Alain Therrien

[Border Security, November 28th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has been asking the Liberals for weeks to increase resources at the border. For weeks, they have been telling us, in their typically condescending way, that they have a plan and that the Bloc Québécois is fearmongering.

However, in a dramatic turn of events, yesterday, the Prime Minister announced to his Quebec and provincial counterparts that the Liberals were going to do as the Bloc Québécois had been suggesting for weeks and increase resources at the border. They have just proved to everyone that, until last night, they had no plan and there were not enough resources at the border.

Why do the Liberals always have to wait until the last minute to take action?

[Committees of the House, November 25th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Honoré-Mercier said that he learned a lot from his defeat. Unfortunately, the member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent has never lost, so we do not know what his limitations are. I have lost three times, however, so I am a very learned person.

It is an honour for me to rise to bid farewell to our colleague from Honoré-Mercier. For a long time, he was part of the Liberal government that keeps interfering in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. We, in the Bloc Québécois, have often said that if anyone wants to look after Quebec's affairs, then they should just go to Quebec, so I thank the member for Honoré-Mercier for listening to the Bloc Québécois. Some say that the Bloc Québécois is not good for anything, but now members can see that we have our uses.

The member for Honoré-Mercier is the Mini-Wheat of the House of Commons. As members know, Mini-Wheats have one side that is frosted and one side that is healthy. The member has a rabble-rouser side and a wise side. Since I was the House leader of the Bloc Québécois when he was the government House leader, I got to know his wise side and, unfortunately, I got to know his rabble-rouser side too, as one can imagine. Let us just say that he liked to fan the flames and put on a show in the House. Honestly, we liked that. Even if the member for Honoré-Mercier did tend to do that, he does not have any enemies that I know of. Everyone thinks he is funny and kind, and we do too.

I want to say that I did not rise to speak because I like to pick fights. He often referred to Bloc Québécois members as grumpy smurfs because we are blue at heart, but that is not why I rose to speak.

I know I am not allowed to say his name in the House, but the member has a strategy I call the “Pablo technique”. He is cunning. During question period, I often have a block of two questions, and he knows that we have blocks of two or three. During his first answer, he goes easy on us because he knows there will be another question. In response to our last question, he then goes on a rant. That is when he makes us pay. He knows we cannot respond, even if what he is saying makes no sense. That is the “Pablo technique”. I do not know if anyone in the Liberal Party has caught on, but if the Conservatives end up on the other side at some point, I imagine the technique will have its fans, that is for sure. That is his fiery side.

He also has a wise side, which I know and appreciate. He is an upstanding man, like the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. They are cut from the same cloth. They are men of their word, great men. When it was time to put partisanship aside, the member for Honoré-Mercier would raise his hand. It was time to discuss and make progress on the issues.

I was the Bloc Québécois House leader, and I still am. My colleague was the government's political lieutenant in Quebec at the time. I do not know if he remembers this. One of the first times we met, I introduced myself and told him that I was his natural ally. I told him that I was the Bloc Québécois House leader and that my one and only goal was to protect the interests of Quebec. It was simple. His job, as I understood it, was also to stand up for Quebec's interests, since he was the government's political lieutenant in Quebec. I have to say that any time he, my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent and I discussed things and worked together, Quebec came out ahead. Many Quebeckers do not realize how many problems we solved together.

Things were intense during the COVID-19 crisis. I cannot even count the number of times a day we talked. I was talking to the member more than I was talking to my own wife. We were always on the phone and it was not always easy. I remember that the member for Honoré–Mercier told me that we were building a plane in mid-air. I thought it was pretty straightforward, but I suppose that was not always the case. Obviously, we had work to do. We had to roll up our sleeves, and that is what we did.

