Gérard Deltell
Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, Quebec · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister has been running the country for over a year now. My question is very simple: Where are the actual results for Canadians? Canada is the only G7 country that is in a recession. The GDP has contracted in three of the last four quarters.”
“Mr. Speaker, I hope this government will take the data from Statistics Canada and the budget into account. This past year, the deficit was twice as high as expected. The cost of living went up. Housing starts have declined since May.”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, is being completely mismanaged. As a result, it has become a cakewalk for tax evaders to hack into the accounts of perfectly ordinary, honest people. Unfortunately, when people get hacked, it can takes months and months before the CRA can resolve their issues.”
“Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C‑269 , which was tabled by my colleague from Calgary Centre . One thing I can say is that I have known my colleague very well for seven years now. He was first elected in 2019.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks. He began by marking the 35th anniversary of the Bloc Québécois. I would therefore like to wish everyone in the Bloc Québécois a happy anniversary. Clearly, I am not about to debate the matter, but, since he quoted Lucien Bouchard, I would also like to quote him.”
“Even though there are tax incentives elsewhere and there may be some here in Canada, we believe that this approach, which involves reusing the heat generated by industrial equipment and factory machinery and equipment as an energy source, is feasible. The technology allows for it and it is constantly improving.”
The complete record
Every one of 469 lines we hold for Gérard Deltell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 10.
“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate to clearly demonstrate that we need to take positive action to help the Canadian industry, which is currently in a critical situation. Unfortunately, this is nothing new. It is important to take the right approach, but we know that the government has adopted an approach that, in our opinion, is not the right one for the Canadian auto industry. I would remind members that, over the past 10 years, auto production in Canada has decreased by nearly half. In 2016, when the Liberals came to power, 2.3 million cars were being made in Canada. After 10 years of the Liberals being at the helm, there are now 1.2 million cars being made here. Since the Liberals came to power, the Canadian auto industry's output has decreased by about half.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister forgot one name in her litany of people who would agree with this: President Trump. Obviously, he and the American industry will benefit from this. If the minister really wants to help workers, help the industry and help Canadian families buy a car, why not take up our proposal to axe the GST on cars made in Canada? That is a concrete measure. That will get results.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has announced a $2.3-billion subsidy for electric vehicles, but that money will come from Canadian taxpayers. Does the government realize that American electric vehicles will in turn also be subsidized? Need I remind the government that we are currently in a terrible trade war because of Donald Trump and that, so far, Donald Trump's actions have cost 5,000 people their jobs? Why subsidize American cars?”
“Mr. Speaker, we need measures that have an impact and produce concrete, long-term results, because the situation is getting worse. When I was doing my grocery shopping this weekend, the grocery store manager came up to talk to me. He was discouraged. He told me that moms and dads are now the ones stealing food. That is how bad things have gotten. The Retail Council of Canada has confirmed this, stating that nine billion dollars' worth of food is stolen from grocery stores. When will the government implement concrete measures to combat food inflation in the long term?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more essential than food. People cannot live if they do not have enough to eat. Sadly, though, Canadian families, all Canadian families, are facing the worst food inflation of any G7 country, at 6.2%. Inflation is twice as high as in the United States. Canadian food banks are overwhelmed. When will the government take concrete and effective action to really tackle inflation head-on, with good results against food inflation?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. This government has taken some steps backwards and reversed many of Justin Trudeau's decisions. I invite the current Prime Minister to continue on that path. It is one thing to backtrack on the carbon tax. However, recognizing that an apology is in order for the people of Mirabel would make a difference. Indeed, he needs to do what the 23rd prime minister always refused to do. I call on the Prime Minister to act like a head of state.”
“Once again, I am appealing to my government friends who know deep down in their hearts, minds and souls that they need to vote in favour of this motion. They must do so.”
“Mr. Speaker, before I respond to the substance of the question, I would just like to commend my colleague for this extraordinary show of bilingualism and for her use of French. I really appreciate it. Everyone stands to gain when we speak both official languages. I do mean both official languages and not just one or the other because, obviously, both are equal, with neither one being above the other. On the substance, what we need to understand when it comes to how we deal with major projects in the future is that we must always consult people. That is what the motion says. It says that the government needs to avoid expropriations “without public consultation, social licence and appropriate compensation”. That is exactly what the motion says.”
