MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT
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 .
Government Orders ·
“I want to share my speaking time with my colleague.”
“Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon.”
Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon.
Oral Questions ·
“The government plans to spend $25 billion in public money on oil and pipelines. I want to know which Liberals will refuse to make taxpayers pay for a pipeline.”
“Mr. Speaker, seems like there is a new pipeline in the works in Ottawa. The Liberal member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie said this morning: “Where I draw the line is if the federal government decides to use any of the many mechanisms at its disposal [to buy a pipeline].” His Prime Minister’s economic update gives us cause for concern. He has come up with a scheme called a “sovereign wealth fund” that contains $25 billion in public money to finance dirty oil. Are there any other Liberals who will draw the line and refuse to pass the cost of a pipeline on to taxpayers?”
Mr. Speaker, seems like there is a new pipeline in the works in Ottawa. The Liberal member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie said this morning: “Where I draw the line is if the federal government decides to use any of the many mechanisms at its disposal [to buy a pipeline].” His Prime Minister’s economic update gives us cause for concern. He has come up with a scheme called a “sovereign wealth fund” that contains $25 billion in public money to finance dirty oil. Are there any other Liberals who will draw the line and refuse to pass the cost of a pipeline on to taxpayers?
“The Prime Minister promised Alberta new pipelines if oil companies pay for them. Oil companies do not want to pay, and people in Quebec do not want to pay either. Did the Prime Minister tell Alberta that public money will not be used?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was meeting with his Alberta counterpart, Danielle Smith. We know that he has already promised her new pipelines, provided that the proponents foot the bill. According to what the Liberal member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie told Le Devoir, the Prime Minister has put himself in a tight spot with that promise. He promised more pipelines, but oil companies do not want to pay. Guess what? Quebeckers do not want to pay either. Did the Prime Minister reiterate to Ms. Smith that their agreement specifies that no public funds will be used for these pipelines?”
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was meeting with his Alberta counterpart, Danielle Smith. We know that he has already promised her new pipelines, provided that the proponents foot the bill. According to what the Liberal member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie told Le Devoir, the Prime Minister has put himself in a tight spot with that promise. He promised more pipelines, but oil companies do not want to pay. Guess what? Quebeckers do not want to pay either. Did the Prime Minister reiterate to Ms. Smith that their agreement specifies that no public funds will be used for these pipelines?
Government Orders ·
“We voted to give victims of military crimes a choice, but the government removed that change after making private deals. I want to know what my colleague thinks about the government ignoring what victims asked for.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his meticulousness and excellent work, as well as on his insightful analysis of the work of the parliamentary secretary across the way. I would like to hear my colleague’s comments. I hear him talking about the amendment that was intended to give victims a choice. We hear a lot of talk in Parliament about the need to consider victims and ensure they receive support and care. We had voted to uphold a request from victims, namely to have a choice, and the government unilaterally removed that provision after securing a majority, through backroom deals to boot. I would like my colleague to respond to that. Does he not think there is a danger or a shift on the part of the Liberal Party, which believes it has a monopoly on the truth?”
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his meticulousness and excellent work, as well as on his insightful analysis of the work of the parliamentary secretary across the way. I would like to hear my colleague’s comments. I hear him talking about the amendment that was intended to give victims a choice. We hear a lot of talk in Parliament about the need to consider victims and ensure they receive support and care. We had voted to uphold a request from victims, namely to have a choice, and the government unilaterally removed that provision after securing a majority, through backroom deals to boot. I would like my colleague to respond to that. Does he not think there is a danger or a shift on the part of the Liberal Party, which believes it has a monopoly on the truth?
“This should not be a partisan issue. Why did the Liberals reject every change to this bill suggested by all three opposition parties? They need to work with us instead of acting like only they have the truth.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite correct to say that this is not, and must never become, a partisan issue. I would like to ask her a question that touches a bit on the topic discussed by my Conservative colleague earlier. Can my colleague explain why, after the Liberal government became a majority, it scrapped every amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the NDP? To me, things seem to be taking a partisan turn. In any case, if not partisan, it is strange. Does this mean that the Liberal government has a corner on the truth and does not need to work in collaboration with the opposition parties?”
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite correct to say that this is not, and must never become, a partisan issue. I would like to ask her a question that touches a bit on the topic discussed by my Conservative colleague earlier. Can my colleague explain why, after the Liberal government became a majority, it scrapped every amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the NDP? To me, things seem to be taking a partisan turn. In any case, if not partisan, it is strange. Does this mean that the Liberal government has a corner on the truth and does not need to work in collaboration with the opposition parties?
Private Members' Business ·
“I support this bill because it focuses on rehabilitating criminals instead of just punishing them. Helping offenders with training and support makes society safer and stops them from committing crimes again.”
