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 4 of 6.
“I turn to amendment CPC-30, which would strengthen accountability for corporations convicted of human trafficking offences by increasing the maximum fine a court could impose from $1 million to $25 million. That too would strengthen public safety and security while reinforcing the integrity of our immigration system. I might pause here to observe that during clause-by-clause consideration, the parliamentary secretary to the immigration minister asked questions of the public servant witnesses, which inspired a unanimously adopted subamendment. It is sad to see his London Liberal colleague the deputy government House leader now stand in the House and attack the work her fellow Liberals inspired at the committee table.”
“With respect to amendment CPC-15, I might add that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship moved a subamendment, which the committee adopted. However, now there is a committee amendment that one London Liberal thought was good enough to ask the committee to tinker with, and another London Liberal wants the Speaker to throw the whole thing into the recycling bin. With respect to amendment CPC-17, I might add that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety , the Liberal responsible for shepherding Bill C-12 through the public safety committee, proposed a subamendment that, though defeated, suggests to me that again there is chaos inside the government caucus when one Liberal thinks a committee amendment is good enough to work with while another wants to tear it up.”
“Next are amendments CPC-15, CPC-16 and CPC-17, which collectively would amend section 94 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which establishes the framework for the immigration minister's annual report to Parliament to require additional content in the report related to, among other things, removal orders, warrants, cancellation of documents and federal benefits for refugees. This range of items touches upon proposals in the government's own legislation, such as the cancellation of documents, or speaks directly to the government's own stated objection with Bill C-12 : public safety and security, responsiveness and, most importantly, integrity of the immigration system, which I would argue could be strengthened by public confidence built upon transparency and accountability.”
“First, there are the amendments known in committee as CPC-8 and CPC-14. Collectively these amendments would require, rather than allow discretion for, the issuing of arrest warrants in certain circumstances, such as danger to the public or to national security. That certainly sounds relevant to the minister 's description of the bill. Then there is amendment CPC-13, which would impose timelines for decisions on judicial review of security certificates before the federal court. That surely speaks to the minister 's objectives of efficiency, responsiveness and a streamlined process.”
“(1520) [ Translation ] The bill would also strengthen the flexibility, efficiency and responsiveness of the asylum system by establishing new ineligibility rules, creating a more streamlined application process.... [ English ] The minister concluded her second-reading speech by remarking this: [ Translation ] We want to be simpler, faster, fairer and more focused. These reforms would enhance public safety and security, reinforce the integrity of our programs and improve services for those who rely on them. [ English ] Conservatives think those goals are worthy, though Bill C-12 falls short of realizing them fully, so we offered amendments at committee to help get it there. Bearing those quotations in mind, let us turn to the amendments mentioned by the hon. member for London West in her intervention.”
“The parent act rule was never intended to be applied blindly as a substitute for proper judgment as to the relevance of an amendment. Clearly, amendments that arise as a direct consequence of other admissible amendments should be considered relevant to the bill, even if they are made to a section of the parent act otherwise unamended. [ English ] Given that most of the challenged amendments touched upon the immigration portions of the bill, it is important to understand the purpose and the principle of the immigration-related measures proposed in Bill C-12 . I can do no better than to quote the remarks of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship during the debate at second reading on October 21.”
“Speaker Regan, found at page 22797 of the Debates, which elaborated upon this rule: [ Translation ] The Parent Act rule, the idea that an amendment should not amend an act or a section not already amended by a bill, rests on a presumption that such an amendment would not be relevant to the bill. This can be true. Often, such amendments attempt to deal with matters not referenced in the bill, and this is improper. However, there are also occasions when an amendment is relevant to the subject matter of a bill and in keeping with its scope but can only be accomplished by modifying a section of the parent act not originally touched by the bill or even an entirely different act not originally touched by the bill. This is especially so when the amendments are consequential to other decisions taken by a committee or by the House. ...”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised on Friday by the deputy government House leader regarding the second report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to Bill C‑12 , an act that deals with, among other things, “the integrity of the Canadian immigration system”. [ English ] In brief, the deputy government House Leader has asked that several common-sense amendments adopted by the committee be struck from the report and therefore stripped from the bill. Her argument relies on the so-called parent act rule. While she cited a passage from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice , third edition, allow me to quote the October 24, 2018, ruling of Mr.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will give an example of what 10 years of Liberal governance is doing. Thousands of Quebeckers are choosing to eat less in order to keep a roof over their heads. The Observatoire québécois des inégalités also reported today that food insecurity has nearly doubled in four years under this Liberal government. This is affecting one in three renters. Severe food insecurity has jumped 63% in three years. That means people are skipping meals, losing weight and suffering from extreme deprivation. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is asking young people to make sacrifices. How many young people will this Prime Minister sacrifice to keep making Brookfield richer at Canadians' expense?”
“Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister shelters his personal profits in Bermuda without paying taxes, he is forcing the Canadian middle class to pay hidden taxes every time they buy groceries. The Observatoire québécois des inégalités reports that 20% of workers are experiencing food insecurity. That figure has doubled in four years. Even people with a job can no longer afford food and rent. Why is this Prime Minister so proud of running up a record deficit and imposing historic spending that makes life even more expensive for Canadians? It is even harder for people to put food on the table.”
“Madam Speaker, I just heard the remarks of the deputy House leader of the government. I note that she is saying that she is rejecting amendments that were adopted by the majority of committee members. I would like to reserve our comments for later. We will have arguments to make with respect to that statement.”
“Madam Speaker, before becoming Prime Minister , the president of Brookfield moved his offices from Canada to New York City. Before becoming Prime Minister, the president of Brookfield created three investment funds, including one located on the second floor of a bicycle repair shop to avoid paying taxes in Canada. That is called tax avoidance. Now that he is Prime Minister, the former president of Brookfield is raking in profits by making government decisions that benefit his own company. Why does the Prime Minister keep acting like the president of Brookfield by putting his own interests and those of his friends ahead of the interests of Canadians who are the ones paying for all this?”
“Madam Speaker, a growing number of Canadians are wondering how they are going to pay their bills, but not the Prime Minister . His personal fortune keeps growing a little bigger every day as his decisions make his company, Brookfield, richer. For example, he went to see the U.S. President and returned empty-handed, with nothing for Canadians, yet his company signed a $80-billion nuclear deal that filled its pockets. People say he manages his cabinet like a private company. Why does he get to pocket profits while Canadians always get stuck paying the bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned many things that should have been included in the budget. Unfortunately, we have found that this budget includes many things that benefit Brookfield, not Canadians or Quebeckers. One thing my colleague took the time to mention is the digital services tax, which has been abolished. This tax could have been used to help our traditional media outlets weather the difficult crisis they are currently facing. Unfortunately, the Liberals decided to scrap it. When we look at Brookfield's assets, what do we see? We see that the company has interests in Meta, Alphabet and almost all the other big tech companies. Does my colleague agree with me that the government has presented a budget that favours Brookfield, but not Quebeckers or Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, twice today you have prevented a member from continuing during the period of— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Luc Berthold: I would ask that I be allowed to finish. It will not take too long. Twice now, Mr. Speaker, you have prevented the member from finishing his questions and comments when he actually had questions for the government.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague's speech. Clearly, I do not agree with much of what he said, especially at the end when he said that the budget that was presented is a conservative budget. Far be it from me to contradict him, but a budget with a $78-billion deficit and interest payments that are higher than what the provinces get in health transfers is not at all what I would call a conservative budget. My colleague is not at all a Conservative because all his demands, unfortunately, result in adding even more to the Liberal government's spending. We have already forced the next generation and every generation after that into debt. Where is my colleague getting all this money from?”
