Luc Thériault
Montcalm, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, in October 2024, during a religious speech, Adil Charkaoui called for the death of Jews in a prayer, citing religious reasons. The director of criminal and penal prosecutions was unable to move the case forward. He said that the reason was the religious exemption in the Criminal Code. What does my colleague think of that?”
“Mr. Speaker, in 2024, Adil Charkaoui recited a prayer in which he called for the death of Jews. Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions found that it could not lay charges because of the religious exemption in the Criminal Code. Does my colleague agree with that?”
“Mr. Speaker, on February 16, at 8:08 p.m., my friend Jacques Tremblay passed away. Jacques was a cornerstone of the political world in the riding of Montcalm. He made his mark as president of the Bloc Québécois in Montcalm, but also as a municipal councillor for the City of Mascouche and as a political aide to the MP for Montcalm.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member pointed out the flaws in Quebec's health care system. He referred to the fact that the range of services is limited, and rightly so. However, he knows very well that the main reason for that is that the federal government is committing to funding only 21% of health care costs.”
“Mr. Speaker, you are the guardian of my parliamentary privilege, and one of those privileges is to ensure that, when I attend question period, I can hear the questions and the answers, regardless of how I may feel about them.”
“Mr. Speaker, beyond how each side presents its arguments, there are uncomfortable questions arising from this debate. Does my colleague not find it embarrassing that it takes 40 months to process a claim and get a response?”
The complete record
Every one of 146 lines we hold for Luc Thériault, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 3.
“Mr. Speaker, in October 2024, during a religious speech, Adil Charkaoui called for the death of Jews in a prayer, citing religious reasons. The director of criminal and penal prosecutions was unable to move the case forward. He said that the reason was the religious exemption in the Criminal Code. What does my colleague think of that?”
“Mr. Speaker, in 2024, Adil Charkaoui recited a prayer in which he called for the death of Jews. Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions found that it could not lay charges because of the religious exemption in the Criminal Code. Does my colleague agree with that?”
“Mr. Speaker, on February 16, at 8:08 p.m., my friend Jacques Tremblay passed away. Jacques was a cornerstone of the political world in the riding of Montcalm. He made his mark as president of the Bloc Québécois in Montcalm, but also as a municipal councillor for the City of Mascouche and as a political aide to the MP for Montcalm. Yes, in 2015, despite adversity, we joined forces to win back Montcalm, driven by a common cause: the Quebec nation. My friend and I travelled many kilometres to meet the people of Montcalm. He was a man in search of social justice, a tad impulsive, but above all full of humanity. He was a man who deeply loved his family. He was so proud of his sons, Francis and Guillaume; his daughter, Émilie; and his grandchildren. I want to wish my friend Jacques a safe journey. May he rest in peace.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member pointed out the flaws in Quebec's health care system. He referred to the fact that the range of services is limited, and rightly so. However, he knows very well that the main reason for that is that the federal government is committing to funding only 21% of health care costs. The provinces are responsible for 79% of health care costs. As my colleague knows, in Quebec, we were locked down for a year because the network was too vulnerable. However, after the pandemic, what did the federal government offer? Although needs grew to $28 billion a year, the government decided to provide $4.6 billion a year. My colleague's leader said that he might increase that offer. Does the member not think that there should be a bit more for health funding and transfers?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Bourassa spoke about respect for fundamental human values. I would like to know whether he feels that taking 40 months to process an asylum claim is an example of fundamental human values. Does he believe that it is time for his government to give Quebec—which has demonstrated fundamental human values by welcoming twice its demographic weight—the $700 million it is owed?”
“Mr. Speaker, beyond how each side presents its arguments, there are uncomfortable questions arising from this debate. Does my colleague not find it embarrassing that it takes 40 months to process a claim and get a response? Does he not find it embarrassing that, in order to speed up these claims and responses, 25,000 asylum seekers per year have been exempted from the security process? Does he not find it embarrassing that his government is still delaying the payment of $700 million owed to Quebec?”
