For once, I agree with my Conservative colleagues. It's true that we mustn't fall into the “Ottawa knows everything” trap. That would be very dangerous. We're defending Quebec's interests. I hope that my Conservative colleagues will not fall into the “Ottawa knows everything” trap when the time comes for them to vote on Bill 21. However, let's leave that aside for a moment.
Why stick to four meetings? The purpose of this report is to influence the minister when he's drafting his decree. That said, the minister intends to finish his consultations in September. It would be good for him to hear the witnesses who will testify before the committee; they will present a different picture of the situation, in particular the people from the Boisaco company.
To influence the minister's decision, we need move quite quickly. We need to make sure the minister understands the issue, depending on the witnesses we invite. What's more, I don't want this to become an opportunity to settle scores and advance a debatable ideology and one that, more often than not, resembles populism. I experienced that at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. We won't be inviting the entire cabinet; that's not the objective. We want the companies and key stakeholders to be heard. We also want the committee to make recommendations as quickly as possible, so that the minister respects Quebec's jurisdictions and is aware of the socio-economic impact a decree will have on the various regions of Quebec.