Debates of June 2nd, 2026

Presence in Gallery

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Order.

The member for Mount Royal is rising on a point of order.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to be told that I have abandoned my people, my Canadian people but presumably the Jewish people, to say that the member for Winnipeg South Centre abandoned his people, to me is incredibly unparliamentary. It is unacceptable and I would ask the member to withdraw his comments.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my comments.

Minister Statement During Committee of the Whole

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege concerning information provided to Parliament by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship during committee of the whole proceedings on Thursday, May 28, 2026. During those proceedings, I asked the minister about approximately 130 Palestinian graduate students from Gaza who have been waiting for nearly two years for decisions on their study permit applications. I noted that many face requirements that are impossible to satisfy under war conditions, including biometrics collection and prolonged security screening. I further noted that several countries, including France, Ireland, Belgium and Germany, have adopted flexible measures to facilitate the arrival of scholarship recipients from Gaza.

I then asked the minister whether Canada would do the same. In response, the minister stated, “we have directed officials to accelerate the student visa processing for people in Gaza, and I can confirm that decisions will be made now, and in fact all...will be completed in the next 10 days.” While part of the minister's answer was delivered off microphone and is not fully reflected in the transcript, it is audible in the video recording of the proceedings. I heard the minister make those comments in the chamber. Given the significance of the statement, I subsequently reviewed the recording and confirmed what I heard. The minister's response was not vague. It was not aspirational. It was not framed as a hope or expectation. The minister informed Parliament that officials had been directed to accelerate processing and that decisions would be completed within 10 days.

As members of Parliament, we are entitled to rely upon information provided by the ministers during parliamentary proceedings. Indeed, our ability to hold the government to account depends upon it. Following the minister's statement, I understood that decisions on these applications would be forthcoming within the time frame identified by the minister. I communicated accordingly with stakeholders and advocates who have been working tirelessly on behalf of these students. However, information subsequently received has raised serious concerns regarding the accuracy of the minister's statement to Parliament.

Just today, I have learned that officials in the minister's department are saying that the minister's response regarding a completion in the next 10 days is not the case, as I have been contacted by Canadian advocates for the students who wrote me today to say, “We just met with an IRCC representative this morning and it doesn't sound like they will follow through on this.” The students' advocates told me that officials said to them that there is no 10-day timeline. This was further confirmed by advocates and university professors at a meeting that took place from noon to 1 p.m. today. Therefore, this is my earliest opportunity to raise the matter. This information shared at this meeting with four members of Parliament, including myself, from the stakeholders suggests that officials are not proceeding in accordance with the commitment communicated by the minister during committee of the whole and that the applications in question may not, in fact, be completed within the time frame of 10 days that she identified.

I fully acknowledge that findings that a member deliberately misled the House may be rare and require a high threshold. The authorities establish three conditions: first, that a statement was misleading; second, that the member knew it was incorrect at the time it was made; and third, that there was an intention to mislead.

There are several factors that distinguish this matter. First, the minister made a specific and verifiable representation to Parliament concerning the processing of a defined group of applications with ministry staff at her side. Second, the representation included a precise timeline: completion within 10 days. Third, the statement concerned operational actions that would necessarily have been based on the information provided to the minister by her department officials, who were sitting right in front of her. Fourth, the information that has emerged since the minister's statement calls into question whether the commitment communicated to Parliament reflected the actual status of those files.

Mr. Speaker, I am not asking you to determine today whether the minister deliberately misled Parliament. Such determinations are not made lightly. Rather, I submit that the circumstances raise sufficient concern to warrant further examination by the House. Members must be able to rely on ministerial statements when carrying out their parliamentary duties. When a minister provides a specific assurance to Parliament and substantial doubt subsequently arises as to its accuracy, the House must have confidence that the matter will be examined.

The privileges of members are engaged when our ability to perform our parliamentary functions is undermined by information that may be inaccurate or misleading. In this case, I relied on the minister's response in exercising my responsibilities as a parliamentarian. The House was entitled to rely upon that information.

The integrity of our proceedings depends on the accuracy of the information provided by ministers when answering questions from members. Accordingly, I respectfully submit that there is a prima facie case of question of privilege.

