Eric Lefebvre
Richmond—Arthabaska, Quebec · Conservative · Canada
“I hope the Liberals will be the eyes, ears and voice of their constituents this summer, because they are probably going to be surprised by what they hear. Canadians are not happy that their public finances are being mismanaged. They do not like that.”
“I am asking the minister to let me go meet with these employees so that they can explain what is going wrong, because that is our role. The minister refuses to meet with them. This is no joke. People working for the government want to help us, but the government refuses to meet with them.”
“I offered to meet with her and with the employees who use the Cúram system so that they can tell us what is not working so that she could fix it. She turned down my offer. Employees are willing to help us and to help the Liberal government fix this fiasco, but what did the Liberals do? They turned a deaf ear.”
“Actually, it is more accurately described as flagrant, persistent, calculated and insulting disrespect on the part of the Liberal government, day after day, toward Parliament, toward our democratic institutions, and toward all Canadians. The Parliament of Canada is a sacred place.”
“They shut down debate on Bill C‑26 . They shut down debate on Bill C‑20 . They shut down debate on Bill C‑9 . Finally, they shut down debate on Bill C‑30 . Elected officials did not have the time to study the legislation, question experts in committee or amend the clauses, which needed quite a bit of work.”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to deviate slightly from protocol, as I would like to speak about a colleague who is held in high regard by all. His zest for life is unmatched. I am, of course, referring to our colleague from Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata , who suffered a serious medical emergency last week.”
The complete record
Every one of 273 lines we hold for Eric Lefebvre, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 6.
“Mr. Chair, before I begin, I would like to note that I will be speaking for 10 minutes and sharing the last five minutes with my friend, the incredible member for Montmorency—Charlevoix, who will conclude these remarks. My colleagues have been asking the minister questions for nearly three hours now, but unfortunately, we have not received any answers to our real questions. Minister, I will give you another chance. It has been three hours, so I understand that you are tired. That is just how the human body works.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will start with some praise for the minister. There is no doubt that, in the House, the minister uses Canada's two official languages in his various speeches in a very equitable manner. I want to take this opportunity to thank him for that. However, now I would like to challenge the minister. The motion I moved today has to do with the gas tax. Right now, we have a half measure, or technically a third of a measure, that ends on Labour Day. Labour Day coincides with back-to-school season, when families usually incur additional expenses. I want to know why the minister is unwilling to adopt the Conservative proposal to eliminate all gas taxes for all of 2026. I challenge the minister to directly respond to my question.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saluting the people of Richmond—Arthabaska, who placed their trust in a Conservative MP. That is the choice the people of Richmond—Arthabaska made in the last election. They made that choice because they are sick and tired of watching the Liberals spend so recklessly. After a decade of Liberal government management, the country's debt grew from $700 billion to $1.4 trillion, and the Liberals are still racking up charges on our children's and future grandchildren's credit card. The people of Richmond—Arthabaska know this has to stop.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is not complicated. It is about the supply chain. Naturally, if we can lower processing and transportation costs, that will have a direct impact on grocery prices for Canadians. What Canadians need right now is some breathing room.”
“Mr. Speaker, our plan is clear. We want to cut the Liberal red tape. We want to cut spending on consultants, which amounts to several billion dollars. We want to reduce the size of government so we can put money back into taxpayers' pockets. That is the Conservative plan.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member who asked me that question is the same member who denied that there were any seniors not receiving what the Liberal government owes them. His party whip had to call him to order. The measures the Liberal government has put in place are partial measures. They apply for only a third of the year. We are calling for a permanent measure for the entire year of 2026.”
“The people of this country are not asking for handouts or for more bureaucratic programs. They simply want the government to stop making their financial situation worse. They want less money for the Liberal bureaucracy and more money in their pockets, in their communities. The Conservatives are standing up for affordability. We are standing up to bring relief to every Canadian family and every farmer, and today we are demanding a zero tax on gas.”
“The Conservatives want a different country. We want a compassionate country, where parents never have to feel the pain of choosing between a full grocery basket or a full gas tank to get to work. The House must send a clear signal. It must demand that this government stop settling for half measures, temporary reprieves and optics. The time for a few tweaks here and there is over. We are calling for the outright cancellation of all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the remainder of the year, including the GST, along with the permanent elimination of the clean fuel standard. Now is the time to move from words to action. Now is the time to offer immediate, substantial and measurable relief. Now is the time to put $1,200 back in the pockets of Canadian families, where it will do the most good.”
