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 3 of 14.
“Madam Speaker, he should take a look at our platform. It is full of proposals about culture. Here is what the Société des auteurs et autrices de radio, télévision et cinéma said concerning the Prime Minister 's cultural capitulation: “this announcement cuts us to the core, because it suggests that our industry is nothing but a bargaining chip”. Those are their words, not ours. The Prime Minister had already capitulated on the digital services tax to the tune of $1.4 billion a year. Today, he is capitulating on the $2 billion a year in levies payable by streaming platforms. Whey are the Liberals always so eager to capitulate when it comes to protecting francophone culture in North America?”
“Madam Speaker, Ottawa is once again bowing to pressure from Washington. The government wants to cancel a levy increase and allow Netflix, Amazon and other streaming platforms to get out of paying their fair share towards funding culture. The Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions is concerned about this situation. It stated: “Ottawa's decision...represents a major and deeply troubling setback in the face of U.S. pressure on Canada's cultural sovereignty.” Who is in charge of cultural policy in this country: the Prime Minister or Donald Trump?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on something. We know that Build Canada Homes will be entitled to acquire shares in companies involved in public housing. It seems to me that the roles are getting mixed up. We have some reservations about this. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about this.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois supports the bill, because we want housing to be built. However, a similar body already exists, namely the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Its mandate is very similar, if not identical, to that of Build Canada Homes. Why create a new body? What is the logic there? What will happen to the CMHC?”
“Mr. Speaker, it was the Prime Minister who started this debate, not the Bloc Québécois. He was the one who raised the issue of referendum clarity. What is more, he did so regarding a referendum in Alberta where the law does not even apply. He cannot help himself. He just had to demonstrate that he will not respect democracy if he is not happy with what the people choose. The fact that he was so eager to start this debate when it was not even necessary speaks volumes. Why is he so eager to prove that he is willing to cheat to win?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has shown his true colours by claiming that 50% of the vote plus one would not be enough to win a referendum. He has shown that he will flout democracy if he is not happy with a decision made by the people. He has shown that he adheres to a long tradition of federalism that tramples on peoples' right to self-determination—a federalism prepared to cheat to win. Quebeckers, for their part, are deeply democratic. They proved this by accepting the result of the 1995 referendum. Why is Canada fundamentally incapable of playing by the rules?”
“Hypothetically, if she had been elected leader and found herself the Prime Minister of Canada, is that the kind of thing she would do to finally take Quebec's reality into account?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague a question in French, to give her the opportunity to practise for her next leadership race. One never knows. I want to ask her about the money the federal government owes Quebec. I could talk about the $814 million that was sent out right before the election to buy votes, but I will not go there. I want to ask her about the large numbers of asylum seekers arriving in Quebec. I am sure my colleague would agree that these people need to be taken care of. That costs money, and it falls under federal jurisdiction. We have been asking the federal government to do its part for many years now. We estimate that Ottawa owes Quebec $700 million. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“At the very least, I urge the government to sit down with us so that we can discuss potential solutions. If it does not like this solution, let us find another one that will suit everyone. That is how government is supposed to work for the common good.”
“Mr. Speaker, for one, it could have done more than just provide loans, because, eventually, a company's debt level rises dramatically. I just mentioned the wage subsidy. What a wonderful way to preserve the economic fabric of the regions by maintaining the employment relationship between the worker and the company, even if production has to slow down or operations have to stop temporarily. It seems that the government's current intention is to see small businesses disappear and for everything to be concentrated in large companies, because the focus is on helping large companies. I hope that is not the case, but I feel I need to raise the issue publicly. I would like an answer on that. Ordinary people in the regions are asking us for help, asking us for support, and the government should be more present than it is.”
