Yves Perron
Berthier—Maskinongé, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“They are not experts in the effects of crop protection products on the environment and on the people who apply them. (1125) I am not just thinking of the environment, but also of the farmers who are going to apply these pesticides to their fields.”
“Bill C-30 includes a lot of problematic provisions, including those related to pesticides. I spoke about this in my questions to my two colleagues who spoke before me. Everyone knows that agriculture and agri-food matter a lot to me. The people who work in these industries are especially important to me.”
“Speaker, as well as those who occupy the chair in your absence. You are all outstanding in this role. We greatly appreciate your impartiality, most of the time, indeed nearly all of the time. We are grateful for your work. I thank my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois and in all the other parties, as well as the independent members.”
“I exchanged letters with Alberta's minister of agriculture for some time over the past few years. She told me about a significant problem with rodent infestations in the fields and asked me to approve a product that I was unfamiliar with.”
“What is more, it is not any more expensive and it brings incredible vitality to our regions. I go to all the markets. There is a good chance people will run into me and we can chat about all sorts of things if we are at the market at the same time. I would like that. My task today is to discuss Bill C-30 .”
“The Conservatives went down in history for that. I see members laughing, but mark my words, the Liberals are going to set a new record. They have made a good start. It is so appalling. We basically have a Conservative Prime Minister dressed up as a Liberal. Is that not the case?”
The complete record
Every one of 665 lines we hold for Yves Perron, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 14.
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this important issue of youth unemployment. To begin, I would like to say to my Conservative colleague who just finished his speech that I agree with him on one of the major points he mentioned: changing leaders obviously does not mean that we have a new government. We agree on that. This is my nod to him in response to his remarks. We have to be careful when we address this issue. The issue that was raised at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is good and important, but there is no simple or populist solution to this issue. The committee is alarmed by the data on youth employment, which is at a 25-year low. A very low employment rate means that unemployment is very high.”
“In our opinion, the amendment proposed by the member for Mirabel, adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance at its meeting on October 27, 2025, and included in the committee's report was admissible and should be maintained in the committee's report.”
“Instead of seeking advice from the legislative clerks who were present, the committee chair asked the Department of Finance officials whether the Bloc Québécois's amendments were admissible. However, House of Commons Procedure and Practice , third edition, 2017, deals with financial procedures, and the royal recommendation specifically, in chapter 18, with the exceptions to the rule clearly stated on page 836. Footnote 61 refers to an article by John Mark Keyes entitled “When Bills and Amendments Require the Royal Recommendation: A Discussion Paper and Guidelines”. Page 20 lists the cases where a royal recommendation is not required, and among them is the type of amendment proposed by the member for Mirabel.”
“The fact that Bill C-4 was accompanied by a royal recommendation in no way means that it was necessary for the implementation of part 2 of the bill, which has the effect of reducing revenue rather than appropriating funds from the consolidated revenue fund, as the government itself explained in its news release on May 27, 2025. In our view, if we start considering the elimination or reduction of a tax as an expense, it could set a precedent that might in future severely limit the ability that members currently have to bring forward bills or amendments to that effect, and this in turn would make it very hard for committees to work on any bills with fiscal or financial implications.”
“The example raised at committee by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue as grounds for the chair to rule the member for Mirabel's amendment inadmissible, specifically the Speaker's ruling of February 1, 2024, concerning Bill C-356 , has nothing whatsoever to do with the case before us today. That bill provided for some $100 million to be drawn from the consolidated revenue fund, which we can all agree would require a royal recommendation. Furthermore, Bill C‑356 did not make it clear that the GST rebates provided could not under any circumstances exceed the amount paid, whereas this is clearly stated in Bill C‑4.”
“As is the case with the original version of Bill C‑4, there is no scenario where the member for Mirabel's amendments could result in a rebate that exceeds the amount of tax paid and result in a charge against the consolidated revenue fund. In that sense, they are different from refundable tax credits or the GST rebate, whose value can exceed the amount of tax that the taxpayer paid. The excess amount has to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund, meaning a royal recommendation would be required. (1010) Both part 2 of Bill C-4 and the member for Mirabel 's amendment represent fairly classic cases of tax credits or exemptions that have never been viewed as charges on the consolidated revenue fund requiring a royal recommendation.”