“There is a direct connection between the price of diesel and the price of bread on store shelves. Statistics Canada recently reported that Canada has the worst food inflation in the G7. The Prime Minister took office a year ago on a solemn promise to make food more affordable. He failed. Now, a year later, families are paying the price. Thanks to high energy prices, the government is raking in a massive surplus that could be as much as $9 billion. We believe the government has a basic obligation to give that excess revenue back to Canadians in this time of crisis. Our plan would put $5 billion back into the pockets of Canadian families while retaining $4 billion to ensure fiscal flexibility. The Liberals' decision to hoard the money speaks volumes. After 10 years of this government, who knows where that money will end up?”
“When will this government stop lining its own pockets and finally give that money back to our communities? The Minister of Finance seems to find this amusing, but I can assure him that, on the ground right now, Canadians and Quebeckers find nothing amusing about the current cost of living. Let us not forget that every wasted dollar gets charged directly to Canada's credit card. It also gets charged to our children's and grandchildren's credit cards, and I want the Minister of Finance to be aware of that. I will have the privilege of becoming a grandfather on November 15, and I hope the Liberal government will demonstrate some fiscal discipline to help future generations and stop charging things to our children's and grandchildren's credit cards. Clearly, Canadians can no longer afford this Liberal government.”
“Canada is becoming an unfortunate and isolated fiscal exception. Leading industrialized nations facing the same global pressures, such as Australia, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Germany and Austria, have already taken concrete steps to slash fuel taxes or offer direct relief at the pump. They have grasped the urgency of the situation. Meanwhile, here, despite the brief partial suspension of excise duties, Canadians continue to pay about 14.7% more than Americans. This injustice drags on because of federal taxes that remain stubbornly high, too high. Should we really be surprised by the Liberals' inaction in the face of this crisis? After a decade of Liberal waste and mismanagement, Canadians are the ones paying the price. We are talking about massive cost overruns, handsomely paid consultants, not to mention a bloated federal bureaucracy.”
“We are particularly calling for the complete elimination of the clean fuel standard, which is essentially a permanent hidden tax on every litre used. If our plan were fully implemented today, it would result in real, massive and immediate relief—a reduction of up to 25¢ per litre at the pump. For a family of four, that means savings of $20 or more every time they fill up. That is $1,200 in annual savings. That is real money. That is money going directly back into our constituents' pockets to pay for groceries and rent. Our plan saves 15¢ more per litre than the current Liberal plan. It is irrefutable proof that we are the only ones in the House proposing a solution that is up to the challenge posed by the crisis. (1015) We cannot ignore what is happening on the international stage.”
“The Prime Minister says he understands that affordability is an issue, but his plan provides only limited, short-term relief that will not significantly cut costs for people. It would be a mistake to believe that these promises will be kept when all the government does is suspend a tiny portion of the excise tax just from April 20 until Labour Day. Canadians do not need a tax holiday that ends right when the school year begins and they will have new costs to cover. They need permanent relief. That is why we Conservatives are renewing our call for a zero-tax policy on gas. Our strategy is clear and comprehensive. We are formally calling on the government to, first, cancel the excise tax on fuel for the rest of 2026; second, cancel the GST on gas and diesel for the rest of 2026; and third, scrap the clean fuel standard.”
“Let us consider the facts. The numbers do not lie. Gas prices are now 13% higher in Canada than in the United States, equating to 22¢ more on average per litre for Canadians. Why such a big difference compared to our neighbours to the south? What is even more alarming is that gas costs 50¢ more per litre today than when global oil prices were at the same level in 2014. What is the government's response to this dire situation? The Minister of Finance and National Revenue had the nerve to tell Canadians on May 19, “We have already acted”. Telling a family who can no longer fill their tank to get to work that the government has already acted is an insult to their daily realities. The truth is that the Liberals' current plan is nothing more than a half measure. They offered to cut only a third of the taxes for a third of the year.”
“I am very pleased to rise in the House today to begin debate on a Conservative proposal to help Canadians. Our proposal is simple and clear: Immediately cancel all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of 2026. We have been calling on the Liberals to do so since the beginning of the energy crisis in the Middle East. Given the global instability, a responsible government should have created a fiscal shield to protect its economy and its people. Unfortunately, the government chose to implement half measures. Our proposal will provide relief in the context of the current energy crisis and cost of living crisis. Every Canadian family, every farmer, every trucker and every small business is directly impacted by energy costs and the cost of living. Energy and affordability are the lifeblood of our country's economy.”
