House Publications

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, entitled “The Role of McKinsey & Company in the Creation and the Beginnings of the Canada Infrastructure Bank”.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

     Madam Speaker, it is my privilege and honour to present a supplementary report on behalf of the Conservative Party. We continue to call for the abolishment of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and we call for greater transparency in order to prevent future conflicts of interest, such as those that Dominic Barton had.

    We need a government that works for Canada, not a government that continues to take from our people.

     moved for leave to introduce Bill C-420, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal organizations and proceeds of crime).

    He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a bill today that aims to create a registry of criminal organizations. This idea has been raised in the House a number of times in recent years. This is the third time I personally have proposed it. The bill also includes provisions for freezing and confiscating property obtained by criminal organizations in the course of their criminal activities. I am pleased to table this bill and hope it receives the approval of all my colleagues in the House.

    Madam Speaker, I move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, presented on Tuesday, December 5, 2023, be concurred in.

    I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

    Today, we are talking about the third report, and the motion reads as follows:

    I am proud to rise in the House this morning to represent the people of the wonderful riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, but I am also proud to live in a bilingual country where people speak French and English. I am taking the time to focus on French and English because it is important to remember that the Prime Minister of this Liberal government appointed a Governor General who is bilingual but does not speak one of the two official languages, French. Worse still, he appointed a unilingual anglophone lieutenant governor for Canada's only bilingual province, New Brunswick.

    The list of examples demonstrating this Liberal government's lack of intention or willingness to protect French is too long for me to read right now. I would not want to run out of time for my speech.

    Bilingualism is central to our Canadian identity. I stand here today in our nation's most important democratic chamber, where French and English have been granted equal privileges since its creation in 1867. Canada's francophonie outside Quebec is vibrant and resilient, reflecting the perseverance of a language and a culture that have endured for generations despite facing challenges. At the same time, Quebec's francophonie, with its rich culture and its role as the stronghold of French in North America, bears witness to a strong, proud collective identity. Together, these two distinct, but complementary, facets of the francophonie enrich Canada's identity and remind us about the importance of preserving this unique linguistic duality, which is a source of national pride.

    Why am I talking about Canadian identity? The answer is quite simple. The Broadcasting Act states that the programming provided by the CBC should:

    Understandably, I nearly fell off my chair when I saw a headline in the Journal de Montréal on October 11, 2023, that read: “CBC Podcasts translated podcast into French in Paris to avoid the Quebec accent”. What a disgrace. I thought I must have read it wrong. As I read the article, I learned that CBC Podcasts chose to contract a studio in Paris instead of local talent to adapt the hit Canadian podcast Alone: A Love Story into French—I said the title in English because I am a staunch defender of English-French bilingualism in Canada—because the Quebec accent would have less international potential. Is that part of CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate?

    When confronted in committee, Ms. Tait, the CEO of CBC/Radio Canada, told us that it was just a mistake and that it would never happen again. Can such contempt for Quebeckers and Canada's francophones be so easily excused? She said this as the person who was CEO during the period when the CBC's audience numbers plummeted by nearly 50%, forcing her to cut 800 jobs last December.

    Yesterday, Ms. Tait told the Canadian heritage committee that she was entitled to a performance bonus. Wow. After failing to produce content that Canadians actually want to consume, and after missing 79% of the key performance targets that they made for themselves, it is clear that the last thing CBC executives deserve is more bonuses. To all the Radio-Canada fans out there, I want to be crystal clear that we in the Conservative Party of Canada will defund the CBC, which is an antiquated broadcaster that has fallen out of touch with the interests of Canadian anglophones, but we will maintain funding for Radio-Canada and its French-language programming. It is important that we make this clear.

    The role of a public broadcaster is to offer content that the private market cannot deliver, and the CBC's English-language services are no longer getting the job done. By contrast, Radio-Canada remains an essential broadcaster for Quebeckers and francophone minority communities. For them, there simply are no other comparable sources of news. By refocusing Radio-Canada's resources, we could enhance the services offered to francophone communities from the standpoint of programming quality or access to local and national news that actually reflects their reality. The Conservative Party's goals when it comes to official languages have always been clear. We must halt the decline of French and protect and defend both official languages, both in Quebec and across Canada.

    Yesterday in committee, my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot moved a motion to halt the payment of bonuses to CBC executives. When I found out how it went, I fell off my chair again, and now my hip is a little sore. Do my colleagues know which members voted with their Liberal friends against the cancellation of these bonuses? It was the members of the Bloc Québécois. How disappointing. How can they justify paying a bonus to a CEO who holds Quebeckers and francophones in contempt? What is the point of the Bloc Québécois? Whom is it good for? The Bloc poses as the defender of Quebeckers and Canada's francophones, but it is in cahoots with the Liberals. What happened yesterday in committee was just the latest demonstration. I would add that the Bloc has introduced a bill that would add an extra layer of bureaucracy and worsen the daily struggles of official language minority communities.

    I have the privilege of working with official language minority communities and organizations that fight for their rights on a daily basis, and I can assure the House that they are showing perseverance and determination in their fight to keep French alive in minority communities across Canada. Here is an example. Outside Quebec, the place where the use of French as a second language is increasing the most is Yukon. I commend Yukon's communities for their hard work and perseverance. The results are very clear. All across Canada, people are proud to be Quebeckers and Canadians and proud to be interested in learning the other official language. According to a report from the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada, 87% of Canadians want to be bilingual.

    In conclusion, the only party that really wants to halt the decline of French throughout Canada, including in Quebec, and protect and promote both official languages is the Conservative Party of Canada.

    Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his remarks.

    I want to ask about the English-language CBC. It is the Conservative Party's position, as articulated in the member's speech, to cut off English-language services from the CBC, but for the English-language minority communities of Quebec outside of Montreal, the CBC offers a vital service. In many rural parts of Quebec, the CBC is the only link to news that English-speaking communities have.

    How will the member address the issue of English-speaking minorities in Quebec if he cuts funding to the CBC's English-language branch?

    Madam Speaker, I would remind the House and everyone tuning in that my colleague is the only person who has voted against the Official Languages Act.

    To answer his question, I would just like to say that the status of English in North America and the status of French in Canada are completely separate. I can assure Quebec anglophones that they will have access to news in English, in their language.

    Madam Speaker, I thought it was pretty funny to hear my colleague say that his party is the only one defending French in the House. I think Pierre Bourgault put it best when he said that putting the two languages on an equal footing means stomping on one language with both feet. My colleague's celebration of bilingualism strikes me as being completely at odds with his purported desire to protect French.

    That said, I have a question about CBC/Radio Canada. The Liberal government is currently putting in place a plan to integrate the operations of the CBC and Radio-Canada to prevent a Conservative government from defunding the CBC.

    Here is my question. If the public service succeeds in doing this, what will my colleague's government do? Will it defund Radio-Canada, which provides a space for francophone creators and culture? Will his government make cuts to it?

    I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.

    Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the new member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun on his recent election. He managed to capture a Liberal stronghold, so I commend him for that.

    Now, had he listened to my speech, he would know that we in the Conservative Party of Canada have made it clear that we will allow Radio-Canada to communicate in French throughout Canada, both in Quebec and in all the provinces and territories of this great French and English bilingual nation.

    Madam Speaker, I am deeply concerned and curious about how the member responds to English-speaking Canadians, the many in my riding of Victoria but also those across Canada, who value the CBC for its English-language content and Canadian content, especially given that defunding it would clear the way for flagrantly partisan news outlets like Rebel News and True North. It seems self-interested for the Conservatives to want to defund an organization combatting misinformation, especially given the election of Trump and the spread of disinformation across North America and around the world.

    I am curious about how the member responds to the concerns of Canadians who do not want to see the CBC defunded.

    Madam Speaker, governing means being a responsible manager.

    Let us look at the facts. North America has a pool of more than 350 million anglophones and some 10 million francophones. We have Radio-Canada and the CBC. Before going any further, I would like to remind my colleagues that Radio-Canada costs Canadian taxpayers more than $1 billion. Radio-Canada gets approximately 30% to 40% of the audience. Unfortunately, the CBC gets only 3%. Those are the facts. Decisions need to be made.

    Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to a topic that makes me very indignant. My indignation is shared by millions of Quebeckers and Canadians. Let me explain.

    Once again, CBC/Radio-Canada, an institution funded with taxpayer money, is betraying the values, culture and trust of the people who pay for it to exist, the people it is supposed to serve and represent. The CBC chose to record a podcast in a Paris studio in order to avoid the Quebec accent. Shame on the CBC. This is an affront to me and my fellow Quebeckers. It is an affront to our culture, our contribution to Canada, and, lastly, our very existence, because the CBC's message is all too clear. The message is that the Quebec accent is offensive. That is unbelievable.

    It is hurtful, but it is not the only thing here that hurts us. I cannot talk about the CBC without mentioning the waste of public resources. For one thing, why did it use a studio in a foreign country when Canada and Quebec have perfectly well-equipped facilities capable of meeting its media needs? Why did it waste public funds instead of supporting the local economy, encouraging local talent and respecting our linguistic and cultural identities? On the one hand, we have the CBC's blatant affront to Quebeckers, but on the other, we have the CBC's CEO, Catherine Tait, demanding more and more money from taxpayers.

    Just yesterday, Ms. Tait told the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage that she was entitled to a bonus. I would remind my colleagues that, under Ms. Tait, the CBC's overall audience level plummeted by almost half and that she was forced to cut 800 jobs in December 2023 alone. These cuts left hundreds of Quebec families scrambling.

    In her opening statement yesterday, Ms. Tait asked the government for even more taxpayer dollars. Does anyone know what she did the last time the government gave her taxpayer money? Of the $42‑million emergency top-up the Liberal government gave her, $18.4 million went to executive bonuses. Another $3.3 million went to 45 executives. If we divide $3.3 million by 45, we get a bonus of about $73,000 per executive. That is more than the annual income of the average Canadian worker, yet Ms. Tait wants a bonus.

     What is the Bloc Québécois doing about all this? It is voting with the Liberals to protect CBC bonuses and support Ms. Tait. That is so appalling. Once again, the Bloc is showing that it will always put the Liberal Prime Minister's interests before those of Quebeckers. I keep looking for a Bloc Québécois in the House, but day after day, all I can find is a “Liberal Bloc”.

    How can we tolerate or justify this kind of abuse of public funds when millions of Canadians are unable to make ends meet, when millions of Canadians are lining up every day at food banks and when the number of unhoused is skyrocketing across Canada? Meanwhile, the CBC is wasting millions of dollars in public funds in unjustified bonuses and recording podcasts in Paris because they do not like the Quebec accent. It is unbelievably ironic.

    It is a question of respect. It is a question of respecting taxpayer money of course, but it is even more a question of respecting the taxpayers themselves. The CBC does not respect Canada's values and cultures. By choosing to avoid the Quebec accent, the CBC is telling us loud and clear that our regions' accents and identities are not good enough. That is what that means. How ironic on the part of an organization that purports to represent Canadian diversity. What is diversity if not the recognition and promotion of our differences rather than their contempt and rejection? The Quebec accent is an integral part of the Canadian identity, the Canadian francophone identity and our Canadian heritage. Rejecting the accent means rejecting part of Canada.

    This contempt for Quebec and taxpayers did not appear out of thin air. It is fuelled by a Liberal government supported by the Bloc Québécois, which has lost all sense of priority. The Liberal government prefers paying the CBC millions of dollars and filling the pockets of its friend the president rather than thinking about Canadians' finances and addressing the real problems Canadians are facing after nine years of irresponsible governance.

    On our side of the House, we refuse to tolerate such contempt. The common-sense Conservatives say no to this culture of contempt and privilege. Canadians and Quebeckers deserve better. The common-sense Conservatives will defend taxpayers, workers and families. They will defend their interests and their paycheques rather than abuse them to fill the pockets of their friends and the CBC's corrupt and contemptuous senior executives.

    I cannot keep quiet about that. My colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier and I have been members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages for many years. We are seeing mismanagement by this government, who appoints a Governor General who does not speak French, here in Ottawa no less. The same goes for the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick. Fortunately, she was just replaced by someone who is bilingual, in a bilingual province, but she was appointed by the Liberal government.

    These are examples of this government's lack of accountability where French is never the top priority. We see it often at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. It is unfortunate, but lucky thing the Conservative Party is there to stand up for the real interests of all francophones.

    Therefore, I move:

    The amendment is in order.

    Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

     Madam Speaker, Canadians in all regions of the country are very much aware that the leader of the Conservative Party does not like the CBC, and I would suggest that is in all regions and includes Radio-Canada. However, we have had no clear indications about that from the Conservatives, other than their machete-holding leader wanting to cut wherever he sees fit, one of those cuts being to broadcasting.

    On the one hand, the Conservatives are trying to say they are defenders of the French language, but on the other hand, the CBC, and in particular Radio-Canada in the province of Quebec, is going to be cut by the Conservatives. I am wondering how members of the Conservative Party can justify the type of discussions they want to have today, which are based on their genuine lack of respect for CBC Canada, period. Canadians know that; that is the Conservative agenda.

    Can the member expand on why the the Conservatives do not feel that Radio-Canada has a role to play?

    Madam Speaker, it is first and foremost a question of management of public funds. Obviously, we all agree about Canadian culture, be it anglophone or francophone, but when we look at how public funds are being managed within CBC/Radio-Canada, we see it makes no sense at all. If this were a private company, it would have gone bankrupt long ago.

    Obviously, though, this is no public company. It is an organization that represents the country as a whole, its culture and so on, which is completely normal, except there is a way of handling things. Ms. Tait has appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage a number of times, and each time she repeats the same thing. Management always wants more, but they are not getting results.

    Madam Speaker, no one here will be surprised to learn that I am a sovereignist. My colleagues in the Conservative Party purport to be defenders of francophone communities outside Quebec and of bilingualism, but at a time of increasing questioning of the French fact and bilingualism in this country, their buddies, including Conservatives like J.J. McCullough, are saying that there is no place for bilingualism and that we francophones are the spoiled brats of Confederation.

    How will my colleague justify cutting off funding for the CBC with his compatriots in English Canada if his party keeps Radio-Canada? Has the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière‑du‑Loup thought of that?

    Madam Speaker, just a week ago, the leader of the Bloc Québécois wondered what he was doing here. I imagine my colleague is asking himself the same question. The reality is that the Bloc Québécois is in it just for Quebec and does not care in the slightest about the rest of Canada. Nevertheless, the Bloc is delighted to be here and to reap the benefits. This is clear in everything its members do. They fatten up the government and support the Liberals three-quarters of the time, if not 100% of the time, and then they want to lecture us. I think they would be better off heading to Quebec City.

    Madam Speaker, Donald Trump has just announced that he is going to throw 25% tariffs on Canada's economy, throwing our industries into absolute chaos. How did the member who lives in the 19-room mansion in Stornoway respond? He comes in here and sends his troops in to fight about why CBC gave a contract to one company and not to another. The Conservatives are unfit to represent Canada at this time. What they are doing now is saying they will support radio stations in Quebec but shut them down in the rest of the country. This is about dividing people.

     In my region in northern Ontario, CBC is the voice that keeps people together. However, the Conservatives think that they can divide Canadians, that they can say they will give Quebec everything it wants if they vote for the Conservatives. People in Quebec are not dumb enough to vote for that man, who will not have a plan—

     I have to give the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup a chance to answer.

     Madam Speaker, my NDP colleague must be extremely confused these days. He has to vote with his leader to prop up a party the New Democrats cannot stand. They say so everyday here in the House of Commons, and now my colleague is trying to lecture us. This is truly nuts. The NDP members must be so confused.

    Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this very important issue. I want to start by focusing on the issue first, and then I will go into some of the motivations for having this particular debate.

    I for one am a very big fan of multiculturalism and the fact that Canada is a bilingual nation. With a name like Lamoureux, I can assure members that I have a very strong passion and belief in how important it is that Canada continues to promote and encourage being a bilingual nation. I thought I would give a bit of a reflection on what went wrong with my family in regard to the French language.

    My ancestors have been in Canada for generations. Many years ago, they went from the province of Quebec to Manitoba and Saskatchewan. During the 1950s, the French language was not very well received in certain parts of the Prairies. In this case, my grandmother on my mom's side, with the last name of Lambert and Pasquis, discouraged my mother from learning French. In fact, she never spoke it at home; my mother was told never to speak French, only English. That was in rural Saskatchewan during the 1950s. My father, in contrast, was raised in a family in which they spoke French fluently.

    Before living in Winnipeg, my family was in St-Pierre-Jolys in rural Manitoba, which is still a strong French community today, along with St. Boniface. However, because of the disconnect during the 1960s, one would say that women's rights were not as great as they are today, so my mom was the one who raised us. She never spoke French in the household. We never had the opportunity to learn French, which is unfortunate.

    I would argue that French is spoken in the Prairies today to the degree that it is because of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. He believed in Canada as a bilingual nation. Through that belief, we started to see programming in our school and educational systems that promoted and encouraged speaking French. I still remember, in my earlier childhood, when French was not well received, particularly on the Prairies, by a good majority of people. That has changed in such a positive and encouraging way. I would date it back to the 1970s, when we had a solid commitment from the national government, saying that it wanted French spoken across the country. We needed to recognize the uniqueness of the province of Quebec and its culture and heritage, as well as to ensure that French was also spoken outside Quebec.

    Fast-forwarding to today, I can go into a number of schools in Winnipeg North and see people of Punjabi or Filipino heritage who can speak Punjabi, English and French.

    It is the same thing when we hear of children who are nine or 10 years old speaking Tagalog, French and English, as well as how popular the French language is as a respected language after one or two generations. It has changed. Today, there are more people speaking French in Canada than ever, and I would suggest that the number will continue to grow. As I said, I will look to Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the policy decisions he made back then as the root of this. Policy decisions matter; they make a difference, and that is why I posed the question in regard to CBC and Radio-Canada. Radio-Canada is very unique in the sense of the French language and the promotion thereof, not to mention CBC on the national scene and the important role it has to play.

    The leader of the Conservative Party, more than any other leader in the House of Commons, has a personal vendetta against CBC. Let us not kid ourselves. I have talked about the Tory, the Conservative-Reform hidden agenda, and we saw it in the question I had posed. We should not believe for a moment that the Conservatives look at Radio-Canada as something they would not make cuts to. When I posed the question previously, the member talked about whether we should be financing and so forth. He did not jump to the defence of Radio-Canada, let alone CBC.

