MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Yves Perron

Follow by RSS

Perron presses to keep medical assistance in dying under Quebec’s care rules and asks the government to send Bill C-41 to the Supreme Court, fights Bill C-30’s power to let cabinet approve pesticides Health Canada banned and Bill C-39’s pipeline assessment and strike changes, and defends the Translation Bureau’s 25% cut interpretation jobs. He often wanders into asides mid-argument, pausing to tell a minister “I still think the parliamentary secretary is a nice guy.”Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
82 / 100 over 125 statements
Signal 69 / 100
Relevance 80 / 100
Respect 99 / 100
Clarity 96 / 100
Loses points more than most for A remark off to the side of the point.2.8 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.8 Loses points less than most for A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 125 of 137 statements graded so far.

Statements 137

Government Orders ·

Strong and Free Elections Act

“We should bring back public funding for political parties. Most people cannot afford to donate thousands of dollars to a party. I want to know if the member supports bringing this funding back.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about democracy, and the purpose of the bill is to make things simpler. The Bloc Québécois believes that public funding for political parties should be reinstated because the tax refund basically amounts to public funding anyway. Who among us can afford to donate $1,750 to a political party? That is completely ridiculous. What does the member think about reinstating public funding for political parties, particularly in light of the fact that it was eliminated by a former Conservative government?

Private Members' Business ·

National Framework on the Durability of Electronic Products and Essential Home Appliances Act

“The member is rustling papers near their microphone, and it makes it hard to hear.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is rustling papers near the mic and it is causing problems.

Government Orders ·

Strong and Free Elections Act

“Quebec will have fewer people compared to the rest of Canada over time. Does my colleague think it is realistic to add proportional representation to our voting system without changing the Constitution?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this time I will ask my colleague a question that relates to the topic at hand. That said, I really liked his previous answer, which I am sure will be greatly appreciated. My colleague referred earlier to the vote we took during the previous Parliament to maintain Quebec’s political representation at 78 ridings. We know that the demographic weight of the Quebec nation will continue to decline in the federal Parliament. There are groups currently putting pressure on the government to introduce some form of proportional representation in the electoral process. There is the issue of multiple candidates. Bill C-25 directly addresses the issue. Does my colleague think that, because the Constitution cannot be amended in Canada, it would be realistic at some point to embark on a process to introduce an element of proportionality into our voting system? That would certainly reassure our constituents.

“I share the sadness expressed today for the police officers who were killed in Ontario. I also want to congratulate my friend Normand Branchaud, who has been a musician for 60 years. I want to ask my colleague if music is an important part of his life.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 35 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to note that the Bloc Québécois members share all the sentiments that have been expressed today regarding the police officers who lost their lives in Ontario. I think that is important. I also want to acknowledge my dear friend Normand Branchaud, who is celebrating 60 years as a musician this weekend. He is an extraordinary individual who bought his first harmonica with three and a half dollars that he earned by running errands. I congratulate him. I have a question for my colleague. Is music a big part of his life?

Government Orders ·

Supplementary Estimates (A), 2026‑27

“The Bloc Québécois votes yes.”
  • A repeated line

    “The Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will vote in favour.”

    Said 3 times by 2 members since May 25.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will vote in favour.

Government Orders ·

Main Estimates, 2026-27

“Small businesses need fast government help so they do not close down. We helped save one business, but many others are still struggling. I want to know if the member supports our plan for a wage subsidy to help them.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague was here earlier when I asked my question about businesses, but the Bloc Québécois believes that small businesses in Quebec and, of course, across the rest of Canada need direct, rapid, effective support to avoid going under. Over the past few weeks, we have seen furniture businesses closing down. I mentioned earlier that a very happy event took place this morning in Berthier—Maskinongé. The Duchesne et Fils plant in Yamachiche reopened after the company sought protection under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Thanks to the collaborative efforts of elected officials, we succeeded in applying pressure and making sure the company that took over had favourable conditions to make it work. I want to take this opportunity to recognize them and thank them again, along with the people at the business support centre, who had a major impact on this file. We succeeded in saving one business, but we are worried about other businesses that are closing down and about businesses that have not gone under yet but that are struggling. I would like to know whether my colleague supports our proposal for a wage subsidy to keep the economic fabric of our regions from unravelling.

