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 9 of 14.
“The Conservatives are good at pointing fingers, but they are even better at filibustering. I have noticed since I entered this place that they have a lot of experience with that. The Liberals cancelled the December 4 meeting. We still had meetings scheduled this week, but we were unsure whether they would go ahead. We thought they would be cancelled until a Conservative colleague gave us the scoop: He told us that the committee had been convened. We are very pleased about it, but in all, seven hours of work were lost. Those seven lost hours are no small matter. Sitting around the table are 10 members, two analysts, the clerk, the technical team and the interpreters. Every hour is expensive. That is the message I want to get across today: It costs a lot of money. Then they talk to us about budget efficiency.”
“People watching us at home should take note: This is what their elected representatives are doing. When they do not like the next item on the agenda, they prefer not to talk about it because they do not have any intelligent arguments to defeat it when it comes to a vote. They prefer to prevent discussion, so they take the floor and talk for hours. On November 19, the same thing happened. On December 8, they did it again during the study of their own bill, Bill C‑15 . In total, there were 5.5 hours of filibustering at the Standing Committee on Finance alone. Let us talk about the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which was mentioned earlier. There was supposed to be five meetings on Bill C-9 , the law on hate speech, but two of them were not held. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives contributed to the filibuster.”
“It is understandable for the opposition to sometimes use this approach to block debate, but why are government members blocking their own bill? They are filibustering their own bill. This is unbelievable. They introduce a bill and then, once in committee, they refuse to discuss it. Take, for example, Bill C-9 , which we were debating earlier. When they realize that an amendment does not suit everyone, they no longer want to move forward. They do not know how to back down, so they choose to talk for hours and hours on end. I have identified three examples from committees. First, at the Standing Committee on Finance on October 22, we witnessed the Liberals using appalling filibustering tactics to avoid debating the motion tabled by the Bloc Québécois, which was next on the agenda. That is one of the games they play.”
“It may happen once in a while, once in a session or once every two or three sessions, that a meeting is cancelled because something is not working or because there is a problem with witnesses or something like that, but that is rare, and that is not what we are seeing in this session. How is that possible? I have asked my colleagues in the House about this. How is it that we find ourselves talking about this today? It is not right for us to be compiling statistics to show how little the committee meets and why we need to sit down and look at how often this is happening. I would like to announce that I have planned some meetings with colleagues, including a colleague on the government side, with whom I want to discuss this issue. (1635) Beyond that, I want to discuss the issue of filibustering. This is actually quite surreal.”
“If someone chooses to not work or not call a committee meeting the next morning or the next evening, they are not paid less; they receive the same salary. The work needs to be done, but it is not getting done. There are various reasons for that, but it is not right. The statistics I gave cover the 25 standing committees, but they do not include the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament or the Subcommittee on International Human Rights. In total, there are 29 committees, so the statistics may actually be even bleaker than the numbers I provided. How does this happen? What possible reason could there be for a committee not to sit? The chair is supposed to consult with the vice-chairs.”
“A committee is supposed to be made up of people of good faith who want to advance a cause. They may have differences of opinion, of course, but they want to debate them in a healthy way, then sit down, get to work and study. We are talking about filibustering. It is appalling how much time we are wasting. Earlier, I repeated one of my questions from last fall. In response, the member told me that it was not his fault, that the government that did not want to release the documents. In fact, both sides are right, and we find ourselves caught between the two major political parties, trying to move things forward. Unfortunately, far too often, if not almost always, we seem to be the only adult in the room. That is very sad. We are here to work.”
“member for Joliette—Manawan pointed out earlier, it is the members, representing the people in their ridings, who will come and speak. It is up to the government to win the support of a majority in a minority situation. Unfortunately, we often get here with our main points and our positions, and then we go on and on about our positions for three or four days. Ultimately, we end up voting the same way as if we had voted on the first day. That is often the case. Sometimes opinions change, but it is rare. In terms of efficiency, sometimes we wonder whether what we are doing is productive, whether we are moving things forward. Sadly, the hourly cost of our operations is quite high. That is the truth. Committees are usually the best part of parliamentary life.”