If you so find, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move the following motion: That the matter of the statements made by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship during committee of the whole proceedings on May 28 concerning the processing of study permit applications for Palestinian students from Gaza be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for study and report.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I thank the hon. member. Of course, we will take that intervention under consideration.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to advise you that the Conservatives would like to respond to this at a future time.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to the point of order raised by the hon. member and the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East, having been in those discussions on the main estimates, and I know I do not need to reacquaint you, Mr. Speaker, I note the serious nature of those committee of the whole sessions. I am very troubled by what the hon. member for Vancouver East has detailed in what she has documented, and I hope this matter will be investigated thoroughly.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Economic Policies

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are moments in the life of a country when people stop asking for promises and start asking for honesty, and this is one of those moments. Canadians are not confused about what is happening around them. They see it every day, with their bills, when they put groceries back on the shelf or when their adult children move back home because even full-time work no longer guarantees independence. They know something is wrong. What makes it worse is that they are being told not to believe their very own eyes.

The Liberal government says that the economy is not in a recession and that affordability has not been this good in 10 years, but Canadians know the truth because they are living the truth. The truth is that under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada has become the only country in a recession in the G7. The truth is that Canadian households now carry the worst debt burden in the G7. The truth is that housing costs in Canada are now among the worst in the industrialized world. The truth is that our unemployment rate is now the second-highest in the G7. This did not happen by accident. Policies have consequences.

The Liberal government has governed as though debt were imaginary, as though growth would somehow appear without productivity and as though governments can endlessly spend money they do not have without asking working people to eventually carry the cost, but Canadians are carrying the cost. They carry it every time their rent goes up, every time interest rates rise and mortgages are up for renewal and every time they hear another announcement from a government that mistakes press conferences for progress.

The Prime Minister likes to say that Canada will move at speeds not seen in generations. I will say, when Canadians first heard those words, they wanted to believe them. Now, after more than a year of this government, the results have not matched the rhetoric. The Liberal recession means declining growth. It means our economy is shrinking. It means Canada is not moving at speeds not seen in generations. It means Canada is falling behind. This is not just a criticism but the reality that Canadians are living with and that businesses are responding to.

The Prime Minister is travelling the world trying to sell Canada to investors, while blowing $200,000 on inflight catering over three flights, but what is he selling? He is selling a Canada where major projects still take too long and approvals are uncertain, a Canada where the tanker ban remains in place and Bill C-69 continues to scare away billions of dollars in investment, a Canada where housing starts are not rising at speeds not seen in generations but slowing to a pace not seen in generations.

We hear members opposite boast about the Prime Minister's résumé, but a fancy résumé does not matter to investors looking for opportunities in a business-friendly environment. In fact, in 2025, 45% of all foreign direct investment into Canada, or $44 billion, consisted of foreign purchasers buying up Canadian businesses rather than building new facilities or expanding productive capacity. Canada used to build national champions, but increasingly, we are selling them.

We do not need better marketing. We need a Canada that is actually open for business. We have energy, critical minerals, the workers, the talent and the geography. We have people who are hungry to build, to work, to invest and to grow. What we do not have yet is a government creating the conditions for investor confidence.

The Liberal government has given itself extraordinary powers. It has the Major Projects Office. It has given itself a majority government through dirty backroom deals, so it should have the ability to move. Where are the major projects? Where is the urgency to meet this moment? The Liberals talk about unleashing Canadian energy, but the tanker ban remains. They talk about building homes, but housing construction in the GTA and in Vancouver has collapsed, and 100,000 people are now out of work.

They talk about mines, manufacturing and productivity, but the regulatory reform needed to restore investor confidence is still not there. They talk about moving quickly, but Canadians keep seeing the same pattern: announcement first, action later and, too often, action never. Should we really be surprised? The Prime Minister is surrounded by the same Liberal team that delivered the last decade. He can steal our ideas, but does he really believe in them? We know the team around him is not willing to do what it takes to fully implement those ideas and restore Canada's economy, so Canadians are stuck with the same Liberal pattern: announcement followed by failure to follow through.

Conservatives put forward practical ideas more than a year ago, such as the Canadian sovereign act, the removal of industrial carbon tax, the removal of HST on all new homes worth up to $1.3 million, shovel-ready project zones and capital gains deferrals so we can kick-start our economy and bring wealth home for our people. In the last election, we laid out an ambitious agenda for the first 100 days to set the tone on energy, crime, competitiveness and affordability, because urgency matters. Now, more than a year later, only a tiny sliver of that vision has been implemented, and the Liberals are wondering why things have not changed.

