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 6 of 14.
“Let us come up with some categories and some level-headed ideas. What I am concerned about is that there might be negative impacts that could lead to people being released sooner, as I said earlier. Above all, let us continue to focus on victims and their families. I think this is an observation I can share with my Conservative friends. Victims are not being heard and supported properly in our society. We need to support them more. I mentioned earlier that experts are saying that the families' testimony is not very useful. If the testimony is not useful for the decision, why are families being forced to go through that? Why are they made to go through it several times? Some changes could be made.”
“The day parole rate is much higher because there is much closer supervision. It is therefore possible to assess this more effectively. Now let us consider the results regarding parole and day parole without a repeat offence. The goal is not to say that this person is terrible and must die in prison; the goal is to protect society. This is our duty as legislators: to ensure these people do not reoffend. In the case of day parole, 99% of parole periods are completed without a repeat offence. In the case of full parole, 97% of parole periods are completed without a repeat offence. With numbers like that, I do not think that, as legislators, we can say that the situation is so appalling and outrageous that the laws need to be changed. Some adjustments may need to be made, as I said earlier.”
“Even in cases where parole is granted, there will always be conditions and supervision, because a life sentence remains a life sentence. It is always difficult to speak to bills like this, because we know we are touching on sensitive issues and things that are excruciating for families who have experienced this kind of tragedy. I want to reiterate my empathy and sense of duty toward these people. However, that does not mean we should pass an imperfect bill that will cause harm to other individuals. That is the reason, in broad terms, why the Bloc Québécois will unfortunately oppose the bill. Now I want to talk about statistics, as I said I would. When it comes to full parole, the approval rate is 32.4%. That is about three in 10. In the case of day parole, the approval rate is 77%. That is closer to eight in 10.”
“In the case of day parole, there is no such thing as automatic review after five years. What this means is that, under this bill, if someone is refused once, that is the end of that. We also need to be careful about what we say in Parliament. I mentioned at the beginning that I am neither a lawyer nor a legal expert. However, I am very careful to read my files thoroughly and not to say just anything. When people in the House say that murderers are sentenced to only 25 years in prison, that is not the truth. Murderers are sentenced to life in prison, with the possibility of parole after 25 years. That is the full nuance. We must also be careful when informing the public, so as not to spread misinformation. If parole is not granted, it will not happen.”
“It is normal for the individual to believe that they are fine and they can rejoin society. It is also normal for parole board members to conclude that, even if the individual thinks they are fine, they might still have a long way to go. There has also been discussion about the annual review, which is generally required by law. However, a judge may also decide that the individual will not be ready to come back in one year's time. That does happen. The member also referred to the automatic review process after five years. However, the Conservatives have forgotten about day parole. Some individuals may be in prison but allowed to leave during the day and return in the evening. There is actually a very high success rate for this kind of release. I will provide a few statistics at the end of my speech to prove my point.”
“The bill has very noble intentions. I am not challenging the bill's intentions which, by the way, I support. I think this is just an issue that we have. Our society needs to be better protected, especially victims of crime. However, we have to be careful about the bills we propose. For that reason, I do not believe that this is a good bill. It could have targeted prolific offenders or repeat offenders, people who committed a crime, were released, returned to society, committed other crimes, were re-incarcerated and released only to commit more crime. That would have brought some nuance to a bill that is otherwise much too broad. (1340) I really appreciated the member's point that human beings are the most able to evolve and change. I thought that was an interesting point, and he is quite right.”
“That explains the Bloc Québécois's position. We will be voting against the bill for that reason. The decision needs to remain with the Parole Board. If there is a problem, then we need to review the appointments to that board and perhaps its workload as well, so that members have enough time to properly analyze each case. I am worried about what might happen when board members are on the fence, when they think that a person may be fit to be released back into society but they still have a niggling doubt. They might think that, if they say no, the person will never be able to apply again, and so they might be tempted to release the person, despite that niggling doubt. They might end up taking risks that they are not currently taking. We therefore have to be careful about the unintended consequences that a bill may have.”