“A business in my riding was saved from bankruptcy because local leaders worked together to help. Small businesses in Quebec need help so they do not close. I want to know if my colleague agrees that a wage subsidy would help keep these businesses open.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised some good points. I liked the part where he talked about the protections that Quebec offers consumers. I would like to talk to him about the business world. Berthier—Maskinongé witnessed a minor miracle this morning. It was the grand reopening of Duchesne et Fils, which had been under the protection of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for months. All of the elected officials, namely the MNA, the RCM’s reeve, the mayor and myself, worked as a team and helped Groupe Zohar, the company that took over. We were happy. The employees’ faces looked so different today compared to a few weeks ago, when a press conference was held to sound the alarm and point out that more time was needed. This is the kind of thing we need to do. Companies, Quebec’s SMEs, need help. Firms are going out of business. That is what made this morning’s event so special. Would my colleague not agree that our wage subsidy proposal, which I keep bringing up here every chance I get, would help with that?

In response to a question from Alexis Deschênes

“We should not rush to let people without scientific knowledge make decisions about approving products like pesticides. People could make bad choices because of pressure from lobby groups, and that will hurt our children and our land later.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is not much time to assess this risk. The risk is that anyone can make decisions about anything. Let me draw a parallel. During COVID‑19, members of the Conservative Party wanted us to vote on motions that would lift the health measures in place for air travel. We agreed, but we had the wisdom to concede that we were not microbiologists or epidemiologists. We therefore asked to include wording to the effect of “with the consent of public health authorities”. The danger is that uninformed people will make decisions—under pressure from lobby groups or economic pressures—to approve products, including crop protection products that will be used on our land. Later, our children and grandchildren end up paying the price. It is terrifyingly serious.

In response to a question from Gérard Deltell

“I am worried the government will take too much land from people in my riding for the Alto train project. The train only needs 60 metres, but the government is looking at a 10-kilometre area. I want to know if the government plans to take extra land just to sell it later for profit.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again thank my esteemed colleague for that very interesting question. What happened in Mirabel with the supposedly international airport that never came to be was that the government had to return nearly 90% of the land that it stole from people. People had to buy it back at today’s prices. That is what happened. Now, Alto is coming to our area, even though Mirabel still bears the scars of past expropriations. I do not want Berthier—Maskinongé to experience that kind of horror. Alto is coming to my area and terrorizing people along a 10-kilometre-wide stretch. The government is telling us not to worry because Alto only needs 60 metres. First of all, there is going to be a construction site around that 60 metres. Second, if only 60 metres is needed, then why take a stretch 10 kilometres wide? It looks like the government is planning to take more land than it needs. Is it going to try to resell the land around this train through land speculation to fund this huge project?

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The government should stop giving tax breaks to oil companies. It should also increase pension payments for seniors aged 65 to 74. It claims that is too expensive, but it still plans to spend billions on high-speed rail.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, despite his poor reasoning, I still find the parliamentary secretary quite likeable. If he were being fair, he would admit that the excise tax exemption is lining the pockets of oil companies. That is what we have always said, and it is what we have been saying for years: The government needs to stop giving these companies tax breaks. They are vultures. They will siphon off every last bit. The government keeps talking about the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, but this is simply a rebranding of the family allowance. This is not all new funding. Yes, the amounts have increased. However, does the government know a good way to stimulate the economy, get it moving and help people who really need it? It involves indexing the OAS for people aged 65 to 74, just as it is for those aged 75 and over. I am being told that $3 billion a year is too expensive, but it would seem that $200 billion for high-speed rail is not too expensive. I do not know which is more important to the Liberals, but these people need money, and I am talking about less than $100 a month.

