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 5 of 14.
“In large federal ridings, a list can sometimes include as many as 72 candidates, and voters often have to search through them. Take Berthier—Maskinongé, for example, with its 108,000 voters and 37 municipalities. As qualified and important as I believe myself to be, I am well aware that many people in my riding vote primarily for the party. They need to be able to find that choice on the ballot. We therefore agree that this needs to be addressed. Compromises were found during the recent by-elections, particularly in Terrebonne, where candidates affiliated with recognized parties were placed on the first page. However, requiring voters to write down the name of the candidate increases the degree of difficulty, the duration of the vote, the risk of error and the risk of a challenge.”
“I myself have gladly signed the nomination papers of certain opponents, because it is important to have an election campaign with diverse candidates and to foster democratic debate. We believe this provision should be removed from the bill. We believe the other measures will be enough to control the very high number of candidates seen in the last election. I just said that I have signed ballots for certain political opponents, but I will never sign ballots for 48 candidates who are simply there to bog down the electoral system. There are different ways to express disagreement. Fundamentally, I agree with the cause these people are defending. However, I think they are taking the wrong approach. They are disrupting the entire electoral system. Through their actions, they are discouraging citizens from exercising their right to vote.”
“People would be unable to sign a nomination paper for the person they want to vote for because someone else got to them first. The problem with that is obvious. The other problem is that the vote will be made public. Most people are comfortable with that. I think most people here could guess who I voted for in the last election and in every election of my life. However, some people do not want to reveal who they voted for, and that is fine, because it is all voters' prerogative to keep their vote secret. If a person can sign only one nomination paper, they might as well announce publicly which candidate they will be voting for. We understand how complex this issue is.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a mild case of attention deficit. Nearby noises bother me. I will pick up where I left off. I was outlining the serious doubts that we raised over the prospect of preventing constituents from signing more than one nomination paper. This is an important issue. Signing a nomination paper does not oblige constituents to vote for the candidate in question. They are free to watch the election campaign unfold and possibly change their mind along the way. Otherwise, what purpose would election campaigns serve? If we tell constituents that they cannot sign more than one nomination paper, it amounts to telling them that they have to make their choice at the start of the campaign, which would make election campaigns rather pointless.”
“We do not understand why this has not already been amended. We therefore want to work on this some more and propose amendments related to the measure preventing people from signing more than one nomination paper. It is a very slippery slope when the government starts limiting citizens' ability to endorse candidates with a signature. Signing a nomination paper does not mean that individual will vote for that candidate. However, if people are limited to signing only one, it will almost become— Mr. Speaker, people are having conversations right next to me. Perhaps those folks could go into the lobby to do that. I do not think they are listening to my speech, anyway.”
“Questions were raised about that earlier in the discussions on previous speeches. The bill as it now stands raises doubts in that regard. Political parties have a duty to protect the personal information of their donors and members. As for enforcement and sanctions, the bill gives more power to the federal Commissioner of Canada Elections and increases the administrative monetary penalties. Finally, the bill also seeks to change the names of some ridings at the request of members, a move that, in our case, was approved by the communities covered by this bill. As I said, we support the principle of this bill. We applaud the goal of protecting electoral integrity and combatting interference and corruption. We do, however, disagree with one of the measures in the bill, which we expressed in committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-25 , which amends the Canada Elections Act. We think the intention of the bill is good. We agree in principle and we will vote in favour of the bill at second reading. However, there are some nuances I need to talk about. Of course we agree with the bans regarding foreign influence, election disinformation, election corruption, and those so-called “rewards”, or bribes, the infamous “brownies”. These things urgently need to be regulated. We also agree when it comes to addressing the problems with nomination contests and leadership races. When it comes to political party financing, parties are also prohibited from accepting and using certain donations, namely those from anonymous sources. That is important, and we need to keep that up.”
