Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, as part of Bill C-5, the building Canada act, the Bloc Québécois was able to secure the co-operation and support of the Conservatives for an amendment that I myself introduced, which sought to include a sunset clause in Bill C-5. The goal was to at least provide a framework for and limit the extraordinary and exceptional powers that the bill was creating in response to the exceptional circumstances arising from the American threat across the border. The Conservatives agreed with us that these were indeed exceptional powers. Even constitutional experts agreed with us. Some said that Bill C-5 was similar or almost similar to the Emergency Measures Act. In Bill C-39, the Liberals are trying to undo all the measures that we put in place in Bill C-5 with the Conservatives' co-operation, including the five-year sunset clause. I am wondering if we can count on the Conservatives' support once again to prevent this abuse of power.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. The fact is that the federal government has been using Donald Trump to justify imposing its legislative agenda, particularly Bill C‑5, which fast-tracks major projects and sidesteps environmental laws and other laws that they do not like and that get in the way. During the study in committee, we agreed that it looked like a national emergency, as the Liberals were saying, but that President Trump would no longer be here in five years. We therefore included a sunset clause in Bill C‑5 so that we can return to the normal process in five years, but the Liberals want to get rid of that in Bill C‑39. Why is it that, essentially, the justification is becoming permanent? This is not normal. Do they want the rollbacks to be permanent when it comes to the environment, labour laws and decisions made behind closed doors between a future minister and project proponents? I do not think that is right. Why does the member agree with that?

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-39, the Liberals are exploiting the public's fear of Donald Trump. Let us not forget that, under the pretext of fighting tariffs, they gave themselves the power to circumvent all environmental laws in order to build pipelines. That is irresponsible, but at least the Bloc Québécois managed to get a sunset clause added so that it would expire after five years, because Donald Trump will no longer be in office in five years' time. However, in Bill C‑39, they are repealing that provision. They want to circumvent environmental laws for good. Does this not prove that the tariff crisis is basically just an excuse for them to bulldoze over everything?

Mr. Speaker, what the Liberals are doing through Bill C-39 is nothing new. It is rooted in the concept of a permanent state of emergency. That is when a government exploits a crisis, a temporary situation, to impose changes that are actually permanent and that would never be acceptable under normal circumstances. The Liberals are using the trade war and Donald Trump to introduce permanent rollbacks that will impact the environment, workers' rights, land protection, endangered species and more. The Liberals are not doing this to protect Quebeckers; they are doing it to line the pockets of the oil companies. Have they no shame?

Mr. Speaker, during question period, I had an opportunity to ask my colleague opposite about a provision in Bill C-5 that the government wants to remove using Bill C-39. This provision states that, after five years, the exceptional powers conferred by Bill C‑5 cease to apply. In answer to my question, she said that her government was not using Bill C‑39 to backtrack on environmental progress. I have a question for the government. If that is not backtracking, what is? A power that was supposed to be temporary and limited to five years is being made permanent and unlimited, and we know full well that this power is used precisely to get around environmental rules.

Mr. Speaker, I would love to have the opportunity to live in la-la land like my colleague opposite, but I think the reality is somewhat different from what he described in his speech. Let us get back to the matter at hand. Bill C-30 suggests that the government would open the door to the privatization of certain airports, and that it even intends to go ahead with this plan. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that. For example, if a decision were made to privatize the Quebec City airport, would he be okay with that?

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in recent history, more than 100 people died on our roads last year in accidents involving heavy-duty trucks. There were 102 fatalities. That is nearly 20% higher than the average for the previous five years. What has changed recently that could explain this? The answer is, of course, Driver Inc. The federal government turns a blind eye when shady companies put dangerous drivers on the road, and then acts surprised when there are consequences. We have proposed 10 solutions to the Liberals. When are they going to take action instead of allowing more victims to be added to the list?

Mr. Speaker, let us look back on the last couple of weeks. The chair of the transport committee was the guest of honour of the Canada Truck Operators Association, or CTOA, which is a Driver Inc. lobby group. The Liberals forced the committee to go in camera to prevent any discussion about Driver Inc. CTOA members contributed more than $100,000 to the Liberals, including more than $20,000 from a company in the chair's riding. This week, the Liberals refused to allow the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to investigate CTOA's ties to the Liberal Party. Why are they protecting their friends instead of the public?

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. Today's debate on Build Canada Homes has led me to reflect on why the government created this agency. The fact is that it did so because of the current housing crisis. What caused the housing crisis? It was the surge in immigration and the government's inability to control the situation. What we have is a pyromaniac federal government that decided to masquerade as a firefighter through new programs. What goes through my colleague's head when he sees that? Instead of admitting that it royally failed and then fixing things, the government chooses to constantly create new programs even though no one knows whether they will work or not.

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on her speech. My question will be brief. The bill we are currently studying seeks to create Build Canada Homes. Personally, I am sad that we are in a housing crisis. Earlier, the parliamentary secretary said that his government is working to resolve the crisis. What has the government done that is so special to ease the housing crisis lately, besides finally listening to our criticisms about there being too much immigration?