    Just yesterday, I quoted a CBC story to one of my colleagues. I quoted from a story being reported, and it happened to be CBC's story. It was a very serious quote that I gave to the member opposite. His response to it was that it was CBC, and he sat down. Conservatives do not have any respect for that national newscast. For the Canadians who might be following this debate, the Conservatives actually stopped participating in political panels in regard to CTV. I do not know if they are back at it, but I was attending both CBC and CTV political panels not that long ago, and the Conservatives were nowhere to be found. They look at these institutions with a genuine lack of respect. It is coming from the leader of the Conservative Party.

    Why is that important? I will go to some quotes. A wonderful story came out in regard to what is happening within the Conservative caucus. Here is how the story started off. Is it any wonder that people should be concerned about the Conservative Party of Canada, particularly the leader, and its attitudes towards the CBC? The story is all about Conservatives and Conservative MPs who are concerned about the leader of the Conservative Party. They are being quoted; they do not want to use their names. If they use their names, they will be punished. This is from a number of sources, not just one or two, but many sources in terms of the making up of this story.

    An hon. member: Yes, it is made up.

    Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, one member says it is made up. This reinforces the attitude we heard yesterday, that CBC has no credibility from the Conservative Party's perspective. Canadians would disagree, especially if we factor in that it is not only CBC.

    CBC says:

    When we talk about Radio One and the French language, this is why the people of Quebec, and in fact the people of all of Canada, should be concerned. We should remember that this is a pet peeve of the leader of the Conservative Party. It is a personal, vindictive attitude that he has toward CBC, and he wants it defunded.

    Here is what Conservatives are actually saying about their leader: “He's the one who decides everything. His main adviser is himself.... The people around him are only there to realize the leader's vision.” This is not me saying it and it is not CBC; it is reliable, numerous sources that have been canvassed in regard to the Conservatives and Conservative members of Parliament.

     That is why I say that public policy at the national level matters. The French language today is spoken more than it ever has been, and it is because of a national government. It was a government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau that had a vision of Canada, and we are realizing the results of that vision today.

    This is why I wanted to be able to address it by using me as an example. If only the policy would have been in place during the 1950s and going into the 1960s, I suspect I would be addressing the House in French as opposed to in English right now. I would suggest that this is why we need to be aware of the fact of what is behind the motivation and the hidden agenda of the far-right Conservative Party today.

    That is something I would like to encourage all Canadians to get an understanding of: who it is that the leader of the Conservative Party is. We often talk about the cuts, and those cuts can easily be substantiated in terms of the allegations that are coming from this side, and not only from Liberals. We also see them from members of the Bloc, as well as the Greens and the New Democrats, all of whom are expressing concerns about the types of cuts the Conservative Party of Canada is actually talking about.

     I said I wanted to speak a bit about the motivation, because that is a very important aspect of why we are actually using this particular concurrence report for debate today. Look at the report itself. It is not very complicated; it is pretty straightforward. This is what the Conservative Party wanted to debate today: “That the committee report to the House its deep condemnation of the CBC using a Paris-based audio studio to record a podcast, choosing it over a Quebecois-based recording studio to avoid the Quebec accent.”

    I share the concern that is being expressed in the report. I would like to think that all members would share in that concern, but it begs the question of why the Conservative Party would move this particular motion today. There are literally hundreds of motions on the tabling of reports that could in fact be brought forward, yet the Conservatives singled it out as the one they wanted to debate today.

    We should ask ourselves why it is doing that. I cannot recall the Conservative Party ever, in years, using an opposition day motion to talk about the French language. If it is such an important issue, why has it not done that? It has not once that I can recall; if I am wrong, members can please stand up and let me know. I suspect I am not. Maybe 10 or 12 years ago it might have; I do not know 100%.

    I found out just 30 minutes ago that the Conservatives have decided to talk about this particular issue, so do not try to be misled, and I say this whether to the people of Quebec or Canadians as a whole who have a passion and care about French language and want to ensure its preservation, promotion and growth. These things are not going to come from the Conservative Party of Canada; they are going to come from a continuation of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the type of policies that we have brought forward as a Liberal government.

    I very much want to see the Conservative Party actually take a look at how they are playing such a destructive role here on the floor of the House of Commons. It is truly amazing. In fairness to the Conservative members, I can appreciate, based on the story, that they do not really have much of a choice. They have to follow what the leader tells them to do, and there are a number of quotes I can use.

    Tomorrow is caucus day, so the Conservatives need to start holding their own leader to account. What are we at now? It is six weeks and counting of the Conservative filibuster. The Conservatives try to pass the blame. They say to do this and do that and then we will be able to do government business. That is just not true. The filibuster is a multi-million dollar game in order to support the self-interest of the Conservative leader.

    That is what this is all about, and at the end of the day, I would suggest that we need to recognize that this is the very same leader who orchestrated Stephen Harper's being found in contempt of Parliament. The game we are witnessing day in and day out from the Conservative Party today is not only a massive waste of financial resources but it is also preventing substantive debates from being able to occur. The leader of the Conservative Party is putting his personal interests ahead of the interests of Canadians, and that needs to stop.

     I would like to introduce an amendment. I move that the motion be subamended by deleting all the words after the words “so as to recommend that the government” and substituting the following: “expresses its deep concern for the Conservative Party of Canada's threat to cut all funding to CBC and Radio-Canada, which would leave millions of Canadians living in official language minority communities without reliable news coverage in their language of choice.”

     It is a good amendment and I hope all members will be voting for it. We will be watching the Conservatives in particular.

     The subamendment will be taken under advisement.

    With questions and comments, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville has the floor.

     Madam Speaker, I want to say that I appreciate what the member said with respect to the increased use of French in western Canada. I grew up in approximately the same time frame as he did, and it bothers me that I so often have to say the following words.

    I am sorry. I do not speak French. Please speak to me in English.

     Today the language is much more used across our nation and in our schools. My children, in home-schooling, taught their kids French. However, I do not attribute that to Pierre Trudeau, a previous leader of this country. What I remember from him in the eighties, when there is talk about the level of recession we are facing not being the same since 40 years ago, is that I experienced what the west experienced when the previous prime minister Trudeau destroyed our economy.

    What I want to ask the member about is something he did not directly respond to, which he should do because it is the crux of the conversation. Would he tell us about the rationale he is using to support and to defend the decision of the CBC to use a Parisian accent rather than our Canadian accent within its CBC content and to also reward such behaviour?

    Madam Speaker, that is why I read the very short motion that came out of it. It raises a great deal of concern. I am offended by the fact.

    I want to go back to the article that I think has really upset a number of Conservatives, because what has now become public is the attitude taken by the leader of the Conservative Party on how he chooses to punish people. What is interesting is another quote, and hopefully I will get more opportunities, which states, “Some elected officials feel they come to caucus ‘to be told what to do and what to think’”.

    I suspect they have been instructed what to think and say even on the CBC file.

    Madam Speaker, the basis of today's motion is contempt, the denigration of Quebec French. We sometimes see it in the House when members who represent majority francophone ridings in Quebec speak mainly in English. There are some members I have never even heard speak French, despite the fact that they represent majority francophone ridings. This contempt and denigration can be heard in a lot of places.

    The Liberals have an odd habit. Every time official languages are mentioned in their legislation, they are actually referring to protecting minorities. In Quebec, that means protecting the anglophone minority. This minority is extremely well treated in Quebec. As we know, my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île even wrote a report about it. The money that the Liberals send to Quebec is not intended to protect or promote the French language, but to help Quebec's minority.

    When will the Liberals understand that, if they respect and really like Quebec, they should start protecting the French language and stop interfering in Quebec's business?

    Madam Speaker, first and foremost I believe that as a Liberal Party institution, the Liberal Party understands, appreciates and values the many contributions made in the different jurisdictions across Canada. However, I would emphasize that in the province of Quebec, protecting the French language and ensuring that there is a culture and a heritage that is truly unique in Quebec is not only supported but enhanced.

    I have had the opportunity to witness many things the national government has done. With respect to the manner in which the member stands and speaks in the House, I truly wish I would have been raised with the language. I have attempted to learn it. For me it is a bit more of a challenge; I realize I am turning 63. I do know the odd word.

     Having said that, it does not take away from how strongly and passionately I believe in the importance of the French language and the French culture and heritage factor that Quebec shares not only throughout our great nation but also, I would suggest, with the world. That is one of the reasons I call into question the issue of Paris.

    Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member was as shocked as I was about CBC executives getting millions of dollars in bonuses while laying off workers. Conservatives want to cut and gut the CBC. They want to defund it, which serves their partisan interests, especially in a world of misinformation and disinformation, but why is the Liberal government giving them ammunition? The Privy Council approved those bonuses.

    Our public broadcaster serves an invaluable purpose in Canada, but it is also accountable to Canadians. While Conservatives want to cut and gut the CBC, New Democrats want to invest in it. Would the member agree that we should stop handing out multi-million dollar bonuses and invest that in local journalism?

    Madam Speaker, I believe in the CBC, both TV and radio, and how, more and more, the CBC is moving to the Internet. I see that as a very strong, positive thing. I believe the federal government needs to continue to support it.

    At the very least, regarding board members, all individuals appointed to boards at the federal level need to reflect on the service they should be providing and act accordingly for any form of performance bonuses, end of story. It is as simple as that.

    On funding our national media, I believe it is absolutely critical for CBC TV and radio.

    Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that you are deliberating whether the subamendment the member moved is in order.

    I would note and suggest that the subamendment is far out of the scope of the Conservative amendment to the original motion regarding the specifics surrounding the bonuses that Ms. Catherine Tait, CEO of the CBC, received. The subamendment moved by the member departs significantly from the Conservative amendment, which asks a clear question as to whether we, as the House, reject her receiving those significant bonuses.

     I thank the hon. member for submitting that point of order.

    As advised, I agree that the subamendment is beyond the scope. I will quote the section in Bosc and Gagnon that refers to it. It states:

    Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, given the nature of the subamendment, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to allow it.

    Some hon. members: No.

    Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago we were all shocked when a Conservative member told a francophone minister that he should not speak French in the House. I found that shameful, but the member graciously apologized.

    I am now shocked to hear a member of the Bloc Québécois say that, as an anglophone member from Quebec, I should not speak English in the House of Commons. I use both official languages in the House because I represent a riding that is made up of two communities.

    Does the member agree that English-speaking Quebeckers, and all English-speaking people, should have the right to speak in English in the chamber, the same way that every French-speaking person should have the right to speak French?

    The hon. member for Drummond on a point of order.

     Madam Speaker, to make things perfectly clear, I would like to point out that my colleague from Terrebonne was talking about anglophone members in Quebec who represent majority francophone ridings—

    That is a point of debate.

    The hon. parliamentary secretary.

    Madam Speaker, one may be unilingual, bilingual or speak numerous languages, but for all intents and purposes, French and English are our two official languages. Members should be able to speak whichever one they choose to and not be discriminated against in any way whatsoever for doing so.

    As I have indicated before, I truly wish that I was able to deliver some speeches in French, but it is a capability issue for me. I speak English because that is, quite frankly, my only option.

    Madam Speaker, I am proud that my country has two official languages. My first language is English, but I also speak French.

    Today I will ask my question in English.

     I always love listening to the member for Winnipeg North speak because I love hearing his western Canadian accent, and today he was expressing concern about the contempt that some people have for the CBC. However, my question is about the contempt that the CBC is showing to French Canadian speakers by preferring to go to Paris for some filming because it prefers the Parisian accent to the French Canadian accent.

    Madam Speaker, I will always argue that we should have a special focus on Quebec French and its unique accent. It is one of the things that adds to the very character and heritage of the province of Quebec, and one of its many contributions.

    When we think of the province of Quebec, we should not be limiting our thoughts to the French language because the province of Quebec contributes so much more to Canada's well-being, beyond the beautiful French Quebec language.

     Madam Speaker, I must return to what I was trying to do a few minutes ago through a point of order concerning the speech by my colleague from Terrebonne. I think there is a connection there with today's debate.

    I found that my colleague from Mount Royal took umbrage at my colleague's remarks. When she and I discussed it, we immediately agreed that this colleague was in no way targeted by the remark by my colleague from Terrebonne, who was talking more in terms of something widespread, unfortunately, that perhaps illustrated the lack of understanding there may be regarding the official language in Quebec, which is French. This is an entirely legitimate concern, and in no way does this mean that all members present in the House are not free to express themselves in the official language of their choice. We all agree on that.

    To put things in their proper context, however, it is true that for us who are working tooth and nail to defend French, Quebec's only official and common language, it can be troubling at times that members representing majority-francophone ridings are unable to speak French. It kind of shows where things stand with French and underscores the need for us to continue the fight in Quebec.

    That being said, I have long admired my colleague from Mount Royal, with whom I sat on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Despite our major differences, I have always managed to get along well with him to move forward on the bills we debated. This member does his work admirably in both official languages, and in that sense he does a good job of representing the constituents in his riding.

    We are talking today about the Conservatives' umpteenth attempt to discredit our public broadcaster, CBC/Radio‑Canada. We are talking about the issue of having a Canadian production translated into French in a Paris studio. For me and all my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, and, I dare say, for all the Quebec members of the House and the Quebec cultural industry, this is so ridiculous that we actually thought it was fake news when it was first reported. At first we figured it was a mistake, that it was a podcast that had been produced abroad, translated in Paris and then broadcast on the CBC/Radio‑Canada platforms. That was not at all the case. It is totally appalling.

    In this supposedly bilingual country, where we are supposedly concerned about protecting both official languages and the one that is most threatened, specifically French, how can anyone claim to be concerned if they do not even have the presence of mind to have a podcast translated in Quebec? They had something good, a good podcast, something that could be exported around the world, but since Quebeckers have a stupid accent, they would not have it translated in Quebec. Since Quebeckers have a hick accent, listeners would not understand them. They therefore decided to send it to Paris. That is why there are going to be such expressions as “du coup”, “en revanche”, “putain” and “nom de Dieu”. That is international French. It is as if Quebeckers can only have a regional accent.

    That stems from a lack of understanding, not only of the reality of French in Quebec and Canada, but also of Quebec's cultural dubbing industry, which is one of the most professional, exacting and best in the world. Quebec's dubbing industry is exceptional. What is even more interesting and ludicrous, is that the CBC did not think it could have the production translated in Quebec.

    Quebec can produce works in international French, or in French with the accents of Paris, Lyon, Marseille and even Pas-de-Calais if it wants to. We can produce works in French with a Spanish accent or a British accent. We can do anything in Quebec. Does anyone know why? Because we have been developing our dubbing industry for decades, and we have artists and technicians who are so specialized that major American studios often have their productions translated in Montreal because that is where they can get the best quality. Our artisans are exceptional. One would expect the public broadcaster, which claims to be exacting and an essential vehicle for culture, to be the first to know that.

    Moreover, when the podcast was sent to France for translation and then journalists, the Union des artistes and the postproduction and dubbing sector in French got wind of it, they asked the guy at the CBC who had the brilliant idea of sending it to Paris and why he did not consider Quebec. The guy did not even know that is something we do. Well, he did know that is something we do, but he figured that no one would be able to understand the Quebec accent. That is pure ignorance and a grave insult to the exceptional work and the exceptional reputation that Quebec's dubbing industry has built over the decades.

    Nobody here remembers the production itself, which is called Alone: A Love Story. The title of the French version is Seule: Une histoire d'amour. It is an English Canadian production, made for a successful podcast platform. It would have been an extraordinary opportunity to show that we are capable of producing things here and doing them in English, in French and, eventually, in the indigenous languages. However, it was a missed opportunity, because people tied themselves in knots, thinking that it was made in English so it needed to be sent to France for the rest and then exported to the rest of the world without even considering our own reality here. It just goes to show how dysfunctional this country is.

    It is already completely illogical for any part of a Canadian production paid for through government subsidies, tax credits or tax breaks to be created abroad. When a production receives government funding, financing or support of any kind through a provincial or federal program, there should be a requirement for every stage of production to be done right in that province, or at the very least in Canada. This should be an essential condition. If it had been, the genius who had the idea of sending this production to Paris for translation into French and Spanish would have known from the start that a Canadian production could not be sent overseas. It has to be done here.

    A series of events occurred, which were discussed at length by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. When the current CEO, Catherine Tait, whose term is coming to a close, came to testify about this story, she offered her sincere apologies and said she was determined to ensure that such a thing never happened again. I know that the message went through. Ms. Tait listened to the concerns expressed by the committee and the House and clearly relayed them to all levels of the public broadcaster. I would be awfully surprised if we saw this type of situation crop up again in the foreseeable future. I would be very surprised.

    People can criticize a lot of things about Ms. Tait's time as CEO. I would be the first to criticize many of the things she did. However, the Conservatives' relentless attack on her is getting a little out of control and a little unreasonable. She has become the Conservatives' scapegoat for all sorts of reasons and a pawn in their campaign to defund the CBC. That is exactly what this is about. This is yet another opportunity for them to talk about how they believe the CBC is a dysfunctional organization that does not deserve to exist and should be defunded. They are using this report from the Standing Committee on Official Languages, which rightly condemns the decision to have a podcast translated abroad, as a pretext for reiterating that the CBC does not deserve the trust of Canadians and Quebeckers and deserves to have its funding cut.

    I would also like to take this opportunity to talk about the importance of having a public broadcaster, especially considering the Conservatives' determination to spread disinformation and half-truths in an effort to discredit our public broadcaster. Contrary to their claims, the CBC delivers rigorous journalism, even though people may not always like it, as well as entertainment programming that is very important to Quebeckers. I do not want to speak for the anglophone side of things and what the CBC produces, because everyone knows that what Radio-Canada and the Crown corporation's francophone services produce clearly appeals more to the public and is much more popular and successful. Still, I do not want to judge the quality of the CBC's English-language programming. I am sure they produce some excellent programming as well. That said, this is yet another opportunity for the Conservatives to discredit a service that we feel is becoming increasingly essential given the present circumstances.

    This is a situation where we need journalists and newsrooms governed by a code of ethics and a code of conduct that require them to meet strict standards. We need a vehicle for francophone culture in Quebec and Canada. We need a company that produces high-quality, variety programming and that showcases our stories. That is the mandate of CBC/Radio-Canada. I am associating the two, but what makes it all the more offensive for francophone audiences is the fact that our stories are being translated by foreigners, based on a belief that their accent will be more acceptable to people elsewhere. This means that CBC/Radio-Canada is going to tell our stories using someone else's voice and someone else's accent. Otherwise, so they say, our stories will not be understood by others. My brief detour stops here.

