SoVote

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

May/9/24 3:41:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the situation is extremely serious, but today's motion paints a distorted and alarmist picture of it, and that is deplorable. The facts matter when we are dealing with crisis situations. When MPs say that Toronto and Montreal want to legalize drugs, they are not being truthful. I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to clarify her thoughts. Perhaps I can offer some guidance. What is the purpose of this motion? Does she really understand the difference between legalization, decriminalization and diversion? Does she agree that those three terms are very different?

96 words

Context: House Hansard - 312 - May/9/24

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

May/9/24 5:55:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-355

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill tonight. I will be fairly brief. The work we have to do here, as elected representatives of the people, is very serious. We have to do it rigorously. Unfortunately, these days, that rigour is not always there. We had a great example of that for a good part of the day. I will now get back to the bill. Bill C‑355 deals with a sensitive issue, and we have asked a great many questions about it. I think we were right to ask those questions. In particular, we wondered why a bill dealing with an issue in a minister's mandate letter had to be a private member's bill. That did raise some questions. We wondered about the process. We also wondered whether it was not better to take action on the Health of Animals Act, on animal welfare. The Bloc Québécois has always been a champion of animal welfare. That is one of our fundamental values. We have always defended this principle. We have before us a bill seeking to fully prohibit a specific practice. We questioned various witnesses. I somewhat agree with my colleagues who spoke about the testimonies. A good number of the many testimonies we heard were contradictory. At times like these, as parliamentarians, we must recognize that. We have to consider where it is coming from, weigh the pros and cons, look at the sources. It was very demanding work. We wondered about the precedent this sets, and we asked ourselves whether this was the first step towards something else. My NDP colleague actually posed this question to the bill's sponsor. That is one of the questions that was addressed. We also wondered why the bill covered just one species. Why not prohibit this kind of practice for various species? That is a question we had tackle in a comprehensive, rigorous way. A number of witnesses also expressed concerns, including people from the pilots' association, who were concerned about being forced to deal with more forms. I think that was resolved with the amendments we adopted. We have heard from so many groups. We really focused on transportation. How are they being transported? Basically, the purpose of the bill is to put an end not to slaughter, but to air transportation. There were lots of questions about the terms and conditions of carriage. We were told that the conditions were not appropriate. There was some interesting testimony, including from Canadian Veterinary Medical Association representatives, who shared scientific facts about livestock welfare and how they are transported. My Conservative Party colleague mentioned that the animals are transported several to a cage-like box. We looked at how this species functions. They are herd animals, a prey species, so it is reassuring for them to be with others. As it was also mentioned earlier, we made comparisons with horses transported by air for different reasons. Many were transported to be in competitions, to be put up for sale, to be raised elsewhere, and so on. My goodness, it was quite an interesting study. It generated a lot of debate. The evidence shows that transportation has improved. I believe it was back in 2020 that transportation conditions were changed for the better. In the end, one thing stood out. It was mentioned by the bill's sponsor: Horses have a status unlike that of any other animal in Canada and Quebec. Although they are used for food in Quebec, many people think of them more as a companion animal. There is a kind of overlap. As elected members, our job in the House of Commons is to examine scientific facts, to assess the pros and cons, but also to consider the values of Canadians, where we stand as a society and, ultimately, to vote on this bill. That is our job, and that is what we did to the best of our ability.

666 words

Context: House Hansard - 312 - May/9/24

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

May/9/24 6:36:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to debate an issue when you are smiling down at us from the chair. I would like to ask my colleague a question. The Liberals will probably not be surprised if I tell them that we in the Bloc Québécois hate time allocation, because we like to debate and we are here to work seriously. Fortunately for the assembly, we show it every day. There is one file that I find tiresome. I hope my colleague will be able to provide me with a semblance of an answer. We have a request. If we can impose time allocation on bills, can we impose time allocation on assistance offered to agricultural producers? Quebec asked that the AgriRecovery program be launched in November. Today is May 9, and it has not been launched. I know that some calculations had to be made and documents obtained, but given the time that has elapsed between November and May, it seems that someone, somewhere, is taking their sweet time. Can the assistance be made available to producers who need it? Among other things, they have already paid their expenses for this season. I have heard from companies that have decided to stop producing this year because they have no money. It is sad. Can my colleague answer that question?

227 words