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 8 of 14.
“We in the Bloc Québécois are leading this fight. Ever since I first became a member in this place, the Bloc Québécois has never stopped calling for a decent increase in OAS and an end to age discrimination. That would be one way to help people directly, and it could be done overnight. It would also be a very popular measure. That is what I would suggest. I think it should really be considered. These pensioners could then fill part of the labour shortage in our industries. The labour shortage is driving up costs, because people have to be paid more. It is a bit of a vicious circle. If pensioners were given a bigger clawback exemption and allowed to earn more than the current $5,000, they could work more without being penalized. The same applies to anyone else in life: Everyone likes to work, but it has to be worth their while.”
“General inflation is 2.5%, whereas food inflation is expected to be between 4% and 6% in 2026. That is another response that I would prefer not to hear from the government anymore. During question period, we sometimes hear government members saying that inflation is under control and that it is 2.5%. That is true for general inflation, but we need to be careful. Sometimes that can be misleading. It is not true when it comes to food and housing. Those are the areas in which we need to act. How do we do that? First, in the short term, we must quickly provide support to those who need it. Obviously, the lower a person's income compared to the average, the larger the share of their budget they will spend on food and housing. These are the people who need help, especially seniors on fixed pensions that are not sufficiently indexed.”
“It is true that plastic packaging for fresh vegetables is still very important. It extends the shelf life of broccoli, cucumber, cauliflower and other vegetables by several days, keeping them fresh three or four times longer. If plastic packaging is suddenly banned and no substitutes are available, that will result in food waste and inflation. They take that kind of things and say it all needs to go. Do members know what I mean? Can people stop generalizing? That is the main point I want to make. There are things that need to be done in terms of food. I will not address the aspects of the motion that deal with carbon pricing. I think my colleague from Repentigny plans to talk about that anyway, since it is his area of expertise. Instead, I am going to talk about inflation. As I said, inflation has gone up and will go up again.”
“In other words, when we grant this industry subsidies or tax exemptions, despite its huge profits, for problems that they will not even resolve, we are sending money outside the country. Shareholders are receiving dividends outside Canada. We need to be serious and constructive. The motion talks about the fuel standards and the food packaging tax. Can the Conservatives stop calling everything they do not like a “tax”? (1110) When people say that an intelligent approach to minimizing single-use plastics whenever possible would be good for the planet, that is not a tax. Rejecting plastic straws is not a tax. Cardboard straws are not so bad. I do not think it costs industries very much to adapt to changes like that. People bring up specific examples, such as how long fresh vegetables stay fresh.”
“Historically, what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry said earlier is also true. We outperformed other countries during COVID-19, but that is no reason to do nothing. When a government tells me that it is worse elsewhere, I say that if things are bad here at home, I do not necessarily want them to be worse somewhere else. I want things to improve for the people here at home. Let us find solutions. That is what I am looking for. Food bank use is up. That is also true. The bill contains some good things. That is why I am deeply frustrated to have to vote against the motion. It acknowledges real problems, and then it turns around and offers us solutions like eliminating the industrial carbon tax. Come on. I do not know if we say this often enough in the House, but 60% of our oil industry is foreign-owned.”
“Once again, we are debating a Conservative motion that identifies a real problem that people are experiencing, but instead of proposing concrete solutions, they present empty slogans so they can get sound bites, score political points and fundraise on social media. That is what Conservatives do all week long, but it is not what we are supposed to be doing here. I would like us to raise the level of discourse a little and really look for solutions. To that end, I will try to be quick, although I do not have much speaking time, as usual. First, the Conservatives say that “Canadians face the highest food inflation in the G7”. That was true in December 2025. I am pleased that there is something good in the motion. Perhaps the date should have been indicated.”
“I am a little tired of these bogus solutions. I would like us to be constructive. Earlier, a Conservative member whose riding name I unfortunately did not write down rose to speak, and I was glad to hear her say things that I do not often hear from the Conservative Party. She suggested that we work together and show that we can be non-partisan and find solutions for our constituents. Yes, but let us propose real solutions. When a party calls on all members to vote for a motion, it needs to put in a modicum of effort beforehand, talk to the other parties and not draft a motion containing falsehoods that we will not be able to condone, as the Conservatives know full well.”