“The government is giving itself too much power to bypass laws. It wants cabinet to be able to approve banned pesticides without proper science, and it wants to ignore environmental rules and property rights to build high-speed rail. The government is also ignoring small businesses, underfunding agriculture, and rushing bills through without enough debate. It needs to stop doing this and work with opposition parties.”
  • Speech on a motion

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this speech addressed the specific motion under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean. I am sure he will make very good use of that time. Since we are talking about the estimates today, we can address any aspect of the use of public funds. I want to briefly revisit our disappointment regarding the implementation of the budget, Bill C-31, among others, and the lack of response to one of our main concerns. There is something I do not understand. We keep saying that our SMEs need help. We also keep trying to explain to people in other Canadian provinces, in English-speaking Canada, that Quebec’s economic fabric is unique because of its SMEs, which need support. We believe that the wage subsidy would be helpful in the current climate, given the new tariffs. However, we have not received a response. It is radio silence. There were no consultations before the budget measures were introduced. The government continues to subsidize the oil industry at every opportunity. Once again, these bills give the government even more power, including discretionary powers, which, to be perfectly honest, are frightening. Anyone who looked at the media this morning saw the news about crop protection products, herbicides and pesticides. I know what I am talking about, since I was the agriculture and agri-food critic for a long time. We studied these issues extensively at committee. What we were seeing, particularly with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA, which is now called the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate, or PRD, was a lack of efficiency. Whenever there was an emergency on a farm and an emergency registration was requested, it got delayed. It can take years, because the staff are in no rush, because there are not enough resources, or for any number of reasons. For three or four years, we had been studying the possibility of allowing drones to be used to spray pesticides, even though these same pesticides are already approved to be sprayed by plane. Planes spray pesticides at higher altitudes, over larger areas and using larger quantities. Logically, drone spraying will require a smaller quantity of pesticides and be able to focus on specific parts of the field. That is exactly what we want. It takes three or four years to approve that. We are scratching our heads and wondering why. That is what we were calling out. What is the government doing now to address the problem? It is saying that when the PRD rejects a product, cabinet can decide to authorize it for economic reasons. This is a very slippery slope, one that is reminiscent of what we have seen in previous bills. In just about every bill we vote on, the government gives its ministers the power to override other laws. This is extremely concerning. I do not believe that allowing cabinet to decide to authorize banned products will increase public confidence. We already use several products that are banned in Europe. What we need are resources and efficiency at the PRD and the CFIA. We must not give elected officials, who are not scientists, the power to authorize the use of toxic products. Let us be honest: These products are used to kill pests or eliminate diseases. That is what they do. The people who apply these products are our farmers, the people who feed us. When products are banned, it is often not only because of their effects on the soil, but also because of the risks they pose to the people applying them. What they are saying is, too bad, saving the crop is more important. I do not feel that we are reacting strongly enough to this change. I believe there is a major problem with undemocratic governance right now. The Liberal government continually grants itself the power to override the application of laws. Things are not moving quickly enough in Canada. We are not efficient enough. It is not that complicated. The government is going to run this country like a business. If a law slows things down, then the government will get rid of it. That is what it is doing with the Alto high‑speed rail project. If members watched the press scrums today, then they saw my leader’s response. We have no choice but to oppose this project because it is being handled all wrong and because the government is infringing on the rights of our constituents. As the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, I cannot sit idly by while my constituents are treated like second‑class citizens because the government wants to run a train through their land and it wants the project to be completed quickly without any delays. The government is going to take away these citizens’ right to speak to an independent hearing officer and their right to object to the price offered for the land. What is more, the government knows that the railway may have to cross sensitive areas, such as the Lanoraie peat bog. It figured that with the high-speed rail project, it is easy. It just needed to add a line to the bill stating that an environmental assessment is not required. That is how Canada is being run right now. I think the public will eventually realize this, as this bad habit of granting absolute powers continues to repeat itself. We are drifting away from democracy. That is what I think. Parliaments have passed laws over the years. I am not saying we should not adapt our laws. I am not saying we should not review and assess them regularly. If 28 regulations have been added and none have ever been removed, perhaps one or two could make way for the new ones that address the same issue. That is possible. However, we need to be smart about this. We need to take our time. The opposition parties need to be consulted. We need to have healthy, thorough debates. That is not what is happening right now. Instead, time allocation is imposed, so we do not have enough time. It is being rushed through. They want to go on vacation. It is summer, and it is almost time to wrap up our work, but the government still wants to get its seven, eight, 10 or 12 bills passed. That means we have to stay until midnight and get it done. That is the situation we find ourselves in. I dream of a world where election campaigns last a month and a half, like they are supposed to, and where, in between elections, elected officials work together for the common good. In that world, the party in power would not be able to negotiate with members to secure a majority and then do whatever it wants without consulting anyone else. That is what we are currently experiencing. That is what I am experiencing, and it is dangerous. I have said it before, but I will say it again and again, because it seems that some members on the other side of the House are not listening. The Bloc Québécois is a constructive opposition. We do not just sit around whining. We have come up with proposals. One good idea would be to eliminate the oil subsidies. The Liberals are listening to us so much that they are increasing that funding. There are wage subsidies, as I mentioned earlier. There is EI reform. When people lose their jobs, 40% of them are ineligible for benefits. That is outright theft because they have paid into the system. They are required to do so, but they do not qualify. It would be like me charging people for home insurance while telling them I will never pay out. I am not sure they would keep paying me for long, unless they did not check their bills. We do check them. There are the cheques that were sent out during the election campaign, for which we have requested reimbursement. There is the influx of refugees we took in. I am going to talk about agriculture again, because I miss it a little. I saw the UPA people today at their press conference opposing high‑speed rail. They have a point. Research centres have been closed. The government should be investing in research and innovation, not making cuts. At a time when cabinet is being given the power to approve whatever crop protection products it wants, the agencies responsible for regulating and approving them are facing cuts. What should be happening is the opposite. Personally, I dream of a government that makes agriculture a priority. The fact that less than 1% of the budget goes to agriculture in a country like Canada is shameful. It should be at least 2%. Agriculture is the foundation for everything. Defence is about to get 5%. Do members know how cities were captured in the Middle Ages? They were not attacked; they were encircled, and the besieging army simply waited until all the food inside was gone. That is the way a territory is weakened. It may have the best army in the world, but if it does not have the means to feed it, if it does not have free-flowing international trade and is not self-sufficient when it comes to food, it will have a big problem. We need to make wise choices and, for goodness’ sake, stop this shift toward authoritarianism.

