House of Commons Hansard #342 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was leader.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the GovernmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

Bloc

Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on finally ripping up the agreement with the Liberal Party and for realizing that the Liberal Party, the Government of Canada, is incredibly incompetent.

It is incompetent because it did not take care of its own responsibilities. It was more concerned with lecturing and teaching lessons, with the encouragement of the NDP, to the provinces, like Quebec, who have been managing their health care system for a long time.

Does my colleague not think that it would be important for the government to refocus on its priorities and its responsibilities and take care of seniors, for example?

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the GovernmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

NDP

Jagmeet Singh NDP Burnaby South, BC

Madam Speaker, we strongly believe in taking care of seniors, taking care of one another. That is a fundamental belief for New Democrats.

I agree that the Liberals often talk the talk, but do not walk the walk. It is obvious that we were the ones who forced the government to implement the dental care program. This program will help people throughout the country, especially in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois voted against this idea, against this program that helps so many people in Quebec, even more than in other provinces. We think this program is important, and the Bloc Québécois will have to explain why it voted against it.

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the GovernmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak right after the leader of the NDP, who gave an excellent speech. He outlined the framework for this discussion and explained where we stand right now as a society, what people need and the risks associated with either the Liberals' inaction or the Conservatives' cuts.

Over the past two years, we have seen what can be achieved when NDP members are on the job. We delivered results by pressuring the government and making real gains for people, for workers, for seniors, for families and for students. That is the contribution the NDP caucus can make, using its position of strength and balance of power to obtain things that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals had ever agreed to before.

With a bit of a wink and a nudge, I would like to point out that, for two years, the Bloc Québécois criticized us for negotiating with the Liberals to make gains. Now that we have torn up the agreement, it is rather ironic to see the Bloc Québécois wanting to negotiate with the government as well, but that is politics, after all.

We were able to achieve tangible progress of historic importance. Think of the 10 days of paid sick leave for federally regulated workers, which did not exist before. We saw how important it was to grant workers this right during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was the NDP that did that.

The anti-scab law is finally in effect, 50 years after Quebec passed its own law. We fought and forced the Liberal government to introduce anti-scab legislation, which was a historic demand of the Quebec and Canadian labour movement. I am very proud to have been able to negotiate with the then minister of labour. It is an important piece of legislation that is a true hallmark of the gains the NDP was able to achieve. The anti-scab legislation is a victory for the NDP.

The big one is universal public pharmacare. This is so important to so many members of society, in both Canada and Quebec, who are suffering because our hybrid private-public system is flawed. The NDP was able to get $1.5 billion. The bill is currently before the Senate. This will make a difference in people's lives, especially the first phase that provides access to contraception and diabetes medications. Millions of people with diabetes will be reimbursed for the cost of supplies and drugs to fight this terrible disease. This is a victory for the NDP and its work. It is also what the Quebec labour movement is calling for. The FTQ, the CSN, the CSQ and the Union des consommateurs du Québec all know that a universal public pharmacare program is the best way to get truly affordable drugs to treat people and save lives. That has been proven in study after study over the past few years.

We secured $8 billion for indigenous housing. We forced the Liberals to ensure that the federal child care transfer will go to public and not-for-profit child care run by community groups and non-profits. That is a win for the NDP.

There is also the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act, which ensures a just transition, a green energy transition, as well as job creation for workers. The NDP fought to have union and worker representatives at the table to ensure the success of this transition, which is so important to the future of our planet, our economic development, and good jobs for workers. I salute the work of some of my colleagues, including my colleague from Victoria, who is right over there. I also salute my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for his very hard work on Bill C-50.

Obviously, the NDP deserves credit for all the work it accomplished on providing people with access to dental care. Some of them had not been able to afford a visit to the dentist in years. We were able to secure these major gains by putting pressure on the Liberals. So far, 3.5 million people in Canada have registered for the program. Some 645,000 people have managed to see a dentist and be reimbursed all or 80% of the cost of their dental care. That is huge. The health and lives of those 645,000 people has changed for the better through the direct efforts of the NDP here in the House. I am very proud to say that those 645,000 people include 205,032 Quebeckers, who were able to see a dentist thanks to the NDP's work and victory.

This means that 32% of the people who have benefited from the program are Quebeckers. The program is therefore very beneficial for Quebec, for Quebeckers, who are participating more on average than people in the other provinces. We represent 23% of the Canadian population, but 32% of the people who have received this service are from Quebec. I would remind the House that not only did the Bloc Québécois oppose dental care, but the Conservatives have always voted against it, and the Liberals also voted against it before the last election. This just goes to show that if we had not been there, if we had not twisted their arm, this would never have happened.

