“The Conservatives have made many decisions that hurt Quebec's economy, including opposing help for our shipyards and aerospace companies. I want to know if the Conservatives will support Quebec's economy in the future.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that the Conservative Party, both when it was in power and now that it is in the opposition, made several decisions that have been detrimental to Quebec’s economy. Conservative Party MPs opposed including the Davie shipyard in the national shipbuilding strategy, even though Davie is the largest and most efficient shipyard in Canada. They opposed any government aid for Bombardier when the company was seeking cash to finance the C Series aircraft. In the end, the orders were lost to Airbus. They opposed Quebec companies, as in the case of the maritime patrol aircraft proposed by Bombardier... Furthermore, they are fiercely opposed to the energy transition. I want to know if the Conservatives are committed to being more supportive of Quebec’s economy in the future.”

“Canadians have some of the highest household debt in the world. Seasonal workers are hurt the most when their employment insurance runs out in the spring before their jobs start again. I want to know when the government will fix this gap.”

“Madam Speaker, despite everything my colleague said, the fact remains that Canada has the highest level of household debt in the world, or one of the highest in the world, according to the IMF. The people most affected by that are those with the lowest earnings: seasonal workers who are struggling to get enough EI, given the rising cost of rent and groceries. I want to share the story of Lise Lapierre, whom I met at the E. Gagnon & Fils plant in Sainte‑Thérèse‑de‑Gaspé. Her EI ran out so she had no benefits coming in from early March to mid-April, so she evidently had no option but to go into debt. When will the government finally take action and put an end to the spring gap in EI?”

“Liberal policies helped cause our current recession. Their immigration policy drove up the cost of housing and public services. Asylum seekers have cost Quebec over $700 million, and the federal government refuses to pay Quebec back. What will the government do about this?”

“Madam Speaker, the Conservatives may be exaggerating a bit, but the fact remains that Liberal policies have in fact contributed to the technical recession we are currently experiencing, although we cannot call it an economic crisis. For example, with their immigration policy that makes no sense whatsoever, they drove up the cost of housing. They also drove up the cost of public services. They do not want to compensate Quebec for that. What does my colleague think about that? What are they going to do for Quebec? The costs relating to asylum seekers are estimated at more than $700 million, and the Liberals are still refusing to pay Quebec for that.”

“Arguing over whether we are officially in a recession misses the point. The economy is in bad shape. Canadian exports have dropped every quarter under this Prime Minister, falling over 4% last quarter. The government has badly damaged our trade relationship with the United States to win votes at home, and our businesses are paying the price.”

“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—”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a motion

  Respect 98 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “However, it is clear that the Prime Minister himself chose to damage his relationship with with U.S. in order to win…”.

  See full analysis →

“The government is mismanaging the economy. Exports are down, and the Prime Minister failed to make good trade deals with the Americans. The government brought in too many immigrants without enough housing or services, and now it claims the economy is better just because it cut those numbers. It makes empty promises on housing while building nothing. The government needs to listen to our ideas: fix employment insurance, support the forestry industry against unfair American duties, and increase health care funding to cover rising costs.”

