Yves Perron · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

2026-06-18

“I wish everyone a good summer. Many people help us do our jobs. I want to thank all of them. I am working for Quebec. Thank you to the voters for letting us represent you. Happy holidays. See you in September.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, now it is my turn to wish my colleagues safe travels back to their ridings and a summer filled with sunny days, BBQs and corn boils. This session, we saw opposition members crossing the floor almost as often as we saw the Prime Minister crossing the Atlantic. We now have a majority government and a Prime Minister with a whole lot of air miles. That caused a lot of upheaval and so it is time to step back and take a little break. I want to thank all those who help us to do our jobs as parliamentarians, starting with the indispensable interpreters and the entire translation team, who remind us that we are not the only ones who take French seriously in Ottawa. I want to thank them. I also want to sincerely thank the entire team of clerks, law clerks and analysts who help us to be as effective and well-informed as possible in both the House and committee. I would like to thank the pages, the members of the Parliamentary Protective Service, the wonderful cafeteria staff and the maintenance crew, without whom we would never be able to use the parliamentary elevators, although I do not often take them, and the IT technicians, without whom we would never be able to unlock our phones after changing our password for the 40th time in three weeks. Did I put three exclamation points or four? I forget. I want to thank the entire Sergeant-at-Arms' team, the shuttle drivers and all the House staff I may have unintentionally overlooked. I would also like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, as well as those who occupy the chair in your absence. You are all outstanding in this role. We greatly appreciate your impartiality, most of the time, indeed nearly all of the time. We are grateful for your work. I thank my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois and in all the other parties, as well as the independent members. The government House leader and the Conservative whip will surely allow me to point out that we are working for the common good, but in the meantime, we are also preparing the country of Quebec. That is an important clarification. I thank the ministerial staff, the staff working in constituency offices and our assistants on the Hill. At the same time, I would like to say a quick word of acknowledgement for my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, who has decided to move on to explore new horizons. Our esteemed comrade-in-arms will be missed. I want to thank our constituents for the honour of allowing us to represent them. I also want to thank our family members, who sometimes miss us when we are not around, but later realize that our absence can be a refreshing experience too. On behalf of myself and the Bloc Québécois, I wish all Quebeckers a wonderful national holiday. I also wish all of our brothers and sisters in francophone minority communities across Canada a very happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. Lastly, to our first nations brothers and sisters, have a wonderful June 21. I hope everyone has a great summer, and I look forward to seeing my colleagues again in September.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

2026-06-18

“I want to look good by naming a famous group.”

“I don't have much to say. I want farmers to think I'm on their side. Everyone in parliament likes to say 'science' a lot. I also said 'science'. I'm not sure most of them know what it means.”

