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 3 of 9.
“Mr. Speaker, in a response he gave earlier to my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton , the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government said how important House of Commons committees are, going so far as to say that we can read everything that is said in committee because it is all on the committee's web page and, as parliamentarians, we have access to all the work done by committees, even if we do not sit on them. I find it rather ironic that the parliamentary secretary is telling us how important parliamentary committees are when the Liberals do not even respect the work that was done by all the parliamentarians who were present, regardless of party, and by all the people who came to testify.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps saying that he wants to manage public finances in a wiser, more rigorous way. A House of Commons committee spent hours studying an extremely important report. The committee heard from experts and victims. Members of Parliament and their staff, as well as the committee staff, examined the matter during several meetings. Public funds were used for the benefit of parliamentary democracy. Now we are learning that the government is completely ignoring all the work that was done. This government is not looking at it at all. I would like my colleague to comment on the frustration this caused him. What does he think this all means? What does all this show about the government's understanding of parliamentary democracy?”
“Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. My question is quite simple. If it were possible to make just one amendment to this bill, is there a particularly important one that my colleague would want to immediately make to the bill? If so, what is it?”
“The Bloc Québécois believes that public funding should be based on votes, not on donor contributions, because that would make it easier to protect against foreign interference. What does my colleague think about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by apologizing. I, Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, apologize for misinterpreting the Standing Orders earlier today during debate. I wanted to make a formal apology. Members are allowed to refer to themselves in the third person but may not name other members when speaking about them. I want to thank my colleague for his speech. I really enjoy working with him on different committees. I think we have reached a consensus of sorts on Bill C‑25 in that we would all like it to be studied it in committee. We want our democratic process to be made even stronger and more impervious to threats of foreign interference. That said, Bill C‑25 may be missing one thing: public funding for political parties. I am raising the matter again.”
“However, given what we know today about foreign interference and the problems facing our democratic process, does my colleague not think it would be a good idea to review this no-cost approach? Rather than offering a tax credit, should political parties not be funded based on the number of votes received in an election? This would help counter foreign interference and strengthen our democratic process.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that my colleague referred to himself in the third person in his speech. We cannot use members' names in the House. However, I did not raise that as a point of order. That was a small observation. On the issue of Bill C‑25 , we are talking about foreign interference and the strength of our democratic process. I think that all parties agree that this bill should be studied in committee. There may be some things that need to be amended and we will discuss those. One important aspect that Bill C‑25 does not address, in terms of foreign interference and the strength of the democratic process, is the public funding of political parties. Mr. Harper eliminated the per-vote subsidy. At the time, it might have been a good idea to do so.”
“Does my colleague not believe that this would be much more democratic, that it would actually promote democracy and that it might also be of greater help to third parties? Was it not a mistake to leave that out of Bill C-25? We could have taken this opportunity to address the issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing missing from Bill C-25 , it is the regulation of political party financing. We, in the Bloc Québécois, sincerely believe that the current system is hardly ideal since it costs us between $35 million and $45 million annually in public funds in the form of tax credits granted to donors. Would it not be more democratic to go back to the old system that was in place before Stephen Harper put an end to it, where a certain amount of money was allocated to each political party for every vote cast for them? That would cost us about $40 million a year, which is roughly the same amount that the public treasury pays out in tax credits every year for political party financing.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for her speech. Once again, I think that all the speeches by all the parties today were top-notch in terms of their grasp of the file. My colleague shared that the process was very collaborative. A lot of consultations took place before the bill was tabled. My question is fairly simple. What hopes or fears does my colleague have about the bill's study in committee? On what specific issues might the Bloc Québécois introduce amendments, or at any rate, what specific issues might it call on witnesses to discuss?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his expertise on this matter. His speeches are always impressive. That said, we do have some reservations about Bill C-25 . Of course we support the principle, but the bill covers many different subjects. For example, people will be prohibited from signing more than one nomination paper. We in the Bloc Québécois view this with some skepticism, because it would mean that those doing so are publicly endorsing a candidate. Not only that, but the Chief Electoral Officer has said that it would be very complicated, even from an administrative standpoint, to manage this situation and verify whether people have endorsed a single candidate. It could take hours and hours of work, and Elections Canada would need a lot more employees just to verify the nominations.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are indeed plenty of good things in Bill C‑25 . There are also many things the committee will have to take a very close look at. The Bloc Québécois has a lot of concerns. One thing that is not in the bill is political party financing, and I am wondering why the government opted not to tackle that. Members are talking about foreign interference and public confidence in politicians, which is not exactly at an all-time high. The government could have taken this opportunity to make changes to political party financing. Can my colleague explain why the government opted not to go in that direction even though this bill provided the opportunity to do so?”