“Madam Speaker, the government keeps saying that it is trying to control what it can, but that there is very little that it actually can control. It is going to pay out benefits and put together a package of stimulus measures, as if this could go on forever. The government keeps saying that it is not to blame. However, in this case, the government messed up, because the Prime Minister was elected on the solemn promise that he would be better at negotiating with the Americans than anyone else on the planet. That was his promise. Today, exports are tanking. I see that as a serious problem. The Liberals are going to stand up. I know it. I see the MPs on the other side; we are starting to get to know them. They are going to tell us that per capita GDP is rising and that they have put an end to the per capita recession. However, when we told them, over the last two years, that per capita GDP was falling and that the average Canadian was becoming poorer, they told us we were anti-immigration racists, that it made no sense to speak out against immigrants, that they were the ones who would be looking after us in long‑term care. Now, all of a sudden, we are supposed to be talking about per capita measures. They can go back through the Hansard and see that I have been talking about per capita figures for a long time. What happened? The Liberals reduced immigration levels. They used to be under the thumb of the person who is now their ambassador in Washington, someone involved in the Century Initiative group. These people had decided that there would be 100 million Canadians by 2100 and that they had to get to work immediately, without co‑ordinating with the provinces to ensure that these people would have access to services, that immigration would be successful and that everything would run smoothly. I am in favour of immigration. I met the love of my life thanks to immigration. That is not the issue. We want integration, housing and so on, but the Liberals are cutting all that stuff. The population is declining, and they are proud of that. They say per capita GDP is growing. Economists are usually happy when GDP is growing because it indicates increased productivity, but in this case it is what we call a denominator effect. GDP is divided by the number of people. The Liberals are reducing the number of people, which means there is a chronic productivity issue, yet we are supposed to be impressed with them even though they attacked us relentlessly when we said the same thing three years ago. The same goes for housing. I do not necessarily agree with everything in the motion. I do not think that we will support it considering how it is worded. The government knows full well that it is not going to build 500,000 homes in three years. It knows full well that housing was under pressure. As the latest data show, in the greater Montreal area, for example, we have almost reached a break-even point, with a vacancy rate of around 3%. There is a connection. The important thing is not the identity of the people in the housing, it is the number of people compared to the number of housing units. The number of housing units has to increase in proportion to the number of people to avoid creating pressure. The Liberals will say that housing prices are dropping because of Build Canada Homes, something that no one has figured out yet. We do not understand how it works. The Crown corporation signs agreements and makes announcements, but no housing has been built. The Liberals will boast that their policies are working. We have been telling them this for years. Earlier, the member for Whitby told the Conservatives that they never suggest anything and that all they do is complain. We have been proposing ideas for successful and well‑thought‑out immigration for years and we were called racists. Today, they are going to say that all we do is complain, and yet the Prime Minister is incapable of negotiating a trade agreement, the Saint‑Michel sawmill in Saint‑Michel‑des‑Saints is about to close and our furniture industry is in crisis. The Liberals will tell us that exports to Europe have increased. Indeed, aluminum smelters are sending aluminum to Europe that they are not selling to the United States, and that is what is inflating the data. That is exactly what is happening. No, we are not getting any results. The Liberals laugh at our proposals, but when we ask them to create a wage subsidy to free up the employment insurance system—whose actuarial structure cannot withstand two crises within seven years, including COVID-19—they should listen to us. When we tell them to reform employment insurance as well, they boast about having implemented yet more temporary measures. People are living in uncertainty. When we have had pilot projects for 15 years, perhaps it is time to assess whether they have worked and to move toward reform. Launching one pilot project after another is not policy. It is improvisation. We are also asking that the government purchase a portion of the countervailing duties paid to the United States on behalf of the forestry industry. This would be an asset for the government that would provide liquidity to players in the forestry sector, enabling them to maintain their operations and deal with the unjust situation the Americans created. What am I doing? Is this just whining? We are asking them to ensure that health care funding increases keep pace with the 6% rise in system costs. It is 5% this year and will drop to 3%. What is this? Is this just whining? Are they telling us that rebuilding a hospital creates fewer jobs than a military base? To kick-start the economy, some choices need to be made. The government pulls out its numbers, they break down the GDP and they tell us that everything is fine. They say that they are doing everything right and that it is not their fault when things are going badly. However, when things go well, they say it is because of the policies they implemented four or five months ago. I call on all government members to show a little more humility, because we have a long way to go in this matter.”

“The Prime Minister still has not shared a clear trade strategy with us after more than a year. Our economy is barely growing, exports are struggling, and new tariffs on steel and aluminum will hit Quebec hardest. The government needs to face this reality.”

“Madam Speaker, we sometimes get asked what the Bloc Québécois would do if we were in charge of the negotiations instead of the Prime Minister. Personally, I cannot promise miracles. We have always said that we would support the Prime Minister once he has a clear and intelligent strategy that he shares with us. After more than a year, that still has not happened. I have the figures for the last five quarters. In the first quarter of 2025, there was 0.7% growth; that does not get us very far. There was a decline in the second quarter of last year, followed by a slight upturn in the third and a decline in the fourth. That means we are arguing over whether we have 0% growth or a 0.1% decline. Things are not looking good. The problem is exports. When the companies that are showing a bit of resilience are no longer able to keep stockpiling inventory, there is going to be a problem. These figures do not take into account the new tariff calculations announced in April. The effect of that announcement is going to be felt gradually. Quebec is being hit the hardest. This new calculation is not yet included in these statistics. It is essentially a new calculation for tariffs on steel, aluminum and a few other goods. On the other side of the House, those who think that everything is fine, those who think that we have come through this and that we are more resilient, they need to bring their rhetoric into line with reality, regardless of how today’s Conservative motion is worded.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 40 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The government should stop cutting off debates in the House. Our economy has real problems with low investment and weak productivity. Canada is selling fewer goods to other countries every year. That drop in exports is what we should be talking about today.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to say two things. My colleague, who knows I hold him in high regard, thinks that we do not have enough time for debate. I suggest that he go and talk to cabinet and tell them to stop imposing gag orders because we are not short on time in the House. They are the ones who do not want to debate. They have a caucus meeting tomorrow morning. I think that the member should strongly argue his point. If I could support him, I would, but I have no intention of crossing the floor. When it comes to private investment, we have issues with stagnation, competitiveness and productivity. It is true that there are issues that need to be addressed. However, while private investment is factored into GDP today, it is one of the main drivers of future growth. It is true that certain factors remain constant. It is true that the Prime Minister is doing what is taught in a first-year economics course. He is saying that the economy is not doing well so we are going to spend and do what we always do in a crisis. That is undeniably Canadian and that is what is taught in school. However, exports are a key issue. We cannot allow our exports to keep falling by 2%, 3% or 4% year after year, quarter after quarter. This decline in our exports is not slowing down. It is getting worse and we have not yet seen the full impact of the tariffs announced in April. In my opinion, that is the only thing that we should be talking about today, nothing else.”