“moved: Motion That, given that, (i) gas prices are 13% higher in Canada than in the United States, equating to 22 cents more on average per litre, (ii) gas now costs 50 cents more per litre today than when global oil prices were at the same level in 2014, (iii) the Minister of Finance and National Revenue told Canadians on May 19, “We have already acted” (iv) Canadian families are still paying more to live due to a decade of Liberal credit card budgets, waste and mismanagement the House call on the government to offer Canadians immediate relief by ending all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST, and permanently scrap the Clean Fuel Standard. He said: Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Cloverdale—Langley City .”
“Mr. Speaker, here is proof of how ridiculous the Liberals are. A company is leasing a piece of land for $13,500 a year and subletting it to the government for $20 million. That is Liberal management. Right now, it is harder for our young people to find a job than it has been for 50 years. They are struggling to find jobs, secure housing and put food on the table. They can no longer dream of owning a home or starting a family. Will the Prime Minister apologize for what he said about our children and stop spending on our children's credit card?”
“Mr. Speaker, with the Liberals we get higher costs, higher taxes, more spending, and more job losses. The Minister of Finance and National Revenue thinks that the Liberals have done enough. I agree. They have done enough damage. Just look at how they are managing the new Liberal space launch pad. A company is renting land from the provincial government for $13,500 a year. That company then rents it to the Liberal government for $20 million a year, which is $200 million over 10 years on our children's credit card. The question is simple: If it were your money, what would you do?”
“Mr. Speaker, what a sad state of affairs. Since January, factory closures have been on the rise. On top of losing their jobs, Canadians are footing the Liberal Party's credit card bill. Savoura pays $2.5 million a year in carbon tax and in Éco Entreprises Québec penalties. These surcharges make it difficult to compete with tomatoes from Mexico, which travel across the entire continent. Instead of creating a new band-aid for businesses, why not streamline the regulations and give our business owners some real breathing room?”
“Mr. Speaker, 11 years of Liberal management have resulted in higher taxes, more debt, more credit card spending and more regulations. The National Bank's chief economist reminded us that the Liberals are now imposing over 320,000 regulatory requirements on Canadian businesses, while the United States is deregulating. The consequences of this are layoffs or, worse, closures. When will the Prime Minister understand that more regulations force additional costs on businesses and that Canadians are the ones paying the price?”
“Mr. Speaker, by doubling the deficit promised by the former prime minister, the Liberals are wasting money and racking up credit card debt for future generations, including the students from Richmond who are here on the Hill today. The Cúram scandal rears its ugly head once again in the economic update. The Liberals are adding half a billion dollars in cost overruns to the $5 billion in cost overruns already on the books. Every dollar squandered today means more debt for future generations. The Liberals have already spent $6.6 billion on a system that does not work. What is the Liberals' credit card limit?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question because, once again, we have proof that what the Liberal government is doing is doubling and tripling the infrastructure. It is adding more layers and more structures. We already have the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which is there to do the job. The Liberals should be using the tools that are in place and continuing to build Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I do not make the same kind of money our Prime Minister does. My investments are far more modest. However, that is certainly not the choice I would make. As for Canadians, Conservatives naturally are in favour of freedom of choice, so I will leave it to Canadians to make their own choices regarding their investments.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is not Canadians I am worried about. What I am worried about is how the Liberal government manages Canadians' public finances. This government has been wasting Canadians' money for 11 years now. When the Liberals came to power, the debt was $700 billion. Now, 11 years later, it is $1.4 trillion. What worries me is putting money in Liberal hands.”
“It gives the impression of a government that is willing to take on major financial risks without providing sufficient guarantees or full transparency. To conclude, I want to make something clear. This debate is not anti-investment. This debate is not anti-innovation. This debate is anti-financial recklessness. Creating a debt-financed $25-billion fund creates unnecessary duplication, increases financial risks, opens the door to political interference and imposes a heavy burden on future generations. They deserve transparent investments. That is why, in the name of fiscal responsibility and transparency, and on behalf of taxpayers, I am against the creation of this sovereign wealth fund.”