“When we talk about this topic, we all recall certain notorious criminals, whose names I will not bother to mention here. I will simply describe the circumstances: the Quebec City mosque tragedy, serial killers and so on. Generally, the system seems to be working quite well. Of course, sometimes horrific crimes are committed by repeat offenders, but these are exceptional cases. If there is something we can do to limit that even further, we should. However, what this bill is saying is that people who have applied once will never be able to apply again. That could have a negative effect. I am concerned that it could influence the Parole Board of Canada's decisions. It is the duty of the board members not to grant parole if they feel that there is even the slightest chance that an individual could pose a danger to the public.”
“It is true that it is heartbreaking when people who have lost a loved one are asked to testify and take part in the process. Most experts say that testimony from family members does not influence the process at all in the vast majority of cases, so is this even necessary? Could we not do without this more often? We could have family members testify only when necessary. There are definitely issues. Under Bill C‑243 , a person whose first parole application is denied would not be able to reapply. That takes away the ability of judges and courts to make a nuanced assessment. That troubles me, and it could even have the opposite effect in some cases. Currently, 32.4% of applications for full parole are granted, or three out of every 10 applications. That means that seven out of 10 are rejected.”
“Mr. Speaker, the bill addresses a very serious issue. We agree with many aspects of the bill. First, there is the seriousness of murder, of course. It is the most serious crime one can commit, and there are also different degrees. I am also grateful to my colleague for highlighting the importance of rehabilitation, even though that can be very difficult to imagine. However, with this type of bill, we must always be careful not to overstep the courts' authority. I am neither a legal expert nor a lawyer, of course, and it always bothers me when processes are changed or when lawmakers impose something. I will explain why. I understand the intent behind the bill, especially when the goal is to protect victims' families. I will start with that, actually. There may be other ways to approach this.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure my colleague's husband. If 25 years have felt like 20 to her, that is a good sign for their relationship. It means that time is flying by. On a more serious note, I have a question for my Conservative colleague. I would like him to comment on the fact that the government is creating a new centralizing structure that will incur administrative costs, among other things, rather than transferring the money to the provinces, which have jurisdiction over housing. I would like my colleague to comment on that. Does he agree with that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. It is rather shocking to see that, throughout his speech, my colleague pointed out the lack of support for the forestry industry, which will be vital for the housing construction, but nobody on the other side has responded. What does my colleague have to say about that? When he says that the $1 billion is a good thing and a good start, he is right. However, what does he think of the fact that this $1 billion represents 16.6% of the amount, while Quebec's share of the population is 22%?”
“Mr. Speaker, the war in Iran began while the Prime Minister was away on a trip. After backing Washington, he spent several days refusing to hold a press briefing with the media travelling with him. When he returned, he boycotted a debate on the conflict, even though the debate had been requested by the Liberals. He refuses to explain why he stayed silent regarding the Iranian strike against Canadian troops. Today, he headed off again, this time to Europe. Does he understand that, on an issue as important as a war that he supported, his mandate requires that he answer questions?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals cited operational security as a reason for their silence, but we are simply asking them for the same information that every other country discloses. It is only right to keep the public informed when Canada is attacked. This just raises further questions. The public does not know why the Prime Minister blindly supported Donald Trump. They do not know why he has been changing his mind every other day since then. They do not know why he wanted to hide the attack on our armed forces. Does the government realize that this is undermining public trust?”
“Mr. Speaker, at the start of the conflict in Iran, Tehran launched dozens of air strikes. All of them were made public, except for the one on the Canadian military camp in Kuwait. Worse still, the Ali Al Salem base, which houses the Canadian military camp, was also hosting Italian forces. On the very same day, Italy shared the news publicly, but not Canada. Canada hid the news of this strike for two weeks. It did not even disclose the information during the House debate on the conflict, which the government itself had organized. Why does the whole world inform its citizens, but Canada does not?”
“Mr. Speaker, indeed, everyone agrees that investments should be made in housing. The government is facing a terrible crisis that it needs to manage. Unfortunately, in the past, the federal government has always used these crises as an excuse to centralize power. We support building more housing, but we are concerned about Build Canada Homes. We are concerned that a centralizing structure will be created, when, in fact, housing falls under Quebec's jurisdiction. What assurances can my colleague give me? Recently, an agreement was reached with Quebec. The details are still unknown. That agreement exists and let us assume that it is valid for one year. What assurances can my colleague give me that, next year, or in 5 or 10 years from now, this institution will not continue to trample on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction?”