“Mr. Speaker, a friend is a friend for this Prime Minister , who is very proud of his European roots and his Brookfield pedigree. While a quarter of Canadians have to go into debt to pay for groceries, the Prime Minister is giving $500 million to the European Space Agency to create jobs in Europe at the Harwell Science and Innovation Campus. Can anyone guess who owns 50% of that campus? Let me end the suspense. It is Brookfield. Is this another coincidence or another scheme to line the pockets of the Prime Minister's friends? How can the Prime Minister let 600,000 Quebeckers line up at food banks while sending their money and their jobs to Europe?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member has just given an endless list of expenses that this government has imposed on Canadians in the latest budget. That is what it means to be a Liberal. Meanwhile, what is happening? More and more Canadians are being forced to use their credit cards to buy food. They have to eat on credit. They have to drain their bank accounts to eat. For 80% of people, the cost of food is breaking their budget. The Prime Minister keeps spending and driving up the cost of food. Why are the Liberals so determined to impoverish Canadians when a quarter of them are already too poor to put food on the table?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is no longer a secret that we are dealing with the most expensive government in Canadian history. Every dollar lavishly spent by the Prime Minister comes out of the pockets of Canadians. The problem is that there is no money left in Canadians' pockets. One-quarter of Canadians are facing food insecurity, which means that they cannot afford groceries. In the last budget, the Prime Minister chose to raise the cost of fuel with hidden taxes. Why do the Liberals want to make food even more expensive for Canadians who already cannot afford it?”
“With close to 125 members still active in 2025, the Cercle de fermières de Plessisville stands as a key pillar of our community. To all the farm women of yesterday, today and tomorrow, from Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière and all across Quebec: Thank you for your dedication, your creativity, and your invaluable contribution to Quebec's heritage.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud to mark the 110th anniversary of the Cercle de fermières de Plessisville. It was on November 27, 1915, that Marie-Ange Vallée and some of the village women founded one of the very first farm women's circles in Quebec. This group became one of the founding members of what is now a large family of 34,000 farm women across the province, a group that is also celebrating 110 years of history. For more than a century, these women have passionately and generously shared their knowledge of traditional textile arts such as weaving, knitting, crochet, quilting, lacemaking, and many other skills that make up our rich heritage. Without farm women, a significant part of our history and our knowledge would no longer exist.”
“Mr. Speaker, what is in the budget is the biggest deficit we have ever had, outside of a pandemic. Fitch is not the only agency that is concerned about Canada's public finances. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has raised a number of concerns about the Liberals' broken promises. There is nothing to limit Liberal spending anymore. The Prime Minister has abandoned all of his fiscal anchors. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the anchor that we have had for 30 years was suddenly eliminated in this budget, without any discussion. It is no wonder the Prime Minister wants to get rid of him. He hates being told the truth. How many more warnings will it take for this government to put an end to its irresponsible spending?”
“Mr. Speaker, imagine what someone could buy if they were given a credit card with no limit and never had to pay it off at the end of the month. They could just pass the bill on to their children and grandchildren. That is exactly what the Liberal Prime Minister is doing. This is a red budget that will put generations of Canadians in the red. Credits cards like that do not exist, except for the Liberals. Will the Liberals heed Fitch Ratings' warnings to the effect that federal finances are at high risk of deteriorating further with an unaffordable budget that will increase the cost of living for everyone?”
“Madam Speaker, I listened to the speech given by my colleague, and he had a lot to say about his riding of Bourassa. He carefully avoided mentioning the people in Bourassa who cannot pay their bills at the end of the month. He avoided mentioning the 600,000 Quebeckers who are lining up at food banks every month because they cannot put enough food on the table to feed their families. I understand that the member for Bourassa wants to list off the talking points he was given by his Prime Minister and by the Minister of Finance and National Revenue . However, when he chats with people at the grocery store, do they actually want to talk about the state of public finances in G7 countries, or do they tell him about how people are struggling to pay their bills and afford groceries? That is the real question.”
“Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. The purpose of my speech today was to show how completely out of touch this Liberal government is, because it does not realize that we are not only talking about GST but also about health transfers. The amount of interest on the debt that the Liberals are racking up will exceed the amount spent on health transfers, when people across the country are calling for investments in health so that everyone can receive care. The government is showing that it is out of touch with the day-to-day reality of Canadians and, unfortunately, it has proven that this is not an affordable budget that will make life affordable for all Canadians.”
“Madam Speaker, I call this creative accounting method Liberal flim-flam. Speaking of the plan to divide federal spending into two budgets, one an operating budget, which the government promises to balance, and one an investment budget, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Jason Jacques, said this: We have not seen a clear definition of what would fall into capital and would fall into operating. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer cannot tell what the outcome will be. He went on to say the following: At this point it's impossible for us and for you as Parliamentarians, to assess the likelihood or probability of the government hitting any fiscal target. Call it a plan, call it a strategy or call it a flim-flam, it does not work. A flim-flam is a flim-flam, nothing more.”
