MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Luc Thériault

Follow by RSS

Thériault pushes for the government to disburse $600 million set aside for the cultural sector, upholds the CRTC’s levies on streaming platforms, and backs Bill C-261 to increase seniors’ income. In debate he often drifts off the matter at hand, musing that “in a documentary from the early 1980s” a computer whiz predicted screen relationships. He also defends medical assistance in dying for mental disorders.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
85 / 100 over 21 statements
Signal 78 / 100
Relevance 83 / 100
Respect 98 / 100
Clarity 96 / 100
Averaged over the 21 of 25 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.2.1 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.1

Loses points less than most for A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean

Statements 25

Government Orders ·

Safe Social Media Act

“Psychologists told our committee that chatbots can cause severe mental harm to adults in as little as 72 hours. Companies that make this technology should be held responsible for the harm they cause and should have to pay victims.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, if I were a bit of a joker, I would ask my colleague to repeat what he heard. In any case, in a documentary from the early 1980s, if I remember correctly, entitled Comme en Californie, a computer whiz tells the interviewer that, one day, human beings would enjoy relationships more in front of a screen than in real life. Now that may be happening. During a study on AI and the harms of artificial superintelligence at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, psychologists told us that, right now, chatbots can induce psychosis in people, even adults, who had no such symptoms before being in contact with a chatbot. That could take just 72 hours. Would my colleague agree that the companies that manufacture this type of technology should be liable for the harmful effects and that compensation should be provided when such effects occur?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“The Prime Minister travels the world and misses most debates in Parliament. He brings a big investment company along with him, but he will not answer to us. He should come to committee to explain his plans, including spending $150 billion on a project that has no business case and destroys farmland in Quebec. I want to hear what the member thinks about this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said that Stephen Harper never appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance. However, Stephen Harper did not have a 27% attendance rate at House of Commons debates. The fact remains that the Prime Minister travels all over the world. He is involved in foreign policy. He is always closely followed by Brookfield, whether in Saudi Arabia, India or at an announcement about condos in British Columbia. We even wonder whether this company might not be his economic and political right-hand man. However, he does not come to talk to us. He could come talk to us in committee about his vision of investment, or rather his obsession with investment. He is willing to invest $150 billion in the Alto project, although there is no business case, and to destroy the 2% of farmland we have left in Quebec. I would like to hear the member’s comments on my remarks.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“The government failed to follow the broadcast regulator's decision on levies. I want to know if the compensation will come from the whole budget or from the undisbursed $600 million. Charging levies works in Europe, would bring in much more money, and would not cost taxpayers.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Respect 85 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “in his usual fashion, the hon. member for Bourassa is lecturing us on morality”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in his usual fashion, the hon. member for Bourassa is lecturing us on morality. Everyone but him has their facts wrong and plays politics. I will take the high road and simply ask him whether it is the entire budget that has been chosen as compensation for failing to abide by the CRTC’s decision, or if it is $600 million. It is the $600 million that was set aside as interim funding to compensate the government’s failure to abide with the CRTC’s decision on levies but that has not yet been disbursed. The levies would generate much more than these $600 million. Moreover, in terms of affordability, that sum would not be paid by taxpayers. If it works in Europe, why would it not work here in Canada?

In response to a question from Mario Simard

“The government is giving up $4 billion by refusing to make American web giants pay fees. Instead, it is using $600 million of taxpayers' money to help our cultural sector. The government is giving in to bullies. I want the House to pass our motion so our cultural industry gets that $600 million right now.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is the context. We are forgoing $4 billion by not standing up to the Americans and the web giants that come here and make money at our expense. The Liberals say this will strengthen their position in trade talks. They are prepared to make concessions. The government talks about how much it cares about the cultural sector and says that is why it is offering $600 million in lieu of the levies. The thing is, that $600 million is taxpayers’ money. On top of that, the government would have people believe that affordability is the reason it is not moving forward with the CRTC’s decision, even though the CRTC has the authority to impose these levies on billionaire web giants. That is the problem. The government is not standing its ground. It is not being “elbows up”. Instead, it is yielding to the bully and trying to sugarcoat a bad decision with this $600 million. By the way, our motion is about getting that $600 million out the door right away because the cultural industry has been waiting for 16 months.

