Yves Perron

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised that my colleague seems unhappy and is saying that things are not moving fast enough. The changes being made with Bill C-39 are quite extraordinary. The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada is being stripped of its mandate to protect the environment, uphold the rights of indigenous peoples and emphasize collaboration, and the role of assessing pipeline projects is being transferred to the Canada Energy Regulator. The CER's mandate is to keep energy moving safely and efficiently through pipelines. What does my Conservative colleague not like about that? It appears rather contradictory to me. We, on this side, do not agree with that, because we believe that it removes all environmental protections. I would like to hear his thoughts on that.

Mr. Speaker, September 30 is International Translation Day. I would like to take a moment to commend the vital work done by the federal government's translators, interpreters and terminologists. These dedicated individuals work behind the scenes to ensure that parliamentarians can work in their own language and that francophones have access to all democratic institutions and public services. Let us face it. Most of the discussions and documents that come out of this Parliament are in English. We cannot use French as a shield against Donald Trump and then turn around and regard it as an unnecessary expense that needs to be cut. While being a useful tool, artificial intelligence can never replace human judgment and a nuanced understanding of human language. We will not attract the next generation of talent by allowing people's working conditions to deteriorate. A strong internal capacity within the public service is essential to preserving French. We have experienced people with valuable expertise. Let us take care of them.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that Bill C‑39 does not lower environmental standards. Let us imagine a pipeline project in Quebec, like Marinvest. Under Bill C‑39, pipelines are exempt from environmental impact assessments. The only assessment will be the one completed by the energy regulator in Calgary, which has never seen a pipeline it did not like. Worse still, Ottawa wants to be able to allow proponents to start their work before the assessment is complete. How can anyone claim that this is not a step backwards?

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the House is right. The goal of Bill C-39 is not to lower environmental standards. It is to eliminate them. If a pipeline were to go through Quebec, here is what Bill C-39 sets out for the environmental assessment. The energy regulator in Calgary will be the one to make the final decision. It is made up of seven commissioners, and five of the seven come from the oil industry. At the table are TC Energy, Shell, Pembina Pipeline, Canadian Oil Sands Limited and Cenovus Energy. Meanwhile, scientists and Quebeckers do not have a seat at the table. If we are not at the table, are we on the menu?

