Pierre Paul-Hus
Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Quebec · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister of Finance is out of touch with reality. What we see on the ground, what we have observed, is that this is not working at all. What is more, a poll shows that 60% of Canadians are anxious because they do not have enough money and do not know how things will turn out.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claimed that the cost of living is the best it has been in decades, but I have some news for him: We are in a recession. Along with my Conservative colleagues, I travelled across Quebec last week to hear from entrepreneurs. In Beauce, Bellechasse, the Lower St.”
“Mr. Speaker, Lac Saint-Charles provides drinking water to nearly 300,000 residents of the Quebec City region. Between 2019 and 2021, I proposed a $200-million federal investment to protect this resource, and that proposal was supported by the former minister, the current member for Québec Centre . Seven years on, nothing has been done.”
“Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister left his job as the chair of Brookfield in New York to come to Canada, he forgot that he was no longer working for a private company but for Canadian taxpayers. Right now, Canadians are going through a recession. They are paying more for everything, and millions are struggling to make ends meet.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the tone I used was appropriate, considering how wasteful the party across the way has been all these years. I know that it must be hard for the Prime Minister to get used to life in the public service after having enjoyed the perks of working for a private company like Brookfield.”
“Mr. Speaker, a United Way report released today reveals that Canadians are increasingly concerned about their financial situations. According to the report, 60% of Canadians are anxious about their finances, and 38% of Canadians are experiencing food insecurity.”
The complete record
Every one of 192 lines we hold for Pierre Paul-Hus, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 4.
“Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister of Finance is out of touch with reality. What we see on the ground, what we have observed, is that this is not working at all. What is more, a poll shows that 60% of Canadians are anxious because they do not have enough money and do not know how things will turn out. Then there are our entrepreneurs. As I said when I asked the first question: they have stopped investing. Those who are already in the United States are sending all their business there. That means job losses in Canada. Where is the good news in all this? Everything has come to a standstill. Nothing is moving forward. Does the Prime Minister realize that?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claimed that the cost of living is the best it has been in decades, but I have some news for him: We are in a recession. Along with my Conservative colleagues, I travelled across Quebec last week to hear from entrepreneurs. In Beauce, Bellechasse, the Lower St. Lawrence, Saguenay and Quebec City, the conclusion is always the same: Investments are being postponed, planned expansions are on hold and some companies are moving their operations outside of Canada. Does the Prime Minister understand that his greatest failure has been creating a climate in which businesses prefer to produce elsewhere?”
“Mr. Speaker, Lac Saint-Charles provides drinking water to nearly 300,000 residents of the Quebec City region. Between 2019 and 2021, I proposed a $200-million federal investment to protect this resource, and that proposal was supported by the former minister, the current member for Québec Centre . Seven years on, nothing has been done. Can the Secretary of State for Nature explain why the Liberals have scrapped this crucial investment in protecting Lac Saint-Charles and Quebec City's drinking water?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the tone I used was appropriate, considering how wasteful the party across the way has been all these years. I know that it must be hard for the Prime Minister to get used to life in the public service after having enjoyed the perks of working for a private company like Brookfield. However, it is important to understand that each trip costs an average of $70,000 in food and drink. That is not the cost of the plane, nor is it the cost of fuel; it is just the bill for food and drink. At a time when food banks are seeing greater demand than ever, how can the Prime Minister justify this to Canadian taxpayers?”
“Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister left his job as the chair of Brookfield in New York to come to Canada, he forgot that he was no longer working for a private company but for Canadian taxpayers. Right now, Canadians are going through a recession. They are paying more for everything, and millions are struggling to make ends meet. Meanwhile, government documents show that the Prime Minister spent nearly $1 million on inflight catering for just 14 trips. While families have to watch every penny they spend at the grocery store, does the Prime Minister really think that spending $1 million on inflight meals is a responsible use of taxpayers' money?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the Secretary of State for Nature did not understand what I said in my first question. Sixty per cent of Canadians are feeling anxious, and 38% of Canadians are experiencing food insecurity. The government wants to embark on a high-speed rail project costing over $100 billion while people are going hungry. How can anyone think that these people can afford a ticket to ride the high-speed train when they cannot even afford groceries? Can she answer that?”
