Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, allow me to acknowledge the work of the firefighters from Lac-Mégantic, Nantes, Lac-Drolet and Audet, who yesterday fought a fire that devastated an apartment block near Lac-Mégantic town centre. Several residents were impacted and lost their homes, and the Red Cross is there to support them. Fortunately, no one was injured thanks to the support and assistance of everyone living in the surrounding area. Once again, I would like to thank the firefighters. Canadians do not judge a government by the number of announcements or programs it creates. They judge it by what is left in their pockets, by their ability to put food on the table and to look to the future with a little more confidence. Today, too many families are telling us that life is becoming increasingly difficult. It is time to save Canadian families money. It is time to protect Canadians' jobs. It is time to ensure their safety. It is time to fix our immigration system. It is time to put Canada first again. This is exactly the Conservative plan we are proposing to Canadians and that we are asking the government to support. In the House this week, I talked about Jessy, who lives in Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes. Not very long ago, she was spending about $120 a week on groceries. Now they cost her about $170 a week. That amounts to $50 more a week, every week. Jessy does not measure the Canadian economy based on numbers, statistics or how many programs the government announces, and certainly not based on the number of press conferences, symposia or speeches that the Prime Minister delivers in foreign countries. She measures it by how much she has when she gets to the grocery store checkout, and how much is left to pay for everything else. Obviously, she is not alone. We also spoke in the House this week about Olesya, who has to use her credit card to pay rent and feed her family. We talked about Chantal, a single mother in Saint‑Georges who works full-time but still needs to use a food bank. That reality, their reality, is what should guide us here, in the House, with every decision we make. That is why Bill C-39, before us today, deserves our serious consideration. I hear the government members asking what the connection is between Bill C-39 and Jessy's grocery bill, since Bill C-39 deals with environmental assessments, major projects, permits and federal regulations. However, there is a very simple and very real connection. An economy that can attract investment, carry out major projects and create good jobs provides more opportunities for families and workers. On the other hand, when a project remains stalled for years in a process where no one knows when a decision will be made, the uncertainty ends up costing everyone: the businesses that are waiting for the decision, the workers who are waiting for jobs and the regions who are waiting for the economic benefits of those projects. We have heard this song from the government before, when it told us that it wanted to fast-track major projects. Eighteen months ago, we were asked to pass Bill C-5 in a rush. What was the bill's purpose? It was meant to decide exactly which major projects could be fast-tracked, because the Prime Minister had said when he was elected that the government was going to move faster than ever before. Acting in good faith, the Conservatives supported the Liberals' Bill C‑5. Acting in good faith, we figured that, considering the circumstances and the tariff war with the United States, we should do our part, set partisanship aside, collaborate and put Canada first. We believed that the Liberals really wanted to move fast, do better and, above all, get major projects going again. We are a little disappointed, very disappointed even, with the outcome. Eighteen months on, there are no new major projects and no new shovels in the ground to get them built. We have not seen any new projects to ensure our independence from the U.S. We are therefore a little skeptical. Today, the government is focusing on Bill C‑39. What does this bill add? It adds a new word to the title. It also adds a few hundred pages to show how badly the government dropped the ball when it introduced Bill C‑5. That is the reality. Bill C‑5 did not do what it was supposed to do, so here we are, 18 months later, with Bill C‑39. The purpose of the bill is to speed up projects and make everything faster. For example, the government wants each project to have a single assessment and it wants projects to be carried out within one year. The bill also amends certain laws, including the Canada Labour Code. Over the past 18 months, we have seen announcement after announcement. Some projects have been announced. There have been lists of projects, but none of them have been fully completed. Most of the announcements have been about new government structures. Announcing a project or a bill and actually setting it in motion or implementing it are two different things. A company planning to invest millions or billions of dollars in Canada needs to know what rules it will be subject to, who will make the decision and, above all, how long it will have to wait. According to Bill C-39, it will take a year. A year from when? Does a year mean 12 consecutive months without a single day's break, or is it a year with breaks to allow the government to catch up? The private sector moves quickly. The Liberal government is slow. Through Bill C-39, the government has given itself the option to pause the clock during the one year in which everything is supposed to take place. According to Bill C-39, the clock starts ticking once the company has completed all the studies required for the submission of its project. Carrying out the studies required for the project's submission means carrying out the studies that the government will ask it to carry out. If the government asks questions and demands study after study to avoid having to start the clock for a year, it is the company that will end up taking all that time to carry out the project. It is important that we get more explanations and more information about Bill C-39. The devil is in the details when it comes to figuring out whether the government is serious or whether it is merely posturing or grandstanding, claiming that it is taking care of business when nothing is actually getting done. We want to get everything in place as quickly as possible. We want projects. We want to make Canada more independent and more self-reliant. We want to get projects built. There are over 500 projects in the queue that could be built right now. Unfortunately, the government has wasted 18 months since Bill C-5 passed, and these projects are still just ideas in the minds of business leaders. We will be lucky if they are still around, because the crisis is getting worse and investors may be less keen to invest. A company in my riding had to adopt job sharing as of yesterday. Because of the tariff war and the countertariffs, this company has to pay between $500,000 and $1 million a week in cash just to stay afloat. I do not think this is the time to be asking it to use its cash reserves to invest in Canada. That is the result of 18 months of inaction by the Liberal government. We are going to closely monitor the committee's study of Bill C-39. We will see if jobs are being created and if businesses are investing. Above all, we will see if Jessy will have more money in her pocket to pay for groceries at the end of the month. What matters most is that women like Jessy, from Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes, or Chantal, from Beauce, have more money and are able to make ends meet. They want hope, hope that they will be able to keep living the life Canada once promised, that is, a life where they can live on a safe street with enough money to pay their bills at the end of the month. Canadians do not want more announcements. Canadians want real results.

