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 3 of 3.
“Mr. Speaker, according to the Customs and Immigration Union, another 2,000 to 3,000 border officers are needed to protect border security properly. Does my colleague think that there is enough personnel to meet the bill's requirements?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Health studied the issue of the toxic drug crisis, and several witnesses told us that there needs to be better control of precursors, the substances used in the manufacture of drugs such as fentanyl. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about part 2 of the bill, which gives the Minister of Health additional powers with respect to precursors.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my colleague from Winnipeg North would agree with me that, in an organization as hierarchical as the Canadian Armed Forces, we cannot allow a code of silence to hide sexual abuse or discrimination, or allow it to exist at the highest levels of the armed forces. We cannot have a system where those responsible for judging it are part of it, and military justice clearly failed miserably in this case. To reassure my colleague, I want him to know that the Bloc Québécois supports the bill and will work in committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, looking beyond the sexual scandal and abuse of power highlighted in the 2015 Deschamps report, does my colleague not also find it scandalous that it took more than 10 years to draft legislation to address the culture of silence in the CAF?”
“Speaker, as I was saying earlier, the Conservatives are entitled to focus attention on Bill C‑242 , which will likely be studied soon enough since it sits 10th in line in the draw for private members' bills. Ever since the debate started, members have been urged to set partisan politics aside. At the same time, the Conservatives moved a motion that we will inevitably have to vote against because it is asking us to fast-track a bill that requires debate. The problem is, fast-tracking is designed to limit debate. In my opinion, bills can be better improved when we follow the usual process. This bill is not 267th in line. It is 10th in line. Today, the Conservatives are putting Bill C‑242 in the spotlight. If we study it in due course, we will probably be able to work together across party lines.”
“Madam Speaker, currently, subsection 515(10) of the Criminal Code sets out the bail conditions that a judge may impose. My colleague announced a bail reform bill. Is the government suggesting that judges are not doing their job properly?”
“Mr. Speaker, does my colleague from Les Pays‑d'en‑Haut agree with the Bloc Québécois that we need to crack down on criminal organizations, including by creating an organized crime registry similar to the registry of terrorist organizations? This would make it easier to prove that a crime has been committed for the benefit of a criminal organization. Does he agree that we should facilitate asset seizure by reversing the onus to avoid the dissipation of assets when an organized crime figure is arrested? Does he agree that we should create an explicit offence to criminalize the recruitment of young people to commit crimes?”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Quebec Centre. He invoked the principle that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” by reminding us of everything that needs to implemented before crimes are committed. We agree on that point. Would my colleague agree with the Bloc Québécois that something needs to be done about the amount of time before an accused person is brought to trial? Would he be in favour of making sure the Jordan decision does not apply to certain serious cases, such as sexual offences, murder, kidnapping, offences involving firearms or acts of terrorism?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has also suggested ways to crack down on organized crime. Using an opposition day to focus on a private member's bill is fair game. As I understand it, Bill C‑242 is 10th on the list of private members' bills coming up for debate in the House. Why fast-track it today when we do not even know the bill's status? Is it going to be ruled in order or not on the basis of constitutionality? I have the same question as my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj . What is lacking in subsection 515(10) of the Criminal Code that would prompt us to fast-track Bill C‑242?”
“We are asking it to withdraw its ridiculous factum that claims that the danger of the notwithstanding clause is that it could lead a legislative assembly to abolish unions. I would love to see a party in a legislative assembly manage that. I would just want to see if it gets re-elected and how things turn out in its province or in Quebec. Shutting down newspapers and churches? Give me a break. It is one thing to say that public institutions must be neutral and secular in order to prevent polarization. If someone wants a church or a Jewish school, they can pay for it. We have no problem with that. No one is being forced to stop practising their religion, except in public institutions, because everyone pays taxes. (1825) Secularism is a humanist principle. That is why we are asking the government to withdraw its factum.”
“Quebec has passed a law on advance requests for degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's. The Liberals have rejected the idea outright. However, 87% of Quebeckers want us to move in that direction, and the Criminal Code is not aligned with the Quebec law. I have not seen the 44 current Liberal members come forward and say that it is appalling that the Criminal Code is not aligned with Quebec law. These are just examples. We are faced with a legal stance that devalues the role of the legislative assemblies. I think that in today's debate, we saw Liberals who lacked courage. In fact, only one of them showed any courage. What we are asking the government to do is not that complicated.”