“Mr. Speaker, a United Way report released today reveals that Canadians are increasingly concerned about their financial situations. According to the report, 60% of Canadians are anxious about their finances, and 38% of Canadians are experiencing food insecurity. While families are struggling to build a future for themselves, the government wants them to foot the bill for a high-speed rail project that could cost more than $100 billion. Just this morning, the Liberals admitted that they have no idea how much it is going to cost. If Canadians can no longer afford to put food on the table, why do the Liberals think they can afford to spend over $100 billion on a train?”
“Mr. Speaker, what the government has to understand is that businesses have told us that they are waiting. They are waiting to invest, they are waiting to expand their facilities and they are waiting to take risks. Is that the government's idea of good economic conditions: a climate of uncertainty that is paralyzing private investment at a time when Canada is in a recession? Is the Prime Minister proud of having created an economic climate where business owners are choosing to wait or to invest outside Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, last week we met with businesses across Quebec. The picture is the same everywhere: The uncertainties surrounding CUSMA and the U.S. tariffs under section 232 are increasing the financial pressure on our manufacturers and hampering investment. Business owners tell us they are putting expansion plans on hold, delaying equipment purchases and hesitating to invest in their growth. That is the reality on the ground, while Canada is the only G7 country in recession. Does the Prime Minister understand that Quebeckers are the ones now paying the price for his inability to restore confidence in our economy?”
“Mr. Speaker, I love hearing my colleague accuse the Conservatives of being people who just want sound bites for social media. The point is that we are not making things up when we present the facts, when we talk about the loss of 113,400 jobs in Canada and when we talk about how people are struggling to put food on the table. We have the statistics to back up what we are saying. Statistics Canada has said that two consecutive quarters of negative growth mean we are headed for a recession. We are not making that up. I would like the member to provide further clarification on his way of thinking rather than attacking us in such a strange way.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister is right: The Liberals received a mandate, but they are not fulfilling their mandate. The proof is that we are currently in a recession. Furthermore, the Prime Minister swore he was the only one capable of resolving the problem with Donald Trump. A year and a half later, absolutely nothing has been resolved. Meanwhile, 87,000 jobs were lost in Quebec during the first four months of 2026. Nearly half of those were lost in the construction and manufacturing sectors. The Conservatives are requesting an emergency debate because we want to know what the plan is. Instead of listening to all sorts of nonsense, can we have an emergency debate to find out what the government's plan really is and see if we can help?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G7 country that is in a recession. However, just a few days ago, the Prime Minister was bragging that Canada is the second-strongest economy in the G7. It is clear that he misled Canadians. Meanwhile, 112,300 jobs have been lost since the beginning of the year. Canada now has the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. Other countries are facing the same tariffs and the same international crises. Why is the Prime Minister the only G7 leader to have led his country into a Liberal recession?”
“Mr. Speaker, countries around the world are working to help their citizens. As everyone knows, filling up the car with gas is really expensive these days. Everyone is talking about it everywhere. The holidays are coming up, and it costs a fortune to gas up. Australia, Spain and Ireland have realized this and have eliminated gas taxes. What is the government waiting for now to eliminate the GST? The GST applied to the cost of gas is on top of other taxes. Will the government eliminate it, at least temporarily, to give people some breathing room?”
