Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe
Lac-Saint-Jean, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“It mentioned the build communities strong fund and a “requirement on provinces and territories to reduce development fees and other charges to homebuilding.” What does that mean, exactly? Is this $1.7 billion part of the build communities strong fund? Is it a mandatory requirement for accessing the fund? Is it simply a guideline?”
“Once the election campaign gets under way, the government will be restricted to dealing with day-to-day business. We hope that the Parti Québécois will win the next election. I look forward to debating the merits of a referendum on Quebec independence with my colleague from Winnipeg North . This is going to be fun.”
“The second sentence of the bill states that the amount of each payment is to be determined by the minister. That is far from a guarantee. We asked the Minister of Finance and National Revenue about this two weeks ago during the business of supply.”
“Mr. Speaker, these people had to fight to speak French. They had to hide to speak French. They were forbidden from speaking French at school. It was prohibited under Manitoban law. I recently attended the International Uyghur Forum in Berlin.”
“Mr. Speaker, we hear it all the time, but this time it is especially true. I am pleased to rise to speak to the long-awaited Bill C‑26 . It took a long time to understand the actual impact of Bill C‑26.”
“Not only that, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated in his December report on Build Canada Homes that “[Build Canada Homes] will add about 26,000 units over five years, representing a 2.1 per cent increase in housing completions relative to [the Parliamentary Budget Officer's] baseline projection.” An increase of 2.1% as a resul…”
The complete record
Every one of 440 lines we hold for Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 9.
“Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my wonderful colleague from Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères. I am pleased to speak today in support of the motion to create an independent Canadian military honours review board. This motion raises a fundamental issue, namely, how to recognize acts of bravery performed by the women and men who have served in the Canadian military. For years, veterans, families, military historians and veterans' organizations have been calling for an independent mechanism to review cases when new evidence shows that an error or omission may have occurred. We know that this is a very real concern. More than 16,000 people signed a petition calling for the establishment of such a body.”
“Madam Speaker, whenever the opposition parties move concurrence in a report, the member for Winnipeg North tells us that it is an important matter, but that it should have been debated at a different time. However, he still takes 10 or 20 minutes to tell us that it should have be debated at another time. I find it hard to follow the member for Winnipeg North. He tells us that we should debate this at another time in order to save time. If the member for Winnipeg North did not take the floor, we would already be saving time, would we not? I put the question to the member for Winnipeg North.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke from the heart and his speech was incredibly genuine. It was an excellent speech. I have a rather simple question for him. This motion is not just about medals. In fact, it deals more with our ability to properly recognize and honour the men and women who have accepted risks, dangers and injuries to protect peace and democracy. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.”
“Kara-Murza has actively resumed his leading role in defending democracy and the rights of thousands of political prisoners. Vladimir Kara-Murza may rest assured that the Bloc Québécois will always stand with him in his fight for freedom and justice.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to acknowledge the invaluable presence on Parliament Hill of the great political figure, former prisoner of conscience and steadfast Russian opposition activist Vladimir Kara-Murza. On April 17, 2023, the Moscow City Court sentenced Mr. Kara-Murza to 25 years in prison for high treason. To this day, this is the harshest prison sentence ever imposed on a political prisoner in Putin's Russia. This August will mark the second anniversary of his release. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the work of the Montreal-based Raoul Wallenberg Centre, founded by lawyer, former justice minister and personal friend Irwin Cotler, as well as the efforts of all the parliamentarians who rallied to his cause. Since regaining his freedom, Mr.”
“Mr. Speaker, I did not get an answer to a question that was quite straightforward and specific. I am going to give my colleague another chance to answer a very specific question. The Liberal government scrapped the digital services tax on July 1, 2025. I would like my hon. colleague to tell me what the government got in return for repealing that tax.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my Liberal colleague's speech. He is telling us that the Liberals want to defend culture. From the beginning, the Liberals' argument about the Conservative motion has been that they cannot intervene in the CRTC's decisions, since it is an independent body. The logical question is this: If they cannot intervene, that is one thing, but if they had the power to intervene, what would they do? Would they ask the CRTC to reverse that decision or not? That is the important question. Their answer will tell me whether or not they are protectors of culture.”