“Madam Speaker, what a treat. I thought I had only two minutes to speak. We are talking about crime and rehabilitation. There are different ways to look at prison sentences for criminals, those who have committed a crime. The first is to see them as a way of telling the person that they need to understand the seriousness of what they did, that they are “going to pay”, that they will not have an easy time in jail, and that, afterward, they are going to have to think about what they did so they do not do it again. From that perspective, the individual is not getting any support. It could even be said that there is a desire for the person to suffer. That approach does not work. That approach does not help in rehabilitating offenders. We in the Bloc Québécois believe in rehabilitation. For anyone who believes in rehabilitation, the constructive approach is to guide the individual toward a more positive life. Awareness and recognition come first, and then the individual’s current circumstances must be generally assessed. Where is this person at? What led them to commit the crime? It might be easy to dismiss the individual as just a thief, but there is a family background and socio-economic context to consider. Often, people who commit violent acts were themselves victims of repeated violence as children, and so on. We need to understand, support and empower these folks. Training and rehabilitation programs significantly increase the chances of successful reintegration into society. The research is very clear on this point. In that sense, the bill we are discussing today seems positive at first glance. Of course, we will vote in favour of the bill in principle at second reading, as my colleague from La Pointe-de-l’Île said earlier. We are prepared to do serious and rigorous work in committee to ensure that the measures taken are effective and yield positive results. When someone can be rehabilitated, and we can prevent that person from reoffending, it is not just that person who benefits, it is society as a whole. I think my time is up. It is a pleasure to wrap up our work week. I wish all my colleagues a good weekend.”
Madam Speaker, what a treat. I thought I had only two minutes to speak. We are talking about crime and rehabilitation. There are different ways to look at prison sentences for criminals, those who have committed a crime. The first is to see them as a way of telling the person that they need to understand the seriousness of what they did, that they are “going to pay”, that they will not have an easy time in jail, and that, afterward, they are going to have to think about what they did so they do not do it again. From that perspective, the individual is not getting any support. It could even be said that there is a desire for the person to suffer. That approach does not work. That approach does not help in rehabilitating offenders. We in the Bloc Québécois believe in rehabilitation. For anyone who believes in rehabilitation, the constructive approach is to guide the individual toward a more positive life. Awareness and recognition come first, and then the individual’s current circumstances must be generally assessed. Where is this person at? What led them to commit the crime? It might be easy to dismiss the individual as just a thief, but there is a family background and socio-economic context to consider. Often, people who commit violent acts were themselves victims of repeated violence as children, and so on. We need to understand, support and empower these folks. Training and rehabilitation programs significantly increase the chances of successful reintegration into society. The research is very clear on this point. In that sense, the bill we are discussing today seems positive at first glance. Of course, we will vote in favour of the bill in principle at second reading, as my colleague from La Pointe-de-l’Île said earlier. We are prepared to do serious and rigorous work in committee to ensure that the measures taken are effective and yield positive results. When someone can be rehabilitated, and we can prevent that person from reoffending, it is not just that person who benefits, it is society as a whole. I think my time is up. It is a pleasure to wrap up our work week. I wish all my colleagues a good weekend.
Government Orders ·
In response to a question from Mario Simard
“The government owes Quebec 14 million dollars for the carbon tax and over 700 million dollars for asylum seekers. I want Quebec to get this money back. Things like this make me want Quebec to become an independent country even sooner.”
“Mr. Speaker, “inequities” is putting it mildly. I would say it amounts to outright theft. In the case of the carbon tax refund for money people had not yet paid, we are talking about $14 million owed to Quebec. This is a grave injustice. We even held an opposition day on this issue, yet the government never even considered it. It is the same with asylum seekers. Quebec is owed over $700 million. The Bloc Québécois does not wish to harm Canada. What we want is to protect our people in Quebec and get what is rightfully ours. We are, of course, working to build the country of Quebec in the meantime, and we are more than eager to do so. When we see such blatant theft, it just makes us even more eager for the next referendum.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 0 of 100
None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.
See full analysisReply to a debate question
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 analysisMr. Speaker, “inequities” is putting it mildly. I would say it amounts to outright theft. In the case of the carbon tax refund for money people had not yet paid, we are talking about $14 million owed to Quebec. This is a grave injustice. We even held an opposition day on this issue, yet the government never even considered it. It is the same with asylum seekers. Quebec is owed over $700 million. The Bloc Québécois does not wish to harm Canada. What we want is to protect our people in Quebec and get what is rightfully ours. We are, of course, working to build the country of Quebec in the meantime, and we are more than eager to do so. When we see such blatant theft, it just makes us even more eager for the next referendum.
In response to a question from Tamara Kronis
“The government is taking too much control over committee work and meeting in secret. I want the Liberals to stop acting like this and work fairly with other parties.”