“On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I congratulate Gilles Brassard and thank him for continuing to shine the international spotlight on Quebec intellect. We must also commend his decision not to travel to the United States to receive his award, in protest of the economic war launched by Donald Trump. I thank and congratulate Mr. Brassard.”
“Mr. Speaker, one Quebecker's ingenuity is bringing honour to our entire nation on the international stage. Gilles Brassard, a professor at the University of Montreal, has been given the Turing Award, the world’s highest honour in computer science. This prize, often compared to the Nobel Prize, is a crowning achievement in a long career dedicated to advancing quantum computing and cryptography, the secure transfer of information. In the words of the Association for Computing Machinery, which awards this honour, Gilles Brassard’s work has “expanded the boundaries of computing and set in motion decades of discovery across disciplines”. This marks the culmination of a career that began in the 1970s for this prodigy, who began his studies at the University of Montreal at the age of 13.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised that my colleagues are saying they are astonished by the criticism of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship . My colleagues would not be so surprised if they had read and watched Radio-Canada's reporting. This time, Radio-Canada went to the trouble of publishing the same report in English as well so that my colleagues from the rest of Canada could view it. They are not used to reading Radio-Canada's French-language website. Liberal members are the ones complaining about the minister's work on this file, so my colleagues should stop saying that the opposition members are the only ones criticizing her. The article includes dozens of comments from Liberal members. What does my colleague think of his Liberal colleagues' comments about the minister?”
“I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with his own Liberal colleagues about the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.”
“Mr. Speaker, I paid close attention to my colleague's speech. He said that the opposition is sometimes too critical of the government on immigration issues and that it should maybe make more of an effort to work across party lines on some issues. Interestingly, Radio-Canada published an article in February that included a lot of criticism of the current Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship . What was surprising was that the criticism came not just from the opposition; it was across party lines. It was unanimous. Several Liberal members were quoted in the article. They said there were huge problems with the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship's lack of familiarity with the portfolio.”
“Madam Speaker, I think we are debating a rather straightforward matter here today. It is not very complicated. We want to know whether we need an independent public inquiry on the Cúram fiasco. It is simple. The debate should be focused on that request. One thing we have learned is that, when problems arose, public servants were told not to tell the public that they were caused by the Cúram software. Does the very fact that public servants were asked to lie to people not emphasize the need for an independent public inquiry? I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, recently, a Liberal colleague said that Canada was looking for reliable economic partners and that the United Kingdom was a reliable partner. I support that statement. That said, in January, the Prime Minister shook hands with Xi Jinping when he signed a trade agreement with China. I would simply like to know whether my colleague considers the regime in Beijing to be a reliable partner.”
“Is this not an opportunity to completely overhaul these Canadian practices in order to give parliamentarians and Parliament greater influence when it comes time to negotiate such agreements?”
“Mr. Speaker, today's debate on Bill C-13 has sparked another debate regarding the impact that parliamentarians from all parties, and in Parliament as a whole, have on the international trade agreements signed by Canada. As we know, the role of parliamentarians in that regard is pretty limited at this time. Amendments may be moved only with respect to the bill. They cannot affect the agreement itself. This is different than in the United States, where Congress assigns negotiating mandates. In some European countries, it is the parliaments themselves that adopt the agreements. We agree with Bill C-13. Does my colleague agree that we should still modernize Canada's practices when it comes to international trade agreements?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that parliamentarians each have an important role to play when it comes to international trade agreements. However, Parliament and parliamentarians have a very limited role in examining these treaties. The amendments they propose can only relate to the legislation itself, not to the treaty. Things are different in the United States and Europe, where parliamentarians have a much greater impact on treaty negotiations. Does my colleague not think that we should modernize and thoroughly review Canada's practices for signing and negotiating international trade agreements?”
