MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Yves Perron

Bloc Québécois Berthier—Maskinongé 97 statements translated

Perron often focuses on how national policies impact his own riding and Quebec generally. He's quick to call out the government for ignoring Quebec's needs or provincial jurisdiction. While he has some substantive policy positions like banning oil subsidies and taxing web giants, many of his comments involve local shoutouts, like praising a restaurant that won an award in his riding.

Oral Questions

Justice

2026-05-29

“The Prime Minister brought up referendum rules first, not us. He's the one eager to meddle. Why is he so eager to prove he'll cheat to win?”

“Why won't you take Quebec seriously? Deep down, you're just another cheater who won't respect our vote unless it goes your way.”

Government Orders

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

2026-05-29

“I want to score political points in Quebec. I think the federal government should give us more money. I will use emotional language about asylum seekers to help me argue for the money.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague a question in French, to give her the opportunity to practise for her next leadership race. One never knows. I want to ask her about the money the federal government owes Quebec. I could talk about the $814 million that was sent out right before the election to buy votes, but I will not go there. I want to ask her about the large numbers of asylum seekers arriving in Quebec. I am sure my colleague would agree that these people need to be taken care of. That costs money, and it falls under federal jurisdiction. We have been asking the federal government to do its part for many years now. We estimate that Ottawa owes Quebec $700 million. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Hypothetically, if she had been elected leader and found herself the Prime Minister of Canada, is that the kind of thing she would do to finally take Quebec's reality into account?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm going to complain that the government is only giving loans to small businesses. That's not enough. They need more help. I think the government wants small businesses to fail. They only care about big companies. The government should work with us to find a solution. That's their job.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, for one, it could have done more than just provide loans, because, eventually, a company's debt level rises dramatically. I just mentioned the wage subsidy. What a wonderful way to preserve the economic fabric of the regions by maintaining the employment relationship between the worker and the company, even if production has to slow down or operations have to stop temporarily. It seems that the government's current intention is to see small businesses disappear and for everything to be concentrated in large companies, because the focus is on helping large companies. I hope that is not the case, but I feel I need to raise the issue publicly. I would like an answer on that. Ordinary people in the regions are asking us for help, asking us for support, and the government should be more present than it is. At the very least, I urge the government to sit down with us so that we can discuss potential solutions. If it does not like this solution, let us find another one that will suit everyone. That is how government is supposed to work for the common good.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't like that the Liberals want all the credit for passing private members' bills. I think the Liberals should talk to the Bloc Québécois more. We have good ideas like wage subsidies for small businesses. But the Liberals didn't talk to us about it. They just want us to vote on the budget this week. I'm not happy about that.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we could spend all day getting caught up in semantics, but the parliamentary secretary is completely mistaken. When private members' bills were passed, the Liberals were in the minority. That is the key difference. I hope they will do it again. They will probably do it for bills that are not controversial. For example, if we vote on the bill establishing Arab heritage month, which is currently under consideration and is a consensus bill, they will take credit for passing private members' bills. When it comes to the substance of the budget, it seems to me that if the parliamentary secretary were even remotely serious, he would take a moment to reflect. He would speak with the members of his party and tell them that he did not come across very well this morning in Parliament and that the Liberals might want to have a little chat with the members of the Bloc Québécois. The parliamentary secretary is talking about attitude, but our attitude has not changed. We are always constructive. He says that a wage subsidy proposal for SMEs is not a good idea. The Liberals do not have to accept it, but they should at least talk to us about it. There was no consultation. We waited three weeks to get a briefing. Now the government is saying that we need to have a vote this week. The answer is written on my face, because I am not allowed to use the words I want to use.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“Compromise can be good. But this government isn't listening to us anymore. They won't even read our proposals. That's tragic.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question, which is an interesting one. Having a minority government forces parties to compromise. Absolute power is never a good thing. When the government has a minority, it is forced to consult with the other parties. If it wants a bill to be passed, it must talk with with the opposition and convince them. The opposition may raise some concerns; it may say that it agrees on one thing, but that another aspect should also be considered. The best thing about that—and I have experienced this over many years—is that, often, the government realizes that it is actually a good idea. They mull it over and may even include it. That is how it worked when we discussed legislation to protect supply management. The trouble at the moment is that the government is not listening to us anymore; I am not even sure they have read our proposals. That is the tragic part about it.