    Now, to return to the current, more general debate on the Conservatives' constant attacks on CBC/Radio-Canada, as they try to feed the beast, the monster they are trying to create in order to defund the CBC.

    There is a big hoax here, a major flaw in the story and in their reasoning. Even if one were to get university scholars and researchers together to try to explain the Conservatives' logic here, they would not be able to do it. Surveys show that 80% of people support maintaining and protecting a healthy public broadcaster. These surveys are carried out across Canada, not just on Montreal's south shore. Canadians across the country are being asked whether they want a quality public broadcaster and whether they like CBC/Radio-Canada, and 80% of them are saying yes. Some of those people must vote Conservative. I cannot believe otherwise.

    Rather than realizing that they might not be on the right track, the Conservatives are assuming that most of that 80% of the people polled are from Quebec or are francophones who want to protect Radio-Canada, and so they are saying that they will make cuts to CBC's funding but save Radio-Canada. They are basically telling us they do not know anything without actually saying they do not know anything. That seems to be it, because CBC and Radio-Canada have been around for 90 years. They have been a two-headed body for 90 years. News production and editorial production are separate, but given the amount of resources that CBC and Radio-Canada share, the two have become inextricably linked. I do not know how many times that has been explained during the five committee meetings that Ms. Tait participated in just this year. The CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada appeared before the committee five times, and every time we asked her that question, she explained how and why Radio-Canada could not be separated from the CBC and how Radio-Canada would suffer enormously if funding cuts are made the the CBC. She explained that over and over in all those meetings. I do not know how many times I personally asked her that question, and every time, the answer was clear, straightforward, well-argued and complete. However, I do not think that anyone was listening. At least in this group, I do not think that anyone was listening because the Conservatives keep saying that we need to defund the CBC and that doing so will not hurt Radio-Canada.

    Someone even said they would defund the CBC, but leave Radio-Canada alone. Cleary he was not listening and did not understand, because it had just been made clear that this was impossible to do. The witness just said that CBC and Radio-Canada share buildings just about everywhere in Canada. He said he wanted to cut funding for the CBC. This is one of the fine examples of populism promoted by the Leader of the Opposition, who says they are going to empty the CBC offices across Canada and turn them into social housing. How can they find a simple solution to a problem they do not even understand? That is the long and the short of it. What nonsense.

    Again, this is just another reason today for them to go after Catherine Tait, claiming that they are going to go after the CBC and then leading people to believe that the CBC's funding has to be cut but this will have no impact on Radio-Canada. In Quebec, no one is buying it. If the Conservatives are trying to convince Quebeckers, they can keep trying. In Quebec, everyone knows that any cuts made to the CBC's funding will be disastrous for Radio-Canada and therefore disastrous for the main vehicle of francophone culture in Canada and Quebec. This will have tremendous repercussions on the cultural industry, on authors, on artists, on actors, on producers, on musicians, on singers, on everyone. No one in Quebec is buying this message, unless they failed grade two. I do not know many people who did, because we have an excellent education system in Quebec. We can discuss that another time.

    Having said that, I find it rather absurd when the Conservatives take isolated incidents and blow them out of proportion to try to illustrate the complete failure of an organization that, on the contrary, should inspire pride—in most cases at least—because of its coverage, its presence and its efforts to reach Quebeckers and Canadians in the most remote regions, despite the constraints involved. We do consider these isolated incidents, which are not trivial, I agree. The issue of bonuses is not trivial. We need to have a conversation about the $18 million in executive bonuses. We can have that conversation. We have actually already had it, but the Conservatives were not listening because the message and the answers were not necessarily what they wanted to hear. Yes, we have had this conversation, and we must continue to have it. CBC/Radio-Canada's compensation model needs to be reviewed to ensure that it is acceptable and understood. Understanding it is another matter, but at the very least, it must be acceptable.

    A new mandate is likely going to be proposed by the Minister of Canadian Heritage shortly. The proposed mandate would seek a review of certain parameters that guide the public broadcaster's management and operations. I look forward to seeing it. There will likely be tools in this proposal to review certain frustrating aspects of CBC/Radio-Canada. That would be good. It would not be a bad thing. We need to look at what is happening elsewhere.

    People complain that the broadcaster is expensive and is funded by their taxes. It costs about $1.4 billion, then there is approximately $400 million in subscription and advertising revenues. That is what the public broadcaster costs. In reality, the cost per Canadian is about $32 a year. Most people pay $18 or $20 for Netflix, and they probably have other subscriptions here and there. It costs $32 a year for CBC, Radio-Canada and most of the online services they offer. To determine whether that is expensive, compare it to Germany, where its broadcaster costs $140 a year per capita, or Australia, where it costs, I think, about $47. That amount is not going to put many people on the street. Perhaps we would have a more transparent, easier-to-monitor service that is somewhat less susceptible to the populist criticism levelled by politicians like the current Conservatives.

    I completely agree that we have to speak out against certain decisions, such as the decision to send a made-in-Canada production elsewhere for translation into French. It would be equally unacceptable for French-language productions made in Quebec or Canada to be translated abroad. We have the resources here. We have very good people here. We have to speak out against that, and that is what we did.

    That said, I think it is disingenuous to bring this debate back to the House after a report was released. Once again, this is just an opportunity for the Conservatives to beat up on CBC/Radio-Canada and promote their agenda to defund it, which the public does not support at all. I would remind the House that 80% of Canadians want a quality public broadcaster. They want to protect it. The numbers do not lie. The Conservatives are big on numbers, so maybe they should look at the numbers.

    Madam Speaker, I agree with much of what the Bloc member has said. Like him, I am genuinely concerned about what the leader of the Conservative Party is attempting to do by bringing forward this motion.

    As members are aware, I moved a subamendment. I wanted to get the Conservatives on the record. It states that the House “expresses its deep concern for the Conservative Party of Canada's threat to cut all funding to CBC and Radio-Canada, which would leave millions of Canadians living in official language minority communities without reliable news coverage in their language of choice.” We cannot help but notice that they were kind of edgy and that they really did not want to have a vote that would incorporate that sort of position.

    Could my colleague provide his thoughts with respect to getting the Conservatives to, at the very least, acknowledge that CBC and Radio-Canada have such an important role in our communities?

    Madam Speaker, I am not going to get into a discussion about the wording of amendments and subamendments, because I already take great issue with the political manoeuvring that goes on when we address this issue. For example, yesterday, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable made a post on X in which he says, “The Bloc Québécois just voted with the Liberals to hand out bonuses, including one for the CBC president, who allowed a podcast to be dubbed in France because the CBC didn't like the Quebec accent! Once again, the BLOC is backing [the Prime Minister] and his friends, instead of Quebec.”

    We voted against a motion that would have seen the House—and even worse, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage—interfere in the management of CBC/Radio-Canada. Meanwhile, these same Conservatives complain about the Liberals who, they claim, use CBC/Radio-Canada as a vehicle for their ideas. They are inconsistent there, too.

    That said, I think my colleague from Winnipeg North clearly understood from my speech that I place great importance on CBC/Radio-Canada, and on Radio-Canada in particular, as a vehicle for francophone culture and as a driver of Quebec's cultural industry.

     Madam Speaker, one really important thing in this debate is the role of the CBC and some of the programs it has with respect to investigative reporting. One concern I have is that with the loss of the CBC, it would take away the investigative journalism that has exposed consumer products and cover-ups, which have helped Canadians not only with public safety issues but also consumer issues related to the pocketbook.

    What type of effect will this have? We already have a diminished investigative reporting capacity from other media outlets, and I fear that this would also take away one of the last refuges for investigative reporting that helps so many Canadians.

    Madam Speaker, my colleague raises a really important point. Not many news outlets have the resources to do in-depth reporting, because it involves research teams and it often takes weeks and months of work to develop these stories. I am thinking of shows like Enquête in Quebec and The Fifth Estate on CBC. These are major programs that do in-depth research, which is expensive.

    Defunding the CBC means potentially depriving ourselves of these high-quality programs, which are very popular with Quebeckers and Canadians. Defunding would have a devastating effect. It would also have a devastating effect on democracy, because we need these news reports that dig deeper to clarify certain issues that are often far too complex to be explained simply in a newscast. On that point, I completely agree with my colleague.

    Madam Speaker, my colleague is always eloquent when he talks about subjects he is particularly knowledgeable about. I would like to talk about a slightly broader aspect of Liberal policy regarding the protection of the official languages when it comes to protecting linguistic minorities. Elsewhere in Canada, that may mean francophones, and that is good. However, in Quebec, that means anglophones.

    The Liberals use the money that ends up going to anglophones in Quebec to challenge the legislation passed by Quebec's majority government in court, and that is a serious problem. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

    Madam Speaker, I cannot think of a better critic for this type of debate than our colleague, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île. He has been researching this for years now. He has documented the subject exceptionally well, demonstrating that, indeed, the vast majority of the funding allocated by the federal government to protect official languages is used to defend the anglophone minority in Quebec. Some organizations use these grants to challenge laws that are legitimately passed by the National Assembly.

    That will always be a struggle for us. We will always oppose this situation as much as we can. In our view, it is unacceptable for the federal government to fund legal action taken against legislation passed by the National Assembly and efforts to challenge the fact that French must remain the only official language and the common language of Quebeckers.

    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his excellent speech.

    His English is much better than my French, so I will ask my question in English.

    The Conservatives have promised to cut entirely CBC's English-language programming across the country, but they will protect Radio-Canada because of its role in Quebec culture and its importance to Quebec communities. CBC's English-language radio is more popular than ever. It is gaining market share.

    I have two questions. First, does the member trust that the Conservatives will indeed protect Radio-Canada throughout the province of Quebec? Second, does he not agree with me that rural communities in northern British Columbia deserve access to quality public broadcasting just as much as communities in his province?

    Madam Speaker, those are very interesting questions.

    When my grandmother talked about her sometimes rowdy grandsons, she would say that we were all smart enough to start a fire, but not smart enough to put it out. When I hear the Conservative leader say that he is going to get rid of the CBC but protect Radio-Canada, it sounds a bit like what my grandmother used to say. It reminds me a little of that. It is impossible.

    It is impossible, and just about everyone who has taken the trouble of looking into the matter can vouch for that. It is impossible to make cuts to the CBC without doing serious harm to Radio-Canada. Ultimately, the cost of avoiding any damage at all would be almost as high as maintaining Radio-Canada's services for Canada's entire population.

    As for the second question, perhaps Radio-Canada's original productions and shows are more successful. Perhaps Radio-Canada is more of a mainstay among Quebec's news and culture consumers than the CBC is in the rest of Canada. However, the CBC does have a number of very successful platforms. The CBC's online platforms are strong performers. The television side may be struggling a little, but the radio side is putting out excellent programs.

    Yes, it is still an essential service for Canadians living in remote regions, like the northern B.C. region my colleague represents. Everyone has the right to have access to this service, to quality service. As far as the Conservative leader's rhetoric on defunding CBC/Radio‑Canada is concerned, I am afraid he will make good on his threats. However, it is going to blow up in his face because Canadians will never let something like that happen.

    Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his excellent intervention.

    I want to come back to something he covered in his intervention, namely dubbing. I have a friend whose father works in the dubbing industry. That industry is in crisis right now in Quebec.

    My generation grew up on Quebec French. I am thinking of the translated versions of Captain Hook or Richie Rich, which are no longer available in Quebec French.

    When CBC gets its shows translated in Paris, what message does that send to our creators, the dubbers in Quebec, people like Pierre Auger?

    I would like my colleague to share his thoughts on this.

    Madam Speaker, my colleague is correct in saying that the dubbing industry is having a tough time. There is a whole host of challenges currently facing Quebec's dubbing industry, given the changes in technology and the rise of artificial intelligence. This is a real concern. The fact that officials here are not sending a strong signal of support is really disappointing, and this will only hurt the industry.

    I completely agree with my colleague on that. I do not think the industry should be in that situation, and I do not think the CBC should have taken that approach with its podcast.

    Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to this motion moved by the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

    I have never been a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, but I have served as a replacement at that committee at times. I always found that the committee operated well. Its members understand the importance of the official languages and the importance of advancing the cause of language equality. The committee's work is extremely important. I would like to acknowledge the contribution of our representative on that committee, the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, who does tremendous work. She is bilingual and speaks several different languages. She is a staunch defender of the French language, both official languages and bilingualism in general. She wants people to speak minority languages. Regardless of what language we speak in Canada, she is always there to defend language rights. I would like to acknowledge her work and the work of the committee.

    Now, the motion before us today has been amended and, at the end of my speech, I will move an amendment to the amendment. It is coming later. The committee's motion reads as follows:

    It is true that there are no more beautiful accents in the international Francophonie than the Québécois, Acadian, Franco-Ontarian, Franco-Columbian and western Canadian francophone accents, our local accents. Wherever I travel in the world, whether it be in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, South America or the Caribbean, these accents have a truly magnificent reach.

    It does not make any sense that the CBC used this Paris-based recording studio. That was a big mistake. It is only right that the committee reminded the CBC that this never should have happened. That is important because we need to be proud of our francophone heritage and our French language in Canada. No matter what the accent, whether it be Acadian, Franco-Newfoundlander, Franco-Columbian or Québécois, it is important to be proud of one's language. It is therefore important to say that this was not a good decision.

    Other CBC/Radio-Canada decisions are open to criticism, including the bonuses, as my colleague from Churchill—Keewatinook Aski has repeatedly pointed out. The idea of giving bonuses to senior CBC/Radio-Canada executives while cutting basic journalism and services across the country makes no sense. For the NDP, taking care of this journalism is what really matters across the country. That necessarily means investing in basic journalism. Communities need to talk to one another, whether it is in English or in French. We have witnessed the erosion of good journalism from one end of the country to the other because a growing number of big chains, sometimes foreign chains, are buying up assets in Canada and often shutting down newspapers, which is killing local radio and TV journalism.

    Now more than ever, it is important to focus on investing at the local level, so that communities know what is going on in their own backyard. An NDP government will do just that. It will require CBC/Radio-Canada executives to invest locally in order to encourage local journalism so that, regardless of where they live in the largest democracy on the planet, people know what is going on in their community.

    That is important. That is why we condemn the idea that executive performance bonuses should take precedence over local journalism. We believe it should be the other way around. That is what an NDP government will do.

    Now, let us talk about Radio-Canada's qualities. Sometimes, a bad decision is made, and people are quick to say that it is not a good decision and that we need to talk about it. The fact is that Radio-Canada's journalism is something that people across the country are proud of. It has won hundreds of journalism awards not only domestically, but also internationally. Not once in my political career have I seen a single Conservative MP stand up to congratulate CBC/Radio-Canada for winning another award given out by independent judges. They have never done that.

    What the Conservatives want is to destroy the public broadcaster. They have been very clear about that. The member for Carleton says it is possible to eliminate all the services in English and eliminate all of CBC's English-language journalism, which has won hundreds of awards, without touching Radio‑Canada's French-language journalism. That is ridiculous, and it shows how little respect the Conservatives have for the average Canadian. The Conservatives are saying something that is obviously false, thinking that everyone will simply accept this falsehood coming from the Conservatives.

    Vancouver has services and several radio stations. Naturally, there is an online service that has millions of subscribers. People watch Radio‑Canada news on their computers more often than on TV. The radio is also very popular.

    The Conservatives are saying that they are going to do away with the whole English side and that even if all of the French-speaking journalists end up on the street, they will somehow magically keep working. That is ridiculous. Radio-Canada would be wiped out in western Canada, in Edmonton, Regina, Calgary and Winnipeg. Radio-Canada would be destroyed in Atlantic Canada, in Moncton, Halifax, Saint John and Charlottetown. Everything would be wiped out and destroyed in Ontario, in Sudbury, Toronto and Windsor. All of Radio-Canada's services would be cut in Ottawa and Quebec City. Services would be cut everywhere in Quebec, including Montreal, Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, where I lived for many years, the Eastern Townships, Sherbrooke, the north shore, the Gaspé, the Lower St. Lawrence, Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, the Outaouais and Abitibi-Témiscamingue.

    The Conservatives are claiming that they are somehow going to magically succeed in protecting Radio-Canada while they destroy the CBC, which is completely ridiculous. It is dishonest to say that. When we look at the Conservatives' track record for the years when they were in power, we can see that they have no respect for official languages. They made no progress whatsoever for official languages at either the provincial or the federal level. When the Conservatives are in power, they destroy all of the services that are offered.

    For a francophone who believes in official languages, voting Conservative is voting to put an end to all possible services. According to the Conservatives, these people, these taxpayers, do not have the right to any services in their language. That is what history shows. I am not talking about the stance being taken by the Conservatives because, of course, the member for Carleton will always hide his real motives, which involve major cuts.

    If we look to the past, we can see what the Conservatives will do for official languages and for Radio-Canada once they are in power. In the past, they gave extremely generous and irresponsible gifts to billionaires. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, they gave $30 billion a year for tax havens, $116 billion in liquidity supports for Canada's big banks, and billions upon billions of dollars for CEOs. What the Conservatives do is give to the rich. That is their reason for being. The Conservative Party is a party for the rich. As the member for Carleton criss-crosses the country to meet with rich people, he always asks those well-off people to donate the maximum amount in support of his pro-wealthy policies. He did so just this week.

    When we look at how the Conservatives operate, it is clear that they are very bad at managing money. They also make cuts to public services. We saw all the cuts they made. As far as pension plans are concerned, they told people that they would no longer be allowed to retire at 65, that they would be forced to work extra years. They also said they were going to cut services to veterans. They do not want these people to have access to services, even though they have sacrificed their lives and sometimes their health for our country. Of course, we also saw cuts to health care and social housing.

    The member for Carleton brags about having built six affordable housing units in his entire career. Let us compare his career to that of the NDP leader. The member for Burnaby South did more over the past 20 weeks than the member for Carleton did in 20 years: dental care, pharmacare, affordable housing, anti-scab legislation, and the list goes on. In 20 weeks, the member for Burnaby South did far more to help people than the member for Carleton did in 20 years.

    What the Conservatives did when they were in power was cut, cut, cut. They made cuts to all services so they could give money to billionaires. That is how the Conservatives operate. That is their reason for being. They are also going to make cuts to services provided in the official languages. French-speaking taxpayers will no longer be entitled to services that should exist. In a bilingual country where citizens pay taxes, people should have access to services in their own language, but no, that will not be the case with the Conservatives, because they make cuts to all services, and they will make cuts to this one too.