“Mr. Speaker, I must first commend my colleague on the quality of her French. It is exemplary. She seems very nice. The government’s authoritarian tendencies are worrisome indeed. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government is paying close attention and will perhaps take the opportunity to reassure us on that score. Now that I am my party’s whip, I oversee all the committees. Having read our member’s reports, I know that the government is quick to convene in camera and clean house. The government is in the process of taking back control of the order of precedence. I hope that this feverish activity is temporary, the result of having recently secured a majority through backroom deals, and that the Liberals will become reasonable again. Asking that an open hand be extended comes off well in public, but accepting that hand is another matter.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I must first commend my colleague on the quality of her French. It is exemplary. She seems very nice. The government’s authoritarian tendencies are worrisome indeed. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government is paying close attention and will perhaps take the opportunity to reassure us on that score. Now that I am my party’s whip, I oversee all the committees. Having read our member’s reports, I know that the government is quick to convene in camera and clean house. The government is in the process of taking back control of the order of precedence. I hope that this feverish activity is temporary, the result of having recently secured a majority through backroom deals, and that the Liberals will become reasonable again. Asking that an open hand be extended comes off well in public, but accepting that hand is another matter.
In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux
“The agriculture committee is doing great work, and my party will keep working with others on it. When we export food to Asia, we must be careful about recent rule changes for food safety and pest control. The government must study this closely so public health is not put at risk.”
“Mr. Speaker, since the parliamentary secretary clearly does not often attend meetings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, I would like to inform him that, in my humble opinion, it is the most outstanding House of Commons committee. Unfortunately, I have not served on it since January, but I do want to point out that the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, who took over for me, is doing a great job and that he is up to the task. The Bloc Québécois will continue to work co-operatively. Of course, when it comes to exports to the Asia-Pacific region, there are a lot of people to feed there. The concerns that I raised have to do with the mandate changes at the CFIA and the PMRA. I would ask the government to be vigilant in that regard. We would be pleased to work together to conduct a serious study in committee so as not to compromise public health.”
Mr. Speaker, since the parliamentary secretary clearly does not often attend meetings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, I would like to inform him that, in my humble opinion, it is the most outstanding House of Commons committee. Unfortunately, I have not served on it since January, but I do want to point out that the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, who took over for me, is doing a great job and that he is up to the task. The Bloc Québécois will continue to work co-operatively. Of course, when it comes to exports to the Asia-Pacific region, there are a lot of people to feed there. The concerns that I raised have to do with the mandate changes at the CFIA and the PMRA. I would ask the government to be vigilant in that regard. We would be pleased to work together to conduct a serious study in committee so as not to compromise public health.
“I do not support this economic update. It does nothing to help with US tariffs on steel and aluminum. It cuts gas taxes, which only helps oil companies while gas prices stay high. The government should stop giving billions to oil companies and spend that money on housing, pensions, and employment insurance instead. I also worry that changes to food and pesticide rules put corporate profits ahead of public health.”
“Mr. Speaker, in that case, I will be sharing my time with this wonderful colleague, which means I will have to step up my game. After all, there needs to be some balance in these 10-minute speeches. I would like to begin by acknowledging the exemplary, extraordinary and remarkable work of the interpreters who interpret our questions every day. They are essential to ensuring the right of French speakers to work in their language. I would like to offer them my sincerest apologies and tell them that I am truly sorry about the phone that apparently vibrated a moment ago. It was not in the right place. Let me assure them that the other phone is well out of the way. The one with the timer running is properly positioned on my desk. This proves that even members who try to be careful every day can make mistakes. I would like to remind my colleagues in the House to always be mindful of this. I appreciate the interpreters. It will come as no surprise when I say that the Bloc Québécois was very disappointed with this economic update. To sum up what I am about to say, this economic update is in serious need of an update itself. The Liberals need to go back to the drawing board. For one thing, we were very surprised that there is still nothing about the new 25% tariffs imposed on goods from Quebec and elsewhere that use steel or aluminum. It is important to note that the Americans have decided to impose a 25% tariff on the total price of the product even if steel or aluminum makes up only a tiny percentage of the final product. That comes with very serious repercussions. We asked the government some questions before the economic update was tabled. We were told that the answers would be in the economic update. Now we have it, but there are no answers in there. We are asking questions, and we are being asked what we want to eliminate. We want to eliminate oil and gas subsidies; that is what I answered earlier. We are not happy, but we are here to work as an intelligent and constructive opposition. I know that the parliamentary secretary is pleased to hear this, since he is listening carefully to my speech. I think he might be willing to accept our olive branch. Still, there is much to do and we have our work cut out for us. This is a serious matter. We are disappointed with the Liberal majority’s arrogant new approach of negotiating behind closed doors, which meant that we were not invited for any discussions before the economic update was tabled. It is easy to say that the opposition complains all the time, but if the government would talk to us a little, if it would take our proposals into consideration, perhaps the opposition would complain less. Speaking of proposals, as we have said many times, the Bloc Québécois