“Taken all together, then, we are talking about 56 meetings that were not convened and 112 hours of work that was not done, which amounts to 12% of committee hours. That is before today. If I add today, that is another 12 hours of meetings that will not be held. I predict that it will go up to 20 hours, because there are several discussions and we are being told that, since we are just wrapping up studies, we are not going to start the next one and that everyone wants to go home. Those are the discussions that are taking place, but we are here to work. The sad reality is that for the six years I have been sitting on these benches, the House of Commons has unfortunately not been known for its efficiency. It is really sad. We need only look at the debates we have here, where we spend several days on one bill. In theory, as the hon.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this. I was very happy to learn that the Conservatives had moved the motion, because we are working on that right now. I have in hand reports on committee meetings held since the parliamentary session started. I have to say, the numbers are not great. We hear speeches about collaboration, yet 412 out of 468 meetings have been held as of today. If we include today and tomorrow, I know that at least one meeting is going to be cancelled. Apparently, there was some good news about the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but we know that there will be others. In the past week, it has been happening more often, but that is not a good thing, because we are here to work. So that is going to increase again.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks about co-operation. I would like him to explain to me why his committee chairs do not consult the vice-chairs before cancelling meetings. A huge number of meetings have not been held. I am getting comments from our members, who are complaining about this. If the member wants co-operation, then he needs to co-operate too. Will he promise to talk to his members so that we can work toward the same goal?”
“When there is a filibuster and witnesses are seated at the end of the table, they sometimes wait for two hours. Does my colleague understand why they might no longer want to testify at the next committee meeting?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is frustrating to speak on this subject because both sides are right. With respect to the substance of the issue raised by the Conservatives, it is true that the waste of resources and the limited work completed this fall is appalling. My colleague is absolutely right. However, the last question asked by the Liberals is just as relevant. I want to ask the Conservative member, whom I appreciate greatly, the following question: Does he remember last fall? The Conservatives blocked the work of Parliament for an endless period of time. Does he or does he not remember? I agree with him that this should not happen again. He is absolutely right, that should not happen anymore. I want to hear his thoughts about the witnesses.”
“Madam Speaker, I have no regrets, and the reason I say that is because I attended a FADOQ event over the weekend and people told me not to abandon them. They know that the government has not yet agreed to increase OAS for seniors aged 65 and over, as demanded by the Bloc Québécois, so they are asking us not to abandon them. They feel as though everyone else is abandoning them. That is what seniors in my riding are telling me. I would not want my colleague to take this personally because I like him, but when he is disappointed, it usually means that I am doing my job well. It means that I am defending the right things. The Bloc Québécois will continue to defend Quebec's interests as well as environmental issues. My colleague can talk about the budget and the new measures all he wants, but he knows what I am talking about.”
“Madam Speaker, I am pleased that we agree on something, and I invite my colleague to make the most of this occasion. Let us put this date on the calendar. We will be more inclined to like each other the next time we talk. As to the use of tax havens, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, among others, is looking into that, and the more they dig, the more suspicious the Prime Minister 's investments look. Naturally, when the government adopts measures and eliminates taxes for companies that benefit the individual in the position of prime minister, that raises very serious questions. That will go down on the record I was talking about earlier. In five or 10 years, people will look at what this government did. They will say that it was just not right and that it must never happen again.”
“Meanwhile, it is planning to invest 5% in defence. We agree with putting money toward defence, but only to a certain point. Can we eat before we start fighting? Can we ensure that we are self-sufficient when it comes to food? There is a lot of work to be done. The government could make the advance payments program permanent by setting a limit of $350,000. I would like to hear the government talk about permanent measures, but instead it is implementing temporary measures. Do members know why? It is because the government likes it when farmers have to come and beg to have the measures renewed every year. That makes the government feel powerful. If the government really wanted to help people, it would implement permanent measures.”
“Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Kings—Hants, with whom I enjoy speaking every day. A budget is a complex set of measures. Yes, this budget contains a few minor measures that may be good for agriculture, and I have already applauded them. However, I would invite my colleague to reread his budget, especially the part where the government announces funding for the AgriStability program. When we look carefully at the budget lines, we that they include investments of $8 million or $23 million. I would have to double-check the exact amount. Then on the next line, we see the exact same amount being deducted because the government is taking the money from inside the system. The government is making nice announcements and promises, but Canada, a G7 country, is still dedicating less than 1% of its budget to support agriculture.”