“Mr. Speaker, you are the guardian of my parliamentary privilege, and one of those privileges is to ensure that, when I attend question period, I can hear the questions and the answers, regardless of how I may feel about them. However, during several recent question periods, the people sitting to your right have developed the bad habit of not containing their enthusiasm. They are standing up and applauding before the answers are finished, which prevents the interpreters from doing their job. It has happened on a few occasions that they have been unable to do their job. When the interpreters are able to do their job, we cannot appreciate it because we cannot hear the rest of the answer at all. Mr. Speaker, I would like you to make this clear to the people across the way.”
“Mr. Speaker, this government bought a pipeline that cost $34 billion. Over the past 10 years, budget after budget, it has provided funding to oil companies, most of which are American-owned. Now, it is proposing a subsidy costing a paltry $2.3 billion over five years. Does my colleague think this is enough, given that Canada used to hold itself out as a champion in the fight against climate change?”
“Mr. Speaker, the program that the Conservatives are criticizing today provides for $2.3 billion over five years. This sort of incentive worked very well in Quebec and helped boost EV sales there. When I compare this amount allocated over five years to what the government is giving the oil industry, which is controlled by American companies that make billions of dollars in profit a year, it seems to me that this government is not very green and is not doing very much to fight climate change.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères said earlier that the average price of an EV is $63,000. That is expensive, and it is the average price. Let us not get carried away. The measure applies to vehicles that cost less than $50,000. I do not know how much my colleague's vehicle cost, but it was likely close to the average price. Why target one industry, the electric vehicle industry? EVs are very popular in Quebec since the Quebec economy is more focused on the energy transition. Why are the Conservatives not looking at the fact that, in recent years, the government has given hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to American companies that make billions of dollars in profit every year? I am talking about the oil industry—”
“Let us continue to invest in the climate transition while ensuring that people who currently make a living from the fossil fuel industry can gradually transition to renewable energy, because that is the future of our planet.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague's argument is that the money should be invested elsewhere, especially at a time when people are struggling to make ends meet and the high cost of living is so high. He is talking about the electric car industry, but what about the hundreds of billions of dollars that are going to oil companies, to American companies that make hundreds of billions of dollars in profits every year and that the government continues to finance at a time when what we really need are meaningful measures? I represent an agricultural riding. Climate change is a nightmare for farmers. That is what is affecting the cost of living. There is room for everyone to take their place in the sun.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. I appreciate him very much. We sit together on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The arguments currently being made by the Conservatives fly in the face of the saying “What is good for the goose is good for the gander”. On the one hand, they feel strongly about financial support for the oil industry, which is primarily owned by the Americans. The Conservatives see no problem in using Canadian taxpayers' money for that purpose. On the other hand, when it comes to EVs, that becomes a problem. Why the double standard?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Criminal Code already includes sentencing provisions for repeat offenders who commit extortion. However, there are new measures in Bill C‑14 , the bail and sentencing reform act, that would make it harder for offenders to get bail and that would impose harsher sentences for extortion-related offences. What does the member think is missing from Bill C‑14?”
“Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the debate, members from Quebec have refused to say whether they will vote for or against our motion, preferring instead to simply toe the party line. If, during the vote, a few courageous members stood up, but the entire cabinet remained seated, does my colleague not think that this would illustrate that they have no sway over government decisions to ensure that Quebec's voice is heard within this government?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague was singing the praises of a 21st-century vision. Mirabel airport was a 20th-century vision. After the Mirabel fiasco, the expropriation laws were indeed amended. I would invite my colleague to review the provisions of Bill C-15 , which suspends exactly what he is referring to, in order to ensure that the process respects the people who will have to make decisions and live with this project. I invite him to reread Bill C-15, first of all. Secondly, we are all in favour of a vision for the future, but will he vote for or against the motion to ensure that the people of Mirabel can—”
“Mr. Speaker, the motion we moved calls for respect and dignity for the people of Mirabel. When I hear the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie reduce this motion to a Bloc Québécois tactic, I dare say that the cynicism he is showing today suggests that politics is wearing on him. I have known him for a long time, and this is not the intellectual integrity I would have expected of him. Now, we have been told since this morning that we want to leave people in the past and that we only want to focus on the past. Does my colleague not believe that voting in favour of this motion would mean bringing the people of Mirabel into the future instead of leaving them in the past?”