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. We might say that he tirelessly defends his party with all the enthusiasm he is known for. That said, although we may not agree on much, I am going to take the liberty of asking him a question. We are all familiar with the Build Canada Homes program, which was previously called “Bâtir Maisons Canada” in French. This sparked a lot of reactions, particularly because some people felt the name was a clunky word-for-word translation. This led the government to change the the name of the program. This brings to mind other situations we have seen, including the discovery in January 2025 that the website of the Liberal leader, who has since become Prime Minister, was riddled with errors and appeared to have been translated with Google Translate. Then there is the campaign slogan “Elbows up”, which was translated into French as “On lève le coude”. Unfortunately, that phrase actually means raising a glass, as in having a drink. All of this led us to March 25, 2026, when we found out that there were no francophones on the team that wrote Mark Carney's speech. When I—

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is new, as my colleague on the other side of the House was saying. Sometimes, we still say his name out of habit. All these problems show—my colleague on the other side of the House might acknowledge this— that government policies and decisions, as well as their implementation, are carried out in English. Quebec comes second. French is an afterthought. Ottawa clearly could not care less about our reality.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix on his speech today. This week, I had the opportunity to sit with him briefly on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, of which I assume he is a full member. At that time, I had the opportunity to introduce a motion in which I denounced the close ties between the Liberals and the lobby representing the unregulated truckers responsible for the Drivers Inc. scheme, which undermines people's working conditions and causes accidents. The Liberals seem quite close to these people. Some of them are even Liberal activists who allegedly fund the Liberal Party. I asked that the committee look into the matter. I would like to know if I can count on the support of my colleague and the Conservative Party on this issue.

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague opposite for sponsoring petition e‑6661. Based on the parliamentary secretary's response, it would appear that this petition has helped bring about change. That is great, but I still find it hard to understand why so many other attempts were needed in the past to get this problem addressed and to ensure that Victoria Crosses could finally be awarded. For example, former NDP MP Niki Ashton presented petition e‑3636, and former Conservative Party leader Erin O'Toole moved a motion on the matter, also in 2022. What made the government listen this time? Why did it not listen the last few times?

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. Today, we are debating a motion that would establish an independent Canadian military honours review board. One of its key mandates would be to potentially award the famous Victoria Cross, which has never been awarded. This initiative is being taken now as a result of the motion we are debating, which stems from a report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. However, similar initiatives have been undertaken in the House of Commons in the past through petition e‑3636, which gathered 14,000 signatures; through a motion adopted by unanimous consent in the House; through delegations; and through petition e‑6661. It feels as though this keeps coming up and the government keeps ignoring the calls. This time, it feels as though the government going to say yes, but it still has yet to be implemented. People go into battle for a country, make sacrifices, lose their health and keep fighting. How does this situation make the government look?

Madam Speaker, today, we are debating the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, which is quite short. It is just one paragraph long. I have seen some pretty long committee reports in my time, but in this case, the report is very clear and effective. It says what needs to be said. Basically, the report states the following: That the committee report to the House its recommendation for the creation of an independent Canadian Military Honours Review Board with the specific mandate to review decisions made under the Directorate of Honours and Recognition and its precursor bodies when new evidence demonstrates that the reconsideration of a military honour is warranted to ensure that no error or omission was made. Upon reading that, it seems obvious. It is worth noting that the committee did in fact adopt the motion unanimously. Basically, the idea is to acknowledge that, in the past, certain distinctions, medals and honours may have been denied to individuals who have done great things for their country. Unfortunately, after some time has passed, the government is realizing that perhaps it should have awarded those honours, because it did not have all the information needed to make the right decision at the time. I find that interesting and I think it is good. Today, we are doing more than simply presenting a committee report, because we are now debating it in the House of Commons. It is important that our voices be heard. As we know, when a committee presents a resolution, report or recommendation, it often reflects the voices of the committee members. Those voices carry considerable weight, because they represent people of different political stripes sitting around the same table, who have discussed an issue and learned more about it. Once they have considered a matter and studied it carefully, they recommend that Parliament examine it further. I understand from my Conservative colleague's proposal that the idea is to go even further by ensuring that this is not only the will of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, but also the will of the House of Commons as a whole. I assume that, given that the committee adopted the report unanimously, the same should be the case today. It sends a much stronger message when it is adopted by the House of Commons than when it is adopted by a committee, even though a committee adopting something already means a great deal. I therefore congratulate my colleagues who decided to bring this debate to the House today. It should be noted that there is a broader context to this debate. We talk about distinctions, but there is one whose significance underlies today's debate: the Victoria Cross. The Victoria Cross was established in 1993 to recognize acts of valour, self-sacrifice or devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy. Although it was established in 1993—when I was just a kid, since that was more than 30 years ago—it has unfortunately never been given out. It has never been awarded. I realize that this is an exceptional honour. I believe it is the highest honour that can be awarded, so they are not handed out like candy. However, that does not change the fact that, at some point, we need to ask the question. It is inconceivable that no one committed any exceptional acts over the course of 30 years. That would be very surprising, especially considering all the conflicts that Canada and members of the armed forces have contributed to during that time. In the specific case of the conflict in Afghanistan, in which Canada participated by sending troops, no Victoria Crosses were awarded. However, other nations—or rather, other countries, since there is the Quebec nation and the Canadian nation, and a distinction must be made—that participated in the conflict in Afghanistan decided to award Victoria Crosses. In particular, Great Britain awarded three Victoria Crosses in connection with the conflict in Afghanistan. Australia awarded four Victoria Crosses also in connection with the conflict in Afghanistan. New Zealand awarded one. The United States obviously did not award any Victoria Crosses, because they do not exist there. However, they have Medals of Honor, which are roughly the American equivalent. They awarded 18 Medals of Honor. In Canada, however, no medals were awarded. That is pretty sad considering that people went over there to fight the Taliban and put their lives and their health on the line. In fact, a former Bloc Québécois MP, Michel Boudrias, the member for Terrebonne, went to Afghanistan. We know things were not easy for everyone over there. Many people have spoken out on Parliament Hill to demand change, to get Canada to change how it does things and decide to honour the veterans who fought in Afghanistan. There have been proposals, including some in connection with the Victoria Cross. For example, Canada's former chief of the defence staff, retired general Rick Hillier, led a delegation on Parliament Hill last month calling on the federal government to review cases involving Afghanistan as well as more than 40 cases dating back to the First World War involving veterans who may have been eligible for the Victoria Cross. I would note that the Victoria Cross has occasionally been awarded to other individuals in the past even though it did not exist prior to 1993. It was actually awarded by Great Britain, but Canada is no longer a colony even though it has the same king. We could talk about the monarchy at length today, but that is not the point of this debate. Nevertheless, perhaps it is time for Canada to choose to use the tools and resources available to reasonably and appropriately honour those who fought for the country. This is not the first time we have talked about this. I just spoke about the action that Rick Hillier has been taking and about how he led a delegation, but there is also petition e‑3636, which was sponsored and tabled in the House by former MP Niki Ashton. I can use her name since she is no longer a member of the House of Commons, but I had the opportunity to serve with her in the past. That petition was tabled in 2022, and no fewer than 14,000 people supported this effort to award the Victoria Cross for the first time. Unfortunately, the Liberal government at the time refused to do so. Again in 2022, MP Erin O'Toole took action in this regard. He is also no longer a member of the House, but we know that he served as the leader of the official opposition and, if I am not mistaken, minister of veterans affairs. He sought the unanimous consent of the House to implement what we are discussing here, namely a review board to award the Victoria Cross to deserving individuals. Once again, his motion did not receive the unanimous consent of the House in 2002 and it was rejected. It is now 2026, four years later. Most recently, petition e-6661 was presented by a member from the other side of the House. I cannot name her since she is still in office, but I can say that she is a member representing the Liberal Party. After two Liberal rejections, it is quite a change to see a Liberal member say that we need to exert some pressure and try to get her government to take a position. The member probably does not agree with the decisions her party has made in the past. On April 15, 2026, she presented a petition with 16,500 signatures. That is a lot of people. The previous petition had collected 14,000 signatures. Even more people signed this petition. In addition to the petition presented by the member opposite, a motion was moved by a Conservative member at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs on April 20. His motion was adopted unanimously there. It was forwarded to the House, and the report was tabled on April 30, 2026, less than a month ago. All of this shows that many steps are being taken to recognize the sacrifice of those who have given so much. There are cases such as that of Jess Larochelle, who did so much for his country and who sadly passed away in 2023 before he could receive this medal. It brings to mind the Canadian government's difficulties in recognizing those who fought in Afghanistan, or the memorial, which listed names of people who had not actually died. Then there is the whole story of how that contract was awarded. It is always disappointing to see that the action taken does not seem to match the sacrifices made by members of the armed forces. This time, I believe we have a good opportunity to rectify the situation and make the right decision.