“Don't sell our airports just to claim a quick win! Keep them public and Canadian-owned.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to my colleague because, unfortunately, in a 10-minute speech, there is not enough time to cover everything, and this is an issue of the utmost importance. The fact that they want to sell the airports simply to improve the bottom line in six months shows that we are dealing with people who cannot see beyond the end of their nose and who figure they will deal with the problems later. If we sell the airports to the private sector, it will increase costs for individuals. Some infrastructure must remain public. Not only do we oppose foreign companies from China or anywhere else buying these assets, but we also believe they should remain public. We must retain control of our strategic infrastructure. This is fundamental.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't like how the Liberals are rushing this bill at the last minute. They should have planned better! They're making us all work long hours to make up for it.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague enjoyed my speech. That is nice. However, I will tell him that the Liberals are going to beat Stephen Harper if they continue on this path. They are going to break the record. That is not the way to do it. In my opinion, if, a few months ago, the Liberals had included in the calendar the bills they wanted to deal with on a priority basis for June instead of forcing us to deal with them two weeks before the end of the parliamentary session, forcing everyone to work until midnight and then get up at 6 a.m. to start all over, that would have made sense. We could have developed a work plan and worked together. They did not even talk to us about Bill C‑30 beforehand. The government should talk to us before introducing bills, and we can make proposals to speed things up.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm filling time with kind words. I want to talk about this bill. My party doesn't like it. I don't like pesticides. I don't think the minister knows about pesticides. I don't like that other parties won't stop this. I think this is very bad.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in Parliament on what we sincerely hope is the last day before we rise for the summer. I would first like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my very gracious and delightful colleague from Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan. To begin, I will also take a moment to offer some acknowledgements, as my colleague before me did. I want to thank everyone around us here, the House staff, especially the interpreters, but also the staff who work for us in our ridings. I want to mention Lyne, Dominique, Zachary, Victor and Thierry. Thierry works in both places. He is here in the whip's office with Carl, Paule, Steeve, Marilène, Marjorie, Michel and Benjamin. What a dream team. I would be remiss if I did not speak to my constituents. I encourage the people of Berthier—Maskinongé to enjoy the summer and to rest, recharge their batteries and spend time with their families. I look forward to seeing them at our local events. I hope that they can enjoy everything our beautiful region has to offer, whether it is the Festival de la truite mouchetée de Saint‑Alexis‑des‑Monts in the coming weeks, the Festi‑Force de Saint‑Jean‑de‑Matha a little later, the Festival de la Galette de Louiseville in the fall, or other happenings in the magnificent Berthier—Maskinongé region. I invite everyone to visit our farmers' markets. It is essential. The people at these markets are the ones who keep our regional economies going. We need to support them. First of all, we will eat better. It is good for our health and the food tastes better. What is more, it is not any more expensive and it brings incredible vitality to our regions. I go to all the markets. There is a good chance people will run into me and we can chat about all sorts of things if we are at the market at the same time. I would like that. My task today is to discuss Bill C-30. That is not as fun because Bill C-30 took no account whatsoever of the Bloc Québécois' demands. In fact, we were not consulted at all. Bill C-30 was introduced at a time when the government had just cobbled together a majority behind the scenes through backroom deals. I do not know if bribes were paid. I cannot say that because we have no proof. However, there must have been some quid pro quo to convince several elected members to cross the floor, which changed the dynamics and altered the outcome of the election. Negotiating and getting things moving is not an issue, but we are supposed to do that and work together over the long term. Personally, I belong to the school of politicians who believe that an election campaign lasts a month and a half, not four years. In between, we are supposed to work together—the Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc Québécois, New Democrats and all the independents—to move bills forward and work for the common good. Working together does not mean changing people's political allegiances overnight so that the government can make all the decisions without consulting the opposition. That is not the mandate the public gave this government. I am still condemning it, and I will continue to do so for as long as I can. The truth is, this grievance is not going away. Bill C-30 includes a lot of problematic provisions, including those related to pesticides. I spoke about this in my questions to my two colleagues who spoke before me. Everyone knows that agriculture and agri-food matter a lot to me. The people who work in these industries are especially important to me. It is on their behalf that I am speaking today as the former agriculture and agri-food critic. We studied this issue extensively. We heard from farmers in committee, and there was one thing that they strongly objected to. They were not asking for the minister to be given the power to provide them with just about any product upon request or to stop hassling them about health and the environment. Never in my life have I met a single, solitary farmer who has said such a thing to me. However, that is what the government is doing today. As for questions and comments earlier, it is rather mind‑boggling to see how the truth comes out in the House. I asked a colleague what he thought about allowing a minister to authorize pesticides that had been rejected by Health Canada. The colleague said he was sorry, but he did not know much about pesticides so he could not answer me. I appreciated the honest