“Mr. Speaker, when a member responds by talking about something else, it means he is bothered by the question. Quebeckers have already paid $34 billion for the Trans Mountain pipeline. We are already paying billions of dollars in subsidies to oil companies, even though those companies are making exorbitant profits because of the war in Iran. There is no way that we are going to pay for another dirty oil pipeline. Quebeckers want their money to be used to fight climate change, to counter Donald Trump's tariffs and to fund health care. Basically, they want it to be used for anything other than saving oil companies money. When will the Liberals finally get the message?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are busy launching their new dirty oil pipeline project out west. Things may be buzzing in Ottawa, but it is crickets from developers. Nobody is interested. Who is going to pay, then? The answer is the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources . Yesterday, he confirmed in committee that he wants to give $10 billion of taxpayer money to indigenous communities so that they will agree to participate in the project. The Liberals are trying to buy social licence with $10 billion in cheques. Will the Liberals back down and promise not to put Quebeckers' money into their pipeline?”
“A great many organizations rely on volunteers, and I would particularly like to pay tribute to the volunteer centres that coordinate these generous efforts in D'Autray, Maskinongé, Matawini and throughout Quebec. Volunteers are the light that shines at the heart of our communities. I want to thank them for their daily dedication.”
“Mr. Speaker, as the 52nd edition of National Volunteer Week draws to a close, it is with pride and gratitude that I wish to highlight the commitment of those who give so generously. Helping a neighbour, supporting an elderly person, delivering a meal, providing transportation to a medical appointment, cooking, providing assistance, supporting, loving: That is what volunteering is all about. Without these guardian angels, countless people would be isolated, a huge number of young people would have no one to rely on, and many amateur sports would cease to exist. Being a volunteer means finding fulfilment through selfless giving; it means spreading smiles; it means sowing and reaping moments of happiness.”
“The other measures in the bill are more than sufficient to achieve that end. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on the fact that voters are being asked to sign only one nomination paper. I think that poses a risk of making their votes public, because people will sign only the nomination papers of the candidate they plan to vote for. That is a significant concern.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will begin my question with a comment. I did not raise a point of order, but the member referred to the member for Terrebonne by her given name rather than by her riding name, which should not happen in the House. Perhaps that escaped the Speaker's attention, so I just wanted to give my friend opposite a friendly reminder of that. I do not have an issue with anything he said except that. Here is the question that I want to ask. The bill before us this morning seeks to prevent people from signing more than one nomination paper. I think it is a mistake to do that because it could result in fewer candidates running in an election. Of course, one of the objectives of this bill is to limit the number of candidates. We agree with that objective, but we do not think that this particular measure is necessary.”
“The last truly appalling thing my colleague told us was when he spoke of a bill and a study was that his government listens to the opposition when it suits them, but that, now that they have a majority, they will be able to do as they please, because his government is listening to the victims. He said this as though the opposition parties did not listen. Give me a break.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are so many points to raise after listening to the speech by the hon. member opposite that I am struggling to choose. He spoke to us of parliamentary heritage and tradition while putting on a show of virtue. According to parliamentary heritage and tradition, the composition of committees must reflect the composition of the House—something the Liberals are failing to respect today—and it must be negotiated and adopted by consensus. They tell us they have won a majority thanks to the by-elections. That is not true. Liberals were elected in those three by-elections that were already held by Liberal MPs. The majority was therefore secured thanks to defectors.”
“As I mentioned earlier, however, I am not sure that this majority is going to hold for three years. The member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie could grow tired of seeing environmental initiatives scrapped. The member for Nunavut might realize that the Prime Minister leans more to the right than she knew. Perhaps the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong will discover that the Liberal Party is more left-leaning than she thought. These people may have changed their allegiance, but the values that drew them to their original political party run deep. These values continue to exist somewhere deep inside them, and they could resurface.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rarely have the opportunity to say so, but that is a really wonderful question. My colleague has raised a really good point, because this is indeed the second time that the results of a general election have been distorted. I think it is becoming a habit. Those people make flowery speeches from balconies, with the sun shining and their hair blowing in the wind while they tell us that they are going to work with the opposition parties, that they are good people, blah, blah, blah. Then they return to the House and buy themselves a majority, either by securing the NDP's vote on an ongoing basis, like they did during the previous Parliament—completely destroying the constructive work we were doing in the process—or like now, by bringing in floor crossers.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a fine principle. However, I find it rather ironic to hear about parliamentary tradition, given that the composition of committees has always been determined through negotiation and consensus precisely because of that parliamentary tradition. For them to force this change down our throats today and then dare to invoke that principle is a bit much. Those are polite words, because I had other words in mind.”