did its homework. This reminds me of the last election campaign, when journalists all said that the Bloc Québécois platform was the one that looked most like a government’s election platform. That is rather ironic. The 11 proposals we made are serious, reasonable proposals. We are surprised that they were not taken into account. As an opposition, we do not expect our proposals to be accepted in full all the time, but at the very least, we expect them to be considered. In this case, they were not considered at all. We are concerned about a number of measures in the economic update. First, there is the elimination of the excise tax, which we have talked a lot about. As we have said from the beginning, lowering taxes on gasoline is not a solution. I know that many members here support that approach and want to remove even more taxes, but just look at the price of gas in Quebec and Canada this morning. It is clear that the oil companies have an insatiable appetite. They have no limits. They will take whatever they can get. The government cut the excise tax by 10¢, and the oil companies are already making up the difference. They seize every opportunity to take more. They suck up everything they can get and put it in their pockets. This needs to stop. That does not mean that the government should not help people. Obviously, it is difficult to be against a proposal like eliminating the excise tax. Members think that they are giving people some breathing room, but look at the result. Gas is up to nearly $2 a litre in Montreal this morning. This is not working. What we need is direct support. The government could have shown some intelligence and creativity by proposing, for example, a partial reimbursement of fuel costs for business owners and people who use gas and diesel for work. Targeted measures could have been used to help low-income individuals by compensating them without giving that money to the oil companies. As for the excise tax, we are seeing the results this morning. It is sad to say, but my I see that the money that was supposed to go into people’s pockets ended up in the pockets of oil companies. I am not even talking about the scandal of the oil and gas subsidies. These subsidies are a tradition. They are part of Canada’s DNA. We can denounce them all we want and ask the government to abolish them, but it will never do that. The lobbies are far too powerful, and there are people making money from this somewhere. We find this deeply deplorable. We could be saving $26 billion over five years and using that money to invest in social housing and to provide a decent retirement pension for people aged 65 and older, because retirees aged 65 to 74 are currently being discriminated against. That money could be invested in many other areas, including EI reform. The government could do that instead of taking the EI surplus and putting it into its own coffers. It is a bad habit that tends to happen far too often. That money belongs to workers. The EI system pays out benefits to only 60% of those who contribute. That is both ironic and embarrassing. I do not know anyone in my circle who would agree to pay for home insurance if the insurance company told them they only had a 60% chance of receiving a payout if their house burned down. Anyone would think about it for 30 seconds and then look for another company. Our workers’ hands are tied. They are stuck dealing with the federal government, which is administering an EI system that it should not even be administering, since that responsibility should be returned to the provinces and Quebec. I think Quebec would do a much better job running an EI system. We have solutions to help people. Measures for the workforce were announced. That is all well and good, the intention is noble, and we cannot oppose that. However, what we would say to the Liberals is that there has been an agreement with Quebec since 1997. It seemed like we were telling them something new when they read their economic update. They are supposed to know this better than we do, since they are in government. They should have had prior discussions with the Quebec government. However, judging by the reactions of the new Premier, the finance minister and the people in Quebec City, I think they have not talked much. That is concerning to us. We will be keeping a close eye on this. Another thing that really concerns us is the increased health and safety risks when it comes to food. The government is changing the mandate of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and, if I understood correctly, it is going to change the Pest Management Regulatory Agency’s regulations to include consideration of economic issues, not just public health and safety issues. We need to be careful about how we do that. As everyone knows, I am not acting in bad faith. I was very proud to work on the agriculture and agri-food file here for many years, right up until January. We talked a lot about this issue, and it is true that the inefficiency of these agencies was causing problems. Our issue was with the lack of efficiency. We did not see a need to change the mandate. We are concerned about the fact that the government wants to change the mandate because this is a slippery slope. This will have to be studied very seriously in committee. I hope that the government will give us the time we need to do that and that it will not start holding all the meetings in camera to silence the opposition, because we have serious concerns about public health. The pesticide and herbicide lobbies are extremely powerful. Members will recall what happened with the so-called tiger team. That was really serious, but unfortunately, it did not get much media coverage. That shows just how much power these people have. I am concerned. That said, I would like the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency to be more effective and efficient in responding to on-farm emergencies. When someone requests an emergency approval but receives no authorization, their crops can be ravaged by insects, disease or some other problem. Sometimes the authorization arrives after the damage is done. That does not mean that human safety was compromised; the product was approved. However, the processing is not being done fast enough. Agency staff should do some overtime now and then to keep up with demand. That was the issue. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food’s request was about efficiency, not a change in mandate. My time is running out; sadly, this happens to me a lot here. Once again, the government is giving the minister the authority to suspend the application of a number of laws. That still worries me. What is this bad habit? It seems that every time I rise in the House, it is to complain about the government trying to suspend the application of laws. Three-year orders are very worrisome. We have serious proposals, such as a wage subsidy to help businesses out and give them some breathing room. We are prepared to work with the government, but it has to be willing.”
