Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote a rather old but very relevant saying: The absent are always in the wrong. This saying takes on a very special meaning today. Let us hope that, together, we can see reason.
Perhaps some people would have preferred to see certain others here. Everyone will come to their own judgment. However, a certain someone's presence would certainly have helped to clarify things and reassure the public, and that is a fundamental function that comes with certain titles.
More than six months ago, Iran supposedly had its nuclear capability permanently taken away. President Trump boasted about that with all the subtlety we have come to expect from him. However, he has been criticized for everything he has and has not done for the past year and even prior to that. Suddenly, without consulting anyone, he unleashed hell on Iran.
We can all agree on certain fundamental truths that have been repeated for a long time now. Iran's nuclear program must be dismantled. We must put an end to a regime of terror that oppresses women first and foremost. We must stop the Iranian regime's sponsorship of terrorism.
However, can we question the approach, once these objectives have been clearly established? Is it really healthy and normal to automatically rule out the international institutions that act as safeguards against the inappropriate behaviour we have seen, which has an impact on the entire planet? Is it normal not to inform the usual allies, even if we understand that the UN Security Council was basically hamstrung? Is it normal to accept not having been consulted by the person or country that is supposed to be our main ally? Spontaneously, however, we suddenly support the U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran.
First, they give their unconditional support. Then, the minister and the Prime Minister procrastinate. Next, they have a sudden epiphany and defer to international law. Then they say that Canada will not get involved. Then they say that it might get involved, depending on the conditions.
Finally, today, we are being offered a position, a sort of belated conversion that has the virtue of being clearer: Canada was not consulted, Canada does not agree, and Canada will not participate. It is a belated conversion, but at least it is clear. We are not the only ones interested in this, because Canada is a member of NATO and a member of the G7. It took a long time to understand this, and we are not immune to further changes in position.
It must be said that the trade agreements the Prime Minister is signing all over the place are a long way off from free trade agreements. He is signing a piece of paper at the end of every visit because he does not want to get on the plane empty-handed. There is nothing in those documents that will change the economic reality of Quebec or Canada in the foreseeable future of the next several years.
It is more or less the same thing. No matter what figures Canada or the Prime Minister says, Canada would not even be able to spend the promised amounts anytime soon. Canada is not going to become a major military power overnight. This is the starting point for that reality.
In Davos, the Prime Minister touted co-operation between middle powers. Surprisingly, he did so two days after more or less making a pact with the Chinese empire. Did he speak with the middle powers he is referring to? Right now, the so-called middle powers in the west are moving in a very disordered way, around, beside and behind the American initiative, unable to settle on a common path.
Let us take a look at the effects here in Quebec and Canada, because this war will change people's lives. We already had a tariff crisis, which is still going on and has been getting worse for the past year. We already had a trade crisis so bad that anytime the U.S. President even bothers to take the Prime Minister's call, everyone goes crazy and it is front-page news. Canada and the U.S. are nowhere near reaching an agreement.
We were already living with the threat of a recession, and now the price of a barrel of oil is skyrocketing, with obvious short-term inflation and a possible recession spiral. The effects are significant: purchasing power, especially for the most vulnerable, the likely rise in interest rates, access to home ownership and job losses. These all threaten us.
Proposals have been made for short-term measures in a spirit of collaboration. I am talking about measures to preserve purchasing power, especially for seniors. These also include proposals to improve processing within our borders and reduce vulnerability to threatened trade agreements. They also include measures related to productivity and wage subsidies.
Today, we are exposing ourselves to another monstrous deficit in the fall of 2026, with no long-term effect and no time to put any measures in place. Heaven knows that implementing effective measures quickly is not what the Liberals are best known for after 10 years. Despite that kind of deficit, none of the measures that people need will have been put in place.
If this war drags on, and if the threat surrounding the Strait of Hormuz persists, this fall will be a complicated time in Canada. Once again, the most vulnerable will pay the price. I am calling on the Prime Minister to present a clear plan for taking care of people. His main role is to take care of people. Canada, Quebec and likely Terrebonne are waiting to hear what he has to say.
Above all, the Prime Minister must do three things: relaunch tariff and trade negotiations, deploy short-term measures to support the economy and people's needs, and stand firm by partnering with other middle powers to save as many lives as possible during this war, which is no reality TV show. It is a war and people are dying.