Madam Speaker, I will start with one of the parliamentary secretary's favourite lines. At the end of the day, it boggles the mind to hear him tell us that his government believes in the right to strike, but that sometimes decisions have to be made and the right to strike will therefore be taken away. That is what he is saying. Worse than that, with Bill C-39, the Liberals not only want to undermine the right to strike, but they do not even want to take responsibility for it. The infamous provision that we have denounced repeatedly over the past few months will now be used by the Canada Industrial Relations Board. The next time we rise in the House to ask this government questions, the parliamentary secretary will tell us—since there is about a 98% chance he will be the one who answers us because he is always here—that the Canada Industrial Relations Board is independent and that it is not the government. That is what the Liberals are doing with Bill C-39. It is not off to a good start. That said, I still think the parliamentary secretary is a nice guy. I even briefly thought I was glad to see him when we shook hands this week. However, what he is telling me brings me back to the harsh reality that we do not often see eye to eye. It is appalling. They claim that Bill C-39 is intended to strengthen the economy, but the measures included in Bill C-39 are not designed to strengthen the economy. They are designed to destroy, weaken or circumvent the laws that protect the public, workers and the environment. The reason that environmental assessment standards were established over the decades and that laws were implemented to create a framework for labour negotiations is because they were necessary. The government cannot sweep that away in five minutes. However, that is what Bill C‑39 does, on the grounds that we are in a crisis, that we need to stand up to President Trump, that we need to be strong and get busy building. The government wants to get things done at lightning speed and flout every law. Since we returned to the House in 2025, the same things have been said about every bill. With every bill, some minister wins the lottery and gets the right to suspend a bunch of laws. We should come up with some kind of tally system to figure out which minister won the right to get rid of the most laws this Parliament. It is pretty mind-boggling, and “mind-boggling” is an extremely polite word choice in the circumstances, because I could come up with few others. This bill is not about the national interest. It is about the personal preferences of the Prime Minister and his friends. That is what it is about. The government is going to pick out projects that were included in Bill C‑5, so-called projects of national interest, and it is going to say that those projects do not need laws. The government is claiming to have a monopoly on the truth and deciding that such and such a project is essential and important. Too bad for workers, too bad for the environment and too bad for everything else. Worse yet, the government is even going to create energy corridors. That is completely ridiculous. The federal government will decide that it can do whatever it wants on certain land. When the Liberals rise to ask us questions later, they will say that we separatists are always looking for trouble. Why do they think we are here? We are here to defend Quebeckers and fight back against terrible bills like these. Laws are not made to be suspended, abolished or circumvented. They are made to regulate community life and protect the common good. The purpose of an environmental assessment is to determine whether a project is safe and whether the resulting drawbacks will be offset by the benefits it brings. Are the drawbacks too significant? Sometimes, of course, when the analysis is conducted by independent scientists, we may not like the answer. That is for sure. However, that is what they are there for. We are not all scientists here. We cannot make decisions like these lightly. This reminds me of how, just before the summer break, the government gave the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food the power to authorize the use of pesticides and herbicides that the agencies responsible had previously declined to approve. What did the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food study in school? How do I find out? Is he qualified to make these decisions? I hope he gets some some good advice, because that is extremely frightening. I do not want to be told 10 years, eight years, five years or even six months down the road that this product really should not have been used, that scientists warned against its use but that the minister decided that it was no big deal and said that it could be used anyway. That is the Canada we are living in. It does not make any sense. That is just one of the many reasons why Quebeckers need to leave Canada. It is because of things like this. I am really looking forward to his response. I hope he will ask me questions because this is not a matter of national interest. What is more, these projects will be exempt from the laws because they are oil and gas projects, energy projects. The next pipeline will sail through the approval process. It will be done within a year at most. We know how these bills work. The government throws hundreds of pages at us and we have just a few hours to analyze them before speaking to them. My understanding of this bill—and this is the icing on the cake—is that the minister even has the power to approve a project before it has been assessed. Not only do they want to fast-track impact assessments and complete them within a year, but they can also turn around and allow construction to begin in the meantime. Imagine a scenario where a project is launched. It is really exciting. A brand-new pipeline is being built to transport oil. The environmental assessment begins while the project is performing well, but after six months, the conclusion is that there are simply too many impacts on this or that ecosystem and that the project either has to change tack or be redesigned. By then it will be too late. The trench will already be dug. This is backwards logic. I might seem less calm than usual. I swear I am trying to stay calm, but when I read things like this, I cannot believe they are actually doing this. Is this really flying under the radar? As for Mr. Trump, everyone says that the Prime Minister is going to save us. It is all well and good to use the tariff crisis as an excuse, but we know what is going on. I want to reassure all parliamentarians here today and everyone watching us at home that we are not against efficiency, effectiveness or economic development. We simply believe that precautions need to be taken. We think that the Prime Minister is currently giving himself powers that make no sense and granting powers to the executive branch that far exceed the mandates given by the people. This is especially true since, yes, the Liberals did win some by-elections this summer, but their majority was essentially created by floor crossers and backroom deals. I feel a need to remind my colleagues of that from time to time. Some folks will tell me to stop saying that, because everyone knows it. Yes, I will continue because that is more or less what real life is all about. I heard the Prime Minister say this week that he has a mandate to do what he is doing. I disagree. My NDP colleague asked earlier where it was written in the Liberal platform. He was right to ask. I would like the parliamentary secretary to respond to that, if he would like to chat with me. Where in their platform did it say that they were going to do this? We did not see that anywhere. I briefly mentioned workers' rights at the start, but what this bill does is crazy. It basically says that workers have the right to strike, but that the strike must not last long or cause any disruptions, that they must not make too much noise—that is specified in the bill—and that the government has the right to decide when it gets to be too much. That means that workers have no rights. If workers go on strike, it is too bad, but that is what the reality of bargaining looks like. First of all, when a strike occurs, it is usually because the employer has acted in bad faith. In any case, typically, though I do not want to generalize, there is no agreement. The parties are at a standstill. Strikes are meant to hurt the employer a little. That is called bargaining power. If there is no power, there will be no gains. The bill says that people have the right to strike, but that they no longer have any power and that they can be stopped at any time. Actually, it gets worse, because the members of the government will not even take the blame for stopping strikers; the Canada Industrial Relations Board will do it for them while they sit with their feet up by the fire and tell themselves that it is not their fault. That is the kind of government we are dealing with. Obviously, members will have guessed that the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C‑39.

Madam Speaker, I respect my MP too. Whenever I am here for work, I stay in an apartment located in his riding. That makes him my MP. I receive his householders too. They have far too much writing for my taste, since they are in both languages, but that is his choice. I digress. He brought up the topic of railroads. No one wants to revert to using the labour involved in building that railroad or the conditions of the time. That is what we are discussing today. I was saying that we are not against progress or construction but, over the years, we have adopted standards. We have adopted social standards that must be respected. That is important. Personally, I think that the Liberal government is triggering a major rollback, but I am counting on the member who represents me when I am on the Hill to protect my interests and make my voice heard in this caucus. I know that he cannot do that here, but I ask him to do that in his caucus.

