Debates of June 8th, 2026

Opposition Motion—The Government's Fiscal Policies

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. chief government whip has a point. It was heard. I heard it.

I would invite the hon. member for Oshawa to apologize.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was not standing to speak. I was shouting across, like we often do. I am sorry that it was heard, but it is categorically untrue what he said. I am always there for Oshawa—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We are entering debate.

The hon. chief government whip.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Oshawa is not recognizing the fact that what she said was wrong. At best, she was sorry that it was heard.

The rules in the House are very clear. We cannot accuse someone of lying, much less call them a liar. The member needs to withdraw the comment and apologize for what she said without qualification or any caveat attached to it.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I withdraw saying, “That is a lie,” but it was categorically untrue.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We cannot say indirectly what we cannot say directly.

The hon. chief government whip.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have seen twice now that the member is refusing to recognize your authority, because she is once again adding a caveat to it and saying, “I apologize, but”. She has to unreservedly remove the comment and apologize for what she said.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The apology has to be unequivocal, with no caveats to it. We want to continue with the opposition day motion.

The hon. member for Oshawa.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have already said I withdraw the comment, “That is a lie.”

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today.

When I read the motion today, I could not help but think of a story my father told me when I was a kid. The story had to do with Optimist clubs.

There are Optimist clubs in Quebec and in just about every province in Canada, and they are really essential to the community. They work hard. I am thinking in particular of the clubs in Beauport—Limoilou that sell hot dogs at baseball tournaments and donate the proceeds to young people. Everyone knows about the Optimist clubs in their community.

When I was young, my father told me a little story to make me think. Given the success of the Optimist clubs, he told me a story about two guys. The first one tells the other that since Optimist clubs seem to work so well, they should start a “pessimist club”. The second replies that he does not think it will work. When I read the motion, it reminded me a bit of that story, and I will explain why. I think it is important to put some facts back into the debate today.

Yes, the global economy is undergoing a period of uncertainty. Yes, the challenges are real. However, presenting Canada as an economic failure is more pessimism than a serious analysis. The fact of the matter is that Canada is still in a great economic position today compared to many of its G7 partners.

Canada is expected to have the second-fastest growth in the G7 this year and next. Our banking system, in which I worked for more than 20 years, is recognized as one of the strongest in the world. Our unemployment rate remains historically low despite global economic turbulence. Millions of jobs have been created since the pandemic, and Canada continues to attract major investments in growth sectors such as critical minerals, artificial intelligence, batteries, aerospace and clean technology.

Let us not forget the fundamental fact that Canada and the United States share the world's longest international border. This proximity gives us privileged access to the world's largest economy. Billions of dollars' worth of goods and services cross that border every day, supporting millions of jobs on both sides. Few G7 countries enjoy such a significant advantage in terms of geography and trade.

However, this advantage also comes with its share of challenges. When the American economy slows down, when trade tensions emerge or when political decisions are made in Washington, the effects are felt here in Canada right away. Our level of economic integration with the United States leaves us more exposed than many other countries to the ups and downs of the U.S. economy and the uncertainties of its trade policies.

That is precisely why we must look at our economic performance in context and with a positive outlook. Despite the economic upheaval in recent years, the supply chain disruptions, the rising global inflation and the uncertainty when it comes to our main trading partner, Canada remains one of the most stable and resilient economies in the G7.

That is why we need to assess Canada's economic performance rigorously and honestly. What do the numbers tell us? They tell us that Canada's economy is stronger and more resilient that many people expected.

The May labour force survey results show that our plan is working. While several analysts had predicted that only 10,000 jobs would be created, we actually created 88,000 jobs in one month. That is unbelievable. That is not a small difference. It is almost nine times what the market expected.

The unemployment rate also dropped to 6.6% from a high of 7.1% last August. These numbers demonstrate one very simple thing: Despite headwinds, global uncertainty and trade tensions with our main economic partner, Canada's labour market remains resilient.

What is more, over the past 12 months, Canada has created 147,000 jobs. Since December 2024, Canada has added more jobs per capita than the United States. Canada has created 2.8 jobs for every 1,000 residents, nearly double the rate seen among our neighbours to the south. These are results we can be proud of.