“Mr. Speaker, after weeks of pressure from the Conservative Party, the Liberals have finally come to their senses and eliminated the excise tax on gasoline, but that is not enough. The Liberals continue to maintain the so-called clean fuel standard, another hidden tax that currently adds 7¢ per litre and could rise to 17¢ per litre by 2030. Canadians need real relief now, not a half-measure from the Liberals. Will the Prime Minister finally abolish the clean fuel standard, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, one symbol that unites all Canadians from coast to coast to coast is the Snowbirds, but my colleagues from Saskatchewan have now asked the Minister of National Defence four questions, and his only answer is that to suggest the program should not be cancelled is to put pilots' lives in danger. What have the Liberals been doing for the past 11 years? They have known for quite some time that something needed to be done, and now the Snowbirds are in danger. Does the minister have anything to tell us other than this nonsense?”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, that answer is absolutely meaningless. It is important to understand that, between 2022 and 2025, 192,000 Canadians wanted to enroll but only 15,000 were accepted. Meanwhile, the government recruited permanent residents, non-Canadians and people who do not speak English or French and enrolled them in officer courses. How can we keep our country safe when we rely on people who do not understand our culture, do not understand our language and do not want to listen to orders from women? Can we get an answer on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, ethnic conflicts from various countries have now found their way into the Canadian Armed Forces. A leaked internal report from the Canadian Armed Forces Leadership and Recruit School confirms that platoons comprising up to 83% of people who are not even Canadian citizens have experienced serious conflicts, allegations of racism and cultural friction. Instructors even report difficulties in enforcing authority, particularly that of female officers, which directly undermines discipline and the chain of command. It is a total mess. Does the minister understand that these policies aimed at meeting quotas have undermined the cohesion of the Canadian Armed Forces?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to hear that I left an impression on the minister. What I am struck by is the fact that absolutely nothing has been resolved, despite what she just said. The tariffs are still in place. In fact, they actually went up for all steel-related products. This is a disaster. Too many businesses are shutting down. That is the true state of affairs. The members on the other side of the House are spouting fine words, but the reality is totally different. What we got from the Prime Minister 's economic update was a budget containing yet more spending but no concrete solutions to the problems we face today. Does the minister have anything relevant to say?”
“Mr. Speaker, during the 2025 election campaign, the Prime Minister presented himself as a rigorous economist. Today, Emmanuelle Latraverse of the Journal de Montréal clearly stated—as we all do, for that matter—that he is far more of a Liberal politician than an economist. In his budget update, he is increasing spending, he has no plan to balance the budget and he is setting us up for years of deficits. An economist would have imposed discipline. He, on the other hand, is currently expanding programs and putting off difficult decisions. Why is the Prime Minister acting like a spendthrift Liberal rather than the serious manager he claimed to be before Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister says that her government is getting the house in order. Who has been creating the mess for the past 10 years then? They did that. They want to clean up the mess they created, but let us be real. Nobody thought it was possible to spend more than Justin Trudeau. Still, as we can see, the Prime Minister has succeeded in achieving this unenviable feat. Meanwhile, the Liberal government has abandoned seniors, who now have to choose between paying rent and buying groceries. Will the Prime Minister commit to not spending more than the $31‑billion deficit promised by Justin Trudeau?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government will present its economic update this afternoon. The Prime Minister promised to spend less, but he doubled the deficit. He promised to make cuts to the public service, but he increased bureaucracy by 7%. In Quebec, 40% of our seniors live on just over $20,000 a year, while long-term care rents have risen to $4,000 a month. When will the Liberal Prime Minister stop running up deficits so that our seniors can finally get their heads above water?”
“Mr. Speaker, the answer is pretty clear: yes. As I mentioned in my speech, the Liberals always turn a deaf ear when victims speak out. This is not a new phenomenon. We have seen it across the board with respect to the Criminal Code, the justice system, and crimes against women. They have always turned a deaf ear and a blind eye. For our part, we can never understand why this government turns a deaf ear to victims' problems and does not seek real solutions to help them get justice.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I think that, like me, my colleague sees the Liberals as having a disregard for democracy. They have no respect for opposition parties, even though we make constructive proposals to improve legislation in the interest of all Canadians. That is what the opposition parties did together. The members opposite are rejecting our proposals out of hand, and we cannot get a rational explanation for it, other than that it seems to be based on an ideology or goodness knows what.”
“Mr. Speaker, it would have been very interesting to hear what Judge Arbour had to say to the committee, but she refused to come. She did not come to explain her report. Obviously, if the committee members had been able to ask her questions and gain a clearer understanding of what she intended, that might have changed certain things. Either she did not want to come, or the government advised her not to come. I do not know which it was. In any case, our position remains clear, and the Bloc Québécois agrees with us. In fact, I believe it was the Bloc Québécois that proposed the amendment. The military justice system exists. It has flaws that need to be addressed, but the civilian system is not the ultimate solution, as it is already bogged down with management issues.”
“The Liberals talk about listening to victims and respecting their autonomy, but they do the opposite. If they are asked whether they want to strengthen the independence of the system and ensure fairness for everyone, they will say yes, but with this bill and their refusal to accept the amendments, they are showing their contempt for victims. Those who serve our country deserve better. They deserve a system that works, that is credible and that can be trusted.”