“Mr. Speaker, even though the motion has nothing to do with this, I want to say one thing to the member for Québec Centre, whom I respect and admire. I think it is mutual, because we have always had a good relationship, and all the better. That said, they unfortunately got off on the wrong foot. Notices of consultation were hurriedly sent out for a process that began two days later. It is as though we learned nothing, especially since Canada as a whole was the site of the most terrible expropriation in our great history. The exact same mistakes that were made 60 years ago are being repeated. I am being asked what I think of the project. Could we get it on track in the right way?”
“Mr. Speaker, God knows that we have some very serious grievances with our Bloc Québécois colleagues, and I understand that the feeling is mutual. I do not understand why they have grievances with us, but I certainly have grievances with them. The reality is that there are times when we can set partisanship aside because it is a matter of humanity. Yes, these people have suffered terribly; everyone recognizes that. Yes, we need to learn from these mistakes; everyone recognizes that. Yes, we need to apologize for what happened, acknowledge it and act swiftly. Once again, I invite all my colleagues, whether they are from the government, the opposition or are independents, to act according to their conscience and recognize the tragedies that have befallen the citizens of Mirabel.”
“I heard our colleague say that sometimes we need to stop being partisan and work across party lines. Yes, I agree. This is an excellent opportunity to do so. [ English ] This is why I deeply hope that at this time, all members of the House, the government, opposition, second group of opposition and independent members, recognize that what happened to the people of Mirabel was totally unacceptable. If we have to, again, do something with great projects, we should learn and adapt our attitude based on what the people of Mirabel have lived through. (1115) [ Translation ] I sincerely invite all my colleagues to recognize the grave mistake that was made in Mirabel and that it should never happen again.”
“We have asked for an apology three times; unfortunately, the government has refused three times. I want to say something, and I will stand by my statements. Is it because the 23rd Prime Minister of Canada had difficulty acknowledging that the 15th Prime Minister of Canada had made a grave mistake? To put it plainly, did Justin Trudeau not want to blame his father? Is that why the government refused to do what needs to be done, which is to apologize? I invite all my colleagues to consider carefully and in good faith what actually happened. They know very well, in their hearts, as Marc Garneau so eloquently pointed out, that the government made a mistake, that it was a big mistake, and that an injustice was committed. That is exactly what the motion before us proposes and calls for.”
“As my Bloc Québécois colleague put it so well earlier, now is the time to do the right thing to commemorate those people and, above all, avoid repeating the same mistakes. Three times in the House in recent years, the government has been asked to apologize to the expropriated people of Mirabel. With the motions from the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and myself, who contributed to this, the government has refused to apologize three times. We understand that this is a vote of the House. It is not the government itself that is taking action, but the House of Commons. I would remind all the experienced ministers whom I respect and admire that they are, first and foremost, members of Parliament elected by Canadians. That is why each of us here in the House have our responsibilities, but, first and foremost, we are members of Parliament.”
“Lapierre accused Stephen Harper of raising false hopes in the public, knowing that he would not be able to follow through on his motion. With all due respect to the memory of Mr. Lapierre, he was mistaken, because that is what happened. In 2019, the Liberal minister also sold back 750 acres. That was the Hon. Marc Garneau, a man of unquestionable and indisputable integrity and humanity. He said what he truly felt in his heart. He said that the government made a big mistake. He also said, “We learned difficult lessons, and I am sorry you were the victims of that.” That was the great Marc Garneau, whom we love and respect. Unfortunately, he was speaking on his own behalf, not on behalf of the government.”
“He said that it was “not a matter of politics but rather a matter of goodwill and justice”. Quite appropriately, he said that “all governments can make mistakes from time to time. The problem in this saga is that the government made mistake after mistake, with no consideration whatsoever for the families that have been in the area for generations.” Stephen Harper said that in 2004. Mr. Harper did more than just talk. When Canadians placed their trust in him by electing a dozen Conservative members from Quebec, for example, including my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière , the Harper government gave back 11,000 acres. What is interesting is that, during the 2004 debate, the transport minister at the time was the late Jean Lapierre. According to La Presse, Mr.”
“The debate did not end there. What we are discussing today has been debated in the House before. On November 25, 2004, the official opposition moved a motion to return the remaining 11,000 acres to the expropriated landowners. (1110) Who kicked off that debate? It was the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, the then leader of the Conservative official opposition. Mr. Harper did not have any seats in Quebec at the time, but that is not important. What is important is the reality of the 3,126 families who had been expropriated and dispossessed. In a very important speech, Mr. Harper said that it had been “a savage expropriation”, “a massive injustice, an odious boondoggle”, and that the situation of the farmers had been “difficult, unjust, humiliating and...dramatic, even, at times”.”