    They are also going to destroy CBC/Radio-Canada. It is all based on Trumpism. It is no surprise that, in the United States, Trumpism targets good journalism and all of the award-winning journalists. This movement attacks public radio and public television so that news sources are once again concentrated in the hands of billionaires. That is the way they operate, giving everything to billionaires so that ordinary people do not have access to proper, professional news. CBC/Radio-Canada is not immune to criticism. I would not say that it is always 100% accurate, but it is possible to get an apology from the public broadcaster. Mistakes are sometimes made, but they are corrected. That is the difference. With billionaires who own newspapers and TV networks, no corrections are ever made, because the billionaires are the ones who decide on the message and on what people should hear.

    I think it is harmful to our democracy that Conservative members want to make cuts to all independent sources of news and ensure that a single class of people, namely billionaires, gets to tell us what to do. Francophone members of the Conservative Party from Quebec are also defending these actions and say they are ready to see CBC/Radio-Canada collapse. If they were honest with their constituents, I am sure these people would tell them that they want nothing to do with the Conservative attack on CBC/Radio-Canada, that they want quality journalism, and that when Radio-Canada or the CBC makes a mistake, they want it corrected. These people want local journalism. They want to know what is happening in their community, in their region and in their country.

    I wanted to raise this before reading my amendment to the amendment. It makes me sad to know that journalists are not appreciated. I want to point out today in the House that there are quality journalists at CBC/Radio-Canada. They work hard every day to keep Canadians informed. I thank them for their work.

    Before reading my amendment to the amendment, I would like to say one last time to my Conservative colleagues that they need to be honest. Trump's victory in the U.S is not a sign that Canadians are going to be okay with the truth being kept from them. It does not mean that it is time to start peddling conspiracy theories and killing effective journalism to prevent Canadians from having access to the facts, the truth and information, which is so important. Canadians do not want that. They want the opposite. They want to have access to information that is based on science and facts.

    If we want to overcome the challenges that Canada is facing, such as climate change, poverty, the lack of social housing, the fact that families are struggling while billionaires receive so many gifts from the current government, as they did from Harper, we need access to information. It is vital to support CBC/Radio‑Canada's important broadcasting mandate.

    I move:

    The subamendment is in order.

    Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

    Madam Speaker, I am wondering what the member thinks about how the Conservative Party has targeted not only the CBC, but at times and quite often CTV. One of the best illustrations I can think of off-hand is the Conservatives' lack of willingness to participate in political panels. The last time I participated in a CBC and CTV panel, there was a New Democratic representative, but the Conservatives do not feel they want to contribute. Rather, they discredit the mainstream media in favour of supporting social media, which is in essence spreading a great deal of misinformation through what many would suggest, including me, are further-right organizations that have a vested interest in propping up the Conservative Party or spreading misinformation.

    Could the member provide his thoughts on that? It is not a healthy situation for our democracy, especially when we think of defunding the CBC, which the leader of the Conservative Party is talking about doing.

    Madam Speaker, this is indeed what the Conservatives are trying to do. What they cannot control, they destroy. We have seen this from authoritarian governments around the world. There is no independent journalism practised in Russia. Hungary saw independent journalists being attacked. We are seeing now an attack on public radio and public television in the United States with the triumph of Trumpism. The reality is that they do not respect the kind of journalism that is a vital part of democracy.

    When we stand up to do a scrum, as my colleague is well aware, we get tough questions sometimes, and Canadians expect us to answer those tough questions. For Conservatives to refuse to go on panels, for Conservatives to refuse to stand up for their positions and for the leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Carleton, to be thin-skinned whenever he is asked tough questions by legitimate journalists shows a singular disregard and disrespect for democracy that I think Canadians should heed.

    The reality is that journalism, like the kind of journalism we are seeing from CBC/Radio-Canada, which has won hundreds of awards, is very much the foundation of democracy, and that the Conservatives do not respect it shows how much disrespect they have for our democratic system.

    Madam Speaker, when a public broadcaster like the CBC prefers to have its programs dubbed in France, what message is it sending to private international broadcasters like Disney+ and Netflix?

    Does my hon. colleague have a proposal addressing that? Does he agree with the Bloc Québécois's motion to require that programs be dubbed in Quebec if they are going to be broadcast in Quebec?

    Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. If a program is broadcast in Canada, it should be dubbed in Canada. There is no question about that.

    Radio-Canada should be promoting the Quebec accent, the Acadian accent, the Franco-Colombian accent and the Franco-Ontarian accent. I think it sends a very negative message, as she said so well, to say that we are not going to respect the beauty of Canada's French accents. Yes, regional variations do exist. The Montreal accent is not quite the same as the accent in the place where I learned French, in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. The reality is that our French is beautiful and it deserves to be broadcast. Dubbing needs to be done here.

    I think that Radio-Canada got the message. I certainly hope it will not happen again and that the broadcaster realizes the importance of respecting the beauty of our French language.

    Mr. Speaker, like the member, I was shocked to learn that CBC chose to hire a company from Paris to avoid the Quebec accent. Quebec has a world-class industry. It is ridiculous that this was not done in Quebec.

    I was also shocked to learn that CBC executives received multi-million dollar bonuses while laying off workers. The Conservatives want to slash and gut the CBC and reduce funding for public broadcasting. This is the Conservatives' partisan objective.

    That said, the Liberals continue to give ammunition to the Conservatives. The Liberal Privy Council approved these multi-million dollar bonuses. The Conservatives want to cut CBC funding. We, the New Democrats, want to invest and fix these problems.

    Could the member speak about the need to stop paying multi-million dollar bonuses to executives and use that money to invest in local journalism?

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Victoria for her question, which she asked in impeccable French. It just goes to show how important official languages are. We have two members from British Columbia speaking to each other in French in the House.

    I do not think the Bloc Québécois will ever admit that the French language has a presence all across Canada. It is spoken in British Columbia, where the francophone population continues to grow. Members from the other side of the country, 5,000 kilometres from here, are speaking to each other in French in the House. This shows the importance of bilingualism. This shows the importance that New Democrats attach to the French language. That is why we want Radio-Canada and CBC to continue together.

    The Conservatives want to cut everything. They want to run roughshod over Radio-Canada and the CBC and destroy them. Sometimes they do not like the CBC saying things that expose their contradictions. Sometimes, the CBC gives the Conservative Party's positions plenty of air time. It does the same thing for everyone. Sometimes our party is criticized. Sometimes we are appreciated. It is the role of journalism to criticize us sometimes. The Conservative leader, the member for Carleton, does not want to hear any criticism. He does not want to hear any questions that might be tough or difficult to answer. He just wants to do away with it. I find that unfortunate.

    The fact that bonuses are being given out is just more ammunition. People say that it is important to support local journalism. The NDP has never shied away from the topic. We have always been very clear. We want Radio-Canada and CBC to invest at the local level, we want journalism to be encouraged. Unlike the Liberal government that allows these bonuses to continue and the Conservatives who want to destroy everything, the NDP proposes a role for Radio-Canada and CBC across the country. The NDP has respect for both official languages, which the other political parties are lacking. That is a speech for another day, but when we look at the NDP governments across the country, they have always respected the official languages. That is something that is important. We are proving again today that two MPs from British Columbia can debate each other in French.

     Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

     It was wonderful to hear the speech by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby and see that there are anglophone MPs from British Columbia who speak impeccable French in the House. Today we saw anglophone members from all parties who are able to manage in French in the House. This is part of Canada's richness. We have people who come from one community, learn each other's language and love each other's culture. We are trying to flourish together in a country that is much bigger than a single province.

    As for the dubbing issue, it is absolutely shocking that CBC chose a Parisian studio to do the dubbing. There are very talented people all over Canada. There has been a lot of talk about the industry in Quebec, but there is also an industry in Acadia and other parts of Canada. There are skilled francophones throughout Canada. There has been a lot of talk about the Quebec accent, but there is not just one Quebec accent. There are many different accents in Quebec. There are also francophone accents from all over the country. I think it is completely contradictory that CBC/Radio-Canada says it wants to promote French and support Canada's various cultural institutions but chose not to use a Canadian firm for the dubbing work.

    I, too, completely agree that CBC/Radio-Canada management has some explaining to do. I saw Ms. Tait's appearances before the committee. I would like to ask her a number of questions, not only on this matter, but on a number of other issues as well.

    There are definitely some problems with CBC/Radio-Canada management, but this institution is still very important, not only for francophone communities but also for all anglophone communities in Canada.

    The CBC is an institution that helps unite this country. We can go back to La famille Plouffe from the 1950s, a show broadcast in both French and English. That allowed Canadians from all across the country to understand what was going on across Canada, and it bridged linguistic gaps that sometimes seem insurmountable.

    There are francophone populations in Canada. Most of them are in Quebec, but they do exist across the country. I have visited francophone communities in Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, British Columbia, Alberta, even Saskatchewan and, certainly, here in Ontario. Radio-Canada is so important in those communities. Unlike in Montreal, where we have TVA and other networks and programs, in some parts of Canada, Radio-Canada is the only station they have.

    The same is true for English-speaking Quebeckers who live outside the Montreal region. The Conservative Party's position to cut the English CBC means that English-speaking taxpayers across the country will be paying to have only the French service, not the English service. How long do we believe governments will sustain Radio-Canada when English-speaking taxpayers turn against having a network that only broadcasts in French as our national broadcaster?

    More importantly, while Conservatives pretend they care about the English-speaking community of Quebec, this is just one example where they clearly are not thinking of English-speaking Quebeckers. Whether it is Saguenay, Gaspé, Côte-Nord, Rouyn-Noranda or Quebec City, there are many parts of Quebec where the CBC is the primary vehicle for English-speaking Quebeckers to get local news in English. They have no other local vehicle that does that.

    If we were to cut all of the English services of the CBC, we would be depriving the English-speaking community of Quebec, 1.3 million people, all of those who live outside of Montreal, the chance of getting their news in English. How can any party support that position? Why should we pay taxes toward denying one language community a broadcast in their own language? Then there is the question of francophones outside of Quebec.

    Outside Quebec, Radio-Canada and CBC share resources. People who produce French-language programs outside Quebec generally also do English-language work for CBC. It makes no sense to deprive all Radio-Canada offices outside Quebec of the vast majority of their resources. This policy should be changed. We should all be saying that Radio-Canada and CBC are important, not only for news broadcasting, but also for Canada's national unity.

     I also want to deal with the question that the NDP brought up about bonuses. The question of whether to pay bonuses when employees are being cut is a very legitimate question. It is not wrong to ask those questions. It is not wrong to ask questions about whether Ms. Tait should get a bonus, given performance and all the issues about which we are talking. It is perfectly appropriate for the committee to have those discussions and to inform itself on that matter.

     Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the manner in which the member expresses the future of Radio-Canada, that we should not be taking it for granted. If the Conservatives defund CBC, as they have said they would, that would follow. At the very least, Canadians need to be aware that this is a very serious issue, if we believe in public broadcasting and the independence of journalists. Doing investigative reporting and other reporting, something to counter social media, for example, is absolutely critical for our democracy.

    I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on that.

    Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the country will long sustain Radio-Canada without the CBC. As I mentioned, Radio-Canada services outside Quebec, where the populations are the most vulnerable, are using CBC offices, CBC cameras, CBC equipment and CBC personnel to cover the news and to do shows in French. The idea that Radio-Canada would sustain itself outside of Quebec very easily without the CBC being there is a fallacy.

    The second thing is that I do not believe English-speaking taxpayers will agree to pay for the service to be available only in French and not in English.

    Finally, it would be drastically unfair to the English-speaking minority in Quebec, who would lose their only source of news in most parts of Quebec, if we took away their service in English. It is supposed to be a national broadcaster uniting us, not dividing us.

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a point that I wanted to address earlier when I questioned the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière‑du‑Loup. He talked about national unity and the fact that anglophone taxpayers would not be okay with paying for a French-only service if the CBC were abolished. I am a separatist, obviously, and that does not bother me. However, I would like to know what the member for Mount Royal thinks about the need for Canada to retain both official languages if it wants to ensure its long-term survival. Former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau said it was a matter of realpolitik. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that argument.

    Mr. Speaker, I wish to welcome my colleague to the House. This is the first time we have had the opportunity to share ideas. I agree, this is realpolitik. Canada is a bilingual country where both official languages are supposed to be present in every province, with national services available in both languages. I will always fight to ensure that all services available in English are also available in French. Sometimes they are not. Sometimes, things are not equal but they should be, always, 100% equal. I believe that CBC/Radio-Canada provides an important service to the entire country. We should ensure that it is available in both official languages.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his valuable response.

    If the Canadian government, led by the Leader of the Opposition, were to cut services to anglophones, including in the province, would my colleague not be convinced that Quebec needs to be independent? Does he not think that a Quebec republic could better protect the rights of anglophones in Quebec than the current constitutional framework? I would like to hear his thoughts on that.

    .

    Mr. Speaker, I am a proud Canadian. I love this country from coast to coast to coast.

    Apparently, one need only look at the separatist governments that have taken power in Quebec to see that very few people in Quebec's anglophone community believe our rights would be better protected in an independent Quebec than in Canada. That said, I would have a major quarrel with any government that cut the CBC or Radio‑Canada.

    I worked with the Bloc Québécois on a number of cultural issues at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We need to have the debate here and change any government that does that kind of thing.

    Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the Conservative leader's tactics to divide Canadians and create conflict between francophone and anglophone communities. My riding has a very strong and proud Franco-Ontarian population. Many francophone communities are in rural areas. In my region, Radio-Canada is essential. In northern Ontario, it would be impossible to separate Radio-Canada from CBC because it is the same company.

    Why are the Conservatives trying to use divisive politics to force a confrontation between francophones and anglophones across Canada?

    Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. His comments give me the opportunity to share another obvious point. There is a member from northern Ontario here in the House who speaks perfect French. It is proof that Canada can work.

    It is true that, in the hon. member's region, Radio-Canada's resources are mixed with the CBC's. Therefore, if the CBC is cut, all the equipment, all the trucks and all the people who work for Radio-Canada will be gone as well. It is very divisive.

    I encourage my Conservative friends to change their policy, which is not good for anglophones, not good for francophones, not good for Quebec and not good for any other province.

     Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking members of the standing committee for their examination of the issue of the adaptation of CBC/Radio-Canada's audiovisual content for the international market. I would also like to thank the representatives of CBC/Radio-Canada, Ms. Catherine Tait, president and CEO, and Mr. Marco Dubé, chief transformation officer and executive vice-president for people and culture, for appearing before the committee as witnesses.

     In its report, the committee reported to the House “its deep condemnation of the CBC using a Paris-based audio studio to record a podcast, choosing it over a Quebecois-based recording studio.”

     If we are to understand the situation, it is worth reviewing the facts of the matter. On October 11, 2023, the Journal de Montréal reported that CBC/Radio-Canada had selected a company based in France to create a French adaptation of its podcast, Alone: A Love Story, choosing it over a Quebec-based recording studio to avoid the recording being done in a Quebec accent.

     The podcast, released in 2017 and created by CBC/Radio-Canada employee Michelle Parise, has won multiple international awards and much acclaim from international press. The Paris-based studio Ochenta, in collaboration with Radio-Canada OHdio, was commissioned to adapt the Canadian podcast into French and Spanish. The decision was made in part because using a narrator with a Quebec accent would have less international potential.

    Cesil Fernandes, an executive producer at CBC Podcasts, a subsidiary of CBC/Radio-Canada's English language network, was quoted as saying, “We didn't want a Quebec French, to foster international interest... We wanted to reach out to a larger audience to tell Michelle's story. The Ochenta studio made us a pitch to translate it into French and Spanish. We decided to work with them for their experience in adaptations and to reach out to international audiences.”

     The article naturally led to questions, particularly in Quebec, as to why CBC Podcasts chose to ignore Quebec's expertise in the field of dubbing, and to complaints from people in the province working in the arts and cultural industries.

     For example, Tania Kontoyanni, president of the Union des artistes, stated, “For a podcast produced and broadcast in Quebec, the narration should be done by local artists. And especially in the context of a Canadian podcast translated into French.” Similarly, voice actor Sébastien Dhavernas stated that the decision showed a “disrespect for our industry.”

     There are certainly Canadian studios that are able to adapt podcasts. The Journal de Montréal article mentions Quebec companies ContenuMultimedia.com and Toast Studio, for example. Indeed, CBC Podcasts has previously worked with Radio-Canada itself on the French adaptation of the podcast Brainwashed, which is hosted in standard French by Quebec journalist and columnist Sophie-Andrée Blondin.

    That is the background to this issue. With that in mind, I can say that the government echoes the committee's review that CBC/Radio-Canada's use of a Paris-based recording studio for this work instead of a Quebec-based recording studio was a lapse in judgment.

     It is true that the decision should be taken in context. To quote the head of CBC/Radio-Canada during her testimony to the standing committee:

     Furthermore, it is also true that section 46(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act gives the corporation the power to “make contracts with any person, within or outside Canada, in connection with the production or presentation of programs originated or secured by the Corporation.” Nonetheless, it is clear that CBC/Radio-Canada should not have acquired the services of a foreign company for this work rather than look to domestic opportunities.

     What is important to remember, however, is that this mistake does not represent how CBC/Radio-Canada generally operates. CBC/Radio-Canada is a thoroughly bilingual organization. Radio-Canada is headquartered in Quebec and produces a myriad of French language programming.

     As Mr. Dubé noted in his testimony to the standing committee, eight members of the corporation's senior management team are francophones. That represents the majority of members. The senior management team works in English and in French at all of its meetings and makes business management decisions exercising considerable concern for balance between English and French. Half of the corporation's workforce in the organization as a whole is francophone and the other half anglophone. As Ms. Tait said, “I would dare say that we are one of the most bilingual businesses in the federal family.”

    Even more importantly, CBC/Radio-Canada itself agrees that its original decision was a mistake. Almost immediately upon publication of the Journal de Montréal story on October 13, Catherine Tait, president and CEO, wrote to Tania Kontoyanni, president of the Union des artistes, acknowledging the error. In her letter, Catherine Tait stated clearly that “it was an error, period. We admit this unequivocally and we apologize for it....We are fortunate to have, here in Canada, an outstanding dubbing industry that works with very talented actors. We often use their services, and that is what we should have done in this case”. She also admitted the corporation's initial response to media questions was lacking in sensitivity.

    Furthermore, she promised CBC/Radio-Canada will review its practices to ensure this sort of mistake would not occur again.