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question from my colleague. As for the impact on recruitment, I must say that about 20 years ago, I myself considered joining the armed forces, since I was a former member of the air cadets. I ultimately decided not to go through with it, in part because I wanted to serve Quebec and felt that doing so as a member of the Canadian military created a somewhat unique situation. That does not mean that no one in Quebec wants to serve in the Canadian military, but I found it hard to reconcile that situation. There are probably things the Canadian military could do to make recruitment easier in Quebec. For example, allowing people to serve only in Quebec could be an option. When it comes to military honours, I think this is a good illustration of what my colleague is currently presenting, the motion we are debating today. If we are unable to commend people on their acts of bravery and give them a pat on the back, especially since these individuals often come home with post-traumatic stress disorder and injuries they will carry for the rest of their lives, often in ways that are invisible in daily life, it is certainly not motivating. On the contrary, these individuals should be singled out for their patriotism.

Madam Speaker, my colleague on the other side of the House has caught me off guard a little. However, I can say that when the November 11 memorial ceremony is held every year in my riding, the family of one armed forces member who fought in Afghanistan attends. We lost one former resident of Boucherville, who died while serving. It troubles me because that individual was still in the prime of life, still relatively young, and he never got to see his children grow up or have the good fortune to enjoy a long life like others will. That saddens me. At the same time, I feel that it is important to remember the sacrifice he made every day so that we could enjoy our lives. I think that ceremonies like the one on November 11 are important and need to be valued even more. That is why it is important on these occasions, which offer us a rare glimpse of military personnel wearing their medals, to congratulate and thank them for their service. We have to do more for them.

Madam Speaker, the good news is that the parliamentary secretary already responded to petition e-6661, stating that the government was willing to move forward. I believe that the motion we are debating today will simply help speed up implementation. Sometimes, promises do not materialize. This time, I believe that if the entire House of Commons makes a commitment, it would enable us to move faster.

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, despite the fine words from the other side of the House after the Liberals secured their much-vaunted majority, the government is moving forward with one time allocation motion after another. At the end of the day, despite the promises to work together, we are seeing more and more committees being muzzled. I heard someone mention it is happening at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I could say the same thing about the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, which is still shut down. For over a month now, it has been impossible to get any public information about what is going on at this committee. As Minister of Justice, does my colleague not think it is important for there to be transparency in the decisions that are made in the House so that people have an opportunity to speak out on important issues? Right now, given everything this government is trying to do and despite their talk of collaboration, I get the feeling that, for them, collaboration is a one-way street. We have to do what the government says, and that is the end of it.

