Alain Therrien

[Points of Order, November 29th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, you have previously stated in the House that questions must be related to government administration, that they must be relevant in order to be recognized by the House. Earlier, the leader of the Bloc Québécois put a question to the Prime Minister, and you were initially of the opinion that it was not related to government administration.

I want to share what was said by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which is part of the federal administration. The Commission states that statutory holidays related to Christianity, including Christmas and Easter, are an obvious example of systemic religious discrimination and that this discrimination against religious minorities in Canada is “grounded in Canada’s history of colonialism”.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking that you proceed more carefully in the future rulings you make on the relevance of questions because, in the case involving the leader of the Bloc Québécois, I do not think your decision was the correct one.

[Business of Supply, November 28th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, listening to the Conservatives is confusing. It is hard to tell where they are going.

We talk about the carbon tax. We say that it does not apply in Quebec. They continue to say that it does. We saw that earlier. We say again that it does not apply, and they keep saying that yes, it does apply in Quebec. We repeat that it does not, and they say that it applies indirectly. We simply do not understand them anymore.

When they talk about Ukraine, they stand up in the House and say that they are for Ukraine because they voted against Bill C‑57, which implements the Canada‑Ukraine free trade agreement. They are so twisted that now the Ukrainians are wondering what is happening with the Conservatives and why they are against Ukraine. The Conservatives need to stand up and set the record straight.

My question is very simple. When someone has no substance to offer, the only weapon they have left is intimidation, correct?

[Business of Supply, November 28th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the member rose in the House to say that my colleague from Jonquière is telling lies. What lies is he talking about? Can the member explain why they are lies? None of this makes sense. The member stood up and accused my colleague of telling lies. What lies? Can he prove that it was a lie? I think it is up to the person rising on a point of order to prove that.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, November 27th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, if integration capacity is not important, then why stop at 500,000 immigrants a year? Why not go as high as two million, or up to 10 million immigrants?

The government stops at 500,000 immigrants because, somewhere, it understands that there is a limit, that integration capacity is an actual thing. However, its target of 500,000 immigrants does not take housing into account. National Bank has told us so.

We know that the government did not talk to Quebec, so it does not take health care into account, it does not take education into account, it does not take French-language training into account and it does not take infrastructure into account.

I would like to know this: What is the target of 500,000 immigrants based on, if not those factors? Did it come from a Ouija board session?

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, November 27th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, in the middle of a housing crisis, Statistics Canada revealed that in just one year, rents went up 8.2%. That is higher than the rate of inflation. It is unheard of.

What is causing this? According to the National Bank, it is “an unprecedented increase in the...population”. The National Bank's chief economist says that “Unless Ottawa revises its immigration quotas downward, we don't expect much relief for...households”.

The National Bank is not against immigration. It is telling us that there is a problem.

Will the federal government finally admit it instead of insulting everyone when we talk about it?

[Health, November 23rd, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, it is right there in black and white: The government is threatening to cut health transfers if we refuse to swap our francophone workers for unilingual English doctors. Quebec does not need unilingual English doctors. We need doctors who can speak French and provide care in French. We need doctors that Quebeckers can explain their health problems to in their own language.

If the federal government wants to be useful, all it has to do is increase health transfers, and we will hire doctors.

Will the government stop taking Quebeckers' money and blackmailing them?

Enough is enough.

[Health, November 23rd, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, in its economic statement, the federal government seeks to encroach upon Quebec's jurisdiction over labour.

It wants to force interprovincial mobility on workers, especially health care workers. Otherwise, it is cutting health care funding. It forgot one thing, though: Things are done in French in Quebec.

For us, the plan means that bilingual workers from Quebec will be able to work elsewhere in Canada, but the workers who come to Quebec from unilingual anglophone provinces will be unilingual English doctors. In Quebec, things are done in French. This cannot work.

Instead of undermining quality of care in Quebec, could the federal government just mind its own business?

[Fall Economic Statement, November 21st, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, approximately 220,000 businesses are having cash flow problems that are preventing them from repaying the emergency loan. What I understood was that the government was unable to put a figure on the additional amount this would add to the budget. Personally, like many of my colleagues here, I believe that money paid to businesses that are struggling to survive is an investment.

I would like my colleague to comment on the calculations that seem to have been done, or not done, regarding the fact that if people are given extra time to repay their loans, there will be fewer bankruptcies and therefore more repayments. It may not even be an expense. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Fall Economic Statement, November 21st, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, we often hear the Conservatives bickering with the Liberals, but they are really one and the same.

The Liberals did not mention homelessness in the economic update, and nor did the Conservatives in their response. The Liberals are not talking about small businesses and are not helping them, since the government refuses to extend the repayment of the Canada emergency business account, or CEBA, loans by an additional year. The Conservatives never even mention it. The Liberals are doing nothing to help seniors. What are the Conservatives doing? They have nothing whatsoever to say about seniors.

The Liberals have given $82 billion in assistance to oil companies. Will those folks over there talk about it and eliminate those subsidies? On the contrary, the Conservatives are lobbyists for the oil companies. The Liberals do not talk about housing at all. The Conservatives, meanwhile, decided to do something original. They decided to blame the municipalities and punish them if they ever find out that they are not building enough housing.

It is a party of slogans and catchphrases. They have no substance. It is six of one and a half dozen of the other.

[Families, Children and Social Development, November 20th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, business owners are sick and tired of hearing those lines.

In the economic update, the minister will also have to keep her promise to families who can no longer afford groceries. During the election campaign, the Liberals promised $1 billion over five years to fund school meal programs. Tomorrow, the minister must fulfill this election promise. Fiscal restraint does not mean austerity, and certainly not on the backs of people who are having a hard time feeding their families.

Will the minister keep her promise tomorrow and announce the payment of funds for food aid in schools in Quebec?