response, but it speaks volumes, because the minister does not know anything about them either. How are ministers appointed? They are appointed based on regional representation and based on whether they are a man or a woman. Cabinet needs to be gender-balanced. They are appointed based on a whole range of factors, and that is fine. That is part of politics. However, they are not microbiologists. They are not experts in the effects of crop protection products on the environment and on the people who apply them. I am not just thinking of the environment, but also of the farmers who are going to apply these pesticides to their fields. If anyone can authorize anything and people fall sick in future years, we will be no better off. While I do not want to indulge in populism, I admit that it is a very tempting slippery slope. With bills like this, it would be easy to get caught up in populism. I complained about the fake majority earlier, and I strongly criticize the fact that the opposition is being muzzled. My colleague who spoke before me talked about this: Time allocation has been moved on 10 bills so far, unless I am mistaken. This government is about to beat the Stephen Harper government's record. That is quite a feat. The Conservatives went down in history for that. I see members laughing, but mark my words, the Liberals are going to set a new record. They have made a good start. It is so appalling. We basically have a Conservative Prime Minister dressed up as a Liberal. Is that not the case? We have a Progressive Conservative government and a Conservative opposition. When it comes time to vote on Conservative measures, not many of us vote “nay” anymore. That is my objective analysis of the current makeup of Parliament. What a mind‑boggling situation. I want to come back to pesticides and herbicides. This is also true for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA. The bill would give it more authority and change its mandate so that it is not limited to food safety, but also includes an economic dimension. What does that mean? Does that mean that, if a certain product does not make people sick, then it should be approved because it would be good for the bottom line? How are these statements supposed to be interpreted? I am not making this up. I read out parts of the bill earlier. It is completely ridiculous. I cannot imagine a bill like this passing. What really surprises me is that there has not been much reaction from the media or the public. Perhaps that is because barbecue season is here and people are not paying as much attention to politics, but these laws are going to be implemented anyway. How long will it take before we see the negative impacts? How many blunders will the minister have to make when it comes to approving these products? At the same time, I am not saying that the problems are not real. I exchanged letters with Alberta's minister of agriculture for some time over the past few years. She told me about a significant problem with rodent infestations in the fields and asked me to approve a product that I was unfamiliar with. I told her that we had to rely on the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, now known as the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate, as well as on Health Canada and the experts. I have made the following comparison in the House before, but this reminds me of the pandemic, when our Conservative friends were asking us to adopt motions to lift the health measures in place for air travel. Members will recall that Canada was one of the last countries to lift them. We agreed, but nobody here is an epidemiologist. We are elected officials with a wide range of backgrounds. What did we say back then? We said that we agreed in principle, but that we needed to add a phrase indicating that this needed to be done in accordance with public health guidelines. That way, we would not just be doing things willy-nilly. We should add such a phrase to our Liberal friends' bill to say that the recommendations of the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate must be followed. The problem is not that the analyses and scientists at these agencies are not good. The problem is that they lack resources and are inefficient. I will give a clear example. Just last week, I read that this agency has finally approved a pilot project to spray pesticides using drones. Spraying these pesticides by airplane from much higher altitudes has been authorized for years. They end up spreading everywhere, including places where they are not needed. It took five years for farmers to be granted permission to apply them in small doses using drones, targeting only the specific areas of the field where they are needed. That is what we were criticizing: inefficiency and, at times, a lack of consistency. We were not asking for just any minister to be given the power to make just any decision. That is utter nonsense. It needs to be changed. We are at the end of the session, everything is being rushed through, and this is going to be passed in the next few hours. As a citizen who cares deeply about the environment and the health of my constituents, my duty is to protect the future of our children and grandchildren. I must inform the public about this. This is very serious.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to tease my opponent and make a jab at the old Conservative government. Then I'm going to ask a gotcha question that assumes my opponent doesn't know anything about pesticides. This is a serious concern and I'm going to make it sound like the minister is incompetent.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I respect my colleague. He has a sharp mind. He is right to speak out against closure, because this situation is deplorable. It is plain to see that at this rate, the Liberal government will surpass the record set by Stephen Harper's Conservative government. His party apparently holds the record. He can correct me if I am wrong. I was just teasing. The question that I want to ask him is the same one I asked another member. I am very concerned about the minister being given the power to approve a pesticide that has been rejected by Health Canada. The other member replied that he could not answer because he did not know anything about pesticides. What worries me is that that is the whole problem: The minister does not know either. That raises serious concerns for us. What does my colleague think of this situation?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want you to say whether you agree the minister should be able to approve a Health Canada banned pesticide.”