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague said that exports are down in Canada. Everyone is aware that the effects of the U.S. tariffs are very likely having an impact on exports to the U.S. However, the Prime Minister promised a new policy, namely that we would move away from the U.S. and develop partnerships around the world, which would compensate for the challenges associated with the U.S. Does my colleague think that the data show that this strategy is working?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. While we do not necessarily agree with everything in the Conservative motion before us today, we do believe it raises an interesting and relevant question to which I do not feel the government has provided an answer. Essentially, what the Conservatives are saying is that Canada is in a technical recession, that things are going badly and that the Liberals are to blame. The fact is I cannot say that they are not at least partly to blame. They are the ones in charge, after all. The Prime Minister, who was elected nearly a year ago, promised us he would resolve the tariff crisis with a wave of a magic wand. Here we are a year later, and nothing has changed. Now, today, the government is engaging in rhetoric by trying to contrast having agreements with our southern neighbour with having agreements with other countries around the world. Given the difficult situation, might it not be time for the government to sit down at the negotiating table with our southern neighbour? It might be time for the government to realize that we cannot really get by without doing business with them either.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition. I have been fortunate to sit in Parliament for a little over 10 years. For a little over 10 years, I have had the opportunity to listen to his excellent speeches. They tend to be very good. However, every time my colleague rises in the House, ever since I first had the opportunity to listen to his speeches, I get a sense that they always boil down to much the same thing. To hear him speak, anyone would think we are constantly on the verge of an apocalypse. Obviously, I am not saying that the economic situation is positive; far from it. However, I wonder if he should perhaps change his approach; furthermore, in his criticism today, he said that the Liberal plan is bad for the economy. However, if we look at the Liberal government's record over the past year, we see that it has implemented measures essentially proposed by the Conservative Party. He says himself that the Liberals spend their time stealing his ideas. Is he telling us that Conservative ideas are partly responsible for this apocalypse?

Mr. Speaker, in this and previous speeches, the member opposite boasted about using AI to analyze the Conservatives' motion, so I have a lot of questions. I was under the impression that people elected members of Parliament so they could do their own thinking about topics of debate in the House. Lately, elected Liberal MPs have been using algorithms from foreign platforms to analyze bills and opposition motions, and so has a government spokesperson. I would like to know just how common this has become on the other side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, when I read the Conservatives' motion this morning, I nearly fell off my chair because I see it as nothing short of an attack on Quebec culture. I am not sure if they realize it, but without certain rules ensuring that a portion of the budget and certain investments are allocated to Quebec culture, we would be completely buried under content from the United States. That is all there would be. Maybe they do not care because that is already the case. What solutions do they propose for Quebec culture? Do they want us to consume mostly American products and become American like they do in English Canada?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech today. I must say that, while I am extremely disappointed by the Conservative motion we are debating today, I am not entirely surprised by it. It is a painful reminder of the Harper years, when cuts were being made to culture left, right and centre. However, this is even worse. They are doing the Americans' bidding and launching yet another full-scale attack on our culture, Quebec culture, and perhaps even Canadian culture, if such a thing exists. However, I have even greater concerns about the government. It was unable to stand its ground on the much-discussed 3% digital services tax, and it refused to commit to the CRTC's decision, despite being publicly questioned on the matter. What does my colleague think of the fact that the Liberals do not seem overly sure of their position?

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague opposite on his speech, which was interesting and seemed to be heading in the right direction. However, it was not necessarily all that reassuring, because, so far, all we have been seeing is his government kowtowing to the Americans. As soon as Mr. Trump told us not to tax digital services, Mr. Carney's government did away with the much-discussed 3% tax without getting anything in return. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am so worked up over this that I am naming people that I should not be. What I wanted to say to my colleague across the way is that we see this government caving in and failing to defend Quebec's culture. Even the minister, when asked to respond to the CRTC's decision, was unable to say that this was the right thing to do and that we needed to stand up to the web giants, who are sucking up revenue without giving anything back to our culture. Why are the Liberals not doing more and standing up for our culture?

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister on his speech, in which he gave a fine demonstration of his ability to speak English. In his speech, he extolled the virtues of suspending 10¢ of the excise tax on gas, saying that this temporary suspension would help with affordability. Perhaps he forgot to mention to us that this measure will also increase the deficit. The Parliamentary Budget Officer told us who would benefit from this. It seems that the poorest 20% of people will save $59, whereas the wealthiest 20% will save $211. Could the minister explain his decision to favour the rich?