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want the government to listen to me. I want them to support our berry alcohol bill. They did it before for mead. They should do it again for us. There are many MPs who should agree with me. The government spends lots on oil companies. They should spend a little on our small businesses.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for her intelligent and logical question. I hope the government is listening when I say that this is essential. This measure has already been implemented in the case of mead, for example. When it was done in committee, it was done quickly, and the amendment was incomplete, because it did not include berry-based alcohol. This is a fundamental measure. There are a lot of members on the other side of the House. The Liberals often boast about having 44 members from Quebec and representing the regions. Many of the members across the aisle have farmers in their ridings. We are not talking about huge sums of money here, unlike the billions of dollars the government is throwing at oil companies. Let us be serious and support small businesses.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You were more cooperative when you needed our votes. Now you have a majority. You don't need us. You're ignoring us. A minority government is better.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, he is not the only one who is disappointed. I am disappointed with that answer. The government talks a good game. It says that it is working co-operatively and that it voted in favour of private members' bills, but that was when there was a minority government. For the past few weeks, the government has had a rigged majority, a manufactured majority. It is a similar story in the previous Parliament. At a certain point, the government made a deal with the NDP and started acting like a majority government. Co-operation happens in a minority setting. That should send an important message to the public. We heard the parliamentary secretary. The best government is a minority government. It helps prevent authoritarian excesses and bills that are passed are reasonable and arise from consensus.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't like this bill. I want the government to listen to my party's ideas. We made 11 proposals but the government won't even talk to us. They have a majority so they don't think they need to. It's insulting that they won't consider our ideas. We're a serious party doing serious work. The government should stop subsidizing oil companies and do more for other priorities. If they want our support they need to respect us and work with us.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we are rather disappointed with Bill C-31. We are disappointed because neither the implementation bill nor the economic update really take into account the current tariff crisis. This serious crisis is affecting businesses in general, but, once again, it has been particularly hard on businesses in Quebec, where these tariffs apply to one-quarter of exports. Smaller businesses have been particularly hard hit. That is something else that makes Quebec unique. When I say that the country of Quebec already exists, I mean that there are already structural differences between Quebec and Canada. Quebec's economy is made up of SMEs, and they need support. They need a government that is there for them and that tells them that we are going through a tough time because our neighbours to the south have an unpredictable president. No one here knows what he will do next. There is nothing worse for the economy and for our businesses than uncertainty, so we have to be there for them, but the government is not taking serious action. Then, the Bloc Québécois put forward 11 requests. That may seem like a lot, but they are reasonable requests. We wanted to put them up for discussion. Ever since I arrived here in 2019, the Bloc Québécois has been an intelligent and constructive opposition. In fact, it is in the Bloc Québécois's DNA to work that way. We are not here to obstruct everything, despite what some may think or say. We are here to move things forward for the common good, at least for the time being, of course, because our ultimate goal remains achieving Quebec's independence. In our day-to-day work here, we are well aware that time is of the essence and that our goal is far from unrealistic. It is essential to the full and comprehensive development of our society, in accordance with its values and, above all, its priorities. It is not that Canada is not a beautiful country. That is not the issue, and this is not directed against Canada. It is really about our own development according to our own choices and priorities. This will certainly be done in partnership with Canada, since Canada will always be an important neighbour. However, we are in Parliament and we have made proposals. We asked our colleagues to look at them and we have not even received a call. There has not even been 12 seconds of consultation. Things were different a few months ago. However, because of some backroom deals, people crossed the floor and the government built itself a majority. Once it had a majority, consultation was over. The government talks a good game. They say that they will continue to work in the common interest and listen to opposition parties, and so on. In fact, the reality is that we get bills like C‑31, for which we did some serious work early on. That