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my colleague and congratulating him on his remarkable efforts in French. It is heartwarming. I would really like to see more people doing that. It works both ways. He mentioned red tape. There is, however, a subtle difference between cutting red tape and scrapping laws and social protections. What the government is doing is scrapping laws and social protections. We generally agree that red tape is an issue when regulations overlap with other regulations again and again. I do not understand why the Conservatives are unhappy with what the Liberals are doing. I thought they would be happy: The Liberals are scrapping all the laws to allow for oil infrastructure projects. I thought they would be happy.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Waterloo. Several members in a row have been practising their French. I am delighted. We can work together. I was saying to the previous speaker that I know that the Liberals are constrained in what they can say in Parliament. However, I hope that these people, who are smart, who are listening and who seem to understand the arguments we are putting forward, will convey to their caucus that we believe the bill should be amended. I hope that the committee study will give us sufficient latitude to amend certain provisions. The bill is so significant and harmful that I struggle to envision us supporting it. I am normally very accommodating, but this bill goes pretty far.

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to share his views on the provision in Bill C-30 that gives the minister the power to approve the use of a pesticide that has been banned by Health Canada. Does he not think that this is a slippery slope?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I respect my colleague. He has a sharp mind. He is right to speak out against closure, because this situation is deplorable. It is plain to see that at this rate, the Liberal government will surpass the record set by Stephen Harper's Conservative government. His party apparently holds the record. He can correct me if I am wrong. I was just teasing. The question that I want to ask him is the same one I asked another member. I am very concerned about the minister being given the power to approve a pesticide that has been rejected by Health Canada. The other member replied that he could not answer because he did not know anything about pesticides. What worries me is that that is the whole problem: The minister does not know either. That raises serious concerns for us. What does my colleague think of this situation?