“The airport opened for business on October 4, 1975. One of the ridiculous things about Mirabel was that international flights used Mirabel, while all others used Dorval. Awesome. That is the best way to kill an airport. As of September 15, 1997, all flights were transferred to Dorval. The last flight took place in 2014. The terminal was demolished in 2016. What a disaster. It was all for naught. The government expropriated 97,000 acres but used barely 6,000 acres, which is why this is so tragic. In 1995, the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, offered to return 80,000 acres to those who had been expropriated. It was the first step that needed to be taken, and he did it boldly but, above all, with a sense of responsibility and humanity. The Right Hon. Brian Mulroney did it, and he did it the right way.”
“This is what one of the people whose land was expropriated had to say: “Of course it worries me, because we were never paid, we don't know how we'll get by. We didn't ask to leave. We were notified on March 27, 1969, and then we just waited. I was hoping things would work out for the best”. Unfortunately, they did not work out for the best. A committee was set up in 1973, but, unfortunately, Pierre Elliott Trudeau's government ignored the very valid grievances of the people whose properties were expropriated. If only it had been worth it. It was predicted that Mirabel would be serving 60,000 passengers by 2025. No more than two million passengers ever passed through during any year of operation. There was a plan to build high-speed rail, but that never happened. There was a plan to extend Highway 30, but that never happened.”
“A total of 3,126 families were directly affected by the announcement, which came without any prior warning. They were directly affected without any notice. That amounts to 10,000 people. Work began in June 1970. Yes, the government slapped together some compensation. Yes, the government said it held consultations. The outcome was that barely 17% of farmers met with someone who assessed their land. Everyone else was told that was that, thank you and goodbye. It led to human tragedies. People left their house in the morning and came back in the afternoon to find it burned to the ground. People left in the morning to work the fields and came back to find people swarming around their house, moving their belongings out. The great Denise Bombardier reported on the situation for Radio-Canada in 1970.”
“In the end, the federal government chose Sainte‑Scholastique. At that point, the location was a foregone conclusion, but the way it was done and the way it was expanded were completely unacceptable. It happened on March 27, 1969, at exactly 2:25 p.m., during a press conference being broadcast on the radio. Jean Marchand, the Liberal minister of transport, announced that 97,000 acres would be expropriated. I am not a farmer, so I cannot visualize how big an acre is. However, 97,000 acres is equivalent to two-thirds of the Island of Montreal. For our friends out west, that is as big as the city of Calgary. The government needed to expropriate 97,000 acres. That is 20 times the size of John F. Kennedy Airport, one of the largest airports in the world at the time.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and some emotion that I rise to take part in this debate today. We are debating a very important motion that deals with one of the tragedies in the history of Canada, which has affected and continues to affect hundreds of families and thousands of children and grandchildren of the farmers who were shortchanged. That is why I will be sharing my time with the member for Lévis—Lotbinière , who will provide a clear picture of the situation faced by farmers, as he is a farmer himself. Mirabel will forever be associated with one of the greatest tragedies in our nation's history. It was the 1960s. In the mid-1960s, there was a baby boom and a tech boom, and Montreal needed a new airport. Certain areas like Vaudreuil, Drummondville, Saint‑Jean and Sainte‑Scholastique were considered.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians want real results. They are eager to see real results because Canada's economy has grown weaker during the Liberals' 10 years in office. That is the reality. Food inflation is affecting all Canadian families. It is the worst food inflation in the G7. The minister knows that. It is shameful. The Bank of Canada predicts that businesses will put off their expansion plans and investment will be low. When will the government take real action to get good results for Canadian families?”
“Mr. Speaker, the prestigious firm Bloomberg is not mincing words. It is reporting that Canada's economy is on life support and the country is in a recession. It is not the Conservatives who are saying this, but rather Bloomberg. In fact, according to a Bloomberg article about housing in Canada, residential construction expenditures remained completely stagnant over the past year. Canadians deserve better. We Conservatives are prepared to work with the government to reduce inflationary taxes. Will the Liberals do it for the good of all Canadians, who want real results?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would also like to tell the minister, whom I might call a friend, that, unfortunately, the policies are not working. Quebeckers want results, not just lip service. I would like to remind her that her Prime Minister said that he was going to fix the tariffs by July 21. The tariffs on wood are 45%. Are you looking for ideas? I have a few: reduce bureaucracy, eliminate anti-development laws and lower industrial taxes. Will you do that to deliver actual good results?”
