Alain Therrien

[Government Response to Petitions, May 26th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, they had plenty of time to stand up. I do not know what happened.

Maybe they were on sick leave?

In any case, it hardly matters. They did not stand, so I think the decision should be easy to make.

[Employment, May 25th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals raised almost $3 million in the first few months of 2020, while the Conservatives raised $4 million. They are rolling in cash. They can pay their staff, but they are asking families to chip in and pay them. Why? It is partisanship. They are asking Quebeckers who lost their jobs to pay party staff because they do not want to dip into their election funds.

I will ask my question. I have wanted to ask it for a long time.

Why is it so difficult for the Liberals to keep their hands out of the cookie jar?

[Proceedings of the House and Committees, May 25th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, we agreed ahead of time that the $73-billion wage subsidy program would be for SMEs, to help their employees keep their jobs. That is the mandate we collectively gave ourselves, so that these SMEs, which are enduring unbelievable hardship, could survive the crisis without going bankrupt. However, it has now emerged that the richest party in Canada made use of this wage subsidy program.

Does my colleague have no qualms? She is a Conservative Party member who is applying for money from a program that was originally intended for business owners with financing problems that are facing bankruptcy.

[Proceedings of the House and Committees, May 25th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, the $73-billion wage subsidy was negotiated about a month ago. I was surprised that the Conservatives were on board with that. Typically, when it comes to public finances, they are very careful and quite sanctimonious. However, they agreed to the $73-billion wage subsidy for workers.

My question is simple. Did the Conservative Party plan to use that program to pad its coffers?

[Proceedings of the House and Committees, May 25th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, on April 20, we discussed the $73-billion wage subsidy. The program is so big that even the two richest parties in Canada used it. Imagine that. In a motion that we negotiated with the government, we said that we wanted a program to help people and businesses through the crisis by subsidizing fixed costs. We all agreed that this important program was needed. Almost nothing was done. The government implemented a weak, poorly designed program. We asked the Liberals to keep the promise they made on April 20. Before we even started the latest negotiation, the government said that it had kept its word, even though that is not the case.

I have a question for the government House leader. How can I negotiate with someone who does not keep their word?

[Proceedings of the House and Committees, May 25th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, the government's motion was a proposal and, like every proposal, it is subject to negotiation.

We have often negotiated with the government, as we did on April 29 when we created the Canada emergency student benefit, the CESB. During the negotiations, the Bloc Québécois was of the opinion that a student who works more hours must automatically earn more money, no matter the circumstances. The government made a commitment to act on this proposal. The Deputy Prime Minister personally confirmed the government's commitment and agreed to follow up with the Bloc Québécois. Three weeks later, we have heard nothing more—it has been radio silence.

I like to negotiate with people of good faith who keep their word. Is it possible to negotiate agreements with a government that does not keep its word?

[Canadian Dairy Commission Act, May 13th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the money was never spent. When he says that, he is mistaken. The $4 billion was never spent.

My father always used to tell me to study history to avoid repeating the same mistakes. Looking at that party's history, I can say that, most of the time, they did not walk the talk.

[Canadian Dairy Commission Act, May 13th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, in the history of Canada, the enactment of the British North America Act of 1867, which became the Constitution, has led to many problems. My colleague speaks of agricultural problems and the fact that the Constitution does not properly address Quebec's realities. It is not surprising. Anyone with any knowledge of history and the contents of this document knows that a constitution sets out the division of powers, authorities and responsibilities. If there were a better understanding of this document, there would be a better understanding of current problems. I spoke about health earlier, but this also applies to agriculture. Unfortunately, we forget that the answers are often in this document, but that is an undeniable fact.

[Canadian Dairy Commission Act, May 13th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the member can ask any farmer if they would rather get a cheque from the government or conduct operations on the ground and grow their business, and his questions will be answered.

I am not done, and I have more to say. The $4 billion the previous government promised was not enough. All farmers and dairy producers agreed on that. Plus, that money never showed up, and the change in government is no excuse. The Conservatives are good at pointing the finger at the Liberal government. That money was not enough, and dairy producers said so back then.

[Canadian Dairy Commission Act, May 13th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, French is the official language of Quebec. I will always speak French. If the member does not like that, it is not my problem. The member is upset because I am not speaking English, but in Quebec, the official language is French. That is why I will always address the House in French. I hope nobody here would question my right to do so. I do not need anyone giving me a hard time for speaking French.