“Mr. Speaker, by claiming that standing up for culture is a trade irritant, as the Conservatives do in point (iv) of their motion, they are also giving up on linguistic and cultural diversity and, above all, accepting English American culture as the standard. If the Conservatives do not have that cultural sensitivity, is it because they have already embraced that standard? Is it because, for them, the culture we are talking about is the U.S. culture?”
“Madam Speaker, here is what I want to know. The fourth point of the Conservative motion basically says that we are scared of Donald Trump, that we should lower the tax and overrule the CRTC's decision because we are scared of Donald Trump. The Liberals did just that last July. They repealed the digital services tax out of fear of Donald Trump. They believed they would get something in return. In the end, they got diddly-squat. I love that expression. If it did not work for the Liberals, why do the Conservatives think it will work for them?”
“Madam Speaker, it is pretty clear to me that the Conservative motion is completely off base when it comes to Quebec and francophone culture and production, among other things. I wonder if my colleague could talk about the fact that the Conservatives are not the only ones abandoning the cultural sector. This Liberal government also turned its back on culture when it eliminated the 3% tax on digital products last July. It was in the Liberal election platform, but barely three months after getting elected, they reversed course, hoping that would get them back to the negotiating table with Donald Trump. I would like to ask my colleague the following question. How much revenue was ultimately lost because this government eliminated the digital services tax, despite its election promise to keep it?”
“The hope was that the government would get something in return for scrapping this tax. Can the parliamentary secretary tell me what the government got in return for scrapping that 3% digital services tax? I would like to hear his answer, because I think it was a big fat zero.”
“Madam Speaker, this is surprising, because the parliamentary secretary's main argument is that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, cannot be told what to do. He does not even say whether he agrees with the 15% or not. All he says is that the CRTC cannot be directed to do anything. My colleague says that the cultural sector must not be abandoned. It remains to be seen whether past actions are any indication of the future, but in July 2025, the Liberals scrapped the digital services tax, which would have generated $1.5 billion that would have been reinvested in the cultural sector. If any government has let the cultural sector down, it is this Liberal government, which did so as recently as last year, because Donald Trump wrote a tweet and the government expected to go back to the bargaining table.”
“Madam Speaker, I really do feel that these two parties are one and the same. As members may recall, last January, this Liberal government completely abandoned the cultural sector by failing to implement the 3% tax on digital products, which would have generated an additional $1.5 billion for the cultural sector. Why did the government do that? It was because Donald Trump posted a tweet. The Prime Minister thought that if the government did not implement this tax, the U.S. would return to the negotiating table. The result was a complete failure. Today's Conservative party proposal uses the same strategy—scrapping a tax that will generate revenue for the cultural sector—so as not to upset Donald Trump. Why would a failed Liberal proposal work just because the Conservatives are suggesting it?”
“Madam Speaker, tech giants are profiting from the Canadian market and raking in billions of dollars in profits. They already have the resources to adapt to the parameters of a legislation like the one Canada is proposing. They already have all the resources. However, from what I understand of the Conservative motion, even before negotiating a trade agreement, the government should give up its convictions when it comes to defending Quebec's culture and identity. Am I to understand that the Conservatives are so afraid of Donald Trump that, before they even start negotiating, they are abandoning their principles when it comes to culture and identity?”
“In the meantime, while we wait for an agreement with the Americans, should the government's priority not be to take quick, effective and easy-to-implement measures that would help our businesses, our SMEs and Quebec's economic fabric, as well as our workers?”
“Mr. Speaker, this time almost a year ago, this government and this Prime Minister were elected purely on a promise to resolve the tariff crisis. The Prime Minister told us that it would be resolved in June. Then he said it would be in July. In the end, he said that it might happen in September. A year later, not only has the tariff crisis not been resolved, but it has gotten worse with Donald Trump's executive order and the April 6 tariffs. We understand that this government set the bar far too high when it came to negotiating. We now see that the government is incapable of keeping its promises.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Shefford gave an excellent speech. She is known for being present in her community and for fighting for her constituents day in and day out for nearly six and a half years, if not longer. The Liberals are telling us that the measures that have been put in place are enough and that they will truly make a difference. When my colleague speaks with business leaders and workers in her riding, is she hearing the same thing on the ground, that the government has done enough to counter the current tariff war with the Americans?”