It is not just the number of jobs that matters. The quality of the jobs matters too. The recent gains have mainly come from full-time jobs, particularly in the construction industry.

Why is that so important? It is because it shows that the investments we are making are in infrastructure, housing and major economic projects that deliver real results. That is good news for the people and the riding of Beauport—Limoilou. It also shows that our decision to align our public investments more closely with the construction season is paying off. Meanwhile, wages continue to rise faster than inflation. For over three years now, workers' incomes have been outpacing price increases. That means more money in the pockets of Canadian families. That is the reality for millions of workers across the country.

Of course, there are still some challenges. I am thinking in particular about youth employment. Although youth unemployment is down by 0.9%, marking the first drop since January, we know that many young Canadians are still having a hard time entering the labour market. That is why our government is taking action. In the spring economic update, we announced over $6 billion in investments in our team Canada strong initiative. This initiative will mobilize Canada's skilled trades workforce and meet the growing needs of our economy.

Thanks to these investments, we expect to create more than 100,000 new, well‑paying jobs in the skilled trades by 2030. We are making it easier to access apprenticeships. We are supporting training. We are helping young people find stable, well‑paying jobs that are in demand across the country. We are continuing to protect essential programs like Canada summer jobs and the youth climate corps.

The opposition is asking us today to conclude that the Canadian economy is failing. The facts tell a very different story. They show us an economy that continues to add jobs despite global uncertainty. They show us wages rising faster than inflation. They show us investments that are boosting construction and strengthening our productive capacity. They show us a country that remains one of the strongest economies in the G20 despite global challenges.

Our government remains focused on a clear priority: building the strongest economy in the G7. That is the goal of budget 2025. That is the goal of the spring economic update. That is the goal of every measure we are implementing to support workers, attract investment, and strengthen Canada's competitiveness.

Canadians are asking us not to give in to pessimism. They want us to build the future. That is exactly what we are doing. Our free trade agreements with Europe and the Indo‑Pacific region have made Canada one of the best-positioned countries in the world for international trade.

The real question is this: Are we in a better position to weather this storm than most of our international partners? The answer is yes, because we have strong institutions, strategic natural resources that are in demand all over the world, and access to over 1.5 billion consumers through our trade agreements and, most of all, because we can count on Canadians' talent, innovation and resilience.

Rather than giving into pessimism, we have to acknowledge the challenges yet trust in the incredible strengths of our economy and the immense potential of Canadians. That is exactly what our government is focused on doing: investing in productivity, infrastructure, housing, trade and the workers building our collective prosperity.

I, for one, am siding with the optimists.

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

Madam Speaker, part of the concern I have about the Conservatives' opposition day is that, consistent with what they usually do, they are misleading Canadians.

With the first two speakers, we had one member stand up and say there has been a net loss in jobs since this Prime Minister became the Prime Minister, which is just not true, and then another member stood up and said export numbers are going in the wrong direction. Again, it is just not true. Implying that Canada is constantly broken is something the Conservatives are very good at doing, and they seem to take great glee in talking down Canada.

I wonder if my colleague could talk about what he believes is important in terms of how Canada is, in fact, growing and things are getting better in many different areas.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I see that my colleague is part of the optimists' club too. I am glad about that, and I am sure we will make something good out of it.

Canada is truly a superpower when it comes to clean and conventional energy. We have vast deposits of critical minerals, so we are well equipped. I see this because I am a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade. I have seen the agreements we are signing all over the world. As I mentioned earlier, that is nearly 1.5 billion consumers worldwide we can do business with.

There is no doubt that by diversifying our economy and continuing to attract investment here, we are truly laying the groundwork for the future, and people know it. People know we are going through some rough times right now, but they still believe in us, and we really feel that.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are a few disturbing comments on the record already, unfortunately, early this Monday, from the government whip and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. I find it very unfortunate that they continue to accuse Conservatives of hating Canada. I love this country, and the member for Winnipeg North knows that.

I find it very disturbing that he continues to accuse us of rightfully calling out the government where it has failed over the last 11 years. There are more Canadians at food banks than ever before, including educated Canadians with post-secondary degrees, more than ever, lining up at food banks because their jobs do not pay them enough to pay for the increase in food prices under the Liberals. There are more Canadians under 35 out of the housing market than ever before.