“The member for Mirabel introduced a series of amendments that cover the various scenarios referred to earlier. They would all have the same effect: They would move the date on which the GST is eliminated or reduced for first-time buyers from May 27, 2025, to March 20, 2025. March 20, 2025, was the day the government originally announced the measure that would become Bill C‑4. Witnesses told the committee that many people saw the government announcement and believed that the measure was effective immediately, as is often the case when it comes to taxation. An announcement typically coincides with the tabling of the notice of ways and means, on the assumption that it will be adopted, paving the way for it to come into effect immediately. That is why the member for Mirabel's amendments were introduced.”
“In concrete terms, under this bill, the homebuyer will pay GST to the seller when purchasing the home, and the seller will pay the GST to the government. The homebuyer will then apply for a GST rebate, which will be paid out once they have proven that they are eligible. The bill lays out a number of different formulas for different scenarios, including the purchase of a completed home, a pre-construction purchase for future delivery or an owner-built home. However, there are no scenarios where the tax rebate can exceed the amount of GST paid at the time of purchase, resulting in a charge against the consolidated revenue fund. This part of the bill will lower the government's GST revenue, but there is no scenario where it will involve a charge against the consolidated revenue fund.”
“The news release issued by the Minister of Finance on May 27, 2025, when the notice of ways and means was tabled for the introduction of Bill C‑4, describes the measure as follows: Eliminate the Goods and Services Tax (GST) for first-time home buyers on new homes valued up to $1 million, saving them up to $50,000, and lower the GST for first-time home buyers on new homes valued between $1 million and $1.5 million. The government backgrounder accompanying this release uses the same language and refers to eliminating or lowering a tax. In short, that is precisely what part 2 of Bill C‑4 does. It eliminates the GST for first-time buyers of a property that sells for less than $1 million and lowers it for first-time buyers of a residence that sells for somewhere between $1 million and $1.5 million.”
“Any amendment to a government bill that goes beyond the royal recommendation associated with that bill could also be deemed inadmissible in committee. However, a tax credit does not require a notice of ways and means or a royal recommendation to move forward, as evidenced by the many private members' bills that include such action. Amendments that would lower or eliminate a tax are admissible in committee. Part 2 of Bill C‑4, clauses 3 to 13, amends the Excise Tax Act to exempt new homes from the GST for first-time buyers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I would like to follow up on yesterday's government intervention. As my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton said, we reserved the right to respond to the arguments regarding the amendments to Bill C-4 . I would like to talk about what happened at the Standing Committee on Finance on Monday with regard to the amendments that the Bloc Québécois proposed to part 2 of Bill C‑4. It is clearly established that a ways and means notice must precede any bill that would result in a tax increase for at least one class of taxpayers. Similarly, any bill that generates or reallocates an expenditure, or a charge against the consolidated revenue fund, must be accompanied by a royal recommendation.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons says that if the budget does not pass, it will be the opposition parties' fault. The Minister of Finance and National Revenue is accusing us of playing politics. However, our demands have been a matter of public record for a long time. It was their Prime Minister who chose to ignore all of them in his pre-budget speech last night. This is a minority government. It should act like one. It should make deals if it wants its budget to pass. Why is it so hard to just address the needs of Quebeckers?”
“Mr. Speaker, today I would like to acknowledge a victory that thrilled all of Quebec. Saint‑Boniface's volunteer committee, known as the Irréductibles, has been working overtime to win us a historic opportunity. On April 5, everyone held their breath as Saint‑Boniface was crowned the winner of Kraft Hockeyville 2025, a feat that was highlighted on October 7 with an award from the Association québécoise du loisir public. The prize for winning Kraft Hockeyville is $250,000 to renovate the arena, equipment for young hockey players, food donations and the privilege of hosting an NHL game in 2026. Saint‑Boniface inspires us with its team spirit and its incredible ability to rally around a passion for hockey. It is a place where people come together and bond over a sense of belonging and shared memories.”
“At this second reading stage, does my colleague not think that we should vote in favour of the bill and send it to committee to make the necessary adjustments and take the necessary precautions so that individual rights are respected?”
“Madam Speaker, I am happy for the opportunity to ask my colleague a question this morning. I found it quite funny to hear him criticizing the speech given by the Prime Minister yesterday. From what I saw, the Prime Minister said nothing. Therefore, I do not have much to criticize, except the fact that he said nothing. Now back to the matter at hand. We are obviously all concerned about the rights of people who apply for asylum and whose lives are threatened. However, we need to recognize that there were problems at the border. These include the fact that at one point, there were human smuggling networks, which are probably still operating. They would cross at Roxham Road and demand exorbitant sums from poor and vulnerable people. We feel that strengthening border security is important. Of course, it needs to be done right.”