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to inform my colleagues that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Joliette—Manawan, who does excellent work in the House and who used to be our finance critic. I am assuming he will have a lot to say because he is now our critic for economic affairs. These are equally important roles because they are closely related. Today, we are debating a Conservative motion that, not surprisingly, once again deals with oil and gas. That comes as no surprise because it is extremely rare to have a Conservative opposition day that does not focus on these issues. As far as I remember, it has happened only once in this Parliament—and I believe that I pointed it out to the House when it did—even though the Conservatives have an opposition day almost every week or sometimes even twice a week. I invite them to try a little harder and to be a little more creative next time. In essence, what the motion before us is saying—and we may have a chance to talk more about this later—is that the cost of living is high, people are having a hard time making ends meet, and the cost of gas went up, so the gas tax should go down. There is one thing in their motion that I actually think is good. They point out that the price of gas is 13% higher here than in the United States—we pay an extra 22¢ per litre—and that gas now costs 50¢ more per litre than when global oil prices were at the same level in 2014. That is pretty interesting. They themselves are indirectly admitting that there is a problem. Why is gas pricier at the pump if the price per barrel is the same as it was in 2014? Are some people cashing in along the way? That is something worth exploring. My Conservative colleagues may have an opportunity to elaborate on that statement because we do not often hear them criticize oil companies, which are more accustomed to lining their own pockets than the other way around. I also want to note that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this motion. That should come as no surprise to anyone. We are not big fans of oil and gas companies. Essentially, if this measure is implemented, there is a risk that the deficit will get even bigger and that oil and gas companies will get more leeway to raise their prices so they can line their own pockets even more. For our part, we work for everyday people. We do not work for the oil and gas companies, unlike the Conservatives and the Liberals. These days, the Liberals have teamed up with the Conservatives to defend the oil and gas companies practically on a full-time basis. I think that is just about the only thing they have accomplished in the year since the new Prime Minister took office. I want to get back to the fact that the Conservatives are saying today that the Liberals have not done enough. In their speeches so far, the Liberals have said that, a few months ago, they cut gas prices by 10¢ a litre, which is the equivalent of the excise tax. It is a temporary measure that is theoretically supposed to help the taxpayers who are struggling the most and that will be in effect until September. We said it at the time about this measure. The Conservatives keep making a big fuss about the federal deficit. Let us be clear: the federal deficit is significant, it has reached record levels, and it is worrisome. I think they are right to make such a fuss about it. We do the same on many occasions. Generally speaking, when the Conservatives propose measures, we would expect them to be aimed at reducing the deficit, given the context. Instead, they are proposing measures that will only increase the deficit even further. They are not satisfied with the $2.4 billion the Liberals added to the deficit by temporarily eliminating the 10¢ excise tax. They want even more than that. They say one thing and do the opposite. As we know, the Liberals have already lowered the price at the pump by 10¢ and temporarily eliminated the excise tax, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because the Conservatives were constantly demanding a reduction in the gas tax. They ultimately came up with a sort of compromise. The Liberals decided they would do something symbolic to give the impression they are helping people. The hope was that this would ease the pressure and they could say they had cut the gas tax and beat the Conservatives at their own game. That is essentially the Liberal reasoning behind it. The Liberals are telling people they will save money at the pump, but the reality is quite different. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has done the math and said that it is not the poorest Canadians who will benefit from this situation, but the richest. The government is telling the poorest 20% that they will get an extra $59, which is maybe the cost of filling a Honda Civic when gas is cheaper than it is at the moment. The richest 20%, on the other hand, will receive $211, which is far more money. Based on my calculations, they will get four to five times more money than the poorest people will. Is that what helping people is all about? Is that what helping ordinary citizens is all about? I am not entirely convinced that the government has chosen the best approach. The Conservatives are proposing something similar today. They do not want to just suspend the excise tax temporarily; rather, they want implement permanent measures, or at least measures that would be in effect until the end of 2026, measures that would affect not only the excise tax but also the GST. I want to point out in passing that the Conservatives are always talking about making life more affordable for Canadians, but they have never proposed removing the GST on electricity, for example, even though electricity is a clean energy. No, they are proposing to eliminate the GST on gas, which emits greenhouse gases. Perhaps they could add electricity next time. The Conservatives are always saying that we should operate on a level economic playing field, that we must not subsidize electrification. Basically, they want to help people, but only those who choose gas rather than electricity. That was just a quick editorial comment, by the way. Basically, what I want to say is that, rather than adding $2.4 billion to the deficit, the Conservatives' proposal will add about $5 billion to it. That is not $5 billion including the $2.4 billion, but $5 billion on top of the $2.4 billion that has already been approved. That would mean approximately $7.4 billion in tax breaks for oil, which is a lot of money. We are not opposed to helping those most in need. We are not opposed to helping the middle class. However, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer's calculations have already shown, this kind of tax will primarily benefit those at the top rather than those at the bottom. We have a problem with that, especially when we see that the wealthiest are ultimately the ones who benefit. What the Conservatives are telling us is that the rich need to get richer and get even more tax breaks. Meanwhile, the government will have to tighten its belt, and everyone will have to pay for that deficit. What is even more interesting is when the Conservatives mention that the price of oil has gone up over the past year. Why has it gone up? We know that it is because of the war in Iran. How has this affected ordinary people? They are paying more, of course. However, who has benefited from higher gas prices and the higher price per barrel? It is not us. It is the oil companies. Look at Suncor's stock price, for example. In January of this year, Suncor shares were trading at $60. Today, in May, they are trading at around $90. That is a 50% increase. Suncor shareholders have benefited. However, it does not cost the company more to produce oil. It does not cost more to supply its customers. It is making more money off us, but the Conservatives are not putting the blame on them, and neither are the Liberals. Here is another example. In January, Imperial Oil shares cost $120. Now, in May, they cost $180, which is also an increase of more than 50%. Suncor CEO Rich Kruger was paid $36 million in 2024. I am guessing he can afford to fill his tank. He has the money. Putting gas in his car is no hardship for him. These are the people the Liberals and Conservatives want to help. I think that is sad, especially since, according to Environmental Defence, fossil fuel subsidies hit the $10‑billion mark in 2025. Oil and gas companies are not giving us a discount on gas even though they were given $10 billion. They are making money hand over fist and their share prices are skyrocketing, yet the Conservatives and the Liberals are eagerly joining forces to help oil companies even more. I think that is outrageous. The government should be helping real people, not oil companies.

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that when we talk about giving the impression of helping, the parliamentary secretary talks about the benefit for families. There was actually a lot of marketing behind that. I am straying a bit from the subject of the debate, but I want to address this point anyway, because when I saw the government make that announcement, I could not believe it. I saw it as pure demagoguery. The government used to provide what was called a family allowance or something called the GST credit. Then it decided to basically change the name and call it a grocery benefit, saying it is supposed to help with the cost of groceries. Personally, I think it is crazy that the government thinks it can fool everyone by simply changing the name at the top of the cheque and the name of the program, when it is the same program and the same cheque as before. As for today's debate on the 10¢ excise tax on gasoline, I think it has been clearly demonstrated that the wealthy will benefit the most, not the poor, and that oil companies are likely to increase their prices even further. Generally speaking, there is a fairly simple principle in marketing that says that prices should be set at the highest possible price that customers are willing to pay. If any flexibility is allowed, what will happen? The oil companies will just raise their prices.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked a very good question. I cannot wait to hear how the Conservatives would answer. I cannot answer for them. What I can say, however, based on my analysis, is that the Conservatives never miss an opportunity to give oil companies a little pat on the back, regardless of how much it will cost taxpayers or how much more it will cost us. Unfortunately, we see that the Liberals have taken lessons from the Conservatives. According to Environmental Defence, we are talking about $10 billion in 2025. Consider the Liberals' proposed Trans Mountain pipeline, which cost taxpayers $34 billion, or the $1 billion in fees due under the UN convention that the Liberals are going to cover for the Bay du Nord project. The Conservatives never see any problem when it comes to helping out oil companies, yet they rarely show up to help ordinary folks.