Government Orders ·

Build Canada Homes Act

In response to a question from Tamara Kronis

“I want to praise my Conservative colleague for listening well and asking a smart question. Quebec can manage housing better and faster on its own if we have the resources. Other provinces would benefit from that same freedom.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 47 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 9 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I apologize to my Conservative colleagues from Quebec, but my colleague is gradually becoming my favourite Conservative. Not only is her French exemplary, but she is also very receptive. I would like other members of the House to take a lesson from her. She has only been here for a short time, but she is already doing extraordinary work. I commend her and I appreciate the fact that she understood the gist of my message. Her question is very relevant and very intelligent. She can rest assured that we are very resourceful. We are going to turn things around quickly and manage our own affairs. As I was telling my other colleague earlier, we are capable of doing things well, faster and better if we have all the means at our disposal. I think the people in her province would certainly benefit from the same flexibility.

In response to a question from Claude DeBellefeuille

“The federal government takes too long to make agreements with Quebec. It should respect Quebec's unique needs and give us more flexibility. The government should transfer the difference between 22 percent and 16.6 percent directly to Quebec.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 42 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my “original whip”. Today is the first time I have called her by her nickname in public. I want to thank her for her thoughtful question and the wise counsel that she kindly gives me on a regular basis. She is right to talk about Quebec’s uniqueness, its specificity and the diversity of its models. We would like to see more respect for those things. We do not understand why it takes two or four years to reach an agreement. That is the problem. The federal government needs to understand that. We need flexibility. I am going to make a constructive proposal to the government, and I hope that the parliamentary secretary is taking notes. The difference between the 22% and the 16.6% could be transferred to Quebec. That way, we could take care of our diversity, as my colleague explained so well.