“In a 650-page document, there might be a few worthwhile measures. I hope the Liberals found one or two that might be good, such as the eligible credits for critical minerals, which could be beneficial for Quebec, or things like that. We are going to watch to see what might be good. As for the rest and what comes next, we are going to work conscientiously. However, I can say that when the time comes to vote, we are going to vote against Bill C‑15.”
“I think that in five or 10 years, people are going to look at the outcomes of this government's policies and they are going to realize that democracy has taken a big step backwards. Bills C‑5 and C‑15 are perfect examples. Democracy will have declined and we will be stuck with these changes. The people most in need have been completely left out. Yesterday, I spoke about tax cuts. Everyone is making nice speeches about this. They say they are cutting taxes, it is going to be good and it is going to be great, when in reality we are talking about $4 a month. The least well off, including disability benefit recipients, are going to see an increase in their tax burden. We are supposed to applaud this and be happy about it. Here is a scoop for everyone: We are not going to applaud.”
“Hiding somewhere near the middle of the bill is a measure which, as I mentioned a bit earlier, allows any minister to suspend any law for any period of time he or she chooses. The text of the bill even states that it is the minister who decides on the period of time. I was quite surprised to see this in the bill, and I had to read this passage a second time to be sure I had read it correctly. That is not all. The stated goal is to encourage innovation. If an experiment is under way, the application of a law can be suspended. However, when the experiment is finished, the exemption can be maintained. It is no big deal. Any excuse can be made to cancel laws, and no one knows when they will be reinstated. That is outrageous. I would even use the word “dangerous” to describe this government.”
“The government is telling us the media model it wants in Quebec and Canada is a state monopoly. There is no support for private and independent media. What can I say about regional news? It is crazy that it is not getting any help. The government needs to do something to support these people. We are living in an era when technology is evolving, artificial intelligence is moving at lightning speed, and fake news is becoming easier to produce and is circulating more and more quickly. While all this is happening, the government is telling private media they must sort out their own problems and that if they are not profitable, they should just close down. Perhaps it suits the government to have an uninformed population. That way, no one will go digging through this enormous bill to find page 300.”
“It gave and gave and gave because well, we are nice and polite and so we give. However, there comes a time when we must stand firm, no matter how big our neighbour is. By getting rid of the digital services tax, the government is forgoing $7.2 billion over five years. That is a lot of money for our newsrooms. It is a lot of money for media companies like TVA, which laid off a lot of workers recently. We asked about this issue here in the House. I was there, so I can attest to that. The former minister, who has now left, was answering our questions. That former minister quit because he is also outraged by what this government is doing in terms of the environment. At least we are starting to attract followers from other political parties. However, when we ask questions about the media, the government says CBC/Radio-Canada got money.”
“The government decided to have more nuclear energy, because it decided that it is clean energy. That is absurd. Furthermore, the tax credits initially intended for the manufacturing sector now include liquefied natural gas conversion. To put it briefly, the goal is production. “Drill, baby, drill” is a well-known phrase that is being repeated more and more in Parliament. It is appalling. (1140) The government is also going to make the media crisis worse by getting rid of the digital services tax for good. That is another serious negative consideration. I will get back to that in more detail if I have more time, but it is quite surreal to see the current government capitulating to the U.S. government on everything. It capitulated on every issue and got nothing in return.”
“We understand that some countries rely on it, because they do not have enough land or do not have other sources of energy. However, it cannot be said that nuclear energy does not produce waste. The cherry on top is that the waste from these small nuclear power plants will be dumped at Chalk River, on the banks of the Ottawa River, which provides drinking water for the vast majority of Quebeckers. This worries us. In fact, my colleague from Repentigny is meeting with local residents today about this issue. We are trying to wake up the government and the Conservative opposition regarding this issue. If an incident occurs someday and Quebeckers' drinking water becomes contaminated, who is going to pay, and who is going to live with the consequences for decades? It will be us. This is very serious.”
“Carbon capture is an unproven technology. It has been tried in other places and it does not work. This will be a fiasco. The government knows this but it is plowing ahead anyway, because this is a government that is all about image. The government members give nice speeches. They know it will not work, but it is no big deal. They announce they are going to do it because it is good for the environment. In two, three, four or five years, people are going to realize that it does not work, but that is okay, because the government can score political points with it right now. That is the sad state of politics today. Small nuclear power plants are now included in the clean energy tax credit. That is unbelievable. The government has decided that nuclear energy is clean energy.”