Mr. Speaker, in that case, I will be sharing my time with this wonderful colleague, which means I will have to step up my game. After all, there needs to be some balance in these 10-minute speeches. I would like to begin by acknowledging the exemplary, extraordinary and remarkable work of the interpreters who interpret our questions every day. They are essential to ensuring the right of French speakers to work in their language. I would like to offer them my sincerest apologies and tell them that I am truly sorry about the phone that apparently vibrated a moment ago. It was not in the right place. Let me assure them that the other phone is well out of the way. The one with the timer running is properly positioned on my desk. This proves that even members who try to be careful every day can make mistakes. I would like to remind my colleagues in the House to always be mindful of this. I appreciate the interpreters. It will come as no surprise when I say that the Bloc Québécois was very disappointed with this economic update. To sum up what I am about to say, this economic update is in serious need of an update itself. The Liberals need to go back to the drawing board. For one thing, we were very surprised that there is still nothing about the new 25% tariffs imposed on goods from Quebec and elsewhere that use steel or aluminum. It is important to note that the Americans have decided to impose a 25% tariff on the total price of the product even if steel or aluminum makes up only a tiny percentage of the final product. That comes with very serious repercussions. We asked the government some questions before the economic update was tabled. We were told that the answers would be in the economic update. Now we have it, but there are no answers in there. We are asking questions, and we are being asked what we want to eliminate. We want to eliminate oil and gas subsidies; that is what I answered earlier. We are not happy, but we are here to work as an intelligent and constructive opposition. I know that the parliamentary secretary is pleased to hear this, since he is listening carefully to my speech. I think he might be willing to accept our olive branch. Still, there is much to do and we have our work cut out for us. This is a serious matter. We are disappointed with the Liberal majority’s arrogant new approach of negotiating behind closed doors, which meant that we were not invited for any discussions before the economic update was tabled. It is easy to say that the opposition complains all the time, but if the government would talk to us a little, if it would take our proposals into consideration, perhaps the opposition would complain less. Speaking of proposals, as we have said many times, the Bloc Québécois did its homework. This reminds me of the last election campaign, when journalists all said that the Bloc Québécois platform was the one that looked most like a government’s election platform. That is rather ironic. The 11 proposals we made are serious, reasonable proposals. We are surprised that they were not taken into account. As an opposition, we do not expect our proposals to be accepted in full all the time, but at the very least, we expect them to be considered. In this case, they were not considered at all. We are concerned about a number of measures in the economic update. First, there is the elimination of the excise tax, which we have talked a lot about. As we have said from the beginning, lowering taxes on gasoline is not a solution. I know that many members here support that approach and want to remove even more taxes, but just look at the price of gas in Quebec and Canada this morning. It is clear that the oil companies have an insatiable appetite. They have no limits. They will take whatever they can get. The government cut the excise tax by 10¢, and the oil companies are already making up the difference. They seize every opportunity to take more. They suck up everything they can get and put it in their pockets. This needs to stop. That does not mean that the government should not help people. Obviously, it is difficult to be against a proposal like eliminating the excise tax. Members think that they are giving people some breathing room, but look at the result. Gas is up to nearly $2 a litre in Montreal this morning. This is not working. What we need is direct support. The government could have shown some intelligence and creativity by proposing, for example, a partial reimbursement of fuel costs for business owners and people who use gas and diesel for work. Targeted measures could have been used to help low-income individuals by compensating them without giving that money to the oil companies. As for the excise tax, we are seeing the results this morning. It is sad to say, but my I see that the money that was supposed to go into people’s pockets ended up in the pockets of oil companies. I am not even talking about the scandal of the oil and gas subsidies. These subsidies are a tradition. They are part of Canada’s DNA. We can denounce them all we want and ask the government to abolish them, but it will never do that. The lobbies are far too powerful, and there are people making money from this somewhere. We find this deeply deplorable. We could be saving $26 billion over five years and using that money to invest in social housing and to provide a decent retirement pension for people aged 65 and older, because retirees aged 65 to 74 are currently being discriminated against. That money could be invested in many other areas, including EI reform. The government could do that instead of taking the EI surplus and putting it into its own coffers. It is a bad habit that tends to happen far too often. That money belongs to workers. The EI system pays out benefits to only 60% of those who contribute. That is both ironic and embarrassing. I do not know anyone in my circle who would agree to pay for home insurance if the insurance company told them they only had a 60% chance of receiving a payout