In response to a question from Dalwinder Gill

“In Europe, a 20% fee on streaming services did not make life more expensive for French taxpayers.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the European experience shows that a 20% levy has no impact on affordability for French taxpayers.

In response to a question from Marilyn Gladu

“The government needs to collect fees from tech giants through the CRTC. That would raise billions of dollars for culture. Then the government could spend its $600 million on other sectors hurt by tariffs instead. Giving in to American tech companies makes no sense.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 38 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that failing to implement the levy solution through the CRTC amounts to foregoing billions of dollars that could be used to support all the sectors the member just mentioned. The government claims that it cares so much about culture and that a one-time injection of $600 million would solve the problem in the midst of a tariff crisis. In the same breath, it says that other sectors also need support. This does not add up. A solution that would generate billions of dollars for the cultural sector is available. Other sectors need investment. If the levies had been implemented, the $600 million earmarked for culture could have been directed to those sectors during this tariff crisis. The government’s position is illogical, and it is kowtowing to the U.S. tech giants.

“The government backed down to American streaming companies and cancelled fees that support our culture. Now it wants taxpayers to cover that $600 million instead. I want the House to pass our motion to pay that promised $600 million right now and force online streaming services to pay their share.”
  • A repeated line

    “As set out in the Broadcasting Act.”