“Her career reflects a deep love for the people of Louiseville and they will long remember the lasting mark she made on their community. I would like to thank Françoise Hogue Plante for everything.”
“Mr. Speaker, today I want to pay tribute to Françoise Hogue Plante, a woman who has had a profound impact on life in Louiseville. She was elected as a municipal councillor and served with exemplary consistency and generosity from 2009 to 2025, more than 16 years. Known for her close ties with citizens and her willingness to listen, she championed several key issues with conviction, including the l'Éveil skate park, the return of the Orléans Express bus service and the merger of municipal housing offices. A true pillar of community life, Ms. Hogue Plante was also involved in numerous organizations, such as the Association des personnes handicapées du comté de Maskinongé, the Maison du commis voyageur and the Festival de la galette de sarrasin de Louiseville.”
“Mr. Speaker, it cost $6.5 billion, so I hope it is the biggest project ever undertaken. It is getting expensive. There are 85,000 victims of errors related to Cúram. There could be more. No one knows for sure. Cost overruns amount to $5 billion. The Liberals keep insisting that there is no problem and tell us to read the reports. We are reading the reports. That is precisely why the Quebec National Assembly is unanimously calling for an independent public inquiry into federal computer programs. We will finally find out, once and for all, exactly who has been wronged and what the cost overruns are. This mess needs to be cleaned up, once and for all. When will an inquiry be launched? That is what transparency looks like.”
“Mr. Speaker, imagine retiring and then not receiving an OAS pension for nine months. That is the kind of problem that 85,000 people are experiencing because of the Cúram software. What is more, the 85,000 is a figure dating from the end of January. The minister has not updated the figures yet. Let us hope that they have improved. However, on Monday, the president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada said that, in the long run, he feared that millions of people might be affected. When will there be an independent public inquiry into this fiasco before it gets worse?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I respect her very much. I want to repeat the question I asked the minister earlier. Of course, we are in favour of the proposed change but, in our opinion, it is a fairly timid effort to change a law that is still sexist, discriminatory and the list goes on. Does my colleague not think that a next step needs to be taken to establish a true nation-to-nation partnership, which I hope we will eventually be able to do in a sovereign Quebec? I would like to hear her opinion and learn what the next step would be.”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill S-2 . It restores an important right, the right to transmit status. What does the minister think of the Indian Act in general? First of all, the name of the act no longer works. There are sections in it that need to be reviewed. Should we not be doing even more to recognize first nations' rights and achieve a true nation-to-nation partnership? I hope that a sovereign Quebec can do that soon, but I would also like to see Canada begin this work.”
“Mr. Speaker, certainly when environmental rights are removed, we cannot help but be concerned. It is hard to feel confident. When it comes to information, it is such a sensitive issue in regions like mine. Local media outlets need capital investment. We worked so hard to implement the digital services tax. It is incredibly sad to see it being scrapped to please our American neighbours. I understand that in negotiations, compromises have to be made and all that, but it has been a while since it was removed, and we are wondering when we will see results. We need to put other measures in place if we remove this one. We need to protect our media.”
“I cannot trust someone who tells me not to worry and that the government will treat people fairly, when the law is going to state that the government can force people to do something even if they say no and that they will have no right to challenge the decision. I cannot.”
“Mr. Speaker, my lack of trust comes from being told to calm down and not worry, that expropriation laws have changed since the 1970s and that rights are protected. I believe those words and I accept them. My response to that is, okay, the laws have changed, so why are they being changed again to make way for the train? The laws were improved, and for good reason. Legislation and case law are built up in a society through experience, both good and bad. Among other things, Mirabel was a traumatic event that created an opportunity to improve the laws. Now the laws are fair. People's rights are protected, so why are we going to take away those rights?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. She and I are riding neighbours. I was looking forward to that question. At long last, somebody asked it. Of course, there are inevitably some welcome measures in any omnibus bill, but there are many others that are not. Our job in the opposition is to identify these elements. We take out a marker and jot down, for example, “why change the law for one specific high-speed train project?” We are telling the government that it should not do that. If it wants the project to go ahead, it should not do that. People would trust it more. When I talk to the people at Alto and they tell me not to worry and that they will play nice, I want to believe them. However, why does the law say that they can get around people's rights? That provision needs to be removed.”
