Yves Perron

“The Prime Minister says that winning 50 percent plus one is not enough in a referendum. He is ignoring democracy and cheating because he does not like the idea of Quebec choosing its own future. Quebeckers accepted the 1995 vote result. I want to know why Canada will not play by the rules.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has shown his true colours by claiming that 50% of the vote plus one would not be enough to win a referendum. He has shown that he will flout democracy if he is not happy with a decision made by the people. He has shown that he adheres to a long tradition of federalism that tramples on peoples’ right to self-determination—a federalism prepared to cheat to win. Quebeckers, for their part, are deeply democratic. They proved this by accepting the result of the 1995 referendum. Why is Canada fundamentally incapable of playing by the rules?”

In response to a question from Claude DeBellefeuille

“The government should give wage subsidies instead of just loans. Loans give small businesses too much debt. Right now, the government focuses on helping big companies, not small ones in our regions. I want the government to work with us to find better ways to help them.”

“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.”

“The Liberals need to talk to the Bloc Québécois about the budget. They did not consult us on our plan to help small businesses with wages, and they took three weeks just to brief us. Now they want to rush a vote this week, and we will not support it.”

“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.”

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“A minority government is supposed to work with other parties to pass bills. That usually makes laws better. Right now, the government is not listening to us or reading our ideas.”

“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.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Claude DeBellefeuille

“I want the government to support small businesses by cutting taxes on berry-based alcohol, just as it did for mead. This would help local farmers and cost very little money.”

“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.”

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The government claims it works with other parties, but it stopped doing that once it made a deal to get a majority. Minority governments are better because they have to cooperate and pass fair laws.”

“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.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “The Prime Minister talks a good game.”

  Said 4 times by 2 members since May 29.

  Every time it was said →

“I will vote against this budget bill. It does not help small businesses in Quebec deal with American tariffs, and it gives more money to oil and gas companies. The government also ignored our ideas and rushed the bill through without proper discussion.”

“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.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “The Prime Minister talks a good game.”

  Said 4 times by 2 members since May 29.

  Every time it was said →

“We support this bill. But it only deals with illegal tax evasion. I want to know if the sponsor will expand the bill to stop businesses from avoiding taxes by using tax havens. Businesses need to pay their fair share.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very worthwhile bill. My colleague will be pleased to hear that the Bloc Québécois is prepared to support this bill and carefully examine it in committee. I have a question for him. In his speech, he talked about tax evasion, which is addressed in the bill. He also talked about tax avoidance and how businesses are able to avoid paying taxes by using tax havens. However, as far as I know, the bill does not address that issue. Does he not think that the scope of his bill should be expanded to include tax avoidance? It is not fair that businesses are not paying their fair share.”

“The government cancelled the tax on big tech companies to help talks with the United States, but it did not work. We could collect seven billion dollars from these companies to support our local media and culture. Will the member push her government to bring this tax back?”

“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?”

“Big web companies should pay a share of their profits to support our culture. Traditional media had to pay fees to operate, but web giants pay nothing. Taking a small cut from them will help keep local news alive without hurting their independence. I want to hear the member's thoughts on this.”

“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.”

“I want to talk about moving military sexual assault cases to civilian courts, and letting victims choose where their cases are handled. Given my colleague's experience as a social worker, I want her to speak about why it is important to respect victims in these situations.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the issue of transferring sexual assault cases from the military justice system to the civilian justice system, as well as to the amendment aimed at granting victims the right to speak, or even a right of veto, so that they can make a choice in this regard. I know that my colleague is an experienced social worker. She has extensive experience in mediation and conciliation. She has met many people in her career. I would like her to speak to us about the importance of respecting victims in this type of situation.”

In response to a question from Mario Simard

“The government should work with opposition parties on this bill. We worked hard in committee to pass good changes, but the government is ignoring our work.”

“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.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Alex Ruff

“Victims should be allowed to choose how their cases are handled. Military judges should also be made independent from the armed forces. We all agreed on these ideas, but the government used its majority to throw them out. I want the government to explain why it did that.”

“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.”

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I want an answer to my question. Victims should have a choice in what happens, and I want to know why this bill does not give them that choice.”

“Mr. Speaker, we agree on that, as I said in my speech. The question I asked my colleague opposite, to which I have not yet received an answer, is the following: Why not retain the flexibility to give victims a choice? In any crime, in any unfortunate event that can happen, the most important person is the victim. That person’s choice and free will should always come first. I do not understand, and I imagine that my colleague does not have an answer for me because he did not give me one.”

“I support fixing the military justice system, but I am angry that the government erased good changes we made to this bill. We agreed to let victims of sexual crimes choose between civilian or military courts, to create an independent watchdog, and to make military judges independent from the army. The government used its new majority to remove all those changes. I want the government to work with us again and explain why it removed these protections for victims.”

“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.”