    Said 4 times by 4 members since October 22.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Quebec is a nation, one to which this House sometimes pays lip service in order to downplay the legitimate aspirations of Quebeckers. Here in North America, we are a minority and are different: the village of the indomitable Gauls, francophones drowning in a sea of anglophones. We need to nurture and cherish that difference, despite the fact that the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord did not recognize even the concept of a distinct society. Culture, our culture, is one of the pillars that shape our identity. It is a force that brings us together to laugh, reflect, cry, create and work. The cultural industry is a treasure that showcases and presents who we are. Despite its claims to the contrary, culture is far from a priority for the current government, which is using concessions on this file in a futile attempt to curry favour with the U.S. administration to the benefit of the major U.S. digital platforms. By going ahead with abolishing levies for online streaming platforms, the government is causing experts such as Catalina Briceño to wonder whether it is putting our cultural ecosystem at risk of being dismantled. She warns that by exempting online streaming platforms from levies intended to support Canadian content, Ottawa is putting an entire industry at risk. As she explained, after the Prime Minister stressed the importance of being “at the table” when international decisions are being made, he now risks putting our cultural gains “on the menu”. He is doing so without the slightest hesitation. We cannot and must not accept that. That is why, on this opposition day, the Bloc Québécois is asking the government to make the interim payment of $600 million promised to the cultural sector for the current year and to uphold the CRTC’s decisions imposing levies on streaming services. There are some things in this life that are inevitable and money is one of them. To survive and thrive, the cultural sector also needs a real infusion of funding, stable financial support that will help it reach its full potential. Unfortunately, since money does not grow on trees, on May 21, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, issued a regulatory policy based on the Broadcasting Act that was intended to force online streaming companies to triple their investment in Canadian programming by allocating 15% of their revenue to the creation of local content, rather than 5%. This CRTC policy sparked a rather predictable outcry from the major American streaming platforms who consider local culture to be a thorn in their side. That caused a chain of three reactions. First the American companies refused to contribute. Second, the Conservative Party defended the United States and digital billionaires. Third, the Liberal government backed down, overturned the CRTC’s decision and basically apologized to the U.S. government for existing. The major American streaming platforms pitched a fit and Ottawa backed down. The president of the Union des artistes, Tania Kontoyanni, said it well: “It is devastating and utterly disheartening to let the tech giants intimidate us like this.” The irony is that, in society, we rightly condemn and denounce intimidation. However, the government bends over backward for the bully and ends up grovelling before it, using spurious arguments to justify its cowardice. The Liberal government has already backed down like this before. Indeed, on June 29, 2025, the Liberal government formally scrapped the digital services tax—the infamous Netflix tax—in order to advance trade negotiations with the United States. As we can see, the government’s main excuse at the time was not the cost of living crisis but the trade dispute, and it got us nowhere. More than a year later, the Liberal government’s trade negotiations with the United States have been about as productive as trying to grow a plastic decorative tree from Walmart. The last time it backed down, on June 3, 2026, the Liberal government offered a very different explanation. The official reason now invoked by Ottawa is that the fees paid to broadcasters and streaming platforms would be passed on to consumers in the form of price increases, and the government did not want that to happen. The government attempted to justify its decision by saying, “At a time when Canadians face cost-of-living pressure, now is not the time to make culture and entertainment more expensive.” Who could possibly be against virtue? We, too, want to make culture and entertainment accessible, but not by kowtowing to American cultural and financial hegemony. While he was at it, the Liberal Prime Minister might as well have said that Quebec culture is too expensive, and that American entertainment is so much better. It is all well and good to play the tough guy by claiming an “elbows up” political stance, but it is hard to land a blow when kneeling before one’s bully. Sadly, in the face of the appetites of American web giants, the Liberal Prime Minister has decided to put Quebec’s cultural industry on the menu and has relinquished Canada’s ability to defend its cultural sovereignty and to enact laws that apply to everyone equally and that legitimately aim to support Quebec culture and ensure the discoverability of Quebec cultural productions. To me, politics is a noble pursuit. The Liberal government must respect citizens and stop treating them like idiots. I find it insulting when I hear the government say that it abolished levies on American broadcasters and platforms to save taxpayers money. Let us think about this for a moment. At the same time as it backed down in the face of American pressure, in order to save face, the Liberal government announced a commitment to provide $600 million annually to Canada’s audio and audiovisual sectors. Those funds are intended to replace the revenues that would no longer be generated through levies on online streaming platforms to support Canadian culture. If I understand correctly, on behalf of the online streaming services, Ottawa will now pay the contributions that were supposed to support Canadian content creation. In other words, taxpayers will be expected to shoulder the burden instead of American tech. The Liberal government is therefore passing the web giants’ financial responsibility on to Canadians while claiming that it is doing so in the name of affordability. Let us be clear about the logic here. Canadians are being asked to pay so that Canadians do not have to pay. That is the rationale behind the Liberal decision not to require the digital giants to contribute. The only difference is that the government is doing it in a way that it hopes will go unnoticed. I find that level of hypocrisy deeply troubling. The reality is that the federal government does have a responsibility to support the cultural sector as it competes with online platforms, just as various industries have received assistance in coping with the tariff dispute. However, in the interest of fairness, that support should not be provided as a substitute for the fair contribution that should be made by American platforms. That is why the Bloc Québécois is calling on the government to immediately disburse the $600 million in emergency support that the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture promised to the cultural sector on June 3, 2026, and to uphold the CRTC’s decisions imposing levies on streaming services, as set out in the Broadcasting Act. The Bloc Québécois motion calls for two simple things: respect the authority of the CRTC and make the $600 million payment immediately.

“People keep talking about affordability and making giant web companies pay taxes. Can my colleague explain why this is about fairness, not affordability?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate, people have been raising the issue of affordability and the levies that should be paid by the billionaire web giants. I know that my colleague is very clear on the concept of fairness. Could he explain to us why this has nothing to do with affordability, but rather with fairness?

“Canadian taxpayers will end up paying the $600 million being talked about. I want to know if my colleague agrees with making big American tech companies pay fees instead.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, my colleague pointed to the Prime Minister’s lack of resolve in dealing with the U.S. giants, claiming at the time that the issue was one of affordability. However, the $600 million in question ultimately comes out of taxpayers’ pockets. Does my colleague agree with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s solution of imposing levies on billion-dollar U.S. digital platforms?