“The pattern is very clear: We make proposals, and the Liberals shut us down. Victims ask for something, and the government imposes something else. Experts make recommendations, and the government ignores them. The Liberals have chosen to impose systematic transfers to the civilian system. This is a system that is already overburdened, a system that is often ill suited to military realities. This is not a solution; it simply shifts the problem. The bill could have been improved. It could have been balanced, more respectful of victims and certainly more faithful to the recommendations heard in committee, but the government made a choice to be stubborn and to dictate rather than listening. On this side of the House, we will continue to defend a clear approach.”
“This is an important power that must be exercised with care, and that is why we proposed giving this responsibility to the judge advocate general, known in military terms as JAG. This person is an independent expert. Justice must never be politicized. Once again, the government rejected this proposal. Why? We even proposed what is known as a principled amendment. The bill states that a military judge cannot be charged with a service infraction. We disagreed. We said that, in a state governed by the rule of law, no one is above the law. To be clear, we said that if a military judge commits an offence, they should be tried like anyone else. It seems to me that this makes sense. Just because someone is a judge does not mean they are not subject to the law, but the Liberals refuse to accept that. Why?”
“Often, the Conservatives, and often with the support of the Bloc Québécois, make proposals that the government rejects. A few years later, a problematic situation arises, and we say “we told you so”. However, people quickly forget. The bill will pass and, in five years, we may talk about it again. We are going to say that we said in 2026 that it would not work, and we are going to ask why they did not listen to us at the time. Now is the time to do the right thing. We are here now. Why not listen to intelligent proposals from the opposition parties? Another key issue is political interference. We can see that political interference in the process is possible. In fact, the bill would allow the Minister of National Defence to issue directives in the context of specific proceedings. Politics could interfere in the directives.”
“However, all of it was thrown out and rejected, with a big red X over top. All the important work accomplished by the Standing Senate Committee on National Defence was dismissed out of hand. The government does not even have its majority yet, but it managed to knock us back anyway. Imagine what will happen when the government has a majority on committees and in the House. It is going to steamroll right over the work of opposition members who are working to improve bills. It would have been a different matter if all the opposition parties had joined forces to demolish the bill. Sometimes that happens. For example, we defeated Bill C‑2 . However, we supported this bill. We agreed with it; it simply needed to be improved. What no one can wrap their heads around is the government's refusal to improve it. I have been here for 10 years.”
“So many cases drag on, stall, and make no progress. Ultimately, the Jordan decision applies, but it does not work. We end up with a system meant to handle sexual misconduct. Victims, most of them women, end up going through a civilian process that drags on forever. In our view, if the military system can continue to do its job and the victim wants to keep the matter in the military system, that should be allowed. Why not? We do not understand why the Liberals are against this. (1115) Everything we did was done in collaboration with our Bloc Québécois colleagues, as well as our NDP colleague who has since crossed the floor to become a Liberal. Back then, her thoughts were with the victims. Now, her thoughts are with her Liberal team, which sees things differently. Our proposals were reasonable, balanced and based on witness testimony.”
“There are no nuances, there is no flexibility and there is no room to adapt. We put forward a simple solution: give the court martial jurisdiction if that is what the victim wants. That is essential. There is a system. It can be done. The victim can choose. It seems to me that it does not take a genius to understand that. What matters is recognizing that every situation is different. Judgment must be exercised and victims must be respected. We also put forward sound oversight mechanisms: a five-year sunset clause providing for a mandatory statutory review to examine how well the system is working. We also proposed measures to avoid delays in transferring evidence because delays can compromise the truth. All too often, justice delayed becomes justice denied. Take the Jordan decision, for example.”
“He knows his job, as do our other colleagues on the committee. Former lieutenant-colonels sit on the committee. These are people who have experienced the military system and witnessed the problems with military justice. As I said at the start, I myself have seen victims. There have been trials, and we have experienced the situation first-hand. The proposals, both those from the Bloc Québécois and those from the Conservative Party, made sense. The aim was really to address the shortcomings of the bill and put victims back at the centre of the process. For example, there is a problem with clauses 7 and 8. In its current form, the bill completely removes the military justice system's jurisdiction over sexual offences committed in Canada. It mandates an automatic transfer to the civilian system.”
