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 7 of 14.
“I think that the government has other opportunities to do that and that question period slots should be reserved for the opposition members, because our job is to ask the government questions about its work and then pass on that information to the public. That covers all of my proposals. I look forward to my colleagues' questions.”
“We are here to legislate, to act on behalf of the people, not to obstruct things for partisan reasons, which is nonsense. My last point will be a nice one. During oral question period, the speaking time is already very limited. It is 35 seconds, as someone said earlier. That is tight, and we do not have much time to make our argument. Furthermore, some of the questions from the government side are what I will politely refer to as softball questions. Those are planted questions where government members ask a minister to spend 30 seconds talking about how wonderful and clever the government is and how great it is doing in a specific area. To me, that does not serve democracy.”
“The problem is that we often try to achieve unanimous consent or bring forward a motion that we want the House to vote on, but we get a “no”. That means the government cannot take a position on the issue. We are suggesting that a motion could be moved in advance. Each party would get a turn. Then the motion would be voted on, without debate, in the House either that day or the following week. This would force each political party to take a position. I think that would greatly improve our democracy. Also, as I mentioned earlier, sometimes a bill comes back from the Senate and the House has to respond. We already went through a period where one political party decided to hold up a bill for over a year. That is unacceptable in a democracy. Debate should be limited so that we can respond to the Senate and move bills forward.”
“Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was saying that it is important to schedule witnesses at different times for each political party so that we can ask them questions properly. These are people we invite to appear, and we prepare our questions accordingly. We often do not have enough time to ask them questions properly. This is also a very important point. There is also the issue of members attending committee meetings remotely. Again, this should be allowed for health reasons or family reasons, but if a member is participating remotely, they should not be in a public place or in a car. We have seen all kinds of foolish and ridiculous situations. Yes, the hybrid Parliament absolutely needs to be tweaked. We also suggest creating a Wednesday motion that would be voted on but not debated.”
“During committee meetings spent on clause-by-clause consideration, we would like to make sure that the interpreters are on site, in person, in the same committee room as the members. As for panels of witnesses at committee meetings, we also suggest that there be a minimum of two witnesses per panel. Occasionally, a panel appearing for one hour has only one witness, whereas the next panel may have two, three or four witnesses. Sometimes, three of the witnesses were invited by our political party, leaving us with less time to put questions to the people we had invited. Madam Speaker, I would appreciate a little order in the House. That is a major inconvenience, and I think that every political party has the right to do its work—”
“Still on the subject of the Standing Orders, when we get to clause-by-clause consideration of a bill, the deadline for submitting proposed amendments should be at least one day after the last witnesses have appeared. Under the current system, amendments are often requested when there is still one meeting with witnesses left, but members cannot take their testimony into account because they have already submitted their amendments. That is totally illogical. It seems to me that this is something that we should be able to agree upon fairly quickly. Here is another point concerning clause-by-clause consideration in committee. There is a new trend of having the interpreters work remotely, and we do not like it at all. It is very important that there be no delays during these meetings so that we do not miss anything that is said.”
“We francophones struggle to have our interpretation needs met in this Parliament, and we want to ensure fairness among all elected members. (1030) We are asking that the Standing Orders require an interpreter to be present when a committee's work is suspended for informal discussions. Francophone members have to listen to very long discussions in English where people are talking fast. They miss parts here and there, and then they are asked for their opinion. The sharpest ones will say that they cannot answer because they did not understand anything, because that forces people to translate the message. However, this should be something that is implicitly set out in the rules.”
“We believe that confidence votes should happen in person in the House of Commons when they have to do with supply. With respect to a minister tabling a motion that requires five, 10, 15, 20 or 25 members to oppose it in person, the Standing Orders currently allow that minister to make the request online. That makes no sense. This unfairness is utterly ridiculous. The minister should be here in person to do it. If a motion to censure the Speaker of the House were ever to be tabled, it should be voted on by secret ballot, the same way the Speaker is elected, so that each member can vote according to their conscience. We should also return to “yeas or nays,” based on the old way of doing things orally, in person, so that motions or bills can be carried or lost on division. That could be very interesting. That brings me to committees.”