I always enjoyed working with my colleague. I have a great deal of respect for him. Unfortunately, sometimes, we talk about the member for Honoré–Mercier to people who do not come to Parliament Hill or who do not know him and they only see his rabble-rouser side. They find it to be a bit too much or something. They say that he is a piece of work, but I tell them that he is actually a great guy. I will never forget the work that we did together. Obviously, he loves Quebec in his own way, and I love Quebec in a different way. We need to respect the fact that we have differing opinions. We were supposed to go get a beer. He told me that at one point. Of course, he will get a Canadian and I will get a Blue, but we can still go get a beer and drink to our friendship. I hope that one day, we will do that.

I have learned a lot from my fellow House leaders. When I got here, I was appointed House leader of the Bloc Québécois, but I had no experience as an MP, so I was a little stressed out. I watched my colleague from Honoré-Mercier and later my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, and I learned a lot from them. I did not say it to my colleague from Honoré‑Mercier because I do not want his head to get too big. At some point, he may start thinking too highly of himself.

Obviously, it is hard for me to wish him a bright future, and understandably so. I hope the video clip of what I am saying today will not be used in Liberal ads during the 2027 election, because that would not go over well at all. I just wanted to spread it on a little thick and I am letting myself do that because he is leaving, and the least we can do is say something nice. Personally, I have known three great Argentinians: Diego Maradona, Lionel Messi and Pablo Rodriguez.

I want my parting words to him to be, “Until our next squabble, my friend”.

[Points of Order, November 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask for your interpretation of the impending conflict with our Standing Orders and procedures that you just raised.

Normally, the Chair does not intervene on hypothetical questions, but this one is becoming more and more likely every day and could have very real implications. As we know, we have two privilege motions before the House and probably a third one coming up. However, we also have to vote on the supplementary estimates that the government has tabled for consideration during the supply period ending December 10, not to mention the four remaining opposition days.

For some time now, many people have been wondering what will happen to the opposition days and the estimates this fall. On the one hand, Standing Order 48(1) states:

(1) Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.

As you mentioned earlier, page 151 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, explains what this means:

A privilege motion once under debate has priority over all Orders of the Day including Government Orders and Private Members' Business.... Should debate on a privilege motion not be completed by the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, this item will take priority over all other Orders of the Day at the next sitting. It will appear on the Order Paper under Orders of the Day before all other orders.

In fact, this has been our reality for the past two months. On the other hand, however, Standing Order 81(10)(a) provides the following:

In any calendar year, seven sitting days shall be allotted to the Business of Supply for the period ending not later than December 10....

Although we think of them as opposition days, they are actually intended for supplies that are, of course, listed in government orders. The use of the word “shall” in the Standing Orders implies that it is imperative that we have opposition days, and here is what we read at page 857 of Bosc and Gagnon:

If the government fails to designate the prescribed number of allotted days, the remaining days in that period will be designated by default.

That statement is important. It echoes Speaker Fraser's rulings on March 22 and 26, 1990, at pages 9628 and 9758 of the Debates. In the second ruling, he said the following: “The Standing Orders list the number of allotted days there will be in each supply period and where the Government has failed to designate sufficient days to meet the requirements of the Standing Orders, by attrition those days left in the period must become allotted days, when no other alternative is possible in order to comply with the Standing Orders.” That is what happened in this instance.

The events of 1990 are not identical to today's circumstances. In fact, there are a few distinct features to consider. First, Speaker Fraser's ruling was about the order of precedence for Government Orders. It was essentially intended to limit the government's usual flexibility in scheduling Government Orders. Today, we are dealing with motions of privilege that are different from and procedurally superior to Government Orders. Second, the old principle underlying our supply procedures is described as “grievances before supply”. It would be unwise for the government not to respect the power and authority of Parliament.

Consequently, we will only take up the matter of supply if, and only if, the House succeeds in adopting Government Orders on the scheduled dates. Page 151 of Bosc and Gagnon explains the following: “However, the debate does not interfere with Routine Proceedings, Statements by Members, Question Period, Royal Assent, deferred recorded divisions or the adjournment of the House”. We experience this on a daily basis, too.

