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 13 of 14.
“First, I would like them to be serious and to prepare a budget, and I would like to see serious investments in the future. I have been the agriculture and agri‑food critic since 2019, and I am extremely passionate about it. I cannot help talking about it in every speech, so now is the time to talk about it today. I would like to see more spending in this area. I have said it a few times already, but I will say it again today: 0.81% of the budget is allocated to agriculture and agri‑food. That is not a lot of money. There was a time when it was much more than that. It was 2.6% in the 1980s and 1990s. If we can allocate 2% of the budget to defence, which is something that I agree with, would it not be a good idea for our military to be fed before defending us?”
“That is one area where the government has been able to tighten its belt. The increases do not come as quickly, and that is because these are ordinary people who do not have much lobbying power or influence. That is how it works. Transfers to the provinces and Quebec are not increasing much either. The government is keeping a tight rein on that, too. It has control over spending. It is a good government. However, when it comes to contracts for subcontractors, contracts signed with cronies, that is where spending is increasing exponentially. I could name a dozen scandals. How can we expect the public not to be disillusioned with numbers like that? The sad thing is that not everyone knows what I am talking about. I am not making this up; it comes from the main estimates. These are the numbers we were given.”
“I am not saying that anyone has done anything illegal, but when people like that lecture others and then tell us that it is a pension fund when we ask them whether it is moral, I find it hard not to be shocked. We are told that the fund is more profitable because it has not paid taxes, but when money goes to the old folks, they have to pay taxes. What I hear when they say that is that the people, the masses, will pay taxes, while the people at the top do not have to pay because they are planning a better future for us. I find that incredibly sad. However, that is an answer we got. It raises questions about the rest of the shares. I just mentioned our seniors, and among the areas that have seen the smallest increase are transfers to individuals. The government has decent control over that.”
“I hope that every little thing will not quadruple all the time, or else things will not balance out at the end of the month. That is why we are calling for a budget. It is so we can know where we are going. (1940) What is sadder still is that the government is making cuts to certain areas. In fact, spending is increasing almost all the time, except at the Canada Revenue Agency, and I did not quite understand why. What is going on? Are we no longer collecting taxes? It seems to me that there are many places where we could invest, including in research to legislate tax havens. However, I do not think the peanut butter label is very interested in us digging into that area. Perhaps it is because, on the back of the label, there are a few investments in foreign countries to save on taxes.”
“That doubt crept up when I read the documents. Nevertheless, I will not say that we disagree on the principles. What we are surprised to see in the main estimates is the increase in spending. It is unfortunate that people are not always there; I did not name anyone, so I can say that broadly speaking. They are not always there to listen to our speeches, but sometimes they say things to us, and we would like to be able to respond. They often tell us that they said it during the election, that it is written in their platform, and that we should go read page 1. However, during the campaign they keep talking about, some people said they were going to keep spending increases to 2%. That is what they told us. Now it is 8%. That is not reassuring. Going from 2% to 8% is a fourfold increase.”
“They decided to cave to the government, which is asking us to shut our eyes and vote without knowing what will happen. We are still here, and we are the ones who were here when it was time to talk about foreign interference. We were the ones who were here when the time came to talk about military spending. For that reason, I am pleasantly almost surprised to see these new intentions, because in the world we live in, they are unfortunately necessary. It needs to be done intelligently. It needs to be done with an eye to the future. The estimates mention increasing recruitment and providing equipment. There is a bit of a concern that the government seems to want to focus on small, quick expenditures in order to make the budget look good. Perhaps it needs to include some long-term vision, like properly equipping the people who defend us.”
“In the absence of one, we will talk about the main estimates and the supplementary estimates. I have to say that I am quite supportive of increasing spending in the military sector, in the defence sector. In the last Parliament, it was rather ironic because we usually ended up being the only political party advocating compliance with NATO's request to allocate 2% of the budget to defence. I say it is ironic because we are often asked what we are doing here, since we want independence for Quebec, and we are told that we are here to cause trouble. This shows that the Bloc Québécois is usually the adult in the room, or the reasonable one. We are the ones who continue to demand a budget, despite the fact that the Conservatives have let us down in the fight.”
“The government is announcing spending adjustments and changes to budget items. Now that there is a new label on the peanut butter jar, meaning the new Prime Minister , we would have loved to know what the vision is and where we are going. We would have liked to make informed, intelligent and sensible decisions about the government's announced tax cuts. People at home are watching us. Ironically, the people at home make budgets. Normal people make budgets. Before they spend anything, they need to plan and know where the money is coming from. People who do not make a budget hit a wall and often have to declare bankruptcy. We hope that does not happen with the government. I repeat: We are running out of time; there are only a few days left, but it would have been a good idea to produce a budget.”
“Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House. Like my colleague from Mirabel , I too will take this opportunity to wish all the residents of my magnificent riding of Berthier—Maskinongé a very happy national holiday. I am pleased because my colleague and I are often in ideological symbiosis. I, too, made the decision to prioritize the new sector in my riding. First, I will visit the people of Saint-Sulpice and, of course, everyone else, everyone we can go and meet in the short time we have to cover our vast territory. That said, today we are debating the main estimates and the supplementary estimates. We are glad to be here to talk about spending, state our case and give our opinion. However, we know that the main estimates and the supplementary estimates contain previously announced spending. This is not a new vision.”
“Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by our colleague, who spoke about the opposition motion, which we have now finished debating. I would ask him whether he has anything to say about the main estimates, since that is what we are looking at now. I realize that, as part of the study of the main estimates and the supplementary estimates, we can talk about various subjects, but I have not heard much about the budget here. I would like my colleague to talk about spending.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is a sad moment for democracy. I can even see it in the faces of the Liberal members across the aisle. Many of them are uncomfortable with what is happening. Not only do we need to study every single bill but, depending on the scope of the changes proposed, we must also be conscientious and inform the public. Despite the condescending attitude of the Leader of the Government in the House, who appears to be saying that we have no business proposing anything, the opposition's role in a democracy is to inform the public and ask questions. What the Liberals are doing this morning is preventing us from doing that, while they intend to sacrifice—”
“Mr. Speaker, this is really unbelievable. The leader of the government is telling us, in a condescending tone, that we did not read the Liberals' election platform, in which they said they were going to do these things. What I see this morning is that the government is in a great hurry to have an exceptionally controversial bill passed because it knows that Canadians and Quebeckers would react to any study of the bill and find it unacceptable. The Liberals want to hurry up and bypass democracy, and present the people with a fait accompli. Nowhere in the Liberal Party's platform does it say that they would circumvent democracy and our institutions. I hope they did not have the nerve to put that in writing.”
“Mr. Speaker, over the past several days of debate, the Bloc Québécois members have expressed what we feel are extremely serious concerns, particularly with regard to passing the bill so quickly. Did the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons listen to what the Bloc members had to say? Does he think what we said made sense? Does he not think that we are right in wanting to further study a bill that could have dire consequences for the future of Quebec and Canada, rather than ramming it through as quickly as possible?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am almost happy to see my colleague from Winnipeg North again. When he says he disagrees, I am never surprised, but I never said that the election was stolen. What I said was that, today, people are being cheated out of that $800 million. He should acknowledge that. A cheque was issued for a tax that has not been collected. That money was taken from somewhere. The Liberals are real magicians, but at some point, there is a limit. Everyone knows that the money comes from somewhere. Where does it come from? Twenty-two per cent of that money comes from Quebec. I will quote a former Quebec premier who said, "Give us back our loot". Today, that amount is $814 million. We just want our money. It is simple and it is reasonable. We are asking nicely.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises some very interesting points. She should be given the floor more often. She was talking about fossil fuel subsidies. It seems that the finance department is putting up obstacles that are preventing us from getting better numbers. I am going to throw something out there: The member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain could tell the people in his circle to provide numbers and be objective. Not only do the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain 's constituents expect the government to table a budget, but they also expect the government to be transparent. I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I can tell her that several billion dollars have been paid in subsidies. In the next few years, more than $82 billion in tax credits will be given, and 22% of that money comes from Quebec.”
“Mr. Speaker, I almost feel like giving him the floor to answer. That is such a great question. Indeed, it is surprising. My colleague from Mirabel also raised another example of lack of respect that I could have added to my long list. I had a lot of things on my sheet. However, 20 minutes sometimes goes by very quickly. I am thinking about the injustice and the lack of respect that we have to endure. Last year, we asked the House to respect our conscience and to allow us to swear an oath to our constituents, rather than swearing an oath to a king, which is something we do reluctantly, out of obligation, for the sole purpose of serving our constituents. In response, some of our colleagues sang God Save the King . Talk about pathetic. When Quebec wants something, it is told to just forget it. That is the message we are getting again today.”