     At the same time, Mr. Marco Dubé, chief transformation officer and executive vice-president, contacted the association with the same message.

     Ms. Tait also appeared as a witness before the standing committee on November 8, 2023. During her testimony, she again apologized, not only confirming that the failure to use Canadian dubbing expertise was an unfortunate incident and mistake, but also reaffirming that the corporation's initial attempts to justify it were deplorable, hurtful and unacceptable. Ms. Tait indicated the corporation would withdraw the French episodes for the time being and re-record them. The adaptation of the podcast will be made in this country and Radio-Canada will be responsible for it. Production is already under way and the new version will be online at the beginning of the summer.

    Ms. Tait also reaffirmed during her appearance at the standing committee that steps are being taken to ensure there will be no repetition of this sort of error. At the same appearance, Mr. Dubé, head of transformation and senior vice-president, confirmed that the issue was discussed with the teams who made the decision and that they understand the scope of their error. More specifically, the corporation has introduced measures to ensure that when CBC teams are required to interpret or translate a podcast into French, they call upon Quebec firms.

     It is equally important to note the reaction from the industry to this apology. “We accept the apology and pass it on to our members”, said Ms. Kontoyanni in a press release on October 13.

    To sum up, this was an error. CBC/Radio-Canada has taken note of it, has acted to correct it and will ensure it does not reoccur. While regrettable, this incident does not reflect on CBC/Radio-Canada's fundamental values or the work it does.

    I will conclude by simply quoting Ms. Tait once more:

     Mr. Speaker, in what universe would any single member of the Conservative Party care about public broadcasting? It is impossible. They live and feed in a swamp of disinformation. This is what elected Donald Trump.

     The attack on the CBC is about attacking public journalism, just like the leader of the Conservatives attacked CTV, Global, the Toronto Star and The Canadian Press. Individual journalists have been targeted by the member who lives in Stornoway, who wants the world to live in a swamp of disinformation.

    I am appalled that we are having to discuss contract choices made at what should be an arm's-length institution. There are many things I disagree with regarding the CBC. There are many times I rant as I listen to the radio driving in my car. However, I believe democracy requires an independent, credible media system.

    The Conservatives sit there like numpties, laughing and ridiculing because they feed themselves on disinformation. They would not know truth if it came down naked, painted in purple, and danced all over their heads for two weeks. They have never seen truth because they live in a world of disinformation and are trying to reduce the rest of us to live in that fetid swamp.

    Mr. Speaker, I do not know if that was a question, but I will thank the member anyway. If he is looking for an argument, he is not going to get one from me.

    We all know why we are having this discussion in the House of Commons today. It is another opportunity for the Conservatives to attack the CBC, as they do day in and day out. As my friend rightly pointed out, their attack on media, public or private, is constant, outrageous and offensive.

    The CBC serves a meaningful purpose. I represent the good people of Etobicoke—Lakeshore now, but I grew up in Thunder Bay. Without the CBC, I would not have had sports or news. I would not have had the information that all people in northwestern Ontario need to survive and get through the day. It is absolutely vital. This is nothing more than just another shameless attempt to attack the CBC to score some cheap political points.

     Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my friend across the way. In the midst of declining viewership and poor performance overall with the CBC, does he feel it was a prudent thing for the CBC to grant such massive executive bonuses, and why does he think his government would give the CBC the additional money to do that without putting in some checks and balances?

    Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member, as he knows. He is from Manitoba and I grew up in northwestern Ontario. We have a kindred relationship.

    The answer is no, obviously. My reaction when I heard the news was, I am sure, identical to his own. At a time when employees are being laid off or having to take pay cuts, there is no place for bonuses and the type of behaviour that took place. However, let us deal with that in isolation. Let us not use that as just another weapon to attack the CBC.

    I am happy to talk about that issue in itself and take measures to address it, but the CBC is an institution that is critical to Canada and Canadian culture.

    Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague is this. A decision was made to ask a Parisian studio to dub the podcast instead of relying on the expertise of Quebeckers or francophone minorities in Canada. What message did the CBC and, by extension, English Canada, send to Quebeckers and francophones elsewhere in Canada by doing so? The message was that Quebec French and the French spoken in Canada is not presentable or exportable.

    Mr. Speaker, it sends the wrong message. Everybody I have heard speak today agrees with that. It was the wrong thing to do and the CBC agrees. It should not have done it. It apologized, the apology has been accepted and it is being rectified.

    I can stand here and say I agree with the member, but I think she knows that already. The CBC said many times, in many appearances at committee and elsewhere, that it should not have been done. It was an oversight, a major error, and it is not going to happen again. It sends absolutely the wrong message.

    Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

    Here we are again debating what the previous member just described as an isolated incident of poor judgment at the CBC. The problem with that argument is that, increasingly, it is not simply an isolated incident of poor judgment at the CBC. It is a continual string of mismanagement, scandal and decisions that run contrary to the best interests of Canadians.

    Today we are debating the CBC's decision not to support the strong bilingual nature of our country by using the homegrown talent we have, specifically in Quebec when it comes to the French language, by contracting local talent. A Canadian public broadcaster did not contract local talent because it did not want a Quebec accent on a podcast. How shameful is that? That continues a trend of mismanagement, scandal, waste and corruption that has defined the CBC in our country today.

    We debate the amendment Conservatives have made. We do not concur in this report to send it back to be looked at further. What has become of the CBC is that it no longer represents the best interests of Canada. Over the last number of months, I have had the opportunity to be a part of the team leading the discussion on issues of heritage for the official opposition. We have seen it time and time again, as with the current CEO of CBC, Catherine Tait, and her refusals.

    Just yesterday, in fact, I gave her an opportunity to make it crystal clear that she could show leadership to that organization by rejecting a bonus. She refused. She could show leadership by not accepting an exit or severance package as she departs the organization. She refused. In fact, it was revealed, I would suggest accidentally, because certainly it is not something to be proud of, that there is a 497K club at the CBC.

    For those who might be curious about what a 497K club is, it was revealed there are more than seven executives at the CBC who make more than $497,000 a year. On top of that, there is nothing to suggest it was not all of those executives who received bonuses. The average bonus was $71,000 per executive. That is at a time when Canadians are hurting. Canadians are suffering, yet CBC executives are given bonuses higher than what the average Canadian makes in a year. That is absolutely unbelievable.

    It is not just me who thinks this. It is not just Conservatives who think this. Increasingly, we are seeing how the waste, the scandal, the mismanagement and the bloat in organizations like that are simply inconsistent with what Canadians want. There was an editorial published in The Globe and Mail. I will quote the headline because I think it is worth putting on the record: “CBC president Catherine Tait’s reign of error will not be soon forgotten”.

    As a new CEO comes in to lead the CBC in January, there will be very simple questions that need to be asked. At the top of the list is the need to ensure that this organization is not awarding big bonuses while cutting jobs, and that it is not seeing declining revenues, declining viewership and declining trust, yet lowering its own KPIs. For those watching, KPI is an acronym for “key performance indicator”. That is what bonuses are paid out on. This is something that happens in government and the private sector. An organization will set targets known as KPIs. If those targets are met, there is a consideration of bonuses.

     A number of years ago, CBC met, I believe it was, only three of 14 KPIs. That does not sound like a very good record. That does not sound like an organization that is being successful in its objectives. What happened the next year? All of a sudden, it met the majority of the KPIs. I believe it said that it met 11 of the 14.

    If we were to take a quick glance at that, many would say that this is great, that it is doing fantastically. It went from three to 11 in a year. How did it do that? There must be some incredible things happening. That is until we start peeling back the layers, so to speak. One might ask what those layers are. Those layers are that the CBC, instead of improving its performance, simply lowered its targets. As a result, it was not simply that these were bar graphs in a chart, which were then published, that suggested that maybe it was doing better than it was. That is a very small part of what these KPIs are. Rather, what that means is that the organization then recommended big taxpayer-funded bonuses for its managers and executives.

    We see this trend under the Liberals. They reward themselves for failure, yet refuse to take responsibility for what has become a series of incidences of mistakes, of mismanagement, of bloat, of paying out big dollars to those who support them and their agenda. This is all while Canadians suffer.

    When it comes to defunding the CBC, I think, increasingly, Canadians are the ones who are singing this proverbial tune. They look at the bonuses and say that this is simply not worth the cost. They look at the programming, and they are not watching the programming. It is not like this is something that is being led by Conservatives. This is Canadians choosing to not watch CBC programming. It is clear and simple. The numbers prove it.

    At committee yesterday, the CEO explained what connected TVs were and how they just recently discovered that Canadians were able to access content in diverse and different ways. What is very interesting about that is that Canadians are not surprised about the way that they can access content. Canadians have been accessing a diversity of content, which certainly does not line up with what the CBC offers, and increasing numbers of Canadians are looking for new and creative ways to see that content, yet here we have the CBC awarding itself big bonuses, and manipulating the information and the performance indicators. If we were to look at it at first glance, we would say that it is doing great. However, it is manipulating it to look good at a time when, by any objective measure, it can only be described as failing.

    Here we are. We have an example of that. Despite the proud bilingual history of our country, what did CBC decide to do? It decided to outsource the dubbing of the French language of an English podcast to a company from Paris. It might have even been a similar to the CEO taking a taxpayer-funded, supposed break from her holiday in Paris to go to the Olympics because she had to be there. It could also be similar to the fact that the Liberals said yesterday at committee that being paid half a million dollars to be proud of Canada is certainly worth it when it comes to those at the CBC.

    We see how this record of failure and decline is what defines the Liberals. The message is simple: Is it worth the cost? To those French-language artists in Quebec, who could have gotten that contract, it seems like the CBC certainly did not prioritize them. We have now heard that the CBC is now, because of that mistake, reversing that decision and going back, at a cost to taxpayers.

    The problem with failure is that it hurts everybody. When it comes to the future of the CBC, I think Canadians are making it clearer and clearer every day that it is not worth the cost. It is time to reject the bonuses. It is time to fire the Prime Minister. It is time to defund the CBC.

     Mr. Speaker, Conservative members who speak should qualify their introductory remarks by indicating very clearly that the leader of the Conservative Party, for many years, has wanted to defund the CBC. Let us be very clear on that point.

    We can take a look at a recent CBC news article, where Conservatives, referring to the leader of the Conservative Party, are saying, “He's the one who decides everything. His main adviser is himself ... The people around him are only there to realize the leader's vision.” However, his vision is to get rid of the CBC. From my perspective, institutions such as the CBC, CTV and Global play a very important role in our democratic system.

    Would the member not recognize that there is value in having a publicly supported CBC?

    Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that that member would talk about control when the Liberals have to ask permission and have to apply to be able to go up to the microphone to speak in their caucus. It is unbelievable the level of control and manipulation that the Prime Minister and the Liberals have used to muzzle Parliament.

    Here is the reality: The Prime Minister and the Liberals do not want an opposition that opposes the agenda. They do not want an opposition that highlights their corruption and incompetence. They want an audience. Well, I am sorry, but we were elected as the opposition, and when we run in the next carbon tax election, which hopefully comes soon, it will be Conservatives that present a vision for this country that will get this nation back on track.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to share on the issue of “not worth the cost”. There is the member who lives in the 19-room mansion at Stornoway, which costs $94,000 to operate and cost $170,000 in repairs. When he moved from his swanky digs in Ottawa to his super swanky digs, he dinged us $19,000 for—

    Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member's comments have absolutely nothing to do with the motion that is being debated.

     As much as that may be off, it is questions and comments.

    The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

    Mr. Speaker, I know it hurts when the Conservatives have to look in the mirror.

    However, there was a $4,000 water bill for April and May, and a $7,506 bill for the months of July and August. Here is the thing: The member also has a private chef. If the Conservatives are serious about this, how about they forego the chef? Now, I know that “forego” is a complex word, so maybe we can put it into a bumper sticker. It could be this: “F the chef and be accountable”.

    Mr. Speaker, that member and the NDP party as a whole are flip-flopping on their flip-flop, which flopped and flipped. When it comes to the reality they have before them, they came out and said that they were not a part of this coalition arrangement to squeak out a by-election win in what used to be a safe seat for them. Then they flipped, so that an election would not be called because they looked at the polls. Then they flopped again because they are now trying to pretend that they care about accountability, yet just the other day, they said that they had come to this amazing agreement with the Liberals. Now they have said that it is no longer what they bargained for.

    Well, when it comes to what is not worth the cost, it is that member and the leader of the fourth party in this place who need to look Canadians in the eye and justify why they keep the corrupt Prime Minister in power.

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech contained some interesting information, but I still have one question.

    My colleague spoke a few times about the fact that the Conservatives could soon come to power. If that were the case, would it not be a mistake to defund a network that produces reports and investigations that are very important to democracy? Should he not instead take a cautious approach to reducing CBC/Radio-Canada funding, especially considering its outstanding investigative reporting?

    Mr. Speaker, yesterday, even the president and CEO of the CBC, Catherine Tait, and Liberal members acknowledged that Parliament brought the public broadcaster into existence, and Parliament can decide its future.

    That is so important to highlight because we have an example where, in our system, Parliament is supreme, yet the Prime Minister and the Liberals are doing everything in their power to reject the role that this place has in preserving Canadian democracy. It is shameful, and anything other than a government needing to heed the will of this place is a constitutional crisis. The Prime Minister and the Liberals have normalized constitutional crises in this country, and it is time for better.

    Conservatives would bring home better when we run in the next election and offer a common-sense plan to Canadians. We do not take for granted one single vote, but when it comes down to it, Conservatives would offer a plan to Canadians and Canadians get to choose.

    Mr. Speaker, allow me to thank my colleague for his excellent speech, which set the stage about the extreme lack of sensitivity shown by CBC/Radio-Canada and its president, Catherine Tait. While Canadians are struggling to make ends meet, the cost of food has doubled, the cost of housing has doubled and young families have no hope of becoming homeowners in Canada, someone made a decision to give $18 million in bonuses to CBC executives. At at time like this, that is unacceptable and completely disconnected from reality. However, it is not surprising that the CBC is so out of touch. There is something I want to bring up.

    Yesterday, in committee, the president of the CBC made a point of reminding us that CBC/Radio-Canada was founded in 1936, that since then the broadcaster has served the Canadian public and that she was very proud of what CBC/Radio-Canada has accomplished.

    I took the liberty of consulting the history books to find out what led to the creation of CBC/Radio-Canada. The member for Winnipeg North was probably around when the Report of the Royal Commission on Broadcasting was tabled in the House in 1929. I am sure he remembers it. The report was presented to the Hon. Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin, Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who was responsible for telecommunications in this country at the time. The report states that “[t]he Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting was appointed by the Government to inquire into the existing situation in Canada and to examine the different methods adopted in other countries.”

    That commission was created because nothing existed. There was no control and no way of ensuring that Canadians had access to radio waves and content. There was nothing. In 1929, the government decided to launch a royal commission of inquiry and give Mr. Aird the mandate to determine how Canadians could be better served. I will quote an excerpt from the report and I will try to make a connection with what is happening in the media sector and with regard to Radio-Canada. These are comments that were heard by the royal commission. The report says the following:

    That was in 1929. Consider how the arrival of social media and the Internet has altered the state of communications today. Is that not exactly the situation we find ourselves in? What has the CBC done to foster a national spirit and sense of citizenship? Unfortunately, the CBC completely missed the boat. Just look at the CBC audience. Anyone who takes two seconds to really hear what I am saying will understand that I am talking about the CBC. We need to separate the CBC's role from that of Radio-Canada, which has been able to protect francophone culture in Canada and is still an important player in protecting that culture. I think it is important to look at what was done in the past. Later on, I will comment on an outrageous statement made by the president of CBC/Radio-Canada yesterday at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

    I will read two recommendations from the royal commission report at the time. It says “any broadcasting organization must be operated on a basis of public service” and that “stations providing a service of this kind should be owned and operated by one national company.” It also mentions that “[i]t is desirable...that provincial authorities should be in a position to exercise full control over the programs of the station or stations in their respective areas.” A little further it states that every province should appoint a “Provincial Radio Broadcasting Director...who will have full control of the programs broadcast by the station or stations located within the boundaries of the province for which he is responsible.”

    Over the past few years, Radio-Canada has responded and adapted to the situation by ensuring a constant presence at the centre of Quebec culture. Unfortunately, the numbers prove it. The same numbers that Ms. Tait cited yesterday show that the CBC audience is practically in ruins. The CBC no longer plays the Crown corporation role envisaged by the Aird commission back in the day, or as the act that created the CBC/Radio-Canada said it would at the time, in the 1930s.

    We are also here to talk about the outrageous way that president Catherine Tait has flatly refused to give up any severance pay or bonus pay at a time when the Crown corporation is no longer fully assuming its role. Unfortunately, on her watch, we witnessed different positions that showed contempt for Quebec and Quebeckers. It all started with the CBC podcast that was translated into French in Paris. That was when the full scope of the situation became clear. Why did they do that? They did it, apparently, out of dislike for the Quebec accent on the Radio-Canada side.

    Instead of doing business with our experts and people from our culture, someone at CBC/Radio-Canada chose to have the podcast translated in Paris, supposedly because the Quebec accent was not good enough for the CBC. It was probably someone who works at the CBC, not at Radio-Canada. That set off a whole saga. Eventually, the president and CEO came to testify before the committee, where she apologized and said that such a thing would never happen again. Who did she apologize to, and what were the consequences? There were obviously no consequences, because they paid themselves bonuses. The 1,100 people at CBC/Radio-Canada who are not governed by union agreements got both raises and bonuses. That is what we learned yesterday when Ms. Tait appeared before the committee.

    The translation of this podcast is a brazen attack by the CBC, so how can executives be allowed to collect bonuses, which are supposed to compensate excellence, when Canadians are suffering and cannot make ends meet at the end of the month?

    Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois voted with the Liberals yesterday to defend the president and CEO of the CBC, who allowed the French-language podcast to be dubbed in France because the CBC did not like the Quebec accent. The Bloc Québécois preferred to defend the Prime Minister and the CBC's CEO instead of standing up and punishing her for showing such contempt for Quebeckers. The motion defeated by the Bloc Québécois read as follows:

    I think the Bloc Québécois should have listened carefully to what Ms. Tait said yesterday. I asked her if she had confidence in the people at Radio-Canada to ensure continuity and take over going forward to protect Quebec and francophone culture and identity for the country. She replied as follows: As I have said many times, are we going to ask Canadians to support a federal national institution for 20% of the population? Personally, I think that is a bit much.