Mr. Speaker, I could respond very quickly by mentioning the infamous $800 million tied to the carbon tax, which no province actually paid, yet they received funds anyway when the carbon tax was abolished. People in the rest of Canada received cheques anyway. In Quebec, we paid for the cheques that people in the rest of Canada received. I think we got taken for a ride. That $800 million was never seen again. Maybe the Liberals will make an announcement about that today. I would be very happy to hear one.

Mr. Speaker, not so long ago, the Liberals added $2.4 billion to the deficit by temporarily suspending the excise tax. Today, the Conservatives are saying we should pile another $5 billion on the deficit with the new measures in their motion. Could they explain why they claim they want to tackle the deficit but are suggesting measures that will actually benefit oil companies rather than ordinary people and will swell the deficit?

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member opposite and I found his speech and his arguments fascinating. Among other things, he criticized the fact that the Conservative proposal would essentially favour the wealthy at the expense of the less fortunate, while increasing the deficit. In this context, I was wondering about something, because it seems to me that the same argument could be made about suspending the excise tax on gas. Why did his government put that in place? Does he agree with his government's decision? Ultimately, suspending the excise tax on gas is the same principle as suspending the GST. It is calculated the same way, and it benefits the same people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege concerning a breach of the collective rights and privileges of members in the House, specifically the fundamental right of members and the House to be informed first about government legislation. The Speaker has consistently ruled that premature disclosure of a bill and its elements to third parties can constitute a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege. This principle has been confirmed on several occasions in rulings rendered by various Speakers of the House, notably on March 19, 2001, March 9, 2011, and December 3, 2012. More recently, on April 10, 2019, Speaker Regan reiterated that disclosing legislative information outside the House before it is introduced in the House undermines the fundamental role of parliamentarians, which is to legislate. On November 29, 2021, Speaker Rota confirmed that such disclosures, even partial ones, may constitute a violation of the collective privileges of the House. Finally—

Mr. Speaker, finally, on June 16, 2022, the Chair clarified that establishing a proven leak is not necessary: The reasonable appearance of early third-party access may be enough to establish a prima facie breach. I respectfully submit that the facts before us meet that very threshold. The chronology of events leads us to believe that parliamentarians' rights have been violated. On April 8, 2026, Air Canada publicly announced the implementation of a new arbitration mechanism intended to expedite the processing of user complaints. In its economic statement on April 28, 2026, the government signalled its intention to reform precisely this type of mechanism. On May 6, 2026, the government tabled Bill C-31, which contains provisions directly related to these changes. This series of events raises serious questions. How could a regulated entity not only have anticipated but also operationalized a mechanism aligned with legislative intentions which, at the time, had not been shared with Parliament or even made public by the government? Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I am sure you will agree that this cannot be a mere coincidence or a random or uncertain interpretation. The facts and the sequence in which they occurred line up perfectly. First, Air Canada announced its initiative. Second, the government made an announcement 20 days later in its economic statement and third, the government tabled Bill C-31. This situation echoes concerns raised in previous Speaker's rulings, namely, the actual or perceived granting of an informational advantage to a third party to the detriment of members of Parliament. As Speaker Scheer stated on March 3, 2014, members must be the first to see new legislation. However, in this case, not only were members not the first to be informed, but specific action was taken outside the House before the government even disclosed the existence of this legislation. That raises not only the possibility of premature disclosure but also the reasonable perception that an external party was given privileged access to legislative content, which, according to the practices of the House, is sufficient to establish a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege. Mr. Speaker, I submit that it is not for the Chair to determine whether a leak occurred or to identify the source. The question is more limited: Does the evidence presented and documented support a finding of a potential breach of the privileges of the House? I would suggest that, in this case, the answer is obvious. The sequence of events, the nature of the facts and the alignment between Air Canada's actions and the government's subsequent legislation raise, at the very least, a serious issue requiring careful examination, particularly since, according to the lobbyist registry, there were over 100 meetings between Air Canada representatives and government officials, among others. In these circumstances, in keeping with established practice, I ask that you find that this matter constitutes a prima facie question of privilege. If necessary, I am prepared to move an appropriate motion that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for consideration.

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister prepares to appoint a new governor general, I would like to present petition e‑6839, which was initiated by Benoit Dutrizac. The petition calls on the government to set the governor general's salary at a symbolic $1 per year, rather than at nearly $400,000, as is currently the case; sell Rideau Hall, which costs more than $2 million a year in maintenance, and distribute the savings to food banks; prohibit all travel outside Canada, which would save over $3 million based on Mary Simon's spending; cover wardrobe costs internally, which would save $130,000; remove chauffeur and limousine services; use chef services for formal meals only; and restrict duties to assenting to bills, hosting formal meals with dignitaries visiting Canada, attending commemorative or civic award ceremonies and delivering the Speech from the Throne. The petition was signed by over 3,000 people, and I suspect that the vast majority of Quebeckers feel the same way.