Mr. Speaker, after a year and a half of the Prime Minister's lofty liberal rhetoric, there is very little to show for it. He promised the strongest economy in the G7. The figures speak for themselves. According to the National Payroll Institute, half of workers are now spending all of their take-home pay or going into debt just to make ends meet. While MPs on the other side of the House are laughing, I would remind them that 28% of Canadians are living paycheque to paycheque. For more than half of them, the weekly grocery run is a leading source of financial stress. Liberal rhetoric does not help pay for groceries. When will they adopt our Conservative action plan to save Canadians money?

Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of programs and a lot of words for very little in the way of results. Jessy from Centre-du-Québec is desperate. Her weekly grocery budget has gone from $120 to $170. She says it is clear that our dear Prime Minister has never had to pinch his pennies to buy groceries. Jessy is stretching every dollar to make ends meet. We want to help Jessy save money by axing all fuel taxes, not just suspending them briefly until next year. When will the Liberal government adopt our Conservative plan and give families a bit of breathing room?

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for his excellent speech. I want to address those watching this debate closely at home, because people all across Canada are feeling the strain of the cost of living. Families are working, paying their bills and doing what they have always done, but unfortunately, many of them are finding that they have less and less money left in their pockets at the end of the month. A recent study showed that people have less than $100 left in their pockets at the end of the month to make ends meet. One hundred dollars is not a lot. Quebeckers are also facing this challenge. They see it at the grocery store, in the cost of housing and insurance and even every time they have to stop at the gas station to fill up. Behind the numbers we are discussing here in Ottawa, the statistics and examples from overseas, lies a very different challenge for families. Families have to make choices, put off purchases because they cannot afford them or cut back just to be able to pay for essentials, such as heating, groceries or school supplies. In short, they have to make tough choices. That is why it is time to get back to basics in Canada. It is time to save Canadians money by cutting the taxes and government spending that are making absolutely everything more expensive, as I mentioned earlier. It is time to protect Canadians' jobs and to keep Canadians safe. It is not right that people in Canada have to think twice before going out at night because they do not feel safe. Why is that? It is because, over the past few years, the government has implemented reforms that make it easier to put criminals back on the streets than in prison. What I just said is no joke. It is the truth. It is also time to fix our immigration system and put Canada first. We, the Conservatives, have identified nearly $150 billion in potential savings in government spending. That is $10,000 in savings per family in taxes. When we talk about saving Canadians money, we need to look at the expenses they have to cover every week. Gas and fuel are part of that. For millions of Canadians, especially Quebeckers who live in rural areas, filling up is not an expense they can simply decide to put off until later. In my riding of Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, a car is a necessity, not a luxury. People need a car to get to work, drive the kids to school and activities, go grocery shopping and get to medical appointments. In short, they need a car to get everywhere they need to go. There are no subway stops every block or buses that come by every 10 minutes in our municipalities. When we look at the Régie de l'énergie du Québec's data on the price of gas, that has a direct effect on our communities. If we use the published gas prices to calculate how much it will cost to fill up a 60-litre tank, it quickly adds up to over a hundred dollars per fill-up. That is a recurring weekly expense for many workers in Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière and all regions of Quebec. Drivers in Estrie called into the radio station 107.7 to say that they are now cutting back on their trips to save on gas so they can get around when it is truly essential. When people start changing their travel habits just to save on gas they cannot afford, it shows just how much the price at the pump is eating into their budgets. As I said, this is not limited to the Estrie region. On September 17, the price of gas was $2.80 per litre at some gas stations in Montreal. The provincial average was $1.96 per litre. In some regions, the situation is even worse. In Radisson, in northern Quebec, the price of gas recently reached $2.37 per litre. This shows how much of a burden fuel costs can be for families who have no choice but to travel by car. When we talk about affordability, we are talking about the ability of Quebec and Canadian families to pay for essential expenses. Right now, Canadians are benefiting from a pause on the federal fuel excise tax. Bill C‑38, which we are discussing today, will extend the full suspension until January 31, 2027. A rate equal to 50% of the regular excise tax rate will be in effect during February and March, before the regular rate resumes in the spring. What does that mean in