What exactly is it that the Liberals think they have to be so proud of?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure that question was actually directed at me, but I will take the time to answer it. During my speech, I recounted a story my father used to tell me when I was young, a story about optimists and pessimists. The whole idea is that if we want to build a strong Canada, if we want to look to the future, we have to be part of the optimists' club. If we are pessimists, we will get nowhere together, and the word “together” will cease to exist.

That is what we are building, and it saddens me to see members of the opposition parties saying one thing in the House and then doing another. I am talking about voting against measures that help, such as the Canadian dental care plan and the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. I would like to see them join us on the optimistic side.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to extend greetings to my colleague. We work very well together on the Standing Committee on Finance. As he said, he spent 20 years in banking.

I would like to know whether he and his fellow optimists believe that spending $34 billion on a pipeline for the dirtiest oil in the world and funding a new pipeline forms part of what he referred to in his comments as Canada's strategy to become a clean energy superpower. I would like to know whether the optimists consider that to be clean.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Finance. I also know that he loves generating sound bites and I think what he just said will make a great one.

I am definitely a member of the optimists' club, and I also believe in saying “and” instead of “or”. I believe that, in order to build a strong economy, we should not simply decide whether to do this thing or that thing. We must believe in saying “and”, that is, we need to build. We need to move forward, and Canadians want us to say “and”, not “or.”

Canadians do not want to see us choose between a project in the west or a project in the east. They want both. That is the new strategy. In other words, we are going to grow our investments and build our projects so we can get Canada through these challenging global times by diversifying our economy, helping our businesses do things differently and doubling exports. That is what we are doing. We are working with the mindset of “and”, not “or”.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House, but even more so when it is before you.

I will take a second to say that we obviously need to build a strong Quebec, and to build a strong Quebec, we need forward thinkers. I saw a lot of young people this weekend when I did the rounds of Young Entrepreneurs Day. I know there are young entrepreneurs in every one of our ridings.

I also wanted to take a second to acknowledge all elementary and secondary students and graduates. It is exam time for them. I know it is June, the sun is shining and they want to go outside. I want to tell them that they need to keep studying and working hard, that they are our future, that I am thinking of them and that I will wish them a great summer when school is out. By studying hard, they will be better equipped to weigh the facts, so they might spread less disinformation than is often found in Conservative motions and in Liberal speeches like the one we just heard from my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou.

I just asked the member for Beauport—Limoilou whether he considers pipelines carrying the dirtiest oil in the world to be clean energy. He replied that, no, in order to make something clean, we have to get our hands dirty, because to make something clean, we have to accept mess. The government wants to use the dirtiest oil to produce clean energy. Now those folks want to stand up in the House all day and say that the motion before us is nothing but disinformation. Clearly, the level of debate here is often pretty low.

There are tons of nuances in the kind of debate we are having today on the motion before us. This Conservative motion is actually pretty similar to the one they moved last week on the last Conservative opposition day. They start by saying that we are the only G20 country in a recession, that everything is broken and that we need to put an end to inflationary spending.

The last time I gave a speech, I explained that it might take a few months to find out whether we are in a recession today, once the data is revised and the next quarter or two of data comes out, given that we are in an unusual situation.

There are clips of Conservative MPs talking about us. They call us the “Liberal Bloc” and say we deny the existence of a recession. I am not saying that everyone should take a course in economics, but these people have never taken one in their life. They studied kinesiology, and now they are going on social media to educate us about what a recession is.

The problem is that while definitions are being debated, substantive issues are not. We are not debating the fact that we have a problem with very weak growth, endemic for a number of years now. We are not debating the fact that more of the past five quarters have been negative than positive. We are not debating the fact that, for the least wealthy 20% to 25% of people in our economy, the cost of living has risen faster than their purchasing power. We are not debating the fact that yes, these people need help and yes, it takes benefits. We voted for the new benefit, which the government says is intended to help with grocery bills but which is actually an enhanced GST rebate. We support that.

However, it is not sound policy to constantly add new benefits and increase the tax burden when the government is unable to generate growth, negotiate a free trade agreement with the Americans, or even tell us what the negotiating strategy with the United States would be. We can debate what does or does not constitute a recession. The C.D. Howe Institute council that dates recessions in Canada says that there must be at least one quarter of negative growth, that the decline in that quarter must be significant and that it must be sufficiently widespread across the economy.