Oral Questions

Democratic Institutions

2026-06-16

“The Prime Minister's bills will pass. But he keeps stopping debate. I don't like that. He wants his bills to pass, but he's also hiding things in them. He's hiding bad things. And people won't notice because he's rushing. I don't like that. Why can't he respect our rules and our jobs?”

“I want to paint my opponent as evil. I'm trying to throw shade on the Prime Minister so he looks bad. If I convince people the Prime Minister is anti-democratic, my party looks better.”

Oral Questions

Seniors

2026-06-12

“I want the minister to delay her reform. She should give more time for small groups to do the new paperwork. It's not fair to disqualify them if they can't register in time. Our volunteers need empathy.”

“The government made it harder for seniors' community projects to qualify for funding. Now they have to register as a business within a month or get rejected. The Secretary of Seniors told volunteers to 'figure it out themselves.' That's not enough time! The government shouldn't treat these community groups so badly.”

Statements by Members

Michelin-Starred Inn in Mauricie

2026-06-12

“I want to cheer for a business in my riding. I like the food. That makes me happy. It won an award. Let's give it some free advertising. I think that's a good use of my speaking time today.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, June 12 is Quebec buy local day. To celebrate, I invite my colleagues to treat themselves to an unforgettable getaway at Auberge Saint-Mathieu, an inn in Saint-Mathieu-du-Parc that is renowned for its superlative cuisine. After earning a green star from the famous Michelin Guide last year, this exceptional establishment was honoured once again this year with its first Michelin red star. These prestigious accolades recognize not only culinary excellence and refined flavours, but also this idyllic resort's deep commitment to sustainable gastronomy. At this country inn nestled in a picture-perfect forest, chef Samy Benabed, who also won the Michelin Guide Quebec 2026 Young Chef Award, crafts locally sourced cuisine, harmoniously blending smoky barbecue aromas with Quebec spices and citrus fruits. Congratulations to the entire team on this inspiring blend of flavours, local ingredients, and respect for the environment.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

2026-06-12

“I don't like that politicians can decide to use dangerous chemicals for vague economic reasons. It might hurt nature and people. I'm not reassured that the minister can just apply hazardous things. This doesn't fix what farmers actually complained about.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what troubles me about Bill C‑30 are the changes regarding the approval of pesticides and herbicides. Under this bill, for economic reasons or in emergency situations, cabinet will be allowed to decide whether to use hazardous products. These people are not scientists and do not know what impact the use of these chemicals could have on nature, the environment, the plants intended for human consumption and, most importantly, the workers who will be spreading them. I have serious concerns about this. That was not what agricultural groups were complaining about. Their issue was with the inefficiency of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which is now known as the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate. Rather than making this body more efficient, the government is going to let the minister decide when hazardous products can be applied. What does my colleague think about that? Can she offer me any reassurance? I am still not reassured.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Combatting Hate Act

2026-06-11

“I didn't like this bill at first. Too risky for freedom. Someone might abuse it. But now it says the Attorney General has to agree before anyone gets charged. That fixes it. Now the government can pick who gets charged. I'm fine now. I want my colleague to agree.”