practical terms? It means that the federal tax on gas and diesel will be suspended, but that as of February 1, it will go back up to 50% of the regular rate. Then, on April 1, according to today's announcement, the price of gas will not decrease but rather will go back up again. The regular rates will be reinstated. The relief that Canadians are receiving now is already supposed to decrease in February and March of next year. For a family that needs to gas up regularly, sometimes for two vehicles, these costs add up. We must not forget that the extension was announced after months of Conservative calls for the government to keep the fuel tax relief going. We introduced two opposition motions in the House asking for all fuel taxes to be suspended, meaning the clean fuel tax, the GST and the excise tax, not just until Labour Day, but until July 1 next year. Both times, the Conservatives were the only ones to vote in favour of these motions. The Liberals voted no, the Bloc Québécois voted no and the NDP voted no. Under pressure, the government came to realize that it would be foolish to kick off the parliamentary session by raising the price of gas by 10¢ per litre for everyone. People would associate the price hike with the Liberals, so the Liberals decided to pick a quieter time, over the winter, when people will not be paying much attention to what is going on. However, winter is when people need their vehicles the most. Riding a bike is not an option; there are no other options. People need their vehicles even more. Today, the Liberals are saying that on February 1, when it will be -40°C out, gas prices are going to rise by five cents a litre. That is the proposal before us today. In our opinion, we need to go further. If lowering fuel taxes lets families and workers keep more of their own money, that is the direction we should take. Families will still be paying their bills in February. They will still be going places. Workers in Thetford Mines will still be going to work. Families in Lac‑Mégantic will still have to drive their kids to their activities. Farmers in Lotbinière will still have to keep farming. Truckers will still have to keep transporting goods. Expenses never take a holiday. As the Conservatives see it, an extension of a few months is good, but not good enough. Bill C-38 offers some relief, but it is only a half measure. What we need is to pause all gas taxes until July 1, 2027, and then see how the economy is doing and whether enough time has passed for the market to normalize. If the Liberals' projects were actually moving as quickly as they claim they are, we could be producing more oil here in Canada. That would help lower gas prices for everyone, but unfortunately, we hear a lot of talk from that side of the House, but we see very little action when it comes to actually delivering anything. Our proposal would result in savings of 25¢ per litre, or more than $1,000 a year for a Canadian family. On a 60-litre fill-up, as I said earlier, that means $15 in savings. That is right, $15 on a single fill-up. Multiply that by the 52 weeks in a year, since drivers usually fill up at least once a week, and we get savings of over $1,000 a year, which could make a real difference in a family's budget. As we know, Bill C‑38 deals only with the federal government. When we say we need to go a little further, it is because we can take action on the things in our control. We do control the three taxes I mentioned, and if the Liberal government wanted to, it could provide relief to families for a little longer. Rising gas prices also have a very negative impact. Every time the price of gas and diesel goes up, the price of our food goes up. Marc Cadieux, president of the Association du camionnage du Québec, was very clear on this, saying that fuel is the second-highest cost for carriers and that this increase is ultimately passed on to consumers. There is a dual impact. The government is going to raise taxes for everyone, and then that tax increase will once again be passed on to everyone. At the end of the day, who pays? It is always the consumer who pays. In closing, I want to add one more thing. We need to cut taxes even further to ease the pressure on Canadians' wallets. In Quebec's regions, filling up a gas tank is not optional, and neither is paying taxes. However, when we can control that and help people, we must do so. That is the decision that needs to be made. I hope that the government will realize that some day.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who never fails to surprise us when he takes the floor. He is trying to give the credit for our ideas, the ones that were proposed and brought forward here by the Conservatives, to the new Prime Minister, who is part of the same government as the former Liberal government. We spent years saying that the federal carbon tax should be abolished. That very same MP criticized us for wanting that. He said we were going to destroy the planet. What has happened? Now there is a new leader who has suddenly become an advocate of abolishing the carbon tax. Unbelievable. Now, that party is embracing the idea of reducing the excise tax on gasoline. Frankly, the Liberals are welcome to adopt plenty more ideas like that if they save Canadians money. I have no problem with them implementing our policies, but they should let us know every now and then when they are going to take ideas from our playbook. Canadians know that there is only one party looking after their wallets, and that is the Conservative Party.