Last week, Desjardins' chief economist said that 50% of sectors are affected. Normally, we say it is a recession when 60% of sectors are affected. It is a matter of the council's judgment, but that does not detract from the fact that things are not going well. The Liberals keep telling us that they are creating jobs. That said, governments always boast about creating jobs.

I would invite everyone here to take a look at the work of Nicolas Petrovsky‑Nadeau, an economist who studied in Quebec and who I believe is currently working at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. He explains how many jobs must be created each quarter to stop unemployment from rising. Just because jobs have been created, that does not mean that the government has succeeded.

The Liberals are saying that they did better than analysts predicted. Of course they did. What is the best way to manage expectations? It is to keep them really low. When analysts think that we are going to do extremely poorly and things do not turn out quite as badly as they thought, then we end up doing better than predicted. That is what the Liberals are bragging about. However, we will be voting against this motion because, once again, the Conservatives have failed to define what constitutes inflationary spending.

I think the chief government whip is not listening because I am speaking French. He does not even have his earpiece in. When we speak French in the House, nobody seems to listen, except you, Mr. Speaker, because your French is very good and we appreciate that. I listened to what the members for Whitby and Beauport—Limoilou had to say, but now that I am speaking, they are patting each other on the back, chatting, joking and laughing. The funny thing is that I am making fun of them and they do not even realize it. They are not interested in what is happening in the House of Commons. That member is a Liberal House officer, the whip, the guy who is supposed to be responsible for Liberal party discipline, but he is not listening.

This Conservative motion contains disinformation. We do not know what inflationary spending is, but there is still a grain of truth to it, namely the assessment that the Canadian economy is in poor shape. I have spoken about the issue of growth. We have a persistent growth problem. The government disagrees. It tells us that, according to certain IMF forecasts, we will be the best in the G7. However, that has not happened yet. If the Liberals had done a good job, they would be talking to us about the past few quarters. Instead, what they are telling us is that they have done such a poor job in recent quarters that they are going to rely on a forecast from the IMF that is actually quite old. Let us wait and see what happens with those forecasts.

In the same speech, the member for Whitby told us that his government outperformed the forecasts, but that it was still bad. Now the Liberals are telling us they will be the best in the G7 because there are forecasts. That is brilliant. The Liberals have mastered the art of twisting the numbers until they say what they want them to. We know what confessions under torture are worth. They are worth next to nothing.

The government is breaking down the GDP even though it has not yet started trade negotiations with the United States. Granted, Donald Trump is not easy to work with. However, the government does not have a strategy. We are trying to find out what the strategy is. We, the separatists in the Bloc Québécois, were criticized during the election campaign for saying that we would work with the government on its strategy to normalize relations with the United States as far as possible. We are looking for the strategy. There is no strategy.

Since the Prime Minister has been in office, since the arrival of the so-called new government, exports have steadily declined quarter after quarter. The decline has exceeded 4%, quarter after quarter, since the first quarter of 2026. That is because we do not have trade agreements. What are the Liberals doing to hide this? They tell us that they have increased our exports to Europe. When we break down the figures, we realize that it was basically a large volume of aluminum sent to Europe, at fairly high prices, that changed the statistics. We do not have a trade agreement. Why not hold an opposition day on that? That is something the Conservatives should consider.

What is more, there is no reliable fiscal anchor. We do not even know how to assess the government's performance anymore, because the government no longer knows what to compare itself to. Previously, we had the debt-to-GDP ratio. The government told us that this no longer works, so it became the deficit-to-GDP ratio. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has also weighed in. By the way, the Liberals chose her themselves and unilaterally imposed this decision on the House. There was no consensus on this appointment, particularly because of the way it was made. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is clearly competent, but the government appointed her unilaterally. Now she is saying that the government will not be able to meet its fiscal anchor every year.

Luc Godbout appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance. I think it was last week. Luc Godbout holds the research chair in taxation and public finance at Université de Sherbrooke. His team does extraordinary work, they are recognized and they are non-partisan. They are not a bunch of bozos from the opposition who do nothing but complain, as the members on the other side of the House like to say. The witnesses told us that they do not understand what the government's fiscal anchors are and that we need to have some. They told us that they cannot even say whether they are good or bad because the Liberals change the rules whenever they feel like it. That is a valid point in the Conservative motion.