“Mr. Speaker, in the previous speech, my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton referred to an amendment he proposed at a committee that he sits on along with my colleague, the Standing Committee on International Trade. This amendment called for an agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures with the U.K. so that Canadian meat exports can enter the U.K. market. I thought that was a perfectly reasonable and extremely important amendment. However, my colleague voted against it. Can she explain why she voted against that amendment when, I repeat, this proposal seemed entirely reasonable and even very sensible in the context of negotiations?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who has once again shown how well he knows his file. In his remarks, he briefly alluded to Bill C‑228 , which is sponsored by the member for Jonquière and which deals with international trade treaties. I would like the member to explain to our colleagues here today how that bill would change the way Canada drafts international trade agreements. How would it actually change the way things are done right now?”
“Madam Speaker, this is an interesting debate today. We are talking about international trade treaties. There is one treaty that has already been ratified by most of the officials on both sides, the one with Taiwan. About six weeks ago, we heard the Taiwanese ambassador wonder why the Prime Minister has chosen not to sign this agreement, which has had the green light since last April. In Davos, the Prime Minister said that we need to forge alliances with stable and reliable allies, and I think that Taiwan is such an ally. Could my colleague tell me what the Prime Minister is thinking by not signing this agreement, when all that is missing is his signature?”
“Madam Speaker, in a previous question, I mentioned to my Liberal colleague that when it comes time for Canada to sign international trade agreements, there is a serious democratic deficit because Parliament does not really have a say in the matter, unlike the United States, for example, and other industrialized countries. Does my colleague not think that there should be a comprehensive review of how this government and this Parliament conclude international treaties?”
“Madam Speaker, this debate exposes Parliament's limited ability to amend treaties. Amendments can be made only to the bill and not to the treaty itself. In the United States, the U.S. Congress grants negotiating mandates, making it more difficult for negotiating teams to conclude unsatisfactory agreements. In Canada, the executive branch acts alone, without any parliamentary oversight. In most industrialized countries, parliaments adopt treaties. This forces executive branches to maintain an ongoing dialogue and perhaps even reorient negotiations. In other words, Canada has a democratic deficit. I am running out of time, so I will ask my question. Does my colleague not think that we should review how Canada and Parliament approach treaties, instead of allowing the executive branch to act alone?”
“Mr. Chair, in fact, there is only one thing I want to know following my colleague's speech. When dealing with issues as complex as this one, we need to be thorough. In his answers, the Prime Minister first said one thing and then the opposite. He began by saying that he supported the American and Israeli strikes. Then he said that international law must be respected at all costs. Later, he said that the strikes did not comply with international law. At that point, we were a little confused. The most important question is this: Is my colleague more in favour of his Prime Minister's position or is he more in favour of the Conservatives' position at this time with regard to the current conflict?”
“Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague, someone I hold in the highest regard, and ask her a fairly simple question. Earlier today, the Leader of the Opposition said that he was proud of the Prime Minister who, without consulting our allies, declared that he unequivocally supported the American and Israeli offensive. In the same breath, he also said that had he been prime minister, he would have consulted our allies before making a statement. He cannot have it both ways: Would he have consulted our allies before making a statement, or is he proud of the Prime Minister's statement, which was made without consulting our allies?”
“Madam Chair, I want to know whether my colleague finds that the consular services provided since the start of the conflict are worthy of a G7 country. Several stories have been reported in the newspapers, such as the Journal de Montréal, and in other media. I get the impression that Canadian consular services are still lagging behind the consular services of many of our allies.”
“Madam Chair, I will take the liberty of asking a question. I want to be very clear that I will not point out the absence or presence of anyone in the House. I just want to ask my colleague whether he thinks it is right that the leader of the Green Party asked more questions and made more comments this evening in response to speeches than any members from the Liberal Party and the NDP combined, even though they are the ones who asked for this debate.”
“Madam Chair, what we have been saying all along is that we cannot support an American-Israeli military offensive without prior consultation. In fact, even the U.S. Congress was not consulted. We will always defend Israel's right to defend itself. Just because someone commits a crime does not mean another person has the right to commit one too. That is one thing. Now, I am not saying this is a crime. I am saying that the most important thing is to talk to our allies, ensure that everyone is on the same page and ensure that there is no impending catastrophe as a result of the military actions of Donald Trump and Israel.”