The agreement lasted a while, but we were not married to the Liberals. We were carpooling. We eventually realized that it was time to go our separate ways, so we got out of that car and into our own, to regain our independence and autonomy. Going forward, we will decide on a case-by-case basis how we are going to vote in the House as a political party.

We also put an end to this agreement because of a build-up of frustration with the Liberals' inaction, half-measures and lack of courage on a whole host of issues. We decided that we are going to be completely autonomous. There are some things that we completely disagree with the Liberals on and so we want to be able to exert all the pressure we can and to do our job as the opposition as effectively as possible. I am talking in particular about environmental and climate issues.

One can only imagine how infuriating it is to face the Liberals' inaction and contradictions, when this failure to make the necessary decisions today is going to affect future generations, our children and our grandchildren. In the last budget, the Liberals backtracked on taxing the excessive profits of big oil. Big oil lobbyists came to Ottawa, to the office of the finance minister, and the government decided that it would not tax the windfall profits of oil and gas companies after all.

The fact that there is no emissions cap in the oil and gas sector is shameful. One has to wonder why it still has not been set. Then there are the tax credits for carbon capture, an unproven technology that does not work. It is a great subsidy for the oil companies, but not as great as buying the Trans Mountain pipeline, which cost Canadians $36 billion.

That $36 billion means that everyone in the country, whether they are a grandpa, a grandma, a student or a baby, paid $1,000 to buy that pipeline and increase our greenhouse gas emissions. The Liberals took $1,000 from every Canadian to buy a pipeline that no one wanted. Even the private sector did not want it.

There is also the matter of the inaction in relation to the housing crisis and the price of groceries, despite the fact that there are solutions. There is the Liberals' lack of courage regarding the genocide in Gaza, the lack of recognition of the Palestinian state, the lack of sanctions against Netanyahu's extremist ministers, and the continued sale of arms to this regime, which has been dropping bombs on ordinary people every day for over 10 months now. Then there is the Liberals' failure to reform EI, despite their promises.

Although we are debating this motion today, the NDP's message is clear. We will not play the Conservatives' game. We are not going to play the Conservatives' game, because we remember the dark years under Stephen Harper.

We remember the attacks on science, the blindness or indifference to the climate crisis and the cuts to culture. We remember the $43 billion in cuts to our public health care system, the repercussions of which are still being felt today. When the Liberals came to power, they did not reverse those budget cuts.

They cut seniors' pensions by increasing the retirement age to 67. They abolished 26,000 public service jobs and closed nine Veterans Affairs Canada offices. They made cuts to employment insurance, to support for indigenous communities, to protection for women and women's issues.

As far as women's rights are concerned, the right to abortion is still under threat. Things are not entirely clear in the Conservative caucus. Statements are vague. There are photos with certain groups, with certain demonstrators here on Parliament Hill. This morning, in the Journal de Montréal we read that the Conservative member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands visited a creationist and anti-abortion, or anti-choice, church in Florida.

He was invited to deliver a speech at an extremist church in Florida, and it was the church that paid for not only his flight, but also all the expenses. A Conservative member went to Florida and was paid by a church to speak against women's rights. After all that, it should come as no surprise that people question whether the Conservatives will protect women's rights or if a private member's bill will be introduced if ever, by some misfortune, the Conservatives form a majority government.

I see that my time is up. I could have gone on. I still have a lot more to say, but I can elaborate in my answers to the questions and comments.

Alleged Unparliamentary Language—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

Before we move on to questions and comments, two points of order have been raised. I said I would get back to the House on one of them. As for the other, I said it was more of a point of debate.

I want to go back to those points or order. Although both of them are in the grey zone, I do want to remind members to be careful about the words they choose. The hon. member for Victoria got up on a point of order about the leader of the official opposition mentioning the “sellout of the NDP”. The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George rose on a point of order about the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay talking about the “member from Stornoway”. Those kinds of statements fall within a grey zone.

However, there was a decision made by the Speaker in October 2023, and it specifically indicated that there was a:

...growing tendency to make pointed criticisms in a way that is unnecessarily personal and designed to denigrate, bully, elicit an emotional reaction or attack the integrity of the person introduces a toxicity into our proceedings that hampers our ability to get things done. This includes coming up with fake titles for members in order to mock them or making comments that question their courage, honesty or commitment to their country.

For the one instance, when we are saying something about a party, it applies to each and every member of that party. For the other instance, when we do not address a member by the title that has been assigned to them within the hierarchy of this place, whether it is a parliamentary role, within the official opposition or a member of Parliament, it creates disorder in the House. That applies not only to debate but also to question period.