The Liberals dismissed most of those ideas, and then they copied them halfway and failed in the implementation. The ideas that would have had the biggest impact are still sitting on the sidelines. Half measures will not reverse a lost decade. Yes, Canada faces challenges with the U.S., and trade uncertainty is real, but Canada is not the only country facing those challenges. Still, the government wants to blame every failure on geography. On the one hand, the Prime Minister says Canada has the best trade deal with the U.S. of any country in the world and says he wants to help make America great again. On the other hand, he blames our proximity to the United States for our lack of growth and says there is a permanent rupture in our relationship. Which is it?

The truth is that Canada has what the world wants, but the world is not yet convinced that the Liberal government will do what is necessary to unlock it. Let us think about this. Oil prices have soared, yet Canada is still in a recession. We have the best free trade agreement with the U.S., yet Canada is still in a recession. We have the critical minerals the world needs, yet Canada is still in a recession. As I sit in the House, all I hear from the Liberal benches is deflection after deflection and excuse after excuse. They need to wake up and take responsibility. This is not simply something that is happening to Canada. It is a result of slow execution and weak confidence in a government that confuses announcements with achievements. When will the Liberals realize that the cause of the recession is not Canada or Canadians but them and their failed policies?

Canadians do not need more hollow speeches. We need ambition in law, in approvals, in construction, in energy, in mining, in manufacturing and in paycheques. We need a government that passes laws and delivers results because the problem is not that Canada lacks potential. The problem is that the Liberal government has not yet had the courage or the urgency to move beyond announcements, get serious about implementation and finally unleash our economy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada has implied that the Conservative Party is actually being a little unrealistic by trying to suggest that Canada is in a recession, when in fact, it is 0.1% and there are a number of different indicators, yet the Conservatives seem to be gleeful that there appears to be a recession, in their minds. They are happy for Canadians on that fact.

I wonder if the member could explain why the Conservative Party is so happy to see Canadians having a difficult time.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member says that we appear to be gleeful, when the only ones in the House who stand up question period after question period to say, “We have good news” are on that side of the aisle. The reality is we are talking about statistics. Our economy has shrunk in three out of the last four quarters. Canada is the only country in the G7 to be in a recession, with the worst household debt in the G7, the worst housing costs in the G7 and the second-highest unemployment in the G7. We have countless indicators to tell us a story.

What is most concerning is that the member wants to deny all of this and pretend it is not happening. The Liberals are never going to fix this problem.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, part of the reason for the economic slowdown is the tariff war we are engaged in with the United States. It is all well and good to criticize the government, but we also have to make proposals from time to time.

One sector that has undoubtedly been hit harder than the others is the softwood lumber sector. A solution has been circulating for some time now. It was developed in collaboration with forestry companies and the major unions. The program involves buying back some of the anti-dumping countervailing duties. I am sure my Conservative colleagues are familiar with the proposal.

Do they agree that the Canadian economy and the forestry sector should be given a boost by implementing a program to buy back the anti-dumping countervailing duties?

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. Part of drafting a solution is actually acknowledging the problem, which is what the Liberal government is failing to do. The Conservatives put forward practical ideas more than a year ago, and I provided a list, which I will repeat: the Canadian sovereignty act, the removal of the industrial carbon tax, the removal of the HST on all new homes worth up to $1.3 million, shovel-ready project zones and the capital gains deferral so we can kick-start our economy and bring wealth home to our people. In fact, we had provided a plan for the first 100 days to set the tone on energy, crime, competitiveness and affordability. This is the plan the Conservatives have put forward and have been advocating for.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Newmarket—Aurora for her excellent analysis of the situation we find ourselves in here in Canada, where the Liberals, and the Prime Minister in particular, refuse to acknowledge the data provided by Stats Canada that we are in a recession and are the only country in the G7 in a recession.

I am wondering if the member has any thoughts on why the Prime Minister and his Liberal colleagues refuse to admit the seriousness of our financial situation here in Canada.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is inconvenient for the Prime Minister to acknowledge the reality and it goes completely against what he campaigned for and what he says every single day. He talks about moving at speeds not seen in generations. He delivers grand speeches, but the reality is these indicators we are looking at in terms of the economy are confirming the stories we have heard from the people in our ridings, the people who are struggling. They already knew these indicators were about to be released because they have been living them. They know the truth, but the Prime Minister is so disconnected that he cannot even acknowledge the reality that Canadians are living.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me start off by commenting on the last statement the member put on the record. The member talked about disconnect. I would suggest that if there is a party that is disconnected from Canadians, it is the official opposition. The Conservative Party is completely out of touch with reality in terms of what is actually taking place in Canada.