“The government has promised for 18 months that this money is coming soon. There is $600 million sitting there, and the government will probably add another $600 million in the next budget. The government needs to act and put the CRTC's decision into place.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, they have been saying that the money will be coming very soon for 18 months now. The government does not want to implement the CRTC’s decision, yet $600 million has been sitting on the table for the past 18 months. I am guessing they will earmark another $600 million in the next budget. That will bring the total to $1.2 billion, while we wait for the government to get its act together and finally implement the CRTC’s decision.

“The government chose to spend 600 million dollars of public money instead of making big foreign streaming websites pay a fee. They claimed this was to keep things affordable. It makes no sense to make the public pay so that the public does not have to pay.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 42 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, I was almost moved by the first part of my colleague’s speech, by the litany of good intentions. I thought he would come to the same conclusion as us, but that is not the case. Nevertheless, it is reassuring to hear from someone who is aware of this issue. By the way, when it comes to the CRTC’s decision to impose a levy on the web giants, the online streamers, the government initially said it would take a pragmatic approach. Given that the government had to negotiate with the Americans and did not want to upset them too much, it decided that instead of imposing a levy, it would provide $600 million in funding, although this money has not yet reached its intended recipients. Affordability was also cited as a reason. The government’s current logic is that it should make the public pay so that the public does not have to pay. That is the logic behind the Liberals’ decision not to make the web giants pay. How does that make sense?

“The member's speech was full of good intentions, and it showed his knowledge.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I was almost moved by the first part of my colleague’s speech. It was a litany of good intentions. It shows his knowledge—

Government Orders ·

Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act

“I am worried about this bill. It lets unelected people spend billions of defence dollars. The government will use this to avoid blame if things go wrong, which means there will be no accountability.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, is my colleague not concerned, as I am, that, by creating a Crown corporation and giving a board of directors who are not elected the responsibility of spending billions of dollars, the government is shirking its responsibilities and washing its hands in the event of unpopular decisions or scandals? Does he not think that there will be less accountability, if not a complete lack of accountability?

“I share my condolences with the people affected by the tragedy in Wainwright. Making this defence agency a Crown corporation lets the government avoid accountability. It removes oversight on huge expenses. It also lets the government take credit for successes while dodging blame when things go wrong. I want to know why this government always tries to reduce accountability.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 38 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois joins our colleague in expressing our heartfelt sympathy and condolences to the people affected by the tragedy in Wainwright. Our thoughts are with them. Making the Defence Investment Agency a Crown corporation will enable the government to practise selective accountability. On the one hand, with Bill C‑40, the government is removing oversight mechanisms for its most costly expenditures. On the other hand, by creating an independent Crown corporation, the government will take credit for successes when doing so suits its purposes and deny responsibility when sensitive or controversial matters arise on the grounds that the corporation operates independently. Why has this government been working to reduce accountability ever since it came to power?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“The government still treats seniors aged 65 to 74 unfairly during this affordability crisis. My party has always stood up for them. Will the member vote for this bill?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I too wanted to tell the member for Mount Royal that I came to the House at the same time as he did. I dare say that, in December 2024, when the Liberals were facing the prospect of being reduced to just 25 seats, he was not nearly as enthusiastic as he was at the beginning of his speech today. I would therefore encourage him to demonstrate a little more humility in his speeches because he is bound to find himself on this side of the House someday. The fact remains that, over the past 11 years, the Bloc Québécois has stood up for affordability, particularly for seniors, while his government has stubbornly refused to end the discrimination against seniors aged 65 to 74. These seniors are grappling with this affordability crisis, but the government is doing nothing to end that discrimination. Will he vote in favour of Bill C‑261?