“Mr. Speaker, my experience as a parliamentarian leads me to believe that if the Quebeckers sitting on the government benches vote against this motion, it is because they are being forced to toe the party line. That is why I tell the people I meet in Quebec that if they want to be defended and have their voices heard in the legislature that is the House of Commons, they would be much better off counting on us, because the Quebeckers in the Liberal Party are wilfully blind, deaf and mute.”
“Mr. Speaker, I did not say that it was without consultation, I said that it was with so-called consultation sessions, because these are actually information and promotion sessions for a project. They are sessions to promote a project, and people are not getting time to prepare briefs and familiarize themselves with the files. Right now in Canada, I would say that we are witnessing something shocking that has never happened before. High finance has seized the reins of the federal government, with its sole interest being economic gain. That is why good projects or great projects can sometimes end badly, because human rights are not being taken into consideration.”
“Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Mirabel said, the worst part is that people were dispossessed of their land. In some cases, their children bought back the land when it was returned. Now they are being told, without consultation, that the same thing is happening again and they could lose everything. It feels a bit like Groundhog Day. From a purely moral standpoint, it is unacceptable. Our farmers feed us. Being a farmer means putting down roots in the land. People in urban areas do not understand that. They may be attached to their house, their home or their car. However, when someone has ties to the land, and that land is cut in half and ripped away from them, it tears out their heart.”
“They are making it up as they go along. (1140) I hope my colleague from the Quebec City area will stand and support our motion because he is a man of honour.”
“Today, the government does not even have the decency to apologize to the people who suffered and are still suffering decades later. I would like to warn you that Alto is doing things all wrong. To quote Daniel Bélanger, another singer-songwriter I like, “it is all in the way you do it”, and Alto has clearly just failed its first test. I do not know how they are going to recover from this, but clearly in our neck of the woods—it is also going to run through Lanaudière, Mascouche, Terrebonne and so on—farmers and young families are saying the project should be stalled until they are consulted, because they want to be treated equally and have their say. As for the rail line, as hard as it is to believe, they are saying a rail line will be built somewhere in a strip not 60 metres wide, but 10 kilometres wide.”
“In response to a question from the member for Mirabel in the House, he wondered why the member for Mirabel did not rise to criticize the Quebec law on the grounds that its wording is the same as that of the federal law. That is false, completely false, particularly on the issue of appeals and compensation. Still, the Liberals continue to ask us to trust them. They want the people of Mirabel to say okay, they will allow the government to do what it has to do because the Liberals recognized that the airport was a mistake. Mirabel Airport was touted as the seventh wonder of the world in the 20th century, the project of the century that needed to be built fast so we had to act quickly. What happened? It was a huge disaster.”
“In April 2019, the Bloc Québécois, which is the only party that passes on the unanimous decisions and unanimous votes of the Quebec National Assembly, moved the following motion in the House: That this House acknowledge the 50th anniversary of the expropriation of land from Mirabel residents and that this House call on the government to formally and officially apologize to the people of Quebec from whom the federal government expropriated land in 1969 to build the Mirabel airport. At the time, some members who are in the House today voted against the motion. Today, they are introducing an omnibus bill that waives important provisions of the Expropriation Act, such as the ability to appeal compensation powers. Furthermore, the Minister of Transport is saying that people are not being accurate in their remarks.”
“They are certain that they know what the people of Mirabel need better than we do. On April 3, 2019, the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously passed a motion that had the unanimous support of MPs from Quebec. It seems to me that something unanimously passed by the National Assembly is something that a Quebec member of the House of Commons should be able to bring forward, table and put to a vote here, but no. Here is the motion: THAT the National Assembly mark the 50th anniversary of Mirabel residents' expropriation; THAT it demand that the Government of Canada formally and officially apologize to the Québec citizens who were expropriated by the Federal Government in 1969 for the construction of the Mirabel airport.”