“Earlier, my colleagues had a fascinating exchange about hybrid Parliament. My proposal may align somewhat with the questions and the answers that were given. We agree that remote interventions should be a little more of an exception than they are right now. They should be allowed for family reasons, as my Liberal colleague pointed out, and that is very valid, or for health reasons, but with approval from the whip in order to limit their use. Hybrid Parliament does create some challenges, particularly in terms of interpretation resources. Not everyone is aware of that. Members would have to sit on the Board of Internal Economy to be more aware of it. It does indeed create significant challenges. Now, confidence votes can be difficult to manage.”
“I would invite members to watch video clips of the time when we were using that formula. It was really interesting. The other standing order that we would like to change has to do with Private Members' Business. That is what we will be discussing in the last hour today. What most members find really boring and what really hinders the debate is the lack of back-and-forth discussion. We think there should be time for questions and comments in those debates too. A private member's bill is no less important than a government bill. The House of Commons is the seat of our democracy, and we should ensure that every bill is properly debated. One big advantage of this approach would be that perhaps more members would be present in the House to listen to the speeches. That is something that we have observed during these debates.”
“We would obviously still have oral question period, because it is important to the opposition parties, as it is their opportunity to question the government. If we ever need to add time for government orders, we could adjust the schedule, either on Fridays or other days of the week. The same formula could also be applied to adjournment proceedings. Rather than having four minutes to ask the question and four minutes to respond followed by one minute to reply and one minute to respond to the reply, which is not very much time, we could have a period of 10 minutes total, where the same formula would apply. The member would ask a question. If their question is 30 seconds long, then the minister would have 30 seconds to respond, and they would go back and forth like that for 10 minutes. That would allow for much more constructive discussions.”
“We would like to set aside some time on Fridays for a ministerial question period, similar to what happens in Quebec City. As members will recall, at the beginning of the COVID‑19 pandemic, a special committee was created that allowed members to question ministers, and ministers had the same amount of time to respond as it took to ask the question. This created some very interesting exchanges. Unlike in question period, we could ask the ministers follow-up questions if their answers were off topic or not entirely accurate. I think that would go a long way toward improving democratic life and providing information to the public. Those sessions could take place in the morning and afternoon, right before Private Members' Business.”
“Madam Speaker, I will try to talk fast, because I have a lot to say this morning. No one will be surprised to hear that the first measure we are proposing is to abolish the morning prayer and replace it with a moment of reflection. Parliament must serve all its citizens, and not all of them share the same religion. Many have no religion at all. This is a matter of showing respect for each individual, so that everyone who wishes to pray alone can do so, privately, or take a moment to reflect. Others can do whatever they want with this time. I think this is fundamental. The other point has to do with Fridays. Members will notice that fewer people attend on Fridays, a day that draws less attention. We have thought of a way to reform that.”
“Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech. I strongly disagree with him on one point, however. My colleague said that all members should be able to speak on every issue. We will soon be presenting a proposal on the circumstances in which a response from the House to the Senate is necessary. No doubt everyone remembers the infamous Bill C-234 from the last Parliament, which never made it back to the Senate because the Conservatives decided they did not want to return it to the Senate, so they had their speakers give endless speeches. This shut down debate in a way that I consider improper. What solution is my colleague proposing? The Bloc Québécois proposes that speaking times be limited in those specific circumstances, when the House of Commons has to send a response to the Senate.”
“When we asked the Chair to cut off answers if they were not relevant to the questions that had been asked, we were told that that was not possible. Does my colleague think that the Standing Orders should include a provision allowing us to point out when a response is irrelevant to the question or does not answer it? I think that could be very useful for democracy.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, in which he raised some good points. For one, he said that if our interventions are shallow, we risk becoming shallow. At times, I fear it is too little, too late for that. I also liked the point raised by my Conservative colleague about the Prime Minister being in the House. It is not a matter of saying he works only one day a week. Everyone knows full well that he does other things the rest of the week, but it is obviously important. I, personally, would also focus on the content of the answer. Recently, in fact, we had a debate on this, and the Chair decided to cut off certain questions related to something that was happening in Quebec City.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech and his excellent analysis of the situation, which clearly states that we basically want the project to succeed. However, we want it to be done properly. We want to protect the rights of our constituents. We agree with the claims that the legislation was improved in the 1980s. What concerns us are the bills currently being studied to allow things to move faster. I would like my colleague to tell me what he thinks the outcome will be. Does he understand why the government members tell us that they do not support the motion? Basically, the government members have repeated every part of the motion all day long. They should then theoretically agree on its content. When we vote on a motion, we have to read it and ask ourselves whether we agree with its content.”