is probably the most insulting part of all of this. It is not as though we did not bother to work or as though we just spouted some populist rhetoric and said that the government is bad or rotten. We analyzed the situation. We have a team of researchers and a team of MPs. We are serious. We are dedicated. We came up with real proposals. I get the feeling that the government did not even bother to read them. Of course, we fully expected that some of our proposals would be rejected, such as the idea to reimburse Quebeckers for the money that was stolen from us and used to buy Liberal votes in the last election. We included that out of principle, to make sure no one forgets. We honestly do not understand why this is not generating more reaction in the media. That said, it seems to me that the government should have considered some of the other proposals. After all, it claims to be reasonable. Bill C-31 is a major, complex bill that is several hundred pages long and that contains numerous amendments. Once again, and this sums up the essence of my speech this morning, the Bloc leader's office requested, in good faith and in a constructive way, a briefing session on the subtleties and specific features of the bill. We waited more than three weeks before that briefing was held. It took place this week. At the same time, we are expected to pass this bill as soon as possible. The answer is going to be no. We cannot hand over a blank cheque for such important, large-scale measures while the government continues to expand its subsidies to the oil and gas industry, for example. Enough is enough. Let us be serious and work together. This government has three years left, if it manages to hold on to its majority. People may get fed up, like the former environment minister, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who announced this week that he is leaving politics. Now that is really something, forcing someone like him to leave politics. That means that the Liberals have pushed things too far when it comes to the highly polluting oil from the west. That is also part of the issue. Returning to today's topic, the bill proposes to once again expand oil and gas industry subsidies. We requested a briefing to ensure that we properly understood the bill, but since the Liberals won a majority, the government seems to scorn us. They seem to have no need for a group of MPs that want Quebec to become independent. They seem no longer interested in even talking to us, now that they can vote as a majority and pass bills as fast as they please. Is that democracy? Has the government now decided to administer things at lightning speed? Let us just say that we do not like it. Furthermore, based on our initial interpretation, considering the limited time we were given and the information we received, Bill C-31 opens the door to increased government powers and less transparency. We also see that the system for processing air traveller complaints has changed. The government appears to be trying to sweep that issue under the rug. We are deeply concerned about travellers' rights. The government says it wants to take a different approach by having these complaints handled not by the Canadian Transportation Agency, but by a private firm. Once again, and I will repeat this several times in my speech to make sure that the government hears me, we were not given a proper explanation and we were not given the opportunity to carefully examine the provisions of this bill. As we understand it, we could end up with private companies working for the airlines to quickly resolve passengers' complaints. Now passengers can be treated with contempt by those companies too. Why not? That is already the way things have been going. It is unfortunate, but for all of these reasons, I have to announce that we will be voting against this bill. Before I close, I want to mention a few of the constructive proposals put forward by the Bloc Québécois. For one, the government needs to stop subsidizing big oil. Oil companies are making exorbitant profits. When the government makes the mistake of removing a tax, it does not take long for the benefits to disappear. We saw this with the suspension of the excise tax and the 10¢ rebate. How many years has the Bloc Québécois been repeating the same message? If the government removes a tax, then this greedy sector will fill that void and put the money in its own pockets. That is what happened. If the government removes another tax, then the same thing will happen. The oil companies will wait a few weeks and then they will do it subtly on some pretext about what is happening abroad. At the end of the day, they will pocket the money. Enough with the subsidies. There are other things we could be doing with those billions of dollars. Take SME wage subsidy programs, for example. They play a vital and important role in maintaining the economic fabric of our regions. However, they are not being used. As for the EI reform, it makes no sense for an EI system to cover only about 60% of its contributors. It means that 40% of people contributing to the plan are throwing money out the window and will never qualify for benefits. We cannot accept that. It constitutes a serious injustice. We could talk about the spring gap that seasonal workers face. There are lots of things we could talk about. We need meaningful measures for our media, the reinstatement of the digital services tax and the reinstatement of labour tax credits. The federal government must listen to the opposition parties. We are not here to block everything. We are here to contribute our opinion, to share Quebec's take on situations and to work constructively. I am sending the government a message. If it wants us to vote in favour of a future bill, it will have to get serious and respect opposition MPs, because just like Liberal MPs, they too were elected.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