Madam Speaker, I will not defend the big oil and gas companies. I come from a region that was a victim of the gas cartel. Companies have to reimburse a lot of people in my riding because they were fixing gas prices together. I am not here to make their court case, but I must say that, what we can control right now, immediately, is the tax on gas to provide some relief to Canadians. I am asking the government again to please suspend all taxes on gas until July, 1 2027. Let us save money for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, while families are cutting back on groceries, struggling to put a roof over their heads and putting off purchases, the Liberal government continues to spend recklessly. Our Conservative plan would result in savings of over $150 billion, or $10,000 per family, which would lower families' tax burden and give them some breathing room. When will the Liberal government finally reduce its spending and adopt the Conservative plan to save money for all Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, is it worth reminding the Minister of Finance that lowering the gas tax was the Conservatives' idea? It is easy to table that today, but for families, every dollar counts. We were asking to get rid of all gas taxes for the entire year, not just one. What we are going to get this afternoon is a timetable. Our economic plan includes concrete measures such as reducing taxes on housing construction, eliminating the GST on vehicles manufactured in Canada, and eliminating all taxes on gasoline. When will the Liberal government adopt the Conservative plan so that all Quebeckers and all Canadians can save money?

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a country of lakes, mountains and rivers. Sadly, more and more anglers, paddlers and boaters fear they will lose access to Quebec's lakes. While public access points are disappearing or becoming prohibitively expensive, the Liberals are looking the other way and leaving local authorities to fend for themselves. These waterways belong to all Canadians. When will the Liberal government take action to protect fair access for everyone?

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for his remarks and for the years he has spent serving the people of his riding. Although I do not share his political goals, especially the ones he has pursued here in Ottawa, I believe he is heading to a place where he will be able to speak about independence and sovereignty to his heart's content. On behalf of all my Conservative colleagues, I wish him not success in his mission but rather that he continue his work for the people he represents, just as we all do here with heart, joy, and passion.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister will attend the G7 summit today as the only leader to have led his country into a recession. Full-time workers are living in RVs because they can no longer afford housing. According to United Way, 60% of Canadians are anxious about their finances, and 38% are food insecure, yet the Liberal Prime Minister finds a way to spend $1 million on luxury inflight meals. Will the Liberal Prime Minister finally put an end to the inflationary spending, bureaucracy and policies that created this Canadian cost-of-living crisis?

Mr. Speaker, they want us to applaud them for putting a bandage over a wound they created. That is the issue. I have a message for the Prime Minister, who is at the G7. I also have a message for this minister. Rogelio Rigor, a Quebec father working two jobs, told La Presse, “I was just barely surviving.” He had to file a consumer proposal. This is the Liberal Prime Minister's real economic record. Instead of spending nearly $1 million on luxury meals while travelling, is the Liberal Prime Minister prepared to give up his smoked salmon, considering that Rogelio has sacrificed everything as a result of Liberal inflation?

