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 12 of 14.
“It is a completely obsolete system that is not working. Nearly one in two workers are not eligible for benefits, despite their contributions. That is unacceptable and it does not work. Spending in this area has increased by only 2.6%. Meanwhile, contracts awarded to private firms to conduct studies or make decisions on behalf of the government have increased by 26%, even though the resources exist within government. Government procurement is up 300%, and that does not even include military spending. We can do the math; it is not looking good. The Conservatives are right: The deficit is not good. It is not a tax, though. Shortcuts do not move us forward. They are talking about the second carbon tax, the clean fuel tax, which has such a minimal impact on food prices that it is virtually impossible to measure.”
“It might be a good idea to stop taking lazy, populist shortcuts like this. This is what is called an inflationary tax, but the deficit is not a tax. On this point, I agree with my colleagues that the deficit is ludicrous. It is atrocious, and it is bound to have a negative impact over the medium and long term. The more debt we carry, the more we have to spend a significant portion of our income on interest to pay down that debt. That is true for taxpayers, and it is also true for the government. What worries me most about all this, despite the Liberal rhetoric we are going to hear all day that they are here to support people, is that the government has increased spending. As my colleague pointed out when talking about old age pensions, transfers to taxpayers and the provinces are insufficient. Take employment insurance, for example.”
“More and more producers are opting not to get insurance, not because they do not want to, but because it is simply no longer cost-effective. They look at whether their insurance will be worth it if they were to suffer some misfortune. If they have to make a claim and, the following year, their premiums quadruple, they are no further ahead. Sooner or later we are going to have to clue in to this as a group, and by that I mean all members of the House of Commons. There has to be adequate support for our farmers. Returning to the motion before us today, the Conservatives won the debate over the carbon tax. However, grocery prices have not gone down. The carbon tax was removed in English Canada, not in Quebec, but prices in Quebec are no higher than in the rest of the country. Prices have not come down everywhere else in Canada.”
“Of course, the Conservatives are talking about industrial carbon pricing today, but the fact is we have to continue taking action on climate change, which is having long-term impacts on the cost of food. Anyone who has spoken with our agricultural producers, especially vegetable producers, has come to understand the harsh reality they face. This situation calls for ingenuity on our part and a willingness to work together to improve commercial risk management systems, because the current systems are no longer working. Some producers are have no choice but to insure against cloudy weather. If they are unlucky enough to have to make a claim, then their group insurance premiums will sometimes double or triple the following year, which makes the system untenable.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. I would like to begin by acknowledging that today is the anniversary of the Franco-Ontarian flag. We salute our neighbours who share our language. I turn now to the item on our agenda. As I mentioned in my questions, I am deeply disappointed. Many of my Conservative colleagues are extremely intelligent, and I really enjoy working with them in committee. We are all passionate about farming, and in committee we are able to work together on sustainable solutions. However, when they introduce yet another motion on carbon pricing , I feel compelled to remind them that they already won that debate. The carbon tax has been withdrawn.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech. I would like her to expand on how we can support the agricultural sector. We hear a lot about the climate crisis and climate change. We need to adapt to it, but we also need to support the agricultural sector. I always advocate the following solution: Any income collected should be returned to the agricultural sector to encourage innovation and adaptation to climate change. Could my colleague talk about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry for his speech. I think he has a lot of work to do in his portfolio. I know he is a new member. His government can count on our co-operation if it wants to take action. Earlier, my colleague from Drummond mentioned the work that has been done with grocery CEOs and major grocery chains. We know that Canada has a concentrated grocery sector, and that is certainly not helping to improve costs. Small suppliers, among others, have repeatedly suggested implementing some sort of price-fixing oversight, because there is not a lot of transparency in this sector. I would like to know whether my colleague is aware of this and whether he is prepared to work on it with his minister.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member and I miss having her on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I mentioned that the other day. My question is along the same lines as the first one I asked, which I did not get an answer to. I asked for an explanation as to why the cancellation of the infamous evil carbon tax did not lead to lower grocery prices. Let me rephrase my question. Instead of throwing around slogans and labelling things as taxes that are not, such as the plastics ban, which we know is a reasonable goal, why are the Conservatives not putting forward practical proposals? It seems to me that my colleague and I usually agree when we talk about practical measures, such as a process for reviewing grocery store pricing. We have worked together extensively on this issue.”
