Luc Berthold · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Combatting Hate Act

2026-06-16

“I don't agree with your political goals but I respect your years of service. Goodbye and good luck. We all work hard in Ottawa.”

Oral Questions

Presence in Gallery

2026-06-16

“I want the other guy to apologize and look bad.”

Oral Questions

The Environment

2026-06-16

“People who fish and boat are sad they can't get to lakes in Quebec. The government should do something about it. I'm filling time and not making any specific ask.”

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-15

“The Prime Minister spends too much on fancy dinners. He should give up luxuries while regular fathers like Rogelio can barely survive. The Liberals caused this whole problem.”

“You caused a recession. Canadians are struggling. Stop spending so much on yourself and on bureaucracy.”

Government Orders

Business of the House

2026-06-11

“I'm filling time with a jokey setup. Also, the government should say whether it plans to keep the House in session this week and what it plans to do if so.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to ask this long-awaited question, as my colleague the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons would say. As we know, millions of Canadians look forward to this every week. I have even heard that people in France are waiting for this moment. Apparently, we are quite popular. Last night, an article on the Radio-Canada website stated that the Prime Minister had adjourned the House. Understandably, everyone is wondering why we are still here today. Can my dear colleague from the government tell us if we are, indeed, here? Will we be here tomorrow? Will we be here next week? If so, what business does the government have planned for all those days? I hope the government is not planning on using time allocation again and again. That said, if we are here, we will do our job. However, we have to actually be here.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Seniors

2026-06-11

“You changed the rules to make it harder for seniors to apply for grants. Seniors getting grants shouldn't be so complicated. You're just pushing paperwork and blame onto other MPs.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is not even an answer. I heard something unbelievable. Why did the Liberals “liberalize” the New Horizons for Seniors program? Just a few days before the 2026 call for proposals was launched, the Liberals changed the rules and made it impossible for organizations to apply for grants. I have received about a dozen complaint letters from farm women in seniors clubs. Will the Liberals have to create another program to help our seniors apply for the New Horizons program? That does not make any sense. I am going to share the minister's response with all of the Liberal ridings, and then we will see what those MPs have to say to the minister, who is telling members that they are not doing their job.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

2026-06-10

“I don't want to agree to that unless I'm sure it's the real midnight we all know.”

“I want to embarrass the other party. Maybe this news article will make them look out of the loop.”

“I want the House to adjourn for the summer. You said it would. Why is it not?”

“I'm pretending to be confused about why we're debating this. I want to score points by saying the other party stopped debate, not us. I'll use a news article to make it look like the other side is on vacation instead of working.”

“I send positive vibes to my colleague with health issues. The part about Bill C-16 we agree on is good. The part we don't like is clause 63. Get rid of clause 63 and we'll pass it. I move to adjourn so the Liberals can think about that overnight.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I too would like to acknowledge the strength of my colleague from the riding whose name is too long to mention tonight. Everyone knows who I am talking about. He is recovering from the cardiac issues he had this morning. The entire House stands behind him. I have received numerous messages from all parties, and I want to let him know that. He is a good person who deserves all our respect. I think we absolutely must send him positive vibes tonight. I saw him just two weeks ago, working out with my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix. He had been going strong for 20 minutes. He is usually bursting with energy, but one never knows. No one ever knows what is going on inside, when things might take a turn. I urge all men to be careful and to pay attention to the warning signs of these terrible heart diseases. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank all of my colleges who reached out to me over the past few days about the matter I discussed with the media, a personal matter that happened back in 2025. Without repeating it here tonight, I simply want to thank all my colleagues from all the parties. I want to thank everyone who is going to support Bill C‑231 for David's friends. I also want to thank all the people in their homes who agreed to tell me how things are for them now. We do not talk about it enough, or talk about it a lot. If I was able to bring certain people a little peace of mind by talking about it, then I will keep doing so. Members of the House certainly share the same desire to help and to do something for people in these kinds of situations, where drug use far exceeds our capacity as parents, or our capacity as young people, to cope with all the problems it can cause. That brings me to Bill C-16, which is a bill that we could have almost introduced ourselves. However, I want to stress the word “almost”. This bill aligns with many of the Conservative Party's objectives, including protecting victims and putting criminals behind bars. It seeks to ensure that victims are properly recognized by the courts. It seeks to prohibit things that did not exist before but that came to be because of new technologies, including the much-discussed deepfakes. This week, we saw in Quebec newspapers that it takes only 10 minutes to create a deepfake nude image of a young girl. That is absolutely appalling. We have to put an end to these new technologies and, more importantly, stop those who are misusing them to cause harm to others. The ban on deepfakes, particularly when they target intimate partners, seeks to protect Canadians, particularly women, from the creation and distribution of non-consensual intimate images. It is very serious to create or distribute these kinds of photos of young girls without their consent. I hope people understand that. We are also pleased that the government picked up the proposal by my Conservative colleague contained in Bill C‑216. Some of that bill's provisions seeking to introduce mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse material were also incorporated into Bill C‑16, which will help better protect our children from the most heinous crimes. So far, all of my colleagues agree with these measures. We are also delighted that the calls of our justice critic to automatically have the murder of an intimate partner deemed a first-degree murder have been heard. This is important. This bill has made progress. We have succeeded in getting essential measures included in it. Finally, of course, we had a discussions and not all of the Conservatives' proposals were picked up, even despite the government's tendency to legislate on Conservative policy ideas since taking office, but that is another story that I will leave for the Liberals to debate among themselves. Although the government unfortunately rejected the proposal to impose a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for all types of extortion, the inclusion of an aggravating factor in sextortion cases is a step in the right direction, albeit insufficient. For the benefit of people watching at home, “sextortion” consists of using intimate images or intimate knowledge of a person to blackmail them, make them talk or make them do anything else. We absolutely must put a stop to it, and Bill C‑16 does just that. Unfortunately, the Liberals are the Liberals. There had to be something in the bill to prevent us from passing it unanimously in the House. What is it this time? It is clause 63. Clause 63 allows judges to avoid imposing minimum sentences and to exercise their discretion in cases of violent and serious crimes. This runs completely counter to everything I have just said. Judges will now be able to decide, based on their own discretion, experience or the circumstances, that a minimum sentence of five years, for example, will be reduced to just two or three years. As a result, certain people who should remain in prison will be released more quickly. I urge my Liberal colleagues to think about that. I think that we are very close to an agreement and that we could get something done that is good, together. We could pass Bill C‑16 if the Liberals got rid of that section. We would all agree. We all agree on the measures in Bill C‑16, but we do not want the Liberals to do what they have been doing for 11 years, that is, making life easier for criminals and making these crimes even more common. It is not that there are more criminals; it is that criminals are committing an increasing number of crimes because they are increasingly unafraid of justice. That is a fact. To give the Liberals time to reflect on this issue, to give them time to think about it and perhaps come back tomorrow with a clear proposal, I move: That the House do now adjourn.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-08

