Madam Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues for contributing to the debate on this important motion. I am not saying that everything in it is right, nor am I saying that everything in it is wrong, but it is an important motion.
Before I begin, I want to say that we have concerns about the impact AI will have on our lives. Just today, in fact, I think we saw an example of how AI can insinuate itself into parliamentary debates. The government whip stood up and read us some AI text from a source that cannot be verified. There is no way to tell if it is true or false. Then there is the member for Whitby, with whom I get along very well. We do not agree on everything, but we have a good working relationship. He studied philosophy. He is a philosopher, yet he stood up in the people's assembly and, with a philosophically straight face, said that, if AI suits his partisan agenda, AI is right, and that is just the way it is.
Personally, I believe we are capable of having healthier debates in the House, especially since this is a technical debate, a debate on numbers, and since we might end up having to meet somewhere in the middle. With respect to this motion, what will ultimately determine how we vote will probably be the accuracy of the facts cited. According to the motion, we are in a recession. We have had two consecutive quarters of negative growth. There was a significant contraction of 1% in the last quarter, followed by a quarter for which we have only preliminary data. We know the data will be revised, but for now there was a very slight decrease of one‑tenth of a per cent.
First of all, I do not like the term “technical recession”. I was talking about this yesterday with the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who says we are not in a recession. He is not saying that the economy is doing well. He is saying that we are not in a recession, as if that is some sort of award, as if he could skate off with the puck by saying that we are not in a recession and that that is their objective as a government. In an economy, the aim is not to avoid a recession; it is to achieve real growth that increases people's purchasing power and raises living standards. I do not like the term “technical recession”. Think about having pneumonia. Can someone have technical pneumonia, but not pneumonia? Can someone have a bout of the technical flu, but not the flu? That is not how it happens. Either we are in a recession or we do not know yet and we will find out later. There are symptoms. It is a bit like psychiatry, in that there are clinical criteria. Sometimes, not all of the criteria are met. Sometimes, no one is sure of the diagnosis and it gets figured out down the line. However, one thing is certain: Things are not going well.
The Liberals are telling us that we are not in a recession. I would like to send a message to the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. GDP data is constantly being revised. Right now, the growth is negative, but perhaps it will become positive when we look at future versions of the data. That is what the Liberals are telling us. They are saying to wait for the forthcoming data. However, when the data for the past few quarters was revised, positive quarters became negative. In the second quarter of 2025, the GDP dropped by 0.2%. The data for the fourth quarter of 2025 was also revised, but not in the government's favour. When the data is revised and things are worse than we thought, the Liberals should be taking some of the blame for that, but they are not.
How do we know if we are in a recession? First, it is not up to Statistics Canada, the government or us to decide that. In the United States, the National Bureau of Economic Research is the one that decides whether the country is in a recession based on a set of criteria that is generally in keeping with two consecutive quarters of negative growth, but the criterion is not two consecutive quarters. In Canada, we have the Business Cycle Council at the C.D. Howe Institute that has its own criteria. To determine whether we are in a recession, we need to assess the extent of the variation in the GDP. In this case, Canada saw a contraction in the first quarter, but it was very small. We need to look at the duration. There can be a recession with just one quarter of contraction. If the economy were to plummet by 30%, then we would not have to wait for the next quarter to see that we are in trouble. It depends on the specific circumstances. It depends on the extent of the slowdown. We want to know how many industries are affected. We want to know whether there has been a significant impact on GDP across many industries.
Are we in a recession or are we not? No one knows. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals can say for sure. This is an absolutely absurd debate.
More than that, this debate is obscuring the fact that the economy is not doing well. It is appalling that we would spend a whole day wondering whether we meet criteria 1, 2, and 3, whether we will meet them in two months, or whether the first month of the second quarter is positive or negative. It is appalling because no one believes the Canadian economy is sustainable in its current state. I think this is a distraction from the real debate.
However, it is reasonable to fear a recession because, while the unemployment rate is high, it has remained stable. The employment rate has held up relatively well, but it is fragile. That is true, and it is one of the criteria for a recession. As we can see from the GDP data, Canadian companies that are having trouble exporting have started to increase their inventory. What does that mean? It means that warehouses are filling up. They have not laid anyone off yet, but there are closures. There are significant impacts on businesses. However, some companies have decided to maintain shifts, not lay everyone off and build up their inventory. Warehouse space is finite. They cannot keep stockpiling goods indefinitely. What this tells us is that when it comes to exports, trade and negotiations with the United States, we are sitting on a ticking time bomb. The state of inventories is critical.
For the same reason, the economy occasionally recovers after a recession, but without adding any jobs, because businesses start selling off the inventory that was sitting in their warehouses, without rehiring people. There may be early signs of a recession without any job losses because our businesses are resilient and do not want to lose their workforce straightaway by laying people off.
We have talked about the importance of the wage subsidy in maintaining employment relationships for people who are being laid off. These days, if a company lays off its workers, someone else will poach their expertise. Of course, the Prime Minister has been telling us for a year now that the situation will soon be resolved. However, once the situation is resolved, the businesses will not be able to get their employees back.