“I invite him to talk to these folks about the importance of moving faster. Does he not think that the project could have been better planned by now, so as not to terrorize a 10-kilometre wide area in which a 60-metre wide corridor will be built?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. I appreciated his speech. I know he is a sensitive person. We got to know him when he served as Speaker of the House in the last Parliament. I would like to come back to one part of his speech. I agree with most of his speech, but not the part when he said that this has been taking too long, that we need to move quickly and that slowing down would be unacceptable. I invite him to come to my riding, Berthier—Maskinongé, to talk to people there about the designated 10-kilometre corridor, and tell them that they might know in nine months whether they are part of the 60-metre corridor, because no one is sure yet sure and consultations are just getting under way. Meanwhile, they can no longer do any work on their land, they can no longer apply for a mortgage, they are completely frozen.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are happy about that because we feel that the people in the Conservative Party agree with the apology. That is interesting. However, I have also heard several Conservative colleagues express concerns that speeding up major projects and moving too fast can sometimes lead to mistakes, like what happened in 1969. The Conservatives voted in favour of Bill C‑5 in June. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“When we think of Mirabel, where 85% of the expropriations had to be cancelled afterwards, and when we think about the current project, where the government wants to keep a 100-kilometre corridor open when it only needs 60 metres for the project, we feel concerned. That is only natural. There has been talk about laws, and I also like those laws. Under section 98, approval must be obtained from the Canadian Transportation Agency. That is one of the existing protections. However, Bill C-15 will do away with that. My colleague needs to reconsider part of her speech. I would like her to share her thoughts on the Canadian Transportation Agency.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and for mentioning me in it. She is my riding neighbour and normally I really like her, and I still do today, but I have to correct some of the things that she said. She is accusing us playing political games and engaging in obstruction, which is absolutely not what we are doing. What we are calling for is what she mentioned in her speech. We want the government to acknowledge past mistakes and commit to not repeating them. The Liberals have been saying that all day, so they should agree with it. As for the high-speed rail project, we have said repeatedly that we support it. We just want it to be done right.”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton is asking me to wish my colleague from Les Pays-d'en-Haut a happy birthday, so I, too, am wishing him a happy birthday. Now my colleague is asking us to get on board by passing Bill C-15 so that we can move faster. That is precisely why we are raising the red flag. We are saying that we must not rush this. In 1969, the government went way too fast, and ended up having to give back 85% of the land. Today, we are in a situation where the government wants to reserve a 100-kilometre-wide strip for a project that requires only 60 metres. We are afraid that history will repeat itself. That is what we are trying to explain to our colleagues. I think that, with his sensitivity for Quebec, my colleague should convince his caucus to agree to apologize.”
“Mr. Speaker, some seniors are not getting their OAS pension. Instead of helping them, the Liberals are trying to protect themselves. This is extremely troubling, because the same Cúram software that is experiencing major failures will also be used for employment insurance and the federal pension plan. By downplaying the problems instead of fixing them, the Liberals are creating the perfect conditions for a fiasco that will make Phoenix look like a minor hiccup. When will they fix the problems instead of intimidating public servants?”
“Mr. Speaker, some pensioners have not received their OAS benefits in nine months. Public servants warned the government last summer that it was due to Cúram. However, the Liberals did not listen to public servants. Instead, they silenced them. This is what the government told public servants to do: Do not let Canadians know that delays or errors in payments are due to Cúram. Why is the government going after whistle-blowers instead of helping pensioners?”