“In committee, we heard some powerful testimony. Survivors courageously came and talked to us. They shared their experiences, their realities and their concerns. Experts on the military justice system also testified. These are people who understand both its strengths and its weaknesses. Despite these differing perspectives, one message kept coming up: People want to have a choice. They want to choose the system, the process and what works best. They do not want a decision imposed from on high. They do not want a rigid mechanism decided without their input. The Conservatives did their job. We listened and took action alongside the Bloc Québécois. I would like to thank my Bloc colleagues. Excellent parliamentary work was carried out in the Standing Committee on National Defence. As I said earlier, our critic has been there for a long time.”
“Yes, we believe that changes are needed regarding sexual misconduct. However, once again, the Liberal government has missed an opportunity. It has completely missed the opportunity to do the right thing. Instead of addressing the issues in a rigorous, balanced way, it is adopting a rigid approach that is inappropriate and out of touch with the realities on the ground. The result is a bill that ignores critical testimony, rejects reasonable improvements and risks exacerbating the very problems it purports to address. Today I will be speaking to Bill C-11 , and I want to be clear from the outset that we are not just talking about technical adjustments. We are talking about a fundamental question that all Canadians can understand: When a victim comes forward, do we listen to them, or do we impose a solution on them? That is important.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I was a member of the Canadian Forces for 22 years. I witnessed military justice being applied in various cases. Later, when I became a major, I was trained to preside over summary trials and, as a unit commander, I had to administer military justice. I tried some cases by summary trial. There were some situations and some problems related to sexual misconduct. That is why, on the Conservative side, we are very aware of the situation. We do not talk just for the sake of talking. There are people here who have experienced the system first-hand. Our defence critic has been watching what has been going on for years. We are not just talking for the sake of talking. We are proposing meaningful change. Let us get back to Bill C-11 .”
“Mr. Speaker, the fundamental question is not what band-aid solutions the government is coming up with to try to fix the problem. It is whether the Prime Minister truly believes what he said on March 25 when he claimed that cost of living is the best it has been in a decade. Does the Prime Minister or anyone in his government really believe that? I do not want to hear about the government's countless band-aid solutions. I want to know whether he actually believes what he says.”
“Mr. Speaker, last month, on March 25 specifically, the Prime Minister said that the cost of living in Canada is the best it has been in over a decade. However, the price of groceries continues to rise, rent continues to go up, gas prices are now $2 a litre in almost every region of Quebec and, in the past five years, home prices have increased by 67% in Quebec. Young Quebeckers cannot even think about buying a new home. Do the Prime Minister and the members of his government really think that the cost of living is at its best right now?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not the one who said that. Last year, the Prime Minister , who is sitting here, said that he could negotiate an agreement and solve the problem with Donald Trump. Now, here we are a year later and nothing has been resolved. Worse still, there have been no negotiations with the U.S. over the past five months. Everything is at a complete standstill. Meanwhile, Mexico is making progress and other countries have signed agreements. Canada has nothing and the government is using taxpayers' money to compensate. Yes, businesses are struggling, but they do not want a compensation cheque. They want to do business, but everything is at a standstill right now because the Prime Minister has not fixed anything.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected on a single promise: to negotiate a victory with the U.S. President by July 21, 2025. So far, there have been no victories and no agreements, and the U.S. tariffs on Canadian products have doubled. As a result of this incompetence, hundreds of Quebec businesses are losing millions of dollars because of U.S. tariffs. What is the government doing? It is taking billions of taxpayer dollars to make up for its failure. Why do Canadian families have to pay for the Liberal government's failure?”
“Mr. Speaker, in his little video, the Prime Minister said that “hope is not a plan”. Right now, his plan is to give up 74% of our exports to the United States in exchange for 4% with the Chinese communist regime. To me, that is pure madness. He promised an agreement with Donald Trump before July 21, 2025. Absolutely nothing has been resolved and worse yet, tariffs have doubled and other tariffs have been added in the past 18 days. The Prime Minister said to judge him by the cost of groceries. We now know that Canada is the worst country in the G7 when it comes to the price of groceries. What does the Prime Minister plan to do to fix this situation and put money back in taxpayers' pockets?”