“At some point, the public tells the government to come up with a law that complies with the Constitution or else it will be ousted. What we are doing here is devaluing political power. It has been that way for years, and the charter gave rise to the relationship that Canadian politicians have had with the court. Take medical assistance in dying, for example. The Parliament of Canada has always lagged behind the Supreme Court. The justices forced the Canadian Parliament to pass laws, because it was too far behind to represent the people and do what the people were asking it to do. That meant people's freedom, right to life and freedom to choose were infringed. I did not see a lot of people on the other side rebelling over that. However, we are being lectured a great deal about rights and freedoms.”
“This means that if the Supreme Court says that the legislation unreasonably infringes a right guaranteed in the charter, we have options. The notwithstanding clause can remain in place for five years, allowing time for a review, especially if the goal is to change the law and bring it into compliance after five years of debate in the legislature that is violating the charter. What is happening here subordinates and devalues the parliamentary democracies in Quebec and the provinces. That is where the debates should take place. The other option is to change the Constitution. I do not know of any law that was put in place with the notwithstanding clause and that has been re-enacted ad infinitum, because a debate eventually takes place in a parliament.”
“The Supreme Court justices must interpret the laws we enact in accordance with section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (1820) A charter right can be infringed within reasonable limits if it can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. On the substance of the issue, which the Liberals refuse to speak to, the courts can rule on Bill 21. How, exactly, is freedom of religion or conscience infringed beyond reasonable limits? When Quebeckers had the Canadian Constitution shoved down their throats, Jean Chrétien boasted about the notwithstanding clause in a little book I have at home and should have brought with me to quote from. He said, for the benefit of those who may not know, that parliaments must be above the courts.”
“Intercultural relations are the common denominator of our shared existence. Our different roots join us together. In Quebec, everything happens in French. As I said, there is a separation of church and state, and gender equality is enshrined. That goes hand in hand with the separation of church, religion and state. Every religion I know of subordinates women to men. If anyone knows one that does not do that, please rise and tell me. The problem we are seeing in this debate is a misunderstanding of a phenomenon known as the legalization of politics. What is that? The Canadian Parliament is well versed on this subject. It always waits for the courts to rule before changing laws. However, we, the representatives of the people, are the ones making the laws.”
“The proof is that we are bringing our point of view to the House and, as long as we pay taxes, we have the right to be represented. I am a child of the Quiet Revolution, which was unquestionably a time of political and sociological effervescence. We transitioned from a society where institutions were entirely denominational to a secular, neutral society. A look at conflicts around the planet shows that any time religion found its way into a political agenda, things went off the rails. Polarization would happen, leading to wars and intolerance. That was why Quebec decided to separate church, religion and state. Quebec is a francophone nation in a sea of 370 million anglophones. We adopted a way of living together in harmony built on a cultural convergence centred on three essential principles.”
“He wrote: “Had Quebec not been guaranteed these substantial powers—and hence protection from being forced to submit to English Canadian majority decisions—either it would not have joined the Canadian federation or it would have seceded soon thereafter.” Yet Quebeckers are the ones viewed as nasty separatists who, seated astride the high horse of our linguistic majority, trample upon rights and freedoms. There has to be a solution, but that is a bit much. One thing is certain: All independence activists throughout history have demonstrated their commitment to the foundations of democracy. We did not pull out bazookas. When the referendum was stolen from us and we lost in 1995, we continued to pay taxes to Ottawa. We continued to respect Canadian parliamentary democracy.”
“Mr. Speaker, no Quebec premier, whether federalist or sovereignist, signed the Canadian Constitution. Why is that? Because, lectures about respect for minorities aside, the Constitution took away our status as a minority and as a nation. Pierre Elliott Trudeau's fantasy about establishing bilingualism and biculturalism foundered in the murky depths of a ghettoizing multiculturalism that failed to foster interculturalism. Even Will Kymlicka, a scholar of multiculturalism, says that multiculturalism is unsuitable for a minority nation such as Quebec.”