“The economy is shrinking. Fewer Canadians are working. Canadians are getting poorer. The Prime Minister says he's a great economist, but the evidence doesn't show it. All his claims are being contradicted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The government can't even meet its own fiscal targets. Call it what it is: a recession.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, here is another figure. There are 45,000 fewer Canadians in the workforce than at the beginning of the year. These facts speak for themselves. The Parliamentary Budget Officer just completely dismantled the economic narrative put forward by the Prime Minister and the minister opposite: We are facing lower growth, higher deficits and declining productivity, and we are the only G20 country that is in a recession. What is worse, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that there is a 99% chance that the government will fail to meet its own fiscal anchor. The Liberal Prime Minister presents himself as a great economist. How would he describe a situation in which the economy is shrinking, Canadians are getting poorer and the government has no chance of meeting its anchor? Canadians call that a recession.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“Are we in a recession? Does the Prime Minister think he can just not say the word and the problem will go away?”

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-05

“You shouldn't celebrate these payments. The government is spending money because people are struggling to afford groceries. Canada shouldn't have to resort to this. The Liberals should admit we're in a recession and do something about it.”

“I want businesses to do well. But Canada is in a recession under this Prime Minister. Businesses invest less. Government must step in more. Canadians pay the price. More debt. Harder to make ends meet. The Prime Minister doesn't see it. Does he realize?”

“Canada's economy is shrinking. More people are losing their jobs. When will the government admit we're in a recession? Is it a 'Liberal recession' or just a 'technical recession'?”

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-06-04

“We care about the cost of living. Families are struggling. Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. The Liberals won't even say the word 'recession'. Their friends get bonuses, but families suffer. The Prime Minister caused this.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that we are not concerned about the cost of living. At least we are able to recognize the reality facing Canada, the reality facing Canadian families, the reality facing mothers who are struggling to pay their grocery bills at the end of the month. Meanwhile, the Liberals cannot even spell the word “recession”. They cannot even bring themselves to utter the word, yet Canada is the only G20 country that is currently in a recession. It does not seem to be hurting them, but it is hurting Canadian families and everyone. For the Liberals' cronies, it means bonuses. It means $11 million for the Royal Canadian Mint. The Prime Minister plunged this country into a recession. Is it a Liberal recession or a technical recession?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You've caused a recession, but you're spending taxpayer money on luxuries for yourself. Is it a technical recession or a full-blown Liberal recession?”

Oral Questions

Finance

2026-05-27

“That's not true what the other guy said. His words won't make more jobs. People have less money because this government spends too much. Food costs more. People spend all their money on food and homes. This Prime Minister spends to help his friends, not regular people.”