“Mr. Speaker, all parliamentary committees are of great importance, but oversight committees are especially important. This could have been negotiated or discussed. We could have looked into it. Technically, committees should reflect the composition of the House, but in the current situation, where that principle is not being followed in most committees, perhaps we could have discussed it. I do not know. Again, I will repeat what I said to the member from Mount Royal . I cannot say today what the outcome of a vote or a discussion that never took place would be. It never took place, and that is what we take issue with. It is like a bulldozer running us over today. The Liberals are thinking, finally, we have a majority, they are going to leave us alone. That is what they are telling us. That is the message we are getting.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my colleague likes our collaboration and the fact that he recognizes that there is collaboration. I am tempted to say that we probably would have come to an agreement. The government certainly has a majority. However, I cannot promise him on my own that this is the collective decision that would have been made. I will not do that. It would have been much closer to the percentage of elected members in the House. What we are criticizing is the way things were done, the number that the Liberals decided on and the fact that they did not even call us. We had just come from a meeting. It is the height of contempt.”
“This was a good example of collaboration and a good example of a bill that originated with the opposition, since we are the ones who introduced it. That legislation would not exist otherwise. Today, it is a precious tool in the Prime Minister 's hands in his negotiations. That is a good example.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question and for his great assist. He is asking me for examples. The first one that comes to mind is my proudest accomplishment since getting elected in 2019. I am talking about the bill that I managed to get passed that protects supply-managed products from any new concessions in trade agreements. God knows how important that is right now as we renegotiate the free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. The Bloc Québécois did not do this all on its own. It was a collaborative effort. I was speaking daily with the then agriculture minister, whom I commend. We had a great working relationship. We gradually convinced the Conservative Party members as well.”
“I invite my colleagues to take a look at the Bloc Québécois's voting record and actions since 2019. We have made it a mission to be constructive in Parliament. The Liberals giving themselves a supermajority goes against that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and I also thank him for the tone of his question. In our recent exchanges, there were comments about tone, among other things. I can see that an effort is definitely being made. However, as for the substance of the question, I am afraid I am going to have to disappoint him. We are not here to score political points. We are here to talk about the common good, the collective interest and constructive work. However, it is hard to be constructive without input from others. I was conducting job interviews recently, and I told the people I was interviewing that if I ask them a question, I want to hear their opinion. I do not want people to tell me what they think I want to hear. I want them to tell me what they think, because that will challenge me and help me grow.”
“They may realize in a few months' time that the government does not share the wealth as freely as they thought. I am thinking of the NDP member who crossed the floor. The last Conservative floor crosser may realize that this lot is a tad too left-wing. Perhaps the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie will get fed up too. (1630) To conclude, I am calling on the government to change its stance and talk to us.”
“When we are told that things are not working, that we need to move faster and that this is a crucial change, I would respond that, since the beginning of the 45th Parliament, that is, over the past 11 months, we have passed 28 bills. That is not a bad result. I can compare that with other Parliaments. In the 44th Parliament, 30 bills were passed. In the 43rd Parliament, 35 bills were passed in the second session and 19 bills were passed in the first session. Minority governments work well, in my view. What the government is doing today is trying to muzzle the opposition parties while claiming not to be reducing their representation, all while holding a fragile majority. The members who defected may realize in a few months' time that, ultimately, the government is further to the right or further to the left than they thought.”
“I would like someone on the government side to tell me that the opposition's work is not important. We are the voice of the people. It is our job to look at what is being done and raise concerns, not to prevent legislation from being passed, but to ensure that good legislation is passed. To do that, we need to be able to propose amendments in committee that have even a small chance of being adopted. Those days are over. Based on what is being proposed today, we are going to say no and the vote will go ahead. That is what I heard in the speech by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons . I have serious concerns.”
“The high-speed rail project is a recent example of that. They are taking away everyone's right to oppose expropriation, they are rushing ahead and ramming this down people's throats. People will not have a choice because this is happening. That is kind of what we are seeing again today. The government says it is changing the rules and opposition parties will not have a choice. We will have to live with it. We might protest, but our protest will die down and everything will be fine. Then the government will be able to do whatever it wants as quickly as it wants, and Canada's CEO will be able to make things happen faster. That is what I am hearing today, and I am very worried about what will happen next. Committee work is important. It is about digging deeper.”