“Mr. Speaker, October 10 is World Egg Day, so I would like to salute producers in Berthier—Maskinongé, across Quebec and around the world. Let us all acknowledge the importance of this top-quality, healthy, nutritious food. Eggs are so versatile that it is almost impossible to imagine a recipe in which they cannot be used. Best of all, eggs are produced here. Let us recognize our farmers' extraordinary contribution and acknowledge the place of the next generation in this industry. These farmers, their families and their communities all rely on our supply management system for ongoing prosperity and regional vitality. Let us continue to support them. Let us not allow headwinds and outside pressures to throw us off course, because food system resilience is priceless. I wish everyone a happy World Egg Day.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. No, I did not say that, so allow me to correct him. However, I would like him to answer me at a future opportunity and explain why statutory appropriations and transfers to individuals and provinces have increased by only 2.6%, while budgetary appropriations for the bureaucracy have increased by 16% and procurement spending, including contracts for Liberal cronies, have increased by 300%. Why is he talking to me about how the government will keep giving money to oil when I am asking him about increasing old age pensions?”
“Can we sit down and work properly and take the long view? Long-term thinking is a difficult concept for governments in power, because they always want to make statements and announcements to win votes in the short term, unfortunately.”
“Mr. Speaker, what a great question. It is practically poetry. I am stammering with emotion. The government needs to get serious about climate change. As the agriculture critic, I can confirm that we are seeing these impacts. At the same time that the government is subsidizing oil companies to the tune of $83 billion over five years, it is neglecting to support farmers so they can adapt to climate change. This is serious. Then, of course, it says that fruits and vegetables are expensive. Of course they are. Only one harvest every five years yields a good crop, a profitable crop. That is the whole problem. We will be reviewing the agricultural business risk management programs in the coming months. It seems like we do not start working on what needs to change in 2028 until the end of December 2027.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is going to make my colleague happy. My answer is no. If his government could present us with a budget that sounds reasonable, that provides decent health care transfers to the provinces, that respects the people who built our society by increasing OAS and that provides for common-sense EI reform, we would vote for that budget in a heartbeat. If the Liberals have questions, we can answer them. Bloc members are pretty decent economists. We can tell them what they need to know and advise them on what to do.”
“Mr. Speaker, let me begin by sincerely thanking the member for asking a relevant question that also allows me to continue my explanation. The debt-to-GDP ratio is used to determine whether we are capable of paying our debt. Someone who earns $150,000 a year and owes $50,000 is in a much better position than someone who earns $65,000 a year and owes $50,000. Right now, the government is using double-talk by only mentioning the federal debt. The truth is that Canadians pay more than just the federal debt. We also pay the debts of the provinces and of Quebec. The ratio is a lot higher than we are being led to believe. The Liberals are going to hide part of the debt in the upcoming budget. I will continue my explanation the next time I speak.”
“I would also like to correct some misinformation that we are being given. The government is telling us that Canada's debt is acceptable because it represents about 45% of the GDP—it was 42% before, so it is still 3% higher—and it is comparing us to other G7 countries. In France, for example, there are no provinces that can incur debt. In other words, we are talking about total debt. In Canada, if you add the debt of Quebec and the provinces to that of the federal government, you reach about 100% to 110% of GDP. That is equivalent to France's and the United Kingdom's debt, and close to that of Italy, so things are not going so well after all. We need to start taking this seriously and helping people who need it. I still have a lot more to say. Let us start by cutting the infamous $83 billion for oil companies.”
“Regarding grocery prices, as the Bloc Québécois agriculture and agri-food critic, I want to mention that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food has taken a very smart, meticulous approach to studying this issue and that we have identified issues and put forward solutions. This may not be of interest to everybody, but we have found solutions. For example, the code of conduct aimed at improving the bargaining power of small suppliers with respect to big grocery chains is still being implemented. It is a long and arduous process, but it is a measure that could change things. Let me give another example. If we want to tackle the cost of food, we need to stop increasing the cost of inputs. When we choose to tax fertilizers, we should not be surprised when food products become more expensive. There is a logic to all this.”
“It is because it has too much taxation power relative to its responsibilities. The government is not going to win many votes by making transfers to the provinces and Quebec based on the principle of sound administration. That just sounds like something that would be done by someone who is capable of managing their affairs properly. The government members just want to make grand announcements from a balcony, outside on a sunny day, with the wind in their hair as they proclaim, “We're going to help Canadians, we're here for Canadians, we're going to help the middle class”. However, what we are seeing is that the middle class has been getting poorer the entire time. People are now turning to food banks. The list goes on.”