“Madam Chair, five minutes really does fly by. We know that there will be repercussions. We are experiencing them already. What will it mean? Of course, it means that energy costs are going to spike, but it also means that that nearly every economic sector will feel the effects, possibly leading to job losses and rising inflation. What we are saying is that, first and foremost, as my leader mentioned, wage subsidies should be introduced for businesses affected by these repercussions. This was done before, during COVID‑19. The Bloc Québécois proposed it and we were delighted when the government picked it up. When possible, we can use this as a way to maintain the employment relationship, to reassure people about their jobs, but also to reassure businesses that their employment relationships are not lost.”
“Madam Chair, the Bloc Québécois has always said and will always say that Israel has the right to fully defend itself, just like any other independent country or any other nation does. Israel has the right to its own security and the right to take every measure to defend itself. Now, international law comes first. Above all, there are allies with whom it is possible to work, whether diplomatically, through various international organizations such as the UN, the G7, or NATO countries, to forge alliances and ensure that the security of all democratic nations is not jeopardized.”
“I see the Prime Minister nodding his head and seemingly agreeing with me. As I said, the NDP is not currently participating in the debate, even though it held a press conference calling for an emergency debate on this issue. All this is to say that none of the positions heard today in the House are worthy of a G7 country, yet all of the parties here, except ours, aspire to govern Canada. I believe that, from the outset, we have been in the best position to see what should have been done. I hope my colleagues are taking note. First, the government should have consulted our allies. Second, it should have prepared a contingency plan for consular services before the conflict erupted. Finally, it should have taken steps to deal with the consequences unfolding here at home.”
“The Leader of the Opposition told us earlier that he was proud of the Prime Minister when that statement was made. I sometimes wonder whether this Prime Minister is a Conservative dressed in red and vice versa. In short, for one day, everyone was on the same page, Conservatives and Liberals alike. However, it is not right to support someone like Donald Trump, who has clearly stated publicly that once the conflict is over, he plans to choose the next regime or the next leader in Iran, in Tehran. It is just wrong to take such a position. I invite all parties to think more carefully when dealing with an issue as complex as the one we are discussing this evening. It is also not okay for the NDP to hold a press conference in the foyer of the House to call for an emergency debate and then not participate in the debate.”
“Unfortunately, Canada did not have one, which explains why it is so difficult for Canadians and Quebeckers who are stuck there to return as quickly as French, German or Romanian citizens. The Romanians have deployed consular services that are much more effective and faster than Canada's. It is not okay that no measures have been announced to deal with the consequences this conflict will have on our constituents. It is extremely distressing to see the results we are facing and the way this government is managing the situation. They call this their new government, and this is their first major international crisis. That is the Liberals. It is no different on the Conservative side. I just talked about that. They support the Americans. They were even proud of the Prime Minister's first statement. They have said so.”
“Unfortunately, he failed rather embarrassingly in his first response when he gave his unreserved and, once again, blind support to Donald Trump's and Israel's military offensive. Sadly, he made that statement without first consulting our allies. It is not okay to blindly support such an offensive. It is not okay to fail to consult key allies before making such a statement. It is not okay to not have a consular contingency plan in place before a conflict erupts. All of Canada's allies had already prepared contingency plans. The writing was on the wall. The Americans have been sending ships to the Persian Gulf for weeks. Several of our allies already had a plan to repatriate people in case a conflict broke out.”
“Madam Chair, I want to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton . I want to go back to what was just said. Let us remember that, in 1953, there was a gentleman in Iran, Prime Minister Mossadegh, who was overthrown so that the shah of Iran could take his place. This was done by the British and the Americans. However, what people often forget is that Canada provided logistical and diplomatic support for the overthrow of Mr. Mossadegh, who wanted to nationalize oil resources. Members must remember that it is always a little dangerous to change one regime by imposing a new one on the people. I want to come back to the Liberals' position on the debate we are having tonight. This is the first time the Prime Minister has faced an international crisis of this magnitude.”
“Madam Chair, no one on the Conservative side seems to want to answer my question. However, it seems like a valid question to me. It has to do with support for a military offensive launched by Donald Trump, who said that following this offensive, he would choose the next regime in Iran, because the United States was going to win this war. That is what Donald Trump said. However, anyone who blindly and unconditionally supports the American and Israeli offensive is also supporting Donald Trump's desire to choose the next regime. I sincerely and firmly believe that it is up to Iranians to choose the next political regime. Is this not something the Conservatives should consider and factor into their position? I say this in all sincerity and friendship. Is this not a way for them to distinguish themselves based on their current position?”