“Mr. Speaker, the daily reality for regular people, those watching us at home, as the Minister of Finance often says, is that we still have the worst food inflation of the G7. The Prime Minister likes to talk about the global factors that are hiking up grocery costs. He is unable to say anything else. Liberals are trying to distract us, but the reality is made up of things we buy every day, like groceries. Can the Prime Minister give us some specific facts about lowering the cost of food?”
“Mr. Speaker, in his latest amateur video, the Prime Minister is giving us the same old story, the same old promises, the same old staged performance and the same lack of results. Meanwhile, we have seen no pipelines, no trade agreements, fewer homes and a skyrocketing deficit. We do not need more speeches or more smoke and mirrors. We need results. When will the Prime Minister deliver results?”
“Mr. Speaker, can the minister go talk to the 700 employees of Paccar in Sainte-Thérèse who lost their job because of the tariffs? Then there is BRP, which suffered a $500-million loss due to a 35% drop in its stock price. Once again, it is the jobs of Quebec workers that are at risk. These are not just abstract numbers. They represent the reality of everyday life. Let us not forget that the Prime Minister said during the election that he was the only person in the world who could deal with Donald Trump. We are seeing job losses and disasters, and on top of that, there is China. What is the Prime Minister going to do?”
“Mr. Speaker, since the U.S. tariffs were imposed, Canadian exports have nosedived by more than 15% and jobs are disappearing across the country. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal has confirmed that Chinese steel is being dumped in Canada, directly harming our workers. Our companies are being hit on two fronts: first by the Americans, and second by unfair competition from China. During the last election campaign, the Prime Minister said he was the only one who could deal with Donald Trump. Canadians, however, are struggling to pay their bills and now they are losing their jobs. Why did he make a promise that he has a hard time keeping?”
“Mr. Speaker, the truly good news will come when this government decides to take all of our advice. For three years, we have been asking them to eliminate the carbon tax; they did it. Now we are asking them to remove all taxes on gasoline: GST, excise tax and clean fuel surcharges included. Is the government ready to go the extra mile to help Canadians who face the harsh daily reality of paying too much for everything?”
“Mr. Speaker, while Canadians are struggling to pay for groceries, the Liberal government is once again proposing half measures. The Prime Minister 's announcement only deals with a fraction of the fuel taxes and only for a few months. It is a measure that would reduce the cost of gasoline by as little as 10¢ a litre. Meanwhile, prices at the pump continue to skyrocket. Canadians are already paying far more than their American neighbours. Why are the same old Liberals refusing to offer real relief to Canadian families?”
“Mr. Speaker, let me clarify that just because I am asking him how much money he is putting in does not mean that I am in favour of the project. We have been clear: Our position is still the same. However, during the last election campaign, the Liberals promised to fund 40% of the project. The project is starting now, but the funding has not been confirmed. There is legitimate concern in Quebec City. Can the minister confirm that his government will be there before the tree clearing starts? If 100-year-old trees are cut down and there is no money, what then?”
“Mr. Speaker, for several weeks now, there has been a lot of conflicting information circulating about the Quebec City tramway project. Here we have the member for Beauport—Limoilou telling us about a $13-billion project, while project managers are telling us it will cost $7.6 billion. One of the things that we do not know but that we need to know is how much money the federal government is willing to put into this project, because everyone in Quebec City is waiting to hear this news. Can the government's Quebec Lieutenant give us the answer?”
“Mr. Speaker, this government has completely lost control of immigration over the last 10 years. The proof came yesterday in the Auditor General's report, which confirms that 150,000 of the people who applied for a student visa had been flagged as high-risk. The government is only able to verify 4,000 cases. The rest have been forgotten, lost in the system. Right now, the Liberals cannot even say who has remained in the country without a permit. When will the Prime Minister fire his Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the two former immigration ministers for incompetence?”
“Mr. Speaker, according to the Auditor General, tens of thousands of people entered the country and stayed here without proper screening, even though many cases had already been flagged. The government is unable to say which international students are following the rules, which ones have left the country and which ones remain here illegally. In other words, the Liberals opened the door, but they no longer control who is in the country. It is time for the Prime Minister to take responsibility for promoting the immigration ministers who created this chaos. When will he fire the three worst immigration ministers?”