“He stood up and said that, no, the carbon tax was responsible. Now that the carbon tax no longer exists in English Canada, can my colleague explain why grocery prices there have not gone down? Here is where we see that these are just slogans.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Foothills for his speech this morning. I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, and I quite enjoy working with him. He is an intelligent and eloquent man with whom one can hold a discussion and work constructively in committee. However, I am a bit disappointed in the motion moved this morning. Once again, the Conservatives raised a real problem. About 95% of my colleague's speech was on the mark, but in the end, he once again finished it up with carbon tax slogans. I thought we were past that. I clearly remember opposition days that I took part in with my colleague, whom I appreciate, as I said. At that time, I told my colleague that the carbon tax had no impact on grocery prices and that the carbon tax increased prices by only 0.01%.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. What does this have to do with the federal government, and why does it want to get involved? If my colleague chose Quebec because he liked the secularism model, he could have come to Quebec City and told me the same thing. Why is this so upsetting? The government must be neutral. I will make a quick comparison. I was a high school teacher before becoming an MP. I then became president of the Bloc Québécois, president of the Parti Québécois and many other things. I did not show up in class with my PQ or Bloc lapel pin, because I was representing my government. I had a duty to remain neutral. That is what government is all about. For a nurse or anyone else, that is the secularism model. It is about respecting people who use government services.”
“That is because we adopted the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1975, seven years earlier, and our charter also has a notwithstanding clause because no one can foresee everything. That is what it is for.”
“Mr. Speaker, indeed, he talked a lot about the charter. It is true that he reiterated his desire to protect it. The only problem is that they did it without us. They forgot to ask our opinion when they implemented it, when they passed it. They avoided asking us because they knew we would make too many demands. However, if we had been there, we might have been able to point out that there was a chapter missing from their charter, namely the one on collective responsibilities and solidarity. That is the difference. That is why charters have notwithstanding clauses. Some of the members may be hearing for the first time that Quebec is ahead of Canada yet again.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will answer the member directly. I am against the Attorney General of Canada assuming that Quebec could abolish individual rights, allow summary executions and do away with all class action rights. I object to that. I object to the fact that this government is trying to go through the courts instead of having the courage to stand up, reopen the Constitution and change what it does not like; it knows that we would have other demands as well. I would remind the member that we respect the Constitution. We would have had other demands, which is why the government did what it did. It is not going to work.”
“Fortunately, the Bloc Québécois will always stand in the way of this very negative project of Canadian nation building, because we want to continue to exist. They want us to disappear. Multiculturalism is part of that. That is the overall picture. (1625) Our message today is that we must be allowed to make our own choices. We have a deadline next year in Quebec, and we are going to work toward it.”
“This caused so much unrest that they decided to try to crush us again in 1840 with the Act of Union. Not only did they take away our democratic power, but they also made us pay the debts of others. However, we still found a way to work things out by forming an alliance, the Baldwin-LaFontaine alliance, to save what we could and preserve the French language and our culture. Since they did not like that, they came up with the idea of making us believe that they were forming a confederation, when in fact it would be a federation, and then, little by little, through mass immigration and gradual measures, they would stifle these people and make their government disappear. Today, this is yet another brick in that edifice.”
“It protects personal beliefs and allows people to practise their religion at home, as they wish. We will never make places of worship illegal. What is being presented to the Supreme Court is madness. It completely boggles the mind. Canadian history has always been about erasing Quebec's distinctiveness. With the Royal Proclamation of 1763, they wanted to assimilate us. In 1774, there was the American Revolution, and they used us by giving us gifts and making us believe that everything would be wonderful afterward. That did not last long because in 1791, the Loyalists arrived. They divided up the territory and created democratic institutions, thinking that the French knew nothing about that and would not be able to manage. Surprise, surprise, we were really good in parliament, just as we are today. I think we are still good.”