“Those who support Donald Trump are also supporting his desire to decide who will lead Iran following the offensive he has launched.”
“Madam Chair, I am surprised to see that the Liberals are not really participating in the debate, even though they are the ones who requested it, but these things happen. My question for my colleague is simple. Canada is blindly supporting the offensive currently being waged by Donald Trump and the Israelis. However, according to Donald Trump, the logical next step would be for him to personally choose the next regime and the next leader of Iran. Does my colleague not believe that there is a danger in blindly supporting this offensive, knowing full well that it should be up to the people of Iran to choose their future and their political regime? I am sure my colleague agrees with me on this. That is clearly my position.”
“Mr. Chair, why is Canada always behind when it comes to providing consular services during international crises? The Americans had been sending ships for weeks. All the other allies were already prepared. As for Canada, we are reacting, once again, as always. I do not want to know if there is currently a contingency plan. I want to know why there was not already a contingency plan in place, just in case. That is the key question tonight. How is it that no consular officials had been sent to the region, when it was well known that something was going to happen, given that the Americans were already sending in military forces? Why did Canada not have a contingency plan before the conflict began?”
“Mr. Chair, several things are interesting this evening. I completely agree with my colleague that the Liberal Party's changing positions have resulted in confusion. This is not how a party in power should behave. The New Democrats have not risen this evening. I do not think we are hearing them even though they held a press conference today calling for an emergency debate. Theirs is an unusual position. In contrast, the Conservatives have a clear position, but that does not mean it makes sense. Here is my question for my colleague: When the Leader of the Opposition said he was proud of his Prime Minister and his first speech, in which he blindly supported Donald Trump's offensive, did he realize at the time that Donald Trump had said Iran's next leader—”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the current position of the Conservatives, who unequivocally support the American and Israeli offensive, an offensive that, by all appearances, goes against international law and is aiming for regime change. We all hate this regime, but that does not change the fact that this is an offensive designed to change an established regime in violation of international law. Is the Leader of the Opposition not in fact telling Vladimir Putin that, basically, what he is doing is okay?”
“Mr. Speaker, my leader gave a wonderful speech, as always. He mentioned Davos. Everyone remembers the Prime Minister 's speech in Davos, despite the fact that he had been in the United Arab Emirates and Beijing three days earlier. In his opinion, how did the middle powers receive the Prime Minister 's first speech on the American and Israeli offensive? How does he think this was perceived by our allies, whether European or Australian?”
“Would he have aligned himself with European allies or would he have done what his own party is doing today, which is unilaterally supporting Donald Trump's American offensive?”
“Mr. Speaker, we can agree on that. My question for the leader of the official opposition is very simple. On day one, the Prime Minister took the same position that the Conservatives are taking today, which is that he unequivocally supported the Trump-Israel military offensive. If the leader of the official opposition had been prime minister instead of the current Prime Minister, would he not have consulted his allies before making such a statement? Would he have followed the example of France, Germany or Norway, which stated with nuance that they did not necessarily support the offensive because they wanted it to comply with international law? What would he have done?”
“Mr. Speaker, the opposition leader says that the Iranians should choose their own future. I could not agree with that statement more. I wish for that with all my heart. I hope that will happen someday. In the same breath, he also says that he unreservedly supports the American offensive in Iran. As such, he supports President Trump 100% in this offensive. President Trump also said that in the wake of this offensive, it will be up to him to choose the next leader of Iran. He said that himself. Does the opposition leader understand that this kind of issue should be approached with great nuance? It is very complex. By unilaterally supporting the military offensive by Israel and President Trump, he is effectively supporting that same president's choice for the next leader. Does he realize that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will correct the minister. The Prime Minister was very clear. He supported the American military offensive from day one of the American offensive. The government cannot say one thing and then contradict itself on a topic as complex as the one that brings us here this evening. How can the Prime Minister say that we must defend international law at all costs and, at the same time, in his own words, support an offensive that violates international law? Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs really think that is a serious position from the Prime Minister of Canada?”