I think of our Prime Minister, who was elected just over a year ago when we had a new government, and I reflect on the many different actions, both legislative and budgetary, that this government has taken over the last number of months. One cannot help but see that within that blueprint, members will find the reflection of what Canadians are telling Liberal members of Parliament and the Prime Minister. The member implied that the government is out of touch with Canadians, but nothing could be further from the truth. Many of the actions we have brought forward clearly demonstrate that. On some of those actions that are reflective of the interests of Canadians, Conservatives have filibustered or have outright voted against.

Whether it is economic development or the security of Canadians through the crime file, we have never seen such a proactive Prime Minister or government dealing in such an aggressive way as this Prime Minister and this government in the last 13 or so months. The numbers are there to substantiate it. All one needs to do is take a look at some of the actions taken by this government.

There is one report that I thought was really interesting that I want to quote, coming from the International Monetary Fund. For those who are following the debate and discussion of this so-called opposition day motion, which has no legitimacy whatsoever as a motion, quite frankly, this is an organization that has over 190 member countries and is directly involved with the issues of finances around the world. Here is what the IMF had to say about Canada: “focus strategically on investment that [is] progrowth”. It projects Canada will have the second-strongest growth in the G7 in 2026. That is the IMF saying that, not members of the government side, and it is not alone. We are going to have the second-highest growth in the G7. That is what is being forecasted this year.

I was here last Friday. When the Conservatives heard the news of the 0.1% GDP on the negative side, they were jumping up and down, virtually celebrating the fact that it had taken place. In public accounts yesterday, the deputy governor, on behalf of the Bank of Canada, warned that we should not be taking one figure such as that and reading too much into it.

One would think that the accumulative brain thrust within the Conservative Party would understand the simplicity of it. When one starts saying that Canada is in this deep recession, which is not true, there are things one could look at that could very easily justify a second look, as the Bank of Canada will do, as opposed to trying to, once again, demonstrate to the Conservatives' followers, that far-right element, that somehow Canada is broken, when it is just not true.

I mentioned the other day that, whether it is the Prime Minister, other ministers or any member of the House who travels abroad, if they talk to business leaders and other stakeholders, other governments, they will find that there is a high level of interest. People want to look at Canada. They want to invest in Canada. In fact, what members will find is that Canada leads on per capita private investment coming into the country. It is the best and the highest in the world.

Let us take a look at some of the things we have actually done as a government. We have a Prime Minister and a series of ministers who are aggressively going out and expanding export opportunities for small businesses, thereby supporting jobs in a very real and tangible way.

The Conservatives ask about the results. Well, let us take a look. What was the commitment? The Prime Minister said, during the last federal election, 13, 14 months ago, that we wanted to expand our trade beyond the Canada-U.S. border, that it was important, and that we were going to strive to double that over the next decade. Today, because of the efforts of this Prime Minister and this government, and I would suggest every member of the Liberal caucus who continues to encourage trade with other nations, we are up in the double digits from last year. Depending on who we ask and how we look at it, it is anywhere from 15% to 30%. Trading opportunities continue to be enhanced. Is it any surprise, when we have had 20-plus agreements of trade and security over the last 13 months?

We have brought in trade legislation dealing with trade between Canada and Indonesia, Canada and Northern Ireland, along with England. That legislation has passed. There is absolutely no doubt that we are moving forward on the trade file. We recognize the value of the United States and the trade that we have there. It is well over $3 billion a day, going both ways in terms of an accumulative total. Even that trade is up from last year.

Unlike the Conservatives, we will continue to work with our American counterparts to achieve the best deal that we can for Canadians. We are putting Canadians' interests ahead of political parties' interests, which is contrary to what the Conservative Party is doing. Ultimately, they say we should capitulate. Let us remember the other day, on another opposition motion, they wanted us to capitulate completely on our arts community, saying that we have offended the trade negotiators because of a decision that was made by the CRTC, an arm's-length organization. They saw that, and right away they wanted us to capitulate.

Whether it is the Prime Minister or any member of the national Liberal caucus, we are not prepared to sign just any agreement. We are prepared to fight for the best deal for Canadians and ultimately prevail. That is what we are going to achieve. When we look at some of those indicators, and I am thinking of the G7 countries, we think of other aspects than what the Conservatives like to talk about. In terms of Canada's credit rating, we are the best in the G7, and our fiscal position, again, is the best in the G7.

With respect to growth for 2026, we are not the best, but we are next to the best. We will be number two. That is what is being projected for Canada. We are in fact not only the best in the G7 in foreign direct investment but are way out in front of the closest one to us. This does not surprise me, given the actions that the Prime Minister has taken and the world leaders he has met with, along with investors and many different stakeholders, not only within Canada but also outside Canada.