    What she said was beyond the pale. It is perfectly normal for the federal government to invest in protecting francophone culture in this country. It is absolutely necessary for the federal government to ensure that the necessary funds are maintained so that Radio-Canada can continue to play its role for francophones, because it has proven, with figures to back it up, that it has done so in recent years, and it will continue to do so if it has the support. Unfortunately, Ms. Tait should understand before she leaves that it is time to put an end to this policy of rewarding poor results.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but what I would like to see from Conservative Party members, especially francophones, is more courage. There seems to be talk that there will be no impact on francophone communities if the CBC is dismantled. That is completely false. It is a misunderstanding of how Radio-Canada and CBC share resources.

    When will my colleague have the courage to stand up to his leader and say that eliminating CBC will have a direct impact on francophone communities?

    Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell was one of the 24 members calling for the Prime Minister's head recently. I do not know if he has the courage to publicly say that he was part of that group of members calling for the Prime Minister to leave. I do not know if he has the courage to say which MPs do not share this Prime Minister's opinion.

    What I can say to the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell is that Radio-Canada is currently doing excellent work for francophones across the country. In Quebec, the audience is dwindling, but not as quickly as the CBC's audience. I think that if we put the right resources in the right places, francophones across the country will be pleased that we putting more emphasis on Radio-Canada.

    It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

    The question is on the amendment to the amendment.

    If a member participating in person wishes that the subamendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

    Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until later this day at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

    Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I present a petition in regard to international flights.

    The petitioners are asking for the House of Commons and others, whether they be members of Parliament, private industry, different airlines or levels of government, to take a look at just how important it is to recognize the growth of our Indo-Canadian community and the increased demand for more direct traffic between Canada and India or, at least, Europe. In particular, this petition is with respect to Winnipeg North. The petitioners hope they will see direct flights going from Winnipeg to India.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from residents of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, including Sandy Knowles of Kitimat and Karen Sage of Terrace, with whom I met a couple of weeks back.

    The petitioners wish to draw attention to the inequitable treatment of single seniors under the Income Tax Act. They highlight that income splitting rules allow couples to split their pension income, claim double non-refundable tax credits, transfer certain unused credits to a spouse and, when one partner dies, transfer retirement savings to the living spouse. Single seniors have none of these options available to them, putting them at a significant financial disadvantage.

     The petitioners urge the government to introduce several measures specifically for single seniors, including a new tax credit, an increase to the pension income amount, an increase to the OAS clawback thresholds and an amendment to the tax treatment of registered retirement plans upon death. The petitioners eagerly await the government's official response.

    Mr. Speaker, hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers have been exposed to lead while in the workplace. I rise today to present a petition pointing out that exposure to lead needs close monitoring and that standard practices in Canada involve collecting blood samples instead of bone samples.

     The petitioners note that blood samples have been proven to be less effective and much more costly than testing one's exposure in a bone sample. They also note that bone measurements are collected through non-invasive scans and can show the long-term cumulative effects of lead exposure. Lead exposure can have extremely detrimental impacts on one's health and can even be fatal.

    Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the government to test individuals for lead exposure with bone data instead of blood data to create a more effective and cost-efficient standard of practice.

    Mr. Speaker, if a revised response to Questions Nos. 3001 and 3002, originally tabled on November 19, could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

    The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

     Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

     Is that agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair has notice of two requests for an emergency debate concerning the same subject. I will invite the hon. member for Windsor West and the hon. member for Carleton to make brief interventions.

    The hon. member for Windsor West.

     Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise to address this very serious issue with regard to Donald J. Trump, the incoming president of the United States. He has issued a threat to Canada's economic security, as well as our border security. In particular, a 25% tariff on trade is being proposed to be put on Canada. This would affect an industry that I am familiar with in my area, the auto industry, and every industry across Canada. It would also affect our capabilities as a nation to provide subsistence and good jobs for our citizens.

    I believe the Prime Minister has already indicated that he will have a meeting with the premiers, and we support that initiative. There needs to be consensus and a strong position provided. However, members in the House of Commons need to participate in this debate. In addition, going forward, there is potential for a trade war that could erupt with our number one trading partner. This is really important and very serious. Canadians are already struggling to get by right now. They have enough difficulties with shelter and food, and job insecurity should not also be brought to bear.

    In summary, New Democrats are calling for this emergency debate because of the serious nature of this. In past practice, Donald Trump has moved against Canada's interests with regard to trade barriers and other issues we had to deal with. What is notable in his expression of interest about this subject matter with Canada is that he has also challenged our border service officers, which is—

     I am going to interrupt the hon. member for Windsor West for a moment. There is a point of order being raised by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like a clarification of the rules. When members want to get the attention of the Speaker, my understanding is that they are to stand in their place and the Speaker will acknowledge them.

    The leader of the Conservative Party has been standing in his place for quite a while and has not been recognized. If he is standing on a point of order, in defence of the leader of the Conservative Party, he should be recognized.

    Is the member for Carleton rising on a point of order? If not, then I will invite the hon. member to sit down until the hon. member for Windsor West has finished his intervention.

    I would ask the hon. member for Windsor West to please continue his intervention.

    Mr. Speaker, I will summarize and be brief so the member for Carleton can rise quickly on this as well. I just want to conclude by noting that Mr. Trump has also questioned the safety and security of our border. I want to remind the Canadian public that in 2014, we lost over 1,000 different CBSA officers who were laid off through cuts. Subsequently, during COVID, there were two tranches of CBSA officers who could not be trained.

    Right now there is a shortage of 2,000 to 3,000 officers on the front lines that affects our capabilities as a nation, and this should be part of the general discussion because Mr. Trump has also identified it as a weakness for our nation.

    Mr. Speaker, we are facing this economic threat at a time when Canada is very weak. Our economy is in free fall. Our GDP has shrunk faster than any other G7 country since the year before the COVID-19 pandemic. Twenty-five per cent of Canadians are living in poverty. The cost of housing has doubled. It has increased faster than in any other G7 country. Canadian families have more debt than in any other G7 country. This is all before President Trump's tariff threat.

    We reject Mr. Trump's threats and propose an emergency debate to develop a plan that puts Canada first, a plan to protect our economy and our security. That is why we are calling for this debate. After nine years, Canadians are suffering. They can no longer cope with economic threats, especially after the damage caused by the current government here. Mr. Trump's tariffs, combined with the Prime Minister's taxes here in Canada, are untenable for Canadians. We need an action plan now.

    Today's economic threat comes at a time of maximum economic and national security weakness. Our economy is collapsing, with the GDP per capita smaller than it was ten years ago, having dropped more than that of any other G7 country since the year before COVID. Our housing costs have doubled. Food bank use has doubled. Housing inflation has been the worst in the G7, as has household debt compared to income. Half a trillion dollars' worth of investment has poured out of our country into the U.S. Canadians already face a crippling quadrupling of the carbon tax, which by itself would send hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs south of the border.

    Now, sensing weakness, President-elect Trump threatens massive tariffs on our people and our economy. Canadians will not be able to eat, to heat their home and to house themselves if they face the combination of NDP-Liberal tax hikes and American tariffs. That is why common-sense Conservatives are calling for an emergency debate to develop a plan to protect our economy and our security, a plan that puts Canada first.

    We want a Canada first plan to defend our people. We as a Conservative team ask for the Speaker's approval to hold the debate as early as tonight. Let us put partisanship aside. Let us stand up for our people. Let us put our country first and foremost. Let us bring it home.

    I thank all hon. members for their interventions. I am now prepared to grant the request for an emergency debate concerning U.S. tariffs on Canadian products. This debate will take place later today at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

    Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to the motion again today.

    I would like to note with interest that the Leader of the Opposition just made an excellent request for an emergency debate. I am glad it was granted, and we look forward to talking more about the dual threats of both the Liberal economic plan, which is a disaster, and the proposed 25% tariffs that President-elect Trump has proposed. That dual threat really is something we need to be very concerned about, and I am glad we will continue to talk about it later tonight.

    What the House is seized with now is a motion and a matter that have been before the House for quite some time. That is because the government refuses to obey a lawful order of the House to turn over documents regarding the very concerning scandal surrounding Sustainable Development Technology Canada's giving government contracts to Liberal insiders. The Auditor General found very troubling evidence that this was done

     Millions of dollars were given to Liberal insiders, sometimes for zero work. Money was simply transferred from hard-working taxpayers to the government coffers and into the pockets of Liberal insiders. This is what we are here to talk about.

    I want to go back to the original motion that started the whole thing in June. On June 10, the motion proposed by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and seconded by the member for South Shore—St. Margarets stated:

    The question was put on the main motion, as amended, and it was agreed to on the following division: yeas 174 and nays 148. The House voted on the motion and agreed on June 10 that we would request the documents, which the government, the Auditor General and SDTC have in their possession, and that those documents would be turned over to the RCMP. Therefore a lawful order for the production of papers was received.

    The problem has become that the Liberal government believes it is above and can ignore that lawful order of the House of Commons. Even though the House has made it very clear what its intentions are and what it requires of the government, in a lawful order, the government has decided it is above it. Liberals have decided they can ignore the demand of the House of Commons because they believe their government, their Prime Minister's Office and their Privy Council Office know better than the House of Commons. That is not how it works.

    The Speaker himself ruled that the government had violated the privileges of the House in refusing to acknowledge, accept and obey a lawful order of the House. The government is in breach of our privileges. It is a prima facie case that the government has breached the privileges of every member of Parliament and the House, because it is not up to the Prime Minister to determine which lawful motions he ignores or accepts. As the Speaker said very clearly in his ruling:

     He went on to quote Speaker Milliken, who said, “procedural authorities are categorical in repeatedly asserting the powers of the House in ordering the production of documents. No exceptions are made for any category of government documents”.

    The government has tried to invent its own reasons and to create exceptions where there are none. The House is the only entity that can grant exceptions, yet for months now the government has refused to turn over the documents. I wonder why. We know it is because the government has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar once again; Liberal Party insiders have rewarded themselves with taxpayer money.

    The Auditor General found that the government had turned Sustainable Development Technology Canada into a slush fund for Liberal insiders. A recording of a senior civil servant slammed the outright incompetence of the government, which gave 390 million dollars' worth of contracts inappropriately.

    This is not made up by a member of the House or a media source; The Auditor General found that SDTC gave $58 million to 10 ineligible projects that, on occasions, could not demonstrate an environmental benefit or development of green technology. In other words, $58 million went to 10 contracts that had nothing to do with SDTC and did not fulfill its mandates.

    Board members held a conflict of interest in $334 million over 186 cases. The Auditor General did not look at the whole program; she just took a sampling of it and found 186 cases in which the government had allowed board members who held a conflict of interest to get a total of $334 million, of which $58 million went to projects without ensuring that contribution agreement terms were met. The best part is that some of the projects were both ineligible and conflicted, so they had the double whammy.

    The Auditor General made it clear that the blame for the scandal falls very clearly on the Prime Minister and his Minister of Industry, who did not sufficiently monitor the contracts given to Liberal insiders.

    The matter was brought up as soon as the House returned from the summer recess, because the government had failed during the summer recess to meet the requirements of the House. They were not suggestions, a good idea, a guideline or a time frame. The exact times, the deadlines, were outright ignored in some cases.

    This is a refusal to acknowledge the supremacy of the House when it comes to demanding the production of papers. Sometimes the Liberals just said no. Other times, in their infinite wisdom, they said that we cannot see some of the information, and they blacked it all out so the relevant information was not not included. At still other times they ignored the deadlines or were late, and those sorts of things.

    In other words, they showed contempt for the House and continue to show contempt for the House. We could go on to other matters today if the government released the documents, as ordered by the House. This is not a suggestion. This is not just from the official opposition. The majority of the members of the House of Commons, 174 members, have demanded this, as is our right as members of Parliament. It is very clearly laid out that we have individual privileges and rights as members, but the House has collective rights as well, and a key one is demanding the production of papers. The government might not like it. It might like to retroactively say that the motion was not in order, but it does not get to make that decision. The House alone decides. The House has decided, and the government continues to ignore the House.

    We are now approaching December. We have the threat of a 25% tariff on our doorstep. We have plummeting standards of living for Canadians vis-à-vis our American neighbours. Food prices are up 35%, gas prices are up 50%, rent is up 33% and mortgage payments are up 73% after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government. There is a crisis out there, but the government refuses to comply with the demands of the Speaker, refuses to comply with the demands of the House and continues to hold up the House's business. It refuses to acknowledge, accept and comply with the House order. Until the Liberals does that, we will continue to debate this motion. We will continue to discuss and demand that the rights and privileges of the House are respected. The Prime Minister does not get to simply overrule the rights, privileges and will of the elected House of Commons.

    It comes back to this: Who do we serve? We serve the people who sent us here. I serve the people of Chilliwack—Hope. I do not serve the member for Carleton, and members of Parliament opposite should not serve the Prime Minister. They should serve their constituents. They should remember that unless they sit in the first two rows, their job is to hold the government accountable, just as it is our job.

    Many of the members who get up every day to defend this nonsense are not even members of the government; they are members of the caucus that holds government. They have a duty to hold the government to account, and they fail in that duty every day they defend a Prime Minister overruling the rights, privileges and lawful motions of the House of Commons.

    This is not the first time they have done it. When the Winnipeg lab scandal came to the fore just before the last election, the government took the House of Commons and the the predecessor to the Speaker to court. The Liberals refused to accept a motion. They refused to accept a Speaker's ruling, and they basically told the Speaker they would see him in court. They would not obey the House order and would not accept the vote of members of Parliament, who are sent here to represent their constituents.

    That is how this is supposed to work. We represent our constituencies. We represent our constituents. There is no higher power in the land than the House of Commons, not the Prime Minister, not the PCO, not the bureaucracy. They do not get to decide when the House has already made a decision.

    For months, the government has refused to accept a lawful motion of the House. That should be concerning to all members and all Canadians, because while in this case the Liberals might not like what the motion says, might quibble with what will happen with the documents and might try to hide behind the fig leaf of technicality, what they do when they undermine the supremacy of the House, the rights and privileges of the House, is they give license to a future prime minister to do it again.

    If the Liberals say they will not accept the rights and privileges of the House of Commons and the motions it passes, a future prime minister will simply give the back of his hand to the House and decide that he or she alone knows better. We do not have that kind of system. The Prime Minister is supposed to be the servant of the House, not its master, and for too long the Prime Minister has believed that he is above members of Parliament on both his side and this side. We have seen the evidence of that, with dozens of his own members wishing he would take a walk in the snow. It snowed a bit today, so hope springs eternal, but we know what the Prime Minister thinks of his own caucus. Certainly, we know what he thinks of the motion that has been passed.

    What are the Liberals protecting? Why have they gone to such lengths that for three months they have held up the work of the House by refusing to obey an order of the House? It must be pretty bad. Those documents must be worse than the $58 million going to 10 projects for Liberal insiders and the $334 million of questionable projects going to board of director members with conflicts of interest.

     We know that the Minister of Environment has been implicated in this as well, having lobbied for a project while he was outside of cabinet and having received benefits while he was in cabinet. That is the record of the government. The Liberals are hiding the documents after saying that they would have the most open and transparent government in history. The only thing open is the chequebooks for Liberal insiders.

     It is like an open bar if someone is a Liberal insider. They get access to government contracts. One member, one of whose names I could say because he has another name, has resigned from cabinet finally after fighting it. It is the member for Edmonton Centre. We saw what he was willing to do to get his hands on government money from his Liberal friends.

    We are calling once again on the government to respect Parliament, to respect the vote that was held in Parliament in June, to respect the ruling of the Speaker that was issued in September and to respect the months of debate that have been happening in the House. It is clear that we will not go quietly into the night. We will not let this be shuffled off to some committee where the government can get its allies in the other parties to quietly bury it, as happens every day in the House when Conservatives bring forward motions. Behind closed doors at committee, they are quietly shuffled off and voted down or watered down.

     This has to be decided here, because the vote happened here and the Speaker's ruling happened here. This can all go away if the government simply listens to the will of Parliament and respects its rights and privileges. We need to get back to the work that we have been called here to do. We believe that the government is imperiling our economy. We need to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the deficit, fix the budget and stop the crime. Those are our priorities, but our number one priority is ensuring that the House is respected, that the Speaker is respected, that Parliament is respected and that the government does the right thing and the lawful thing. It must turn over the documents today so we can get back to doing the people's business.

     Mr. Speaker, the motion asks to have the issue go before PROC. That is what the member should be talking about. What he chose to talk about instead is a motion in which the House says that it wants documents collected, unredacted, and sent directly to the RCMP. The Conservatives are upset because we are listening to what the RCMP is saying. We are listening to what the Auditor General of Canada is saying and other legal experts. The Conservatives have overreached here. That is the bottom line.

     Let me quote a law expert, referring to the multi-million dollar game that the Conservatives are playing at great expense in many ways. Here is a quote from Steven Chaplin, former legal counsel:

    Why should we listen to the self-serving leader of the Conservative Party over the RCMP, the Auditor General and other legal counsel?

    I would remind folks to keep questions and comments as succinct as possible.

    The hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope.

     Mr. Speaker, I will tell the parliamentary secretary who he should listen to, and that is Parliament. One hundred and seventy-four members of Parliament voted yes to the motion, while 148 members, all Liberals, voted against it. I know the member might not like that, but 174 to 148 is all that matters.

    Parliament has decided that these documents have been requested, and that is our right. As the Speaker and Speaker Milliken said, that right is uncontested as far as the House is concerned. If we want to put limitations on the types of documents we hand over to the RCMP, we will decide, as the House, what those limitations will be. What the parliamentary secretary is talking about is undermining the sovereignty of the House of Commons, and Conservatives will not stand for it.

    Mr. Speaker, I remember when Stephen Harper was found in contempt of Parliament, the only prime minister ever found in contempt. He was found in contempt over an issue very similar but much more serious, the Afghan detainee documents. Allegations had been made that Canada was involved in turning over what often turned out to be low-value suspects for torture and intimidation, in violation of the Geneva Convention. Stephen Harper ignored Parliament, refused to turn over the documents and then prorogued Parliament and shut down the democratic process.

    In this case, which is about turning over documents, the Speaker ruled that this matter should go to the PROC committee. I trust that members of the committee are going to make a decision about whether the Prime Minister is in contempt. However, to me, the real contempt of the House is that despite a ruling to send this to committee, the member who lives in the 19-room mansion Stornoway has shut down our work as parliamentarians, interfering with our rights and privileges. Meanwhile, the Trump agenda is rolling on, and we are sitting here as a broken democracy.