“There has been no progress on that front, and yet people are required to contribute to the EI program even though nearly half of contributors are not even entitled to benefits. Imagine people shopping around for home insurance and being told by one insurance company that it cannot reimburse them if their house burns down. Obviously, they will immediately move on to the next company. However, workers in this country are bound hand and foot. They are stuck with this lousy government. If the government is incapable of managing money, it should transfer it to Quebec. Quebec will know how to manage it. In fact, the money ought to have been sent back to Quebec anyway because the federal government has a tendency to take advantage of crises and tough times to further centralize power. Do members know why the government centralizes power?”
“An election campaign is supposed to last a month and a half. Now it is over, so can we talk now and look at what we can do for the common good? I know I am very naive, but that is part of my charm. People are hurting, and if we want to help them cope, we need to address the root causes of this problem. One of the ways that the government can help low-income individuals in a time of crisis is to give them direct support. I spoke about old age security earlier, but I also want to talk about employment insurance. How many years has this government been promising to reform employment insurance? To answer my own question, it is now 2025 and they started talking about reform in 2015, or even before that. That is over 10 years ago.”
“The Liberals are going to present them on November 4, and I am looking forward to seeing what they have come up with. I hope Canadians will be savvy enough to see through the scam. The Liberals are going to present a deficit that will probably exceed $100 billion, but it will not show up because they will have separated the good debt from the bad debt. When we pay a debt, we have to actually pay the debt. The money has to be there. Furthermore, every time a government goes into debt, it means less money for direct services to the public, for direct transfers to the public. This is appalling. I am using that word advisedly, and I do not think it is too strong. We are sick of seeing this, we are outraged, and we would like the truth to be told. We are here as elected representatives of the people.”
“That is the problem, and for the members opposite who are making such bold claims today, I would like to remind them of a little concept relating to public administration. It is possible and normal for a government, whether it is the federal government or the government of Quebec or a province, to run the occasional deficit. A deficit is a buffer that is there to help the economy. However, it is not normal to have repeated deficits, especially when the economy was already doing well to begin with. That is the problem. A government should run a deficit to stimulate economic growth when the economy is not doing well. (1225) However, deficits have now been run so regularly and for so long that the government is in the process of inventing new ways to do accounting.”
“They choose extremely important topics, but then they throw in a bunch of populist rhetoric and facile statements that force the adults in the room, by which I always mean the Bloc Québécois, to vote against them, because we cannot vote in favour of things that are not true. Today, though, we are happy. I congratulate the Conservatives. I want to give them a pat on the back and encourage them to keep going like this. That is what we call positive reinforcement. Today is a good day. Ordinary folks are stretched to the limit, even if inflation is under control. We are glad it is under control, but it was so out of control for so long that prices are still too high compared to wages.”
“The Liberals will boast about how interest rates have just gone down and about how wonderful they are, but when interest rates go down, it is because the economy is slowing down. When it comes right down to it, we have a government that is bragging about a downturn in economic activity and that seems to takes pride in the fact that the GDP per capita is falling. That is not supposed to happen in a well-run G7 country. Everything I said in that last sentence is true except for two words, “well” and “run”. This country is badly run. That is why we are happy to vote in favour of the motion. I say this for the benefit of my Conservative colleagues who are listening. I am not joking. I am genuinely happy to be able to vote with them. Often, only half of what is in the motions they present to us is true.”
“One could even say that they are more expensive because it seems as though people generally eat less and less as they get older. I am being somewhat ironic here, and I hope that everyone takes it that way, but these are serious and important issues. I am concerned. I am concerned about the new Prime Minister . I will not say “the new government”, because another sentence in the motion says that this so-called new government is following the same plan as the old one. I quite agree with that statement as well. The Liberal leader may have a new face, but putting a new label on a jar of peanut butter does not change the fact that it is still the same old peanut butter in the jar. That analogy has been used in the House before, and I really like it. I want to remind people that this is the same government that we have had since 2015.”