What else is in the motion? It talks about inflationary and non-inflationary spending. That is just political rhetoric. What else did we learn from the representatives of the Université de Sherbrooke research chair? They said that our spending is in a shambles. A budget is drafted and presented, appropriations are voted on, and then we find ourselves in a situation where the Minister of Finance suddenly decides, on a whim, to add a new benefit, a new scheme, a new payout. Everything has been so poorly planned that even academics can no longer keep track of the deficit over the course of the year.

That is a problem. It is a planning problem. It is a rigour problem. In the last budget cycle, the Minister of Finance decided to present a budget in the fall instead of in the winter. He was not ready, so he changed the provisions before the update, which means that the Standing Committee on Finance is still studying one budget bill anther another and can no longer keep track of them. That is mismanagement.

What did Mr. Godbout, the research chair and professor at Université de Sherbrooke, say when he when he came to testify? He told us that the government needs to be clear about what constitutes capital expenditures and what constitutes operating expenditures. The government is making up its own rules, and they do not comply with generally accepted accounting principles. In the budget, it is classifying security at FIFA matches as an investment. We need clear rules because the government is disguising operating expenses as investments. According to the professor from Université de Sherbrooke, the government is giving tax credits to companies that might invest and calling that an investment. That is not how any public accounting system in the world operates. Even in the United Kingdom, where investments are accounted for separately—where there is a balance sheet, a statement or some sort of equivalent in the public accounts—nobody does this. That is mismanagement.

I do not know what the Conservatives call inflationary spending, because anything can fit in that category. I asked one Conservative MP a question earlier. I asked him whether spending $34 billion in public funds for a pipeline was inflationary. He practically turned himself inside out rather than answer my question. The Conservatives do not want to answer. What is inflationary spending? Does inflationary spending include a 10% increase in the OAS for people between 65 and 74 years of age, victims of Liberal discrimination who are suffering due to the increased cost of living? We do not know.

Furthermore, I notice that no one seems to have a solution. No one is suggesting solutions. The government tells us that everything is fine and that the IMF thinks that everything will be fine. Well, we are proposing solutions. Last week, during the last opposition day, the member for Whitby told us that opposition members never do anything but complain. However, after the unions, the FTQ, the Syndicat des métallos and the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, we were the first to say that a wage subsidy was needed in response to the new tariff calculation method that the U.S. administration introduced in April. A wage subsidy is needed to protect businesses that are captured by the new tariff formula and that cannot increase their inventories any more.

That is one thing. The employment rate is doing well because companies are accumulating stock, but that will not last forever. When these companies run into problems, we will need to maintain the employment relationship so that employees do not have to rely on employment insurance, so that they do not go work for competitors and so that we can free up some margin in the actuarial calculations that are used to balance the EI fund. Given the tariff crisis, we must ensure that we do not have to increase EI contributions for companies that may be struggling a bit right now. These are the kinds of solutions that we are proposing, but we are essentially being told that we do not want to build Canada strong by building pipelines and we never come up with any solutions.

I understand that the government signed a separate infrastructure agreement with Quebec. We are pleased about that. The Liberals have been telling us for years that certain conditions must be met and that we were wrong. However, now they have signed a separate agreement and everything is fine. Instead of going with a non-existent high-speed train with a business plan that does not make any sense and that heartlessly expropriates people's land, as Alto is currently doing, we are asking for more funding for public transit. That is a solution that would help relieve congestion on our city highways. That would be a good idea.

Let us talk about the forestry industry. The Saint-Michel sawmill just closed down. For years, these people have been facing tariffs that make no sense. They have been forced to pay countervailing duties that get tied up in the United States. These companies win their cases in court 10 years later. They get their money back, but by then, they have gone bankrupt.

However, this is an asset. We are telling the government to buy back these countervailing duties. It is an asset that would not even be counted toward the deficit, and it would give these businesses some breathing room and liquidity. The response we get is that the government has already done everything it could. It grants loans to businesses on the verge of closing, but it refuses to implement this measure. Then it criticizes us for not coming up with proposals.