“That happened throughout the election campaign. Now, however, three weeks on, here we are and no one is talking about it at all. Was it a manoeuvre to use fear for electoral purposes? Maybe it is like using a cheque for electoral purposes. Why not? What next?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague. I am glad he asked me a question. Earlier, my speech was almost an invitation. I, too, believe in the future. Have no fear, we will vote for the Parti Québécois at the first opportunity. What we want is to achieve independence. We are not against Canada, but for Quebec and for continuing to work with Canadians. That is the issue. The reason is because of the injustices, like the ones we called out today. I wish that some of the Conservatives had stepped up today to say that we are right. This comes from the government. Why? It is because the election campaign stirred up a lot of media attention. It was a fear-driven campaign. Throughout the election campaign, people were told to be careful of the big, bad President Trump. We need “Mr. C”, the Prime Minister I cannot name.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will do what I always do. When a bill is introduced, I look at what is good for my constituents. If it is good for my constituents, I will vote in favour of it. If it is not good, I will try to change it. That is what the Bloc Québécois is doing. I want to set the record straight on something. The member was probably mistaken when she said that Quebec has not paid. I just explained for 20 minutes that Quebec paid, because the tax did not fund the last rebate. It comes from the general coffers, for which we provide 22% of the money. I wish someone would understand that.”
“It is rather ironic that we are the parliamentary group that respects the Constitution the most. Since we sit here and we are obliged to work within these structures, we are constantly reminding people that jurisdictions need to be respected. We constantly have to tell them that was not what was written behind our backs in the night. One signature in the night, while the premier was sleeping. You cannot make it up. I would not say it in this chamber if I did not know it to be true. I think it is awful to see that no one is bothered by this. Then there are people with good will, like the Conservative leader who had the most common sense, Mr. Mulroney, who tried to fix this. He was not asking for much, but it was a categorical no. Still today, what do we get? We get a categorical no. We will remember.”
“That means that 22% of that money should flow back to us. That is all. This is not a malicious separatist gesture or an act of bad faith. What we want is fairness for our citizens. It seems to me that this is a very reasonable request. Unfortunately, I have the very sad duty of noting that the House does not seem to want to recognize this fact. I find that very disappointing. I hope our citizens see this, realize what is going on and remember it, because we do not want an injustice like this to happen every week. Any time someone comes along to extol the virtues of beautiful, great Canada, we will have one more piece of evidence to show that it is not working. People tell me about Beautiful Canada . That is all very interesting, but why does it not bother anyone that Quebec has never signed the Constitution?”
“It therefore decided not to stop the cheques, even though it had not collected the taxes to pay for them. I have explained this twice. I hope that it is starting to sink in. I almost feel like saying it in English in order to make sure that I am understood, but we do have principles that we will uphold to the very last. I therefore invite those who are interested to put on their earpieces and listen carefully to the extraordinary work that the interpreters are doing here. An hon. member: Hear, hear. Yves Perron: I am glad to hear that. I can even hear several of you. Hear, hear. If the Liberals did not collect the money they handed out in advance, where did it come from? It came from the public purse. However, the money in the public purse is not separated by province. Quebec's money is in there, too.”
“I am being very polite when I say that they lack objectivity. I will say again that the credit for the carbon tax was paid in advance for the next three months. The election date was approaching, and the Liberal government decided to scrap the consumer carbon tax in order to pull the rug out from under Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre—I can mention him by name because he is not here, which is rare, so I am taking advantage of it. They took away his arguments. I have to admit that it was a very smart and strategic political move. It seems to have worked, since the Liberals are still in power. However, the government decided that it could not stop the cheques that were supposed to arrive a few days before the election because people would not like that.”
“When he asks his question, he will surely tell me that he is in a good mood today and that he wants to encourage me by saying that I am right when I say that the debts of Upper Canada and Lower Canada were merged, even though they were of a completely different order of magnitude, and that the debt of Upper Canada, which was Ontario at the time, was paid off. No one is bothered by that today, just as no one will be bothered in two years when we talk about today's $814 million. It will not keep anyone in Canada awake at night. This is another example of Quebec being cheated, although I will agree that it is on a smaller scale. All those who stand up and tell us that Quebec did not participate in the carbon exchange and that it is not true that Quebeckers got cheated lack objectivity.”
