Softwood Lumber  Mr. Chair, indeed, a billion dollars stayed on the table in the last softwood lumber agreement. Now there are solutions that the current government could put in place. The majority of the key players in the forestry sector are asking us for a liquidity program. That has never been brought in by the government.

Softwood Lumber  Mr. Chair, the major problem is the laissez-faire attitude that the government has had on this issue for over 20 years. The federal government has never had a strong, clear desire to support the forestry industry, even though it claims that the forestry industry is one of the most promising industries in the fight against climate change.

Softwood Lumber  Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. Usually, the best thing a person can do is to tell the truth. Let us tell the truth this evening. The government has never been willing to provide real support for the forestry industry. That is rather easy to prove.

Softwood Lumber  Mr. Chair, does my colleague not find it odd that at no time in the minister's mandate letter, when it talks about trade disputes, is there any mention of the words “softwood lumber”? Is that not a clear admission that the Government of Canada does not care about the softwood lumber dispute and that it is trying to use the regions of Canada that live from the forestry sector as a bargaining chip to secure the automobile sector with U.S. partners?

Softwood Lumber  Mr. Chair, there is a fairly simple solution to support forestry companies. It was actually people in the forestry sector who came up with this solution. They have to be given access to liquidity. To get through the current crisis, with its tariffs that are totally unfair, what people in the forestry sector are telling us is that they need access to liquidity so they can invest in their infrastructure.

Softwood Lumber  Madam Chair, I am not entirely familiar with the reality of the forestry sector in British Columbia. I am more familiar with the situation in Quebec, but there is one fundamental issue, and that is processing. We need to process more wood. Unfortunately, we do not have the support of the federal government.

Softwood Lumber  Madam Chair, my colleague is bragging about the agreement that Mr. Harper negotiated, but I would just like to point out to him that people in the forestry sector lost $1 billion at the time. A billion dollars in ransom money was left on the table, so it was not exactly the best deal.

Softwood Lumber  Madam Chair, my colleague talked about a team Canada approach. The problem with that is that the federal government does not listen to the province that is paying the most in terms of U.S. softwood lumber tariffs. Quebec accounts for 20% of Canada's softwood lumber exports to the United States, but it pays 48% of the tariffs.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship  Mr. Speaker, while the federal government spends its time interfering in Quebec's jurisdictions, the situation in its own jurisdictions is getting serious. The Prime Minister is in shock after finally discovering that immigration levels have exceeded our integration capacity. Who was oblivious enough to have increased permanent and temporary immigration without thinking about housing, schools or health?

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship  Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister is responsible for the largest population increase since 1957, many are likening him to a pyromaniac firefighter in the housing crisis. It is true that he is setting fires, but is he really trying to put them out? Is he lowering permanent immigration targets?

Points of Order  Mr. Chair, I would just like clarification, because this could set a regrettable precedent. If any member of this Parliament told NDP members that they are pro-Palestinian, would that member be silenced and accused of using unparliamentary language? If any one of us told other members that they are pro-Israeli, would that be cause for expulsion?

Health  Mr. Speaker, the only reason we are not talking about tense intergovernmental relations is that there is no relationship to speak of. Right now, the federal government is in its “no” phase: no to increasing health transfers with no strings attached, no to the right to opt out of dental insurance and pharmacare, and no to helping with asylum seeker intake.

Health  Mr. Speaker, we may not be in government, but we simply listed a few budget measures because they also said no to giving Quebec full authority over immigration, no to Bill 21 on state secularism, and no to advance requests for medical assistance in dying. It is almost a matter of principle for them.

Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62  Madam Speaker, I will try to be polite because I thought my colleague's speech was quite exaggerated. That is not surprising, because I have heard his leader say in the past that people are requesting MAID because they do not have enough to eat. When the leader is so flippant, it is easy to understand why a member would frame MAID as a conspiracy against life, as a culture of death, as a war of the most powerful against the weak.

Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62  Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with my colleague’s story about one of his constituents. However, using specific cases to try to advance ideological views is not how we move forward in a debate. Since this morning, I have been hearing the Conservatives talk about medical assistance in dying as if the process were like renting a movie on Netflix.