Government Orders

Strong and Free Elections Act

2026-06-11

“I want to keep Saint-Sulpice in my riding. My colleague and I work well together, but it can be harder if people are from different parties. Proportional representation would make sure every vote counts and is represented in Parliament.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in response to the first part of my colleague's question, I must unfortunately inform him that I now represent the people of Saint-Sulpice. I love them and I am keeping them. The advantage is that it forces me and my colleague from Repentigny to work together, which is very positive, but it can be more difficult when people come from different political parties. Sometimes, it is even harder if they do not get along. In our case, of course, we are in perfect harmony. I will now talk about proportionality. People need to feel that their vote counts for something. Some people vote for a party that never stands a chance of winning the election. Some ridings are considered strongholds. This concept exists in Quebec, it exists in Canada and it exists pretty much everywhere. In those places, the same political party always wins, because a large segment of the population has rather fixed views. I see one of my colleagues over there who has been an MP for a very long time. It would be surprising if he lost his riding. There are some voters who might want to vote for another political party because they have never had the privilege of meeting the friendly MP who represents them. Sometimes, they do not bother to vote because they tell themselves it does not make a difference. That is where the danger lies. Proportional representation would ensure that, overall, there would be a balance and that the public's vote would be better represented in Parliament.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I have to represent a lot of different areas now. It's a lot of work for me to adapt to each one's needs. Quebec should get to set our own riding boundaries.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is rather unfortunate, but Canada does not take these things into account when it reviews the electoral map. As elected officials, we can meet with members of the electoral commission. They will listen to what we have to say about changes to the riding boundaries. In my case, I was very lucky during the last election. The beautiful area of Saint-Sulpice was added to my riding. In fact, I would like to say hello to the people there. I am very pleased to represent them. It is a gorgeous spot on the St. Lawrence. Every day, I learn more about this magical little corner of the country. However, that means that there is now a fourth RCM in Berthier—Maskinongé, in addition to the city of Trois-Rivières. I am a very versatile and adaptable person. I can represent the specific interests of these people, but it requires a great deal of flexibility on my part because Saint-Sulpice is part of the Montreal metropolitan area. It is in the same riding as Pointe-du-Lac, which is the part of Trois-Rivières that I have the honour to represent. It is another equally wonderful part of the country filled with people I adore, but they have different challenges and perspectives. We need to be more versatile. Perhaps we should take a closer look at Quebec's electoral boundaries during the next electoral redistribution, unless we have become an independent country by then. Let us hope so, Mr. Speaker.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“Quebec is ahead on many things, like childcare. Canada should copy Quebec's policies more often. I want a committee to study election ideas like Quebec's public funding for political parties.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, sometimes Canada looks to what is being done in Quebec, although it typically takes too long to do so, child care being one example. Indeed, we are often out in front. I often say in my speeches that the country of Quebec already exists. I am sure my colleague would agree. We are already very different in terms of our culture, how we organize ourselves, our political culture and our entrepreneurial culture. The fact that we are already a country is also clear from our more progressive and social democratic measures. Child care centres are a good example of this. Perhaps we can see what happens when I officially call on the members opposite—government members who have the power to do this—to set up a committee to review political party funding and even the voting system. Fundamentally, what the people behind this bill want is a more representative voting system. I think that discussion is warranted. We should have it. I call on them to do this and, as always, I am open to collaboration.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I like the new riding name. It's poetic. Good job to the poet who named it. I did talk about political financing earlier. Not many people can afford the maximum donation. Some people who donate a lot might think it will give them influence over the politician. I'm not saying everyone does that, but it could happen. Quebec changed their law to cap donations at $100 and give political parties public funding. I think we should do that too to have a healthy democracy.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague from—and I will take the liberty of referring to the riding by its future name—“Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets”. I do not know if my colleague heard me earlier, but I mentioned that the name is quite poetic. Bravo to our poet from the north. I did also speak about political party financing. I mentioned earlier that few people can afford the maximum donation of $1,750. We have to be realistic. Furthermore, people who can afford it may have an ulterior motive when they donate. They may think they will have some influence over that elected official. I am not saying everyone does that, and I am sure there are people who make this kind of donation who do not think that way. I commend them. However, the risk exists. That is why Quebec amended its law, capping donations at $100 and reinstating public funding for political parties. I think it would be very wise to reinstate public funding for political parties to ensure a healthy democracy.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm filling time with kind words about a musician. Then I'll talk about the elections bill. I'm happy it bans foreign influence and fake messages. But there's one measure I don't like - voters can only sign one candidate's nomination form. That makes their vote public and it's harder for some candidates. I like to debate so I even signed for my opponent once. But this bill limits choices and I think that's wrong. I'm glad it bans anonymous political contributions. That shouldn't have ever been legal. I also happy about more money penalties for violations. We're changing the names of some ridings. It's good that local people chose them together. I wish we went further and restored public funding based on votes, not donations. Too much money in politics means some will have more influence. We should fix that. We should also think hard about riding sizes and representing constituents well. Maybe we should add proportionality. But we can't create distance between MPs and the people. Even my riding is big to drive across. That makes it hard to know everyone. We need to keep that in mind as we change things. Overall I support the bill but I have some concerns.