“He would speak with the members of his party and tell them that he did not come across very well this morning in Parliament and that the Liberals might want to have a little chat with the members of the Bloc Québécois. The parliamentary secretary is talking about attitude, but our attitude has not changed. We are always constructive. He says that a wage subsidy proposal for SMEs is not a good idea. The Liberals do not have to accept it, but they should at least talk to us about it. There was no consultation. We waited three weeks to get a briefing. Now the government is saying that we need to have a vote this week. The answer is written on my face, because I am not allowed to use the words I want to use.”
“Mr. Speaker, we could spend all day getting caught up in semantics, but the parliamentary secretary is completely mistaken. When private members' bills were passed, the Liberals were in the minority. That is the key difference. I hope they will do it again. They will probably do it for bills that are not controversial. For example, if we vote on the bill establishing Arab heritage month, which is currently under consideration and is a consensus bill, they will take credit for passing private members' bills. When it comes to the substance of the budget, it seems to me that if the parliamentary secretary were even remotely serious, he would take a moment to reflect.”
“The trouble at the moment is that the government is not listening to us anymore; I am not even sure they have read our proposals. That is the tragic part about it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question, which is an interesting one. Having a minority government forces parties to compromise. Absolute power is never a good thing. When the government has a minority, it is forced to consult with the other parties. If it wants a bill to be passed, it must talk with with the opposition and convince them. The opposition may raise some concerns; it may say that it agrees on one thing, but that another aspect should also be considered. The best thing about that—and I have experienced this over many years—is that, often, the government realizes that it is actually a good idea. They mull it over and may even include it. That is how it worked when we discussed legislation to protect supply management.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for her intelligent and logical question. I hope the government is listening when I say that this is essential. This measure has already been implemented in the case of mead, for example. When it was done in committee, it was done quickly, and the amendment was incomplete, because it did not include berry-based alcohol. This is a fundamental measure. There are a lot of members on the other side of the House. The Liberals often boast about having 44 members from Quebec and representing the regions. Many of the members across the aisle have farmers in their ridings. We are not talking about huge sums of money here, unlike the billions of dollars the government is throwing at oil companies. Let us be serious and support small businesses.”
“Mr. Speaker, he is not the only one who is disappointed. I am disappointed with that answer. The government talks a good game. It says that it is working co-operatively and that it voted in favour of private members' bills, but that was when there was a minority government. For the past few weeks, the government has had a rigged majority, a manufactured majority. It is a similar story in the previous Parliament. At a certain point, the government made a deal with the NDP and started acting like a majority government. Co-operation happens in a minority setting. That should send an important message to the public. We heard the parliamentary secretary. The best government is a minority government. It helps prevent authoritarian excesses and bills that are passed are reasonable and arise from consensus.”
“We are here to contribute our opinion, to share Quebec's take on situations and to work constructively. I am sending the government a message. If it wants us to vote in favour of a future bill, it will have to get serious and respect opposition MPs, because just like Liberal MPs, they too were elected.”
“They play a vital and important role in maintaining the economic fabric of our regions. However, they are not being used. As for the EI reform, it makes no sense for an EI system to cover only about 60% of its contributors. It means that 40% of people contributing to the plan are throwing money out the window and will never qualify for benefits. We cannot accept that. It constitutes a serious injustice. We could talk about the spring gap that seasonal workers face. There are lots of things we could talk about. We need meaningful measures for our media, the reinstatement of the digital services tax and the reinstatement of labour tax credits. The federal government must listen to the opposition parties. We are not here to block everything.”
“When the government makes the mistake of removing a tax, it does not take long for the benefits to disappear. We saw this with the suspension of the excise tax and the 10¢ rebate. How many years has the Bloc Québécois been repeating the same message? If the government removes a tax, then this greedy sector will fill that void and put the money in its own pockets. That is what happened. If the government removes another tax, then the same thing will happen. The oil companies will wait a few weeks and then they will do it subtly on some pretext about what is happening abroad. At the end of the day, they will pocket the money. Enough with the subsidies. There are other things we could be doing with those billions of dollars. Take SME wage subsidy programs, for example.”
