt continue to do so in the coming days and weeks as we, the Conservatives, continue to put pressure on the Liberal government to submit a plan to get Canada out of this recession, which it is responsible for. In response to my questions about this recession, the parliamentary secretary replied, “Mr. Speaker, let us be clear: Canada is not in a recession.” To be honest, I was bewildered by the parliamentary secretary's refusal to acknowledge this reality and I asked him about this specific point. The Liberal parliamentary secretary maintained his position, replying, “Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: Canada is not in a recession.” The parliamentary secretary did not stop there. In fact, he added insult to injury by saying, “Statistics Canada has never said that we are in a recession.” I would respectfully submit that the parliamentary secretary has deliberately misled the House with his comments. To mislead the House intentionally is a well-recognized ground for contempt of Parliament. Our authorities, including paragraph 3.16 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, lay out a three-part test for establishing when a prima facie case of privilege can be found in such cases. First, the statement must, in fact, be misleading. As I just discussed, the Statistics Canada data quite clearly satisfy the consensus definition of when a country's economy has entered into recession. Of course, there is nothing technical about seniors who have to visit the food bank, unemployed Canadians fretting over how to make their next mortgage payments or hard-working parents worrying about how they will feed their kids next week. As for the second part of the three-part test, that the member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect, I think we should recognize that the individual making the statement was not just some parliamentary secretary who happened to be in town on Friday and was available during question period to read a note prepared by someone else, who knows nothing. The parliamentary secretary, the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, is a highly respected economist. He served as finance minister for the Couillard government in Quebec and he balanced the budget. He is a serious guy. To be frank, that is why I was personally very disappointed and even surprised and saddened to see that this man of great experience unfortunately failed to recognize the facts. Before being elected as the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, the parliamentary secretary worked as the chief economist and chief strategist at Laurentian Bank Securities. He served as the Quebec finance minister and was appointed to the board of directors of the Bank of Canada by Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Freeland. In other words, this parliamentary secretary knew very well that two consecutive quarters of GDP contraction is the very definition of a recession. I believe that he was fully aware that he was not providing correct information when he denied that we are in a recession. In fact, as a leading economist at a bank, he was used to frequently commenting on economic trends. For example, in an October 29, 2009, La Presses article about how 71% of Quebeckers are living in the past, the parliamentary secretary acknowledged that a recession is indeed defined as two consecutive quarters of contraction. He said, “It is a definition that is primarily used in the financial sector”. Turning to the third part of the test, that the member must have intent to mislead the House in making the statement, one must look at the context of the exchange. The parliamentary secretary was rising in question period to stickhandle questions about that very day's economic headline, obviously an embarrassing story for the Liberals, whose very premise of forming the government was anchored in the supposed promise offered by the Prime Minister's résumé. The parliamentary secretary was doing his best to defuse a political crisis for the Liberal Party leader. Beyond that, I think it is also important to look at the additional exchange I had with the Liberal parliamentary secretary, in which I insisted on this point: “Is my colleague familiar with Statistics Canada? It just so happens that it is part of the Government of Canada. Statistics Canada states that Canada is in a recession”. Even if, in a world where anything is possible, the parliamentary secretary genuinely misspoke in his first response, the issue was clearly and specifically brought to his attention. Still, he responded by doubling down. It is clear that the parliamentary secretary knew full well what he was doing when he made such a calculated statement in the House of Commons, despite all the evidence to the contrary. To sum up, the Liberal denial that Canada is in a recession was misleading, the parliamentary secretary making the claim was well positioned to know it was misleading, and his objective in making the comment was clearly to mislead the House in order to protect his fellow economist the Prime Minister. As such, I believe there is a prima facie case of privilege here. Should you agree, I am prepared to propose a motion to refer the matter to the procedure and House affairs committee for its deliberation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the work he has been doing in the House for over a year now. Let us talk about the past year. For the past year, we have had a Liberal Prime Minister with a strong economic background. However, today, we learned that Canada is the only G7 country that is in a recession. Given everything the member said about how great and wonderful things are in Canada, how is that we are the only G7 country that is in a recession?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians woke up this morning saddened to learn that Canada is the only G7 country to have been in a recession for the past year, despite the fact that the current government is led by what is said to be one of the world's most prestigious economists. The result is that Canada has the worst economic record in the G7. Furthermore, it has the highest food inflation of any G7 country. We also learned that one in three workers has to borrow money to buy groceries. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister spent $190,000 on food during three trips. Earlier, the finance minister said that the government was tightening its belt. Is he proud of his Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker, there is a misunderstanding. How can the parliamentary secretary say something that is in no way based in reality? Is my colleague familiar with Statistics Canada? It just so happens that it is part of the Government of Canada. Statistics Canada states that Canada is in a recession and that it is the only G7 country in this situation. While all G7 countries are facing the same challenges, Canada has the worst record and is the only country in a recession. How can the parliamentary secretary say the opposite of the truth? Canadians have had enough of this sort of lie.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and for his point of view, which was very well defined, but which we obviously have reservations about. Still, we respect what is known as parliamentary democracy. At the end of his remarks, the member paid tribute to the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. I can understand that, now that he seems to be neutral, the Bloc Québécois is congratulating him. Is the member aware that when the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie was a senior minister in this government, he voted for abolishing the carbon tax, for the throne speech that meant environmental projects would now have a single assessment and for Bill C‑5, which enables the government to enter into agreements with Alberta, among others? More importantly, is my colleague aware that the member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie was the Minister of Canadian Heritage when this government abolished the digital services tax? We, the Conservatives, saw no problem with that, but why pay tribute to a guy who was a senior minister for Canadian heritage and the environment, who held positions that differed from those of the Bloc Québécois?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was in New York this morning on a trip described by the CBC as just a networking trip. Let us talk about investments. After 10 years of Liberal governance, Canada is considered to be the most restrictive country in the G7 for foreign investment. According to RBC, $1 trillion in investment has been lost over the past 10 years. The example comes from the top, as 91% of the Prime Minister's own assets are outside Canada. Does the Prime Minister know something that these people have yet to grasp?