“Once again, taxpayers will be left holding the bag. This fund does not eliminate risks. It transfers them directly to the public using Canadians' credit card. Conservatives believe in a different approach. We believe in fiscal discipline, financial responsibility, using existing tools efficiently, and, above all, reducing government waste. Before creating a new fund, we should seriously evaluate the effectiveness of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We should improve what already exists, not add more costly structures. Canadians deserve better. Canadians work hard. They pay their taxes and budget carefully. They know they do not want to live on credit forever. They expect the same level of discipline from their government, but this sovereign wealth fund proposal gives the opposite impression.”
“When we talk about $25 billion, we also have to consider the opportunity costs, because even borrowed money could be put to other uses. The government could have decided to ease the tax burden on families, who are currently being squeezed. It could have invested directly in critical infrastructure, supporting municipalities that are desperately underfunded. Instead, the government is choosing to invest that money in an uncertain financial vehicle, and that is a risky choice. This decision will have consequences for decades to come. Financial markets are unpredictable. Even the best investors suffer losses. Imagine a simple scenario: a global recession, a market crash, investments losing value. What will happen? The government will have to inject more money into the fund or absorb major losses.”
“Mr. Speaker, before becoming Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister had another life and was involved in similar initiatives in the United Kingdom. The idea in that case was also to use public funds to stimulate strategic investments, but the British experience revealed certain limitations, including results that were slower than expected, investments that were concentrated in certain sectors, and lingering questions about real profitability. This reveals something critical. Setting up a fund does not guarantee financial success, and it is not the size of a fund that creates prosperity. It is fiscal discipline and the quality of decisions that create prosperity. The opportunity cost is what could have been done instead.”
“Another concerning point is the lack of clarity regarding the governance of the fund. We have heard some big announcements, but not a lot of details. How will the fund be structured and managed? What accountability mechanisms, investment limits and loss protection mechanisms will there be? A $25‑billion fund cannot be based solely on vague promises. It must be based on strict rules, robust mechanisms and absolute transparency. Right now, all we are getting is slogans. There are no guarantees. It is also important to look at what is being done elsewhere. Before becoming Prime Minister, Mark Carney was involved in similar initiatives—”
“The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, which is worth $2 trillion and is considered the best-performing sovereign wealth fund in the world, is not allowed to invest in the domestic market in order to ensure it stays independent. History shows us that when governments directly manage billions of dollars, the risks of favouritism increase. (1350) We have to ask ourselves some serious questions. Who will decide on the investments? What will the criteria be? How much transparency will there actually be? Who will bear the losses if investments fail? All of these questions remain unanswered. There will be losses. That is inevitable in any investment portfolio. Once again, taxpayers are the ones who are going to pay, with a governance that is still unclear and that does not provide answers to our questions.”
“Creating a new fund means multiplying bureaucratic structures. The Liberals are experts in that. They are the champions of bureaucracy, the champions of structures and the list goes on. Creating a new fund also means watering down responsibilities, complicating accountability and increasing administrative costs. Instead of improving what already exists, the government is choosing to reinvent the wheel—and at great expense. Another major danger of this fund is the risk of political interference. When a government controls a $25-billion fund, there is always a risk that investment decisions will be influenced by political considerations, election priorities or partisan regional interests. A sovereign wealth fund—a true sovereign wealth fund—must be independent, transparent and rigorously managed.”
“This is an unnecessary duplication of tools that already exist. There is another fundamental question. Why create a fund when we already have existing tools? Canada already has the Canada Infrastructure Bank, an institution created specifically to finance transformative projects, attract private investment, support the development of strategic infrastructure, and share financial risks. It was supposed to be the central tool for investing in the country's economic future. The Canada Infrastructure Bank has $35 billion in capital. It has currently committed only $18.1 billion of that amount. The remaining $16.9 billion is awaiting allocation by the government. This government is not even able to make the most of the existing bureaucracy. If the Canada Infrastructure Bank is already doing the job, why create another vehicle?”