Simply put, under our Standing Orders, all these things need to happen, and they are happening. Standing Order 81(10)(a) states that four more opposition days need to be held this fall. By way of analogy, does that mean that even if the privilege motions remain outstanding, we will debate opposition motions on December 5, 6, 9 and 10?

Mr. Speaker, I understand that these matters are important, and that is why I wanted to raise them immediately, both to give you time to reflect on them and to give the parties time to make arrangements in response to your decision.

[Official Languages, November 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's French language commissioner recommends that the Government of Quebec question the Government of Canada about the effects of its activities on French language situation in the Gatineau region.

That means that Quebec has to step in and tell Ottawa to stop anglicizing Gatineau and to stop anglicizing Quebec. This government is harming the French language. It is harming its future. It is harming the Quebec nation and its identity. It is harming Quebec. When will it stop walking all over us, all over the French language, and start showing some respect for French, the only common language of Quebec?

[Official Languages, November 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's commissioner of the French language released his latest report yesterday.

French is still in decline and, not surprisingly, the commissioner is accusing Ottawa of contributing to that decline. Anyone who goes to any federal department in Quebec can tell right away that the language of work for the federal government is not French. Ottawa is giving bilingual jobs to unilingual anglophones. Ottawa is ignoring its obligation to translate documents into French. Obviously, Ottawa could not care less about French.

The problem is, by disrespecting French, Ottawa is disrespecting Quebec as a whole. Does the government understand that?

[Canada Revenue Agency, November 19th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, that is impressive.

When it comes to crisis management, the Canada Revenue Agency is an example of what not to do. Here is the CRA approach to not solving a fraud problem. First, cover up the crisis until it makes the news. Second, conceal thefts of personal information from the Privacy Commissioner. Third, hunt down the whistle-blowers, not the scammers. I could not make this up.

In short, the CRA directors are more interested in avoiding blame than solving the problem. Their number one priority is to cover their butts.

Is the minister going to set them straight on their priorities?

[Canada Revenue Agency, November 19th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, Radio-Canada obtained documents proving that the Canada Revenue Agency has known for months that, when it comes to fraud, it is about as watertight as a sieve. It has known since November 2023 that scammers were receiving bogus tax refunds. Instead of sounding the alarm, the CRA is covering up the problem. The CRA is hiding it from taxpayers, who have been robbed of more than $100 million this year. It is keeping them in the dark about the fact that 31,000 of them had their personal information stolen.

Instead of trying to fix this, it decided to investigate its own employees to silence the whistle-blowers.

Will the minister clean house?

[International Trade, November 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, their excuse is that senators are independent, but the Prime Minister is the one who appointed them, including the two who are sabotaging Bill C-282. One of the two even used to advise the Prime Minister. What is more, the two even argue over which of them will get to sponsor government bills. I would hardly call that independent.

Let us be serious. The Prime Minister can and must demand that the Senate pass Bill C‑282 as it was passed here in the House. We are talking about the future of supply management. That is serious. Will all the party leaders in the House demand that senators vote against this amendment?

[International Trade, November 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the coming hours will be critical for our agriculture sector. Senators Peter Boehm and Peter Harder have literally sabotaged Bill C‑282. They amended it to prevent supply management from being protected in existing trade agreements.

Just think. Donald Trump wants to reopen the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, and these two guys want to serve him up supply management on a silver platter.

The Senate could vote on this amendment as early as tomorrow, so every party leader must speak out, starting with the Prime Minister. Will he ask the two senators to reject the amendment and save supply management?

[International Trade, November 7th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, senators Peter Harder and Peter Boehm confirm that the one thing they have wanted from the start is to kill Bill C‑282. Their amendment practically guarantees that supply management will be sacrificed again during the renegotiation of CUSMA with Donald Trump. They are attacking the votes of every party in the House. They are attacking 6,000 Quebec companies. They are attacking 100,000 Quebec workers. They are attacking our regions. They are ruining our producers and weakening our agricultural model.

I am addressing the government House leader, but this goes for all the parties here.

Is she going to ask senators to vote against this outright sabotage?