“This is not at all political. It is truly a proposal for the benefit of our businesses and our workers. I am convinced that, if the government is serious, it will agree to our request and implement this quickly.”
“Mr. Speaker, in my view, it is essential that the government agree to our request, which is not only a Bloc Québécois request, but also what many SMEs and various industrial and economic sectors have been calling for. What is interesting about this measure is that it does not call for any new mechanisms to be developed. They were already developed during the pandemic. In fact, one of the reasons put forward for doing so during the pandemic was to maintain these employment relationships so that businesses would not lose their employees in the midst of a labour shortage in occupations that are difficult to fill, frankly. It is hard to find welders, machinists, mechanics and electrical engineers, for example. There is a real need to put this in place quickly. I hope the government is listening to what we are doing.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why we moved today's motion. We all know the government promised to end the tariff war and reach an agreement with the United States quickly. That was a year ago. Unfortunately, it is not happening, and we cannot pretend that it will happen anytime soon. That is exactly why we put this proposal forward today. We hope all members of the House will agree with the wording of the motion. I cannot imagine anyone—Conservative, Liberal or independent—voting against this motion. It is reasonable, it is based on stakeholder proposals and it will have an immediate and direct impact on the current crisis. It will save jobs, save businesses large and small, and keep Quebec's regions alive.”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's question about the government's approach, but it is all theoretical and only exists on paper. We are not seeing results in real life. If my colleague visits my riding and sits down in the offices of Petit Paris, Resolute-Domtar or Arbec for a chat, he will find out that this situation is not working for them. We support the idea of helping our businesses, of course, because no one is against good things. However, the Bloc is offering clear proposals that would improve the situation and that are largely based on requests made by stakeholders directly affected by the tariffs. I hope the Liberal government will take the hand we are holding out today.”
“Ultimately, the question is simple: Will the government choose to wait, or will it choose to act? We choose to act. We are doing it for our workers, for our SMEs, for our businesses, for Quebec and for our regions. Everything the Bloc Québécois does is done out of love for Quebec.”
“We could set up a special fund to immediately support businesses hit by tariffs, protect jobs, support retraining and give our small and medium-sized businesses the means to weather the storm. That is what a responsible response looks like. That is what rising to the challenge look like. Instead, the government seems to be taking a different path. Either it does not believe in its ability to negotiate an agreement that will put an end to these unfair tariffs, or it has already accepted that our economy must slowly adapt to a new reality where our traditional markets and our SMEs—which form the economic fabric of Quebec and keep it afloat—no longer matter to the government. We need answers now. We need a government that chooses to defend jobs, support businesses and invest in the future.”
“The revenue generated by our retaliatory tariffs must be redistributed, as a priority, to the workers and businesses that are bearing the brunt of these measures. It must not be diluted in centralizing programs that encroach on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction or subsidize fossil fuels. For every dollar collected on the targeted imports, a significant portion must be used to maintain wages here, keep factories open, and keep our regions alive. What needs to be made clear today is that the real urgency is not to maximize returns on a fund that will bet on oil and gas. The real urgency lies with our workers, our small and medium-sized businesses, and our regions, which are bearing the brunt of a trade crisis triggered by Donald Trump's decisions. With just a fraction of those $25 billion, we could take action now.”
“Another proposal that the Bloc Québécois made was a wage subsidy program for businesses affected by the tariffs. We calculate that the government could allocate $5.5 billion for such a measure. This is an expediture that could easily be offset by cutting back on the numerous subsidies going to oil and gas companies, since they are making record profits anyway thanks to rising global oil prices. Their costs are not going up, so these multinational corporations are pocketing the difference. Not providing wage subsidies in response to the ongoing tariff war is tantamount to condoning the inevitable wave of layoffs, letting decades of expertise go to waste, and permanently crippling whole industrial clusters in Quebec and Canada. The Bloc Québécois's request today is very simple.”