“Once again, and I will repeat this several times in my speech to make sure that the government hears me, we were not given a proper explanation and we were not given the opportunity to carefully examine the provisions of this bill. As we understand it, we could end up with private companies working for the airlines to quickly resolve passengers' complaints. Now passengers can be treated with contempt by those companies too. Why not? That is already the way things have been going. It is unfortunate, but for all of these reasons, I have to announce that we will be voting against this bill. Before I close, I want to mention a few of the constructive proposals put forward by the Bloc Québécois. For one, the government needs to stop subsidizing big oil. Oil companies are making exorbitant profits.”
“Has the government now decided to administer things at lightning speed? Let us just say that we do not like it. Furthermore, based on our initial interpretation, considering the limited time we were given and the information we received, Bill C-31 opens the door to increased government powers and less transparency. We also see that the system for processing air traveller complaints has changed. The government appears to be trying to sweep that issue under the rug. We are deeply concerned about travellers' rights. The government says it wants to take a different approach by having these complaints handled not by the Canadian Transportation Agency, but by a private firm.”
“People may get fed up, like the former environment minister, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie , who announced this week that he is leaving politics. Now that is really something, forcing someone like him to leave politics. That means that the Liberals have pushed things too far when it comes to the highly polluting oil from the west. That is also part of the issue. Returning to today's topic, the bill proposes to once again expand oil and gas industry subsidies. We requested a briefing to ensure that we properly understood the bill, but since the Liberals won a majority, the government seems to scorn us. They seem to have no need for a group of MPs that want Quebec to become independent. They seem no longer interested in even talking to us, now that they can vote as a majority and pass bills as fast as they please. Is that democracy?”
“Once again, and this sums up the essence of my speech this morning, the Bloc leader's office requested, in good faith and in a constructive way, a briefing session on the subtleties and specific features of the bill. We waited more than three weeks before that briefing was held. It took place this week. (1005) At the same time, we are expected to pass this bill as soon as possible. The answer is going to be no. We cannot hand over a blank cheque for such important, large-scale measures while the government continues to expand its subsidies to the oil and gas industry, for example. Enough is enough. Let us be serious and work together. This government has three years left, if it manages to hold on to its majority.”
“We are serious. We are dedicated. We came up with real proposals. I get the feeling that the government did not even bother to read them. Of course, we fully expected that some of our proposals would be rejected, such as the idea to reimburse Quebeckers for the money that was stolen from us and used to buy Liberal votes in the last election. We included that out of principle, to make sure no one forgets. We honestly do not understand why this is not generating more reaction in the media. That said, it seems to me that the government should have considered some of the other proposals. After all, it claims to be reasonable. Bill C-31 is a major, complex bill that is several hundred pages long and that contains numerous amendments.”
“We asked our colleagues to look at them and we have not even received a call. There has not even been 12 seconds of consultation. Things were different a few months ago. However, because of some backroom deals, people crossed the floor and the government built itself a majority. Once it had a majority, consultation was over. The government talks a good game. They say that they will continue to work in the common interest and listen to opposition parties, and so on. In fact, the reality is that we get bills like C‑31, for which we did some serious work early on. That is probably the most insulting part of all of this. It is not as though we did not bother to work or as though we just spouted some populist rhetoric and said that the government is bad or rotten. We analyzed the situation. We have a team of researchers and a team of MPs.”
“We are here to move things forward for the common good, at least for the time being, of course, because our ultimate goal remains achieving Quebec's independence. In our day-to-day work here, we are well aware that time is of the essence and that our goal is far from unrealistic. It is essential to the full and comprehensive development of our society, in accordance with its values and, above all, its priorities. It is not that Canada is not a beautiful country. That is not the issue, and this is not directed against Canada. It is really about our own development according to our own choices and priorities. This will certainly be done in partnership with Canada, since Canada will always be an important neighbour. However, we are in Parliament and we have made proposals.”