“Mr. Speaker, the forestry sector is very important to Quebec's economy. Some 57,000 people work in the forestry in Quebec. Unfortunately, the news is bad. A few days ago, we found out that Domtar is closing its Outardes sawmill on the north shore. In Amos, in Abitibi, 100 people will be losing their jobs at the Arbec plant. That is the reality today. We need positive and constructive measures that produce real results. Why is the government unable to deliver real results for the Canadian economy?”
“Mr. Speaker, if these much-touted Liberal structural and policy decisions were working, 2.2 million Canadians would not be relying on food banks every month. On Ormière Boulevard in the Les Saules neighbourhood of Quebec City, the organization Solidarité familles is unfortunately breaking records for the amount of aid it provides. Last year, it delivered just one emergency hamper in December, but this year, it delivered 23. Yes, I said 23 compared to one. That is what food inflation does. Why does the government refuse to lower taxes to help all Canadian families?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told voters to judge him by the price of groceries. Well, it has been almost a year since he became Prime Minister, and putting food on the table is costing families an extra $1,000. We have the worst food inflation in the G7. We Conservatives are appealing to the government to lower taxes. I have an example. The Liberals spent nine years praising the apparent virtues of the Liberal carbon tax, only to abolish it in the end. Since they have already abolished one tax, why not a few more?”
“Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the minister talks a good game, but he does not get results. Let us not forget that, just two years ago, he was boasting about meeting with grocery executives. What came out of that? The result was the worst food inflation in the G7. The Liberals' plan is not working. It is not surprising that 2.2 million Canadians are using food banks. The charitable organization Amélie et Frédérick on Bastien Boulevard in Neufchâtel has seen a 3% increase in users. We need to provide families with direct assistance. One of the best ways to do that is to do away with the Liberal fuel tax. Will the government do that for the good of all Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, the primary concern for all the families watching us right now is the cost of groceries. Unfortunately, Canadian families are being hit hard by food inflation, which currently stands at 6.2%. That is the worst result in the G7. One of the contributing factors is the Liberal fuel tax. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, this tax could cost families an extra $1,000. We, the Conservatives, want to work for families. We want to work with the government. Is the government prepared to abolish the Liberal fuel tax to give Canadian families some relief?”
“The Prime Minister said in Davos that he was keen to increase trade with Europe. Why did he say that in Davos when, a week earlier, he was cozying up to the Beijing regime? I think there is something inconsistent in the current Prime Minister's actions, and I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for pointing it out.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question, but also for his passion. He is very passionate whenever he tackles an issue head-on. I really enjoy working with him on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The issue of electric vehicles from Beijing's regime does indeed raise many questions for us, both in terms of security and potential cyber-attacks. As I said earlier, I have absolutely nothing against EVs. I am living proof that Conservatives can support EVs, even without subsidies or mandates. However, before looking at what is being done in China, why not also look at what is being done in Europe? Centuries-old companies, such as Renault, are currently offering electric cars that are extremely promising and that could be of interest to Canadians.”
“I hope he will convince all his colleagues to vote in favour of these positive measures to advance Canadian sovereignty and independence.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to pay my respects to my colleague for the quality of his French. It is very good and it is a great inspiration for all members of this Parliament to learn the other language, because there is not just one official language, and all the official languages are at the same level. I appreciate his speaking in French, and I hope he will appreciate my answer in French too. [ Translation ] Last August, our leader unveiled the Canadian sovereignty act. As my colleague is well aware, an opposition party can introduce legislation, but it cannot have any economic impact. However, since the focus of our action is economic, the fine professionals who work in the House will tell us that, although we may be very nice people, our efforts will not work. I see that my colleague is open-minded and is smiling.”
“While the United States was facing the worst diplomatic crisis in its history because a country had allowed terrorists to occupy the American embassy and hold victims hostage for 444 days, Canada sheltered six American diplomats for 84 days in the residences of our diplomats, including, of course, Ken Taylor, the ambassador. Canada has had some great diplomatic moments with the Americans. We all wish we could return to that, but it will not happen overnight. That is why, now more than ever, we must develop our autonomy in terms of our natural resources, our economy, our knowledge and our energy. The proposals we have made to the government today would do just that. We all want the House to continue on this path to ensure Canadian autonomy by adopting this motion.”