“Mr. Speaker, what a wonderful summary by my colleague, the MP for Montcalm. That is exactly right. It is very simple. The MPs across the aisle can try as hard as they want to demonize our approach today. We are going to bat for our people. We are going to bat for the future. However, to build the future, we need a solid foundation that was built in the past, and right now there are cracks in that foundation. Could an apology fill those cracks and appease the people? Maybe then the government could ask for people's trust, because we will be there to keep an eye on it. That is all we are asking for.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is, in fact, the issue today. We have been talking a lot about Mirabel. We are being told that we are sensationalizing this issue. First of all, that is not what we are doing. We are telling the House about the history and the wounds and explaining why we are asking for this. What we want is to heal these wounds so that we can move forward in an atmosphere of trust. I call on the government to make this commitment. My message to the government is that it should make a commitment to respecting people. If it does not respect people, it will have to contend with the Bloc Québécois members. I do not think that is what it wants, since it claims it wants to work together.”
“We are not telling our constituents that they are right to be afraid. We are telling them that our analysis of the bills currently under consideration is scaring us. There seems to be a desire to skip steps. That scares me. If this drags on, there may be a decision to move forward at some point. That is what we want to avoid, and we are trying to achieve that in a very constructive way.”
“Mr. Speaker, she is forgiven; I, too, sometimes address members directly. We can see how easy it is to acknowledge mistakes and forgive one another. It would be nice if the government apologized so the people of Mirabel can finally turn the page on this hurt and look to the future. For my colleague's sake, I will repeat the purpose of today's motion. Earlier, she listed all the processes that protect our constituents and give them a real right to appeal. The purpose of today's motion is to convince ourselves that we can tell our constituents to move forward with confidence because the government will have made a formal commitment to ensure that the laws are respected during consideration of Bill C‑15 . We want the government to work with us to ensure that those rights are not taken away.”
“It is important to acknowledge the mistakes of the past in order to move forward in a positive way. I think the people of Mirabel deserve that. I think the people of Berthier—Maskinongé who will be affected by the Alto project deserve to have it done right. They deserve assurances that their rights will be respected and that there will be a genuine right to appeal. That is why I encourage the member to speak with her colleagues and convince them.”
“Since this morning, government members have said all of these things and acknowledged everything that is in the motion. I can find a quote for every word and put a member's name to it. I thank them for that. It means that they are aware of it. What I do not understand is why, for next week's vote, they are unable to persuade their caucus colleagues that the Bloc Québécois's motion is not dangerous, that the Bloc is not trying to corner the government and that it simply wants the government to agree to do things right. They have been saying this all day long, so what is the problem? The problem is that the Liberals tend to say not to worry, only to turn around and do the opposite. The government has apologized to many groups, and that is a good thing. We agree on that.”
“A dairy farmer talked to me two days ago. He told me that he had looked at the proposed route, that he and his family were really panicking and that they would be going to the consultation in Trois‑Rivières on February 18 because the route goes across a corner of his porch. He asked me if I was going to go. I am not making this up. I am not exaggerating for effect. I am telling you what a constituent told me. I often joke with my colleagues and staff that I am too sensitive for this work. That is my situation. Maybe I am too sensitive for this work, but I cannot understand why a government does not have the courtesy to admit that what happened in 1969 was a mistake, to apologize, to acknowledge that this was a collective trauma and to promise that this will never happen again.”
“We are concerned that the official opposition might approve it all. We want to take precautions before changing laws. Changes to impact studies and selective modifications suggest an intent to limit the right to object. That is what we want to avoid. Why plan for 100 kilometres when they need only 60 metres? In Mirabel, the government had to give 85% of the land back. We do not want that to happen again. I have been listening to my Liberal colleagues in good faith, as I always try to do. I am not perfect, but I always try to act in good faith. I am looking at our motion. We are asking the government to apologize for the expropriations. It had to give 85% of the land back to people. People were tenants in their homes for years. I do not want my constituents in Berthier—Maskinongé to go through that.”
“We are not using that quote for political hay or anything of the sort. We know that big projects are on the horizon. We see this business-first government, clearly under corporate influence, that wants to act quickly and seems to have contempt for parliamentary work. The Prime Minister —if I may be judgmental for a second—does not look like he enjoys being here. That is what it seems like. Our job is to make sure that our legislation is complied with. I was honest earlier when I said that I enjoyed the member for Thérèse-De Blainville 's interventions. She mentioned specific acts and said that it was done under proper legislation. That is exactly what we want to ensure: that the legislation is complied with. We have identified a number of threats in Bill C‑15 . It is still being studied.”