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in Parliament on what we sincerely hope is the last day before we rise for the summer. I would first like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my very gracious and delightful colleague from Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan. To begin, I will also take a moment to offer some acknowledgements, as my colleague before me did. I want to thank everyone around us here, the House staff, especially the interpreters, but also the staff who work for us in our ridings. I want to mention Lyne, Dominique, Zachary, Victor and Thierry. Thierry works in both places. He is here in the whip's office with Carl, Paule, Steeve, Marilène, Marjorie, Michel and Benjamin. What a dream team. I would be remiss if I did not speak to my constituents. I encourage the people of Berthier—Maskinongé to enjoy the summer and to rest, recharge their batteries and spend time with their families. I look forward to seeing them at our local events. I hope that they can enjoy everything our beautiful region has to offer, whether it is the Festival de la truite mouchetée de Saint‑Alexis‑des‑Monts in the coming weeks, the Festi‑Force de Saint‑Jean‑de‑Matha a little later, the Festival de la Galette de Louiseville in the fall, or other happenings in the magnificent Berthier—Maskinongé region. I invite everyone to visit our farmers' markets. It is essential. The people at these markets are the ones who keep our regional economies going. We need to support them. First of all, we will eat better. It is good for our health and the food tastes better. 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. That is not as fun because Bill C-30 took no account whatsoever of the Bloc Québécois' demands. In fact, we were not consulted at all. Bill C-30 was introduced at a time when the government had just cobbled together a majority behind the scenes through backroom deals. I do not know if bribes were paid. I cannot say that because we have no proof. However, there must have been some quid pro quo to convince several elected members to cross the floor, which changed the dynamics and altered the outcome of the election. Negotiating and getting things moving is not an issue, but we are supposed to do that and work together over the long term. Personally, I belong to the school of politicians who believe that an election campaign lasts a month and a half, not four years. In between, we are supposed to work together—the Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc Québécois, New Democrats and all the independents—to move bills forward and work for the common good. Working together does not mean changing people's political allegiances overnight so that the government can make all the decisions without consulting the opposition. That is not the mandate the public gave this government. I am still condemning it, and I will continue to do so for as long as I can. The truth is, this grievance is not going away. 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. It is on their behalf that I am speaking today as the former agriculture and agri-food critic. We studied this issue extensively. We heard from farmers in committee, and there was one thing that they strongly objected to. They were not asking for the minister to be given the power to provide them with just about any product upon request or to stop hassling them about health and the environment. Never in my life have I met a single, solitary farmer who has said such a thing to me. However, that is what the government is doing today. As for questions and comments earlier, it is rather mind‑boggling to see how the truth comes out in the House. I asked a colleague what he thought about allowing a minister to authorize pesticides that had been rejected by Health Canada. The colleague said he was sorry, but he did not know much about pesticides so he could not answer me. I appreciated the honest response, but it speaks volumes, because the minister does not know anything about them either. How are ministers appointed? They are appointed based on regional representation and based on whether they are a man or a woman. Cabinet needs to be gender-balanced. They are appointed based on a whole range of factors, and that is fine. That is part of politics. However, they are not microbiologists. They are not experts in the effects of crop protection products on the environment and on the people who apply them. I am not just thinking of the environment, but also of the farmers who are going to apply these pesticides to their fields. If anyone can authorize anything and people fall sick in future years, we will be no better off. While I do not want to indulge in populism, I admit that it is a very tempting slippery slope. With bills like this, it would be easy to get caught up in populism. I complained about the fake majority earlier, and I strongly criticize the fact that the opposition is being muzzled. My colleague who spoke before me talked about this: Time allocation has been moved on 10 bills so far, unless I am mistaken. This government is about to beat the Stephen Harper government's record. That is quite a feat. 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? We have a Progressive Conservative government and a Conservative opposition. When it comes time to vote on Conservative measures, not many of us vote “nay” anymore. That is my objective analysis of the current makeup of Parliament. What a mind‑boggling situation. I want to come back to pesticides and herbicides. This is also true for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA. The bill would give it more authority and change its mandate so that it is not limited to food safety, but also includes an economic dimension. What does that mean? Does that mean that, if a certain product does not make people sick, then it should be approved because it would be good for the bottom line? How are these statements supposed to be interpreted? I am not making this up. I read out parts of the bill earlier. It is completely ridiculous. I cannot imagine a bill like this passing. What really surprises me is that there has not been much reaction from the media or the public. Perhaps that is because barbecue season is here and people are not paying as much attention to politics, but these laws are going to be implemented anyway. How long will it take before we see the negative impacts? How many blunders will the minister have to make when it comes to approving these products? At the same time, I am not saying that the problems are not real. 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. I told her that we had to rely on the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, now known as the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate, as well as on Health Canada and the experts. I have made the following comparison in the House before, but this reminds me of the pandemic, when our Conservative friends were asking us to adopt motions to lift the health measures in place for air travel. Members will recall that Canada was one of the last countries to lift them. We agreed, but nobody here is an epidemiologist. We are elected officials with a wide range of backgrounds. What did we say back then? We said that we agreed in principle, but that we needed to add a phrase indicating that this needed to be done in accordance with public health guidelines. That way, we would not just be doing things willy-nilly. We should add such a phrase to our Liberal friends' bill to say that the recommendations of the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate must be followed. The problem is not that the analyses and scientists at these agencies are not good. The problem is that they lack resources and are inefficient. I will give a clear example. Just last week, I read that this agency has finally approved a pilot project to spray pesticides using drones. Spraying these pesticides by airplane from much higher altitudes has been authorized for years. They end up spreading everywhere, including places where they are not needed. It took five years for farmers to be granted permission to apply them in small doses using drones, targeting only the specific areas of the field where they are needed. That is what we were criticizing: inefficiency and, at times, a lack of consistency. We were not asking for just any minister to be given the power to make just any decision. That is utter nonsense. It needs to be changed. We are at the end of the session, everything is being rushed through, and this is going to be passed in the next few hours. As a citizen who cares deeply about the environment and the health of my constituents, my duty is to protect the future of our children and grandchildren. I must inform the public about this. This is very serious.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague enjoyed my speech. That is nice. However, I will tell him that the Liberals are going to beat Stephen Harper if they continue on this path. They are going to break the record. That is not the way to do it. In my opinion, if, a few months ago, the Liberals had included in the calendar the bills they wanted to deal with on a priority basis for June instead of forcing us to deal with them two weeks before the end of the parliamentary session, forcing everyone to work until midnight and then get up at 6 a.m. to start all over, that would have made sense. We could have developed a work plan and worked together. They did not even talk to us about Bill C‑30 beforehand. The government should talk to us before introducing bills, and we can make proposals to speed things up.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to my colleague because, unfortunately, in a 10-minute speech, there is not enough time to cover everything, and this is an issue of the utmost importance. The fact that they want to sell the airports simply to improve the bottom line in six months shows that we are dealing with people who cannot see beyond the end of their nose and who figure they will deal with the problems later. If we sell the airports to the private sector, it will increase costs for individuals. Some infrastructure must remain public. Not only do we oppose foreign companies from China or anywhere else buying these assets, but we also believe they should remain public. We must retain control of our strategic infrastructure. This is fundamental.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question because it gives me an opportunity to elaborate on my point, especially if any farmers are listening to us right now and wondering whether we are still working for them. Of course we are. We work for their best interest and in everyone's best interest. We must retain some control. This gives me an opportunity to explain that what we are criticizing is a lack of efficiency. We do not want to take control away. It is important to be guided by science. A whole lot of people in Parliament have been enjoying saying the words “science-based” all week long, but I am not sure whether 25% of them even understand what it means when they say it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech, which was packed with truth and clearly articulated. She spoke about indigenous peoples, who are often mentioned here in lofty terms, but who, in reality, still face many challenges. National Indigenous Peoples Day is coming up in a few days. I would like my colleague to say a few words about that.