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying hello to a dear friend who will be celebrating a 60-year career this weekend. His name is Normand Branchaud. Early in life, Ti-Nor got his first harmonica for the modest sum of $3.50 by running errands in the village. At age 17, he made his first appearance before an audience at the École Rinfret in Sainte-Ursule and then got up on the back of a truck in a church parking lot one June 24. What a way to kick off a career. He would go on to perform with the Dassonicks, Les Jags and the Cousins Branchaud, and his prolific musical career now continues with the FADOQ Band, which occasionally allows me the honour of joining in. He is also an honorary member of La Bottine Souriante, the band that has made a star of his son Jean-François. Ti-Nor is a fantastic comedic storyteller who still has a lot of music left in him. He often says that he will not stop playing music until his eyes close for the last time, but I bet he will find a way to keep playing on the other side. Hats off to Ti-Nor, and I send him my congratulations on his 60 years in music. With that out of the way, I will return to today's topic, namely Bill C-25, which would amend the Canada Elections Act. We have worked hard to support this bill. It is good to ban foreign influence because it poses a significant risk. Electoral disinformation, spreading false information, is something we have already seen in past elections. Voters have received fake messages directing them to the wrong address, the senders knowing full well that many of them would be discouraged from going on to the correct address if they encountered a problem. I see the member for Terrebonne over there. She went through quite an unusual byelection with 48 candidates, I believe. I do not remember the exact number. It was nuts. One thing this bill would do is put a stop to that. To handle that particular situation, Elections Canada created blank ballots and asked voters to write in the name of their chosen candidate. This approach could lead to error or misinterpretation, especially when people are holding a list of candidates long enough to hit the floor. People with low literacy skills could make mistakes. This kind of thing must not happen again. That is why something had to be done. The bill would also ban “brownies” from leadership races, which used to be legal, apparently. That is hard to fathom. When I heard about it, I was gobsmacked. Obviously something has to be done about it. However, one particular measure worries us, and that is removing the option for a voter to sign more than one nomination form. I think the government has made a mistake. I find this rather regrettable. The Bloc Québécois raised this issue and proposed an amendment, but it was not adopted. There is a problem here. A voter who agrees to sign a nomination form will know that they can sign only one. This is almost like making their vote public. However, it is the voter's privilege to keep their vote secret. I think the government should have preserved that principle. Then there is the issue of more difficult ridings or certain areas where it sometimes takes our candidates time to collect the necessary signatures. This bill would limit people by allowing them to sign only one nomination form. I believe I have said this in the House before, but I think members will be proud of my democratic credentials: I once signed the form of my own political opponent, because I believe in democracy. The guy was nice, I enjoy debating people and I want my constituents to have choices. I think that the government has erred on that score. The ban on accepting anonymous political contributions is a big win, however. I fail to understand why it was legal before. We also support increasing administrative monetary penalties for certain violations. The names of certain ridings are changing. That is the case for three ridings currently held by the Bloc Québécois. Some of our members asked for these changes after consulting with their constituents, local elected officials and the wider community. They came to a consensus. I assume in good faith that the other members from the other political parties did the same thing. The riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon will be called “Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent” going forward. It is a lovely name. The riding of Jonquière will be known as “Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets”. Why not? It is quite poetic. As for the riding of Rimouski—La Matapédia, its member bucked the general trend and proposed expanding the name, because his riding covers such a vast territory. In order to ensure that the riding name reflected everyone in it, the name chosen was “Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques”. I will close with this. I am sure members heard the question I asked my Conservative colleague. Other changes could have been made, including restoring public funding for political parties. Quebec is doing it. Once again, Quebec is ahead of federal legislation. Donations are limited to $100 per person. There is no tax credit, and public funding is paid out based on the number of votes received. That takes the pressure off. In contrast, the federal system allows for a maximum donation of $1,750. As I said in my question earlier, few of us and few of our constituents can afford to donate $1,750. That means that some people with more money might think that, by giving such a significant amount, they might have more influence on the elected member in the future, even if the member is not corrupt. Objectively, we should review that and lower these amounts. That would be very important. There are other things that could have been done. My colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj spoke earlier about the size of the ridings. I just talked about “Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques”. The breath I just took to say the name of the riding helps us understand how big a geographical area it covers. This is getting to be a problem for conscientious members who believe that, in order to represent people, we need to know them. In order to get to know them, we need to meet with them often. In order to meet with them often, we need to travel around our riding. I am lucky in my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé. It has 37 municipalities, which is a lot, but they are concentrated in a fairly small area. I can drive across my riding in an hour and 15 minutes or an hour and a half. Not all members are so lucky. Still, an hour and 15 minutes or an hour and a half by car is not next door. That means that, on any given day in my riding, driving for three hours is routine. It takes me 50 minutes to get to the office, and I live in my riding. It is clear that this is a problem. We should keep this in mind going forward. If we want to revise the method or perhaps introduce proportionality into our electoral system, we will need to keep this in mind. It would be good if the percentage of votes were better represented in Parliament. Some of the more marginal parties that still receive a significant share of the vote could be represented. Conversely, we have to make sure that we do not create distance between members and their constituents, the people they represent, because that is fundamental; it is extremely important. That is what allows us to do our work effectively, while keeping both feet on the ground. That is all I have to say on the matter. We are, of course, in favour of the bill, but we have reservations about limiting the number of signatures.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