“All the minister has to say is that doing so will encourage innovation. We do want to be productive and efficient, but the government needs to be careful. The only act that the minister cannot grant an exemption for is the Criminal Code. However, there are many other acts. We are concerned about the environment, among other things. It will come as no surprise when I say that we are now pretty much alone on that. Fortunately, our member from Repentigny has taken over from Ms. Pauzé, whose name I can mention in the House today because she is no longer here. She proudly carried the torch high for many years. I wish to send her my regards. In terms of the environment, things really are not heading in the right direction. The government is extending the tax credits for carbon capture. It is giving more money to the oil and gas industry.”
“Bill C‑15 is a colossal bill. It is 650 pages long, contains 80 measures and amends 49 acts in a whole host of areas. I read it again yesterday evening, point by point. It is fortunate that there was a great football match on, because some sections of the bill were putting me to sleep. This is a big bill. The problem with big bills is that we often have to sift through the document to find out if the government has slipped something in. The big surprise this year comes around page 300 or so. I will get back to that later. I hope there are people tuning in who will hear this and realize what the government is doing. The government is giving just about any minister the authority to exempt projects from the application of just about any legislation for as long as the minister wishes.”
“Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see you in the chair, but I am not so pleased to speak to Bill C-15 . It will come as no surprise to anyone when I say that, unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois will not be supporting Bill C‑15. We are making an effort to ask for changes, compromises and things for Quebec, but we are getting very few answers. Our key demands were left out of the budget entirely. I will get back to that at the end of my speech if I have any time left. I will just remind members that we asked the government to reimburse Quebeckers for the money that was given to the other provinces for the carbon tax, and we also asked for an increase in old age security starting at age 65. The government could have made an effort to address these two demands at least. There is also the issue of transfers. Perhaps I will get back to that later.”
“We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to establish mandatory labelling of all genetically engineered foods sold in Canada. That is what these people are calling for. I think that we need to comply with their request for transparency. I thank them for preparing this petition, which I am pleased to present this morning.”
“I will read the petition: Whereas: Genetically engineered foods, also referred to as genetically modified foods or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), are not required to be labelled in Canada and companies are not voluntarily labelling their genetically engineered food and food ingredients; New genetic engineering techniques of gene editing, such as CRISPR, are projected to lead to the development of many new genetically engineered foods, including genetically engineered fruits and vegetables as well as genetically engineered livestock; Many foods from gene-edited plants will not be assessed for safety by Health Canada and will not appear on Health Canada's list of approved novel foods; Many Canadians want access to information about how their food is produced and public opinion polls have consistently found that over 75% of Canadians want mandatory labelling of genetically engineered foods; Mandatory labelling will simplify the tracking of GMOs in supply chains for food businesses; Mandatory labelling will provide transparency to improve public trust in Canada's food system; and The federal government has stated its commitment to the principle of transparency.”
“Mr. Speaker, this morning, I would like to present petition e‑6768, which has been signed by over 4,000 people. The petitioners are calling on the government to ensure proper labelling of food made from gene-edited plants and genetically modified foods. That is important. The petition also talks about genetically engineered livestock and makes the same requests in that regard.”
“Mr. Speaker, that was quite the assist. Yes, I agree with my colleague. Her comment basically demonstrates what I was saying in my speech. I was saying that this government is all about looking and sounding a certain way. It talks about a generational budget, saying that it is an investment. However, when we scratch beneath the surface and take a closer look, it is clear that they are spending money and pretending that they have just bought a house. I am sorry, but people cannot go to the bank one morning to borrow money saying that they gave their brother-in-law $10,000 and claiming that is their collateral. It does not work that way. To provide collateral, they need to have an asset. The finance minister 's creative accounting is nonsense.”