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I must remind the Liberals that Liberal Canada is driving away investment. Let us remember that, when the Prime Minister was officially the chair of Brookfield, he moved the head office from Toronto to New York. Way to go. Let us do what he says, not what he does. The fact of the matter is that, according to Statistics Canada, $17 billion in investment went abroad in the first quarter. When will the Liberals start walking the talk and take meaningful action so that foreign investments are made here in Canada for the benefit of all Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on Bill S‑217. I am very pleased to see that the Bloc Québécois and the governing party are in agreement on this bill. Of course, we are the ones introducing it through the member for Simcoe North. This is not the first time that Bill S-217, an act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act with regard to reporting on unpaid income tax, has been before this House. Essentially, the purpose of this bill is to put more pressure on the CRA to track down the scoundrels who do not pay their taxes, especially those known as “white-collar criminals”, in other words, individuals or companies who refuse to pay taxes or who use loopholes and cook the books to avoid paying their taxes. We need to get to the bottom of things, and this bill does just that. Some may be surprised that this is the third time this bill has been introduced and debated in the House, even though it is a no-brainer. As my Bloc Québécois colleague said earlier, the first time was under a majority government; the Liberals rejected it. That is part of public debate. There was then a sequence of three elections with minority governments. That meant there was not enough time to do the work properly. As a parliamentarian, I find that unfortunate, but let us remember that, from December 2024 to mid-December 2024 and then to mid-September 2025, over a nine-month period, the House sat for only five weeks. This was because of the change in government, the new Prime Minister's government, the elections and the summer recess. All of this prevented us from doing our parliamentary work. Now, we are doing it, and we are going to do it right. I will put on my glasses. I am going to do so often, because this whole subject is so technical that we need to get our facts straight. This bill has three objectives: to compile a list of all convictions for tax evasion, including international tax evasion; to require the CRA to include statistics on the tax gap in its annual reports every three years; and to require the minister to provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with data on the tax gap. These three elements gripped the entire world when the Panama Papers scandal came to light. I am sure everyone remembers about ten years ago, when a consortium of investigative journalists unearthed what came to be known as the “Panama Papers”. They had unravelled a web of tax havens. The documents confirmed that several countries, including Canada, were indeed home to the scoundrels I mentioned earlier, whether companies or individuals. In total, 900 of them had flouted every possible law, and then some, to evade taxes. Some countries have taken the bull by the horns and achieved concrete results. In Australia, $44 million was recovered, compared with $87 million in Germany, $175 million in Spain and $25 million in Iceland. Canada, for its part, has recovered nothing. That is pretty weak. That is precisely why this bill must be passed. The CRA and anyone who cares about ensuring that everyone pays their fair share must be treated fairly. Being treated fairly means having to pay, and if a company does not pay, it should be seen as a bad guy who does not pay taxes. That is why it is important to do the right thing. It is also important to note that there are key points in each of the three stages. For example, earlier we talked about the shortfall. I will not deny that certain phrases sometimes sound better in French than in English. One thing, however, can be expressed equally in both languages. I was talking earlier about the minority government, which has since become a majority government because of the floor crossers. The term “floor crossers” is funny, is it not? I think “floor crossers” sounds just as good in French, for that it what they are. Getting back to the shortfall, some countries have handled that well, namely the United States, Great Britain, Turkey and Sweden. It is time for Canada to do the right thing so that everyone who is supposed to pay can do so properly. That is why it is essential that this bill pass. Allow me to recognize the perseverance of Senator Percy Downe who, for years, did the necessary work to push for this critical cause. It is thanks to him that we can debate it today. I also want to thank my colleague from Simcoe North for this. I want to note that my colleague served, in a different era, in better times for Canada, in Prime Minister Harper's government, in various ministers' offices, and he distinguished himself in a most inspiring way. I would like to think that, in a few years, three years at most, Canadians will honour us with their trust and the member for Simcoe North would do a great service to the Canadian government in cabinet. I am saying that he would make a good minister. Let us get back to the matter at hand. Yes, the Canada Revenue Agency absolutely must do its job. It is clear that these are not great times for the CRA. Just a few months ago, the Auditor General tabled a scathing report about poor management at the CRA. The report notes that there was a complete lack of leadership, with terrible results for all Canadians. Why would I say that? One reason is that people were waiting for ages when they called for information. Worse still, when information was provided, it was not always correct. Just imagine: People who cannot afford to pay a tax expert or an accountant to prepare their tax return for them pick up the phone, call CRA, talk to someone and get the wrong information one in five times. A few months later, CRA writes to let them know they made a mistake and owe $150, which they have to pay back right away because interest charges will keep adding up. That is what happened after 10 years of Liberal leadership at the Canada Revenue Agency. I would like to reiterate what the member for Simcoe North said to my government colleague earlier. He said that CRA employees should not be blamed for not being properly trained. Nor should the CRA itself be blamed for being badly mismanaged in recent years. Let us not forget that Prime Minister Trudeau put someone in charge for seven years who did not necessarily have sufficient experience in this field to provide strong leadership. I would like to commend and thank the current Prime Minister for firing this person from cabinet. I would also like to commend and thank the people of the Gaspé region for firing her from the House of Commons. Obviously, we would have preferred to see our candidate, Jean‑Pierre Pigeon, elected in that riding. The people decided otherwise. That said, I have absolutely nothing against the current member from the Gaspé region, a former fellow journalist who truly stands out, and that is a good thing for Canadian democracy. This bill needs to move forward. We need to move forward to keep Canada in the loop when it comes to targeting and tracking down white collar criminals who do not pay their full taxes. We need to flush out these characters who, unfortunately, do not have the honour and dignity of paying what they owe and who invest tens of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to avoid paying what they owe the Canadian government. Canada needs this legislation to flush out criminals, be more transparent and get access to all the necessary information. That is why we obviously hope that the entire House will vote in favour of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, if all of these wonderful promises had worked, then Canadians would not be having such a hard time putting food on the table. That is what is happening after 10 years of rhetoric. The Liberals say nice things and claim that everything is fine, when Canadians are experiencing the exact opposite. One in four families is experiencing food insecurity. The cost of basics is rising for Canadian families. The price of housing has reached record highs. The cost of gas jumped 29%. That is what Canadians are experiencing every day. Will the Prime Minister understand that spending money that we do not have racks up debt for our children and fuels inflation?