“And necessity has made us allies.” More than ever, we need to get back to this spirit, especially today. Why is this? It is because there are two anniversaries we can celebrate today. First of all, Mr. Jeremy Hansen is 50 years old today. [ Translation ] Mr. Hansen is the Canadian astronaut who will be going to the moon aboard the Artemis II mission, which, as we know, is American. Yes, Canada can work constructively with the Americans. I want to recount one of the great events in our diplomatic history. Exactly 46 years ago today, six American hostages were released in Tehran. We were the best of friends at the time.”
“That is why consistency is important, especially since, unfortunately, we are not seeing results. According to the government, Bill C-5 would enable our country to realize its full potential as an energy superpower by creating new trade and energy corridors that would diversify our economy. That is all well and good, but those are words, not actions. Now more than ever, we must find ways to assert our sovereignty, because Canada is facing major challenges, particularly with our neighbour, the United States, which brings to mind the very interesting and intelligent remarks made by President John F. Kennedy right here in the House of Commons on May 17, 1961. [ English ] He said, “Geography has made us neighbours. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners.”
“That is why the official opposition offered its full support. Bill C‑5 includes the substance of Bill C‑375 , which I introduced. The Liberals voted against my bill, while the Bloc agreed with the principle, which we now find in Bill C‑5. Yes, some good things have been done, but the issue is that, if we want to face the challenges, we need to live up to our responsibilities. The Liberals got elected a year ago by saying “elbows up” to take on the White House. However, instead of “elbows up”, we have been seeing “thumbs up”. On two occasions, when the Prime Minister went to the White House, he ended up doing a “thumbs up” with the President. A few days ago, in Switzerland, he lectured everyone about standing up. Funnily enough, he did not talk about “thumbs up”. No, he did not talk about those things.”
“We should provide bonuses for interprovincial free trade as well. Canada is a world champion of free trade, and yet sadly, its 10 provinces have a lot of barriers. The federal government has removed some of these barriers at the federal level, but the provinces must be encouraged to do the same, which is why we are proposing free trade bonuses and measures to protect Canadian innovation. We have options and avenues that are worth considering. We have already offered our collaboration and support. (1650) Some members will recall that, a few months ago, this government passed Bill C‑5 , which sought to break down our siloed approach as a country in order to unlock our natural resource potential. Although it did not go far enough and should have gone further, we knew we were on the right path.”
“Yes, a Conservative can drive an electric car. Guess what? I bought it used, so it was half the price. Even better is that I did not get a rebate, and there was no mandate in place. That is the responsible way to sell cars and to offer consumers electric cars. They are not for everyone, but if they meet certain needs and people want to get one, then there is no need for a mandate, as is currently the case. This is an effective demonstration. We also have other proposals, such as rewarding provinces, businesses and workers who invest in Canada first. Our leader made a very positive case when he proposed eliminating the capital gains tax for reinvestments in Canadian businesses. That is a sound solution that deserves full consideration. We also need to create a tax credit for reinvestment in Canada to spur domestic industrial activity.”
“For nine years, these people called us Conservatives all sorts of names because we wanted to abolish the consumer carbon tax, but what did they do? A year ago, they changed their tune. They reversed course on the carbon tax issue and got elected because of it. It is wild, because they insulted us for nine years, and then they reversed course. Today, they say it is important to maintain the federal industrial tax because it is important for other countries. That is exactly what they said about the carbon tax for nine years, and then they scrapped it. They started down this road. Now they have to see it through. There is also the emissions cap and the federal electric vehicle sales mandate. I will not go into details about my personal life except to say that I have been driving a fully electric car for about two and a half years now.”
“I was advocating for one project, one review, as opposed to two contradictory, competing reviews that overlap with one another. I wanted one project, one review. Even the Bloc Québécois agreed with our bill in principle. Unfortunately, the Liberals voted against it two years ago. We were amazed to hear the King repeat our argument word for word in the Speech from the Throne: “one project, one review”. As I was saying earlier, the government has taken some steps in the right direction, and this is one example. However, we believe that the legislation arising from Bill C-69 should be repealed. The same goes for the oil tanker moratorium and the industrial carbon tax. I mention them because those paragons of virtue over there never stop lecturing everyone about the industrial tax.”