“That sentence still applies when the government gives contracts to its friends, to two or three guys working out of a basement whose only job is to get government contracts and then subcontract them out while keeping a cut for themselves. Everyone know what I was talking about there. Every dollar spent comes out of citizens' pockets. When we talk about the cost of groceries or the cost of housing and members are pointing fingers at everyone else, the fact remains that the citizens are the ones who bear these costs. I see members here in the House of Commons voting against minimum indexing, not even decent indexing, for old age pensions starting at age 65. However, groceries are not any cheaper at age 65, 66 or 67 than they are at age 76.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to today's Conservative motion. This is kind of an emotional moment for me, because, for once, we will finally be able to vote in favour of a Conservative motion. It is not too populist and it contains pretty accurate information. It also contains some very important statements. I will not reread the entire motion because that has been done several times today. However, I will read my favourite sentence, and I would like members of the House to pay attention and to take a moment to think about what it means: “[E]very dollar the government spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians”, Quebeckers and citizens. I deliberately paused for a moment so that members could think about that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague is very knowledgeable about the economy and about austerity measures, considering his background. I would like him to reassure us about the future budget, if he knows what is in it, and tell me what he thinks about the subsidies and tax exemptions being given to western oil companies, to the tune of $83 billion over five years. Could this money not be used to help people who are struggling to make ends meet, for example, by transferring it to old age pensions or directly to Canadians?”
“People are worried, and they are telling us so. I therefore formally ask the government members to consider this petition. It is very important. I thank the people who started the petition, as well as my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni this morning by tabling a paper petition along the same lines. The petitioners are very concerned about the changes to the plant breeders' rights regulations. The proposals put forward by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency aim to prevent farmers from exercising their age-old right to use the products of their land to reseed in future years, which would force them to pay extremely high fees to use seeds every year. A pattern seems to be forming here, and people are telling us they are concerned about that. We want to protect the autonomy of agricultural producers, ensure our food resilience and, above all, ensure that the cost of agricultural production does not increase too quickly. The government has gone off on the wrong track with regulations.”
“Mr. Speaker, all the parties voted to protect supply management in future trade agreements, but the Liberals seem to want to go back on their word. The media has reported that they are discussing new concessions with Washington on the allocation of American milk import quotas. This is all the more worrying given that Donald Trump has just stated that an agreement with Canada would include dairy products. Protecting supply management means protecting it in its entirety. It does not mean maintaining the system, but weakening it by giving the Americans a piece of the pie. Will the government keep its word and refuse to make any concessions?”
“Congratulations to all the engaged citizens who keep the spirit of these communities alive and who bring the celebrations to life. Together, let us honour the past and continue on the path towards a future that is worthy of our history.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to acknowledge three anniversaries that mark the collective history of Berthier—Maskinongé. First, there is the 200th anniversary of Saint-Gabriel-de-Brandon, which sits on the shores of Lake Maskinongé, the jewel of the Lanaudière region. Then there is the 175th anniversary of Saint-Paulin, a magnificent municipality that shines bright in the heart of the Maskinongé RCM. Finally, there is the 175th anniversary of Saint-Édouard-de-Maskinongé, a great place to live, surrounded by mountains and cottage country. There is no shortage of of waterways, forests and agriculture in these three municipalities. These milestone anniversaries remind us that each village and each generation has shaped our region with heart and determination.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I will give a very clear example. In my region, we are currently working with farmers on preserving the Lac Saint-Pierre biosphere to better protect and expand the shoreline. There are even projects that help re-meander certain waterways because that will have a significant impact. We cannot just tell farmers that they are going to lose money every year with the lot of land they cultivate, and then wish them good luck. We cannot do that. We decide what to do together. Farmers are therefore compensated for that and, in the long term, we are able to renew these programs. These are good solutions. The Bloc Québécois also has clear positions on this. I invite my colleagues to consult our platform.”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Guelph, and I wish our neighbours a happy anniversary. I am interested in university research and development. We have an R&D sector at the Université du Québec à Trois‑Rivières and throughout Quebec, and it is essential. This is another area where the federal government is absent. In terms of predictability and long-term vision, there is currently a shortage of veterinarians for large animals. That is an example that springs to mind. It seems innocuous, but there will be consequences. We have to train future veterinarians and welcome them, but we are not able to make the necessary adjustments. Let us be efficient.”
“Mr. Speaker, one of our Liberal colleagues mentioned earlier that he worked in the school system for 10 years. I was a teacher for 25 years. I think it is good that the government is helping food banks, but I do not think that any government should ever boast about having to give money to feed children at school because their parents cannot afford to feed them at home. That really bothers me. The Liberals need to stop bragging and start coming up with real solutions to help people.”