“Canadian exports are down, likely because of American tariffs. The Prime Minister promised to fix this by trading more with other countries instead. I want to know if my colleague thinks the numbers show that plan is working.”

“Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague said that exports are down in Canada. Everyone is aware that the effects of the U.S. tariffs are very likely having an impact on exports to the U.S. However, the Prime Minister promised a new policy, namely that we would move away from the U.S. and develop partnerships around the world, which would compensate for the challenges associated with the U.S. Does my colleague think that the data show that this strategy is working?”

“Canada needs to trade with new countries, but we still need our trade with the United States. Our car industry cannot survive without the American market. The Prime Minister is hurting our relationship with the U.S., and that will cost people their jobs.”

“Madam Speaker, no government in Canada has ever argued that diversification is a bad thing. I believe it was Stephen Harper who signed our free trade agreement with South Korea, was it not? I would have to check. I think it was. Governments have signed free trade agreements. Government members go around saying that Canada is protected, that it has the most bilateral agreements with G7 nations. Of course, the government has always sought to diversify trade. However, we have to consider the reality of our geography and interdependence with certain industries. Canada’s automotive industry cannot exist without the U.S. market, which is close by. We need to do both. The Prime Minister is pitting the two against each other. He is turning the diversification strategy into rhetoric which, in my view, is damaging our trade relationship with the United States. That relationship will one day be restored. This situation is getting to the point where the human impact—the impact on families and jobs—is very real. The government cannot spend its time simply sending out cheques in an economy where exports are declining, especially for Canada, which is a small open economy dependent on its exports, regardless of where it exports to.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“The federal government has most of the tax money, but the provinces run health care, child care, and schools. Ottawa needs to give more money to the provinces instead of running its own programs. We also need to build a cleaner economy that produces less waste.”

“Madam Speaker, there is growth, wealth, income and the way they are distributed. The Bloc Québécois’s approach is quite simple. We note that fiscal capacity and room to manoeuvre are concentrated in Ottawa. Education, child care, health care, social services and municipalities—which are facing a homelessness crisis—fall under provincial jurisdiction or are directly provincial responsibilities. If we want a more just, more inclusive society with greater social mobility, transfers need to increase, and Ottawa needs to stop trying to create a social safety net managed by Cúram, that is not even capable of issuing cheques. That is our view. As for the circular economy, we need an economy that is more environmentally friendly and generates less waste. We need an economy that takes all these issues into account. Twenty or 30 years ago, we were filling landfills. Today, we realize that what we threw away were resources that can be recovered and given value, provided we create a market for them. In my opinion, that is an approach for the future.”

“The Prime Minister cannot fix trade as fast as he promises. Changing the economy takes decades, not three years. He should focus on improving our relationship with the United States instead.”

“Madam Speaker, free trade allows us to specialize in the things we do best. It is not a contest to see who is the best and who is not. What I was trying to illustrate is that diversification has always been a constant battle for successive federal governments. The miracle that this Prime Minister is promising is decades in the making. The thing he is promising to deliver within three years in order to win votes is not going to happen within three years. It is something that happens gradually. I think he needs to work on improving his relationship with our neighbours to the south.”

“Quebec forestry companies are struggling because of high export duties. Hundreds of jobs are at risk. The government must do more to support these businesses.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague wanted to talk about natural resources in particular. One economic sector in serious difficulty in Quebec is the forestry industry. In the Gaspé, where I come from, forestry businesses are often family-owned. Those that export their products have been hit with 45% countervailing duties since October. One business operating in my riding is struggling financially. I am talking about Damabois, which has plants in Cap‑Chat and Matane. Two hundred jobs across Quebec could be at risk. Clearly, the government is not doing enough to support the forestry industry. Does my colleague agree with me that the government should do more to support Quebec forestry companies?”

“The Conservatives want to end all fuel taxes, which would cost five billion dollars. I want to know if they would also end subsidies for oil companies to make up for that lost money.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about how the Conservatives want to eliminate all the fuel taxes. That would cost the government at least $5 billion. Would my colleague support scrapping all of the oil subsidies so that the government can recoup that money?”