In response to a question from Gérard Deltell

“Quebec has grown by taking control of its own affairs, like having its own tax return. We do well on our own. When Quebec becomes an independent country and controls all of its money, we will do even more.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question, which was very long but very interesting. It is always interesting to dialogue with colleagues who are cultured and give historical dates. It is wonderful. It is quite a coincidence that I am talking about Mr. Johnson when it is the 60th anniversary of when he was first elected and, at the same time it is also Mr. Clark’s 87th birthday. I had not made the connection. This is wonderful. My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk said that Quebec has been able to thrive. Fortunately, Quebec developed its own autonomy by introducing the single tax return, among other things. My colleague will be happy to hear me mention Maurice Duplessis, who established that. People often talk about Mr. Duplessis in a negative light, but he also had a very positive side, which in no way detracts from his darker side. He did, after all, get some things done, and Quebec has developed gradually. We have been developing on our own. My colleague says we can grow to our full potential, but in this case, we will be growing at 16.6% instead of 22%. We manage to get things done because we are very smart and very strong. The day we become independent and have full control of our finances, people will be very impressed by everything we manage to achieve and by how quickly we manage to do it.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I want to get as much money for Quebec as possible from this bill. The current housing program already works. The government should invest in what works instead of replacing it with something new.”
  • Reply to a comment in debate

    Signal 24 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, for once, the parliamentary secretary anticipated my response quite well. We can both agree on that, but we will also have to agree to disagree. That said, as I mentioned in my speech, we are here to salvage something from the wreckage. We are defending Quebec and trying to get as much as we can for our people. That is what we are doing today. We will take that billion dollars. My colleague mentioned programs that work and working together. I gave an example of such a program in my speech. I hope he appreciated that. The rapid housing initiative is working. It has worked in the past and it is still working. Why get rid of it? Why replace it with an unknown quantity? When a program is working, we should invest in it and leave well enough alone.