We have seen over the last little while that there has been a lot of disorder. I would ask all members to be respectful of each other in the House and to debate the policies, not what individuals bring to the House through name-calling or through calling the parties themselves names.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the GovernmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB

Madam Speaker, what hypocrisy we have heard from that member and his party when they are criticizing the Liberal government. Over the last three years, they have enabled the government to increase taxes on Canadians at every single juncture, whether through its budgets or the implementation of the carbon tax, which affects the cost of everything. He talked a lot about cuts, but he supported the carbon tax initiation, as well as every single increase since then, with his party through the government. This has increased the cost of housing, the cost of food, the cost of fuel and the cost of energy for every single Canadian.

My question is very simple. Why did that member and his party cut the disposable income of every single Canadian?

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the GovernmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, what the NDP actually did was help people who needed it the most through the Canada housing benefit and the dental care program.

If the Conservatives ever get into power, what will they do with dental care? They will end seniors' access to dentists after 3.5 million people have already registered for the program and 645,000 people have benefited from it. I have called people who went to the dentist and saved $2,900 on dental care, dentures or prosthetics. That is nothing to sneer at. Some people were reimbursed the full cost of their treatments. That is money paid to them directly that they are able to save.

I fail to understand why the Conservatives insist on opposing social programs that give people access to better services and cost them nothing.

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the GovernmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by the member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie.

I want to do a little analysis. After three years of the agreement with the NDP, there have been no gains for Quebec. We have to give the NDP a little credit for the anti-scab legislation, which is a necessary measure. However, the gains for Quebec that they are claiming to have achieved are related to issues that fall under Quebec's jurisdiction and for which no money has been transferred.

Now that the current political situation has us dealing with a minority government, what gains would my colleague like to see for Quebec, since he did not achieve any when he had a monopoly for three years?

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the GovernmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit much to say that we did not make any gains for Quebec. Try saying that to the Videotron or Port of Québec employees who were locked out because there was no anti-scab legislation. We defended the cause and won more rights for workers.

Paying dentists' bills is not interfering in Quebec's health care system. We are not telling Quebec how to run its hospitals. So far, 205,032 people in Quebec have gone to the dentist thanks to the work of the NDP. We campaigned on that promise. We did it for Quebeckers. We are talking 205,000 people in Quebec alone. Quebec accounts for 32% of the people who have benefited from the program, yet we represent 23% of the population. The province that benefits most from the dental care program is Quebec.

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the GovernmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think there is really important question to be asked about the urgency of the member who lives in Stornoway trying to go to an election now. We learned from Erin O'Toole—

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the GovernmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont

Going back to what the hon. Speaker before me brought up, members are not to use false titles for individuals.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the GovernmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I had actually said that he lives in Stornoway. I did not say he was from Stornoway.

We do know that Erin O'Toole has testified that it was interference from the Chinese Communist Party that helped bring him down and get the new member elected. We know that the leader of the Conservatives is unable to get a security clearance. What does it say about the only leader in Canadian history who has refused or cannot get a security clearance, and who is under a cloud that his election as Conservative leader—

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the GovernmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member just falsely stated that the Leader of the Opposition is unable to get a security clearance. That is blatantly false.

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the GovernmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont

That is a point of debate.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the GovernmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, he cannot have a security clearance, but is he calling an election because Erin O'Toole has now said that it was the Chinese Communist Party that took Erin O'Toole out as leader of the Conservative Party while the rest of the droogs on the backbench went along with the new leader.

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the GovernmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont

Members are using words to call out other members of Parliament. We are all honourable members in this chamber.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie.

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the GovernmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, one thing we know for sure is that the Leader of the Opposition did not ask for access to privileged information about foreign interference. That is very serious, because he says he wants to be prime minister, but he is not doing the work to find out what really happened. That says a lot about the leader of the Conservative Party, who is not who he claims to be. We know that he is no friend of ordinary people. He is no friend of workers at all. We all know he is a fake. When he was minister, he attacked workers' rights with Bill C‑377 and Bill C‑525.

We were there. I was there. I remember it. I do not want to relive those attacks on people, workers and public services.

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the GovernmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George.

“That the House has no confidence in the Prime Minister and the government.” It is a simple motion, a few words that, in a few hours, will reveal the true nature of the members of this 44th Parliament. Everyone in the House, be they Conservative, Bloc Québécois, NDP, Green Party or even independent, will have to reveal—

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the GovernmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Conservatives seem quite steadfast in wanting to take the government down, yet they do not seem to want to show up. May I please ask if there is quorum in the chamber?