The government wants to build a strong country, but Quebec and the provinces also have responsibilities. Think of the hospitals with leaky roofs and the infrastructure. The governments of Quebec and the provinces are closer to the people than the federal government is.

The influx of asylum seekers has exceeded Quebec's capacity to accommodate them and has cost $733 million. The National Assembly has unanimously called for this amount to be repaid to Quebec. Why has it never been repaid? That would also give people some breathing room. After all, people do not just pay federal taxes. They also pay provincial taxes. When the provinces are financially squeezed, it does not help taxpayers. When a sick person has a hard time getting the services they need, that does not help them either. When teachers cannot be recruited, that does not help children. Another thing that Ottawa needs to do is transfer the money that is owed to Quebec.

The Liberals say that they are investing, that it is important to boost productivity and adapt to climate change. The government wants to buy pipelines and, at the same time, it is closing the Department of Agriculture research centres in the riding of the Minister of Government Transformation. These centres are designed to support climate change adaptation, develop new species and boost agricultural productivity. There is a unanimous consensus in the agricultural sector. These research centres are vital to the future of our food. They are being shut down to save what amounts to practically 0% of the federal budget, yet still, they are being shut down.

I am not going to talk about the Governor General, because not everybody likes that, but everyone knows what I think of the role.

The Bloc Québécois is putting forward proposals to help our businesses. Take the example of an aerospace policy. The government has a nature policy, an energy policy and policies for just about everything, yet Liberal MPs from my area are going around saying we do not need an aerospace policy and that the government is handing out subsidies. These things take time. The aeronautics and aerospace sectors operate over decades. We need to connect the military, the civilian sector and everyone's needs so that we buy our own products. The government is saying that we do not need a policy. It is time to buy aircraft, and he is off in Sweden trying to convince someone to open a factory here rather than ordering planes, yet we are told we do not need a strategy.

The government is also telling us that the industry is not asking for it. However, the Standing Committee on Finance heard from the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, or AIAC, and its representatives told us that we need an aerospace industrial policy. They made that clear to us. If we had one today, the government would not be doing the tango with every company in the world to determine which aircraft to choose, because the orders would already be coming in. That is what would happen.

I am not saying that everything the Liberals do is bad. The productivity superdeduction is a good measure, and I think it should be expanded. I think the government has picked the winners, but its fiscal situation has become so bad that it cannot afford to do that anymore. That is a problem. Some good things have been done, but it is not enough.

I hear the government saying that all the opposition does is complain, shout and spread disinformation. Do members know how difficult it is, politically, to say that we know the recession will be coming in the future? It would be easy to say we are in a recession, like the Conservatives do. Do members know how difficult it is politically for us to remain rigorous, to stand our ground and to keep things in perspective? We are doing that. When we do that, the government is happy. When we propose solutions that come from the front lines and the industry, in the same speech, we become the whiners of the minority opposition that the government no longer listens to.

Now that they form a majority, I am asking the Liberals to dial down the arrogance and smugness. They have to stop saying that they are the best thing since sliced bread and start considering the good ideas coming from the other side of the House. I have very good relationships with the other members of the Standing Committee on Finance. I see the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin walking into the House. I think we have ideas to contribute, but the government needs to be at least a little receptive.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I would remind the hon. member that referring to members entering or leaving the House is not permitted.

The member for Lévis—Lotbinière.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to give my esteemed colleague the opportunity to tell me how people in Mirabel are feeling. The government told them that a high-speed rail project is going to cut right through their farmland. It did not offer much in the way of explanation. A lot of questions were asked, but not a lot of answers have been given.

I am sure that my colleague has a lot to say about that.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, this issue has to do with the business of supply, because we just voted supply for the project.

With Bill C‑15, the Minister of Transport callously decided to make people along the Alto corridor second-class citizens. He decided to take away their recourse and their right to question the need for expropriation for a train. Through his actions, the Minister of Transport is destroying what little social licence there was for this project.

People in my riding are being harassed by Alto. There have been unauthorized drone flights. Now they have stopped because they were not allowed in the first place. People from Alto are knocking on doors without identifying themselves and without offering a business card.