“We want assurance on that front. A government member even admitted that this would spare cabinet the embarrassment of being contradicted by the agency. After that, we are told that we are scaremongering. We read the bills. We hear things, and, of course, we feel like reacting. Things get emotional. (1235) We can imagine how emotional it was for the communities. We spoke at length about the people in Mirabel, the children who watched their fathers cry on the kitchen table. In Forillon Park or St-Scholastique Gotta make way for tourists and airplanes Early mornin', gotta hit the bricks We're in the way, they explained Got played a damn dirty trick Chased off our homes, our lands, our country. In case my colleagues did not recognize it, that was from a song by Paul Piché. It is a simple reminder that this is also about human beings.”
“Last spring, the House passed Bill C‑5 , which gives the government the power to override all legislation on the pretext that this is a major, forward-looking project. That is where our fear comes from. We are currently studying Bill C‑15 at the Standing Committee on Finance. It is a bill that will give the government excessive powers. We have spoken out against it. The government hid this on page 300 of a 660-page document, and then they come and tell us that we have to be honest and work in good faith. I feel like saying, “let's go, come on”. Can we really work in good faith? We are looking at this, and we see that powers are going to be changed. This bill will grant powers, including with respect to section 98 on the Canadian Transportation Agency. Under our current interpretation, the government will be able to override the agency.”
“My colleague told me that I do not understand the environmental assessment process, but I hope he has seen the maps. There corridors are 100 kilometres wide. That seems excessive. Only 60 metres is required to accommodate high-speed rail. People say that the Bloc Québécois is using this to make political hay, but the fact is people contacted us directly. I will once again make my colleague across the floor happy by telling him that I will be in Trois-Rivières on February 18, and I will be in Berthierville on February 19. I know that citizens, particularly agricultural producers, will be there to protest and may oppose the project. They are afraid because the project is being presented quickly, and they are being told that the government wants to move faster and is going to carry out incredible infrastructure projects.”
“We want the law to be respected, but we are concerned. Why are we talking about Mirabel? It is because no apology has ever been offered and we are heading back into the same territory. The train will also pass through Berthier—Maskinongé, and I am concerned for my constituents. Some members are saying they do not understand our concern, given how good the project will be for everyone. A riding like Berthier—Maskinongé is basically a rural area between cities. We do not have any cities. The train will simply pass through our riding. I cannot say that there is a huge gain for us. The Bloc Québécois has always said that high-speed rail is a positive project, a major one, but is it too much to ask that the work be done properly? Basically, that is what we are saying this morning. Can the work be done properly, with respect for the people?”
“Now, what we are asking for today is an apology, because that has never been done. I am hearing all sorts of things that make no sense. We are being told that we want to live in the past and that we are fearmongering. That is not what we are doing. We looked at the beginning of the project, particularly with regard to the Mirabel area, where the route was recently modified. From what I have heard about the consultations that were held, they were more like information sessions. People were told that they could look at the wonderful project to give their opinion if they wanted to. The Bloc Québécois wants to ensure that those opinions are taken into account and that the law is respected. I liked the speech by the member for Thérèse‑De Blainville , because she talked about those details. That is exactly what we want.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Jonquière . I will begin by reassuring my colleague opposite that, yes, I have participated in consultations in the past. I have a message for the people watching at home: They can take part in consultations and have a meaningful impact on projects as ordinary citizens. That is exactly what I did in the municipality of Saint‑Félix‑de‑Valois when I attended Quebec's environmental public hearings board, or BAPE, because one of our drinking water sources was at risk. When people throw accusations around and say that other people do not know or have never seen certain things, they should be careful about the high horse they are riding on when talking to colleagues. We are all equals, we are all elected officials. That is what I want my colleagues to remember.”