“He was cutting transfers and people were protesting in front of the provincial and Quebec parliaments, while he was sitting back with his feet up, with plenty of money to do whatever he wanted, including the ability to encroach on any area of jurisdiction he wanted. I could go back even further. There is a debt somewhere. My colleague from the Quebec City area, whose full riding name I would not dare try to pronounce because I am not familiar with the indigenous portion and would not want to be disrespectful to anyone, will be pleased that I am quoting the Act of Union of 1840. I know that he is a history buff.”
“I will just talk about the health care system, which is underfunded. Canada's contribution is now 20% or 22% of health care costs, down from 50% in the early 1970s, when the system was introduced. We need to put ourselves in the shoes of a federal government that wants to be popular and says it cannot simply transfer money to the provinces because they will provide the services and take all the credit so people will like them. The federal government cannot do that. (1810) Jean Chrétien understood that. He cut transfers. He even bragged about it abroad and talked about what a great position he was in.”
“Actually, they can keep their equalization. I do believe that Quebec would be much richer and more prosperous and would have a better future without equalization payments if it controlled all of its taxes. That is because the fundamental problem with this federation—I started talking about confederation and federation—is once again poor presentation and yet another opportunity for Quebeckers to be cheated. It is in the contract of 1867, where the responsibilities and areas of jurisdiction were set out. In order to properly exercise these areas of jurisdiction, we need to have the financial means. However, we have discovered over time that Canada is a federation and that the federal government constantly wants to centralize power here in Ottawa without fulfilling its obligations. We see it every day.”
“We have resources that benefit Canada. I will just mention the St. Lawrence Seaway. I invite the few members who are listening to me to do a bit of research. They are the exception, but we will talk to them anyway, because we have to talk to the audience that we have. Out of curiosity, they should find out how much it costs for a ship to pass through the Panama Canal. After that, they should look up how much it cost to rebuild the new Samuel de Champlain Bridge in Montreal, and how much it would have cost had the bridge been lower. It is very high because it is the seaway, and ships have to be able to pass through. It is a good idea, but it came at a price. Who paid for that? People can always present whatever figures they want. Let them ask more questions about equalization payments, and I will be happy to answer them.”
“Now, when we stand up and say that the government made a mistake, that it gave a cheque to certain provinces but not to two others, that this is unfair and that it should right this wrong, they call us malcontents, point out the equalization payments we have received and tell us to repent. We will not repent. I have plenty of examples like that. This system is one of the most malicious that exists, because on top of everything else, less money is being invested in Quebec. That affects how equalization payments are calculated, requiring additional payments and leaving Quebeckers with the impression that they are poor. God forbid they realize that they are good people, that they are great, strong, intelligent and capable of shining far more brightly in the world and then decide to separate. What a tragedy that would be.”
“Personally, I am sick and tired of listening to people talk about equalization. I want to remind people just how much we subsidize the heavy polluting oil and gas industry every year. Indeed, of the subsidies it receives from the government, we pay 22%. The government gives oil companies tax credits; in the next few years it is going to give these companies money so they can keep polluting while they try to sequester carbon in sinks or rock. Good luck with that. Every time it was tried in the past, it failed. As for us, we are going to have to pay for it.”
“Sometimes, people wonder why there are damned separatists and why the sovereignist movement exists. People think that Canada is a very beautiful country. That is true, but it is simply not ours, because we do not have the same priorities as a nation. On top of that comes a slew of inequities. Unfortunately, the carbon tax rebate during the election campaign only adds to a long list of times when Quebec was shortchanged. When we say that out loud, however, we are called malcontents and reminded about equalization payments, told that we should get down on our knees and thank Alberta. However, when they tell us that, people never remember to say that among the seven provinces receiving equalization payments, Quebec is the one receiving the least per capita. People need to be educated about these things.”
“For the second adult, it is between $55 and $114, and it is between $27.50 and $57 per child. These amounts cover a three-month period. That is the money that others got and that Quebeckers did not get, but paid for. If I do a more simplistic calculation, in Quebec, we have graciously given $100 per person. We are truly generous, but we are called whiners and quibblers because we say that the government made a mistake and that something iniquitous had happened. We humbly ask the government to fix this inequity. It should refund the money that Quebeckers paid because, as we have been told all day, we did not participate in carbon pricing. We do not have to pay for that. We have our system that works. That is the problem. (1805) However, I am being told no. That is Canadian history in a nutshell.”
“We work in French and we promote French, but my colleague from Mirabel is so generous that he wanted to table the definition in both languages. He was shut down with very little consideration. Allow me to make a request to the members of the House. The next time that we are so generous, they should welcome it and accept our gift instead of snubbing us. We may end up understanding each other. That is the problem. I want to talk about money again, because some big numbers have been thrown around. It is about $814 million, or about $10 million per riding in Quebec. I would like to explain things in practical terms for the people watching us at home. The Canada carbon rebate is $110 to $228 for the first adult, depending on the province in which it is paid.”