“The big issue we are seeing is that inflation, which was caused or triggered by the COVID‑19 pandemic in particular and also by global tensions, has meant that the cost of food has risen faster than people's incomes. That is why there is an imbalance. In addition, the same thing happened with housing. Due to the scarcity of housing and the ability to telework, many people moved out to the regions. There are small villages in the regions where housing used to be more affordable. However, prices skyrocketed because everyone was moving all over the place. These are two factors that were very difficult to control during the pandemic. I am not excusing the government, far from it. However, when people say that eliminating the industrial carbon tax will solve the problem, I am sorry, but that is not true.”
“We are being asked to remove all taxes and anything that might prevent our oil industry friends from making money and polluting the planet as much as they want. We are told that this will solve everything, even though the past year has shown that this is not true. The federal consumer carbon tax has been removed in provinces other than Quebec. For about three years, the Conservatives went on and on about how the carbon tax had to be removed and how that would magically fix everything, and yet grocery prices have not gone down. Unfortunately, I do not think they are going to go down. The focus needs to be on stopping the increases. In the meantime, we need to have buffers while we wait for wages to catch up with prices.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this issue this morning. I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Repentigny. I said I was pleased. To clarify, I am pleased to be able to express my opinions, but I am not exactly thrilled with the content of the motion. I will explain why. Once again, our colleagues in the Conservative Party are very good at identifying a real, serious and significant problem that is concerning to people back home and that is making life more difficult for our constituents, namely inflation at the grocery store. It is appalling. However, I am not exactly thrilled with the proposed solutions, which are the same as usual.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know the parliamentary secretary is an intelligent man with a solid grasp of economic concepts. I would like him to tell me his opinion of the grocery industry. We know that the five major grocery store chains control 80% of the market. They appeared twice in committee last year, but we did not get any information out of them. They are very tight-lipped. They still say that margin percentages are unchanged, yet their profits are skyrocketing before our eyes. Does my colleague think it might be a good idea to create some sort of price-fixing observatory for this sector? Is his government prepared to consider that? Increased competition is a good idea, but it is only achievable over the very long term. I would like to hear my colleague's opinion.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The interpreters are saying that there is too much background noise. I myself was having a hard time hearing. Maybe people could listen first and then respond.”
“Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to much of my colleague's speech, but I am having a hard time understanding some of his arguments. From what I see, this bill is intended to close loopholes and ensure that serious crimes are prosecuted, including cases that did not go to trial because of the Jordan decision. The Bloc Québécois had said that the notwithstanding clause should be used because that makes no sense. My colleague generally agrees with the idea of minimum sentences. However, from what I understand so far, more such sentences will be imposed. I am therefore having a hard time understanding the opposition. Could my colleague clarify his position on this? I am interested in hearing it.”
“The bill also includes a provision that would enable judges to always use their discretion. There is a reason why justice is administered by human beings and not by software that determines which sentence corresponds to which offence. Will the minister be open to the intelligent and thoughtful amendments that the Bloc Québécois will propose in committee?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to wish you, my constituents in Berthier—Maskinongé and all of my colleagues here a happy new year. We are starting on a rather positive note, and the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. Of course, we will have some serious and conscientious work to do at committee. Among other things, we are pleased to see provisions related to delays in the justice system. Because of these delays, many serious crimes are not going to trial, which is outrageous, but something is finally being done about that. That is extremely important. We agree with the new offences related to the recruitment of young people to commit crimes. We might have even gone a little further than what is set out in the bill. We will see. We will work on that in committee. The same goes for the provisions regarding sexual harassment and violence.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the good wishes of my two colleagues. The Bloc Québécois would also like to wish a merry Christmas and a happy new year to all Quebeckers, to the members of all parties and their staff, to all House of Commons staff, including the clerks, the law clerks, the analysts, the pages, the Parliamentary Protective Services, the friendly cafeteria staff, the maintenance team, the IT technicians, the Sergeant-at-Arms' team, and, last but certainly not least, the interpreters. They are going through a rather difficult time at the moment. Our thoughts are with them, as we have a special relationship with them. Best wishes to all.”
“Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think this assessment could be reconsidered, because the Standing Orders state that the answers must be related to the question, which is not always the case. There seems to be a disconnect here. If we place limits on one side, we should place limits on the other side. Members should be allowed to ask legitimate questions.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will begin the second part of my speech. In good faith, Bloc Québécois members tried to clarify this issue. We asked you whether questions can be filtered and whether we can at least ensure that the answers are relevant and—”
“Mr. Speaker, I will resume my speech. As I was saying, it seems to us that questions can be legitimate if they raise doubts about people who have previously served in the House or about people who might even be federal employees. We are not accusing anyone, but we think it is entirely legitimate for the people's elected representatives to raise questions here in the House, especially given that Quebec's anti-corruption squad is currently conducting an investigation. If the anti-corruption squad were to find that federal elected officials were involved, I think the question might be relevant. That was my first point, but I am not finished. Here is my second point. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Yves Perron: Mr. Speaker, may I have my colleagues' attention?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all due respect, I would like to address the questions from a Conservative Party member that were rejected earlier because they were deemed irrelevant. I would like to address two points. First, it seems to us that questions can be legitimate if they raise doubts about people who have previously served in the House, or even about people who have already been— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I wish everyone a very merry Christmas, a wonderful holiday season and a 2026 that lives up to our expectations.”
“Mr. Speaker, after an eventful year, the holiday season is already upon us. Quebeckers are doing their Christmas shopping. Christmas tree sellers are offering us the forest's finest specimens, which we will drape with garlands. Families are planning where they will spend Christmas Eve, and children are counting down the sleeps. This season is not easy for everyone. That is why volunteers are conducting door-to-door food drives and why the food donation boxes in supermarkets are filling up. Let us spare a thought for our neighbours and share what we can, so that this season can truly be a time of joy. The air is crisp, and Quebec is covered with a thick white blanket of snow. It is cold outside, but our hearts are warm.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal abuse of power continues. After Bill C-5 , which gives the federal government the power to circumvent all laws for its major projects like pipelines, now we have Bill C-15 . The Liberals are enshrining the right for all their ministers to break any law under the guise of innovation. That is not all. Liberal senators' Bill S-4 also allows them to circumvent the law. If the Liberals can decide everything without obeying the law and without consulting anyone, can we still call this a democracy?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the member is right to criticize systematic filibustering, especially when the government does it. We received good news. It seems that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will finally be meeting tomorrow, after being blocked for I do not know how long. According to what my party's critic told me earlier, the committee will have resources until midnight, and we are a little apprehensive that the Conservatives may engage in filibustering. My question for my colleague is this. Will his party commit to working tomorrow and proceeding with a clause-by-clause vote, instead of filibustering until midnight?”
“It seems that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has been convened and that a meeting will take place tomorrow. We are very pleased about that. Will you commit to not blocking the committee's work and to doing the clause-by-clause study, even if it means voting?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that he has never seen so many meetings being cancelled. I am glad to hear that. I do not know whether he was here when I gave my speech, but I mentioned that we have a lengthy report on this very subject. We are going over it now to present the statistics, and that is not normal. My colleague also said that one minister was afraid to appear before the committee. That is not normal either. We have statistics on that as well. We are not talking about those who simply have not yet responded and may never respond because they are hoping for a suspension. The Conservatives have also been experts at filibustering in the past. They have to concede that. I would like my colleague to tell me how we can break the current deadlock.”
“Mr. Speaker, throughout his speech, my colleague mentioned ministers who did not answer or who refused to appear before a committee. There is a fundamental principle called ministerial responsibility. The minister is responsible for what happens in his or her department and must be able to provide clarification, particularly when elected officials ask questions. I think that is a serious breach of parliamentary privilege. I want my colleague to comment on that and on what we can do to make sure that does not continue. This is what we are trying to do today, but it does not mean that the Liberals will start working collaboratively as of tomorrow.”