“They need to have the cash flow necessary to maintain their day-to-day operations, not take on more debt or make investments that will only benefit them in the medium to long term”. In the latest economic update, however, the government did not include any targeted measures for businesses affected by Donald Trump's illegal tariffs. On the contrary, the Liberals patted themselves on the back for taking in more than $10.1 billion in tariffs in 2025‑26 and redistributing $5.7 billion. Wow. That means that $4.4 billion in countertariff revenue is sitting idle in Ottawa's coffers while SMEs are going out of business. The Liberals are celebrating that. The government clearly has the tools, but as my colleague from Joliette—Manawan said earlier, it does not have the will. Real solutions do exist, though.”
“AluQuébec, the secretariat of Quebec's aluminum industry cluster, is calling on governments to implement an urgent response on three fronts: subsidies or interest-free loans, preferential procurement rules for Quebec, and anti-dumping quotas or duties on imports. The CEO, Charlotte Laramée, says that the aluminum processing sector deserves the same treatment as the steel sector, and that includes immediate protection against unfair competition. For their part, steelworkers and the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, or FCCQ, are taking the same stance. The CEO of the FCCQ, Véronique Proulx, sent a clear message when she said, and I quote: “For businesses whose survival is currently in jeopardy, this is not enough.”
“These tariffs would apply to products from the United States or any other source that resorts to harmful trade practices, such as dumping, as my colleagues mentioned earlier, or the misrepresentation of Canadian origin. (1230) We proposed another measure, and that is buying back a portion of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties that softwood lumber manufacturers pay when they export to the United States. We proposed this measure a long time ago. It was also proposed by the industry and supported by the various unions representing workers in this industry. We could also stimulate the secondary and tertiary processing of our resources. The Bloc Québécois always aligns its proposals with industry demands.”
“I would remind the House that ahead of the economic update, the Bloc Québécois proposed numerous measures to support businesses. For the benefit of my Liberal friends, I will outline some of the seven measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois to support workers and businesses severely impacted by the tariff crisis. The first of our demands is the one that resonates most with the public. It is to implement a wage subsidy program modelled after the one rolled out during the pandemic to prevent layoffs, maintain employment relationships, and protect the expertise within businesses during the tariff crisis. The Bloc Québécois's second proposal is to impose safeguard tariffs to protect the hardest-hit sectors, including the softwood lumber, aluminum and steel industries, from cheap imports.”
“After months of waiting, on May 4, the government finally announced new measures: $1 billion in loans and $500 million for economic development agencies. It is worth mentioning something here, because the government does not seem to realize that it is missing the mark. Although I do want to acknowledge that these agencies are very useful, they do not address the concerns of businesses that are already in debt. The problem is that with this announcement, the government is helping businesses that will be affected in the future, not the ones already being affected by the crisis. We estimate that Quebec businesses alone have lost about $8 billion in one year. The $1.5‑billion measure announced by the government is woefully inadequate.”
“Washington is no longer taxing our exports; it is taxing what we are building. That is unprecedented. The people had put so much faith in this Prime Minister and his government to put an end to the tariff war, but the result, as I said earlier, has been an escalation of that war. What are we doing in the meantime? The Bloc Québécois proposed a series of measures when the so-called economic update was being drafted. The government did not use a single one of them. These measures would have been easy to implement, would have barely cost anything and would have directly helped the people most impacted by the tariff crisis in Quebec: workers and SMEs. Today, we are back at it again for the sake of our workers and businesses, who are sick of waiting for this government.”
“As a result, many products protected by CUSMA that were not taxed before are being taxed today. When we asked the Prime Minister about this issue—when my leader asked about it, I was right beside him—we realized that he did not even know about it. Amazing. He did not even know about an executive order signed two weeks earlier. According to a study by Desjardins, this new 25% tariff applies to one-quarter of exports to the U.S. It is significant. There are exemptions, like for the aerospace sector and products that contain American steel or aluminum, but, for the most part, this new American surtax is hitting our industries much harder than previous ones. The cumulative effect is very clear. It is the added value of our economy that is being taxed—skilled trades, engineering and local processing.”