“We asked the question twice, there was a debate twice, and the rest of Canada said that we were not even a distinct society. (1815) I want to remind my colleagues of something that has often been said: No Quebec premier, whether federalist or sovereignist, has ever ratified the Canadian Constitution. I just wanted to remind the 44 Liberal members who are lecturing us about the fact that they have a majority in the House. No—”
“When a human community established within a given territory has its own language, history, culture and heritage, when it is aware of its specificity, when it is driven by a desire to endure in history, and when it is organized around a common goal, then a nation exists. The people of Quebec form a nation. The fact that the House symbolically recognized Quebec as a nation has no legal impact. The Liberals paid lip service to it the second time. The government does not want this recognition enshrined in the Canadian Constitution. If it were, we would not be talking about what we are talking about today. Indeed, the Constitution would guarantee specific provisions to allow Quebec to have historical continuity. That is fundamental. Quebec is not just a distinct society.”
“When I hear Liberals talking about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution, I get the impression that it is locked up tight with five padlocks, that it must not change and that it is the most accurate representation of the reality in Canada and Quebec. We are talking about the sociology of law in the sense that laws are not immutable. They change with the times in so-called free and democratic societies, obviously. Otherwise, it becomes a democracy of judges or a dictatorship in other cases. Before I address the federal government's claim that the notwithstanding clause has been misused, I will provide a historical overview to understand the context in which Bill 21 came to be.”
“The democratic ideal is rooted in the sovereignty of the people. The Canadian government used our money to fund groups to challenge Bill 21 all the way to the Supreme Court. It had to be said. All day long, the Liberals have refused to take a position on the substance, except for the member for Bourassa , who had the courage to say he was against Bill 21. Everyone is hiding behind the technical detail of the notwithstanding clause as though it were being abused. Iwill come back to that. However, I would point out that, in law, legitimacy is the basis of legality, not the other way around. There have been many laws throughout the history of humanity that were passed but were not legitimate. For instance, I am thinking about segregation laws. To understand today's debate, we need to look at the sociology of law.”
“Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a very friendly suggestion to my colleagues that they read a book that taught me a lot on the topic of this debate, since there seems to be some misunderstanding about it. The book is entitled The Charter of Rights and the Legalization of Politics in Canada . My colleagues can take notes. It was not written by a Bloc member, a sovereignist or a separatist, as the member for Winnipeg North would say. It was written by Michael Mandel, a professor of constitutional law at York University in Toronto. If my colleagues want to be proactive, reading this book will help them understand the debate we may have to have about Bill 96. That legislation may be reviewed by the Supreme Court. I want to begin by saying that I am a sovereignist and separatist. I am a democrat because I am a sovereignist and separatist.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courage of the member for Bourassa, who, unlike many of his colleagues, has spoken out on the substance of Bill 21. I find that very courageous. He opposes Bill 21, a bill that was democratically passed by the Quebec National Assembly. I do not know where he was in 1982, but I think he has forgotten something about the history of Canada and Quebec, specifically that the people of Quebec are a minority. In 1982, our status as a linguistic minority was usurped and our status as a nation was usurped. The minority he is talking about, the Quebec linguistic minority, is surrounded by 370 million anglophones. Where is his minority?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague claims that it is not the substance of the issue that is at stake, but rather the issue of the notwithstanding clause, which is not strictly a Quebec issue. I have a very simple question for him. What does he think of Bill 21?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his eloquent speech. It covers all the essential elements of our cause. Since the Constitution was repatriated in 1982, a phenomenon known as the judicialization of political space has taken hold. In other words, we are constantly sending issues to the courts when we lack the courage to resolve them politically. If the Liberals object to the notwithstanding clause and want to return to the spirit of the 1982 Constitution, could they not reopen the Constitution? What does my colleague think of that political position? It seems like cowardice to me.”
“Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the debate since this afternoon. On one side, we have the Liberals engaging in wilful hypocrisy, and on the other, the Conservatives engaging in wilful blindness. The arguments we are hearing in today's debate in the House are arguments we have been hearing for the past 30 years. Economic interests are being promoted over environmental interests. In a world where the climate is changing, where our forests are burning and our lands are drying up, where flash floods are causing our vegetables to rot in the fields, which is a huge problem for our farmers, and considering that climate change will impact the cost of living, how much longer can we remain wilfully blind to environmental interests?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for using this bill to share his vision of what Canada is. I see that he recognizes the origins of this country in three nations coming together. However, the Bloc Québécois has been criticizing the concept of a postnational Canada for a long time, first of all because it undermines the Quebec nation's struggle to have our distinctiveness recognized and respected. If this is my colleague's vision of Canada, does he not believe that the Quebec nation should be part of the Canadian Constitution, in black and white?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for reviewing this bill's trajectory to date. It was debated in the House at second reading, and, had it not been for the election and, to a certain extent, the systematic obstruction of the business of the House, it probably would have been passed already. The Bloc Québécois would like to see a complete overhaul of the immigration system because it is not working well as is. To be clear, though, we do support this bill. In my colleague's opinion, why are we still debating this bill at second reading when it has already been passed at this stage and people still want—”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have spent all day criticizing the broken immigration system, and that is fair enough. We feel the same way and agree with their criticism. However, was it worth spending an entire day debating the principle of a bill that basically poses few problems? My colleague believes so. Given that my colleague identified some things that he agreed with and others that he did not, are we to understand that, when it comes time to pass this bill in principle, the Conservatives would be against sending this bill to committee and would rather appeal the Superior Court ruling?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary Centre's speech was a continuation of the criticism over the government's inept handling of the immigration file. The Bloc Québécois has asked hundreds of questions on the issue, particularly about Roxham Road and about the Century Initiative and its target of 500,000 immigrants a year. However, there was a court ruling, and we must respond to it. In his speech, my colleague said that there are big holes. Am I to assume that if the Conservatives were in power, they would appeal the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling? If so, on what grounds?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand what injustice this bill is remedying. Let me give another example. I will speak slowly so my colleague can give me the right answer. I would like to talk about the case of Jean-François. His father was born abroad. Jean-François was born abroad when his father was doing his Ph.D. in the United States. Despite the fact that he came to Quebec at the age of three months, grew up and lived his entire life in Quebec, his daughter was unable to get automatic citizenship. Does Bill C‑3 correct that injustice? If so, under what conditions? If not, why?”
“Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, I would like my colleague to tell me if he agrees that the situation I am about to describe should be resolved. Here we have the case of the child from the Brooke-Bjorkquist family. The child was born in Geneva in 2010 to his parents who were working abroad for the Government of Canada. Despite the fact that the child was born to two Canadian parents and she returned to Canada when she was one, under the current provisions of the legislation, she could not follow the same path as her parents, in other words work abroad, give birth to her child and have that child be a Canadian citizen. Does my colleague not think it is important to correct that situation?”
“When I think of Mascouche, I think of Jardin Moore, the equestrian trail, the walking trail on the seigneurial estate, the beautiful farmland, the Chez-Nous du Communautaire des Moulins co-operative, festivals like Grande Tribu, CHAPO, Frissons and Octenbulle, as well as the Côte à Côte theatre and the many family-friendly celebrations that make Mascouche a great place for young families. I wish the people of Mascouche a happy 275th anniversary.”
“Mr. Speaker, Mascouche is celebrating its 275th anniversary. This city, whose name comes from an Algonquin word meaning “bear cub”, is one of the oldest communities in Quebec. Known for its history and architectural heritage, this city has transcended time and has has reinvented itself from one century to the next. What sets it apart is the special way it blends nature and bucolic charm with a vibrant city life. This duality gives it a certain je ne sais quoi that creates a unique atmosphere. I know what I am talking about, as I have lived there for 35 years.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a comment, which my colleague can share his thoughts on afterward. Does my colleague not find it contradictory, or at the very least curious, that our banker Prime Minister called in King Charles to distinguish himself from the U.S. but that the first thing he did was sign a Trump-style order, implying that he did not need the House for it to be implemented? At the same time, the House adopted a motion telling him that we want a budget or, at the very least, a serious economic statement. Is this Prime Minister not just another monarch, flouting parliamentary democracy?”