“It is not funded through surplus revenues, such as proceeds from natural resource development. The other countries mentioned by the Minister of Finance and National Revenue for comparison purposes are all countries involved in developing their natural resources. They have budget surpluses, extra funds, which they use to create their sovereign wealth fund. Ours will be funded through debt. In other words, the government is proposing to charge $25 billion to the credit card at a time when inflation is hitting households hard, the cost of living is skyrocketing, and federal debt is reaching historic levels. The government is choosing to add another layer of financial risk. A debt-financed sovereign wealth fund is a gamble with other people's money. When markets fluctuate, as they always do, it is taxpayers who absorb the losses.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss the Liberal government's announcement concerning the creation of a so-called sovereign wealth fund amounting to $25 billion. We are not talking about $25 million or $2.5 billion, but $25 billion, charged to the national credit card. As a Conservative member, I want to be clear. We believe in strategic investment, but we do not believe in writing a blank cheque using the country's credit card. In the end, the government will not be the one footing the bill. Canadian families, workers, small businesses, our children, our grandchildren and future generations will be the ones paying for it. A fund built on credit is a risky bet. The first critical problem with this sovereign wealth fund is the source of the funds. It is not funded through surpluses.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are talking about workforce training, and yet Quebec was not even aware of this program before it was announced yesterday. A $37-billion increase in spending is not a cut. That is more spending. The Globe and Mail reported this morning that, in the upside-down land of the Liberals, a spending spree is a spending cut and blowing a windfall of billions of dollars is prudent. I hope members are sitting down, because I have some disappointing news. By 2031, the Liberals will have saddled our children and grandchildren with $321 billion in debt. How can the Liberals spend so recklessly when Canadians are struggling to make ends meet?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants us to believe that he is creating a sovereign wealth fund. That is incorrect. A sovereign wealth fund is built with years of surpluses, budget surpluses and natural resource development. It is not built by charging $25 billion to Canadians' collective credit card. The Liberals just ran up a record deficit, the biggest deficit outside of COVID-19. They are running up a record deficit without proving that they can manage public funds well. How can the Liberals use the credit card of future generations so shamelessly?”
“They say that they are going to talk about aluminum, steel, the automotive industry and forestry, and that the negotiations are going to resume. There are only three short lines about the agreement with our largest financial partner, the United States. It is also the country we conduct 75% of our trade with. Does the importance of this agreement amount to no more than that?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at the facts. The former Liberal prime minister anticipated a $31-billion deficit this year. According to today's announcement, the projected deficit is twice the anticipated amount. Today, the government is confirming the creation of a sovereign wealth fund. The Minister of Finance compares Canada to Norway and Saudi Arabia. The major difference is that these countries develop their natural resources using their budget surpluses. Here, we run deficits. The government is going to put $25 billion on the credit card of Canadians to create this fund. As for our biggest economic partner, the United States, the economic update contains only three short lines about the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is the sad reality: More than half of all Quebeckers aged 50 and older are worried about running out of money when they retire. That is what the newspaper Le Journal de Montréal reported this weekend. Our seniors are no longer making ends meet, but the Liberal solution is more debt, higher costs and more taxes. Canadians are the ones paying the Prime Minister 's credit card bills. Our seniors built our country, and this is how we thank them? My question is simple: Will the Prime Minister stop saddling our seniors with more debt, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, when we look at the riding of Richmond—Arthabaska, we see that it encompasses 39 municipalities, including all seven municipalities in the Les Sources RCM. The name of the Arthabaska RCM is clearly represented, but not all of the municipalities in that RCM are in my riding. I think adding Val‑des Sources is a way of correcting a historical error, since all the municipalities in the Les Sources RCM are in my riding.”
“Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I share the same concern about the length of ballots. The incredibly long ballots are a pressure tactic. In the end, Elections Canada decided that voters would have to write in the candidate's name to cast their vote. I share my colleague's concerns. We will have a chance to discuss this when the bill is being studied. However, I want my intervention today to stay focused on changing the riding name from Richmond—Arthabaska to Richmond—Arthabaska—Val-des-Sources to better represent all the residents in my riding.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows the riding's history well. Unfortunately, I have to admit that I honestly do not know why it used to be called Richmond—Wolfe. What I do know is that its current name, Richmond—Arthabaska, naturally represents the RCM of Arthabaska, which is part of the riding, and the municipality of Richmond, which is at the edge of my riding. However, the part at the centre of my riding, the Les Sources RCM, is not adequately represented. That is why we are asking to change the name of my riding.”
“I want to assure people once again that members elected to the House spend their days working to improve Canadians' quality of life and give them some breathing room. However, we can also work on matters of a more technical nature. I consider this bill a bill of principle, of representation. I see it as making a correction on the riding's behalf to ensure that the region is properly represented. The Les Sources RCM went through some rough times when the mine closed. Economically, things got a lot harder. The Les Sources RCM is now experiencing a period of significant economic development and is undergoing a major economic resurgence. Now seems like the perfect time to include Val-des-Sources in a new riding name: Richmond—Arthabaska—Val-des-Sources. I will stop there.”