“Sooner or later, after swallowing so many bitter pills, the last one is too much to bear. I have to say yes, that I agree in part with what my colleague just said, but I still—”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague, who always has good, intelligent and well-thought-out questions. I have to agree that, yes, he seems to have woken up. At the same time, I cannot criticize the guy. He was trying to change things from within. There are two ways to work in politics. The first is to come in and toe the line, and the second is to try to get inside the system and make changes from within. I think what ultimately pushed the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie to resign was the cap on greenhouse gas emissions and the fact that generating electricity from thermal power plants in the west will now be permitted, but it will no longer be included in the pricing. Those things matter. I mentioned architecture earlier. There is not enough time to say very much in a 10-minute speech. I think that is what was so disappointing.”
“The main reason why my colleague and others agreed to it was that they were at risk of losing their ridings to Conservatives. That is the real reason when it comes right down to it. They realized that they had to get rid of the carbon tax in order to keep their jobs. I would rather lose my job on a matter of principle than change a policy that is so important for the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kings—Hants, who I really appreciate. He was right to bring this up, but I think that he is going to be disappointed with what I have to say. There are two things. First, when he says that the government eliminated carbon pricing for individuals to replace it with something else, that is false, because it was not replaced with anything. No new environmental measures have been introduced. On the contrary, the Prime Minister has wiped out so many environmental measures that the architect of his environmental policies stepped down last week. It is a big deal when the environment minister steps down. I refuse to believe that this tax was replaced with something else. It was replaced with a small tax cut of $200, or $4 a month, for less fortunate individuals.”
“There lies the problem with this Parliament. There are people here putting up appearances. Is it possible to have real content? People will say that Bloc members are the bad guys because we are voting against tax cuts. Yes, but I do not think my constituents will be angry when I tell them that the cuts amount to less than four bucks a month for the least fortunate. Those same constituents will give me 20 bucks to put in Christmas hampers, because 'tis the season of giving. Berthier—Maskinongé celebrated Noël du coeur last weekend. We raised funds for some 140 families in Saint‑Jean‑de‑Matha and some 220 to 260 families in Louisville. These families will get food hampers throughout the year. Will I vote for a tax cut that will lower my own taxes and increase taxes for the least fortunate?”
“It is the same thing when it comes to the medical expense tax credit. Those already burdened with high medical bills will face even greater expenses. Not all expenses will be covered and not everyone has good drug coverage. These tax credits will lose all value when calculated at the first tax bracket. This is appalling and it is disgusting. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, this will impact over 60,000 people. Could the government not have made a small amendment for these 60,000 individuals by amending a subsection here and there so that they are not impacted? I guess not, because the government is moving at speed and wants to have this bill passed before Christmas so they have something to brag about around the dinner table. They will have cut taxes with a bunch of empty words that mean nothing.”
“I did not wake up one fine morning and get a light bulb moment and think it would be a good idea to say that this bill will hurt the poor or think that this would make a great argument. Other political parties do that. The Parliamentary Budget Officer—a reliable, solid and independent figure, one so independent we sometimes get the impression that the government would like to whittle away his powers—has told us the tax cut as designed is problematic for the most vulnerable individuals. Some seniors subject to the alternative minimum tax will see their tax burden go up instead of going down and some people who receive non-refundable tax credits, such as the disability tax credit, will also see their tax burden go up. How disgusting is that? People with disabilities will see their taxes go up.”
“Initially, we were all happy with the tax cut. No one can be against that. Inflation is high, wages have not kept up with inflation, everyone is struggling to pay ridiculously high rent and interest rates are up. The government decided to offer a tax cut, which, although small, is not a bad thing. The difference is that before we vote on a measure, we study and we analyze, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House does not seem to have done that, from what I can tell from the last question he asked my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue . One thing became clear when we were analyzing this bill. I am not saying this just for the sake of it.”
“What I am saying is that we need to put reasonable and effective incentive measures that will work over the long term. This is working well in Quebec, as evidenced by the fact that Quebec has experienced the most significant development among Canadian provinces in recent years. It is funny that we are the only province with a carbon exchange. It cannot be all that bad. Moreover, it will be even better in the future because there are places around the world, including the European Union, that will start to put limits on what comes in from outside. They could tell countries that have not paid for pollution in their own area that they will have to pay for it before they can export anything to another country. Why can we not do the same thing here? Once again, I am quickly running out of time. Let us turn to the tax cut.”