“Mr. Speaker, since the start of this debate and since the start of the session, it is as though I have been listening to some pie‑in‑the‑sky promoters of a start‑up focused on nation building and on building the one and only Canadian economy. I would like to know specifically when and how the initiatives to help businesses and workers will be implemented and how the budget will be balanced in three years. The member said that he has a plan, so let us hear it.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is a banker turned Prime Minister who, when pressed about his lack of transparency, shuts us down, saying that he understands the issue, that he would not be in politics if not for the crisis and that he is going to do what it takes to get all workers and families through the crisis. This is not a normal situation. We can all agree on that. It would have been great if we could at least have had an economic statement to help us understand how we can reduce taxes and balance the budget in three years, while helping businesses, families and workers without the revenue from the retaliatory tariffs. That is a magic wand. Does she know what the banker Prime Minister's magic wand is?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not a banker like the Prime Minister , but something is not working. On the one hand, we are being told that the government will balance the budget in three years. On the other hand, the government is cutting taxes and abolishing the retaliatory measures that would have helped workers and businesses, even though it knows that it will also have to help them. What is wrong with this reasoning?”
“No one is going to turn down apple pie, but how can we do our job, question the government and demand accountability regarding these tax cuts when we have no idea what the budgetary framework is?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague how, considering our job description, we are supposed to be able do our work when the government is so lacking in transparency when it comes to being accountable. Before the election, he gave the Minister of Finance a mandate to prepare a budget. Before and during the election, it was ready. There was no issue. Now, after the election, the government is not sure it will be able to table a budget. However, the Prime Minister put on a big show during a meeting, and now it seems tax cuts will be rolled out by edict, as if that is how things work in Canada. The House of Commons must take a stand on this. This is not the Oval Office in the White House.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Marc‑Aurèle‑Fortin used to sit in the Quebec National Assembly, as he himself said. He knows that a unanimous consensus among all parties in the Quebec National Assembly on an issue as important as pharmacare does not happen every day. Quebec asked for full and unconditional compensation so that it could enhance its own plan. Will the member be an ally by ensuring that this can be done, with the unanimous support of the elected representatives of the people of the Quebec nation?”
“Mr. Speaker, from the beginning, the Liberals have been bragging about the dental care program. Basically, they are proud of the objective, which is for there to be greater coverage. Everyone agrees on that. Quebec agreed. The problem is that Quebec wanted control over that program with its fair share so that it could improve its own program, notably the RAMQ, which managed it. What did they do? They sent it to a private company, where administrative costs run upwards of $2 billion a year. Does my colleague think that is good management?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the fentanyl crisis, a terrible crisis that we have been discussing and working on for a year at the Standing Committee on Health. He raised the issue of treatment. We heard from experts and parents who say that relapsing is part of the recovery process. What does my colleague think about the national strategy based on four pillars? I think we need to increase co-operation and improve its impact.”
“Mr. Speaker, there were about 40 Liberal MPs between 2015 and 2019, including five ministers. That did not stop the Liberals from buying Trans Mountain, in spite of Quebec's environmental views. In the last Parliament, there were about 30 Liberal members from Quebec. That did not stop the Liberals from going against a unanimous motion from the National Assembly that called on the federal government to give Quebec its fair share for the dental care insurance program. Since the RAMQ was already administering part of that care, this would have allowed it to improve its own plan. The Liberal members let their government do as it pleased. How can we be sure that the 44 current members from Quebec will not continue to represent the government to Quebeckers instead of representing Quebeckers to the government?”
“Mr. Speaker, this is my first time speaking in the 45th Parliament, so I just want to take a moment to thank the people of Montcalm for giving me for a fourth term. I want them to know that I will strive to meet their expectations. My colleague talked about the dental care program. This insurance program absolutely needs to be expanded. However, I have here a unanimous motion from the National Assembly. She talked about the 44 members from Quebec in the House who will stand up for Quebec's interests. This motion was adopted unanimously by the MNAs of Quebec from all parties. They said that they wanted the right to opt out of dental insurance with full compensation so they could improve their own plan. Are the 44 members going to represent the voice of the National Assembly here in the House?”