Luc Berthold
Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, Quebec · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, let me thank the member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for his remarks and for the years he has spent serving the people of his riding.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada is a country of lakes, mountains and rivers. Sadly, more and more anglers, paddlers and boaters fear they will lose access to Quebec's lakes. While public access points are disappearing or becoming prohibitively expensive, the Liberals are looking the other way and leaving local authorities to fend for themselves.”
“Mr. Speaker, during question period, the Leader of the Government in the House made derogatory comments about one of our members. I have to say that any seat one occupies here in the House is just as important as any other, and I would invite him to apologize to all—”
“Mr. Speaker, they want us to applaud them for putting a bandage over a wound they created. That is the issue. I have a message for the Prime Minister , who is at the G7. I also have a message for this minister.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister will attend the G7 summit today as the only leader to have led his country into a recession. Full-time workers are living in RVs because they can no longer afford housing.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to ask this long-awaited question, as my colleague the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons would say. As we know, millions of Canadians look forward to this every week. I have even heard that people in France are waiting for this moment. Apparently, we are quite popular.”
The complete record
Every one of 291 lines we hold for Luc Berthold, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, let me thank the member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for his remarks and for the years he has spent serving the people of his riding. Although I do not share his political goals, especially the ones he has pursued here in Ottawa, I believe he is heading to a place where he will be able to speak about independence and sovereignty to his heart's content. On behalf of all my Conservative colleagues, I wish him not success in his mission but rather that he continue his work for the people he represents, just as we all do here with heart, joy, and passion.”
“Mr. Speaker, during question period, the Leader of the Government in the House made derogatory comments about one of our members. I have to say that any seat one occupies here in the House is just as important as any other, and I would invite him to apologize to all—”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada is a country of lakes, mountains and rivers. Sadly, more and more anglers, paddlers and boaters fear they will lose access to Quebec's lakes. While public access points are disappearing or becoming prohibitively expensive, the Liberals are looking the other way and leaving local authorities to fend for themselves. These waterways belong to all Canadians. When will the Liberal government take action to protect fair access for everyone?”
“Mr. Speaker, they want us to applaud them for putting a bandage over a wound they created. That is the issue. I have a message for the Prime Minister , who is at the G7. I also have a message for this minister. Rogelio Rigor, a Quebec father working two jobs, told La Presse, “I was just barely surviving.” He had to file a consumer proposal. This is the Liberal Prime Minister's real economic record. Instead of spending nearly $1 million on luxury meals while travelling, is the Liberal Prime Minister prepared to give up his smoked salmon, considering that Rogelio has sacrificed everything as a result of Liberal inflation?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister will attend the G7 summit today as the only leader to have led his country into a recession. Full-time workers are living in RVs because they can no longer afford housing. According to United Way, 60% of Canadians are anxious about their finances, and 38% are food insecure, yet the Liberal Prime Minister finds a way to spend $1 million on luxury inflight meals. Will the Liberal Prime Minister finally put an end to the inflationary spending, bureaucracy and policies that created this Canadian cost-of-living crisis?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to ask this long-awaited question, as my colleague the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons would say. As we know, millions of Canadians look forward to this every week. I have even heard that people in France are waiting for this moment. Apparently, we are quite popular. Last night, an article on the Radio-Canada website stated that the Prime Minister had adjourned the House. Understandably, everyone is wondering why we are still here today. Can my dear colleague from the government tell us if we are, indeed, here? Will we be here tomorrow? Will we be here next week? If so, what business does the government have planned for all those days? I hope the government is not planning on using time allocation again and again. That said, if we are here, we will do our job.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is not even an answer. I heard something unbelievable. Why did the Liberals “liberalize” the New Horizons for Seniors program? Just a few days before the 2026 call for proposals was launched, the Liberals changed the rules and made it impossible for organizations to apply for grants. I have received about a dozen complaint letters from farm women in seniors clubs. Will the Liberals have to create another program to help our seniors apply for the New Horizons program? That does not make any sense. I am going to share the minister's response with all of the Liberal ridings, and then we will see what those MPs have to say to the minister, who is telling members that they are not doing their job.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It seems that the members opposite are unaware of the news that the House has apparently adjourned, according to the Liberal Prime Minister . I therefore seek unanimous consent to table the Radio-Canada article to inform them of the decision that the Prime Minister seems to have made without telling them.”