     The role of Parliament is to ship this matter to committee. Members there can make a decision and return it to the House, and then we can decide whether the Prime Minister is in contempt. What is contempt is the refusal of the Conservatives to let us get to our work.

    Mr. Speaker, I see that the old habit of supporting the Liberal government at all costs and at all times is part of the member's DNA. It is part of what he wants to do.

    He can talk to his own House leader about how the New Democrats use their time in the House. We have continued to talk about this matter. The member himself voted in favour of this motion, and he should be concerned that the government has ignored the result.

    I was not elected at the time, but I remember that during a minority Parliament, Michael Ignatieff, Jack Layton and I forget who else pushed a motion forward and found the government in contempt. What happened after that? The 2011 election happened, and we had a strong, stable national Conservative majority government.

     I would agree with the member. What we need is an election to really solve this. He is running away into retirement, but we will see everyone else on the hustings. I like our chances.

    Mr. Speaker, that gives me the perfect segue. We agree that Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, was badly mismanaged. The fund has been dismantled and everything is being transferred to the National Research Council of Canada, or NRC. If the Conservatives came to power, would they commit to maintaining funding for important sustainable development and green technology companies?

     Mr. Speaker, I believe it was a Conservative government that created this fund. Certainly, under the Conservative government, there was none of this insider trading, back-scratching and conflicts of interest, because we made it clear that this was an arm's-length entity. Navdeep Bains was warned that by politicizing the appointment of the chair, he risked ruining the entire fund, and that is exactly what happened, with $58 million in contracts going to 10 Liberal insiders for no work done that we can determine and $334 million for 186 conflicts of interest. That is the Liberal record.

    We will continue to fund programs that deliver results for Canadians. We will not go down the road of the Liberals, which is about scratching their own backs, rewarding Liberal insiders, and then when caught, refusing to hand over documents to the RCMP.

     Mr. Speaker, while the member for Chilliwack—Hope was giving an answer about the supremacy of Parliament in a democratic society, where the sanctity of votes in this chamber have to count for something as an expression of the democratic will of people, the parliamentary secretary was heckling the member and disagreeing that votes in Parliament were the final say in this matter, that Parliament was the voice of the people. I want to bring that to the attention of the member for Chilliwack—Hope, that he was being heckled by the member, who disagrees with him that the votes in Parliament are the final say in whom the Liberals should listen to when the government has had an order to release documents.

     Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the Liberal member does not believe Parliament is supreme, that Parliament does not have the authority to make its own decisions and to have those decisions respected by the government. That is what the parliamentary secretary is saying. He is saying that the Government of Canada does not need to respect the votes and decisions that are made by the House of Commons, which means that the people whom we elect here do not have power in this place, and that is a very significant problem for the Liberal Party to wrestle with.

     When the Liberals believe they have one master and it is the Prime Minister of Canada, that means they have disenfranchised all the voters in all our ridings. If they simply take orders from the Prime Minister and his department and are willing to do their bidding in contravention of a House order of a Speaker's ruling, that is truly contemptible.

     Mr. Speaker, just so the member clearly understands, what I am saying is that 10 years from now, if we have a majority Conservative government and that majority government takes action that goes against the Charter of Rights or the Constitution, I will always oppose the abuse of power. That is what we see day in, day out already, and he is only the leader of the Conservative Party. We see the dictatorship-type mentality when he tells his Conservative caucus members that they are being monitored and followed, that reports are going back and that they get a gold star if they say what the Conservative Party wants them to say. Yes, I will call out a Conservative Party any time it abuses power.

     Mr. Speaker, the member is currently and the Liberals are currently abusing the power of the government by ignoring a lawful motion of the House of Commons. Those were interesting debate points that the member could have made before the motion was tabled.

     If he believes the motion was out of order, the Liberals should have brought that to the attention of the Speaker, but they did not do that. The Liberals lost the vote and only after they lost the vote did they ignore the results of it and the demand to produce the papers. After the Speaker ruled that this had happened, then the Liberals came up with this charter rights argument.

     The House alone determines which documents it requests. The House alone determines what limits are on those. We have made our voices heard. We have held a vote. We have seen the government treat that vote and the Speaker's ruling with contempt, and we will not stand for it.

    Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise again to speak to the subamendment. Every time I get up, I want to thank my constituents for sending me here. It is an honour and a privilege for all of us to be here, but we can never take it for granted. Every day we walk into the House, we are reminded of how amazing this place is.

    I do not know if I will be up again before Christmas, so I want to wish everyone a merry Christmas, a happy new year, season's greetings and safe travels. I hope people get a chance to spend some great time with family.

     Before I get started, I want to mention briefly how horrified I was to see what happened in Montreal this past weekend. I know our deputy leader spoke to it yesterday, and she did a very good job talking about it.

     I am completely amazed at what I see happening in Canada. In fact, I have people reach out to me every day. They are telling me that Canada is not the country they remember it being. When I look at what has happened over the last nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, I see the reasons.

     The question of privilege that we are talking about today is indicative of the things that the Liberals have done and the fact that they are not overly concerned about the rule of law and about dividing people. They have divided people in a number of different areas. When I look at what happened this weekend and if we asked anyone in the House or any guests in the gallery if they ever thought they would see this as part of their Canada, if anyone would have said they saw it coming, I do not think it was on the bingo card for 2024. It shows the government's lack of respect and how it does not treat these kinds of things seriously.

    When we have a Prime Minister who is the great divider, who divides us on race and a whole bunch of issues, vaccine status being one of these things, who calls everyone a racist who does not agree with the government's policies or the concerns people have raised, it should be troubling. It should be troubling for Canadians to see such a lack of leadership. It is indicative of what is happening and what we are talking about today with respect to these documents. I know the last time I talked about these documents, I talked about the Winnipeg lab.

     However, my colleague, the member for Chilliwack—Hope, said it best. We have an order of the House requesting that these documents be produced, and the government tells us not to worry about it, that it will give us some redacted documents that it thinks we need to see.

     I am reminded of what happened with the Winnipeg lab in 2021. The government said that there was nothing to see there and not to worry about it at all because it was handling it. What did we see happen in Winnipeg? Dangerous vials were being sent by FedEx to China. If we want to talk about a government that is out of control, a government that has something to hide, it is the government on the other side and what it has done over the last nine years.

    Let us review a bit of what has happened, and I know my colleagues have talked about this before. We are talking about the $400 million and how that was handled. Members in the House have accusations against them. We have the two Randys story. We are not really sure where that is at moment. We have other ministers who have been involved possibly. The people in the gallery should think about this for one second. Their taxpayer dollars were sent to the government. They were then funnelled back to the Liberal Party of Canada. I wonder how that makes people feel? I know it does not make me feel very good.

     Our job here is to represent our constituents. When I think about that, I think of the $400 million now. I think of the sponsorship scandal. In fact, we have had so many scandals over the last nine years, I do not think I would have time in my 20 minutes to go through all them. When we are talking about one, another one drops off and we forget about the things that happened before. It is our job to remind voters of how incompetent the Prime Minister is at handling our economic affairs, not to mention our GDP per capita and the fact we are going to be at the bottom of the OECD countries over the next 20 to 30 years. We have a worse GDP than Mississippi.

     All of these things are incredibly troubling when we think of all the great resources, abilities, people and talent we have in our country. We have the most educated citizens in the world, yet we have lost so much and made so many mistakes over the last nine years. It is troubling, but indicative.

    When we look at what went on with the green slush fund, we find that a number of policies were not followed. Those policies were set in place so that people would not take advantage of the system. I know some of these numbers have been mentioned before, but we need to continue to talk about them. When we look at what one audit found, there were 10 ineligible projects for almost $60 million, along with 96 cases where conflict-of-interest policies were not followed for $75 million. The list goes on and on.

     There were just under 200 conflicts of interest, where, once again, people with the inside track were able to take money from taxpayers and use it for their best interests. The Liberals say that we should not to worry about, that there is nothing to see. It is our job as parliamentarians to ask those questions and to get to the bottom of it. It is our job to request documents and not have them redacted, so we can see what went on.

     The reason I say that is because we saw what went on before, such as with the Winnipeg lab. If we think about it, we had researchers in Canada who were working for the Chinese Communist Party. People who were trusted were working in a level 4 laboratory. When we requested documents, coincidentally just before the election, the Liberals basically said that we did not need them, that it was not our concern, that we did not need to worry about it. To me, that is very troubling.

    If we look at what happened with the Winnipeg lab and if we look at what is going on with the SDTC, it gives us an indication of some of the challenges we are having with the economy. I am talking about where we are right now when it comes to GDP per capita.

     The other challenge we have right now is that small businesses are hurting. Small businesses help create jobs in our country. I have a number articles in front of me. If we look at them, Canadian businesses are struggling big time. Business closures are up almost 5% over historical averages. Business openings are down 4.5%, below historic averages. The number of active businesses that are down are over 2,000. Business failures went up in 2023. Small businesses have had the highest numbers of insolvency in the last 36 years.

     Small businesses have never recovered from the pandemic. They took on additional debt. Two or three small businesses took additional pandemic debt. They were promised a rebate, and we just learned this week it will possibly go out two or three years late. In fact, a number of businesses will probably not get that because they have already closed.

    This shows us just how out of touch the government is when it comes to the economy, when it comes to how we create jobs, when it comes to what we do to help grow our economy and ensure people have food on their table. I have not even started to talk about what is going on with food bank usage. I have not even talked about the fact that people are skipping meals. There is not one part of the economy on which the government would get a passing grade. It is failing on almost every account.

    When I come back after question period, I want to talk a bit more about some of the challenges we are facing.

    Mr. Speaker, creating opportunities for young people is the reason I got into politics more than a decade ago.

    It is why I appreciate the impact of the Canada summer jobs program back home.

     Each year, Canada summer jobs provides wage subsidies to non-profits, faith groups, small businesses, universities and municipalities.

    This lets them keep doing good and grow the economy.

    The return we get from the program is enormous. It provides and creates work experiences for our youth; helps young Canadians enter the job market and succeed; and ensures we support our businesses and community organizations. Since 2021, I have been proud to secure over $2.8 million in CSJ funding for youth and employers in Halifax West, creating well over 800 jobs.

    From Maskwa and the Mount to our soccer clubs, day camps and francophone establishments, that support is making a huge difference. That is the value of a government and a member of Parliament that believe in investing in people and communities.

    Mr. Speaker, sadly, our Canadian society is divided. If we watch political discourse, turn on the news or follow social media, it appears that hatred, conflict and disagreement are the norm in this country. That is not how things should be. How do we change it?

    May I suggest kindness? With growing fears, anxieties and unrest, kindness is something our country is desperate for. Kindness is a language we can all speak as it is not restricted by cultures, ideologies or borders. The Bible says in Ephesians 4:32 that we ought to “Be kind and compassionate to one another”. Instead of walls, kindness builds bridges.

    Kindness is not always easy, as it takes courage to be kind in the face of hostility or indifference. We do not have to compromise our values or agree with everything and everyone in order to be kind. We need to just treat others with dignity and respect, even when, or especially when, we disagree.

    It is always the right time to do the right thing. Let us seek to understand, listen without judgment, offer to help others and smile. Today and every day, let us choose kindness.

     Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to His Excellency Andrea Ferrari, whose distinguished tenure as ambassador of Italy to Canada is soon coming to a close.

    I extend my heartfelt gratitude to Mr. Ferrari for his invaluable contributions over the past several years. His unwavering support for the Italian Canadian community, of which I am a proud member, is rooted in deep appreciation of the rich cultural traditions we share and has been a cornerstone of fostering stronger bonds between our two nations.

    His commitment to the success of the Italian Canadian business community has also played a crucial role in strengthening the economic ties between Canada and Italy. Ambassador Ferrari has also worked tirelessly in order to ensure that both countries capitalize on their shared strengths and has promoted our continued collaboration in upholding the global rule of law.

    On behalf of all Canadians, I offer my warmest thanks and best wishes to His Excellency in his future endeavours.

    To Andrea I say tanti auguri di successo e grazie mille.

    Mr. Speaker, on November 14 and 15, the Bloc Québécois held its fourth fishery forum in Caraquet, New Brunswick.

    Quebec and the Maritimes are not just linked by language, culture and a large part of our history. They are also linked by a big blue, the St. Lawrence River, the St. Lawrence Estuary and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, as well as everything that lives in and around these waterways.

    This process was a sincere attempt to hear from various stakeholders, fisheries experts, and to develop solutions for fishers, processors and organizations related to marine ecosystems. Our goal is, of course, to protect the resource and its biodiversity, but there is a critical species that is becoming extinct, and that is fishers.

    I want to recognize the important contributions of scientist Lyne Morissette, seal expert Gilles Thériault, our host in Caraquet Jean Lanteigne, our moderator Gastien Godin, and of course, all of the shrimp, crab, pelagic, lobster and other fishers.

    I thank them for their impeccable science in the interest of the survival of the Atlantic fishery.

    Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to acknowledge the excellent work done by Royal Canadian Legion Branch 632 to support our veterans. I want to take this opportunity to thank the organizers, Serge Lavoie and Jim Grant, and all the volunteers for their efforts throughout the poppy campaign, which raised just over $150,000. I want to thank the Orléans community for its continued generosity.

     I also want to note that Jean‑Pierre Saab, a teacher at the Garneau Catholic high school, received the Brian-Kilrea award at the 2024 Order of Ottawa award ceremony, which I attended. This award recognizes excellence in an amateur coach who embodies the best qualities of leadership and dedication. Congratulations to Mr. Saab on this tribute. He is an inspiration to our community and to all the young people in Orléans.

     Mr. Speaker, in all the years I have lived in the Hamilton area, I have never seen a crime crisis like this and I have never seen this level of concern for safety among residents in our community. In fact, the president of the Hamilton Police Association recently raised alarm bells about repeat offenders.

     In the Hamilton area, 89% of crimes committed with a firearm are with guns smuggled into Canada from the United States. On top of that, vehicle thefts are up, break-ins are up and shootings are up. Shockingly, just 30 individuals in Hamilton are responsible for 196 charges. That is not just a statistic; it is a stinging indictment of the Liberal government’s failed justice system. Its soft-on-crime approach is failing people in my community. Dangerous criminals are being released on bail only to reoffend. Canadians deserve to be able to sleep at night without worry.

     Common-sense Conservatives will fix this. We will stop the crime; we will enforce jail, not bail; and we will restore safety to Canadian neighbourhoods.

     Mr. Speaker, I need to draw members' attention to the critical situation in Iran, particularly regarding its domestic repression.

    Maryam Akbari is a woman languishing in jail despite finishing her 15-year prison term for seeking justice for her siblings, which is truly an alarming atrocity. Recently, Varisheh Moradi, a Kurdish woman, was sentenced to death in another sham trial in Tehran's revolutionary court. Women prisoners in Evin prison chanted protest slogans such as “Death to the dictator” and “Our lives may go, our heads may fall, but freedom will never be lost”, demonstrating their resilience in the face of oppression. The number of executions in Iran since President Pezeshkian came to power in August has exceeded 500, setting a record even by this regime's norms.

    I stand, and I believe we stand, in solidarity with female political prisoners urging the international community to demand an independent investigation and advocate for their release.

     Mr. Speaker, on November 30, 1874, one of the world's greatest statesmen, Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, was born. He was an accomplished officer in the British army but caught the political bug, rising to become democracy's greatest defender in the 20th century. His leadership during World War II saved Britain and the world from Nazi tyranny and preserved the very foundations of the freedoms we enjoy today. Prime minister twice, he was a prolific writer and, in 1953, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature for his historical writings and speeches. While he faced many physical and mental health challenges, he did so with grace and dignity.

     Many books have been written about Sir Winston Churchill, including James B. Conroy's 2023 The Devils Will Get No Rest: FDR, Churchill, and the Plan That Won the War. Churchill's quote “The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty” has inspired me time and again.

    I thank Sir Winston and wish him a happy birthday.

    Mr. Speaker, after nine years of this Liberal government, life has become unbearable for Canadians. Rents have doubled, mortgage payments and down payments are out of reach, and food banks are serving record numbers of people every month.

    Who is enabling this catastrophic management of the economy? The Bloc Québécois. Instead of being there for Quebeckers, it is being there to serve the Liberal Prime Minister's interests. The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of 100% of the Liberals' spending, including $500 billion in votes to grow the federal bureaucracy. Instead of voting for measures to reduce debt and taxes, the Bloc Québécois has been enabling all of the Liberal government's out-of-control spending.

    This government is spending more than ever and making Canadians pay the price. Conservatives have a plan to fix the budget. We are going to shrink the public service and reinvest in families, because Canadians and Quebeckers deserve something better than the Liberal-Bloc coalition, which costs them too much and gives them too little.

     Mr. Speaker, as we approach the holiday season, our government is making it easier for Canadians to celebrate by removing the GST and HST on a wide range of essential goods.

    Starting December 14, Canadians can enjoy prepared food like vegetable trays, pre-made meals and sandwiches without worrying about added tax. Whether it is dining in or ordering takeout, restaurant meals are also exempt. Snacks like granola bars are also included because we know how important it is to have those treats during the holidays. For those raising young families, children's clothing, car seats, diapers and even toys like board games, as well as books, print newspapers and puzzles are also tax-free.

    These are just a few of the many items that will make the holidays a little more affordable for Canadians. This is our government's way of ensuring the holidays are a time of joy and celebration for all.

     Mr. Speaker, after nine years, the Liberal government is not worth the crime or the chaos. Just this week, a Winnipeg police officer was stabbed in the neck during an arrest at a shopping mall. While I am relieved to hear that the officer is recovering, incidents like these are happening far too often under the Liberal government.

    The 50% increase in violent crime since the Liberal government came to power is a direct result of the Prime Minister's soft-on-crime catch-and-release policies. The Liberals made life easier for violent criminals by repealing mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes with Bill C-5, made it easier to get bail with Bill C-75 and failed to stop the flow of illegal guns across the U.S. border.

    Canadians deserve a common-sense Conservative government that will ensure repeat violent offenders remain behind bars while awaiting trial and will bring back mandatory jail time for serious violent crimes. A Conservative government will bring home safe streets.

    Mr. Speaker, after nine years of NDP-Liberal policy failures, there is only one person keeping the Prime Minister in power and that is the leader of the NDP.