“I think we owe it to the public to be transparent. These oversight committees are extremely important. It is part of democracy, and we must remain vigilant in this regard. My colleague raises a very good point.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and congratulate him on his French. Frankly, if everyone tried as hard as he does, we might end up being truly bilingual. To answer his question, and based on what I have observed during my short time as whip, I have to say that he is right. I could give several examples of chairs from the governing party who seem to be biased more often than they are impartial, who make decisions that appear to be skewed or who try to squelch certain debates. I think the example that was mentioned earlier about the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is quite telling. I know that debate is frustrating, but that is what democracy is all about. It means that sometimes we have to bring information to light and, if it is not good news, try to change it for the future.”
“It is like when another colleague told me earlier about a time that witnesses were not heard, but he gave me no context. There may have been a specific context involved. To answer the question from the member for Winnipeg North, a motion like that could be a valid part of a study if it were necessary to travel to see people, but it might also not be valid. It depends on the interpretation, and that is part of the work done by committee members. If they are diligent, they will ask themselves serious questions and make the right decisions.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member for Winnipeg North answered my call and asked me a question; it lowers the temperature of our debate. Of course the composition of a committee plays a role, but that is only part of it. To be honest, calls get made, missions get organized. Earlier on, I held the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food up as an exemplary committee, but something really unpleasant once happened to me. I once asked a colleague a question only to be told in response that we all have a job to do. What did that mean? It meant that a call came in from on high. In political parties, I think that the will has to come from the top, and I think that could be improved a lot. That is obvious. In answer to my colleague's example about the motion, I would tell him that it depends on the study.”
“Mr. Speaker, the message this sends is that we put him in his place and gave him a chance this time. He will not get a second chance. Let us get the message across. Beyond that, it was the perfect example of how not to behave. I much prefer the questions from the member for Winnipeg North . We do not often agree either, but at least he does not hurl insults every three words.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that the respect is mutual. He is absolutely right. When proceedings are blocked, when there is a filibuster and when meetings are not held, we cannot work. We were elected to work, and sometimes the committee chair does not know what our intentions are. The chair can decide not to call a meeting even though I have prepared a motion and have talked to my counterparts, the other two vice-chairs, to get their input on what I plan to present. In such situations, we are prepared to move forward on a new issue, but we learn that the committee will not be meeting, that it will meet in a week, two weeks or a month. This week's meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has been postponed until January. However, the motion said it would be this week. It is deceiving.”
“He may not have listened to my entire speech. He may have missed some parts. However, as I mentioned in my speech, this can happen on rare occasions, but it must remain an exception and there must be very good reasons for it. What I want, in general, is for people to be treated with respect. I ask that there be less aggression in the comments.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is respect, but there is also the tone and aggression with which comments are made. I am offering a constructive comment to my colleague across the way. I will give him a chance. I am not looking for an apology from him. However, we know full well that I could because of the words he used. Withdrawing his remark is one thing, but apologies are more meaningful. I will not ask him to apologize, but I am making a friendly suggestion. The comments he made, which I witnessed, were often very aggressive. He mentioned another point. I challenge him to look in the archives of the past six years and find a single instance, in any of my speeches, where I have been disrespectful to people, especially invited guests. If there is a specific context in a committee, I invite him to share it with me, and I will take a look.”
“That is one example among many where I think the government is being somewhat insouciant and saying that it is going to fix things and that everything is going to be fine. However, we have to be serious and thorough, and the same goes for committees. I have a message for the government. Being the chair of a committee is a privilege. The role of chair—and you are doing a magnificent job sitting in the chair of the House—is to be neutral and to be fair to everyone. However, I have some examples where that is not the case. Then people wonder why some members are not acting in good faith like others. If everyone acts in good faith, it can be a virtuous circle, but if there is bad faith, it can be a vicious circle. Bad faith on one side leads to bad faith on the other. Let us stop wasting time and get serious about working for the people.”