“I want to assure everyone that the number one concern for all elected officials right now is obviously the cost of living, gas, rent and groceries. These concerns fill our days here. However, while other matters may be less pressing, they also involve changes that we need to take this opportunity to make. (1530) I want to assure people that just because I worked on the riding name change bill does not mean that I am ignoring other matters of critical importance to the people of Richmond—Arthabaska, a riding that I hope will soon be known as Richmond—Arthabaska—Val-des-Sources. I also work for all Canadians. I know that at the moment, Canadians have a lot more important concerns on their minds than a riding's name change.”
“People told me I was not in the right riding, that I was in the Arthabaska riding. At the time, the Arthabaska riding included all 11 municipalities of L'Érable RCM. That is when I realized that people in L'Érable RCM did not feel a sense of connection to the riding. As a result, on June 9, 2017, I introduced Bill 896 in the Quebec National Assembly to replace the name of the Arthabaska riding with Arthabaska-L'Érable. It took much longer there than it did here. On June 5, 2025, the Quebec National Assembly passed Bill 896, aimed at changing the name of the Arthabaska riding to Arthabaska-L'Érable. People may tell me that changing a riding's name is not a priority for either the riding or the House of Commons.”
“It was later renamed the Asbestos RCM, and has been known as Les Sources RCM since 2006. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the mayors of each of these municipalities. I would like to acknowledge Martine Satre, mayor of Danville, Serge Bernier, mayor of Ham-Sud, François Pinard, mayor of Saint-Camille, Émilie Windsor, mayor of Saint-Adrien, René Perreault, mayor of Saint-Georges-de-Windsor, Hugues Grimard, mayor of the Town of Val-des-Sources and reeve of the RCM, and lastly, Jocelyn Dion, mayor of Wotton. It was a privilege to present this project to all the mayors and to give citizens the opportunity to identify with their electoral district. For the record, I ran for office as an MNA in 2016. I was going door-to-door in the municipality of Lyster, which is at the far end of my provincial riding.”
“To make it easier for voters to identify their territory, I think it would be important for the name to include all three major areas, namely Arthabaska, Richmond and Val‑des‑Sources, which is at its heart. On Wednesday, January 21, I made the announcement to the mayors of the Les Sources RCM and the reeve, Hugues Grimard, who welcomed this recognition of the Les Sources RCM. It is important to note that the main city in the Les Sources RCM is Val‑des‑Sources, where half of the RCM's population resides. It has a population of 14,623 and covers an area of nearly 800 square kilometres. The Les Sources RCM is made up of seven municipalities: Danville, Ham‑Sud, Saint‑Adrien, Saint‑Camille, Saint‑Georges‑de‑Windsor, Val‑des‑Sources and Wotton. It is important to note that in 1983, the RCM was known as L'Or-Blanc RCM.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-25 , an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and to enact an act to change the names of certain electoral districts, 2026. As everyone knows, my riding is currently called Richmond—Arthabaska. The aim is to change its name to Richmond—Arthabaska—Val-des-Sources. This is important to me. The Les Sources RCM is currently the heart of the riding, but it is not represented. At present, the Les Sources RCM is undergoing rapid development. My riding encompasses 39 municipalities, including all seven municipalities within the Les Sources RCM. Unfortunately, the current name makes no reference to that.”
“Mr. Speaker, home ownership is a priority issue for Canadians, but that dream feels out of reach at the moment. Everyone here agrees on that. The average selling price for a home in Quebec has increased by 6.9%. More specifically, prices in Quebec increased by 6.3% for a single-family home, 5.3% for a townhouse or home in a multiplex and 7.7% for a condo. When will the Liberal government adopt our plan to boost residential construction and eliminate the GST on all new homes?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a fact: The Liberal government is set to pocket an extra $10 billion as a result of rising gas prices for Canadians. Yesterday, the Liberals announced a measure that amounts to a third of our proposal and is set to end in September. This amounts to an extra $10 billion that was not budgeted for. Why not use the $5 billion in additional tax revenue to eliminate all taxes on gas for the whole of 2026 and finally give Canadians some breathing space, as the Conservative Party is proposing?”