Madam Chair, I am going to start with a positive question. We are very pleased to see that the minister was able to reach an agreement with the City of Laval concerning the scandal over the Canada Revenue Agency, which had demanded $1 million from Laval taxpayers in connection with the former corrupt mayor. Ten years later than Revenu Québec, the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, finally came to terms with the City of Laval. Why did the minister refuse to come testify before the committee for two and a half months?

Madam Chair, it took the Liberal government's CRA a decade to do the right thing, which was a decade longer than it took Revenu Québec. The minister was elected at the same time as me, in 2015. The Prime Minister put him in cabinet almost immediately, which means that he has been one of the senior ministers in the Liberal administration for the past decade. That makes him one of the top architects of the debt that grew to over $1 trillion over that decade. Can the minister tell us what the interest on the debt costs Canada every year?

Madam Chair, the minister seems to forget that he was elected in 2015 on a promise to run three small deficits and achieve a zero deficit in 2019. He did none of that. On the contrary, even when the global economy was doing well, the government did not set any money aside. That would have been the right thing to do. However, the man with a trillion-dollar debt, that is one thousand billion dollars in debt, cannot tell us how much the interest on that debt costs. He talks about intergenerational investments. Does he realize that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be paying for this government's debt and reckless deficits?

Madam Chair, what a shame that the minister seems to have such a selective memory. Just 15 months ago, his predecessor said the deficit would be $31 billion. What is the deficit now? It is $68 billion. However, the good news is that the minister has eliminated the excise tax. That is a good thing. On the other hand, we wanted more. I can understand that, for a Liberal, eliminating a tax is a giant leap forward. For Canadian families, however, these are small steps. What we want is to go further. Why did the government put the brakes on tax cuts when it was off to a good start? We would have liked the government to follow our plan.