“It is because when I spoke to officials from interpretation services at the Board of Internal Economy, they gave me a bit of an empty statement that really said nothing. Then they barely addressed my questions and concerns about how the process for awarding future contracts is changing. They told me not to worry, that the certification exam is extremely rigorous and ensures top quality. They kept telling me that, but what did I learn last week? They changed the exam. They have said there will be no problem and no more shortages. They have added an external auditor to come and evaluate, and that individual's votes would count as much as those of the four House of Commons experts who used to do the evaluation. When there is a tie, the administration will decide. There will be no more shortages.”
“Speaker, you are one of the few who are truly bilingual, but you know as well as I do that it is always francophones who pay, because 80% to 90% of the discussions take place in English. So, the little piece of missing information is the one that francophones are lacking for their analysis, to make their representations, or to properly evaluate legislation. However, the constituents of a francophone member are just as deserving as the citizens in an anglophone province. They have the right to be properly represented. I see some members who seem to want to object, so if they have something to say, they should stand up and raise a point of order. I think what I just said was very parliamentary. Every voter has the right to be represented with dignity. Do my colleagues know why I am taking this opportunity to talk about it?”
“People are even starting to talk about bringing in AI, but we need human beings to pick up on human emotions and listen to real people. I have another chart that I am not supposed to show the House, but I can refer to it during my speech. It lists technical incidents involving interpretation. I have not yet pulled out the statistics, but what we notice on a daily basis with the whips' team is that, very often, when there are technical problems, it is because the interpreters were online remotely. There are delays, they cannot see people, they cannot see each other to take over, which means that when one of them stops talking, sometimes there will be a bigger gap in the interpretation. Who pays the price for this? Apart from, of course, the interpreters who have to protect their hearing health, it is always francophones who pay. Mr.”
“They cannot learn another language because that requires effort. The interpreters are good enough to be able to listen in one language and summarize in the other at the same time. They do not translate word for word. They interpret, and to be able to do that, they need to see the speaker's face and hear how they express themselves. They have to be aware of the context, and they need a basic knowledge of the topic under discussion. It is a big job. This year, however, the House of Commons let them know that it would be accepting the lowest bidder and that it made no difference if the guy interpreting a legal discussion was not well versed in the law. They could not care less. An interpreter only needs to give a rough idea of what is being said.”
“I would like to take this opportunity to give another example that really worries me, and that is the situation of interpreters. I raised this issue at the Board of Internal Economy. We are talking about filibustering and keeping committees going until midnight, cancelling one meeting and then holding another, and so on. Who is being negatively affected when that happens? It is not just the MPs, their teams of advisors, the clerks and all those people. It also affects the interpreters. Imagine how difficult their work is. Interpreters listen and speak at the same time in the other language. Imagine how complex that task is. I do not know what percentage of elected officials in the House are bilingual, but it is certainly not half. I know it is not 60%. I would guess that it is closer to 20% to 30%, and even that is generous.”
“Earlier, I heard the parliamentary secretary criticize the Conservatives for moving this motion, because we should be talking about Bill C-15, a 650-page omnibus bill. On page 300 of the bill, the fine print says that any minister can repeal any legislation whenever he or she wants as long as they can claim that it is in the name of innovation. Is that what they call co-operation? It is up to us to seek it out, find it, flush it out, and expose it in the media. The Liberals tried to sneak this through. Afterwards, they will come here acting all offended and say that we are preventing them from doing their job. If everyone acted in good faith, I think we could make progress much faster. (1645) As for me, I worry a lot about resources and issues. The government tends to hide the issues.”
“When they are sitting in a committee room, they should always be given priority. I know sometimes we have no choice, because of procedure, but that should be a rare exception. That is not what we are seeing in this Parliament, and it is incredibly sad to hear the comments. For example, at the beginning of a committee meeting, the chair decided to change the agenda and raised another subject. This allowed the Liberals to move a motion that undermined the one that another member managed to get adopted at the previous committee meeting. These are unfair tactics. The Liberals should talk to us if they want to change something, and they should talk to each other. Can we work seriously?”