if their house burned down. Anyone would think about it for 30 seconds and then look for another company. Our workers’ hands are tied. They are stuck dealing with the federal government, which is administering an EI system that it should not even be administering, since that responsibility should be returned to the provinces and Quebec. I think Quebec would do a much better job running an EI system. We have solutions to help people. Measures for the workforce were announced. That is all well and good, the intention is noble, and we cannot oppose that. However, what we would say to the Liberals is that there has been an agreement with Quebec since 1997. It seemed like we were telling them something new when they read their economic update. They are supposed to know this better than we do, since they are in government. They should have had prior discussions with the Quebec government. However, judging by the reactions of the new Premier, the finance minister and the people in Quebec City, I think they have not talked much. That is concerning to us. We will be keeping a close eye on this. Another thing that really concerns us is the increased health and safety risks when it comes to food. The government is changing the mandate of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and, if I understood correctly, it is going to change the Pest Management Regulatory Agency’s regulations to include consideration of economic issues, not just public health and safety issues. We need to be careful about how we do that. As everyone knows, I am not acting in bad faith. I was very proud to work on the agriculture and agri-food file here for many years, right up until January. We talked a lot about this issue, and it is true that the inefficiency of these agencies was causing problems. Our issue was with the lack of efficiency. We did not see a need to change the mandate. We are concerned about the fact that the government wants to change the mandate because this is a slippery slope. This will have to be studied very seriously in committee. I hope that the government will give us the time we need to do that and that it will not start holding all the meetings in camera to silence the opposition, because we have serious concerns about public health. The pesticide and herbicide lobbies are extremely powerful. Members will recall what happened with the so-called tiger team. That was really serious, but unfortunately, it did not get much media coverage. That shows just how much power these people have. I am concerned. That said, I would like the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency to be more effective and efficient in responding to on-farm emergencies. When someone requests an emergency approval but receives no authorization, their crops can be ravaged by insects, disease or some other problem. Sometimes the authorization arrives after the damage is done. That does not mean that human safety was compromised; the product was approved. However, the processing is not being done fast enough. Agency staff should do some overtime now and then to keep up with demand. That was the issue. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food’s request was about efficiency, not a change in mandate. My time is running out; sadly, this happens to me a lot here. Once again, the government is giving the minister the authority to suspend the application of a number of laws. That still worries me. What is this bad habit? It seems that every time I rise in the House, it is to complain about the government trying to suspend the application of laws. Three-year orders are very worrisome. We have serious proposals, such as a wage subsidy to help businesses out and give them some breathing room. We are prepared to work with the government, but it has to be willing.
“I want permission from the House to share my speaking time with the member for Jonquière.”
“Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with my highly respected colleague from Jonquière.”
Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with my highly respected colleague from Jonquière.
“The government only extended extra employment insurance help until 2028. That is not enough. We need a permanent fix and full reform of the system. What does my colleague think?”
“Mr. Speaker, in its economic update, the government announced a half measure for improving EI eligibility. It is extending the existing measure, but only until 2028. In our opinion, the spring gap is a perennial issue that demands a permanent solution. We are advocating for a comprehensive EI reform. I would like to know my colleague’s thoughts.”
Mr. Speaker, in its economic update, the government announced a half measure for improving EI eligibility. It is extending the existing measure, but only until 2028. In our opinion, the spring gap is a perennial issue that demands a permanent solution. We are advocating for a comprehensive EI reform. I would like to know my colleague’s thoughts.
Oral Questions ·
“The government should stop funding oil and gas companies. Instead, it should help pay workers' wages now so companies do not lay people off because of tariffs. Hundreds of manufacturing workers have already lost their jobs, and many businesses need help immediately.”
“Madam Speaker, we, the Bloc Québécois, are in favour of scrapping oil and gas subsidies. Our wage subsidy proposal to protect jobs during the tariff crisis involves taking action before layoffs occur, not after. This week, 300 jobs were lost at two furniture manufacturing plants. This follows on the heels of 300 layoffs at Paccar, in Sainte‑Thérèse. A lot of other companies are crying out for help, including Liard Industries in Joliette, Cyrell AMP in Beloeil, ADF in Terrebonne, Max Atlas in Saint‑Jean‑sur‑Richelieu, M.L. Pro‑tech in St-Boniface or Acier Hason in Lanoraie, and the list goes on. We are going to work with the government. Our hand is outstretched. However, does the government realize the urgency involved?”