“I look forward to talking to them, but what I am hearing from people in the agricultural community does not make any sense. In some cases, Quebec government scientists and independent scientists had a position to share, but the people at the PMRA did not want to hear it because it came from the provinces. This week we talked about federal supremacy. This is true in all areas of this federation. (1120) Let us be serious and work for everybody. Enough with the populist slogans. Let us work on solutions to lower the cost of groceries.”
“These are quick and easy measures that the government can take to provide some support to the public. Can we finally get down to business and approve the OAS increase starting at age 65? Every member of the House, whether in private or in public, thinks that this move makes sense, especially in the current context, so, let us do it. If only political posturing and point-scoring would stop getting in the way. Could we not work together for the common good? There is a great deal of inefficiency within our government food regulation organizations like the Canadian Food Inspection Agency or the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the PMRA. We will be meeting with representatives from those organizations this afternoon at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.”
“There was talk of lowering it to 10%, but fortunately, the government had the presence of mind to leave it at 20%. That is a minimum, and it could be raised to 30% again. I invite my colleagues to visit food processing plants. That will help them understand. These factors all indirectly affect grocery costs. Reciprocal standards are another consideration. We cannot keep demanding that our producers meet extremely strict standards while we allow low-quality foreign products to enter the country. At some point, we need to get serious. Although we do try to ask questions about reciprocal standards, there are three different agencies involved. For instance, when we try to speak to one minister, we are always told that we have to contact another one. Is anyone responsible and accountable? Can we start by getting things on track?”
“The government is currently in the process of changing the thresholds. That is fine, and I am not saying the government should not review them, but this needs to happen gradually, particularly in terms of making the change from 20% to 10% across the other sectors. Even if we are only talking about the food sector, all of the sectors are interconnected in an economy. We have asked for a moratorium and a transition period to allow businesses to adapt to this. Some will say that the agricultural sector is exempt. They are right, but I want to talk about agri-food. What we produce has to be processed, and processing involves costs. There was a pilot project in the agri-food sector, where the threshold of 30% foreign labour was lowered to 20%.”
“However, when we consider that Canada is the only G7 country that has taken this step and that ultimately, it has not had any impact, we can do away with this measure and use other means of coercion to bring Russia around. However, the Canadian government lacked judgment. It simply decided to reimburse the farmers, but when the time came, it could not even manage to do it. We do not know who paid what, and then there are grain co-ops. Eventually, the government put this money into a program, but now, it is the very farmers who need help who are funding it. It is still going on, and they have to pay for it. It is not working. This is just one example of what I mean when I say we need to be serious. Then there is also the labour shortage. We need to play it smart when it comes to temporary foreign workers.”
“First, this is a global phenomenon that is very difficult for a government to control. I do not want to excuse the Liberal government but would simply like to say that there is no magic solution. However, there are things we could do. I will give a simple example that nobody is talking about. I would remind members about the ongoing wars. We have the war in Ukraine. Russia attacked Ukraine without justification. Ukraine is the bread basket for a large part of the world. The war has therefore had an inflationary impact. This is one factor that is beyond our control. However, we can control some things. For instance, the government decided to impose a surtax on Russian fertilizer. I welcomed this measure initially. I thought it was a good idea. We must impose consequences on aggressors.”
“(1115) Indeed, some plastics still have a place in the agricultural sector to preserve the quality of some foodstuff, such as vegetables. Vegetable shelf life would decline by a factor of four or five if plastics were banned overnight. As a government, we should not be dumb enough to ban everything overnight. More research and development and more academic research is needed. Solutions must be found and validated before we get rid of things. That being said, generally, the intent to restrict plastics is not bad, quite the opposite. I do not know whether this fixation that drives the Conservatives to keep using the terms “tax” and “carbon tax” shows perseverance or a lack of imagination; in any case, it is time to move on. I will move on to something else and talk about what is really going on with food prices.”
“The government will eventually have to stop giving handouts to oil companies that keep polluting our air and water while making a profit. I find it exhausting and, with all due regard for my Conservative friends, I have to say that enough is enough. Can we work on concrete proposals instead? I have listed a few. They are talking about a “packaging tax”. What good is a packaging tax when we want to reduce plastics? If the Conservatives want a better understanding of the issue, I would be happy to recommend some news stories or documentaries about the state of our oceans. There is only one planet, and we are all connected. If we can start using less plastic, that will be a step in the right direction, but we have to be smart about it. That is where we can really shine.”