“Madam Speaker, I simply cannot believe it. This shows how completely out of touch the Liberals are. I just spent five or six minutes describing the precarious financial situation that Canadians and Canadian families find themselves in and talking about the fact that they are unable to pay their bills at the end of the month. Meanwhile, the Liberals are bragging about how Canada is better off than the other G7 countries, how those other countries are worse off and Canada is better. When it comes time to pay for groceries, people realize that, unfortunately, everything is getting more expensive, despite the Liberals' lip service—which we no longer believe, and which the Parliamentary Budget Officer no longer believes. I did not have time to address that in my speech. It is not true that everything is fine and dandy.”
“It works out to $168 billion more than the five deficits the previous Trudeau government had planned for the same five fiscal years.” When people look at these numbers, I think they realize that the government has simply missed the mark when it comes to presenting an affordable budget that will ensure an affordable life. I see that I am out of time. I could have talked about this a lot more, but I will stop there. I will now take questions from my colleagues.”
“In four years, the debt-to-GDP ratio will be at 43%, when the hope was to reduce it to 39.5%.” In an article about how the budget does not change much for people's finances, Le Soleil quoted Restaurants Canada when it said, “We are disappointed that the budget doesn't include sufficient measures to improve everyday affordability for Canadians, including Restaurants Canada's ask to exempt all food from GST.” According to an article in Le Journal de Québec, “[The Liberal Prime Minister] has achieved the impossible: spending more than Trudeau.” Honestly, I did not think that was possible, but that is exactly what we saw when the budget was presented. To quote journalist Michel Girard, “Mark Carney's new Liberal government is spending even more than Justin Trudeau's did....”
“The government said that it would keep the deficit under 1% of the GDP, but it has failed to do so, and today, the deficit is at 2.5% of the GDP. The government also said that it wanted to keep the debt-to-GDP ratio on a downward track, but it has also failed in that regard.”
“They turn to cheaper, less nutritious foods that they can afford to ensure that they can put at least one meal on the table every day. This is the new Prime Minister's Canada. This is Canada after 10 years under the Liberals. I am not the only one saying this. Several commentators and analysts in Quebec have criticized this budget. I will quote a few. A La Presse article entitled “This is not a ‘generational budget’” said, “At $78 billion this year, the deficit is already staggering. Yet, over five years, the Carney government will basically double the accumulated deficit, which will go from $154 billion to $321 billion. All of the fiscal anchors established under the Trudeau government have vanished.”
“There is something the Prime Minister does not seem to understand. I think that the cost of this budget to all Canadians will mean that, unfortunately, once again, more and more young people will lose interest in politics and their future and will disengage instead of wanting to bring about change. Fortunately, there are still people in the House who believe that the money that passes through our hands and that we must decide how to use does not belong to us, but to Canadians. We must make decisions so that people have more money in their pockets, not less. In just a few months, the cost of strawberries has gone up by 25%. Beef is up 25%. Coffee is up 20%. Chicken is up 17%. When people go grocery shopping, they realize that it is unaffordable and that there are fewer nutritious items in their baskets.”
“Vincent de Paul Society thrift shop in Black Lake, I was told that there has been a 20% increase in customers in recent months because people can no longer afford to buy clothes and can no longer afford to buy winter clothes at department stores. I definitely do not get the impression that Canadians and the people in my community are in a solid financial situation. Families are struggling to make ends meet. As I mentioned earlier, it has become virtually impossible for young people to become homeowners. We hear that 2.2 million Canadians line up at food banks every month, and in Quebec, that number is 600,000. That is not a solid financial situation. I would call it a precarious financial situation for Canadians. Why did the Prime Minister break his promise to spend less? Unfortunately, that means that all Canadians will pay more.”
“It is money earned by workers who sell fruits and vegetables or weld parts that we manufacture and are currently trying to sell to Americans, without being able to sell them. Adding fuel to the inflationary fire, as he is doing with this spending, will make life even more difficult for all Canadians. The cost of this Liberal budget will further drive up the price of food, housing and everything Canadians need. In his speeches, the Prime Minister would have us believe that Canada is in a strong fiscal position. (1225) That is not the impression I have. I spent a week in my riding. I went to Thetford Mines, Plessisville and Lotbinière. I covered a large area, over many regions. When I went to the St.”