“The economy is struggling, and the Liberals share the blame because they are in charge. The Prime Minister promised to fix the tariff dispute with the United States a year ago, but nothing has changed. We need trade with the Americans. The government must sit down and negotiate with them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. While we do not necessarily agree with everything in the Conservative motion before us today, we do believe it raises an interesting and relevant question to which I do not feel the government has provided an answer. Essentially, what the Conservatives are saying is that Canada is in a technical recession, that things are going badly and that the Liberals are to blame. The fact is I cannot say that they are not at least partly to blame. They are the ones in charge, after all. The Prime Minister, who was elected nearly a year ago, promised us he would resolve the tariff crisis with a wave of a magic wand. Here we are a year later, and nothing has changed. Now, today, the government is engaging in rhetoric by trying to contrast having agreements with our southern neighbour with having agreements with other countries around the world. Given the difficult situation, might it not be time for the government to sit down at the negotiating table with our southern neighbour? It might be time for the government to realize that we cannot really get by without doing business with them either.”

“Seasonal workers in my riding are struggling with debt and gaps in their employment insurance. The government must fix employment insurance so these workers do not run out of money in the spring.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my riding neighbour for his speech. He and I represent ridings where seasonal work is a reality. According to the IMF, Canada’s household debt is one of the highest in the world right now. Those most often affected are low-income earners, our seasonal workers, the very people who are indispensable in economic sectors that serve as pillars of our regions, such as the fishing industry. I recently met Lise Lapierre of E. Gagnon & Fils, in Sainte-Thérèse-de-Gaspé. She spends long hours pushing carts full of crabs and lobsters. In spite of everything, she is dealing with the EI spring gap. This year, it lasted from March through mid-April. Does my colleague not think that, to address the economic situation, this government needs to wake up and quickly reform employment insurance to put an end to the spring gap for seasonal workers?”

“The Leader of the Opposition always talks like the economy is facing total disaster. He blames the Liberals, but he also says the Liberals keep using his party's ideas. Is he saying Conservative ideas helped cause this disaster?”

“Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition. I have been fortunate to sit in Parliament for a little over 10 years. For a little over 10 years, I have had the opportunity to listen to his excellent speeches. They tend to be very good. However, every time my colleague rises in the House, ever since I first had the opportunity to listen to his speeches, I get a sense that they always boil down to much the same thing. To hear him speak, anyone would think we are constantly on the verge of an apocalypse. Obviously, I am not saying that the economic situation is positive; far from it. However, I wonder if he should perhaps change his approach; furthermore, in his criticism today, he said that the Liberal plan is bad for the economy. However, if we look at the Liberal government’s record over the past year, we see that it has implemented measures essentially proposed by the Conservative Party. He says himself that the Liberals spend their time stealing his ideas. Is he telling us that Conservative ideas are partly responsible for this apocalypse?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 36 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“The economic update ignored the new 25 percent American tariffs on steel and aluminum. These taxes will hurt small businesses in Quebec. The government should help these businesses by paying part of their workers' wages so people do not lose their jobs. Does my colleague support this idea?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my former seatmate here. I would like to ask the following. The economic update did not take into account the new 25% tariffs imposed by President Trump on all products containing steel or aluminum. This will have a particular impact on Quebec, as 25% of exports from Quebec SMEs to the United States will be affected. Does my colleague think that measures should be taken to support these businesses? The Bloc Québécois is proposing a wage subsidy to help employers maintain ties with their employees. What does my colleague think?”

“High American trade fees are hurting our forestry businesses and their exports. We suggested the government give these businesses cash by buying the rights to that money back. Why did the government reject our idea?”

“Mr. Speaker, looking at how the Canadian economy has been performing, it is clear that the real problem is exports. We know that the forestry industry is being hit hard by 45% countervailing duties, which of course limits its ability to export competitively to the American market. We in the Bloc Québécois proposed that the government buy back the countervailing duties, the money owed to our businesses, in order to give them a bit of liquidity. Why did the government not take up our suggestion?”

“Members of Parliament should do their own thinking instead of using artificial intelligence. Liberal MPs are using foreign AI programs to study bills and motions. I want to know how many of them are doing this.”

“Mr. Speaker, in this and previous speeches, the member opposite boasted about using AI to analyze the Conservatives’ motion, so I have a lot of questions. I was under the impression that people elected members of Parliament so they could do their own thinking about topics of debate in the House. Lately, elected Liberal MPs have been using algorithms from foreign platforms to analyze bills and opposition motions, and so has a government spokesperson. I would like to know just how common this has become on the other side of the House.”