“Fortunately, this was on the eve of another election and we managed to get money for Quebec because had we been mid-way through a majority term, not only would the government have ran with our idea, but it would also have crushed our existing system and replaced it with its own because whatever comes from the federal Canada is always much better, right? (1305) We are tired of that. Withdrawing from the environmental policy is affecting our carbon exchange. Quebec and California are the last jurisdictions in North America focusing on the future of our children and grandchildren. That is incredibly sad. I am not telling the people listening to us at home that we want to tax them or prevent them from putting gas in their cars. That is Conservative rhetoric. That is not what I am saying.”
“That is but a small example of what we see each and every day. That is why Quebec needs to be independent. This is really outrageous, and what is more, it hurts our own policies. We know that Quebec has always been forward-thinking. I apologize for saying this to my colleagues and I am sorry if that hurts them, but it is what it is. We are always ahead of the curve. We need only think about day cares, which we put in place 10 years ago. English Canada has just woken up and recognized that it is a good, so they are going to do the same.”
“The Liberals got rid of the carbon tax and let rebate cheques go out at the beginning of the election campaign, a few days before the vote, for a tax that had already been eliminated and would not be paid. I cannot imagine that they had a right to do that. They just ended up giving out gift cards. The message the people heard was, “The generous Liberals cut us a cheque, so let us vote for them”. Money for that cheque came from the consolidated fund. The Minister of Finance or any other Liberal elected official can say what they want, but the fact is that the $814 million that Quebeckers paid into the consolidated federal fund was withdrawn and given to Canadians in the other provinces, and then they are saying that members of the Bloc Québécois are always complaining and that Quebec is part of confederation.”
“That is a damned good example of the dark side of what can happen in a parliament. It is incredibly sad. What makes matters worse and makes this situation even darker is the fact that the Liberals refused to pay back the $814 million they owe Quebeckers who had paid this money. This is completely unfair. To get elected, the current Prime Minister decided to pad the final cheque even though these rebates were being made in advance. People used to get a cheque every three months to compensate for what they were going to spend on carbon taxes over the next three months. Ninety per cent of the revenue collected through the carbon tax was returned to taxpayers. Not only did the Liberals yield under pressure, but they also dropped the ball on communication. It seems to me it would have been easy to defend that.”
“The Conservatives and the Leader of the Opposition have succeeded so well in demonizing this measure through slogans—always repeating the same phrase, making repetitive little videos where they do not explain things and often do not even tell the truth—that this ended up taking root in the public's mind. People started saying that the carbon tax was a bad thing. However, what the Liberal government eliminated was the part that benefited those who are less well off, and that is the great irony here. Most people on lower incomes received more money back than they paid in carbon tax. By repeating all day every day that they wanted to build the homes, stop the crime and fix the budget, the Conservatives succeeded in taking money away from Canadians who are less well off. The Liberals were okay with that, as they used it to stay in power.”
“There are, however, two big issues that were not changed by the government even though, as usual, the Bloc Québécois members worked like reasonable adults with the common good in mind. We proposed arrangements and amendments, but they were not accepted. We find ourselves in a position where we must oppose Bill C‑4, particularly due to the measure concerning the price on pollution. This will come as no surprise to my colleagues. I would like Canadians listening to this speech to take a moment to think. I am going to provide a fine example of the way populism can be harmful in politics.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House, and I am very humbled to follow on from the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue , with his great eloquence and the heart he puts into standing up for the residents of his region and of Quebec as a whole. I thank him very much for all he does. As my colleague said, the Bloc Québécois is going to oppose Bill C-4 . There is nothing surprising in that. Part 4 of the bill proposes amendments to the Canada Elections Act for British Columbia, which does not really concern us. In any event, we are in agreement on that matter. There is, of course, the tax on homes, with which we are also in agreement. We appreciate the changes that are being made.”
“Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, for the duration of the tribute that will be paid to him in a few moments, the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel—Alnôbak be allowed to sit in the seat of the member for Mirabel .”
“Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, with all due respect, I would like to say that we still have the right, in our opinion, to take information that is in the credible news media, like CBC/Radio-Canada and TVA, and bring it to the House to ask legitimate questions.”
“Diamond, who always worked towards developing his region and ensuring the well-being of his constituents. I extend my deepest condolences to his loved ones, as well as to the entire community, which has lost a leader today. Mr. Diamond, we are grateful and we will remember you.”