“I support this bill because the housing crisis is bad and Quebec needs the money. The federal government must respect Quebec's authority over housing and give Quebec its fair share of the funds.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you in the chair. Today, I am speaking to Bill C-20 on Build Canada Homes or, as it was originally mistranslated in French, “Bâtir Maisons Canada”. It is not in the Bloc’s nature to agree to the creation of federal Crown corporations that encroach on Quebec’s areas of jurisdiction. I would remind all members that housing is under Quebec’s jurisdiction. However, there is always context, and the current situation is extremely serious. The housing crisis that has been raging for some time is appalling. There is crippling inflation, which means people are struggling to find housing and often, or even regularly, have to cut back on other expenses. This is a serious crisis. That is the first factor. The second factor is that the federal government has finally, in the end, reached an agreement with the Quebec government. That is one of the factors that may lead the Bloc Québécois to accept such measures. The agreement very clearly states that Quebec’s jurisdiction, priorities and legislative framework will be respected, along with the Build Canada Homes investment policy framework. An agreement has been reached, an urgent need exists and funds are available. We are talking about $1 billion, after all. We cannot, in good conscience, say that we are rejecting the money in accordance with a general policy. The context here allows us to approve this bill, as we did at second reading. At second reading, my colleague from Joliette—Manawan gave an interesting quote. I really like quoting this man. He is brilliant, intelligent and humble at the same time. My colleague commended the government and the minister for trying to speed up efforts to address the affordable housing issue, and I share his sentiment. We therefore applaud the effort and the investment, and we will support this bill because something needs to be done about housing, especially affordable housing. That said, we have some concerns. Affordable housing is not social housing. Build Canada Homes is focusing strongly on affordable housing. The government is creating a structure that will inevitably encroach on areas outside federal jurisdiction and giving it very broad powers. Among other things, Build Canada Homes will have the power to become a shareholder or partner of private companies operating in the area of affordable housing. We have concerns about that, and I must express them in the House. What does that mean in the long term? It is a bit like the current agreement with Quebec. It exists, but how long will it last? Will it be renewed and will it still respect Quebec’s jurisdiction? Unfortunately, Canadian history has taught us that the federal government generally has a hard time respecting Quebec’s jurisdiction. That is why we are on alert. All of this background information is intended to highlight this fact. Something has to be done about housing. There is no getting around that. The billion dollars that will be sent to Quebec will, I hope, provide some general relief, as long as this structure is effective. Speaking of effectiveness and structures, I would now like to talk about the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which already exists. Its mandate includes funding, program creation, support, and planning and validating this type of housing project. Why create a new structure? We have raised that question before and I am raising it again today because we never really got an answer. The Liberals talk about agility, or perhaps they just wanted to create something new. Governments love to say that they are responsible for creating one structure or another. Often, they create things and put the word “Canada” on it three or four times so that it sounds good when they say it. In this case, we are talking about Build Canada Homes. My argument about adding “Canada” to the names of things does not apply here because the “C” in CMHC already stands for Canada. CMHC stands for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, so this is not about adding Canada to the name. Why then, do the Liberals want to create a new structure that operates in the same areas? More importantly, the CMHC is at risk of losing a lot of its funding and programs. The government is telling us that it will maintain the current funding levels and any initiatives that have already been announced. I honestly have to commend the government for that, because at least it is not cutting programs mid-stream. However, that means that these programs will disappear when the funding runs out, and that raises concerns. I am thinking, in particular, about the rapid housing initiative, which is working well. People had better take full advantage of it while it is still around, because it is not every day that a member of the Bloc Québécois says that a program is working well. If I am saying it, then it must be true. In that case, why sunset that program? We are concerned about all of these things. This new structure is causing concern not only among Bloc Québécois MPs, but also among community organizations like FRAPRU, the Front d’action populaire en réaménagement urbain, a housing rights organization. Build Canada Homes is allowed to become a shareholder or partner in housing projects, and that is causing concern among FRAPRU’s members. They said, “The cat is out of the bag. After promising to build affordable housing with Build Canada Homes, the government’s new strategy...is starting to become clear. Build Canada Homes is an investment bank, plain and simple.” These comments were reported by my esteemed colleague from Joliette—Manawan. That sums up the situation well. It goes without saying that we will be on our guard and will carry out our role as a constructive opposition by monitoring the work of this entity and ensuring that it does not start to disregard Quebec’s jurisdiction or cast its net too wide. This federal government has a tendency to overreach and it has far too much money relative to its responsibilities, yet it still manages to run up record deficits and accumulate stratospheric debts. We must keep a close eye on it because it will meddle in whatever areas it can. Again, housing is the responsibility of the Quebec government. I would like to quote Quebec premier Daniel Johnson. This is not a recent quote. He said this in 1967, a short time before I was born. Quebec considers the following areas to fall within its exclusive jurisdiction: culture, adult education, university research, trade training programs, industry-cooperative training programs, and training programs for the unemployed; urban development and housing; municipal structure; municipal powers; and land use planning. That pretty much sums up what I just said, and as I mentioned, this is not a new issue. I was not even born yet, and I am not exactly young anymore. I am not old, but I am not that young either. There would be a role for the federal government if everyone here made an effort to respect the Constitution, which is rather ironic. I hear a member telling me he agrees. He might disagree with the rest of my statement, but it will be fun. We are pretty much the only ones here who want to the Constitution to be upheld. It is funny because we are the only ones who did not sign it. We all remember that it was done behind our backs in the middle of the night. It is still a pretty scandalous affair. I think I have managed to get one of my colleagues thinking. I am quite proud of myself. Originally, the federal government’s role was to transfer money to these jurisdictions, because it had a monopoly on taxation powers. Over time, attempts were made to balance the situation, but they never offset the shortfall. This is the crux of the problem with Canada’s federal structure, which is a federation, not a confederation. That was another historical rip-off. The government has too much power and more money than its responsibilities require, so it tends to take advantage of the situation to shine in the public eye. Its members love making announcements from a sun-drenched balcony, hair blowing in the wind. I use that sentence a lot, but the image speaks for itself. The government wants to tell Canadians that it is generous and that it is going to hand out billions of dollars. That way, it gets credit