“Some Quebec MPs tell us every day that there is no need for the Bloc Québécois to stand up and ensure the voice of Quebeckers is heard in the House of Commons. I have yet to hear them talk about the folks in Mirabel whose land was expropriated. I hear them talking about the big high-speed rail project, but not about the people whose land was expropriated to build Mirabel. I am not hearing them now. (1135) Our debate started an hour ago, but I have not heard them voice any intention of apologizing. Yes, Marc Garneau apologized, as an individual, and it was a gesture worthy of the man I respect, but this motion concerns a democratic institution, the people's assembly, which includes representatives of certain parties, one of them being the party in power. As they peddle their projects, the last thing they want to do is apologize.”
“The people in charge of major projects have to show respect for human beings first and foremost and not take them for fools, and they should not pass themselves off as promoters or peddlers, as the Minister of Transport is doing. Trust has to be earned. Crucial to earning people's trust for the high-speed train that will go through Mirabel, where a monumental, horrible mistake of historic proportions was made, is the recognition by this people's assembly of the pain, the suffering and the way people's lives were negatively affected. There must be an apology. The government has certainly had the opportunity to apologize. On the 50th anniversary of the expropriation of Mirabel residents, the Quebec National Assembly asked Ottawa to apologize.”
“The people in Mirabel will surely remember it, maybe with a tinge of sadness: In Forillon Park or St-Scholastique Gotta make way for tourists and airplanes Early mornin', gotta hit the bricks We're in the way, they explained Got played a damn dirty trick Chased off our homes, our lands, our country. I would add that they lost their health too. Some lost their families, and some never recovered from this betrayal. We are told here today, with all the sensitivity that technocrats like the member for Thérèse-De Blainville can muster, that a program could be implemented and that mistakes were made, but that people should get over it. That is not what is needed.”
“What is the deal with the so-called consultations that took place yesterday when people did not even know any consultations were happening? In the end, a few people attended, but the whole thing was just a public relations exercise. They were not real consultations at all. I will come back to this, but the government is simply pretending to recognize the mistakes of the past in this situation. Meanwhile, it has just given Alto the power to do whatever it wants and to do it quickly through Bill C-15 . It is all in the approach. I want to begin my speech today by quoting a song by Paul Piché that accompanied me throughout my teenage years. It really encapsulates today's debate.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is with some emotion that I address the House. Despite the fact that I have only just come back and that I am slowly recovering from pneumonia, I felt it was crucial that I speak. Since I am short of breath and the government's comments are enough to knock the wind out of a person, I hope I will make it to the end of my speech and, more importantly, that I will live up to the name of my riding by staying calm. First, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères . Right now, in the public arena, those who are speaking out in local newspapers are mayors, stakeholders and members of the Union des producteurs agricoles, or UPA, who are wondering what this is all about.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member moved me. He gave a moving speech, with an accurate assessment of the reality facing our farmers. Members will recall that, during the pandemic and toward the end of it, there was talk of food security and how important it is to be self-sufficient. We are faced with a bill, Bill C-15 , that gives absolute powers. In his speech, the member said that people lost their land and their homes. I would add that their physical and psychological integrity were harmed. There is no willingness to apologize on the other side of the House. Why does my colleague think that is?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am always somewhat astounded to hear my Conservative colleagues defend people who are struggling to make ends meet and talk about their unfortunate reality while continuing to lobby for an oil industry that is making huge profits, but whose profits are going into the pockets of Americans. We are studying a motion that aims to restore Canada's sovereignty over the United States. However, Pathways Alliance, which accounts for 80% of oil sands production, is 73% foreign-owned, with 60% of that ownership held by Americans. Those folks made $131.6 billion in profits. They paid out nearly $80 billion in dividends, three-quarters of which went to foreign shareholders, including 62% to American shareholders. Then the Conservatives come here and talk about Canada's sovereignty.”