“We promised to support the budget on the condition that it be an affordable budget that makes life affordable for everyone, from mothers to welders to young students, in short for all Canadians. Unfortunately, that is not the budget we got. The Prime Minister , who claims to be different but is following in the footsteps of the previous prime minister, promised to spend less, but will run a deficit of $80 billion. One has to wonder what kind of world the Prime Minister lives in or what planet he lives on. One has to wonder who his friends are and who he shares his meals with every week, failing to realize that every dollar he spends is a dollar that was earned by a hard-working taxpayer.”
“It is no wonder that, when young people look at how their money is being spent here in Ottawa, they really wonder where they stand. Young people have lost hope of one day having their own home and their own land. Housing is being built in Thetford Mines. A lot of housing is being built, but hardly any houses are being built. That is not normal. Back in my day, when I was the mayor of Thetford Mines—I can say that, now—we wanted to have a lot of residential construction. It meant that a lot of young families could settle down, buy a home and stay there for a long time. Now, young people can only hope to have housing they will be able to afford. That is a big difference. We presented the government with a simple solution.”
“It comes out of the pocket of a student who goes out to eat once in a while and, when he sees the taxes on his restaurant bill, thinks to himself that next time, he will just stay home and eat noodles. All the money the government spends comes out of the pockets of hard-working Canadians. It is not imaginary money. It is not money that does not exist. It is money that someone is one day going to have to pay. After the latest Liberal budget, Canada is at a point where the money currently being spent comes not only from the mother or the welder or the student. It is money that will have to be paid by their children, their grandchildren, their great-grandchildren, and even their great-great-grandchildren. This is worrying for the future.”
“However, it is curable if discovered early enough, limited to the prostate, and treated in a timely manner.” The way to get treated in a timely manner is to get examined by a doctor. Some hon. members: Hear, hear! Luc Berthold: Madam Speaker, I think that for the rest of my speech, there will be a little less applause from one side of the House. This Liberal Prime Minister is going to be remembered as the leader of the most expensive government in Canadian history. Every dollar he spends and every dollar he says he is going to spend in his budget, which forecasts a $78-billion deficit, has to come from somewhere. It comes out of the pocket of a mother who works at a grocery store and pays her taxes. It comes out of the pocket of a welder in Thetford Mines who looks at his paycheque and wonders why he has so little money left over.”
“Madam Speaker, before I get into this massive deficit budget, I want to say a few words about the bow tie I am wearing. My wife, Caro, gave it to me at the beginning of November. She asked me to wear it for the entire month of November to raise awareness about the reality of men who, like me, have had to deal with a diagnosis of prostate cancer. I was fortunate to be diagnosed early, so they were able to remove this insidious thing that was inside me. Today, I am here and able to speak to Canadians about the importance, especially for men, of seeking treatment and, above all, getting tested. Here is a short excerpt from the Procure website, which sells this bow tie precisely to raise awareness among men: “The most common of male cancers, [prostate] cancer is sneaky. It causes few or no symptoms at first.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a budget that will make this Liberal Prime Minister go down in history as the most costly head of state Canada has ever seen. I would like to remind him of something important: Every dollar he spends comes directly out of the pocket of a Canadian who worked hard to earn it. He promised to spend less. His deficit is going to be nearly $80 billion. It is not for nothing that today's Journal de Montréal said, “The federal government is out of touch with real life”. What parallel universe is the Prime Minister living in? Why can he not understand that increasing inflation with his spending will make life even harder for all Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, this costly Liberal budget will drive up the price of food, housing and everything else Canadians need. The Prime Minister says Canada is in a strong fiscal position. If that is so, why are families struggling to make ends meet? Why is home ownership virtually impossible for young people? Why are 2.2 million Canadians lining up at food banks every month? This is not a strong position, it is a precarious one. The Liberal leader has chosen to make his friends richer with an $80‑billion deficit. Why is the Prime Minister breaking his promise to spend less by adding fuel to the fire of inflation?”