Mr. Speaker, that is not even an answer. I heard something unbelievable. Why did the Liberals “liberalize” the New Horizons for Seniors program? Just a few days before the 2026 call for proposals was launched, the Liberals changed the rules and made it impossible for organizations to apply for grants. I have received about a dozen complaint letters from farm women in seniors clubs. Will the Liberals have to create another program to help our seniors apply for the New Horizons program? That does not make any sense. I am going to share the minister's response with all of the Liberal ridings, and then we will see what those MPs have to say to the minister, who is telling members that they are not doing their job.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to ask this long-awaited question, as my colleague the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons would say. As we know, millions of Canadians look forward to this every week. I have even heard that people in France are waiting for this moment. Apparently, we are quite popular. Last night, an article on the Radio-Canada website stated that the Prime Minister had adjourned the House. Understandably, everyone is wondering why we are still here today. Can my dear colleague from the government tell us if we are, indeed, here? Will we be here tomorrow? Will we be here next week? If so, what business does the government have planned for all those days? I hope the government is not planning on using time allocation again and again. That said, if we are here, we will do our job. However, we have to actually be here.

Madam Speaker, I too would like to acknowledge the strength of my colleague from the riding whose name is too long to mention tonight. Everyone knows who I am talking about. He is recovering from the cardiac issues he had this morning. The entire House stands behind him. I have received numerous messages from all parties, and I want to let him know that. He is a good person who deserves all our respect. I think we absolutely must send him positive vibes tonight. I saw him just two weeks ago, working out with my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix. He had been going strong for 20 minutes. He is usually bursting with energy, but one never knows. No one ever knows what is going on inside, when things might take a turn. I urge all men to be careful and to pay attention to the warning signs of these terrible heart diseases. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank all of my colleges who reached out to me over the past few days about the matter I discussed with the media, a personal matter that happened back in 2025. Without repeating it here tonight, I simply want to thank all my colleagues from all the parties. I want to thank everyone who is going to support Bill C‑231 for David's friends. I also want to thank all the people in their homes who agreed to tell me how things are for them now. We do not talk about it enough, or talk about it a lot. If I was able to bring certain people a little peace of mind by talking about it, then I will keep doing so. Members of the House certainly share the same desire to help and to do something for people in these kinds of situations, where drug use far exceeds our capacity as parents, or our capacity as young people, to cope with all the problems it can cause. That brings me to Bill C-16, which is a bill that we could have almost introduced ourselves. However, I want to stress the word “almost”. This bill aligns with many of the Conservative Party's objectives, including protecting victims and putting criminals behind bars. It seeks to ensure that victims are properly recognized by the courts. It seeks to prohibit things that did not exist before but that came to be because of new technologies, including the much-discussed deepfakes. This week, we saw in Quebec newspapers that it takes only 10 minutes to create a deepfake nude image of a young girl. That is absolutely appalling. We have to put an end to these new technologies and, more importantly, stop those who are misusing them to cause harm to others. The ban on deepfakes, particularly when they target intimate partners, seeks to protect Canadians, particularly women, from the creation and distribution of non-consensual intimate images. It is very serious to create or distribute these kinds of photos of young girls without their consent. I hope people understand that. We are also pleased that the government picked up the proposal by my Conservative colleague contained in Bill C‑216. Some of that bill's provisions seeking to introduce mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse material were also incorporated into Bill C‑16, which will help better protect our children from the most heinous crimes. So far, all of my colleagues agree with these measures. We are also delighted that the calls of our justice critic to automatically have the murder of an intimate partner deemed a first-degree murder have been heard. This is important. This bill has made progress. We have succeeded in getting essential measures included in it. Finally, of course, we had a discussions and not all of the Conservatives' proposals were picked up, even despite the government's tendency to legislate on Conservative policy ideas since taking office, but that is another story that I will leave for the Liberals to debate among themselves. Although the government unfortunately rejected the proposal to impose a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for all types of extortion, the inclusion of an aggravating factor in sextortion cases is a step in the right direction, albeit insufficient. For the benefit of people watching at home, “sextortion” consists of using intimate images or intimate knowledge of a person to blackmail them, make them talk or make them do anything else. We absolutely must put a stop to it, and Bill C‑16 does just that. Unfortunately, the Liberals are the Liberals. There had to be something in the bill to prevent us from passing it unanimously in the House. What is it this time? It is clause 63. Clause 63 allows judges to avoid imposing minimum sentences and to exercise their discretion in cases of violent and serious crimes. This runs completely counter to everything I have just said. Judges will now be able to decide, based on their own discretion, experience or the circumstances, that a minimum sentence of five years, for example, will be reduced to just two or three years. As a result, certain people who should remain in prison will be released more quickly. I urge my Liberal colleagues to think about that. I think that we are very close to an agreement and that we could get something done that is good, together. We could pass Bill C‑16 if the Liberals got rid of that section. We would all agree. We all agree on the measures in Bill C‑16, but we do not want the Liberals to do what they have been doing for 11 years, that is, making life easier for criminals and making these crimes even more common. It is not that there are more criminals; it is that criminals are committing an increasing number of crimes because they are increasingly unafraid of justice. That is a fact. To give the Liberals time to reflect on this issue, to give them time to think about it and perhaps come back tomorrow with a clear proposal, I move: That the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit perplexed to be rising to speak before the House, given that the parliamentary secretary across the way criticized me just a short while ago for moving to adjourn the debate. However, we are now learning that it was actually the Prime Minister who did so, according to a Radio-Canada article that was just published. Allow me to read an extract: Vacation time has (already) started in Ottawa The members of the House of Commons are on vacation. Mark Carney's government has announced that—