“That is one cause of the uncertainty that people are feeling, yet we are the ones accused of fearmongering. I do not think so. There are other things that are unacceptable. I have spent a lot of time on this because it affects me deeply. The digital services tax is simply ridiculous. We are happy to have restored the reduced rates for libraries, but we had to alert the minister to the issue. That is our job. I think he appreciated that we brought this to his attention. That is our job. (1700) This is our message to the government: If they want this project to work, then they have to stop taking people's rights away and not change the laws.”
“I am appealing to members of the government and members of the Conservative Party who support the project. Usually, the best way to pass a project is through social licence. Otherwise, it will fail. Social licence is not gained by taking away people's civil rights. That does not work. It takes a different approach. Things are really off to a bad start. That is what we are calling for this evening. We are issuing this call and it is important, because the land will remain in our control for a long time. There is usually a 120-day period when nothing can happen on land identified for expropriation. The government wants to extend that to two years. As mentioned during the last opposition day, not everyone in the 10-kilometre corridor is going to be expropriated, because all they need is 60 metres.”
“That is Alto's preference, but it is not what the law says. That is one of the amendments we proposed. How can the requirement to conduct an environmental impact assessment for a project be removed? I cannot think of a good justification for that. It is not that urgent. First, we are already behind schedule for a high-speed rail line in North America. Let us just accept that. It is not as though we want to be in step with everyone else. It will take five more years, but that is not a problem. I do not mind. It will take two more years. It will take three more years. It will take six more months. It all depends on what happens. Still, I think that protecting the rights of Canadians is important. That is why we are making an effort this evening, even at report stage, to bring these amendments.”
“That is all I am here to do, as honestly as possible, with as much integrity as possible and, most of the time, as calmly as possible, although I do get carried away sometimes. I cannot understand why the government decided to allow expropriation notices to be sent by email. What shocks me the most is that, when I say that, people say that what I am saying is not true. They said it here and at the Alto briefing. It was not much of a consultation and it seems to me that we can do better, but I talked to some nice people for a while. The first reaction was to say that what I was saying was not true, that I was telling lies. I replied that it was in the law, that it was not a lie and I suggested reading the law together. The person told me that people had to opt in for that to happen.”
“Incidentally, we are not talking about something absurd here. Some 2% of Quebec's territory is farmland. Every time a project comes up, it affects farmland. That could happen again. Farmland will inevitably be affected if the train goes through. We are not being negative. We are simply asking the following question: Why are citizens being deprived of their right to appeal? I have not received an answer to this question. I am going to be told once again that we are fearmongering. I am preparing for the next round of comments. Again, that is what I am going to be told. I am not fearmongering. I am standing up for my constituents, because that is my job. If I ever stop defending the people of Berthier—Maskinongé, I have no business being here. That is the reality.”
“Unfortunately, many people here believe that they are experts simply because of the status we have here, but that is not the case. The truth is that we are people from all walks of life and of all ages. Our job is to seek expert advice, to inform ourselves as best we can on each issue and to make informed decisions in the public interest to protect our constituents. It is not our job to help a company move faster. We all agree on one point, and that is that, once a high-speed train has been built, it must be fast. Yes, it has to go fast. However, do the project development and construction also have to go that fast? We should refrain from moving that quickly if it means respecting even one citizen, avoiding dividing even one piece of farmland in two and preserving Quebec's best farmland.”
“As opposition members in the House, we are not the government's yes-men and our job is not to make the government happy. We are here to protect our constituents' interests. That is what we are doing when we raise these issues. I would like to survey the elected members of the House of Commons right now. How many of the 343 members feel that the Canadian Transportation Agency serves no purpose, that it just slows projects down, that it is a hindrance and that we should get rid of that useless agency? The fact remains that it is a recognized institution made up of transportation experts. (1655) When we become members of Parliament, we do not suddenly become experts in everything just because we are elected officials.”