“Rising costs hurt seniors the most. The government gave more money to seniors 75 and older, but left out those aged 65 to 74. That is unfair. Our bill gives that money to all seniors and lets working seniors keep their benefits. Will the member vote for it?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the affordability crisis, if there is one segment of the population that has been affected by the never-ending increases in the cost of living since 2020, it is seniors. However, the government decided to increase the guaranteed income supplement for seniors aged 75 and over, but not for those aged 65 to 74. It is discriminating between seniors. These people are being discriminated against. The bill tabled by the Bloc Québécois, Bill C‑261, which we have introduced several times and which the government keeps rejecting, has two parts. First, it seeks to increase the guaranteed income supplement to stop this discrimination. Second, it would allow seniors who wish to continue working to do so without having their guaranteed income supplement reduced. Does the member agree with these measures, and will she vote in favour of Bill C‑261?

“Retired seniors between 65 and 74 are struggling to pay for basic needs because their pensions have not kept up with rising costs. They need this money to live, not to save it. I want to know if the Conservative member supports our bill to raise pensions for this group.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, earlier, my Conservative colleague spoke about people who cannot afford to retire. That does not even take into account all those aged between 65 and 74 who have already retired and are struggling to make ends meet because of affordability issues. For quite some time now, the Bloc Québécois has been introducing bills calling for OAS to be fully indexed for seniors aged 65 to 74, yet the government continues to refuse to do so. This is not money that would simply be squirrelled away in a savings account. People would use this money to maintain a decent quality of life and cope with the rising cost of living, because their income is not indexed to the current rate of inflation. Could my colleague tell us whether he supports the Bloc’s Bill C‑261?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“The Conservatives want to help the oil industry instead of regular people. Experts say cutting gas taxes does not help. The government should collect that tax money and give it directly to parts of the economy that need it most, like the supply chain. I want to know if gas price cuts ever actually help taxpayers.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I have been a member of the House of Commons for some time now, and I have to say that, at times, I get the impression that my Conservative colleagues are lobbying for the oil industry. At the same time, they frequently condemn waste. Like me, they also stand up for people who are struggling. However, they never denounce the humongous subsidies to the oil industry, which rakes in eye-watering profits every year. They would like us to throw even more money at this industry, even though 66% of the oil companies in western Canada are American and we are in a tariff dispute. The Bloc Québécois proposed something at one point. Every tax expert and finance minister I have spoken to in my life told me that the best thing to do was not to lower the price at the pump. The best thing for the government to do in the event of an increase or inflation was to hold on to that money and redistribute it in a targeted way to the sectors that actually need that oil and diesel to be able to continue production in the supply chain, for example. Why does my colleague not support this type of measure when we know full well that there has been a drop in the price at the pump recently? Can he tell me whether this trickled down to taxpayers?

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

In response to a question from Frank Caputo

“A Liberal member is happy this bill lets foreign investors ignore our environmental laws, workers' rights, and democracy. Is the Prime Minister using this crisis to permanently weaken our rules?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s speech was insightful and well-informed. Earlier, the Liberal member for Madawaska—Restigouche said he was enthusiastic and pleased that Bill C-39 would, as he put it, allow global investors to flout environmental laws by investing in Canada, to flout workers’ rights, and to flout parliamentary democracy. My colleague was talking about Trumpism. Does he not think that the Prime Minister is exploiting the crisis to push through permanent rollbacks that will not even be in effect during President Trump’s term?

“I oppose this bill because it gives too much power to the government and weakens Parliament. The Liberals are using the tariff crisis to take away democratic rules permanently. They will regret giving the government this much power when they are no longer in charge.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 contained a discretionary provision that gave the minister absolute power to determine which projects are of national interest. Bill C-39 gives even more power to the executive branch by diminishing Parliament’s role. That is a subversion of parliamentary democracy. The Liberals are exploiting the tariff crisis to impose permanent rollbacks that will have no effect during what is left of Donald Trump’s term in office. The member is very enthusiastic about this dangerous precedent, but will he be just as enthusiastic and happy about this bill when he winds up on this side of the House facing a new government and that government starts trampling on democracy and our legislative power?