Mr. Speaker, I should have said that the Liberal Prime Minister's government “has announced that the House has adjourned for the summer”. Can my colleague, who is the critic for institutions, explain to me why we are still debating here in the House when the Liberal Prime Minister has announced that the House has already adjourned for the summer? I am completely baffled. Did he, by any chance, intend to adjourn the House at the end of the day? I would like my colleague to clarify that.

Mr. Speaker, let us talk facts. Under this Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country to fall into a recession. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is reining in her growth forecasts. The RBC, TD Bank and BMO have downgraded their outlooks. Canadians look on as their standard of living erodes. The Prime Minister, however, still refuses to utter the word “recession”. I am therefore going to ask him this simple question again: Are we in a recession or are Canadians only theoretically poorer than before, after a decade of Liberal rule?

Mr. Speaker, here is another figure. There are 45,000 fewer Canadians in the workforce than at the beginning of the year. These facts speak for themselves. The Parliamentary Budget Officer just completely dismantled the economic narrative put forward by the Prime Minister and the minister opposite: We are facing lower growth, higher deficits and declining productivity, and we are the only G20 country that is in a recession. What is worse, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that there is a 99% chance that the government will fail to meet its own fiscal anchor. The Liberal Prime Minister presents himself as a great economist. How would he describe a situation in which the economy is shrinking, Canadians are getting poorer and the government has no chance of meeting its anchor? Canadians call that a recession.

Madam Speaker, under this Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. Three of the last four quarters have seen negative growth. Workers are losing their jobs. Businesses are putting their investment plans on hold. Deficits are skyrocketing. At what point will Liberal ministers admit that we are in a recession? Will they do so after two quarters? Will they do so after three quarters, or after four quarters? Will the Liberal Prime Minister finally tell Canadians whether we are in a Liberal recession or a technical recession?

Madam Speaker, what we want is for all Canadian businesses to be able to prosper and grow, but under this Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. I have said it before and I will say it again. When the economy slows down, businesses invest less and the government needs to step in more. Who is paying the most for this? It is costing all Canadians more, as their debt load rises and they have a harder and harder time making ends meet. That is exactly what is happening in Canada today. Everyone sees what is going on, except the Liberal Prime Minister. Will he tell us whether—

Madam Speaker, how can anyone take such delight in people's poverty, as we have just seen? When a government is forced to hand out money so that people can eat, something is not right. We just heard the entire Liberal Party applaud a measure to help people pay their grocery bills every month. This is unacceptable. Is this really where Canada has ended up? We applaud when the government hands out money because people cannot afford groceries? If the Liberals recognized that we are in a recession, they would do something about it.