“Then he pushed it back to September. Now a year has passed and not only is the tariff war still going, but it has escalated thanks to Mr. Trump's recent executive orders. Worse still, we were presented with one of the most absurd ideas ever last week: Borrow $25 million on Quebeckers' collective credit card and create a supposedly sovereign fund that is neither sovereign nor independent. That speaks volumes about the government's long-term vision. Right now, it raises the question of whether we are dealing with pure improvisation. The icing on the cake is that on April 6, the Trump administration issued a new executive order. There is now a flat 25% tariff on the full value of the export if the percentage of Canadian steel, aluminum or copper in the product exceeds 15% of the total composition.”
“Mr. Speaker, I should mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Shefford . One year ago, the government was elected on a single, simple promise: to fix the tariff crisis. We all remember the departure of former prime minister Trudeau and the arrival of the new Prime Minister, who was portrayed as the man who would save us from the Trump administration, as a businessman who could hold his own against the most formidable negotiators. One year on, however, it is clear that the promise has not been fulfilled. Where are the results? Again, the members of this government and the Prime Minister were elected one year ago, almost to the day, purely on the strength of a promise to end the tariff crisis. In April 2025, the Prime Minister promised that the crisis would end in June. Then he pushed it back to July.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly simple question for the parliamentary secretary. We are here in good faith. The Bloc Québécois always comes forward with proposals. We are not an opposition party that opposes everything just for the sake of opposing it. We come forward with proposals. One of the proposals we put forward—which, incidentally, comes from several stakeholders currently affected by the tariffs—is a wage subsidy program designed for businesses impacted by the tariffs. This would help retain jobs and preserve expertise. It would ease the transition until an agreement is reached with the Americans. On this specific point, does my colleague support the Bloc Québécois's proposal to implement such a wage subsidy? If he does not support this proposal, I would like him to explain why.”
“That being the case, should we not proceed with the Bloc's proposed measures to protect our jobs, our workers and our industries, at least until there is an agreement? I think the Conservative Party has an opportunity to support this approach now.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. I really appreciate her work, and we are both members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. That said, I am having a hard time understanding the Conservative Party of Canada's position on today's motion. Like us, the Conservative Party has clearly concluded that this government is unable to fulfill the promise it made a year ago to resolve the tariff crisis. That crisis has only gotten worse. The Conservatives' response to our motion is that they do not support the Bloc Québécois's proposed temporary measures. They think the only response to this situation is to come to some agreement with the Americans, but, over the past year, this government proven itself incapable of doing that.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Beauce comes from a region that has indeed been hard hit by the current situation, but also by the government's failure to respond. My colleague mentioned the proposals put forward by the opposition parties in good faith to improve the situation quickly. Does my colleague support the Bloc Québécois's proposal to immediately and quickly establish a wage subsidy mechanism for businesses affected by the current illegal U.S. tariffs?”
“Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing today is really something. The parliamentary secretary is telling us that we should not rush into an agreement. However, we were told in April 2025 that there was a deadline. The Prime Minister himself said that the tariff issue would be resolved by June 2025. He then extended the deadline to July and then again to September. If what my colleague says is true, that would mean that the promises that were made at the time should never have been made. Does my colleague agree that the government should never have promised Quebeckers and Canadians that the tariff crisis would be resolved in April and that this promise has not been kept?”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague just demonstrated that we are putting forward proposals that come from the front lines, and that there is no reason why this government should not listen to them and implement them. There is one thing I would like to ask my colleague. It seems to me that almost exactly a year ago, this government was elected on the sole promise of ending the tariff war by June at the latest. It then pushed that deadline back to July, and then to September. A year later, the government has not only failed to resolve the tariff crisis, which has only grown worse, but it also refuses to listen to the opposition parties, who are proposing good-faith solutions. I would like my colleague to share his thoughts on this matter.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for my colleague. The government and the Prime Minister were elected a year ago, almost to the day, on essentially a single promise: to end the trade war. In April 2025, the Prime Minister promised us that the matter would be settled by June. He then postponed it to July and then September. In the end, here we are a year later, and not only is the trade war still going on, but it has gotten worse with Mr. Trump's recent executive orders. The only thing this government can come up with is to borrow $25 billion and create a fund that is neither sovereign nor independent. What does that say about the government's long-term vision?”