Canada Revenue Agency Act

2026-05-28

“I support this bill. It helps opposition MPs more than the public. I want the CRA to be more effective at collecting money. The government should be transparent about debt write-offs and relief measures. I want to go further and look at tax avoidance too. We should treat everyone equally. Canada passed a law to impose a minimum tax rate on companies that declare profits abroad. We need to see the numbers to know if it's effective. The money is owed to society. We should tackle tax havens urgently.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill today, because I think it is a good one and my party agrees. I announced in my question that we will be supporting this bill at second reading so that we can carefully study it in committee. This bill is important because it deals with the effective recovery of monies as well as with transparency. I think transparency is essential and that is what I will be focusing my comments on today: transparency and access to information. We cannot call for improvements, suggest solutions or explore new options if we do not know what is happening. That is the crux of the issue. The Parliamentary Budget Officer made it quite clear that he approved of the previous versions of this bill. This is not the first time that this legislation has come before the House. I was pleased to hear the parliamentary secretary say that the government is going to support the bill at second reading. That means we will be able to study it. I was pleased because, when I read up on the bill's history earlier, I learned that the majority Liberal Party at the time had rejected one of the initial versions of the bill, citing privacy reasons. It is always easy for the government to find excuses when it does not want to be completely open about something, when it does not want to be transparent and especially when it does not want an agency's underperformance to be on full display. However, the government needs to have that courage. Until it finds it, there will be no improvement. I was therefore worried about the position of this new majority government, which does not reflect the results of the last election. We will repeat this again from time to time. The reality is that they have a majority because members crossed the floor. We must accept that. That said, I would go even further. The bill states that the tax gap must be published. The tax gap is the money the government believes it should have collected but did not. What income taxes and other amounts should have been collected, and what was actually received? If the figures do not add up, people may lose patience, but everything hinges on knowing the truth and on the public putting pressure on the government. I believe this bill will help the general public, but it will help opposition MPs more so. It will help us force the government to be more effective in collecting this money. I would also include in this any agreements that may have been reached between the CRA and businesses regarding debt write-offs, relief measures or equity proposals aimed at waiving interest, fees or penalties, because I believe the public deserves to know. The average worker who earns, say, $45,000 a year, made a mistake on their tax return and has to pay the money back with interest might well be interested to learn that millions of dollars have been forgiven for businesses. It might also be interesting to know that the Prime Minister's companies are engaging in tax avoidance, which is unfortunately legal. That is why I asked my colleagues a question earlier, because they seemed to be saying that certain information would be published. That would be great. However, from what I understand, what will be published mainly concerns tax evasion, that is, cases where people have been found guilty of tax offences. This is too bad, but when someone is found guilty of an offence, their right to privacy disappears a bit. We are talking about transparency. It is important not to go too far. However, it is a bit like when someone is convicted of a criminal offence in court. Unfortunately for them, it is public. At a certain point, privacy can become an excuse in many of these cases. I would go further and also look at tax avoidance. Canada has a lot of experience with that. One need only think of Canadian Steamship Lines, which belonged to the family of Paul Martin, our former prime minister. Since then, we have gained some historical hindsight. Today, it is Brookfield that we often hear about, but we know very little about it. It would be interesting to know how much money has been transferred to tax havens to avoid paying a fair share. Earlier, my colleague, who introduced the bill and sponsored it for the senator who introduced it, explained in his speech that when a person or a company does not pay their share, it goes beyond their failure to pay. Other people, meaning us, have to pick up the slack and make up the difference. There is the guy who declared everything and is paying his share, and there is the guy next door, who is dishonest, who is hiding money and who is not paying what he owes. If he gets caught and we manage to recover the money, and if it is all out in the open to a certain extent, I would say that no harm is done, because it could encourage him not to do it again. I am not sure that if a member of Parliament were to engage in tax avoidance or tax evasion, it would remain secret for very long. Why would that not apply to everyone? Let us treat everyone equally. We stand in solidarity. That is important. I want to quickly come back to tax havens. I know that they are not addressed in the bill, but they should be. I do not know whether we will be able to go so far as to include tax evasion within the scope of the bill, but I think we should. In 2024, Canada passed legislation to impose a minimum tax rate of 15% on companies that generate and declare their profits abroad before repatriating them here. I hope that law will be enforced. We are still waiting to see the results. Will that law be fully enforced? Will it be effective? Only time will tell. We need to see the numbers to know for sure. To get those numbers, I think a bill like Bill S-217 is a very useful tool. That is basically what I wanted to say. Pressure needs to be exerted and the money owed must be recovered. Some say it is owed to the government, but that is not entirely accurate. Yes, the government acts as an intermediary, but that money is owed to society. It is owed to the community. Society needs things like public services, resources, a defence system and all kinds of things, but they all cost money. We are not living in a fairytale. These things do not appear out of thin air. They have to be purchased. If some folks do not have the integrity to do their part, I think it is okay to give them a little nudge and tell them they also have to do their bit. If there is a risk that their name will get out when they get caught, that could help encourage many of these folks to do the right thing. That argument therefore seems pretty weak. There is also the question of what has been recovered, based on the historical figures we have. I have some figures here. Between 2014 and 2022, the gross tax gap was $59.5 billion, and approximately $10.8 billion of that is said to have been recovered from personal income tax. On the corporate side, out of $23.5 billion, $9.3 billion is said to have been recovered. That is not bad, but it is not huge either. The government could certainly do better. By sharing this information, by making it publicly available, we will be better able to take action and come up with more innovative ideas. The Canada Revenue Agency will be able to improve, and everyone will benefit. To conclude, I want to reiterate that we must also urgently tackle tax havens. It is a serious injustice that companies protect their profits abroad. They claim that it is not tax avoidance. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister had the nerve to tell us that it is not tax avoidance because this money flows back to individuals through pension funds. Individuals, for their part, pay tax. The message we are getting is that the little people have to pay and the rich will not. This is a social injustice, and a serious one at that. It is a very dangerous message.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I will vote for the anti-tax-evasion bill. But where are the new rules against avoiding taxes through tax havens? That's not fair. Make them pay more too.”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-28