I made reference to this in the past, and I will do it again now. Whether it is the Philippines or India, we have a Prime Minister who has met with their leadership. Ultimately we are hoping to be able to achieve agreements with those two nations, ideally in 2026.

A number of individuals involved in trade came to Canada just last week, or 10 days ago, in regard to improving trade relations and building a stronger, healthier trade relationship between Canada and India. I have had a number of conversations with the high commissioner where he talked very positively about the opportunities for both Canada and India. At the same time, we can still deal with sensitive issues related to security, and other issues, but we understand how important it is to grow our economy by looking at diversifying our trade opportunities. For foreign direct investment, the Prime Minister goes abroad and ultimately attracts literally billions of dollars of foreign investment commitments to come to Canada.

These are the types of things that can make a difference. The Conservatives seem to be of the opinion that after we won the election, one week later, everything should be done. It takes time. There were major projects we put together and legislation we ultimately passed, weeks after the election. We established a Major Projects Office to take in ideas and to support the projects in the city of Calgary a few months later. I believe it was in August or September; I am not 100% sure.

We have major projects now on the books that are in every region of our great nation. As I have highlighted in the past, we can talk about wind and tide energy in Atlantic Canada. We can talk about the port and minerals in the province of Quebec. We can talk about nuclear energy in the province of Ontario. We can talk about Thompson and the mines. We can talk about Churchill in my own province of Manitoba. We can talk about copper, potash and canola in Saskatchewan. We can talk about pipelines for Alberta. We can talk about not only pipelines but also mining in B.C., and major developments of resources in the north.

At the same time, we are being sensitive to indigenous, provincial and other stakeholders on critical issues such as our environment. When we talk about these developments, we have to ensure that they are done in a sustainable way.

These are the types of things that the Government of Canada is moving forward with. A pipeline does not appear overnight. It takes time, but we have a Prime Minister and a government that not only have an MOU but have gone a step further. We are taking even more actions on the MOU.

We have a government that understands the value of working collaboratively with indigenous people, provincial governments and more. That is how we are going to build Canada strong, a strong Canada that is there for all Canadians. Those are the type of things we have actually been doing.

Then there is the Conservative Party, which ultimately votes against virtually everything. The Conservatives continue to talk negatively and to spread misinformation. Let me give an example from yesterday.

We were having a debate yesterday, and the member for Brandon—Souris talked about the military. Part of the discussion that was going back and forth was with regard to the Canadian Forces and investments in it. Two things come to my mind on that issue. First is the issue of misinformation. Imagine that someone is the member of Parliament from Brandon and that they tell people that the veterans office in Brandon is actually closed. When I verbally challenged the member on that, the critic for veterans affairs, from his seat, tried to imply that I do not understand that the office in Brandon is closed.

When we have the member of Parliament from Brandon saying that, and when we have the critic for veterans affairs saying that, and all one needs to do is to just take a look in Hansard, one might be led to believe that the office in Brandon no longer exists. Of course, like many other things that the Conservatives say and do, it is just not true. There is a veterans office in the community of Brandon.

The reality is that it was the Conservative Party, and the leader of the Conservative Party today, that actually closed the office in Brandon, as well as eight other veterans offices. The Conservatives then had the audacity to say that how we treat veterans is going to have a negative impact on recruitment in the Canadian Forces, or so the critic for veterans affairs implied.

Do the Conservatives not know that last year a historic number of people applied to become members of the Canadian Forces? I will make a suggestion as to why that is taking place. It is because we have a government that has recognized the value of the Canadian Forces and has actually met the 2% commitment and has committed to go far beyond 2% of GDP.

Contrast that to where it was when the leader of the Conservative Party sat in government around the cabinet table. It was at less than 1% for one year. It is the absolute opposite in terms of what the Conservative Party tries to feed its constituents and Canadians as a whole, which is misinformation. Not only do Conservatives talk about misinformation here on the floor of the House, but they talk about it outside the House, through social media and emails. They talk about the issue of affordability, yet take a look at what they have said about issues such as the groceries and essentials national benefit program. By the way, the cheques and deposits are going out this week.

The national food program feeds 400,000 young children. Some of the Conservatives have called it a “garbage” program. Others have said the program does not exist, even though it is feeding hundreds of thousands of children. It is truly amazing how the Conservatives oppose the government on affordability measures yet, on the other hand, criticize us for not having more affordability measures.