“Mr. Speaker, this is a costly budget that is going to make life even more expensive for Canadian families. Yesterday, the Prime Minister presented a budget that will cement his memory in history as the nation's biggest-spending Prime Minister ever. That is a deficit of almost $80 billion. He promised to spend less, yet he is spending $90 billion more. That amounts to $5,400 per family coming directly out of the pockets of Canadians. Why is the Prime Minister deliberately driving up the cost of groceries even higher by introducing the worst inflationary budget in Canadian history?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is nothing imaginary about mothers not having enough money to buy the milk, cheese and meat they need to feed their children. For example, the industrial carbon tax costs them up to $1,000 a year of very real money. While they wonder how they are going to pay for their groceries, the Prime Minister is trying to engineer a costly election with a costly budget. Why does he not think of the families and simply cancel this industrial carbon tax, which is going to make life even more unaffordable?”
“Mr. Speaker, every time the Liberal government spends $1, $1 comes out of a Canadian's pocket because of higher taxes and Liberal inflation. Piling hidden taxes on families who are struggling to put food on the table is the height of Liberal hypocrisy. Yes, it is a hidden tax. Canadians are forking over $5.6 billion because of a change to food packaging rules. Instead of tabling a costly budget this afternoon, will the Prime Minister abolish the packaging tax and give $5 billion back to families in an affordable budget for an affordable life?”
“Motion Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you seek it, I believe you will find the unanimous consent of the House to adopt this motion. That, in relation to its study on the development of critical minerals in Canada, three members of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources be authorized to travel to Sudbury, Ontario; Saguenay, Quebec; Montréal, Quebec; and Québec, Quebec, in the Fall of 2025, during an adjournment period, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.”
“Madam Speaker, it is Halloween. Will the government leader stop trying to scare Canadians? What Canadians need for Christmas is an affordable budget for an affordable life. It is this government's responsibility to deliver that budget. While the government leader is making jokes, the 2024–2025 Nutritious and Affordable Food Basket Report says that products such as meat, fish, cheese and yogurt are now foods that many families can no longer afford on a regular basis. This is Canada in 2025. Does the Prime Minister understand that people have nothing left to sacrifice?”
“Madam Speaker, even with a new Prime Minister , after 10 years of this Liberal government, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Liberal insider friends continue to line their pockets with millions of dollars, while hundreds of thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians are going hungry. Why is the Prime Minister giving executives at Export Development Canada, Via Rail and the Business Development Bank of Canada annual bonuses of over $100,000 each instead of feeding young families who cannot afford groceries? Where does the Prime Minister get off asking young people to wait their turn, to make even more sacrifices, when he is paying his rich friends millions of dollars?”
“Mr. Speaker, members on the other side of the House seem unable to grasp the reality facing ordinary Canadians. As I said, 600,000 people in Quebec are using food banks. Meanwhile, rents are doubling in every region of the province, and grocery prices just keep going up. On the weekend, Le Journal de Montréal reported that pregnant women are now cutting back on protein and vegetables. People can no longer afford to pay their rent. They can no longer afford to buy groceries. Will the Prime Minister finally get the message and table an affordable budget so that families can afford to live?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been in power for 10 years and now more than 600,000 Quebeckers are using food banks every month, while the Prime Minister 's friends are lining their pockets. Last week, the Prime Minister had the nerve to tell our young people that they need to make sacrifices, while the executives at BDC and the CMHC are getting tens of millions of dollars in bonuses. Imagine: The Prime Minister is asking young people to make more sacrifices, but he is rewarding executives with tens of millions of dollars. Instead of telling our young people to make more sacrifices, why does the Prime Minister not ask his friends to make sacrifices and cut their bonuses?”
“Mr. Speaker, this government is not creating a bulwark against inflation. It is creating inflation. It is forcing Canadians to turn to food banks. There is a reason why Food Banks Canada's 2025 HungerCount report is called “Food Banks as a Lifeline: Canada's New Normal”. The new normal in Canada involves relying on food banks. That is the new normal under these Liberals. In fact, 20% of food bank users are employed, 8% are seniors and 23% are two-parent families. What is the Prime Minister waiting for? When will he stop his inflationary spending, which is forcing more and more Canadians to turn to food banks?”