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the GovernmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont

I will ask the clerk to count the members present.

And the count having been taken:

With 20 members, we do have quorum.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the GovernmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Mr. Speaker, the motion states, and I quote, “That the House has no confidence in the Prime Minister and the government.” It is a simple motion that, in a few words, will reveal the true nature of this 44th Parliament. Everyone in the House, whether Conservative, Bloc Québécois, NDP, Green, Liberal or even independent, will have to reveal whether they have confidence in this Prime Minister, after nine years of Liberal governance that has changed Canada like no other prime minister has ever done before, a prime minister in a minority government who, up until now, had bought his survival by making a pact with the NDP.

Listening to the leader of the NDP, in the past and again just recently, extol the virtues of his decision to enter into this coalition, a coalition that went against the choice of voters in the last election, one cannot help but draw a comparison with a certain fable from La Fontaine that I would like to quote: An envious little frog,
Not bigger than an egg,
A stately bullock spies,
And, smitten with his size,
Attempts to be as big...

Does anyone see the similarity? The conclusion is even more revealing and explosive. “Is this enough?” “No, no.”
“Well, then, is this?” “Poh! poh!”

The frog continues to swell. “Enough! you don't begin to be.” And thus the reptile sits,
Enlarging till she splits.

That is how the NDP-Liberal coalition blew up, leaving no trace of the little orange frog, not that the bullock cares.

That is what just happened. Their deal had a disastrous impact on Canadian families, workers and businesses. The no-good Liberal government survived thanks to that deal, but it caused the worst inflation we have seen in 40 years. This Prime Minister increased the national debt more than all of his predecessors combined. Violent crime is on the rise across Canada. The streets are getting more dangerous. Too many Canadians are living on the street or in tents because they can no longer afford an apartment or because they are victims of the hard-drug epidemic plaguing the country.

This bad Liberal government, with the support of the Bloc Québécois, doubled our national debt with over $500 billion in inflationary spending. Bloc Québécois members have voted nearly 200 times to keep the most incompetent prime minister in our history in power. This bad government literally killed the dream that young Canadians have of one day owning their own home. This bad government is responsible for so many ethical breaches that we do not have enough fingers to count them. This bad Liberal government, to satisfy its Prime Minister's obvious natural propensity for spending, did not hesitate for a second to trample on provincial jurisdictions. This bad Liberal government succeeded in swelling the public service by over 40%, hiring more than 100,000 new public servants, yet Canadians cannot get simple answers to their questions over the phone. We can all testify to that.

Following a misguided tweet from the Prime Minister, this bad Liberal government completely destroyed an immigration system that was working relatively well, pushing Quebec to a breaking point. As for social services, infrastructure is not keeping pace with the rhythm imposed by this post-national Prime Minister. This Prime Minister, by the admission of one of his own MPs, is taking a divide and conquer approach to Canadians. This reminds me of one of the very first promises from this bad Prime Minister, during my first federal election campaign. Those who were elected in 2015 will remember. He said he would run small deficits for two years in a row. Then, it would be even smaller, and then we would go back to a balanced budget before the end of his term. Nine years later, that promise is completely meaningless. The term “balanced budget” does not exist in this bad government's budgets.

Despite all of that, despite the end of their coalition, despite the bad government, despite all the noise coming from the NDP on September 4 when the orange coalition frog exploded, the NDP says it still has confidence in this government. The NDP is still going to vote for this bad Prime Minister to allow him to continue. “Continue” is the Prime Minister's favourite word. He is going to continue to hurt Canada a bit longer. NDP voters are going to remember that, but there is worse. The grand prize for deception goes to the Bloc Québécois.

I want to quote from a speech given on April 17 in the House after this bad Liberal government tabled its most recent budget. It reads as follows:

Mr. Speaker, I refuse to believe that the Prime Minister is working hand in hand with Quebec. On the contrary, I believe he has his hand in Quebeckers' pockets. He is blatantly abusing the fiscal imbalance. He is blatantly abusing his spending power. Furthermore, he is racking up an appalling deficit that Quebeckers will be paying off for a long time to come simply to save his government's skin, and his own skin, in the next election.

That is the quite the condemnation of the last budget and of the Liberal Prime Minister. Who said that? Was it a Conservative? It sounds like something a Conservative might have said, but it was not a Conservative. It was the leader of the Bloc Québécois, the new political lieutenant for Quebec for this bad Prime Minister, who said that.