and hopes that votes will follow. I am guessing that is the reasoning. However, it would be nice if the contract that was signed behind our backs was respected. The Bloc Québécois has enough class to say that we are are stuck with that, and that we are going to play by the rules until the day comes that everyone knows about already. It should surprise no one that our goal is not to stay here. Our goal is for the Government of Quebec to assume its full powers and manage its responsibilities. I will use the example of Build Canada Homes. We are saying today that, yes, we will take the billion dollars. We need it, because the crisis is urgent. Ottawa has an agreement with the Quebec government stipulating that decisions will be made by the Government of Quebec based on its jurisdictions and priorities. We agree. However, if we take a step back, $1 billion out of $6 billion represents 16.6% of the amount Canada allocated through Build Canada Homes, even though Quebeckers represent around 22% of the population. That means that while Quebeckers are paying 22%, they will receive only 16.6%. I know that I am going to get questions from government members, who will tell me that we are being ungrateful and that we should be happy and stop whining. I would like them to think about those numbers. I am sure that the thousands of people who are watching us at home agree that this does not make any sense. If Quebec had control over all of its economic levers, then we would have a lot more money to put into housing. We would also do things more effectively because we are more in touch with the people. When we say that this falls under Quebec’s jurisdiction, it is because the provincial governments and the Government of Quebec are closer to the people and they are in a better position to provide services. The municipalities are even closer to the people. This should be done in partnership with municipal governments. Who knows the needs of a community better than its municipal officials? That is true as long as they are doing their job properly and they are in touch with people in their community. When the federal government comes in with its heavy-handed approach and imposes its priorities, we always have to insist that it respect our jurisdictions. That is why we are always raising concerns. I hope that people are listening. I think that the parliamentary secretary is listening carefully. I am very pleased because I know that he will likely go and tell his caucus that what the guy from Berthier—Maskinongé said made a lot of sense and that his government should be vigilant. At least that is my hope, because I am sure Manitoba must also have regional priorities. All that the federal government would have do is simply transfer the money, but because it would not get enough credit, it creates structures instead. Having an agreement with Quebec is important. However, it is appalling that every time we talk about housing—and the same holds for many other sectors, but housing in particular—the timelines grow longer. I remember that my former colleague, Denis Trudel, who I can call by name today because he is sadly no longer with us, long criticized this situation in his role as housing critic. I believe that it took four years the last time to reach an agreement with Quebec, even though the other provinces had already received the money. I could be wrong about the number of years, but it is around that many. It took nearly two years for the Canada housing infrastructure fund. The general funds have been released, but agreements still need to be reached. It is frustrating, exhausting and discouraging to see the federal government make announcements and reach agreements after a few months with other provinces, but not with Quebec. Why? It is because the federal government wants to stick its nose into everything and that does not bother Canadians in other provinces. For them, the government is the federal government. This does not bother the provincial governments, because they have far fewer responsibilities than the Quebec government. I invite people from other provinces who might be listening to take a look at Quebec’s administrative structure and its social and economic fabric. They will see that the country of Quebec already exists. I often say this, and people sometimes think I am joking, but I really mean it. Regional county municipalities, or RCMs, do not exist anywhere else. They are groupings of municipalities meant to foster greater regional cohesion. I will give an anecdotal example regarding electoral redistribution. The riding of Berthier—Maskinongé already had three RCMs and one city. I explained to the commissioner that I really wanted to properly represent the people of Saint-Sulpice, whom I salute by the way and whom I am very pleased to represent, but that, for the sake of territorial cohesion, it might be better to give me a larger area of land, such as Matawinie, which I already shared with my esteemed colleague from Joliette—Manawan. When I explained that to the commissioner, he said it made sense. When I asked him if he had any questions, he said no, that everything was very clear, that I had made a good point and that he would look into it. When I received the card a month later, I realized that he had not listened to me. It is no big deal, because Saint-Sulpice is a beautiful part of the country. I have come to know a lot of people there, and I am very proud to represent them. However, this just goes to show that Canada could not care less about RCMs. They are not in its DNA, whereas they are a reality in Quebec. When it comes to supporting businesses, we are trying to explain to people in the other provinces that Quebec’s economic fabric is different from the rest of Canada. In Quebec, we have a very high concentration of small and medium-sized businesses that need more targeted support, including the infamous wage subsidy. The wage subsidy is like OAS for seniors aged 65 to 74. We will not give up on this. I know that some people are sick and tired of hearing us talk about this, but we will not stop, because we stand up for such worthy causes. Wage subsidies are intended to maintain the employment relationship between businesses and employees. As for the old age pension for people aged 65 to 74, it is intended to ensure fairness among seniors so that different categories based on age do not exist. That is age-based discrimination. It is an election promise and a housing measure. We want to work together, but we are putting the government on notice. We are asking the government to honour its commitments. I do not want to have to go on the attack again in three years when the agreement expires because Build Canada Homes might want to extend its reach into areas of Quebec’s jurisdiction. Two years to reach an agreement is a long time. We do not want any further delays. Some people sometimes think we are here to block everything or to show that nothing works. However, we often simply point out that things rarely work. The next time federal funds are released, I would like to see less red tape, a quicker response to Quebec’s specific requests and no attempt to impose federal conditions on Quebec’s economy, society and politics. I am extending this olive branch to the parliamentary secretary. I assume he will accept it warmly and that he hears the message I am sending today. I am very keen to see what sort of question he will ask me. That said, we are separatists. I know some people do not like it when I talk about that, but I do because it is my job. I mentioned earlier that we are going to take the billion dollars injected into Build Canada Homes because we want to make constructive progress here while awaiting Quebec’s independence. I pointed out to members that this figure represents 16.6% of the total amount Canada has invested in Build Canada Homes. Quebec accounts for approximately 22% of the population. Once again, we are not receiving the full amount that should be coming to us. We will gladly take it and try to make it work, but there is still some missing. My separatist argument stands. We would not have had to wait two years for a policy to be implemented if we had not had to negotiate with a federal government that does not understand Quebec’s reality and that wants to impose its own rules and its own way of doing things. That is the essence of my speech today. I thank my colleagues for their attention, and I impatiently await their questions.

