Alain Therrien

[Housing, April 8th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, after pharmacare, dental care and medical assistance in dying, we thought that the federal government was done interfering in areas under Quebec's jurisdiction, but that is not the case. The Liberals have announced that, now, they also want to tell Quebeckers how to build housing.

We are talking about the same government that lost control of immigration, that caused the ArriveCAN scandal, that cannot pay its own employees through Phoenix, that caused an unforgettable passport crisis and that cannot manage its own borders. Imagine. This same government wants to tell the provinces and Quebec how to do things.

Seriously, are the Liberals not even a little bit embarrassed about this?

[Intergovernmental Affairs, March 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, their “no” list is so long that it stretches all the way to the north shore. I could go on and on.

Ottawa says no to transferring funds for infrastructure and housing, no to repatriating culture, no to establishing a single tax return, no to abolishing the monarchy. It is always no, no, no, no.

Gilles Vigneault said the following:

When you sow such a strong wind
You will reap the storm that's brewing
Perhaps you don't see your own undoing.

Do these parties realize that, after being told “no” time and time again, Quebeckers will soon be saying “yes”?

[Intergovernmental Affairs, March 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, we are barely one-third of the way through the parliamentary year, and the Liberals are already breaking records for refusing legitimate requests from Quebec.

They have said no to the right to opt out of pharmacare, no to the right to opt out of dental care, no to advance requests for medical assistance in dying, no to full powers in immigration, no to paying back the billion dollars for asylum seekers, and no to Bill 21. It seems like a competition. They have started a “no” pool, but they are in for a shock when the time comes to claim their prize.

Do they not realize that there is only so much disrespect Quebeckers can take?

[Privilege, March 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my comments to the question of privilege that the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier raised yesterday. Monday, at the very end of the debate on the NDP opposition motion, the government introduced an amendment in English only, and the House had to debate it without any French translation for the francophone members.

The Bloc Québécois acted responsibly just after the government introduced the amendment and had the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert inform the Speaker that it was impossible for the Bloc Québécois to continue the debate or to take a stance because the government's amendment was not available in French. In the end, members got access to the French version about 40 minutes later.

We are of the opinion that there is a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege, and I am asking you to rule accordingly and send the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Privilege, March 20th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to mention that the Bloc Québécois reserves the right to respond at a later time, but it will not take very long. We will come back fairly quickly with comments on the point of order raised by our Conservative colleague.

[Privilege, March 20th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that the Bloc Québécois reserves the right to make comments later, when it has properly analyzed the situation raised by my colleague from the Conservative Party.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, no one ever taught the Prime Minister that he could say yes, that he could be a partner, that he had a responsibility to offer solutions and compromises at the meeting on immigration.

The result is a great partnership, but no additional powers, no money for asylum seekers, no shared integration, no accelerated work permits and claims processing, not even a simple thought for integration capacity. As a matter of fact, on Friday in an interview, the Prime Minister said that this was a boring job.

Is that why the Prime Minister is not doing his job?

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the Premier of Quebec met with the Prime Minister to demand full immigration powers. The Prime Minister said no, but that is not all.

Did the Prime Minister commit to adjusting his immigration thresholds based on integration capacity? No. Did he commit to doing his fair share in welcoming asylum seekers? No. Did he commit to speeding up the processing of claims and granting of work permits? No. All day, he said no, no, no, no, no.

If he does not want to deal with immigration, why prevent Quebec from doing so?

[Dental Care, February 27th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, something even more urgent is the right to opt out of dental care with full compensation and no strings attached. Quebec already has its own system, and a public system at that, unlike the NDP and Liberal system, which invites the private health care sector right on in through the front door. Quebec has clearly stated its desire to improve its own system. If Quebec's health care innovations are good enough for Canada to imitate, Quebec must surely deserve respect for its expertise.

When will Quebec receive its unconditional share of federal dental care funding?

[Pharmacare, February 27th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, everyone should be concerned about the Liberal and NDP love of spending, but Quebeckers have yet another reason to be concerned: That spending is not in line with their priorities. The Liberals and the NDP are spending money to give Canadians things Quebeckers already have. First came child care. Then came dental coverage managed by the private sector. Quebec has its own publicly run dental plan. Now they want to give Canadians Quebeckers' pharmacare plan.

Given that they are just imitating Quebec's pharmacare expertise, will Quebec have the right to opt out with full compensation?

I think that should be obvious.