“Mr. Speaker, I should have said that the Liberal Prime Minister 's government “has announced that the House has adjourned for the summer”. Can my colleague, who is the critic for institutions, explain to me why we are still debating here in the House when the Liberal Prime Minister has announced that the House has already adjourned for the summer? I am completely baffled. Did he, by any chance, intend to adjourn the House at the end of the day? I would like my colleague to clarify that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am a bit perplexed to be rising to speak before the House, given that the parliamentary secretary across the way criticized me just a short while ago for moving to adjourn the debate. However, we are now learning that it was actually the Prime Minister who did so, according to a Radio-Canada article that was just published. Allow me to read an extract: Vacation time has (already) started in Ottawa The members of the House of Commons are on vacation. Mark Carney's government has announced that—”
“It is not that there are more criminals; it is that criminals are committing an increasing number of crimes because they are increasingly unafraid of justice. That is a fact. To give the Liberals time to reflect on this issue, to give them time to think about it and perhaps come back tomorrow with a clear proposal, I move: That the House do now adjourn. Motion”
“This runs completely counter to everything I have just said. Judges will now be able to decide, based on their own discretion, experience or the circumstances, that a minimum sentence of five years, for example, will be reduced to just two or three years. As a result, certain people who should remain in prison will be released more quickly. I urge my Liberal colleagues to think about that. I think that we are very close to an agreement and that we could get something done that is good, together. We could pass Bill C‑16 if the Liberals got rid of that section. We would all agree. We all agree on the measures in Bill C‑16, but we do not want the Liberals to do what they have been doing for 11 years, that is, making life easier for criminals and making these crimes even more common.”
“Although the government unfortunately rejected the proposal to impose a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for all types of extortion, the inclusion of an aggravating factor in sextortion cases is a step in the right direction, albeit insufficient. For the benefit of people watching at home, “sextortion” consists of using intimate images or intimate knowledge of a person to blackmail them, make them talk or make them do anything else. (2015) We absolutely must put a stop to it, and Bill C‑16 does just that. Unfortunately, the Liberals are the Liberals. There had to be something in the bill to prevent us from passing it unanimously in the House. What is it this time? It is clause 63. Clause 63 allows judges to avoid imposing minimum sentences and to exercise their discretion in cases of violent and serious crimes.”
“Some of that bill's provisions seeking to introduce mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse material were also incorporated into Bill C‑16 , which will help better protect our children from the most heinous crimes. So far, all of my colleagues agree with these measures. We are also delighted that the calls of our justice critic to automatically have the murder of an intimate partner deemed a first-degree murder have been heard. This is important. This bill has made progress. We have succeeded in getting essential measures included in it. Finally, of course, we had a discussions and not all of the Conservatives' proposals were picked up, even despite the government's tendency to legislate on Conservative policy ideas since taking office, but that is another story that I will leave for the Liberals to debate among themselves.”
“This week, we saw in Quebec newspapers that it takes only 10 minutes to create a deepfake nude image of a young girl. That is absolutely appalling. We have to put an end to these new technologies and, more importantly, stop those who are misusing them to cause harm to others. The ban on deepfakes, particularly when they target intimate partners, seeks to protect Canadians, particularly women, from the creation and distribution of non-consensual intimate images. It is very serious to create or distribute these kinds of photos of young girls without their consent. I hope people understand that. We are also pleased that the government picked up the proposal by my Conservative colleague contained in Bill C‑216 .”
“Members of the House certainly share the same desire to help and to do something for people in these kinds of situations, where drug use far exceeds our capacity as parents, or our capacity as young people, to cope with all the problems it can cause. That brings me to Bill C-16 , which is a bill that we could have almost introduced ourselves. However, I want to stress the word “almost”. This bill aligns with many of the Conservative Party's objectives, including protecting victims and putting criminals behind bars. It seeks to ensure that victims are properly recognized by the courts. It seeks to prohibit things that did not exist before but that came to be because of new technologies, including the much-discussed deepfakes.”
“I would also like to take the opportunity to thank all of my colleges who reached out to me over the past few days about the matter I discussed with the media, a personal matter that happened back in 2025. Without repeating it here tonight, I simply want to thank all my colleagues from all the parties. I want to thank everyone who is going to support Bill C‑231 for David's friends. I also want to thank all the people in their homes who agreed to tell me how things are for them now. We do not talk about it enough, or talk about it a lot. If I was able to bring certain people a little peace of mind by talking about it, then I will keep doing so.”
“Madam Speaker, I too would like to acknowledge the strength of my colleague from the riding whose name is too long to mention tonight. Everyone knows who I am talking about. He is recovering from the cardiac issues he had this morning. The entire House stands behind him. I have received numerous messages from all parties, and I want to let him know that. He is a good person who deserves all our respect. I think we absolutely must send him positive vibes tonight. I saw him just two weeks ago, working out with my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix . He had been going strong for 20 minutes. He is usually bursting with energy, but one never knows. No one ever knows what is going on inside, when things might take a turn. I urge all men to be careful and to pay attention to the warning signs of these terrible heart diseases.”