“Then they turn around and tell us that this is the best country in the world and we should stay put. We just want to protect our model. I will explain secularism once again for those who do not understand what it is. It is not discriminatory. On the contrary, it is the model that most respects individual religions because every individual, when using government services, is not discriminated against, since the person providing the service is neutral. Canada does the exact opposite. It prioritizes the individual right of the worker who says, “I have the right to wear my symbol and I will impose it on the 50 people I serve today.” The 50 people served today will be subjected to his or her symbol. It might not bother some people, but it likely does bother others. That is the idea behind secularism.”
“He reads and applies the law. That is what we do, and that is what the legislatures of the provinces and Quebec do. Just let us get on with it, that is all. The message is simple: Stop interfering. Even after all that, people are still shocked that we want independence for Quebec. The situation is utterly ridiculous. Speaking of utterly ridiculous situations, have members seen the federal government's brief? It says that we might bring back slavery, take away civil rights and abolish unions. Come on. I can hardly believe I am speaking words like these in Parliament. I thought it could not be true when I read the summary at the beginning. I thought it must have been a mistake, that it could not possibly say that, or it was a joke and the Liberals were making themselves a laughingstock. But no, they meant what they wrote.”
“I need to calm down, because I am getting upset. It is upsetting to hear that. There is something dismissive about it. It is as though they are condescendingly thinking to themselves, “Not surprising, they are separatists.” We are being constructive and asking them to get out of the way. The notwithstanding clause was already framed by the Ford decision in 1988. It was clear. It says that as long as they follow the conditions set out in the Constitution, they are following a piece of legislation. When people go to court for a case, the judge does not up and decide that he is going to interpret things this way or that way because he is having a bit of a bad day. He does not rule a thing unfair or excessive because something was said four or five times, or because something rubs him the wrong way and he is going to fix things.”
“I feel that we are being pretty constructive and pretty nice. We are basically the only group here that respects the Constitution, which we have not signed. That is really something. Various political parties here are constantly advocating for even greater encroachment on provincial powers. Members should consider that for a moment and think before claiming that we are the troublemakers here. I do not think we are troublemakers; we are here to defend the interests of our people. That is what we are doing. (1620) We will continue to do so, because it is our duty. Days like today are not a waste of time. We are educating the public and MPs in the House of Commons about the disgraceful act that is being committed: The federal government wants to crush the Quebec nation once again. That is what we are doing.”
“The Act respecting the laicity of the State. The fact that Quebec is different. We have a different way of seeing society and the world. We have a different way of integrating newcomers so that they can fully participate in society. We do not want people to ghettoize and live in separate groups. We want to build community and enable newcomers to enrich Quebec's culture with their own. That is why we practice interculturalism, not multiculturalism. People on the government side do not understand that. They do not like it because it is not based on the British model. They want to stamp it out. Regardless of what they say, they are doing everything they can think of to obliterate it. The tragedy here is a lack of understanding. As I said in my previous question, we are here to be constructive.”
“However, I do not think they will, because they do not have the courage to do so. They know it is impossible to get all the provinces to agree to the slightest change if it would benefit Quebec. Let us go back to the 1990s. The Meech Lake accord was fairly straightforward. It was so bare bones as to be humiliating, and still it was rejected because it was too much. Charlottetown was a second attempt. It was even more ridiculous. Quebeckers voted against it because it was too little, and Canadians voted against it because it was too much. That is the Canadian Constitution. That is the Canadian federation. Today, we are speaking out against an attack on secularism. The government can be hypocritical and say that the problem is the use of the notwithstanding clause and that it is used too often. What triggered this move?”
“If it were a TV show, half the audience would tune out, thinking this could never happen in a democracy. However, it happened here. Then they tell us that this is the best country in the world. That takes some nerve. This is not the first time the Bloc Québécois has worked on this. It is not the first time that it has brought this issue before Parliament. In 2023, we moved a motion explaining to parliamentarians that the Quebec government has every right to invoke the notwithstanding clause. Quebec is using a clause in the Constitution that the government created and whose parameters have already been properly defined. These parameters do not need to be defined again. If they do not like it, if they do not like this clause, then they need to reopen the Constitution.”