    Do colleagues remember the NDP leader's big stunt when he told Canadians he had ripped up the coalition deal with the Liberals? It was a scam on voters of Elmwood—Transcona right before a by-election. Since that by-election, he has forgotten all those nasty words about the Liberals. He continues to support the carbon tax, sending Canadians to food banks in record numbers. This is a tax that even the NDP Premier of B.C., David Eby, said he would scrap.

    The NDP-Liberals' soft-on-crime policies have led to a 50% increase in violent crime, and their hard drug legalization that fuels crime, chaos, death and destruction in our communities is a failed social experiment. Every day the Prime Minister remains in power is because of the leader of the NDP. It is time for Canadians to have their say in a carbon tax election now.

     Mr. Speaker, the holidays are a time for joy, for family and friends, and for giving back. For far too many Canadians, the rising cost of living adds stress to this special season.

    We know the government cannot set prices at the checkout, but it can help put more money back into Canadians' pockets. That is why, starting December 14, we are lifting the GST and HST on many essential goods over the holiday season. This means no taxes on groceries, restaurant meals, children's clothing and toys. Even the family Christmas tree will have GST and HST taken off this holiday season. Grandpa will be buying a lot of presents for Arianna. By making many essential goods GST and HST free, we will be delivering meaningful savings for Canadians with real relief at the cash register.

     Uqaqtittiji, Inuit are strong. Inuit are still here. Inuit will thrive.

    James Partridge, Felix Shappa Taqaugaq, Trey Angoshadluk and Solomon Uyarasuk are a few Nunavummiut who have either been hospitalized or died while at the hands of law enforcement. I thank their families for sharing some of their stories with me. I grieve with those who lost their loved ones. I share their demands for justice for their loved ones. We must keep their names alive until there is justice for them. Despite the efforts of colonial and genocidal policies, Inuit are strong. Inuit are still here. Inuit will thrive.

    [Member spoke in Inuktitut]

    Mr. Speaker, again this year, Canada ranks 62nd out of 67 in environmental performance. That is shameful. While Canada can only show failure after failure on the international stage, there is nothing but crickets from the Conservative side.

    Is the COP29 failure symptomatic of Canada's failure in the fight against climate change? I would say so. Discussions in both Baku and here result in insufficient compromises and vague promises. There are no bold measures to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Why?

    I have attended several COPs since the Paris Agreement, and I have noted the increasingly expected presence of oil producers, who seem to assume that their interests prevail over those of the planet. Their interference raises questions about the integrity and effectiveness of these global summits.

    However, I remain confident, because not everyone is fooled by oil and gas companies while mesmerized by crickets.

    Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister said she wanted to “help Canadians get past that vibecession”.

    I am not exactly sure what that means, but I do know that the Deputy Prime Minister has unleashed nine years of economic vandalism on Canadians. Canadians are poorer now than they were nine years ago. She might think that this is just bad vibes, but it is a fact from Statistics Canada. Half a trillion dollars have left Canada for the United States and have taken thousands of jobs with them. Does she think that those are just bad vibes? Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that, if Canadians are lined up at the food bank or cannot afford rent or their mortgage, it is their fault for having bad vibes?

    Taxes are up, costs are up, the deficit is up and time is up. Canadians are desperate for change. They are ready for a common-sense Conservative government that would axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. I will leave the Deputy Prime Minister alone if she wants to talk about vibecessions.

     Mr. Speaker, Conservatives pretend that they want to lower taxes, but when push comes to shove, they vote against it. Starting December 14, many items would be tax-free, and Canadians would be able to keep more of their money in their pockets, but not if the grinch in the Conservative bench has his way.

    Today, with Christmas around the corner, many people are looking forward to the spirit of giving. We are hoping more families will have the opportunity to celebrate. I say to all members to not be humbugs. Let us pass this tax cut and help everyone enjoy a very merry Christmas.

     Mr. Speaker, we need a plan for security and the economy that puts Canada first. The Prime Minister has known for months that Trump was threatening tariffs. The only plan he has at the moment is a Zoom call. There is no plan to reverse the drug liberalization policy that is of such concern to the Americans. There is no plan to fix the chaos the Prime Minister has caused at our borders. There is no plan to cancel the tax increases that are hurting our economy during this time of uncertainty.

    Where is the plan to put Canada first?

     Mr. Speaker, I had a good call with Donald Trump last night. I pointed out that we have been working together for years—for decades—to create prosperity on both sides of the border. By working together, we can solve the challenges we face together and create growth and prosperity for all.

    We will always stand up for Canadian jobs and workers. We are going to do it with a team Canada approach that transcends partisanship, because we know that things work when we join forces. That is why I spoke with Premier Ford and Premier Legault last night, and we will keep working together to stand up for Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, apparently the call did not work, because just a few minutes later, President Trump threatened Canada with tariffs. It is the same thing with softwood lumber and the Buy America program. After three presidents, in nine years, this Prime Minister has not made any gains for Canada.

    Now, he has admitted that he broke the immigration system. We know that there are 700 international students in Canada who have to leave the country in about a year's time. They could illegally go south into the United States, which would pose a serious economic threat.

    What is the Prime Minister's plan to fix the immigration system that he broke?

    Mr. Speaker, there are international students who come from all over the world to study in Canada. They are here while they are going to school. Once they finish their studies, they return home. That is what happens in the vast majority of cases. We have measures in place to follow up, if people choose not to go home.

    We have an immigration system that responds to the challenges we are currently facing. That is why we slowed things down and reduced immigration to Canada to give our economy time to catch up. That is part of an immigration system that works and that responds to the needs of the time.

     Mr. Speaker, we need a plan for the economy and for security that puts Canada first, but, despite the fact the Prime Minister has known for years that Trump was threatening these tariffs, and for three weeks that Donald Trump had won the election, the only plan he has is a Zoom call. There is no plan to reverse his disastrous liberalization of the drugs that have killed people and now threaten our borders, no plan to fix the broken borders that he caused and no plan to cancel the tax increases that will drive billions of dollars and many jobs away.

    Where is the plan to put Canada first?

    Mr. Speaker, instead of panicking and falling back on slogans, like the Leader of the Opposition does, we rolled up our sleeves and are getting to work. We are working with all the premiers, pulling together in a team Canada approach, because that is how we defend Canadian jobs from coast to coast to coast.

    I spoke with Donald Trump yesterday evening. We talked about how important it was for us to not only work together to solve some of the challenges we are facing as a continent and as countries, but also work to grow our economies and protect our workers on both sides of the border. This is the responsible, methodical approach we are taking as we move forward, while our opponent falls back on slogans and fear.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister spoke with the incoming president and, moments later, Mr. Trump put out a tweet slapping a 25% tariff on Canada. That worked about as well as the Prime Minister's efforts on buy America and softwood lumber, which continue to be penalized even though the previous Conservative government got both of those things lifted.

    Let us move over to drugs. The Prime Minister's disastrous legalization and liberalization of drugs has the Americans worried, in addition to costing 47,000 deaths in Canada. Where is the plan to stop the drugs and keep our border open to trade?

     Mr. Speaker, once again the Leader of the Opposition is just making stuff up. I clearly spoke with the President of the United States an hour and a half after he put out his suggestion on tariffs.

    The reality is that we are going to continue to work constructively with the incoming administration to protect Canadian jobs, to protect Canadian growth and to take the responsible approach, which is not steeped in partisanship, but that pulls together the team Canada approach that stands up for Canadians, instead of throwing our arms up and saying that all is broken, like the Leader of the Opposition does.

    Mr. Speaker, that is even worse. The statement went out promising tariffs before they even had a chance to speak. It is kind of like the Prime Minister backing down on buy America and backing down on softwood lumber.

    Now let us move to the tariffs the Prime Minister wants to impose on our economy. Quadrupling the carbon tax to 61¢ a litre would cripple our economy. New tax increases on work and energy would do likewise, sending hundreds of billions of dollars south of the border.

     Now that Canadians are facing this economic crisis, will the Prime Minister at least cancel his plan to hike taxes so we can save jobs?

    Mr. Speaker, we see once again the Leader of the Opposition flailing and inventing stuff to try to fit his preferred attacks into his priorities. The reality is that we are going to continue to work constructively with the incoming administration to do what Canada and the U.S. have always done, which is to create prosperity together and protect jobs on both sides of the border as we grow the economy.

    When it comes to drugs, we have taken serious steps on that, and we will continue to. If the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting he wants to recriminalize marijuana, let him just say that.

    Mr. Speaker, as the past few days and hours have shown, we are about to go through a time of major insecurity in Parliament over issues related to trade, protectionism and a rather aggressive diatribe of words. This should be a time to reassure and unite people and to project a sense of security, especially economic security. This effort should begin with the most fragile and vulnerable members of society.

    Does the Prime Minister want to consider adjusting his plan to hand out cheques so as to give retirees a sense of security?

    Mr. Speaker, we know how much Canadians are struggling. That is why we are going to give everyone a tax holiday in the coming months on groceries, children's clothing and many more items that people regularly buy.

    We are also looking at ways to recognize the heavy burden that workers across the country have carried over the past few years by protecting the economy, investing in their future, and supporting their loved ones. We want to recognize the work and the challenges faced by hard-working Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, other workers came before today's workers. I am talking about people who worked their whole lives, who have paid taxes all their lives, who have nowhere else to turn. The government is handing out cheques to people who do not need them and denying cheques to those who need them most.

    Does he not think that if he lowers the amount for the cheques he gives out, and gives that money to the pensioners who need it, everyone here would likely agree with this massive improvement to his plan?

    Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are struggling in different ways. That is why we are investing in more child care spaces and in a Canada child benefit that increases every year, for example. We are also helping seniors by providing a dental care program. In 2015, we increased the guaranteed income supplement by 10%, and we increased old age security for seniors aged 75 and over.

    We also want to be there for other groups of Canadians, like those who work hard and yet are still struggling. That is why we are going ahead with this measure.

     Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump's threats of tariffs could threaten hundreds of thousands of Canadian mortgage-paying jobs. The only thing a bully responds to is strength. Where is our plan to fight back? Where is the war room? Where is a concrete plan to bring our issue before CUSMA?

    Why is the Prime Minister not fighting like hell for Canadian jobs?

    Mr. Speaker, rather than panicking, we are engaging in constructive ways to protect Canadian jobs, as we have before. I do not think the idea of going to war with the United States is what anyone wants. What we will do is stand up for Canadian jobs, as we have before and as we will continue to do. We will stand up for the prosperity we create when we work together, stand up for the challenges we are facing and protecting Canadians from. There is work we can do together. That is the work we will do seriously and methodically, but without freaking out the way the leader of the NDP seems to be.

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians cannot afford for the government to ignore this problem. It needs to take it seriously because Canadians cannot afford another letdown.

    Trump's attacks were no surprise. We knew they were coming. However, the Prime Minister chose to turn a blind eye and say that everything was fine. Thousands of jobs are at stake.

    Why did he fail to react to Donald Trump's threats?

    Mr. Speaker, seriously defending Canada's economy means not giving in to panic or fear. It means standing up for the principle that we in North America are most successful when we work together. We are going to work with the U.S. administration to address the challenges and differences we both face as nations. We are going to work together to create prosperity for our workers and defend our workers, as we have done in the past and as we will continue to do in the future. Now is not the time to panic. Now is the time to work hard, and that is exactly what we are doing.

    Mr. Speaker, we need a Canada first plan to fix what the Prime Minister has broken. The first time he went head-to-head with Trump, the Prime Minister was forced into accepting humiliating concessions on agriculture, steel tariffs and buy American. That was when Canada had a stronger position, thanks to a decade of low-tax, pro-job Conservative policies.

    After nine years of economic vandalism, the Prime Minister has put Canada in an extremely vulnerable position. Per capita GDP is now lower than it was nine years ago; Canada has the most indebted households among our trading partners. We have the worst housing inflation, and food prices have risen 37% faster here than in the U.S. Now that he is negotiating from a position of weakness, why should Canadians expect any—

     The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Export Promotion and International Trade.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear: We will always be there to protect Canadian workers and Canadian businesses. We have been there for Canadians before, when we renegotiated NAFTA. I remind the member opposite that it was the Conservatives who wanted us to capitulate during that time, but we stood strong. That is a testament to the facts: Canada-U.S. trade was at an all-time high last year of $1.3 trillion. Canada places the highest priority on trade and the integrity of our shared border. We look forward to working with the incoming administration.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was forced to accept humiliating concession after concession. Now he has kneecapped Canada's economy: He has slapped on a massive carbon tax here, but the U.S. does not have one at all. He is raising taxes on investing in Canada while the U.S. is fighting to attract investment there. He has imposed a production cap on Canadian energy, meaning that Canada will produce less of what the U.S. needs to buy. He has under 60 days left to act.

    It is time for the Prime Minister to put aside his partisanship, his ideology and his ego. Will he strengthen Canada's position by cancelling his carbon tax and all tax hikes on jobs and investments?

    Mr. Speaker, we will take no lessons from the Conservatives. Their strategy last time was to capitulate. On this side of the House, as the Prime Minister said, our plan is to be serious and methodical.

    We have been engaging with our U.S. partner on three key things. First is security of the borders, the north and the Arctic. Second is a resilient supply chain when it comes to semiconductors, critical minerals and energy. Third is putting forward a growth plan for North America. On this side of the House, we will fight for Canadians, we will fight for industry and we will fight for our country.

     Mr. Speaker, everywhere we look, we find more evidence of economic carnage. Now we are up against the biggest economic and security superpower, and the government has no plan.

     We need a Canada first plan to fix what the Prime Minister broke. When he took office, our GDP per capita was 81% of the U.S.'s. Now it has fallen to 73%. It is a made-in-Canada problem, and it is not about vibes. It is driven by higher taxes, higher spending, higher regulation and the government's economic vandalism.

     Now that it is faced with the threat of tariffs, when is the government going to stop the vandalism and start fixing the crisis so that Canadians have a chance?

     Mr. Speaker, when the Conservative Party of Canada wanted us to back down during the last round of NAFTA negotiations, we stood up for Canada. We stood up for Canadian workers. We stood up for the steelworkers in Canada. We stood up for Canadian auto workers. We stood up for our farmers and agricultural workers.

    The Conservatives want to know what the plan is; we plan to do it again and to get a win-win for Canada and the United States.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals themselves backed down last time, and Canada has become poorer than Alabama since then. That is not a record anybody should be proud of.

     Our productivity gap with the U.S. costs every Canadian $32,000 a year. Average returns on investment are 35% higher in the U.S. than in Canada. Our government's plan is to quadruple the carbon tax. They doubled housing prices. They increased taxes on work and investment.

     With the threat of crippling tariffs, will the Prime Minister end all the tax increases so that Canadians stand a chance?

     Mr. Speaker, we have an excellent relationship with the United States, a relationship that is mutually beneficial. We do enormous amounts of trade with the United States, and the United States depends on Canada for much of its energy supply.

    The Conservatives want to know what the plan is. Our plan is to continue to work with the United States in order to protect Canadian jobs and to protect the Canadian economy, making it grow for everyone.

    Mr. Speaker, after nine years of this Prime Minister, we need a plan to put Canada first and to put an end to his economic vandalism.

    The Prime Minister has broken the immigration system. He is incapable of protecting the border. He has ruined our economy with a huge debt, and, on top of that, our young people have lost all hope of ever buying a home.

    What is the Prime Minister's plan to put Canada first and to protect the future of all young Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, we will take no lessons from the Conservatives. The last time they proposed a strategy, they wanted us to capitulate to the Americans.

    We on this side of the House plan to do things seriously and methodically. As the Prime Minister said, we have been speaking with our American counterparts for months now. We are talking about security-related issues, including border security, Arctic security and northern security. We are talking about the resilience of our supply chains for semiconductors, critical minerals and energy. We are putting forward a growth plan for North America.

    We will always be there to defend Canadian workers, Canadian industry and, of course, Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, what we know is that after nine years, this Prime Minister has failed spectacularly and often.

    What is his plan to put Canada first? He failed at the border. He failed on softwood lumber. He created chaos in the immigration system. He wanted to erase the identity of our passports. He is responsible for the higher grocery prices, which increased 37% faster than in the United States.

    What is the Prime Minister's plan to put Canadians first?

    Mr. Speaker, what the Conservatives do not want to talk about is the record investment Canada received in 2023.

    Last year, Canada received nearly $60 billion in investments. There were record investments in the automotive industry, for example. There were record investments in critical minerals. There were record investments in the energy sector. Canada is becoming the top strategic partner in industry decarbonization. Canada will be a leader in artificial intelligence. Canada will be a leader in nuclear energy.

    Canada will be the country of the 21st century.

    Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump wants to impose a 25% tariff on all Quebec and Canadian products. That would be a disaster for us and for Americans.

    First, we appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister has agreed to meet with his Quebec and provincial counterparts tomorrow. However, he will have to present a clear plan. He needs to take immediate action to protect supply management with Bill C-282. Ottawa needs to show that it will not give in when it comes to our softwood lumber, aluminum and aerospace industries or the Quebec economy as a whole.

    Does the Prime Minister have a plan to present to his counterparts?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question. As the Prime Minister indicated earlier, he will be meeting with the provincial premiers, including Premier Legault. Obviously, we will stand up for workers in our aerospace and aluminum industries, as well as for Quebec's emerging battery industry.

    Obviously, now is not the time to panic. Now is the time to take a team Canada approach to promote our country's comparative advantages and ensure that we defend all of our industries and all of our workers.

    Mr. Speaker, Trump's tariffs are meant to force Canada to tighten its borders against illegal immigration and drug trafficking. Quebec has been calling on Ottawa for years to fix the border, which is like a sieve. It has even deployed members of the Quebec provincial police force to patrol the border.

    The Bloc Québécois has been hounding Ottawa to do something about smugglers and organized crime for years. Even before Trump was elected, we were already calling for more resources at the border. Despite all of these warnings, Ottawa did nothing. Now, our economy is being threatened by Trump's tariffs.

    Do the Liberals now understand that they need to take action at the border?

    Mr. Speaker, we do understand the importance of supporting our police forces, the RCMP and border services, but we did not just realize it now. We have been doing exactly that for the past nine years.

    We have exactly the same interests as the Americans, namely, to strengthen the integrity of our border and to enable Canadians to choose who enters Canada.

    It is the same thing for the United States. We have a history of co-operating with the U.S. on a day-to-day basis. That is exactly what we will continue to do.

     Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister needs to announce that he is finally taking responsibility at the borders. He needs to announce how he is going to plug the holes in the border by January.