“This is well established and was not an issue. It is a fake excuse. The excuse the Liberals are giving is that they have a majority in the House and therefore have the opportunity to force this down members' throats. That is what is happening today. Rather than adding one member of the ruling party to each committee, which would have given them a majority, the Liberals are deciding to add two, just to be safe. They want to add two because the opposition parties are a nuisance and they do not want too many questions, challenges or suspicions. They do not want scandals to come to light. In the same speech, they have the nerve to say that, and then say that a committee is virtuous and extraordinary, the place where bills are thoroughly examined. Seriously? Let us talk about fast-tracking bills.”
“The problem is that I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons clearly indicate in his speech that the government does not intend to discuss, compromise or negotiate. It intends to move forward quickly and vote quickly. He made it clear that he did not want committee chairs to always have to vote. If the government, which does not hold that strong of a majority, did its job properly, then committee chairs would not have to vote so often. Meanwhile, the Liberals are talking to us about goodwill and saying that the opposition parties are putting up obstacles and going in circles, that they are delaying all of Canada's great legislation, and so on. That is hogwash. The Speaker's deciding vote is used sparingly, but it is used effectively. Generally, the Speaker will vote in favour of the status quo to avoid controversy.”
“(1625) That is possible, and we saw that happen in the House not too long ago when we called for a commission of inquiry on Cúram, the software that is leaving thousands of seniors without their pension cheques. The government keeps telling us that this is no big deal, that it is not a real problem and that not that many seniors are affected. It does not matter if not that many seniors are affected. Even one is one too many. Unfortunately, the Speaker cast the deciding vote and voted with the government. We understand that. Those are the rules. We are not happy with the final results of the vote, but those are the rules. What is the problem with a committee chair having to vote every once in awhile?”
“Could such radical and unilateral changes not have unintended consequences, such as encouraging the opposition to filibuster in order to exert some influence, slow down the agenda or gain leverage? That concerns me a great deal, because I do not do that stuff. I think that, in committee and in the House of Commons, we are paid to make progress for the common good. That is why I think we should have worked together. What is happening today is truly disheartening. House of Commons Procedure and Practice states: Chairs are responsible for, among other things, presiding over meetings, maintaining order and decorum, ruling on procedural matters and playing a leadership role in the administration of the committee. Chairs do not normally vote, but can exercise their casting vote to break a tie.”
“They gave the opposition a major role so that the government would not become a dictatorship by virtue of its numbers and so that it would have to compromise. History shows us that many excellent laws have been passed under minority governments because minority governments work well. The government has been in a minority position since 2019. We are experiencing a change. I am not saying that the Liberals did not have a right to go after a majority. That is not what I am saying. We have to tell it like it is. When a vote results in a tie in committee, it is because there was no negotiation, no listening and no compromise. The government is saying that it is going to give itself a majority in committee because the Conservatives are filibustering. Let us hold on for just a moment. The Bloc Québécois has not done any filibustering so far.”
“There were other options, but no one talked to us. Unless people talk, it is very hard to come to terms. The call has been made. I am leaving time in my speech to let people take in what I have just said and reflect. There were other possibilities. I might come back to that if I have time at the end, but I do not want to run out of time. I am being given the excuse that the committee chair is not supposed to vote. I am sorry, but that is set out in the rules. If the chair always had to vote in committee, then it would mean that we were not doing our job properly. In last year's election, the public gave the Liberal government a minority mandate. What message was the public trying to send? Citizens chose to trust this government to govern, but they did not trust it completely.”
“The rules of procedure belong to Parliament. That is why I am calling for co-operation and discussion. Furthermore, again, in case the Liberals did not get the message, let me say that if they had spoken to us, they would have found us open to dialogue, as we always are. We can face facts. There is a majority in the House of Commons now. We have no intention of denying it. What we would not accept is to give the Liberals more than 58% of representation on committees when they make up only 50.7% of the House of Commons. I would like them to give me a reason to justify that. I really look forward to hearing it. That is not it. There were other workarounds. There were other proposals for changing the committees that we could have discussed together. Once again, I keep coming back to the same thing.”