“They need a government that is there for them and that tells them that we are going through a tough time because our neighbours to the south have an unpredictable president. No one here knows what he will do next. There is nothing worse for the economy and for our businesses than uncertainty, so we have to be there for them, but the government is not taking serious action. Then, the Bloc Québécois put forward 11 requests. That may seem like a lot, but they are reasonable requests. We wanted to put them up for discussion. Ever since I arrived here in 2019, the Bloc Québécois has been an intelligent and constructive opposition. In fact, it is in the Bloc Québécois's DNA to work that way. We are not here to obstruct everything, despite what some may think or say.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we are rather disappointed with Bill C-31. We are disappointed because neither the implementation bill nor the economic update really take into account the current tariff crisis. This serious crisis is affecting businesses in general, but, once again, it has been particularly hard on businesses in Quebec, where these tariffs apply to one-quarter of exports. Smaller businesses have been particularly hard hit. That is something else that makes Quebec unique. When I say that the country of Quebec already exists, I mean that there are already structural differences between Quebec and Canada. Quebec's economy is made up of SMEs, and they need support.”
“By sharing this information, by making it publicly available, we will be better able to take action and come up with more innovative ideas. The Canada Revenue Agency will be able to improve, and everyone will benefit. To conclude, I want to reiterate that we must also urgently tackle tax havens. It is a serious injustice that companies protect their profits abroad. They claim that it is not tax avoidance. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister had the nerve to tell us that it is not tax avoidance because this money flows back to individuals through pension funds. Individuals, for their part, pay tax. The message we are getting is that the little people have to pay and the rich will not. This is a social injustice, and a serious one at that. It is a very dangerous message.”
“If some folks do not have the integrity to do their part, I think it is okay to give them a little nudge and tell them they also have to do their bit. If there is a risk that their name will get out when they get caught, that could help encourage many of these folks to do the right thing. That argument therefore seems pretty weak. There is also the question of what has been recovered, based on the historical figures we have. I have some figures here. Between 2014 and 2022, the gross tax gap was $59.5 billion, and approximately $10.8 billion of that is said to have been recovered from personal income tax. On the corporate side, out of $23.5 billion, $9.3 billion is said to have been recovered. That is not bad, but it is not huge either. The government could certainly do better.”
“I hope that law will be enforced. We are still waiting to see the results. Will that law be fully enforced? Will it be effective? Only time will tell. We need to see the numbers to know for sure. To get those numbers, I think a bill like Bill S-217 is a very useful tool. That is basically what I wanted to say. Pressure needs to be exerted and the money owed must be recovered. Some say it is owed to the government, but that is not entirely accurate. Yes, the government acts as an intermediary, but that money is owed to society. It is owed to the community. Society needs things like public services, resources, a defence system and all kinds of things, but they all cost money. We are not living in a fairytale. These things do not appear out of thin air. They have to be purchased.”
“If he gets caught and we manage to recover the money, and if it is all out in the open to a certain extent, I would say that no harm is done, because it could encourage him not to do it again. I am not sure that if a member of Parliament were to engage in tax avoidance or tax evasion, it would remain secret for very long. Why would that not apply to everyone? Let us treat everyone equally. We stand in solidarity. That is important. I want to quickly come back to tax havens. I know that they are not addressed in the bill, but they should be. I do not know whether we will be able to go so far as to include tax evasion within the scope of the bill, but I think we should. In 2024, Canada passed legislation to impose a minimum tax rate of 15% on companies that generate and declare their profits abroad before repatriating them here.”
“Today, it is Brookfield that we often hear about, but we know very little about it. It would be interesting to know how much money has been transferred to tax havens to avoid paying a fair share. Earlier, my colleague, who introduced the bill and sponsored it for the senator who introduced it, explained in his speech that when a person or a company does not pay their share, it goes beyond their failure to pay. Other people, meaning us, have to pick up the slack and make up the difference. There is the guy who declared everything and is paying his share, and there is the guy next door, who is dishonest, who is hiding money and who is not paying what he owes.”