“I want the government to tax online platforms and use the money to subsidize local media. The government shouldn't be afraid to stand up to the Americans on this.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, surviving in the world of Canadian and Quebec productions requires existing in the first place. The problem we have right now is that these platforms have invaded, and they are getting much more visibility. We have been hearing all day that anyone can put a song on YouTube and promote it, but will not be able to live off it. It takes a structure. It takes a cultural ecosystem. We need that money to reinvest in our local media everywhere. I have a question for my colleague. All day long, we have been hearing that CUSMA was about to be negotiated and that this was no time to put a tax on the Americans, that we had to give in and not put anything in place to prevent that. My question is this. Is it not time to stand up for ourselves? Over the past year, the Liberal government has shown that giving in on everything has given us nothing. I am thinking of taxing web giants and waiving tariffs. We have gained nothing and have had new tariffs imposed to boot. Let us take responsibility. Let us put in place the taxes we need. Then we can sit down and negotiate with the Americans. What does my colleague think about that?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to tax tech giants and spend the money on Quebec culture and regional media. The government should bring back that tax, not negotiate. Will you help me pressure the government to tax them again?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the content of my colleague's speech. I think we are on the same wavelength. We understand that there are funds that need to be reinvested in our local culture. I have a question for my colleague. Her government scrapped the tax on tech giants last year, supposedly to facilitate negotiations with the U.S. president, yet we can see that it has yielded no results. Should this tax not be reinstated? Does she agree with the idea of recovering these colossal sums—as I recall, it was $7 billion over five years—which could allow us to support our regional media? Will she commit to working within her caucus to convince her government to reinstate this tax, which had been adopted and was the result of sound legislation?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The real issue is fairness. I want to force web giants to pay new taxes and fees to fund my preferred culture programs. I control where the money goes, but I'll call it 'independent institutions.' You should pay up to protect democracy.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is not about being afraid of American cultural content. On the contrary, it is popular with plenty of people. That is not the issue. The issue is about levelling the playing field across the country, because the existing media outlets and institutions had to pay licence fees and infrastructure costs, while the web giants enter the market without any such costs. It is simply a matter of taking a small cut of the profits that they make and redistributing them to support our culture. Contrary to what the member seems to think, this is not about dictating content. The institutions will remain independent. However, one of the things that it will do is help maintain regional media outlets, which is very important for democracy. I would like to hear his comments on that.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Military Justice System Modernization Act