“Mr. Speaker, here is another figure. There are 45,000 fewer Canadians in the workforce than at the beginning of the year. These facts speak for themselves. The Parliamentary Budget Officer just completely dismantled the economic narrative put forward by the Prime Minister and the minister opposite: We are facing lower growth, higher deficits and declining productivity, and we are the only G20 country that is in a recession. What is worse, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that there is a 99% chance that the government will fail to meet its own fiscal anchor. The Liberal Prime Minister presents himself as a great economist. How would he describe a situation in which the economy is shrinking, Canadians are getting poorer and the government has no chance of meeting its anchor? Canadians call that a recession.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us talk facts. Under this Prime Minister , Canada is the only G20 country to fall into a recession. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is reining in her growth forecasts. The RBC, TD Bank and BMO have downgraded their outlooks. Canadians look on as their standard of living erodes. The Prime Minister, however, still refuses to utter the word “recession”. I am therefore going to ask him this simple question again: Are we in a recession or are Canadians only theoretically poorer than before, after a decade of Liberal rule?”
“Madam Speaker, how can anyone take such delight in people's poverty, as we have just seen? When a government is forced to hand out money so that people can eat, something is not right. We just heard the entire Liberal Party applaud a measure to help people pay their grocery bills every month. This is unacceptable. Is this really where Canada has ended up? We applaud when the government hands out money because people cannot afford groceries? If the Liberals recognized that we are in a recession, they would do something about it.”
“Madam Speaker, what we want is for all Canadian businesses to be able to prosper and grow, but under this Liberal Prime Minister , Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. I have said it before and I will say it again. When the economy slows down, businesses invest less and the government needs to step in more. Who is paying the most for this? It is costing all Canadians more, as their debt load rises and they have a harder and harder time making ends meet. That is exactly what is happening in Canada today. Everyone sees what is going on, except the Liberal Prime Minister. Will he tell us whether—”
“Madam Speaker, under this Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. Three of the last four quarters have seen negative growth. Workers are losing their jobs. Businesses are putting their investment plans on hold. Deficits are skyrocketing. At what point will Liberal ministers admit that we are in a recession? Will they do so after two quarters? Will they do so after three quarters, or after four quarters? Will the Liberal Prime Minister finally tell Canadians whether we are in a Liberal recession or a technical recession?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that we are not concerned about the cost of living. At least we are able to recognize the reality facing Canada, the reality facing Canadian families, the reality facing mothers who are struggling to pay their grocery bills at the end of the month. Meanwhile, the Liberals cannot even spell the word “recession”. They cannot even bring themselves to utter the word, yet Canada is the only G20 country that is currently in a recession. It does not seem to be hurting them, but it is hurting Canadian families and everyone. For the Liberals' cronies, it means bonuses. It means $11 million for the Royal Canadian Mint. The Prime Minister plunged this country into a recession. Is it a Liberal recession or a technical recession?”
“Mr. Speaker, under this Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in the midst of a recession. While families are counting every penny at the grocery store, the Liberal Prime Minister is travelling in the lap of luxury on the taxpayer's dime. We are talking about $4,213 for crème brûlée, $3,800 for chocolate mousse and $593 for Normandy buttercups. While Canadians are stretching their budgets, the Liberal Prime Minister is splurging on luxuries. I am going to ask him a very simple question. Is the recession that he himself created a technical recession or a full-blown Liberal recession?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians will soon realize that, just like the Liberals' other announcements, these announcements are merely illusions. Nothing ever comes of any of their announcements. Canadian families are working harder than ever, so why are they getting poorer? The reason is because this government is spending taxpayer money like there is no tomorrow. Food inflation is 3.8%. Families are now spending over 100% of their income on food and housing. This Liberal Prime Minister is just another costly Liberal. Is he going to stop spending recklessly for his buddies' benefit and start looking after ordinary people instead?”