Madam Speaker, we, the Bloc Québécois, are in favour of scrapping oil and gas subsidies. Our wage subsidy proposal to protect jobs during the tariff crisis involves taking action before layoffs occur, not after. This week, 300 jobs were lost at two furniture manufacturing plants. This follows on the heels of 300 layoffs at Paccar, in Sainte‑Thérèse. A lot of other companies are crying out for help, including Liard Industries in Joliette, Cyrell AMP in Beloeil, ADF in Terrebonne, Max Atlas in Saint‑Jean‑sur‑Richelieu, M.L. Pro‑tech in St-Boniface or Acier Hason in Lanoraie, and the list goes on. We are going to work with the government. Our hand is outstretched. However, does the government realize the urgency involved?
“Two long-running furniture companies in Quebec are closing or going bankrupt, and 300 people lost their jobs in four days. U.S. tariffs and trade issues are causing this. I want the government to act now and offer wage subsidies to save these jobs.”
“Madam Speaker, we just lost 300 jobs in only four days in the Chaudière-Appalaches region. Following the announcement by South Shore Furniture, Bestar announced yesterday that it would have to declare bankruptcy. We are talking about companies that have been in business for 86 and 75 years, respectively. In both cases, the U.S. tariffs, lack of liquidity and the dumping caused by the trade war are to blame. There are a number of things that should be done. The first is a wage subsidy to save our jobs. We have been proposing that for a long time. When will the government finally take action?”
Madam Speaker, we just lost 300 jobs in only four days in the Chaudière-Appalaches region. Following the announcement by South Shore Furniture, Bestar announced yesterday that it would have to declare bankruptcy. We are talking about companies that have been in business for 86 and 75 years, respectively. In both cases, the U.S. tariffs, lack of liquidity and the dumping caused by the trade war are to blame. There are a number of things that should be done. The first is a wage subsidy to save our jobs. We have been proposing that for a long time. When will the government finally take action?
Government Orders ·
“I am worried the government is putting business interests ahead of public health when approving pesticides. The pesticide agency is too slow, but making decisions based on money instead of safety is dangerous. I want my colleague to reassure me about this.”
“Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is concerned about the measures that have been announced, particularly regarding the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA. When it comes to pesticides and herbicides, the government has made it very clear that economic considerations will now be given just as much weight as health considerations. My colleague served with me on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for a long time and so he is somewhat familiar with the issue. I would like him to reassure me in this regard. Of course, we did a lot of work on this in committee. We have voiced our concerns about how inefficient an agency like the PMRA can be when it comes to requests for emergency registration. The PMRA can ask for extensions, fall behind schedule and end up approving the product only after the crisis is already over for the produce grower. This is much more about efficiency than about economic considerations. Of course, we are not opposed to considering that, but we feel that this is a very slippery slope when it comes to public health. I would like my colleague to reassure me in that regard.”
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is concerned about the measures that have been announced, particularly regarding the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA. When it comes to pesticides and herbicides, the government has made it very clear that economic considerations will now be given just as much weight as health considerations. My colleague served with me on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for a long time and so he is somewhat familiar with the issue. I would like him to reassure me in this regard. Of course, we did a lot of work on this in committee. We have voiced our concerns about how inefficient an agency like the PMRA can be when it comes to requests for emergency registration. The PMRA can ask for extensions, fall behind schedule and end up approving the product only after the crisis is already over for the produce grower. This is much more about efficiency than about economic considerations. Of course, we are not opposed to considering that, but we feel that this is a very slippery slope when it comes to public health. I would like my colleague to reassure me in that regard.
Oral Questions ·
“The government is giving nearly $40 billion to oil companies, but nothing to the media, seniors, or small businesses. I want to know why oil companies come before everyone else.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have enough money to provide nearly $40 billion in aid to oil companies in the economic update, but not a penny for the media, which is in the midst of a crisis and facing widespread layoffs; not a penny for seniors struggling with the rising cost of living; and not a penny for our small and medium-sized businesses facing U.S. tariffs. On the other hand, when it comes time to say yes to the oil companies, the Liberals rush to do so. Why do billionaire oil companies come before everyone else?”
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have enough money to provide nearly $40 billion in aid to oil companies in the economic update, but not a penny for the media, which is in the midst of a crisis and facing widespread layoffs; not a penny for seniors struggling with the rising cost of living; and not a penny for our small and medium-sized businesses facing U.S. tariffs. On the other hand, when it comes time to say yes to the oil companies, the Liberals rush to do so. Why do billionaire oil companies come before everyone else?
“The government gives billions of dollars in tax breaks and public funds to oil companies instead of helping small businesses. Small businesses might close because of new American tariffs. Why are oil companies getting all the help?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are continuing to surrender to climate change in their economic update. There is not a penny to help our businesses cope with the new U.S. tariffs introduced on April 6, but meanwhile, oil companies are breaking out the champagne. The Liberals have poured $10 billion in public funds into trying to help them find business partners, not to mention another $25 billion through their so-called sovereign wealth fund, and they are extending the tax credits. It is our SMEs that are at risk of closing their doors, not oil companies. Why are the oil companies the ones that are getting all the help?”