I would suggest that the Conservative Party of Canada needs to rethink the way in which it presents itself, not only in the House but to all Canadians, on a multitude of different issues.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed to see the member for Winnipeg North rewriting history in every one of his speeches.

Earlier, he referred to the fact that the Prime Minister was unable to resolve the tariff crisis during his first few months in office, yet that is exactly what the Prime Minister had promised during the election campaign: With his background, he would be able to resolve this tariff crisis. It is easy to say, in retrospect, that it was impossible, but it was still an election promise that was very important to him at the time. However, I will set that aside.

I will simply point out to the parliamentary secretary that the situation in the forestry sector is currently untenable. Solutions exist. The province most affected by the tariff dispute is Quebec, with its aluminum and forestry sectors. Among these solutions is a buyback program that has been supported by everyone in the forestry sector, yet the government continues to turn a deaf ear.

I would like to know how my colleague can explain this lack of responsiveness on the part of the government and the lack of action we are seeing in the forestry sector.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, whether it is our forestry, aluminum, steel or automotive industry here in Canada, these industries are of great concern to the federal government. That is one of the reasons why, through tariffs and monitoring these industries, we have come up with re-skilling programs to direct financial support.

What I want to pick up on is the member's comments with respect to the issue of the three Ts: the Trump, tariff and trade issue. The Prime Minister made a commitment to expand trade going outside the United States, and we have been exceptionally successful at doing that.

With regard to an agreement with the United States, we currently do have an agreement. We are prepared to sit down and continue negotiations in good faith to protect the interests of Canadians, but we are not prepared to capitulate. I think it is important that we persist and that we push for the best deal we can for Canadians.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member on the other side. He gave a speech about what the opposition is doing right now. I am a little dismayed, because I think he needs to speak to what the motion is, which is about the recession that Canada is very clearly heading into now. There are a number of data points we have to give here, but the member has to identify, and probably has to own, quite frankly, some of the policies the government has pushed the country to that have led us to the economic point we are at right now.

Would the member please address that as opposed to blaming others, either south of the border or on this side of the House, saying that we are the ones misspeaking on this? The data speaks for itself. The country is in economic decline. Can he tell us what he thinks he should change on the other side of the House in order to arrest that trend?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am more inclined to believe what the Bank of Canada is saying on the issue of the recession than I am to believe the leader of the Conservative Party.

I think the GDP, yes, is a very important indicator, but there are also other important indicators that should be looked at. At best, the Conservatives are being premature by going around and shouting in glee that Canada is in a recession, when there are other indicators that show that Canada is building strong and that the economy will grow. It is predicted to have the second-largest growth in the G7. I think there are some solid figures out there, and I look forward to ultimately being able to demonstrate very clearly in the coming months that we are, in fact, sticking to a strong build Canada.

[Michael Ma, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his great speech, particularly around misinformation. As we know today, AI feeds on all sorts of comments, whether they are right or wrong, collectively on social media, and misinformation will obviously lead to a bias in the AI results. I wonder if the hon. member could speak on the impact of that for society in general.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with today's technology, when we look at social media and the ability to be able to communicate through computer and Internet networks, one should be concerned. At the end of the day, when someone promotes and encourages things that are negative, it does have a residual impact.

That is why I think the Conservative Party of Canada, the official opposition, needs to be more, I would suggest, responsible in dealing with the facts on a number of different issues. I just cited one that took place yesterday. I could have easily cited another opposition day, when Conservatives were saying that Canadians were paying 22% more for gasoline than Americans. I took a picture of three different gas stations in Winnipeg that were all priced at around $1.55 for a litre, which is a whole lot cheaper than in California, where there are 39 million people.

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I always appreciate the member's speeches in the House of Commons and always learn so much more about Canada, given the long time he has been an MP in the House. I wonder if the member would share with us how much change we have seen in the 45th Parliament, especially in regard to the focus we are seeing in investments for Nunavut.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on the ongoing advocacy over the years to where we are today, we can talk about the military investments and the importance of issues like that of the rangers, which I know is important to my colleague. I think of the whole area of mining. Yesterday, she was telling a story about a trucker and how indigenous people as a whole are protecting and advocating for our environment.

There is the understanding of and relationship with the Government of Canada in recognizing that the north is such a critical component. Canada is not Canada without the north, and we need to invest in it. We need to make sure we are there in very real and tangible ways. I look to my friend and colleague to continue to do that advocacy, both within this chamber, within the caucus, and just in general, because I think it builds a stronger Canada.