“Mr. Speaker, while families are wondering how they will pay for their groceries each month, this Liberal Prime Minister continues to max out the national credit card to fund one scandal after another: $300 million wasted on PrescribeIT, $200 million on a space project located on land that cost next to nothing, $742 million on confiscating firearms from law-abiding hunters. The result: higher costs, higher taxes, higher debt and higher inflation. Gas prices have soared by 28.6%. Grocery bills continue to stretch families thin. When will this Liberal Prime Minister put a stop to his credit card budgets?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons made remarks that cast doubt on the word of certain members of the official opposition. That is why I would like to seek unanimous consent to table the list of cuts—”
“Mr. Speaker, when we say that it is all just an illusion, there is a glaring example of that. When we go and talk to young people in our ridings, we do not see that enthusiasm, because right now, young people are still lining up at food banks. Young people are still unable to find housing because they have no money; they cannot make ends meet. All of that is because this costly Prime Minister , who is just another Liberal, has chosen to increase the debt by another $1 trillion since he was elected. When will he stop spending money on the credit card?”
“Mr. Speaker, according to the customs and practices of the House, ministers are required to answer questions asked by opposition members. It seems that no minister chose to answer a clear question that—”
“Mr. Speaker, add another zero for the minister's answer. When a student gets nothing but zeros, they fail. This Liberal government is racking up zeros, and Canadians are paying the price for its failure. What is the result? Grocery prices are skyrocketing, housing is unaffordable, and gas costs a fortune because the Liberal Prime Minister is racking up debt like there is no tomorrow. However, tomorrow it will be our children who will have to pay off this debt, along with the interest that comes with it. Will the Prime Minister, who is just another costly Liberal, finally put an end to his costly budgets funded by the national credit card?”
“Mr. Speaker, one trillion is the number one followed by 12 zeros, or 1,000,000,000,000. The Liberals have added $1 trillion to the national credit card in 10 years. More zeros mean more debt. More debt means higher taxes. Higher taxes mean less money in families' pockets. When will the Prime Minister , who is just another Liberal, stop adding zeroes to the national credit card so that Canadians can make ends meet?”
“For the sake of transparency, can the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons assure us that question period will not be held in camera tomorrow and next week, and will he tell us what issues we will be addressing during that time?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to ask this highly awaited question at the most exciting time of the week in the House of Commons, the time when the opposition asks the government what business will be done tomorrow and next week. Today, in question period, we heard a wide variety of opposition questions, but what we got in return were scripted answers from the Prime Minister's Office, 41 scripted answers to be exact. That got me worried. Given the new circumstances in the House, where we have seen four committees go in camera, I worried for a moment that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons would say that the House would proceed in camera for question period. However, everyone knows that we believe in transparency on this side of the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not the one being negative, they are. They are twice as negative as the former Liberal prime minister, Justin Trudeau. They have twice as much debt. Who is being negative? They are; they are in the red. Meanwhile, they are giving us truly nonsensical answers. I am asking about families who cannot afford food, and they are still boasting about yet another program they have introduced. That program will cost even more and create even more inflation. I have nothing against sport. I have nothing against investing in sport. The problem is that if we want to be healthy, we need to eat first and foremost. Why do they not want Canadians to eat?”
“Mr. Speaker, while the Liberal government is proud to add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit, families are making tough choices. According to a Dalhousie University report, Canadians are no longer buying what they need, but what they can afford. Parents are skipping meals to feed their children. The Liberal Prime Minister has doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit, and one in three Canadians now has to go into debt to eat. How much more evidence will it take before the government realizes that its costly budgets are hurting Canadian families?”
“Here is where we stand one year later: Aluminum and steel tariffs have doubled, and new tariffs have been imposed on finished products and mould makers. South Shore Furniture announced on Monday that it will be shutting down after 86 years serving Sainte‑Croix, in Lotbinière. That means 126 people are going to lose their jobs. It is time for action, not illusions. It is time to get real results for our businesses and for Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, “if we turn our backs on the Canadian wood products industry, we are sacrificing our industrial sovereignty and collective pride in favour of cheap imports”. That is a quote from Charles Laflamme, the general manager of South Shore Furniture, who sent a letter to the Liberal Minister of Finance in February. It was a cry for help from Mr. Laflamme, who was dealing with a shrinking U.S. market due to Trump's tariffs, as well as dumping by China and Vietnam, which are currently selling off products at fire sale prices on the Canadian market. During the last federal election, the Liberal Prime Minister created the illusion that he was the best person to make a deal with the Trump administration.”