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are continuing to surrender to climate change in their economic update. There is not a penny to help our businesses cope with the new U.S. tariffs introduced on April 6, but meanwhile, oil companies are breaking out the champagne. The Liberals have poured $10 billion in public funds into trying to help them find business partners, not to mention another $25 billion through their so-called sovereign wealth fund, and they are extending the tax credits. It is our SMEs that are at risk of closing their doors, not oil companies. Why are the oil companies the ones that are getting all the help?
Government Orders ·
“We mostly support this space plan, but I am worried the government keeps ignoring normal laws. This bill stops an appeals tribunal from reviewing space launch decisions. The government treats our laws like roadblocks, but those laws keep people safe.”
“Madam Speaker, for the most part, we agree on implementing such a system, as we said earlier. However, my concern is that there seems to be a tendency to waive application of the law every time new measures are introduced. It is tiresome. As we all know, Bill C‑5 became an act that enables the government to designate projects of national interest. It allows the government to override all existing laws. We also know that Bill C‑15 took away citizens’ rights with respect to expropriation. The government also got rid of the environmental assessment for the high-speed rail project. Now it is pushing to exempt certain launch-related decisions from Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada review. I would like my colleague to comment on this. The government seems to view laws as obstacles to progress, but laws are the legislative framework we have established over decades to provide the public with safety and stability.”
Madam Speaker, for the most part, we agree on implementing such a system, as we said earlier. However, my concern is that there seems to be a tendency to waive application of the law every time new measures are introduced. It is tiresome. As we all know, Bill C‑5 became an act that enables the government to designate projects of national interest. It allows the government to override all existing laws. We also know that Bill C‑15 took away citizens’ rights with respect to expropriation. The government also got rid of the environmental assessment for the high-speed rail project. Now it is pushing to exempt certain launch-related decisions from Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada review. I would like my colleague to comment on this. The government seems to view laws as obstacles to progress, but laws are the legislative framework we have established over decades to provide the public with safety and stability.
Government Orders ·
In response to a question from Mario Beaulieu
“We need to lower the amount of money people are allowed to donate to political parties. Right now, people who donate $1,700 get a big tax refund paid with public money. Only powerful people can give that much, and that is a problem.”
“Mr. Speaker, getting a portion of public funding is essential. I was told earlier that there was some uncertainty as to whether there was an agreement on this. I can confirm that there is public funding, because when someone donates $1,700, they receive a substantial tax refund. Public money is going into this. What we are suggesting is simply changing the formula, the way it is done, to prevent anyone from donating as much as $1,700. We believe that only influential people can do this, so that poses a problem. The amount needs to be lowered.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, getting a portion of public funding is essential. I was told earlier that there was some uncertainty as to whether there was an agreement on this. I can confirm that there is public funding, because when someone donates $1,700, they receive a substantial tax refund. Public money is going into this. What we are suggesting is simply changing the formula, the way it is done, to prevent anyone from donating as much as $1,700. We believe that only influential people can do this, so that poses a problem. The amount needs to be lowered.
In response to a question from Luc Berthold
“People should be allowed to sign nomination papers for more than one candidate. Signing a paper is not a vote, and voters must be free to change their minds during an election.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that my colleague asks me a question that I appreciate, so it has been a good week. The issue has a lot to do with ballot secrecy. I had started to explain it to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government. Ballot secrecy is a privilege of citizenship. As long as citizens can sign as many nomination papers as they want, signing does not mean they are voting for that person. However, if we get to the point where citizens can only sign one nomination paper, the message would be that they are going to vote for that person. It also implies that there is some sort of commitment and that citizens cannot change their mind during an election campaign. However, an election campaign is precisely when people change their minds. We are usually pretty good at changing people’s minds, so we would not want that to change. We think that the other measures, such as having one official agent per candidate, could do the job. We agree on the basic objective.”
Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that my colleague asks me a question that I appreciate, so it has been a good week. The issue has a lot to do with ballot secrecy. I had started to explain it to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government. Ballot secrecy is a privilege of citizenship. As long as citizens can sign as many nomination papers as they want, signing does not mean they are voting for that person. However, if we get to the point where citizens can only sign one nomination paper, the message would be that they are going to vote for that person. It also implies that there is some sort of commitment and that citizens cannot change their mind during an election campaign. However, an election campaign is precisely when people change their minds. We are usually pretty good at changing people’s minds, so we would not want that to change. We think that the other measures, such as having one official agent per candidate, could do the job. We agree on the basic objective.