2026-05-08

“I'm going to complain until I get the answer I want. I want to look tough on this issue. I'm trying to make the government look bad.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question, since I still have not received an answer. The parliamentary secretary and I know each other quite well. We all know that he has a way with words, but I want to ask him to refrain from skirting around the issue by talking about other things, like the recommendations from Justice Arbour or anyone else. We developed an amendment in committee that would allow a victim—male or female, since either is possible—who is in fact the most important person in these circumstances, to choose whether their sexual assault case would be handled by the civilian courts or a military court. That can be done. We do not own the truth, contrary to what the government might think. I would like to get an objective and sincere answer. Why was this amendment removed? I understand that the Liberals have a majority and that they can decide, but it was a good amendment. Why did they remove it? I would like to hear a rational explanation.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to talk about moving these cases to civilian courts. Victims should get a say. My colleague has a lot of experience with helping people. I want her to talk about how important it is to respect victims.”

“I'm deeply bothered that our work was ignored. The government accepted our amendments and then threw them away. It shows they don't listen and don't care what anyone else thinks or the work we do. Even if you win you should still work together for the common good.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière, whom I hold in high regard. It is unfortunate, but what this means is that the common good will not always be the priority. It means that a majority government thinks that it has the corner on truth. There is no harm in taking an opposition party's amendments into account, particularly on a sensitive and delicate issue like this one. It seems to me that the least the government could do is work together. That does not mean that we will always manage to reach an agreement, but, once again, what bothers me is that the amendments had been adopted. We worked hard and then the government just ignored everything that we did, without taking into account the work that was done and the testimony we heard in committee.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“That was good work by the committee and opposition. Now the government is erasing it all. With their majority they can do what they want. The control has gone to their head. Hopefully this power trip ends soon or it will be a long three years.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I certainly agree on that. The problem I have is that it seems to me that giving victims a choice should be obvious. What is more, there was consensus, and that is the sad part. All of a sudden, the government got a majority and erased all the work that the opposition had done. I do not know what principles it used to do that. If someone on the other side can explain that to me, I would appreciate it. As for the recommendation to make judges more independent by having them be released from the armed forces, it seems to me that this recommendation also made sense. We did not get an explanation. The government got rid of everything because it has a majority now and it controls what is going to happen. I hope that this power trip will be over soon, because otherwise, the next three years will feel very long.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You didn't answer my question. Why not give victims a choice? The victim is the most important person. We should put their choice first. I don't think you have an answer.”