“I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons say earlier that committee work is incredibly important and that it allows us to explore issues in greater depth and raise questions, but that only happens when we have the opportunity. With the plan he is proposing, it is all over. Everything is going to happen very quickly. It is like high-speed rail. It is like a bunch of things they want to rush through. Some things cannot be rushed. I urge the government members to reconsider and, in fact, to take their time. It is important. When a government sets out to change rules like this, it must always remember that this is not a matter of majority rule. This concerns the institution of Parliament. We are talking about democracy in Canada and Quebec. The rules of procedure do not belong to the majority party.”
“The Liberals are trying to muzzle the opposition parties, and the opposition parties will not stand for it. That is that. That is the message I have to send today. This is troubling. When someone pledged to work together and then turns around a few days later and ignores any discussion, what does that say about the future? If the government maintains its majority, we are in for another three years of this. It is going to be a long haul. I am also sending this message to Liberal MPs. (1620) I hope there will be internal discussions and a return to constructive negotiations. They cannot make speeches claiming that all opinions matter and then not take any of them into account.”
“We work constructively because we are not here to score political points on a daily basis. We are here to advance the common good, the collective good. That is what we try to do. We are therefore deeply, even bitterly, disappointed. It falls to me to explain this today. This is truly worrisome. I would like to point out that a Conservative member moved a motion. The purpose of Motion No. 27 is precisely to prevent changes to the Standing Orders imposed by a majority vote. Traditionally, this is negotiated and discussed, so when people stand up and deliver flowery speeches, like the ones we heard earlier, saying that this is what needs to be done, that it is British tradition and so on, I am sorry, but that is not good enough. The rhetoric does not hold water.”
“I see they are, so I can say it now, since no one will fall over. The underlying reason was allegedly that the Conservatives were against it, so it would serve no purpose to talk to us about it. That is what Liberals do. Now that they have a majority, we have no choice but to listen to what they say. That is about it as far as a rationale goes. It is deeply disappointing, especially considering that, as I said, the Prime Minister had pledged just seven days earlier to keep co-operating. The leader of the Bloc Québécois responded to that by saying that the Bloc Québécois's constructive proposals prove our goodwill. We felt that a hand was being held out to us and we took it. We said that we would be there. The Bloc Québécois is an intelligent opposition party.”
“Then it tries to tell us that it wants to work as a team and build consensus. I think we are right to be skeptical. The government House leader is going to be quite disappointed. He was hoping just a moment ago that we would say that we are voting with him. Well, no, we are not voting with him. We will not endorse stacking the standing committees partway through this Parliament, because that is what is happening. The government House leader even went so far as to tell reporters that he was not ruling out using a closure motion to impose this measure. It really takes some nerve: intending to ram through an amendment via a closure motion, an amendment that is usually adopted by consensus and through discussion, without even discussing it once with the Bloc Québécois. What is the rationale for that? I hope that everyone is sitting down.”
“We talk about the agenda or the fact that someone would like to move a motion, for example, and we discuss what we think about it. In the end, we usually say that we will bring it up with caucus and come back with an answer. It is a constructive process. That being said, barely two hours after we left that meeting yesterday, we received an email telling us that a motion would be introduced the next day and that we would be silenced in committee, because that is the goal. I urge people not to buy into the government's friendly rhetoric today, as it claims it has not affected the representation of opposition parties and that it will listen to all points of view. What it is not saying is that it is going to give itself a supermajority so it can shut down debates as quickly as possible the moment they start to become bothersome.”
“(1615) The Bloc Québécois was not consulted in any way, shape or form. Worse still, we received an email informing us that this motion would be moved, and here it is. That was it. Guess when we received that email. I am going to say this with a great deal of irony: We were just coming out of the House leaders' meeting. The leaders' meeting, for those who do not know, is when the House leaders meet. It happens once a week. That is where we discuss matters. It is a formal forum for discussion. Of course, there are plenty of other opportunities to discuss things in the hallways; we can call each other or send a text. However, the leaders’ meeting is the formal gathering with all the leaders of the recognized parties.”
“We even talked about it among ourselves. We thought that they would talk to us. The Prime Minister said, as recently as April 14, that all perspectives in Parliament are needed. That was not that long ago. He promised to work collaboratively with the other parties. He said: “The work ahead demands collaboration, partnership, and ambition to deliver at the speed and scale Canadians are counting on.” Now, he may still have ambition, but so much for collaboration and partnership. In fact, that only lasted seven days. Collaboration lasts seven days for the Prime Minister, or rather the CEO of Canada. We have a Prime Minister who wants to move quickly, who has little interest in parliamentary procedure, and I say this politely, and who thinks that the opposition gets in the way. However, that is not true. We are far from that, in fact.”