“They are using our money to fight our laws that were legitimately passed by our parliament, our National Assembly. Then they tell us that the court is independent. We want the government to withdraw and withdraw its ridiculous factum. We also wanted to speak out today against the weaponization of the courts, because that is what this is all about. This weaponization is done on our dime, as I just said. We are fed up. Let us manage our own affairs. That is Canadian history for you. The Quebec nation manages itself and does pretty well with the imperfect institutions that have been given to it and sometimes imposed on it. I would remind the House that today we are talking about the 1982 Constitution that was signed at night, behind our backs, while the premier was sleeping. I am not making this up.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from La Pointe‑de‑l'Île , who is sure to speak truth to power, as he does so well. I thank everyone here and I thank everyone seated in the House who is listening to the arguments we are making here today. Not everyone listens. Some people have their lines prepared and have the nerve to tell us they work for the interests of Quebec since they are voting in favour of Bill C‑5 . I just heard that. It is crazy how surreal things can be around here. A lot of things have been said about today's motion. Several people have read it, so I will not reread it, but I will sum it up because some people are not great listeners. What we are asking is for the government to withdraw from the case. The Liberals have told us all day long that the court is independent.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased because I love asking the member for Winnipeg North questions. First, I am going to ask him about his reaction. I was in the hall near the lobby earlier, and I heard him say that a separatist party was proposing this. He is right. I would encourage him to continue. Later on in his speech, he asked what the Bloc was doing here. We defend Quebec's interests because Canada does not do a great job of that, In fact, it often works against Quebec's interests. As our Green Party colleague pointed out, perhaps he should listen to what we are saying, because we are much more constructive than destructive. What we want is not to break up Canada, but to build Quebec. That is very different. It means taking charge of and developing our destiny as an autonomous nation.”
“If anyone in the House cannot hear what others are saying, I strongly suggest that they put in their earpieces. Not everyone has their earpiece in at all times. Perhaps that would help calm things down in the House. Mr. Speaker, I will not ask you to call on the secretary of state to withdraw her remarks, because that did not work last week. Perhaps you could at least give a general reminder to members about the importance of respecting the members' right to speak in the language of their choice and respecting our interpreters' outstanding work.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Last week, we raised a point of order because the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship said that she would speak in another language because she had not been understood. The point we raised last week was not an attack. We did not ask for an apology. We asked that members not make such comments. We asked that that comment be withdrawn. That did not happen last week. Maybe that is why it is happening again today. I have the utmost respect for the Secretary of State for Nature , but when someone says they are going to repeat something so that a member can understand, it is an official languages matter. Both official languages are accepted and used in the House. It also shows a lack of respect for the interpreters, who do top-notch work.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on his excellent speech. It was clear and straightforward. Everyone knows that the reason for this legal challenge is the Act respecting the laicity of the State that was passed in Quebec. Could my colleague share his comments on the government's hypocrisy in taking a blanket approach to limiting the notwithstanding clause?”
“I would like to thank my colleague for acknowledging the harm that this has caused because it is very important that we be vigilant, that we protect parliamentary privilege and, most importantly, that we avoid misleading the public. It is important that we, here in the House, share common values, including respect for the work of all members, and that we are careful not to spread misinformation. I would like to send a message to everyone in the House: We are here to work for the common good. I would encourage us all to refrain from making personal attacks and disparaging our opponents, and instead focus on debating the substance of the issues and our political positions. Of course, we will have disagreements, but we will also often be able to reach a consensus. Let us work for the common good while respecting our colleagues.”
“Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague for his initiative. On September 16, the members for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations , York Centre , Brampton West and Elgin—St. Thomas—London South made a video in a House of Commons room when the committee had not been convened. We had had discussions about it among the parties. Although the committee had not been convened, the video could give the impression that government and Bloc Québécois members were not at work when we actually were. Obviously, people are not going to show up for a meeting if the committee has not been convened. We have a lot of other things to do.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord asked a simple question. However, it seems that the Liberals are afraid to talk about this. Right now, there are exemptions in the Criminal Code that allow someone to stand on the street and call for violence without facing consequences as long as they are speaking in a religious context. The Bloc Québécois has an important bill on this, and we are going to introduce it again. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about this. Will the Liberals agree? Will my colleague commit to talking to his government colleagues and asking them to support this measure, so that there are no more exemptions and no one can call for violence in the streets?”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand the intention to strengthen law and order and I understand how noble the goal is. However, we must always be careful not to replace the courts. As legislators, we can propose measures, but we must always allow for flexibility. Perhaps we could allow for discretion on mandatory minimum sentences. The Bloc Québécois would be willing to increase them for serious crimes, particularly gun crimes. We think that is a mistake. Here is my question for the member. We suggested creating a registry of criminal organizations. People are walking around publicly displaying their affiliations with criminal organizations that we know are dangerous and problematic. Such a registry could enable law enforcement to respond more effectively and could make it easier to charge criminals. What does my colleague think of that suggestion?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to get my colleague's opinion. The Bloc Québécois has a proposal. Today, we are talking about law and order, and public safety too, but we know the Bloc Québécois moved a motion to repeal the religious exemption for hate speech. It is a very slippery slope that can lead to unfortunate situations. I would like my colleague to tell me whether he agrees with that proposal. If the underlying intent, which we glean from the motion before us, is truly to ensure law and order, I think he should agree with me on this.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In response to a Conservative member, the Minister of Immigration said that she would answer her in English to be sure she was understood. I would just like to remind my colleagues, and perhaps the minister as well, that we are free to speak in the official language of our choice in the House, and perhaps that underestimated the very high quality of our interpreters' work. I would like that to be withdrawn.”
“Despite the sometimes heated debates, where people are talking at the same time, the interpreters do an extraordinary job, of impeccable quality. It is truly impressive to see the extent to which they can convey, in real time, what are sometimes highly complex or technical remarks, especially at committee meetings. I did not mention the staff assigned to committees. I think they are included in the House staff. I wish all of these people a very good summer. We are off to celebrate Quebec's national holiday. I wish Canadians everywhere a happy Canada Day. See you again next fall.”
“I would also like to thank the people in the Parliamentary Protective Service. The service's 10th anniversary has already been highlighted. These are people who dedicate themselves to protecting us. That means a lot. We appreciate that, we thank them, and we wish them continued success. I would also like to thank the maintenance staff and the janitors we meet in our offices. We are often in a hurry and may not always greet them, but they deserve our respect. If they were not here, we would not be here. What we do on Parliament Hill is a group effort, so I would like to thank everyone. I hope I have not forgotten any groups. Of course, I have to end with the most important group for us francophones: the interpreters.”
“Mr. Speaker, as the chief whip of the Bloc Québécois, I too would like to take this opportunity to thank the other members of the House. Although we do not always agree, we still manage to get things done. We have also been much better at moving issues forward over the past month than in previous months. I would also like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and your team of Deputy Speakers, who learned their duties quickly and are doing a great job. I would also like to thank the team of House clerks and all the employees who work with them. We in the Bloc Québécois appreciate them. I think that the House of Commons staff in general are aware of this. We greatly appreciate the outstanding and impeccable service that is being delivered in this Parliament. It was a pleasant surprise for most of us when we arrived. That is just a comment.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are moments in history that are important. We have just experienced one. Tonight, the bill to protect supply management, which we passed unanimously here just a few weeks ago, passed third reading in the Senate. It will soon receive royal assent at Rideau Hall. Let me say a few words. First of all, I want to thank everyone who believed in it. Despite the fact that no one believed in it at first, we managed to get it passed. A great man once said, “They did not know it was impossible, so they did it.” That is what we did. We protected our agricultural model. We are celebrating tonight. I want to congratulate and thank everyone.”