As I was saying, there are warning signs. I listened carefully to the member for Whitby. It is not always easy, but I did it. He broke down the GDP for us. He told us that investments are ongoing thanks to their superdeduction. In reality, the superdeduction is the chantilly cream of fiscal policy. It is not a superdeduction. Are members familiar with chantilly cream? It is whipped cream with a bit of sugar mixed in. The pretty name is just to make it seem more appealing. The same goes for the superdeduction. It is not a superdeduction. It is the same accelerated depreciation found everywhere, including in the United States. On top of that, they have picked the winners.
Some companies are telling us that Canada has a digital sovereignty problem. They say that they want to get into fibre optics because the Minister of Finance forgot about fibre optics in these sectors, because he picked the winners. Now, the government is telling us that it is a superdeduction. It is not a superdeduction. It is accelerated depreciation. He talks about it like it is the greatest thing since sliced bread, an unprecedented novelty, as if accelerating depreciation were a generational change. It is taxation 101, and it shows that this language is just hype, just rhetoric.
The minister's parliamentary secretary told us that investment has increased and that consumption has held steady. It is true that household consumption has held steady. That is because we are showing solidarity. The Prime Minister is doing something that is taught in a first-year university course. It is called stimulus measures. When people are struggling, cheques are sent out to support consumption. This adds to the government deficit and will have to be paid back at some point. It is working for now, but sending out cheques is not a recipe for success over the next 10 years. What we need is growth. Government spending is also helping to offset that. Procurement is starting up, but these government expenditures are not a recipe for growth.
What is wrong with the GDP? Let us break down the GDP figures. I see the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin: He knows this, because he breaks down these figures. He is a bit like me: He loves this sort of thing. What is driving the weakness in GDP is exports. We are in the midst of an export crisis. If I may coin a term for educational purposes, it could almost be called an “export recession”. This highlights the importance of our relationship with our American neighbours, as well as the importance of improving that relationship, even though they are not always easy to deal with. We may be negotiating trade agreements with the White House, but we do business with companies across the United States that still value their relationship with us, and it is with those companies that we trade. We need to strengthen our relationship with them. This shows how important it is to launch these negotiations with the United States. Mexico has already started. Formal negotiations have begun.
When the Prime Minister was elected, he told us he was the best negotiator in the history of humankind, that he needed to be elected, that he would perform miracles and that the negotiations would go smoothly. That is what he told us. Since then, we have observed that the things that win votes in Canada hurt our relationship with the U.S. Some very harsh remarks have been made. I do not like Donald Trump any more than anyone else does. I do not think that what he is doing is acceptable. However, it is clear that the Prime Minister himself chose to damage his relationship with with U.S. in order to win votes in Canada, and that comes with a high cost.
We have a breakdown of the data. No matter which way we analyze it, the absence of a deal and the absence of negotiations are having a critical impact on Canada's economy and on exports. Funnily enough, the member for Whitby was explaining all the components of GDP earlier, but he skipped over the one that is in crisis, so let me give my colleagues the numbers. Last quarter, compared to the same quarter last year, exports fell by 4.1%. That is a 4% drop. That is huge, and that is the problem. Things are only getting worse. The negotiations are not starting. Are we in a recession today or not? That is not the question that matters. What matters is that the plane has crashed nose first and people are wondering if it has hit the ground yet or not. That is exactly what is happening in the House.
Canada's real exports, after correcting for inflation, fell by 4.1% in the first quarter. The quarter before, they fell by 2.9%. The quarter before that, they fell by 2.3%. The quarter before that, they fell by 3.5%. All of these figures are in comparison with last year.
Keep in mind that we always receive the statistics a little later and that the quarter has only just begun, but the figures I just cited essentially cover the Prime Minister's entire term in office. How do we define the Prime Minister's term? He took office in the midst of a tariff crisis, that is true. He did not create it, that is true. He could not negotiate everything in the first week, that is true. However, in every quarter of his term, we have neither an agreement nor any negotiations. Our relations are deteriorating, and things are falling apart. Nearly 80% of our exports go to the United States. I understand that the Prime Minister is out and about with his address book, travelling and striking trade deals, and that is fine. However, it is wrong to believe that we should completely set aside our relationship with the Americans. That would be economic suicide. That is literally what the Prime Minister is doing. That is what we are seeing with the 4.1% drop in exports. That is what we should be discussing today: that figure, and that figure alone.
It is always difficult to talk about the economic situation in Parliament. However, let us be honest. When jobs are created, the government often claims that it has created them. Most of the time, that is not true. There are cyclical factors. There are international factors. Governments do not necessarily create jobs. Likewise, a recession is not always a government's fault.
I will give the example of the Harper government in 2015. After Stephen Harper became prime minister, there was an energy crisis that led to a crash in oil prices. That was in no way the federal government's fault. Later on, Canada found itself in a recession. That was not Prime Minister Harper's fault. The job losses and decline in investment were the result of a situation that the government had to address. In that case, it was not the government's fault. Most of the time, that is how it is.
However, in this case, the government is playing a special role. The government is describing the situation as though it is not responsible for it. The government is telling us—