“I am using the word “stolen” to express my surprise that members of the House refused to allow us to table a definition of this very simple word, which is being used to make sure that everyone understands what we are talking about. When we speak here, not everyone can hear us. First, there are the unilingual anglophones who never use earpieces. Second, there are all those who talk while we are speaking and create a lot of background noise that is getting louder and louder. That is a constructive comment on my part. At some point, we have to make ourselves heard. We felt that people did not understand what we were saying, so we wanted to give them the definition of the word that we were using. Besides, we are nice.”
“I think that Quebec found one of the best ways of doing it with the carbon exchange, which is working well with one of the biggest partners in North America, California. This system works so well that there are far fewer repercussions on the citizens than the former carbon tax system that the federal government had chosen to impose on the provinces and territories that did not handle their own responsibilities. Let us not forget that, originally, this type of intervention fell under the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec. That is the injustice. We have done the math, and approximately $800 million is what has been confiscated, taken away and stolen from us.”
“That is the problem. We disagree with the idea of giving out cheques to buy an election, and we find it appalling. If the explanation is that poorer people were waiting for the cheque and the government did not want to upset them or catch them off guard, then it should have at least treated everyone fairly. That is where the problem lies. Neither British Columbia nor Quebec received this compensation because they were not on the list. These two provinces were not on the list because over the years they decided to handle their own responsibilities. They decided to tackle climate change head-on, to change their ways and create a serious incentive for businesses to make an effort to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. There are different ways of doing that.”
“We saw a few of those during the election campaign, including when the government talked about the budget. Some people are able to promise that they will cut taxes while increasing spending, and they can say that without batting an eye, without trembling, and with a steady voice. We cannot wait to see that. That is why we are all so eager to see a budget. (1800) The tax was not collected, but the cheques were sent out. The money did not just magically appear. It came from somewhere. It came from the state coffers. The Bloc Québécois is working to change things one day, but for now, Quebec represents 22% of the tax-paying population. Quebec therefore paid 22% of the $3.7 billion that was handed out as election goodies, as giveaways. The Liberal Party gave out a nice little cheque in the hopes that it would win some votes.”
“I think that the official opposition will agree with us on that. It was a very questionable move. However, let us show even more good faith than usual and say that all of this is fine. The government did not want to catch people off guard and take money away from them for the coming month. We can agree on that. That said, this money should have been given to everyone. The money that the government handed out was supposed to be covered by the tax that it had planned to collect over the next three months. However, that is not what it did. It would no longer collect the tax, but it would still issue the compensation payment that should have been financed by that tax that no longer existed. Some of my colleagues have called it a magic trick.”
“The government then decided to go ahead with the payment. I heard all sorts of things today. Luckily for me and my general state of mind, I did not listen to speeches all day. If I had, it would have done me in. It already has. I am a sensitive kind of guy. When I hear nonsense, it bothers me. I was told a whole bunch of things. I was told that people were expecting a payment and no one wanted to blindside them. People had budgeted for it. Even if they no longer had to pay the tax and so should not have received the payment, the decision was made give it to them anyway. At the very least, we are willing to accept this argument and give the benefit of the doubt, but this is nothing new. Using public funds in this way in the run‑up to an election looks like an attempt to buy votes.”
“The government obviously could have done a better job at public communications, an area where it has done very poorly in recent years and where it has been completely dominated by the official opposition. The government should have explained more often that nearly 80% of individuals, especially those with low incomes and those in the middle class, were getting more money than they were paying and that they were getting it in advance. That is the issue at stake today. The cancellation of this tax was announced on April 1. The payment scheduled for April 22 was just a few days before the general election, and the government decided that it was better not to cancel it because people might have thought that their cheques were being taken away. Those people might not have wanted to vote for the Liberals anymore.”
“For that reason, we moved this motion in the House, thinking that all parliamentarians, who are intelligent and open-minded individuals, would hear our case, analyze the information and recognize that funds, the origin of which was not transparent, had in fact been distributed inequitably. It turns out that this is not the case. I will therefore explain it one last time. According to what is written in the program, the Canada carbon rebate was to be paid in advance, because it was known that this measure would not be popular when it was introduced. No one likes to pay taxes, which is to be expected. The government therefore announced that a payment, which was compensation covering the next three months, would be made in advance to prevent having individuals bear the immediate costs, particularly by putting it on their credit card.”