Despite all of the Bloc Québécois's grandstanding and fancy speeches and all of the pompous speeches its leader gives everywhere, the Bloc is preparing to tell the Prime Minister that he does not have to worry, that the Bloc has confidence in him, even if he has a bad government, even if he has his hands in Quebeckers' pockets and even if he is blatantly abusing the fiscal imbalance. That is clear. Even before the Bloc got anything from the government, it announced that it still appreciated the Liberal Prime Minister. The Bloc announced that it was going to vote in favour of this bad Prime Minister.

It is going to vote against the simple little motion I read out at the beginning, which says that the House has no confidence in this Prime Minister and the government. It is a simple motion. If the Bloc Québécois really wanted to walk the talk, it would vote with the Conservatives tomorrow. If they vote against a simple motion like this, it is because they like the Prime Minister. It is because they want this Prime Minister to stay in power time and again. In the words of the leader of the Bloc Québécois, “Quebeckers will be paying...for a long time to come simply to save his government's skin...in the next election”.

Today, the leader of the “Liberal Bloc”, the new coalition set to save the Prime Minister, is still talking out of both sides of his mouth to keep his place at the head of the parade by saying one thing and then the opposite in the same tweet. He announces his support for the Prime Minister while threatening to defeat him. Actions speak louder than words, and there is seldom any shortage of words when the leader of the Bloc Québécois takes the floor. The choice is clear. A vote for the motion is a vote to bring down a bad government. It is a vote to end federal Liberal interference in Quebec's jurisdictions and to restore hope to Quebeckers. A vote against the motion is a vote against Quebeckers, whose grocery bills have skyrocketed, who can no longer afford their mortgage payments, who no longer have access to housing, and who want the streets made safe again for their children.

I am often asked what the Conservatives have planned. It is simple and easy to remember. The next Conservative government's plan is to focus on Quebeckers and Canadians. What is the plan? A common-sense Conservative government will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. This needs to happen, and it needs to happen now, after nine years of this bad Liberal government.

We have to respect the Canadian voters and Quebec voters who elected a minority government. I say that because it is not said often enough. A minority government as bad as this one should not live to see another day. Again, I invite all parliamentarians who have doubts about the quality and competence of this Prime Minister to vote in favour of our motion and not to show more love for the Liberal Prime Minister by voting against the motion. It is time to give Canadians and Quebeckers a real choice and trigger an election to elect a common-sense Conservative government.

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the GovernmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech this afternoon.

My question is very simple. Does my hon. colleague support the Leader of the Opposition's attacks on CBC/Radio-Canada and media organizations like CTV and on journalists?

Does my colleague support this attack on journalists and important organizations in Quebec and across the country?

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the GovernmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Mr. Speaker, at a minimum, I would have expected my Liberal colleague to acknowledge that it is unacceptable for a television journalist to take snippets of sentences and string them together to put words in the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition that he never uttered. Manipulating information the way CTV did is despicable and disgusting.

I cannot understand why Quebec's media has not spoken out against this situation yet. I cannot understand why my Liberal colleague did not denounce CTV for altering information under the very noses of Canadians and Quebeckers everywhere.

This way of doing things is unacceptable, and we will always condemn such downright despicable actions in every corner of the public sphere.

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the GovernmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Bloc

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech really fixated on the Bloc Québécois. I appreciate the love. Some people say that love and hate are closely related. When someone puts a lot of passion into something, it always ends up coming back to where it started, like circling a globe, so it is appreciated and the feeling is mutual.

Now, it is always amusing that it is up to us, the separatists, to explain the British parliamentary traditions in Canada. Parliament is the master of everything, regardless of the captain's political stripe. As our colleague just pointed out, any time a minority government is elected—and this government just became a minority again—when a parliamentarian is in opposition, they get on board and play the game, even though I personally do not believe that the Canadian parliamentary system is a good one. However, that is what we have right now, so we are using it to make any gains we can. That is what it means to take the opposition role seriously and constructively.

Now, I imagine that my colleague will not answer my question, but as the official opposition for the past nine years, what have the Conservatives gained?

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the GovernmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Mr Speaker, this is all a game. Did you hear what my Bloc Québécois colleague just said? This is a game. While rent prices have doubled, while we are facing inflation the likes of which we have not seen in 40 years, while young families no longer have access to housing, while young families can no longer even dream of becoming homeowners, while, by the admission of the Bloc Québécois leader himself, “Quebeckers will be paying...for a long time to come simply to save his government's skin...in the next election”, the Bloc Québécois is just thinking about games.

We are thinking about Quebeckers, and we want to put an end to this bad Liberal government.