“There is a lot of talk about the Cúram fiasco at the moment. We need only look at the SAAQclic fiasco in Quebec and the outcomes of the commission of inquiry. What were we told? What happened? How is it that things were allowed to go on for that long? Why were there so many mistakes? We learned that the people responsible for the project suddenly said that it absolutely had to be done and that it had to be done quickly. “Let's go, no big deal. We need to plow ahead and move forward.” The government did not take the time that was needed and did not conduct any assessments, and that is why it was expensive. Do I want this to be the case for my constituents in Berthier—Maskinongé? What are we here to do as members in the House of Commons?”
“However, when a thing is written in law, even though I am prepared to listen to what a person has to say, what they say has to be truthful. When I am told not to worry, that expropriation laws have improved since 1970, as I just said, I can accept it all up to that point, but then why is the government changing the laws in Bill C-15? As I asked the Alto officials, if their project is so good, why do laws need to be changed in order to approve it? Is it because everything has to be done fast, or is it to prevent people from seeking remedies and calling things into question? I think we run the risk of making some serious mistakes. There is a lot of talk these days about wasteful spending, whether in Quebec City or Ottawa. We gave a full list of examples during question period today.”
“I was told again earlier that we should stop scaring people because the laws have changed since 1970. We agree, but the problem is that in Bill C-15, the government is amending the laws that have been changed since 1970. The government seems to want to return to the discretionary power of 1970. Two consultations were held in recent weeks very near Berthier—Maskinongé, one in Trois‑Rivières one in Berthierville. I spent a lot of time chatting with people from Alto, but also with people who came looking for facts, to get information and to voice their concerns. I was told not to worry, that everything would be done by mutual consent and that there would be no expropriation by email. I was told that what I was saying is not true.”
“However, in an omnibus bill like this one, all kinds of rights are being taken away from my constituents in Berthier—Maskinongé. I would remind the House that this project, if it ever sees the light of day, will go through my riding. I think the work that we do is important. Raising the red flag, as we did on our opposition day to get an apology and a commitment regarding the expropriations that occurred in Mirabel, is not fearmongering. The goal was to get an apology for the people of Mirabel, but also a commitment to ensure that such atrocities never happen again. Everyone agreed on that day, and everyone voted in favour of our motion. We are very pleased about that. However, there are still some things in Bill C-15 that do not make sense. Why should someone who is being expropriated not have the right to be heard by a commissioner?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to this important bill. I will pick up on some of what my colleague from Mirabel said. I would like to be asked other kinds of questions rather than being told that I am fearmongering. The Bloc Québécois's job is to read the bills that are introduced. As a constructive and intelligent opposition party, we need to look at the issues in the bills and propose amendments in order to stand up for our constituents. In terms of Bill C‑15 , it was quite a challenge, because it is quite the tome. There are a number of things that do not suit us here. First, I would like to directly discuss all the exemptions being given to the Alto high-speed train project. I am told that it is a good project and that, in Canada, projects generally do not go ahead fast enough. I am told that things need to move very quickly.”
“67 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 236. Motion No. 68 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 237. Motion No. 69 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 238. Motion No. 70 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 239. Motion No. 71 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 240. Motion No. 72 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 241. Motion No. 73 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 242. Motion No. 74 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 243. Motion No. 75 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 244. Motion No. 76 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 245. Motion No. 77 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 246.”
“moved: Motions Nos. 55 to 77 Motion No. 55 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 224. Motion No. 56 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 225. Motion No. 57 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 226. Motion No. 58 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 227. Motion No. 59 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 228. Motion No. 60 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 229. Motion No. 61 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 230. Motion No. 62 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 231. Motion No. 63 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 232. Motion No. 64 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 233. Motion No. 65 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 234. Motion No. 66 That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 235. Motion No.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you recognizing me. I simply want to inform you that, during the first vote, online voting began before you had finished reading the question to the House. This is not about calling anything into question, but perhaps some vigilance is needed here. This is the first time we have seen this.”
“Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary seems willing to make some changes, like most of the members we have heard from this morning. Unfortunately, we all know that the kind of discussion we are having this morning often ends up fizzling out at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Discussions fizzle out there and are never revived. It seems to me that we have proposed a number of reasonable things today. Can the member assure me that the government is willing to improve the Standing Orders and that everything will be addressed at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs rather than go there to die?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on question period. This morning, I spoke about a situation we recently experienced. The Speaker of the House intervened in order to cut off certain types of questions relating to something that was happening in Quebec City but that could have an impact on us. We felt that our questions were valid. The Chair would not entertain our arguments, so we asked for a Speaker's ruling on the matter. If the Chair starts controlling the content of the questions, should they not also look at controlling the content of the answers? When ministers give an answer that is completely off topic, should they not be required to start over and stick to the subject at hand, as the member was asked to do earlier at the beginning of his speech? What does my colleague think about that?”
“Madam Speaker, there are pensioners who are having problems with their OAS benefits and these are the answers they are getting. The Liberals went from 30 cases at one point about 10 days ago to 85,000 cases yesterday. The worst cost overrun of the Cúram software is the human cost. Even worse than that is the fact that just yesterday, when 85,000 people were affected by the software, the Liberals were still treating the matter as if it were a trivial, exceptional case. When 85,000 people fall through the cracks of the system, that is a serious problem. When will the Liberals fix this?”
“Madam Speaker, there are pensioners who have not been receiving their OAS for nine months or have been receiving the incorrect amount because of the Cúram software in Ottawa. Ten days ago, when we asked the government about it, we were told that we were fearmongering. The next day, the problem persisted, but just for 30 or so cases. In a dramatic turn of events, yesterday, in committee, the minister revealed that 85,000 people were affected. We are talking about 85,000 people. How many more will it take before the Liberals stop sweeping the problem under the rug?”
“Madam Speaker, February is Black History Month, and this year marks the 35th annual edition in Quebec. This year's theme, “Together, Let's Raise Our Voices”, gives us the perfect opportunity to reflect on Quebec's openness and ability to live together in communal harmony, as well as the contributions made by Quebeckers from Black communities. As in past years, everyone is invited to attend a series of events showcasing the history, culture, talent and pride of Black people in Quebec. While the month is primarily dedicated to commemoration, it is also an opportunity to imagine our shared future together in a welcoming and diverse Quebec. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I invite everyone to join the activities, from Montreal to Mauricie to the north shore. I wish everyone a happy Black History Month.”
“Madam Speaker, I believe the subject of my question was addressed in previous questions. Currently, under the Standing Orders, a minister who is online can make a proposal, but it takes 5, 10, 15, 20 or 25 members to block it. These opposition members must be in the chamber, and that change was approved by the majority. This is a first in history and it clearly puts the opposition at a disadvantage. I believe I heard my colleague mention that she was not sure how it came about at the time. Is this change not a glaring example that any significant change should always be made by consensus and that that should be included in the Standing Orders?”
“Madam Speaker, the fact is, I want to ensure that nothing structural, no organization, no political group is able to block a debate. It is very unfortunate when that happens. If a matter goes before PROC and nothing comes of it, it is because the government does not want to change anything. We are sending this message to the members of PROC. We have made proposals. These proposals are supposed to be studied by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I expect them to be debated. I expect new rules to be adopted, including one that restores the need for consensus when making fundamental changes to the Standing Orders.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. I agree I might be worthwhile to expand on that. The intention is not to prevent anyone from praying. Some members are religious, and that is an individual matter. That is precisely the point. Faith is a personal matter. This Parliament serves all citizens of Canada, the provinces and Quebec. These people have different religions. I am wondering how my colleague would feel if he entered a parliament where a prayer from a religion other than his own was said at the beginning of the day. That becomes rather counterproductive, but if we have a moment of personal reflection, then each person can use that time as they see fit. That will enable Parliament to respect religious pluralism as well as the principle of state secularism, which we support.”
“Madam Speaker, I am glad for the parliamentary secretary's open-mindedness, and I thank him for it. That is kind of what we are proposing in terms of a question and answer formula on Fridays or weekday evenings. We would like to have 10-minute question and answer periods where the member would have time to ask their question and the minister would have the same time to respond. That would make for a constructive discussion where we could expand on our question and request an answer on a particular subject. This would allow for a more in-depth discussion of the issues, and I think that would be really good for democracy.”