Jean-Denis Garon
Mirabel, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“The government is likely going to keep Parliament in session until very late this Friday. That is okay because it is our job to be here. However, this is happening because the government is not communicating with the opposition parties properly.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is one of those rare instances where Quebec will get its share of the cash, and it is a sign of recognition that the federal government is not good at this, not good at building things. The federal government is not on the ground; it is a government that is far removed from immediate matters.”
“Allowing air passenger complaints to be outsourced to private sector companies chosen by the Minister of Transportation , who is himself buddies with the airlines, which may even choose the companies that will handle complaints about them, was not part of the Liberals' platform.”
“At this point, we are taking the minister's word for it that he has reached an agreement with Quebec and that, based on this agreement, Quebec will receive its share of the funds, no strings attached. However, we had no way of knowing this from reading the bill.”
“The bill also states that amounts are to be paid out “at the times and in the manner that the Minister...considers appropriate.” Now we find ourselves in a situation where we have a vague bill, and we are realizing, after months, that the intent is there, that negotiations are happening, but also that our questions were legitimate.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge all the brave men and women who are here tonight and who will be staying up late. I was joking around earlier with my colleague and neighbour, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles . All kidding aside, I think that she knows that I really like her.”
The complete record
Every one of 824 lines we hold for Jean-Denis Garon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 17.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 .”
“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.”
“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. (1310) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. (1305) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. (1300) 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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Madam Speaker, anyone who has ever been a teacher knows that repetition is a teaching tool, so I am going to repeat the question my colleague from Rimouski—La Matapédia asked. Is spending $34 billion of public funds on a pipeline inflationary? Is spending $34 billion of public funds on a pipeline inflationary? Is spending $34 billion of public funds on a pipeline inflationary? Is spending $34 billion of public money on a pipeline inflationary? I know the Chair can sometimes lose patience with us, so I will not repeat it a fifth time. The question is clear. Is spending $34 billion of public money on a pipeline inflationary, yes or no?”
“Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have been shouting themselves hoarse trying to convince us. Is there a recession or not? They want to launch a technical debate on this issue, yet the whole thing obscures the real debate, which concerns purchasing power and Canadian productivity. We have a problem: We are not growing. We have a productivity problem. Do the Conservatives not think it might be more effective for the House to debate fundamental problems rather than definitions?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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? (1135) 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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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, 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—”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”