“I want to support the bill to look after victims and make the military a safe place to work. But I don't like how the government scrapped all the previous work and amendments we negotiated. Victims wanted the option for sexual offenses to be handled outside the military justice system, and we amended the bill to reflect that. But the government removed that choice with their majority. I want the government to actually collaborate with us.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of my speech, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a friend who passed away. It is related to the issue before us, because he was a great citizen who believed in justice. For him, justice meant leaving a healthy planet and clean water for future generations. We have lost a great citizen in Louis Trudeau. He devoted much of his life to protecting the Bayonne river, and he worked to raise awareness of water issues by giving talks and writing books. He encouraged people to plant trees along riverbanks and get involved in community cleanups. He was the co-founder of the Bayonne watershed organization, and he used the proceeds from his books to fund that organization's work. As his team said so well: Louis like[d] to remind us that water knows no political boundaries. What happens upstream also affects those downstream. His actions reflect[ed] this universal connection. Today, his legacy lives on. It flows through the rivers, whispers in the forests and echoes in the decisions that we make and in the partnerships that we build. Mr. Trudeau will always be an inspiration. I thank him. I am going to take a moment to compose myself before talking about military justice. I would like to set the record straight from the outset, as the Liberal Party's comments this morning were somewhat ambiguous: The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑11. We always have and always will, because it is important to look after victims and it is also important to make the Canadian Armed Forces a safe place to work. A strong army is one of the foundations of a lasting democracy. We need people who are trained and properly equipped, but Canada's performance on that score has long been shoddy. We are gradually putting that right. We just need to ensure we do so reasonably, but it is essential. It is the foundation. Not being able to guarantee the safety, physical well-being and freedom from intimidation of those who serve is a major shortcoming. That is why we have always supported the idea of improving this justice system. Stories like the ones we have heard, including those involving Mr. Vance and Mr. McDonald, who left their posts amid scandal or allegations, must never happen again. In that sense, we agree with the bill. However, we condemn this arrogant government for using its new backroom majority, courtesy of floor crossers, to completely scrap all the work that was previously done. To me, that is serious. I hope that people on the other side are hearing me, because this is very important. Scrapping constructive, collaborative work accomplished through negotiation and goodwill is a serious matter. The first Liberal speaker this morning said that reforming the military justice system is not, and should never be, a partisan issue. I completely agree with that statement, but her rhetoric contradicts the government's actions in recent weeks. That is where I see a major discrepancy, a major problem. It feels like I have been doing this constantly for the past few weeks, but I am once again asking the government to collaborate. We are reaching out to the government and offering to work together. However, the government has to be willing to hear us. I am going to say something in the interest of the common good, which all of us here are expected to promote: Just because the government has secured a majority does not mean that it suddenly has a monopoly on the truth. The fact that people are members of the opposition does not make them idiots. They are capable of coming up with intelligent proposals. I am not saying that partisan politics never happens, but in the case of Bill C‑11 especially, I believe that we did some very high-quality work. Incidentally, the last person who crossed the floor from the NDP had worked on that bill. She had moved her own amendments, but she voted against them after crossing the floor. I am struggling to make sense of that. I will get to the crux of the matter, because I do not have much time left. I want to talk about one of the things we find particularly troubling. After having met with victims' representatives and some victims themselves, it became clear that victims wanted charges related to sexual offences to be handled outside the military justice system. There was a consensus on this. However, and this is crucial, these victims also asked, with all the nuance and sensitivity that such a matter requires, that the final decision be left up to the victims. The bill was amended to reflect that. We negotiated that with the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP, and it is fundamental. Then the Liberals got a majority and said the amendments were no longer acceptable. It is terribly sad, because some victims might prefer the other option, and that is their fundamental right. Members here can give lofty speeches about caring about victims' rights, about how they need support and proper representation, and about how our justice system unfortunately often gives the impression that it cares more about the fate of the accused than that of the victims. Then, all of a sudden, the government comes up with something like this and takes away that option. Personally, I do not understand. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary will be able to explain it to me. I would like him to explain it to me, because I really do not understand that part. We also ensured that the legislation clearly stipulated that the government must draw up a plan to create an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct in the armed forces. That was removed too. We also succeeded in amending the bill so that veterans could be appointed as military judges, and we insisted that military judges should be released from the army. The government removed that. I think it was a good measure. If we are carrying out a reform and want to ensure that judges are independent, they cannot be judges and also be subject to the directives of their superiors. They may well be called upon to interpret their superiors' actions. It is nonsense. I do not understand the logic. The Liberals might say that they have a majority and can do as they please. Message received. Nevertheless, I would like an explanation today as to why the amendment concerning victims' choice to go through the civilian court system was removed. Also, why was the amendment that would have made judges more independent removed? It is truly sad, especially since, in their speeches this morning, the Liberals told us that they had listened to numerous victims, that they had done a really good job, that they had listened to thousands of people. I do not doubt that, but it is not enough just to listen to them; we must hear them and act accordingly. The job of a politician is not to come in with their own solutions, to claim they have the answer and say this is what we are going to do. No, their job is to listen to citizens, the people involved in the issue, and to try to implement the best possible solution with a view to solving problems for the next generation and for the future. We are supposed to make things better, but I do not see that happening in this case. The bill is still good, of course, but it is not as good as it used to be. That is a shame. The recommendations of Justice Arbour and Justice Fish are there, at least in large part. An amendment proposing to refer the bill back to committee was introduced this morning, and we will study it carefully. I am not saying that is the solution, but it is worth considering. In closing, I urge the government to work with opposition members. It needs to stop just saying it and actually do it.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