“Mr. Speaker, a number of things do not add up in the Liberals' arguments. First, we are told that this fund is similar, and even comparable, to Norway's sovereign wealth fund, when we know full well that Norway did not go into debt to finance its own fund. Second, we are told that this fund will be independent, when we know full well that it will fund only projects that come from the Major Projects Office and that the Prime Minister will decide which projects are referred to the Major Projects Office. Obviously, this fund will be politically influenced. Why are the Liberals trying to tell us they bought a cat, when it is actually a horse? Why do they think everyone will believe it is a cat when it is really a horse?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada's new sovereign wealth fund is neither sovereign nor independent, and yet my colleague continues to compare it to Norway's sovereign wealth fund. The only thing these two funds have in common—because they do indeed have one thing in common—is the name. My question is very specific, and I would like my colleague to answer it. If the government buys a cat and tells everyone it is a horse, does he think people will call it a horse or a cat?”
“Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I always love hearing the Liberals and Conservatives argue over which of them has built the most pipelines. As they see it, the climate crisis is over. Climate change does not exist for either party. Incidentally, my colleague opposite said during his speech that he was really pleased that the Major Projects Office is located in the Prairies, because that is where the major projects are going to be. He is confirming that the government is going to use that money to accelerate the climate crisis, with no benefit to Quebec, but using the money of Quebeckers. Is that his vision of a strong Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, my question for my hon. colleague is pretty obvious. Some people are criticizing us for joining forces with the Conservatives because we are against the idea. That has nothing to do with it. We analyzed the government's proposal, and it says this is similar to other funds in other countries. Not one of those funds was paid for by borrowing money and paying interest. Not only is this not a sovereign wealth fund, it is also not a politically independent fund because, at the end of the day, the projects will be selected by the Prime Minister . What does this fund have to do with Norway's sovereign wealth fund, Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund or Singapore's sovereign wealth fund? I would like my colleague to explain to our Liberal colleagues just how off the mark their comparison is.”
“Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing today is astounding. In response to a question my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères asked earlier, the hon. member opposite had the nerve to say that Canada's new sovereign wealth fund is similar to Norway's, when, as my colleague explained so well, the two are nothing alike. There is something else that is a little unusual about the Liberals' argument regarding this new sovereign wealth fund. They claim that this fund is sovereign and independent. However everyone knows perfectly well that these projects will be funded through the Major Projects Office and that they will be the direct result of the Prime Minister 's decisions. The Liberals themselves have said so. When they say that this fund is independent, how can they justify that in a clear, transparent and honest way?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition . I believe he hit the nail on the head when he started his speech by describing the new Canada Strong fund as a “gimmick”. I would like to thank him on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. The Leader of the Opposition has economic expertise. I have heard many MPs and ministers, and even the Liberal Prime Minister , compare the new Canada Strong fund to Norway's sovereign wealth fund. Could the Leader of the Opposition explain the difference between the sovereign wealth fund—Norway's genuine sovereign wealth fund—and the sovereign wealth fund of the new Liberal government?”
“These pieces, crafted in the heart of Lac-Saint-Jean, contributed to the film's success and are a source of immense pride. I wish to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Samuel and Marie‑Josée and to the entire Bilodeau team.”
“Mr. Speaker, last month, a Lac-Saint-Jean business was showcased on the world stage at the 98th Academy Awards. The work of Samuel Bilodeau and the entire team at Bilodeau Canada was highlighted at the Oscars ceremony when Guillermo del Toro's film Frankenstein won the award for best costumes. Frankenstein , which won three Oscars, owes part of its success to the work done in the town of Normandin. It was there that more than 250 pieces were created for the production, far away from the bright lights of Hollywood. From the coats worn by the main characters, including Victor Frankenstein, to the wolves' costumes that appear in the film, Bilodeau's craftsmanship has impressed many. The Lac-Saint-Jean-based clothing manufacturer also designed four sleds and several trappers' barrels for the Oscar-winning feature film.”
“I want to know what my colleague thinks of the Liberals' conception of parliamentary democracy and committee work, especially as it relates to us today.”