Mr. Speaker, under this Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in the midst of a recession. While families are counting every penny at the grocery store, the Liberal Prime Minister is travelling in the lap of luxury on the taxpayer's dime. We are talking about $4,213 for crème brûlée, $3,800 for chocolate mousse and $593 for Normandy buttercups. While Canadians are stretching their budgets, the Liberal Prime Minister is splurging on luxuries. I am going to ask him a very simple question. Is the recession that he himself created a technical recession or a full-blown Liberal recession?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that we are not concerned about the cost of living. At least we are able to recognize the reality facing Canada, the reality facing Canadian families, the reality facing mothers who are struggling to pay their grocery bills at the end of the month. Meanwhile, the Liberals cannot even spell the word “recession”. They cannot even bring themselves to utter the word, yet Canada is the only G20 country that is currently in a recession. It does not seem to be hurting them, but it is hurting Canadian families and everyone. For the Liberals' cronies, it means bonuses. It means $11 million for the Royal Canadian Mint. The Prime Minister plunged this country into a recession. Is it a Liberal recession or a technical recession?

Mr. Speaker, while families are wondering how they will pay for their groceries each month, this Liberal Prime Minister continues to max out the national credit card to fund one scandal after another: $300 million wasted on PrescribeIT, $200 million on a space project located on land that cost next to nothing, $742 million on confiscating firearms from law-abiding hunters. The result: higher costs, higher taxes, higher debt and higher inflation. Gas prices have soared by 28.6%. Grocery bills continue to stretch families thin. When will this Liberal Prime Minister put a stop to his credit card budgets?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians will soon realize that, just like the Liberals' other announcements, these announcements are merely illusions. Nothing ever comes of any of their announcements. Canadian families are working harder than ever, so why are they getting poorer? The reason is because this government is spending taxpayer money like there is no tomorrow. Food inflation is 3.8%. Families are now spending over 100% of their income on food and housing. This Liberal Prime Minister is just another costly Liberal. Is he going to stop spending recklessly for his buddies' benefit and start looking after ordinary people instead?

Mr. Speaker, when we say that it is all just an illusion, there is a glaring example of that. When we go and talk to young people in our ridings, we do not see that enthusiasm, because right now, young people are still lining up at food banks. Young people are still unable to find housing because they have no money; they cannot make ends meet. All of that is because this costly Prime Minister, who is just another Liberal, has chosen to increase the debt by another $1 trillion since he was elected. When will he stop spending money on the credit card?

Mr. Speaker, one trillion is the number one followed by 12 zeros, or 1,000,000,000,000. The Liberals have added $1 trillion to the national credit card in 10 years. More zeros mean more debt. More debt means higher taxes. Higher taxes mean less money in families' pockets. When will the Prime Minister, who is just another Liberal, stop adding zeroes to the national credit card so that Canadians can make ends meet?

Mr. Speaker, add another zero for the minister's answer. When a student gets nothing but zeros, they fail. This Liberal government is racking up zeros, and Canadians are paying the price for its failure. What is the result? Grocery prices are skyrocketing, housing is unaffordable, and gas costs a fortune because the Liberal Prime Minister is racking up debt like there is no tomorrow. However, tomorrow it will be our children who will have to pay off this debt, along with the interest that comes with it. Will the Prime Minister, who is just another costly Liberal, finally put an end to his costly budgets funded by the national credit card?

Mr. Speaker, while the Liberal government is proud to add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit, families are making tough choices. According to a Dalhousie University report, Canadians are no longer buying what they need, but what they can afford. Parents are skipping meals to feed their children. The Liberal Prime Minister has doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit, and one in three Canadians now has to go into debt to eat. How much more evidence will it take before the government realizes that its costly budgets are hurting Canadian families?

Mr. Speaker, I am not the one being negative, they are. They are twice as negative as the former Liberal prime minister, Justin Trudeau. They have twice as much debt. Who is being negative? They are; they are in the red. Meanwhile, they are giving us truly nonsensical answers. I am asking about families who cannot afford food, and they are still boasting about yet another program they have introduced. That program will cost even more and create even more inflation. I have nothing against sport. I have nothing against investing in sport. The problem is that if we want to be healthy, we need to eat first and foremost. Why do they not want Canadians to eat?