“Mr. Speaker, I cannot get over how the Liberals put their arrogance on full display every time they answer questions. When we tell them about seniors who are struggling to pay for housing and food, they keep saying that everything is going well because of their grand announcements. The Liberal Prime Minister said he would be judged by the price of groceries, but what is the result? Apparently 35% of households are using their savings or credit to buy food. When will the Liberal Prime Minister put an end to his credit card budgets so that seniors can make ends meet and have enough to eat?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to understand my colleague's position on signing multiple nomination papers, because we saw that this was a major problem in some ridings. People are using the election to send a political message. That never used to happen because a $1,000 deposit was required, which was just as problematic for some people who could not afford to pay that amount to run for office. I know we will have the opportunity to discuss this in committee, but we absolutely must find a way to put an end to this election protest. How can this be solved? I missed part of my colleague's speech, but what solutions does he propose to prevent us from ending up with ballots that are too long or ballots on which people have to write a candidate's name, when we know that a certain percentage of people—”
“Mr. Speaker, I will not ask the finance minister to guess what is in my heart. What is in my heart is the worker I met last week who lost his job. What is in my heart is the family I see at the grocery store forced to choose what to put in their cart. What is in my heart is concern that Canadians are getting poorer, that Canada is changing and that this government is making things worse day after day. Yes, it is Friday. Can this minister show a little compassion and think about the Canadian families he is going to burden with debt while creating even more costs for everyone? That is what is in my heart.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister claims that affordability is the best it has been in 10 years. However, with $90 billion in new spending and $55 billion in annual interest payments, Canadians are paying more than ever for housing, food and transportation. Even the C.D. Howe Institute says we are living in a “fiscal fantasy”. Next week, will the Liberal Prime Minister condemn Canadians to even more spending, more deficits and a rising cost of living for families?”
“Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague's comments, which are very relevant. Collaboration among political parties means making compromises. It means that someone has to make compromises so that we can ultimately come to an agreement and achieve something worthwhile. Just this week, a committee report containing recommendations to improve a bill was simply rejected by this government because it did not like the ideas proposed by the committee. Compromise and collaboration will become increasingly rare.”
“If things go on like this, obviously the government will impose closure every time opposition members oppose its ideas. The Liberals do not like anyone's ideas but their own.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised an extremely important point. Committee composition is usually a collaborative decision involving the opposition parties. When a new government is elected, the parties meet and decide on the composition of committees. Now we have been told that it will no longer work that way because the government decided to add two members without consulting us to see if we were adding one, two or three or taking some away. We might have preferred to take some away rather than have the government add two. There was no collaboration. They even floated the possibility of closure. I know my colleague is fairly new here, but I remember, back when we had a Liberal government, it was one gag order after another. He should get used to this.”
“Mr. Speaker, we did. The first thing we did as an opposition was to collaborate with the government on the bill to more quickly make each and every big project. We collaborated, but unfortunately the Liberals thought it was not enough. They thought they could do better, but after a year, things are not better in Canada with the new Prime Minister , another Liberal prime minister. They are worse. We have the only shrinking economy in the G7, and food inflation is the worst in the G7. I could go on and on. It is a bad government, and we cannot put all our confidence in it.”
“We are prepared to vote in favour of this government proposal if the Liberals agree to let the oversight committees, namely the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, do their work and not change their composition. No one can claim that we have not made an attempt at a compromise, but they have not made any at all. It is all about power at any cost. They have given themselves the privilege of doing whatever they want, and too bad for Canadians and what they thought during the last election.”
“What sad fate will befall committees? The Liberals are going to consistently vote down these motions, adjourn debates and use every available means to avoid being held accountable to Canadians. That is what the government wants. This government does not want to be held accountable to anyone. There is a reason that we seldom see the Prime Minister rise here in the House to answer questions during question period. He does not want to be held accountable to members of Parliament. He does not want to do his job as Prime Minister. He prefers his job as CEO. When people say that we have nothing to offer, that is not true. We have put forward a motion. Today, we proposed an amendment.”
“They want to change the composition of committees even though, once again, that has never happened before in history. Not only is the government going to change the committees' composition, they do not intend to do it by half measures. Instead of reflecting the composition of Parliament, where the Liberals have roughly 50% of seats, Liberal representation on committees is going to climb to about 57%. In other words two Liberals will be added to each committee to form a supermajority. What will happen to all the great inquiries we conducted on ArriveCan, all the inquiries we were able to do on the Liberal green fund, or all the corruption scandals we managed to uncover because we demanded that documents be produced and because, as a Parliament, we were able to obtain papers that the government refused to hand over to members?”
“A majority or minority government was formed based on the votes of Canadians. In the last election, Canadians did not trust the government to give it a majority. They elected a minority government with a very strong opposition because they had doubts. Not everyone believed in the Prime Minister 's message and pretty words. Canadians decided to give him power, but with a strong opposition to ensure he could not do whatever he wanted. Unhappy with the election results, the government worked very hard to send messages to almost every member of the other parties to try and see if it could draw people in and change the composition of the government. That is how we ended up with a majority government today: through secret negotiations and secret deals. Now that they have their majority, what do the Liberals want?”