“Indeed, the member correctly identified the reasons and the specific context that explain this result. I am starting to really look forward to the next election. The saddest thing in all this is that there are simply more elected members from Quebec who vote against the interests of Quebec. We saw that with the $814 million from the carbon tax. Quebec attended the meetings and Quebec contributed to paying that cheque and the 55 elected members from Quebec who are not part of the Bloc Québécois voted against the interests of Quebec. People will remember that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that you are giving me the floor right now because we have a lot to say about this speech. The parliamentary secretary said many things. He said that the government was in a minority and that it could not adopt its motions alone. That was raised earlier and it is very sad. We have come to the same conclusion as him, unfortunately. The other thing we share with him is his disappointment. He said he was disappointed in the people from the Bloc Québécois. As for us, we are rather disappointed in the parliamentary secretary and his party, which glosses over some elements of democracy. He said that we would say the same things and he repeated that there are 44 elected Liberals from Quebec and that they beat us. We have accepted the result of this election.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. I found it interesting when he spoke about reflections in the mirror because, in fact, we are still trying to make sense of what we are seeing from the new Prime Minister . My colleague also criticized the subsidies being handed out. He talked about the green slush fund. I would rather talk about the oil slush fund. Does he agree with the idea of subsidizing oil companies and giving them outrageous tax credits for decades, and seemingly for decades to come? That is what they seem to be planning. Furthermore, if he disagrees with the Liberal Party's positions, why does he vote with the Liberals?”
“Madam Speaker, it will be very short, so I will choose the best part of my response for the parliamentary secretary. He is right to say that the Prime Minister is progressive. The parliamentary secretary said "aggressive". I, too, find it a bit aggressive to force a vote on a bill in one week without giving the opposition parties the power to properly study and amend the bill to improve it for citizens. That is what we have a problem with.”
“They also spent billions of dollars refunding the carbon tax, even though people had not even paid it. They pulled that off by pilfering $814 million of our money. That was not too expensive either. They choose who they are going to give the money to. I find that shocking and shameful. I hope people will realize that.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean for his question. He is absolutely right to raise this point. That is basically what I was trying to highlight in my response to the first question. The Liberals are very good at making generic speeches. They say they are going to help seniors but, in their minds, that might mean a small increase to the GIS for the poorest seniors, and it would be a very small increase because that costs less. However, when we want to properly improve people's standard of living, when we want to build Quebec and Canada, we are told that $3 billion a year is far too expensive to improve the standard of living for seniors, people we should respect. At the same time, they spent $6 billion before the holidays to scrap the tax on chips. That was not too expensive.”
“Madam Speaker, being the member that I am, I think it must be very hard to make speeches all day criticizing the government and then in the evening, before going to bed, supporting the government and voting with it. I do not know how the members of the official opposition do it. I know another party that did that for several months, if not years. Its members criticized the terrible government that was making large corporations richer and, in the evening, they would rise and vote with the government. Today there are not as many members of that party in the House. I hope that the official opposition will learn something from that”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to welcome the new member of the House of Commons. I wish him a warm welcome to Parliament. He is very kind. Unfortunately, I can see that he is a true Liberal, because he is able to tell me in two or three short, generic sentences that all of this was included in the Liberal platform. He said that the platform indicates that they are going to build a pipeline, that they are going to build Canada, build highways, mine, and do whatever else they want. In short, the platform says that they are going to build Canada. Please. Let us be serious. Not everything they do is written on page one of their platform. They should stop repeating this nonsense.”
“These would be forward‑looking policies, but this will require having leaders with a vision. I am not sure that we have that.”
“If so, we should be able to spend at least 1% or 1.5% of the budget on agriculture and agri‑food and on the people who feed us. We should be able to take care of them properly. We need to stop having bad programs that merely compensate people. First of all, these programs only compensate half of the people who need it and then it takes two years for those who are eligible to actually get their compensation. Meanwhile, the government has the nerve to call them emergency programs. We had to pressure the minister for who knows how long to get a program like AgriRecovery. It makes no sense. Rather than doing that, we should be focusing on innovation, technological improvement, and research and development. We need a bold approach. Most of all, we need to encourage our businesses to become more climate‑resilient.”