“Many of them were voting for a political party. The legitimacy factor is missing from this majority. Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois would have been open to negotiating, because the composition of committees does need to reflect the composition of Parliament. I would like to remind members that parliamentary tradition dictates that the composition of committees is decided by consensus at the start of every new Parliament. We are already sidestepping tradition. This is the first time that a government has bought itself a majority by negotiating with elected members of the opposition to get them to cross the floor. We are not entirely sure what they received, but objectively, that is what happened. We are not passing serious judgment against anyone in this regard, but these are the facts. We had hoped to receive some communication.”
“I wanted to set the record straight on that, especially since the government seized a majority partway through its mandate. Legitimate byelections took place, and we fully recognized the outcomes. We have no issue with that. Those three seats were already Liberal seats anyway. That is not what changed the composition of the House. Floor crossers are what changed the composition of the House. It is funny, because in this situation, the Liberals were negotiating behind the scenes. They were chatting people up to persuade them to cross the floor. Where is the legitimacy in that? I think that the voters in these five ridings were fundamentally disrespected in all this. People vote for a federal member. My riding has 108,000 voters. I would like to think that I am pretty good, but I know that these people were not voting for an individual.”
“The Bloc Québécois respects parliamentary tradition and believes that the composition of committees must be negotiated in good faith, by consensus. However, negotiations require effective communication. No one has communicated with us, so we consider the current process to be fundamentally flawed. They actually could have found common ground with the Bloc Québécois. We are all adults here, as everyone knows. I hardly need to tell anyone that we are an intelligent opposition, we put forward constructive proposals and we listen closely to the government's proposals. We always make sure that whatever it is is good for Quebec. That is and will always be our criterion, no matter what anyone says to the contrary. People seem to be saying that we did not want to collaborate. Nothing could be further from the truth.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am usually very pleased to speak in the House. I know it is a great privilege. I do not want to take this privilege for granted, but today I take less pleasure in it than usual because we are deeply disappointed, as, I hope, are most Canadians and Quebeckers who are listening. They are realizing once again that Liberal promises are just hot air, as they usually are most of the time. The way the Liberals are acting today is very cavalier. I will begin by outlining some of my main points. The Bloc Québécois believes that committees must reflect the composition of the House. Government MPs claim that the opposition parties do not want to recognize this, but that is absolutely untrue. What we do not want to recognize is overrepresentation of the ruling party. That is what we do not want.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is well aware that the Liberals are good at saying one thing and doing another. They are telling us that committees must reflect the composition of the House of Commons. I think my colleague and everyone here agrees with that principle. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this: The government members want to give themselves 58.3% representation on committees when they hold only 50.7% of the seats in Parliament. They are trying to force that on us. They are pretending to be innocently trying to make the committee membership reflect their majority, when they are actually trying to impose an unjustified supermajority.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is another prime example of Liberal rhetoric that sounds virtuous but does not actually translate into any virtuous actions on the part of the Liberals. The House leader's proposal claims that the government wants proportional representation that is representative of the composition of the House. However, not only was there no prior consultation on the motion that was introduced, but two government members were added to each committee, even though only one would have been more than enough to ensure a majority. I would like the House leader to justify that addition for a reason other than falsely claiming that they do not want the chair to vote. Part of the duties of a committee chair is to exercise that right. It is clearly written in the Standing Orders.”
“Mr. Speaker, on April 4, the community of Saint‑Paulin said goodbye to one of its leading citizens, Claude Frappier. First elected to council in 2004, his dedication to the common good motivated him to take on the position of acting mayor in November 2020. Re-elected as mayor on 2021, he discharged his duties with unprecedented diligence, determination and dedication until illness forced him to step away from the position. Everyone admired Mr. Frappier. Always attentive to the needs of others, open-minded and generous, he will long be remembered by the people of the RCM of Maskinongé, as evidenced by the impressive number of people who came to pay their respects on April 4. Mr. Frappier was a model of engagement and devotion to the betterment of his community, and I am grateful to him.”