“Finally, after an hour or two, two or three members quarrel and move motions. Sometimes, members move motions with witnesses present. After two hours, we apologize and tell them that there was not enough time to hear from them. We thank them for coming and ask them to send us their brief by email. Had they known, they would not have come. The following week, the clerks tell committee members that they will have to cancel the meeting because no witnesses have agreed to appear. That is not surprising; it was to be expected. We need to be serious. We are bothering people, everyone from professionals and scientists to academic researchers and farmers, people who do not have time to appear. They have to be on their land, working. When they come here, it has to serve a purpose. Let us be serious. It is important to respect witnesses.”
“I talked about witnesses earlier. As an elected official, there is something that I find completely unfathomable. When we get to committee, three or four witnesses are already seated at the end of the table. These people travel a long way. Their travel costs are paid for, and often their accommodation expenses are, too. They also come thoroughly prepared. After all, they are here to testify before the Government of Canada. These people are not stupid, they prepare, they show up with documents and they know they only have one shot at stating their position. Then they sit down and people start filibustering. One member starts talking and never stops. Meanwhile, the witness at the end of the table is not really sure what is going on. He listens and looks at his watch.”
“Rather than arriving at the committee meeting, filibustering proceedings and wasting everyone's time and money, we come to an agreement beforehand. We call each other to find out what the others are thinking. That way, when we arrive at the committee meeting, we are ready to go. It is very efficient. Instead of arguing for two hours, we pass resolutions and get things done. We do not always agree, but most of the time we manage to find common ground. I dream of the day when this will happen at all House of Commons committees. Obviously, if we do that, there will be fewer clips to post on social media. I understand that some people think that is a shame. People want to have clips to show how they put someone in their place, but things should not be that way. That is how naive I am. That is what I would like to see.”
“I must confess that I have been in shock since I began observing the 29 committees of the House of Commons, including the 25 standing committees. I am shocked because I realize that there is no co-operation in many of the committees. There is only obstruction, and many meetings do not take place. I want to acknowledge the people who sit with me on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Although imperfect, they are much better than others because we work for the common good. That should be the case for all committees. That is what matters. I have a tip for people who sit on other committees. Sometimes, even when we are working on resolutions or recommendations for reports, we talk to each other before the meeting. To save time, we talk to each other before the meeting.”
“Every once in a while, they are not the ones calling the shots. Since they were not happy about what happened, they cancelled all committee meetings this week, citing bogus reasons. We were told that there could be votes, so it would be impossible to hold a committee meeting. Give me a break. It is not as if votes never take place. We could simply start later. Then we were told that there were no witnesses, or that we have worked hard since the start of the parliamentary session so everything is fine; it is time to take a break. I was told that by email. It is appalling. People are asked to be thorough and do the work, but while the parties are blaming each other, nothing is moving forward. We were elected to study bills in committee and pass them in order to improve things for the common good. (1640) I am a new whip.”
“Bloc Québécois members are offering to collaborate, but under certain conditions: There needs to be an openness and a desire to work, instead of trying to corner us in uncomfortable positions. That requires an open attitude on the part of chairs. I mentioned it earlier to my colleague from Winnipeg North , who is paying close attention right now. I hope he will ask me a question about that, because things need to move along. Since November 6, there have been nearly 12 hours of Liberal filibustering at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Last week, the Bloc Québécois succeeded in passing a motion to summon a former prime minister to explain what this “operation citizenship” was all about. We were able to get it passed because, good news, the Liberals do not have a majority.”
“They want to cut transfers to the provinces. Something does not add up there. We need to be efficient for the common good. Now let us talk about the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Bloc members raised the Driver Inc. issue in the House. My colleague asked some excellent questions about that today. Six meetings have taken place, and five more are scheduled, almost as many as the number of meetings that have already taken place. Sometimes, our members only find out the day before when a meeting is cancelled by a unilateral decision of the chair. I know that the Liberals like unilateral decisions. We talked about the Constitution recently, about “operation citizenship” and other things that have been done unilaterally.”