Oral Questions ·

Canadian Identity and Culture

“The Prime Minister gave up billions of dollars in taxes on streaming platforms and digital services. Writers and artists say he is using their industry as a bargaining chip. I want to know why the government refuses to protect French-language culture.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, he should take a look at our platform. It is full of proposals about culture. Here is what the Société des auteurs et autrices de radio, télévision et cinéma said concerning the Prime Minister’s cultural capitulation: “this announcement cuts us to the core, because it suggests that our industry is nothing but a bargaining chip”. Those are their words, not ours. The Prime Minister had already capitulated on the digital services tax to the tune of $1.4 billion a year. Today, he is capitulating on the $2 billion a year in levies payable by streaming platforms. Whey are the Liberals always so eager to capitulate when it comes to protecting francophone culture in North America?

“The government is giving in to pressure from the United States. It wants to cancel a fee increase so streaming companies like Netflix do not have to pay their fair share to support Canadian culture.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, Ottawa is once again bowing to pressure from Washington. The government wants to cancel a levy increase and allow Netflix, Amazon and other streaming platforms to get out of paying their fair share towards funding culture. The Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions is concerned about this situation. It stated: “Ottawa’s decision...represents a major and deeply troubling setback in the face of U.S. pressure on Canada’s cultural sovereignty.” Who is in charge of cultural policy in this country: the Prime Minister or Donald Trump?

Government Orders ·

Build Canada Homes Act

“This bill lets the new housing agency buy shares in housing companies. I worry that mixes up government and private roles. I want to know what my colleague thinks about that.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on something. We know that Build Canada Homes will be entitled to acquire shares in companies involved in public housing. It seems to me that the roles are getting mixed up. We have some reservations about this. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about this.

“We support this bill because we want more homes built. But the government already has an agency that does this work. Why create a new one, and what happens to the old one?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois supports the bill, because we want housing to be built. However, a similar body already exists, namely the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Its mandate is very similar, if not identical, to that of Build Canada Homes. Why create a new body? What is the logic there? What will happen to the CMHC?