Mr. Speaker, an election was held about a year ago. A saviour came along and told everyone that he had all the right skills to solve the problem we were facing at the time because of the new, scary U.S. President and that he could get rid of the tariffs. Everyone would see that all the problems would be resolved in a matter of weeks, as if by magic. People wanted to believe in the fairy tale. Here we are a year later, still in exactly the same place, waiting for the situation to be resolved. Not only has the situation not been resolved, but it is getting worse. While people's concerns about the current situation are entirely understandable, everyone also understands why businesses and workers are growing increasingly impatient and dissatisfied that the situation is not being resolved. To say that these folks are dissatisfied is really an understatement. People are beginning to realize that this government was elected to solve a problem that it is not solving, choosing to focus on all kinds of other things instead. What is more, the situation is getting even worse. What happened on April 6? The Americans decided to rub salt in the wound. Instead of imposing tariffs of just 50% on the raw material or on the raw material component in the product, and to simplify the calculation, the Americans decided that if the product contained more than 15% steel or aluminum, they would apply a 25% tariff, period. As everyone can imagine, this is hurting a lot of people. As angry as we may want to be at the United States, we have no control over the United States. We do, however, have control over what we do. Unfortunately, when we elect someone to be in charge, we would expect a response from them. The most frustrating thing is that when our leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, asked the Prime Minister the question during question period on a Wednesday, and I should point out that it is rare for the Prime Minister to be there on Wednesdays, the Prime Minister was not even aware of the change in—

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the reminder. I was just pointing out that I would like to see the Prime Minister in the House much more often. I am sure that this perspective is shared by many in the House. What I wanted to focus on is that the Prime Minister was not even aware that there had been a change in U.S. tariffs. Our leader asked him the question not the morning after or the same day but in fact about two weeks after the change was made through an executive order, and he still was not aware of it. There is something wrong with that picture. Something is not right. When people elect a representative to do something and that person does not do it, the people have every right to be angry and frustrated. When the Prime Minister was asked again about this issue, he said not to worry, that the government was going to fix it, or at least try to. He said that the government was going to announce new measures in the upcoming economic statement and resolve the situation. However, there was absolutely nothing in the economic update. There was not a single line, not a single sentence, nothing to suggest that there would be support measures or adjustments to government programs in response to the U.S. tariff changes. It is frustrating to see this kind of situation unfold. First, the Prime Minister was elected to resolve the situation. Second, he was warned that there was a problem and he was unaware of it. Third, he made a promise that he has decided not to keep. Faced with this completely absurd situation we find ourselves in, the government finally made an impromptu announcement yesterday, and the industry minister said there would be loans for companies. Ultimately, that was the announcement. It is rather disappointing when a government gets elected by saying that the economy and our relationship with the United States will be its priority, but then it becomes clear, in the end, that that is not its priority. We would like to know what it is actually working on. This situation has a major impact on Quebec. I am a member from Quebec. Among other things, there is a steel mill in my riding. According to Desjardins, 24% of Quebec exports would be affected by the changes, and 24% is a lot. For months, the government has been telling us that we did not need to worry about the tariff crisis, that we had the best deal in the world with the United States and that it was ultimately better to do nothing. However, the government is realizing that with the regulatory change that has been ordered, we are going from an average effective rate of 5.7% to 9.6%. Roughly speaking, our situation has just gotten about twice as bad. Businesses are going to suffer. They already were suffering; that is the worst part. I am sad to say that when people talk about steel, they often forget about Quebec. They only ever think about Ontario steel. Ministers always hold their press conferences in Hamilton, Ontario. Quebec might as well not exist. I have some news for this House: Many processed and manufactured products contain steel. Many processed and manufactured products contain aluminum. What is more, Quebec produces 20% of Canada's steel and represents about 20% of the population. We are doing our fair share, so we expect to receive our fair share of the attention and programs when there are government initiatives regarding steel. The government should stop favouring Ontario all the time. Quebec steel is suffering right now. Are my colleagues aware that 200 employees lost their jobs at the metal powder plant in Sorel‑Tracy last year? That is 200 fewer people working in the steel industry. That is a lot of people. Are my colleagues aware that 90 people lost their jobs when the La Perle foundry in Saint‑Ours closed down? Why did the foundry close down and why was it having such a hard time? One of the reasons was the U.S. tariffs. I am talking about Sorel‑Tracy and Saint‑Ours, which are right next door to where I am, a stone's throw away from my riding. There is also a steel mill in Contrecoeur, where more than 1,500 people work in the sector. People are telling us that. Workers call me and we talk to them regularly. We also talk to company representatives quite often. What we are being told is that the numbers are down. There are no more overtime hours. Machine maintenance is being spread out. Fewer trainees are being hired. Vacations are being stretched out. They are finding all sorts of ways to stretch out contracts because things are not going well right now. Last year, morale was still high, because this crisis was seen as temporary, and the thought was that there would be negotiations and that the magician on the other side of the House would sort it all out. This year, I would say that people are finding the situation a lot more serious. They are starting to lose hope, because the crisis is not going away, and there is a sense that the government is not taking the situation seriously. The longer the problem drags on, the more the situation will become permanent and the faster job losses will be felt, because people will eventually realize that this situation might not be temporary, but permanent. What is unfortunate is that there are things that the government could have done and could already be doing to resolve the situation, without even having to resolve the tariff crisis with the United States. It is hard to understand why they are not doing it. It cannot be said that there has been no action at all. There were in fact a few limited actions taken in 2024 to reduce import volumes and set quotas. The problem is that the import volumes were already so high that this did not really change much. It mainly affected our market share. Canadian steel consumption is equivalent to what is produced in Canada: We produce roughly 100 million tonnes of steel and consume roughly 100 million tonnes. The problem is that 50% of what is being produced is going to the United States. That was already the case even before the tariff crisis. If we have just lost 50% of our exports, our hope is that we will not lay off 50% of people, that 50% of jobs are not going to disappear and that 50% of mills are not going to close. We have to react and take measures to control our market, since that is what we can control. If we are producing 100 million tonnes of steel and consuming 100 million tonnes, why are we not guaranteed a larger share of the domestic market? The reality is that before the tariff crisis, we held about 35% of the market. Now, it is about 40%. There is still a lot of room, but, in the meantime, the federal government is unfortunately not resolving the issue. For example, there are cases of Chinese dumping still taking place, and the reciprocal tariffs on American steel have been completely dropped. That means that we are affected by tariffs, but the Americans are not when they come here. Another problem has to do with the fact that, in November, the government promised a subsidy system for rail transportation from coast to coast to coast. There are still no conditions. It is still unclear how it will work. The government announced it in November and it is now May. Businesses and workers are tapping their feet. They have no idea what the conditions will be. What is more, marine shipping is excluded. Quebec businesses will suffer as a result, because there is a kind of unfair competition in the system. That is the federal government we have. We are not impressed.