“However, from what I understand, what will be published mainly concerns tax evasion, that is, cases where people have been found guilty of tax offences. This is too bad, but when someone is found guilty of an offence, their right to privacy disappears a bit. We are talking about transparency. It is important not to go too far. However, it is a bit like when someone is convicted of a criminal offence in court. Unfortunately for them, it is public. At a certain point, privacy can become an excuse in many of these cases. I would go further and also look at tax avoidance. Canada has a lot of experience with that. (1750) One need only think of Canadian Steamship Lines, which belonged to the family of Paul Martin, our former prime minister. Since then, we have gained some historical hindsight.”
“I would also include in this any agreements that may have been reached between the CRA and businesses regarding debt write-offs, relief measures or equity proposals aimed at waiving interest, fees or penalties, because I believe the public deserves to know. The average worker who earns, say, $45,000 a year, made a mistake on their tax return and has to pay the money back with interest might well be interested to learn that millions of dollars have been forgiven for businesses. It might also be interesting to know that the Prime Minister 's companies are engaging in tax avoidance, which is unfortunately legal. That is why I asked my colleagues a question earlier, because they seemed to be saying that certain information would be published. That would be great.”
“We will repeat this again from time to time. The reality is that they have a majority because members crossed the floor. We must accept that. That said, I would go even further. The bill states that the tax gap must be published. The tax gap is the money the government believes it should have collected but did not. What income taxes and other amounts should have been collected, and what was actually received? If the figures do not add up, people may lose patience, but everything hinges on knowing the truth and on the public putting pressure on the government. I believe this bill will help the general public, but it will help opposition MPs more so. It will help us force the government to be more effective in collecting this money.”
“I was pleased to hear the parliamentary secretary say that the government is going to support the bill at second reading. That means we will be able to study it. I was pleased because, when I read up on the bill's history earlier, I learned that the majority Liberal Party at the time had rejected one of the initial versions of the bill, citing privacy reasons. It is always easy for the government to find excuses when it does not want to be completely open about something, when it does not want to be transparent and especially when it does not want an agency's underperformance to be on full display. However, the government needs to have that courage. Until it finds it, there will be no improvement. I was therefore worried about the position of this new majority government, which does not reflect the results of the last election.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill today, because I think it is a good one and my party agrees. I announced in my question that we will be supporting this bill at second reading so that we can carefully study it in committee. This bill is important because it deals with the effective recovery of monies as well as with transparency. I think transparency is essential and that is what I will be focusing my comments on today: transparency and access to information. We cannot call for improvements, suggest solutions or explore new options if we do not know what is happening. That is the crux of the issue. The Parliamentary Budget Officer made it quite clear that he approved of the previous versions of this bill. This is not the first time that this legislation has come before the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very worthwhile bill. My colleague will be pleased to hear that the Bloc Québécois is prepared to support this bill and carefully examine it in committee. I have a question for him. In his speech, he talked about tax evasion, which is addressed in the bill. He also talked about tax avoidance and how businesses are able to avoid paying taxes by using tax havens. However, as far as I know, the bill does not address that issue. Does he not think that the scope of his bill should be expanded to include tax avoidance? It is not fair that businesses are not paying their fair share.”