“A few members have recognized the substance of the motion without saying they would actually do it. It would be easy to settle this and work differently in the future. We need to provide that assurance to the public, who are worried.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would invite our colleagues to tell the truth. I would like to know which one of our members talked about high-speed rail in apocalyptic terms. I do not think anyone did. The apocalypse happened in Mirabel in 1969. These people experienced the end of the world. What we are asking for today is precaution. We are not sounding the alarm or saying that it is a bad project. We look at what is being proposed, at these kinds of infomercials being presented as pseudo-consultations, and we figure that we, as elected officials, have a job to do to protect our communities. That is what we are doing. We do not want to hinder the project; we want to protect our people. I would encourage the member to recognize that fact and to accept that the government should apologize.”
“Perhaps we could incorporate certain elements without changing everything and we could look at how prices are set, because there is a large margin between the farmer and the grocery store and there are things going on that are not right. We would like to see that, so let us get on with it.”
“Mr. Speaker, it must be a good day, because there are good people on the Hill. I appreciate my colleague's comments, and I am glad he likes our legislation. He may not like what I am about to say quite as much, but I suspect that, if the law had not been passed in June, the government would have already given away something, since it has given everything away to the U.S. government so far. However, my colleague is right about the fundamentals. Supply management ensures basic stability across Quebec and food stability for our population. That has been my argument for over six years. Let us use that model and look at the agricultural sectors that are struggling.”
“The third year, their insurance payment for their crops is higher than all of their other payments and they are unable to make any more claims because, if they do, their insurance will go up again. The goal is to provide proper support to farmers and not to cut funding to research centres. I am sure my colleague will agree with me on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent and very interesting question. It was all good except the end, because that is not always true. I brought out some of the finer points about that in my speech earlier. What I was trying to say is that we need to sincerely and seriously examine the root of the problem, as my colleague so rightly said. That is one of the suggestions that I made to the parliamentary secretary. We need to look at price fixing in the grocery sector by creating an observatory because this is an oligopoly that has far too much power. We also need to continue with environmental protection measures because that also costs a lot of money. If my colleague would like, we can go together to talk to our produce growers who are dealing with drought one year and floods the next.”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I did not realize that I had said the Prime Minister's name earlier, so I apologize for that. I always appreciate my colleague. He asked a very original question, because it is not often that I am accused of partisanship. I find it amusing, because he answered his own question. He spoke about a national strategy, yet Quebec is already handling these issues quite effectively, thanks very much. Since I only had 10 minutes, I ran out of time, but in my speech, I talked about the importance of making adequate transfers to the provinces, including in health care, so that the provinces and Quebec can properly manage their areas of jurisdiction. It is a question of encroachment. There are always nuances in voting. Whenever the hon.”
“I am not going to get into the issue of the code of conduct, which is supposed to be in force and seems to be posing a lot of problems, but something needs to be done. For this reason, I think we need to look into the idea of having some kind of price-fixing observatory to monitor the grocery sector. Oligopolies are always harmful to ordinary people. It is not acceptable for these companies to rake in such huge profits while people are struggling to pay for their groceries.”
“Earlier, I asked the parliamentary secretary a question about concentration in the grocery industry. I am familiar with the subject because I sat on the committee for years and took part in the studies on this issue. It is a real problem. When we asked the grocery chain representatives to provide us with their sales figures, they told us that that would not be possible because they were competing with each other. As for the parliamentary secretary's answer, I cannot say that he did not tell the truth. He said that the margins are unchanged. However, a profit of 2% of $200,000 is not the same amount of money as a profit of 2% of $50. Can we agree on that? It is a question of proportion. Profits are increasing enormously, yet when we ask questions, we get no answers, particularly when we talk to suppliers, who are being mistreated.”
“If someone works and it costs them money, it is less appealing. For young people, down payment assistance programs could be set up for young homebuyers. As for food banks, they could receive direct support. It is not the ideal solution, and it is sad when a government does that, but this is an emergency. Transfers to the provinces should also be increased to make everything work better. In addition, alongside all this, the Carney government has chosen to forgo revenue. It rescinded the tax on web giants. It cancelled the changes to the capital gains inclusion rate. It abandoned the countertariffs it had imposed. It scrapped the 15% minimum tax rate, which had achieved a broad consensus around the world. There are meaningful actions that could be taken. In closing, I will talk about groceries.”