“Madam Speaker, as this is my first speech of the year, I would like to welcome my colleagues to the House and wish them an excellent parliamentary session. We are studying a motion to restore Canada's sovereignty vis-à-vis the United States. Pathways Alliance members account for 80% of oil sands production and are 73% foreign owned, 60% of which is American. These companies made $131.6 billion in profits, $79 billion of which was distributed to shareholders, 62% of whom are American. Even so, people want to talk to us about sovereignty.”
“The Minister of Health must show political leadership so that women like Julie Elliott, Terri McGregor, Nancy Pratt, Isabelle Gaston and all other victims do not have to suffer any longer and so that their suffering is not in vain. Above all, we must prevent other women from experiencing similar suffering. When will the minister take action?”
“Mr. Speaker, in November 2023, the Standing Committee on Health tabled a unanimous report calling for a breast implant registry and the recognition of breast implant illness. Health Canada has been dragging its feet, and three years later, nothing has been done. This has been going on for 30 years. Shame on Health Canada for neglecting the health of generations of women in this way. Breast implants are associated with cancers, anaplastic large cell lymphoma, crippling fatigue, pain, severe weakness, stiffness, memory and concentration problems, rheumatoid arthritis, and the list goes on. Is this what we want for women?”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier on, the Liberal member for Mount Royal tried to convince us that Quebec's Bill 2 is what weakened the health care system, when in fact years of chronic underfunding are to blame for Quebec and the provinces' struggles to meet their obligation to care for people. The budget contains absolutely nothing for health care, apart from a measly $5 billion over three years for infrastructure. However, we know full well that a single hospital expansion project in Quebec can wind up costing about $4 billion. Does my colleague not think it is obscene that we are ending up with a $72-billion deficit, yet health care is not a priority?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is an MP from Quebec. He knows the extent of the crisis in Quebec's health care system. He is also very aware of the fragility of that system. Unfortunately, there is no new money in this budget. Worse still, the health transfer escalator will drop from 6% to 3%, which will once again weaken the provinces and Quebec. Does my colleague agree with me that this should not happen?”
“Mr. Speaker, the highest office in government must be transparent and beyond reproach. Doubt will remain as long as the Prime Minister is both a shareholder and decision-maker. For example, in October 2024, the Prime Minister helped to relocate Brookfield's head office from Toronto to New York. Seven months later, at the G7, he announced that U.S.-based companies would no longer have to pay the global minimum tax of 15% aimed at countering tax evasion. How much money did the Prime Minister save Brookfield and how much did he cost the public purse?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the Brookfield company assets still owned by the Prime Minister , which he placed into a blind trust. The Ethics Commissioner set up a conflict of interest screen for the Prime Minister. This screen is administered by two of his advisors, including Michael Sabia. However, Mr. Sabia also owned shares in Brookfield. He sold them to protect his Prime Minister. If Mr. Sabia sold his shares to protect the Prime Minister from any appearance of conflict of interest, why will the Prime Minister not do the same?”
“Considering that the expansion of the Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital is going to cost between $4 billion and $6 billion, this investment, which is for all projects from coast to coast to coast, is just a drop in the bucket. It is a drop in the bucket. Does my colleague not agree with me that the Liberals are wrong to boast and that this is misrepresentation?”
“Madam Speaker, no matter what the Liberals may say, this budget makes cuts to health care. It is clear even just looking at transfers. The escalator is going to drop from 6% to 3%, while system costs are 6%. Meanwhile, the Liberals are boasting. They are boasting that they are investing $5 billion in health care infrastructure to build hospitals, when in fact they are doing so over three years, and Quebec is set to receive only about $300 million. What is more, while the system is getting poorer and poorer because the escalator is not indexed to system costs, Ottawa is saying that Quebec will have to kick in $300 million itself.”
“If health care had been given the slightest priority, perhaps we could have supported this budget, despite the $78-billion deficit.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned the $5-billion investment in health infrastructure from coast to coast to coast over the next three years. That represents approximately $300 million per year for Quebec. At the same time, Quebec is being asked to invest the same amount. Also, in the same budget, we learned that funding for health care costs, which was supposed to be indexed at 6%, will be indexed at 3% for the next few years. The federal government is making Quebec poorer when it comes to health care costs. The government is offering $300 million, when expanding the Maisonneuve-Rosemont hospital alone could cost between $4 billion and $6 billion. They would have us believe that what is being offered to the provinces is huge, that it is fantastic, when we have just come out of a pandemic.”
