Alain Therrien

[Public Safety, February 18th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the rail blockades are holding the public hostage. In my riding, more than 3,000 people no longer have access to public transit.

Last week, I tried to contact the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations; no answer. I contacted the Minister of Indigenous Services; no answer. Then I found out that the questions need to be directed to the Minister of Transport, but I saw him on television saying that this is a provincial matter.

I know that the Prime Minister is in Africa and I wonder where the Deputy Prime Minister might be.

My question is simple: Who is going to address the concerns of my constituents?

[Request for Emergency Debate, February 18th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I rise today to request that the House hold an emergency debate on the issues that have motivated some indigenous communities to impose rail blockades and on the economic impact of those blockades.

As parliamentarians, we cannot remain silent and allow this conflict to get any further out of hand, a conflict that, with each passing hour, affects more and more citizens and affects the relationship between the federal government and indigenous peoples across Quebec and Canada.

The social climate has become volatile, and this crisis warrants an urgent response.

I am therefore officially submitting this request for an emergency debate, which I hope you will authorize as soon as possible.

[Justice, February 6th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, we learned that the English Montreal School Board has renounced government funding for its challenge to Bill 21. Even the school board thinks this situation is absurd. I hope the Liberals will realize the absurdity of the situation.

Will the government commit to stop all types of funding for future challenges to Bill 21? It needs to leave Quebeckers alone.

[Justice, February 6th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, responding to the Bloc, the Minister of Justice issued an invitation to challenge Bill 21.

At 2:27 p.m., he said, “There are Quebeckers who are currently challenging the bill in court, and that is the right forum.” The next day, we learned that the English Montreal School Board is challenging Bill 21 with money from Ottawa.

It is your money, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister finally be transparent and tell us whether he supports the Bill 21 challenge, no matter who it is from?

[Justice, February 6th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said during the election that he was not going to challenge Bill 21 at this time. The moment came yesterday with Quebec taxpayers' money.

François Legault said this morning that the Canadian Prime Minister was insulting Quebeckers. He said, “This is not insignificant. A national government that passed legislation with the support of the Quebec nation is being sued.”

My question is simple. Does the government acknowledge that it should not challenge Bill 21 with Quebeckers' money, against the will of Quebeckers?

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Dumping has been condemned by all industrialized countries and by the WTO. Everyone knows that the Chinese dump products, meaning that they sell their products at prices below the production costs. China is banned from exporting aluminum to Canada and the United States because of this practice. The solution is simple. China exports aluminum to Mexico, and the Mexicans turn it into auto parts, which they send to the United States to be used in auto manufacturing. That is how this agreement sanctions Chinese dumping in North America.

My question is very simple, and I hope to get a simple answer. The agreement that the government is so proud of has a 70% rule for aluminum car parts. Could that percentage include car parts manufactured in Mexico from Chinese aluminum? Is it possible that Chinese aluminum alone could be used to manufacture 70% of a car's parts?

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 3rd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech.

We were quick to speak out to protect jobs in the aluminum sector. I thank the member for asking me a question about this.

I find the government's interpretation of the agreement quite impressive. Everything the Liberals have to say makes me think that they have not read the agreement. That is not what we are talking about right now, but I find it impressive. I am very impressed to see that their interpretation is unfounded, based on the clauses in the document tabled in the House, but that is a whole other story.

I would like the opinion of the leader of the Green Party. Quebec has the cleanest aluminum in the world. We have not heard many people speak in favour of improving the environment around the world or within our country, in Quebec. We want to understand why the government never pointed out that the cleanest aluminum in the world will be tossed aside by the agreement. As has already been announced, this aluminum will soon be carbon neutral. What these companies are doing in Quebec is amazing. Under this agreement, Quebec aluminum will be replaced by another aluminum that is produced with coal and that creates eight times more pollution. It will create a billion times more pollution than carbon neutral aluminum. That divided by zero equals infinity, if I am not mistaken.

Why do we not hear the member talking about this?

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 3rd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge my colleague and thank him for his speech. He praised his government's negotiating skills and claimed that government officials stood up to the Americans.

In my earlier remarks, I said that aluminum dumping is happening in Mexico, which is processing the metal and redirecting it to other places in North America. In a way, that jeopardizes Quebec's aluminum production. This new agreement institutionalizes the idea of Mexico taking the aluminum being dumped in its market and using it to manufacture parts for the production of North American vehicles.

My question is simple. If federal officials stood up to the Americans, why did they capitulate to Mexico?

[Natural Resources, February 3rd, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, unless the Prime Minister is an environmentalist in name only, he should drop the rhetoric and start taking real action. He should have the courage of his alleged convictions. Rejecting the Teck Frontier project would be a good start. Approving it would be a total disaster. This project will release 160 megatonnes of greenhouse gases over its 40-year life span. That is twice the amount of greenhouse gases that Quebec emits in a year.

Will this government say no to a project that is harmful to Quebec, harmful to Canada and harmful to the entire planet?

[Natural Resources, February 3rd, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the government has less than a month to say yes or no to Frontier, Teck's mega-polluting megaproject. The project means 260,000 barrels a day and four million tonnes of greenhouse gases a year for 40 years. That is what is on the table. Many trees will have to be planted if we still want to meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets. The government has a choice to make.

The question is simple: Will it choose the Frontier project or the fight against climate change?