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to ask this highly awaited question at the most exciting time of the week in the House of Commons, the time when the opposition asks the government what business will be done tomorrow and next week. Today, in question period, we heard a wide variety of opposition questions, but what we got in return were scripted answers from the Prime Minister's Office, 41 scripted answers to be exact. That got me worried. Given the new circumstances in the House, where we have seen four committees go in camera, I worried for a moment that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons would say that the House would proceed in camera for question period. However, everyone knows that we believe in transparency on this side of the House. For the sake of transparency, can the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons assure us that question period will not be held in camera tomorrow and next week, and will he tell us what issues we will be addressing during that time?

Mr. Speaker, “if we turn our backs on the Canadian wood products industry, we are sacrificing our industrial sovereignty and collective pride in favour of cheap imports”. That is a quote from Charles Laflamme, the general manager of South Shore Furniture, who sent a letter to the Liberal Minister of Finance in February. It was a cry for help from Mr. Laflamme, who was dealing with a shrinking U.S. market due to Trump's tariffs, as well as dumping by China and Vietnam, which are currently selling off products at fire sale prices on the Canadian market. During the last federal election, the Liberal Prime Minister created the illusion that he was the best person to make a deal with the Trump administration. Here is where we stand one year later: Aluminum and steel tariffs have doubled, and new tariffs have been imposed on finished products and mould makers. South Shore Furniture announced on Monday that it will be shutting down after 86 years serving Sainte‑Croix, in Lotbinière. That means 126 people are going to lose their jobs. It is time for action, not illusions. It is time to get real results for our businesses and for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot get over how the Liberals put their arrogance on full display every time they answer questions. When we tell them about seniors who are struggling to pay for housing and food, they keep saying that everything is going well because of their grand announcements. The Liberal Prime Minister said he would be judged by the price of groceries, but what is the result? Apparently 35% of households are using their savings or credit to buy food. When will the Liberal Prime Minister put an end to his credit card budgets so that seniors can make ends meet and have enough to eat?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister claims that affordability is the best it has been in 10 years. However, with $90 billion in new spending and $55 billion in annual interest payments, Canadians are paying more than ever for housing, food and transportation. Even the C.D. Howe Institute says we are living in a “fiscal fantasy”. Next week, will the Liberal Prime Minister condemn Canadians to even more spending, more deficits and a rising cost of living for families?

Mr. Speaker, I will not ask the finance minister to guess what is in my heart. What is in my heart is the worker I met last week who lost his job. What is in my heart is the family I see at the grocery store forced to choose what to put in their cart. What is in my heart is concern that Canadians are getting poorer, that Canada is changing and that this government is making things worse day after day. Yes, it is Friday. Can this minister show a little compassion and think about the Canadian families he is going to burden with debt while creating even more costs for everyone? That is what is in my heart.

Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to understand my colleague's position on signing multiple nomination papers, because we saw that this was a major problem in some ridings. People are using the election to send a political message. That never used to happen because a $1,000 deposit was required, which was just as problematic for some people who could not afford to pay that amount to run for office. I know we will have the opportunity to discuss this in committee, but we absolutely must find a way to put an end to this election protest. How can this be solved? I missed part of my colleague's speech, but what solutions does he propose to prevent us from ending up with ballots that are too long or ballots on which people have to write a candidate's name, when we know that a certain percentage of people—

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised an extremely important point. Committee composition is usually a collaborative decision involving the opposition parties. When a new government is elected, the parties meet and decide on the composition of committees. Now we have been told that it will no longer work that way because the government decided to add two members without consulting us to see if we were adding one, two or three or taking some away. We might have preferred to take some away rather than have the government add two. There was no collaboration. They even floated the possibility of closure. I know my colleague is fairly new here, but I remember, back when we had a Liberal government, it was one gag order after another. He should get used to this. If things go on like this, obviously the government will impose closure every time opposition members oppose its ideas. The Liberals do not like anyone's ideas but their own.

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague's comments, which are very relevant. Collaboration among political parties means making compromises. It means that someone has to make compromises so that we can ultimately come to an agreement and achieve something worthwhile. Just this week, a committee report containing recommendations to improve a bill was simply rejected by this government because it did not like the ideas proposed by the committee. Compromise and collaboration will become increasingly rare.