“If it had been, we could have fast-tracked this bill rather than rehash all the meetings. It should be noted that, as a result of our work, Health Canada had already begun to make concessions, particularly on labelling and cost recovery. However, the government seems to want to go backwards, claiming that Bill C‑224 is no good and that Bill C‑47 is the bill that matters. That is what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons told us this morning. That is shameful.”
“If Health Canada is unable to enforce the rules, then why did it go from saying that 91% of natural health product companies were compliant in 2015 to suddenly claiming that 88% are no longer compliant? Well, that 88% refers to the 75 companies that we knew were problematic and that had been flagged as examples so that Health Canada could be asked why it was not doing its job. The industry wants criteria. What criteria will be used during visits and inspections? I have talked to everyone in the industry, and it is obvious that they want clear rules and enforcement of regulations. That is why I am not asking my colleague who introduced this bill for permission to table my amendments. I am just surprised that all the work done in committee, which everyone agreed on, was not included in Bill C-224 .”
“When a member is part of the government, it is hard for them to repudiate an initiative that comes from one of the most important government institutions, namely Health Canada, and its minister, who was probably misled. It is worth noting that ministers come and go, but senior public servants stay. At some point, it will be important to examine who really holds power within the government. I think it is time to start thinking about the power of the administration, which is not accountable to anyone and is not sitting on an ejection seat. Mistakes were made, things moved too quickly, an attempt was made to hide something that looked good on camera, namely tightening the rules.”
“In line with what I was saying earlier, the third amendment sought to prevent a model involving fines from being inappropriately applied to small and medium-sized businesses. We wanted to ensure the industry was safe while guaranteeing its long-term survival and preserving consumers' freedom to choose between a natural health product and a pharmaceutical product, or sometimes both. Just because Health Canada was not able to do its job, that does not mean that an entire industry should be destroyed. That is the crux of the issue. When Bill C-368 was being studied at committee, we managed to come to an agreement. The Liberals were reluctant at first, but they eventually came around. Many of them supported the opposition parties' approach. The NDP members completely agreed, and so did the Liberals, to some extent.”
“First, nicotine must be kept within the therapeutic products category. All nicotine-based products are therapies for quitting smoking. Nicotine is a highly addictive drug. That is what we did with the first amendment. That was also what the government and the minister at the time wanted. We presented that. In the second Bloc Québécois amendment, we ensured that the minister would have the power to order a recall, even though he has all the powers under the regulations. Need I remind members that recalls were voluntary? There have never been any alarming cases of people being resistant to recalls. We protected the minister's right to order recalls, which was already provided for under the regulations.”
“It took the cost recovery and penalties model that it uses for pharmaceuticals and applied it to natural health products. Need I remind the House that the pharmaceutical industry has 20-year patents? The same cannot be said of the natural health products industry. Need I also remind the House that there are no taxes on pharmaceutical products, unlike natural health products? The government takes in enough money to pay for a proper oversight system. This is what shocks me the most. I did my job, and I have kept in touch with all the groups. The industry is not at all resistant to change. What it wants is a system that allows it to survive over the long term. However, it also wants to rid its system of bad actors. The natural health products regulations were supposed to be ironclad. We decided that we needed to go a step further.”
“The Auditor General knew that these 75 products were already problematic and wanted to be able to tell Health Canada to do its job. In a panic, Health Canada decided to use an omnibus bill to introduce Bill C‑47 in an appendix. This bill purportedly championed consumer safety, but it threatened to kill an industry. Consumers must be able to make free and informed choices, but there must be products available for them to make free and informed choices about. When we talk about natural health products, we are not talking about large multinationals. We are talking about small and medium-sized businesses. Having cost-recovery provisions that allow the work to get done properly is not a problem. The problem is that Health Canada went for the simplest solution possible.”