There are people in my riding who have been expropriated once already, who are familiar with expropriation and whose family or friends dealt with family tragedies such as suicides, broken families and depression. This is not ancient history. The last five pieces of land expropriated following the airport saga were only given back in 2024. That is what is happening with a train that does not exist and that has no business plan or cost-benefit analysis.

Bill C‑15 is an injustice. The people of Mirabel think that we need to scrap this project and start over from scratch.

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked a great deal about the lack of a strategy on the issue of trade. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. The member would know that.

For example, the Prime Minister and this government made a commitment to look at export opportunities that go beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border. We have some 20 agreements related to trade and defence. We have passed legislation on trade agreements with Northern Ireland, England and Indonesia. We are actually in negotiations on trade agreements with the Philippines and India. We have a Prime Minister who has been very proactive in promoting Canadian exports.

Contrary to what the member implied, in the first quarter, we had a net increase in trade between the United States and Canada.

We are going to negotiate the best deal. It will be one that is in Canadians' best interests. The trade agreement will not necessarily be in the interests of the Conservatives or the Bloc, but it will be in Canadians' best interests.

I wonder if the member sees the holistic approach we are taking and sees it as a strategy.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, it appears that we were not watching the same election campaign. When I was campaigning last year, I did not see the Prime Minister spend 30 days campaigning on the idea that he was going to strike a deal with Indonesia. That was not what the Prime Minister was saying during the campaign. He said that 80% of our trade was with the United States, that he was the best person to negotiate with Mr. Trump and that Mr. Trump would respect him. That did not happen.

Afterwards, the government started saying that we have free trade agreements with all the G7 countries, but the Prime Minister did not sign any of those agreements. I am in favour of diversifying trade. It is a good thing. Our agreement with South Korea was signed by the Conservatives. The reality is that the current Prime Minister campaigned on the promise that he would be able to quickly get the United States to sign an agreement, and that did not happen.

Do the Liberals have a strategy? It is possible that they do, but given the government's level of transparency, we are unaware of what that strategy is. If the Liberals want help, if they want us to work with them, if they want ideas and if they think we are smart enough to collaborate with, maybe they should tell us what is going on rather than keep us in the dark. More and more things in this government are becoming concentrated in the Prime Minister's Office. It is worrisome, because we thought that the concentration of power in the PMO became a thing of the past with the end of the Trudeau government.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, the member called upon the government to turn down the arrogance a bit. The Liberals have a majority and they can win any vote they want. They could start being just a little more humble about their performance.

I would note that the Minister of Finance recently appeared at the finance committee. He did not answer any of the member's questions. He did not answer any of my questions. He ignored the questions that were put to him by opposition members.

Does the member have anything else to say about the government's performance and the need for a little humility, given that performance?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is true that the government has become increasingly arrogant since it bought itself a majority. First, as we saw during the consideration of all votes, the Minister of Finance has not answered a single question in his political career. This did not begin last week.

Let us consider Driver Inc. People have died because of these truckers. Children have died. During the debate in committee on Driver Inc., the Liberals voted in favour of holding the meeting in camera, and we learned that the chair of the committee is attending events put on by those responsible for Driver Inc. With Bill C‑30, which is currently before us, they are relaxing the laws on pesticides. They are hiding that in a budget bill. We learned that the Minister of Health is participating in events put on by pesticide companies who have been pushing for this for years.

Parliament exists for a reason. It deserves better than what the Liberals are doing to it. I believe in the work of Parliament. We are working hard in that regard. We read the bills. I am in contact with the parliamentary secretary and the member for Whitby. We have ideas. We submit amendments. However, the current government has decided that, now that it has a majority, it is free to do away with democracy in this place. I think that says a lot about the Prime Minister, who sees himself more as a CEO than as a prime minister.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canadians did not need a Parliamentary Budget Officer report to tell them that the economy was in trouble; families knew it when their groceries kept getting more expensive, when their mortgage payments doubled and when young people gave up on owning their own home.

For years we have been sounding the alarms, yet the Liberals kept telling us, “Everything is fine.” Now, the PBO confirms that we have a bigger deficit, weaker growth, lower wages and only a 1% chance of meeting the government's own fiscal anchor.

Why does my colleague think it took the Liberal government so long to admit what Canadians already knew, and why are they still refusing to change the costly policies that are making life less affordable?