Mr. Speaker, now it is my turn to wish my colleagues safe travels back to their ridings and a summer filled with sunny days, BBQs and corn boils. This session, we saw opposition members crossing the floor almost as often as we saw the Prime Minister crossing the Atlantic. We now have a majority government and a Prime Minister with a whole lot of air miles. That caused a lot of upheaval and so it is time to step back and take a little break. I want to thank all those who help us to do our jobs as parliamentarians, starting with the indispensable interpreters and the entire translation team, who remind us that we are not the only ones who take French seriously in Ottawa. I want to thank them. I also want to sincerely thank the entire team of clerks, law clerks and analysts who help us to be as effective and well-informed as possible in both the House and committee. I would like to thank the pages, the members of the Parliamentary Protective Service, the wonderful cafeteria staff and the maintenance crew, without whom we would never be able to use the parliamentary elevators, although I do not often take them, and the IT technicians, without whom we would never be able to unlock our phones after changing our password for the 40th time in three weeks. Did I put three exclamation points or four? I forget. I want to thank the entire Sergeant-at-Arms' team, the shuttle drivers and all the House staff I may have unintentionally overlooked. I would also like to thank you, Mr. 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. The government House leader and the Conservative whip will surely allow me to point out that we are working for the common good, but in the meantime, we are also preparing the country of Quebec. That is an important clarification. I thank the ministerial staff, the staff working in constituency offices and our assistants on the Hill. At the same time, I would like to say a quick word of acknowledgement for my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, who has decided to move on to explore new horizons. Our esteemed comrade-in-arms will be missed. I want to thank our constituents for the honour of allowing us to represent them. I also want to thank our family members, who sometimes miss us when we are not around, but later realize that our absence can be a refreshing experience too. On behalf of myself and the Bloc Québécois, I wish all Quebeckers a wonderful national holiday. I also wish all of our brothers and sisters in francophone minority communities across Canada a very happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. Lastly, to our first nations brothers and sisters, have a wonderful June 21. I hope everyone has a great summer, and I look forward to seeing my colleagues again in September.

Mr. Speaker, another day, another example of anti-democratic behaviour from this Prime Minister. Today, he is muzzling the opposition to pass Bill C-22, which contains serious privacy violations. Yesterday, he shut down the debate on Bill C-30, which allows him to approve pesticides that were previously banned by Health Canada. It is simple. Since June 1, the Prime Minister has moved time allocation on no fewer than nine bills. This Prime Minister is muzzling all the parliamentarians who want to do their jobs. Does he realize that his majority does not give him the right to subvert democracy?

Mr. Speaker, bad projects do not deserve support. The Prime Minister has a majority. He spends the majority of his time travelling, but he also has a majority in the House. All of his bills are guaranteed to pass. All he is doing with these repeated time allocation motions is preventing MPs from doing their job. All he is doing is trying to push things through so quickly that civil society does not realize what is happening. The reason the Prime Minister is rushing so much is to keep people from noticing the deregulation and abuse of power hidden within his laws. Why is the Prime Minister incapable of respecting Parliament and democracy?

Mr. Speaker, what troubles me about Bill C‑30 are the changes regarding the approval of pesticides and herbicides. Under this bill, for economic reasons or in emergency situations, cabinet will be allowed to decide whether to use hazardous products. These people are not scientists and do not know what impact the use of these chemicals could have on nature, the environment, the plants intended for human consumption and, most importantly, the workers who will be spreading them. I have serious concerns about this. That was not what agricultural groups were complaining about. Their issue was with the inefficiency of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which is now known as the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate. Rather than making this body more efficient, the government is going to let the minister decide when hazardous products can be applied. What does my colleague think about that? Can she offer me any reassurance? I am still not reassured.