“Mr. Speaker, thank you for letting me know. I presume that you will remind me when I need to wrap up my speech. We find ourselves in a sadly recurring moment in this so-called confederation, which is, in reality, a federation, where people repeatedly say they love Quebec, that it is part of Canada, that it reaps various benefits, that it is quite spoiled and so on. However, every time we express a need and we raise an injustice or an inequity, we are told we are creating division and we are not being reasonable. In my opinion, I think we are extremely reasonable. We dedicated an opposition day to this subject in a very reasonable and positive manner. We were quite naive to think that the injustice that occurred during the election could not be ignored.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in by heaping more praise on the member's speech in French. I remember that he hardly spoke any French back when I met him in 2019, so I congratulate him for making the effort. We can correct each other if he is interested in continuing. My question is very simple. Could my colleague confirm for me, yes or no, whether the consumer carbon tax payment was paid out in advance or after the fact? All the analysts say that it was paid out in advance. If it was paid in advance and—”
“Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is talking about three months, correct? He talked about a time when an election was held in February and the budget was tabled in May. Well, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue has been in that position for three months with a clear mandate to prepare a budget to deal with the U.S. trade war. I think the minister would be able to do so. Let us be serious. Let us do serious work. If the Liberals are unable to present a complete budget, then they could at least provide an economic update to tell us where the money is going to come from. Then we could sit down like adults, decide if we approve it or not, and make informed decisions for a positive future for everyone. That is our job.”
“Furthermore, we can streamline the temporary foreign worker program by reducing red tape for producers. As I just said, climate change is a major cause of rising prices. We should provide financial support to environmentally responsible producers. We should also encourage innovation and adaptation. We can put incentives in place for all that to get results in the short and medium terms, but we need to take action. We need to focus on what we can change.”
“Mr. Speaker, a number of factors came into play. I spoke earlier about the fact that climate change has caused a lot of problems not only in Quebec and Canada, but also in the United States. We have to remember that we import a lot of goods. Geopolitical factors have also had an impact on grain prices, for example. Consider Ukraine, which is still, sadly, occupied by a foreign invasion force. That also has consequences. There are a lot of things we cannot control. However, my colleague will be happy to hear that I have ideas about things we can control. I talked about the grocery code of conduct, regional processing and business risk management. Those are things we can take action on. We can also take action on supply management, and we are doing so.”
“As for tax cuts, as I said at the beginning of my speech, we are never against them. We do not oppose them in principle, but we have to be serious. We need to know what the outcome will be and where the money is going to come from.”
“Mr. Speaker, I actually feel like I have been misunderstood. I never said that taking the time to draft the budget and doing it conscientiously was not important. However, the new Minister of Finance and National Revenue has been in the position for three months. His mandate was very clear. It was to create a budget that would allow for measures to help businesses affected by U.S. tariffs and the trade war, for example. The Liberals talked about that throughout the election campaign. Now that the Liberals no longer need people to be afraid, they do not want to talk about it anymore. What a joke. Tariffs on steel and aluminum are currently set at 50%. No business will be able to survive this without government support. What is the government going to do? That would normally be answered in a budget.”
“We could help protect our follow citizens by safeguarding competition and putting an end to the over-concentration of the industry. We could also promote local distribution channels and regional processing, and invest in infrastructure like regional slaughterhouses, which will form a basic infrastructure around which an ecosystem of producers can set up operations. All of these measures will bring stability, and with it, lower prices. We need to support our farmers in better ways than through absolutely ridiculous programs like AgriRecovery, which took two years to help just half of the people who needed it. A two-year response time for an emergency program is a total joke. I have a message for the government. It needs to get serious and table a budget so that we can begin working seriously, on a solid foundation.”
“I would like to congratulate MPs on making a significant and unanimous decision last Thursday to send the bill to protect supply management directly to the Senate. That is a very important measure that protects not only the people who get out of bed every morning to feed us, but also the price of groceries. Anyone who doubts that that is what supply management does should go check the price of a dozen eggs in the United States. Then they will understand what I am talking about. In an earlier question, I raised the idea of implementing a code of conduct in the grocery industry to create better conditions for small suppliers. My NDP colleague will be pleased to hear me talk about that. We could look at the price-setting mechanism in this industry and create a monitoring organization to identify opportunities for action.”