“Other countries would go to war to get the natural resources we have. We need to unlock the potential of our natural resources in a smart and respectful way. It must also be done autonomously, to ensure that Canada has autonomy when it comes to natural resources and energy. This will ensure that we are able to sell these resources abroad and get revenues that will help develop Canada and its natural resources to their full potential. That is why our motion recommends certain courses of action to the government, such as repealing the legislation arising from Bill C-69 concerning assessments and other things. I would like to remind the House that I introduced Bill C-375 two years ago as a private member. My bill essentially called for one assessment per project.”
“Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Portage—Lisgar . I am very pleased to take part in this debate, which is based on good will. Through this debate, we seek consensus in the House so we can move Canada forward to meet the challenges we face in 2026. Now more than ever, Canada is at a crossroads. We need to make the right decisions, secure our autonomy and demonstrate our sovereignty. We have seen this government take some steps in the right direction. We have some suggestions for additional steps it can take, and we hope the government will take them to heart. That is why I am making the following remarks. [ English ] In my mind, this motion and debate are goodwill propositions to address the challenges that Canada has to face in 2026. [ Translation ] Canada has everything we need.”
“Mr. Speaker, what is not working is that the architect of the Century Initiative is going to be appointed as the Canadian ambassador to the United States. Worse still, the minister knows full well that Mr. Wiseman is also strongly opposed to supply management. I am not making this up. That is the truth. Imagine the conversation he will have with President Trump, when President Trump says to him: [ English ] “Ambassador, you're against supply management, just like me.” [ Translation ] How can the minister possibly explain the appointment of a man who insults Quebeckers and who is opposed to supply management?”
“Mr. Speaker, in Canadian diplomacy, there is no position more important or prestigious than that of Canadian ambassador to the United States. The person who holds this position must be in perfect political harmony with the Prime Minister . The Prime Minister is set to appoint Mark Wiseman as Canada's ambassador to the United States. Mr. Wiseman is the architect of the infamous Century Initiative, which aims to increase Canada's population to 100 million by 2100. Worse yet, he insulted Quebec when he said that it is the right policy, “even if it makes Quebec howl”. Why is the government appointing someone who insults Quebec and Quebeckers?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government's economic policies are not working. Take the weekly cost of groceries, for example. The cost has doubled in 10 years from $159 to $338 under the Liberal government. It is going to cost an extra $1,000 next year. Food bank demand is way, way up. Back home in Saint‑André de Neufchâtel, 200 Christmas food hampers will be handed out. That is 70 more than last year. Accueil Saint‑Ambroise is handing out a record 325 hampers. There is even a food bank that cannot hand out any more because it has reached its quota. Some people who are expecting a hamper will not get one. Do the Liberals realize that their policies are not working?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his passionate speech. If there is one member who takes the time to be present for the constituents, families, students, young people, seniors and entrepreneurs in his riding, it is the member for La Pocatière. I will just call his riding La Pocatière for short. My colleague raised a very important point for businesses: U.S. tariffs have risen to 50% on steel and aluminum and 35% on wood. What impact will that have on businesses in his riding?”
“Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago, every Canadian had access to affordable housing. The dream of home ownership was alive and well. After 10 years of mismanagement by this Liberal government, rent has doubled and home ownership is inaccessible. That dream is crumbling. Now, the Liberals have come up with a new scheme called Build Canada Homes. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was scathing. The objective of Build Canada Homes was to build 250,000 housing units. However, according to the PBO, this program will really only build 25,000 homes, or 10 times fewer. That is the result. Why is this government so good at building bureaucracy?”
“Every day, the Amélie et Frédérick organization provides direct assistance to families in Neufchâtel and Lebourgneuf. In addition, all of these organizations can count on support and assistance from the Knights of Columbus, the Optimist Club, the Rotarians and the Lions Club. As Christmas approaches, the generosity of Canadians is shining through in all its glorious splendour.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are facing a sharp rise in food prices, and two million of them are using food banks. Fortunately, in the riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, hundreds of volunteers are working hard to help the least fortunate among us. In Loretteville, the Maison de la Famille in St-Ambroise and Accueil Saint-Ambroise are getting ready to distribute Christmas hampers. In L'Ancienne-Lorette, the Society of Saint-Vincent de Paul and Rayon de soleil are providing food assistance services, just like Solidarité familles is doing in Les Saules. In Val-Bélair, the Rotarians are looking after the Val Bon Coeur community fridge. The Quebec City indigenous friendship centre and the Wendake food service will be distributing food hampers across the nation's territory.”