“Over the past year, the Liberal government has shown that giving in on everything has given us nothing. I am thinking of taxing web giants and waiving tariffs. We have gained nothing and have had new tariffs imposed to boot. Let us take responsibility. Let us put in place the taxes we need. Then we can sit down and negotiate with the Americans. What does my colleague think about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, surviving in the world of Canadian and Quebec productions requires existing in the first place. The problem we have right now is that these platforms have invaded, and they are getting much more visibility. We have been hearing all day that anyone can put a song on YouTube and promote it, but will not be able to live off it. It takes a structure. It takes a cultural ecosystem. We need that money to reinvest in our local media everywhere. I have a question for my colleague. All day long, we have been hearing that CUSMA was about to be negotiated and that this was no time to put a tax on the Americans, that we had to give in and not put anything in place to prevent that. My question is this. Is it not time to stand up for ourselves?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the content of my colleague's speech. I think we are on the same wavelength. We understand that there are funds that need to be reinvested in our local culture. I have a question for my colleague. Her government scrapped the tax on tech giants last year, supposedly to facilitate negotiations with the U.S. president, yet we can see that it has yielded no results. Should this tax not be reinstated? Does she agree with the idea of recovering these colossal sums—as I recall, it was $7 billion over five years—which could allow us to support our regional media? Will she commit to working within her caucus to convince her government to reinstate this tax, which had been adopted and was the result of sound legislation?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is not about being afraid of American cultural content. On the contrary, it is popular with plenty of people. That is not the issue. The issue is about levelling the playing field across the country, because the existing media outlets and institutions had to pay licence fees and infrastructure costs, while the web giants enter the market without any such costs. It is simply a matter of taking a small cut of the profits that they make and redistributing them to support our culture. Contrary to what the member seems to think, this is not about dictating content. The institutions will remain independent. However, one of the things that it will do is help maintain regional media outlets, which is very important for democracy. I would like to hear his comments on that.”
“I understand that the Liberals have a majority and that they can decide, but it was a good amendment. Why did they remove it? I would like to hear a rational explanation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question, since I still have not received an answer. The parliamentary secretary and I know each other quite well. We all know that he has a way with words, but I want to ask him to refrain from skirting around the issue by talking about other things, like the recommendations from Justice Arbour or anyone else. We developed an amendment in committee that would allow a victim—male or female, since either is possible—who is in fact the most important person in these circumstances, to choose whether their sexual assault case would be handled by the civilian courts or a military court. That can be done. We do not own the truth, contrary to what the government might think. I would like to get an objective and sincere answer. Why was this amendment removed?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the issue of transferring sexual assault cases from the military justice system to the civilian justice system, as well as to the amendment aimed at granting victims the right to speak, or even a right of veto, so that they can make a choice in this regard. I know that my colleague is an experienced social worker. She has extensive experience in mediation and conciliation. She has met many people in her career. I would like her to speak to us about the importance of respecting victims in this type of situation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière, whom I hold in high regard. It is unfortunate, but what this means is that the common good will not always be the priority. It means that a majority government thinks that it has the corner on truth. There is no harm in taking an opposition party's amendments into account, particularly on a sensitive and delicate issue like this one. It seems to me that the least the government could do is work together. That does not mean that we will always manage to reach an agreement, but, once again, what bothers me is that the amendments had been adopted. We worked hard and then the government just ignored everything that we did, without taking into account the work that was done and the testimony we heard in committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I certainly agree on that. The problem I have is that it seems to me that giving victims a choice should be obvious. What is more, there was consensus, and that is the sad part. All of a sudden, the government got a majority and erased all the work that the opposition had done. I do not know what principles it used to do that. If someone on the other side can explain that to me, I would appreciate it. As for the recommendation to make judges more independent by having them be released from the armed forces, it seems to me that this recommendation also made sense. We did not get an explanation. The government got rid of everything because it has a majority now and it controls what is going to happen. I hope that this power trip will be over soon, because otherwise, the next three years will feel very long.”
“Mr. Speaker, we agree on that, as I said in my speech. The question I asked my colleague opposite, to which I have not yet received an answer, is the following: Why not retain the flexibility to give victims a choice? In any crime, in any unfortunate event that can happen, the most important person is the victim. That person's choice and free will should always come first. I do not understand, and I imagine that my colleague does not have an answer for me because he did not give me one.”
“The recommendations of Justice Arbour and Justice Fish are there, at least in large part. An amendment proposing to refer the bill back to committee was introduced this morning, and we will study it carefully. I am not saying that is the solution, but it is worth considering. In closing, I urge the government to work with opposition members. It needs to stop just saying it and actually do it.”