Mr. Speaker, I do not see any connection between his question and the issue we are discussing today. It is a shame, because we are in a difficult situation where people are worried about their jobs, and the government is trying to distract us by bringing up other topics. I would urge my colleague to focus instead on the problem we have brought to the table today and to talk to his colleagues so we can resolve this. Let us take the “buy Canadian” policy as an example. Before Christmas, the government promised to make buying Canadian a priority. What happened in the end? A few weeks later, the government could have bought Canadian steel to build future ferries in the Vancouver area, but instead decided to give that contract to the Chinese. That is $1 billion going to China. We could also talk about the renewal of Via Rail's fleet. A contract is coming up. Will it be awarded to Alstom, or will it go to Siemens again, like last time, when the Americans were given $1 billion to build it? It is important to choose to keep our people employed rather than constantly sending money abroad.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a shame that my colleague is asking me this question, even though I think it came from a place of good intentions. I do not think it is a solution to say that, because of the tariffs, we are going to abandon all our economic sectors and throw ourselves headfirst into the oil industry. That is not Quebec's strength. Quebec wants to move toward the energy transition. Our strength lies in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from steel production. The federal government should take that into account with, for example, a border carbon adjustment. It should consider the carbon footprint when evaluating bids for major projects. The reality is that Quebec steel is made with hydroelectricity. It is about a hundred times less polluting than all the steel that exists elsewhere on the planet. It cannot be compared to what is being done in countries like China, where they use coal. That could be a great strategy from the government: to really accelerate the energy transition in order to have greener infrastructure and support our steel sector.

Mr. Speaker, there is actually a mill in my riding that produces steel that could be termed first-level steel. It is not highly refined; it is minimally processed. Afterward, other manufacturing companies will refine it further, especially for export. The problem we are currently experiencing with the new tariff changes is that the steel-processing companies will no longer order steel from major Canadian steel mills. If all these SMEs are no longer ordering—

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. I would like to ask him a question, because he did not touch on something that I believe is important. In 2025-26, Canada collected $10 billion through retaliatory tariffs. However, the portion that was redistributed to businesses amounts to just $5.7 billion. That means that Canada has collected twice as much money as it has distributed to businesses through support measures. In these circumstances, how does my colleague explain the fact that the government is not listening to the industry more and that all the government has to offer is loans? How does he explain the fact that the economic update did not even mention the tariff crisis or the assistance needed for businesses that use steel?

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. I have a question for him. When we hear the Prime Minister say things like “Who cares?” in response to a question about tariffs, and when we hear that this subject does not keep him up at night, what does that tell my colleague about the Prime Minister's attitude and his apparent lack of interest, even though it is such a priority for so many people?

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary's speech was quite interesting. However, looking at this government's actions since it was elected, it appears as though the only thing it can talk about is pipelines, pipelines, pipelines, and oil, oil, oil. The latest economic update included yet more new tax credits for oil companies. The government is constantly signing agreements to build new pipelines all over the place. Meanwhile, the government seems to be losing sight of what it was elected to do, which was to manage the tariff crisis. This crisis was completely ignored in the economic update. My question for the parliamentary secretary is this: Is the government so obsessed with oil that it has forgotten about the tariff crisis, or is it because it was elected on false pretenses?

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was rather impressed by the intensity of my colleague's speech. It was very substantial. There was so much to it that I could not take it all in. I would like to hear more about the merits of creating a so-called sovereign wealth fund to fund major projects, when apparently the Canada Infrastructure Bank is already being used for that purpose. Why launch a new fund when we already have a tool that does the same thing?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's infamous sovereign wealth fund proposes, among other things, to use the $25 billion in borrowed money to invest in projects that are too risky for the private sector, projects that the private sector did not want to invest in. The government is also proposing to allow individuals, like us and our constituents, to invest in this sovereign wealth fund while guaranteeing the security of their investments. We are told that these investments in the sovereign wealth fund will help attract more private investment. As a result, the fund will “derisk” these operations. The way we see it, the sovereign wealth fund will absorb the risk so the private sector can make a profit. Given his great enthusiasm for the sovereign wealth fund, does my colleague opposite intend to sell his personal assets and invest them in the sovereign wealth fund, as he would be able to do?

Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's economic update, the government announced that ordinary taxpayers will be able to contribute to this Canadian sovereign wealth fund that the Prime Minister wants to create. It so happens that his goal, as Prime Minister, is more or less to dictate what investments the sovereign wealth fund will cover. In fact, all of it will involve projects recommended by the Major Projects Office, and those projects will have been chosen by the Prime Minister's Office. That means the Prime Minister is the one who will determine what investments will be made through the sovereign wealth fund. Does my colleague intend to invest his personal savings in the Prime Minister's preferred picks?