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 5 of 9.
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that, when Marc Garneau apologized, he did so on his own behalf because he did not have the authority to do so on behalf of the government. What the Bloc Québécois is doing today is giving the government an opportunity to fix past mistakes. When someone from Mirabel reads the Bloc Québécois motion, they will wonder how any MP, particularly one from Quebec, could vote against it. The Bloc Québécois is not against the high-speed rail project. This Bloc Québécois motion calls for reparations for past mistakes in the form of an official apology from the government, consultations and social licence to ensure that what happened in Mirabel does not happen again. The minister is from Quebec. He is not heartless. If he is planning to vote against this motion, I really, truly want him to tell me why.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. In all honesty, it is one of the best speeches I have heard in my six and a half years as a member of Parliament. I am very proud of him. We have just learned that the Liberals have shown their true colours through the member for Thérèse-De Blainville . They will try to use 40-year-old slogans about the Bloc Québécois rather than apologize to the people who are asking for an apology. Can my colleague, with the eloquence he is known for, explain to the Liberals what we are talking about today so that they understand once and for all that what is being presented in the House today is much more important than petty slogans and political games?”
“Mr. Speaker, Taiwan is a reliable partner. It is a democracy and a market economy. It is a leader in green technology and AI, fields where trade would be good for Quebec. It is the sixth-largest economy in Asia. It is exactly the kind of middle power that Canada should join forces with to counter the hegemony of giants, according to the Prime Minister 's speech in Davos. However, it is the Prime Minister himself who is blocking the agreement with Taiwan to court China. Why is the Prime Minister doing the exact opposite of what he said in Davos?”
“I return to the familiar laughter and silences that sometimes speak louder than words.” Michel was always able to depict reality through the rules of theatre, which often speak louder than words themselves. I want to thank Michel for his work, his artistic bravery and his love of Quebec and Lac‑Saint‑Jean.”
“Mr. Speaker, Michel Marc Bouchard, the little guy from Saint‑Coeur‑de‑Marie who became an internationally acclaimed playwright, is making Quebec culture shine on the world stage. His name now proudly appears on the sign of the community and cultural centre of the city of Alma. Michel Marc Bouchard, a giant of Quebec culture, has always promoted love in all its forms in over 25 plays that have earned him numerous awards, both here and abroad. Even though his plays have been performed on the world's great stages, Michel Marc Bouchard's hometown holds a special place in his heart. As he says, “I return every year. I make my way back to Lac‑Saint‑Jean, like how we find our way back to an old song we had forgotten. I come back to breathe in the air of the place where I grew up.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague is a passionate and hard-working member. Indeed, that is the point of my question. In the limited time she has, I would like her to summarize the work that the Bloc Québécois has done regarding what is included in Bill C-16 and what it means to be a passionate and hard-working member like her.”
“Mr. Speaker, a part of this bill purports to address court delays, more specifically, the harmful effects of the Jordan decision. This is something the Bloc Québécois has been calling for for quite some time. My colleague is familiar with that part of the bill. Does he believe that passing this part of the bill as drafted will negate the harmful effects of the Jordan decision?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to wish everyone a merry Christmas. I also want to thank my colleague, whom I enjoy working with at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We work really well together. I think we are showing that it is possible to do really solid collaborative work together in committee. Speaking of committees, things are not going very well in some of them, such as the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Some of my Conservative colleagues are not very keen on the work that is being done there at the moment because the Bloc Québécois wants to repeal the religious exemption in the Criminal Code. I will give my colleague a gift. I would like to know where he thinks his Conservative colleagues from Quebec stand on the religious exemption.”
“Mr. Speaker, what I find fascinating about Bill C‑12 is that the government is telling us that we need a drastic course correction, that we need to modernize border processes, that it is important, that what is happening at the border is terrible and that we need to change our laws on immigration, justice and public safety, because things are not going well. However, this government has been in power for 10 years. The Liberals have been in power for 10 years, but they just now realized that things are not going well and that we need to change course. Give me a break.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my gratitude to my colleague whom I have had the opportunity to work with on several committees. He works tirelessly and does so for the right reasons. Even though our views sometimes differ, we are able to debate, make progress and collaborate. Since the government took office, it seems to have forgotten one thing: It is a minority government. It behaves as though it were a majority. Just look at the bills it has introduced since coming to power. It seems to think it is all-powerful, when in fact it needs to work with the opposition parties. We are capable of that. We did so during the study of Bill C‑12 . Without my Conservative Party colleagues, Bill C-12 would not be what it is today. We worked together to make changes, and we did so by keeping in mind those who will be affected by this bill.”
“CBSA officials, the minister and the deputy minister have all told us that they will not do those things. It is rather unfortunate that the government simply cannot see how quickly it could take action without even having to use Bill C-12 . That would be a game-changer.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are two things to consider. First, the CBSA union has said that there is currently a shortage of between 2,000 and 3,000 officers. Second, according to the union, the government could grant border services officers the power to patrol outside border crossings immediately, through a simple administrative decision, without having to introduce a bill. The union says this measure alone could help, and it would mean that not as many RCMP officers would need to be hired. Border services officers could do their job and get to the scene of a tipoff much faster than the RCMP. There are things the government can do right now, but it is not doing them. The CBSA union is asking the government to do those things. We heard from representatives of that union in committee.”
“Now, they add a clause to the contract saying that they will smuggle them across illegally and, as a bonus, they will hide them for 14 days. After hiding for 14 days, migrants can apply for asylum. The thing is that these people, who have to hide for 14 days because of this provision in the safe third country agreement, are at the mercy of human smuggling networks for 14 days and do not dare to leave their hiding place because, if they do, their asylum claim might no longer be valid. It is frankly mind-boggling. The same legislation tells migrants that they have to break the law in order to comply with the law. If they cross the border irregularly, then they have to hide in the country for 14 days. Once they have done that, once they have broken the law, they can apply for asylum, and their application will be admissible.”
“Simply put, the safe third country agreement should have been reopened, as requested by the Bloc Québécois, so that this provision could be removed, because that would have put an end to the exploitation of vulnerable people at the mercy of smuggling networks. The government decided otherwise, but I do not think people understand the extent to which human smuggling networks take advantage of the 14-day rule. We talk to people on both sides of the border, in the United States and here in Quebec and Canada, who work with migrants and try to help them. These people tell us that human smugglers are using the 14-day rule. They used to just ask migrants for money to smuggle them across the border illegally.”
“As I was saying, we support the basic principle of Bill C‑12 . I noticed the government's attempt to respond to the Bloc Québécois's priority request to remove the 14-day rule, which was included in the Canada-U.S. safe third country agreement and which has created a loophole that has been exploited by human smuggling networks at the border. However, in Bill C‑12, the 14-day rule was not dealt with in the right way. The actual impact of the alternative that has been proposed is pretty hard to pin down. Quite frankly, I think that the networks that are currently exploiting migrants will still be able to do the same thing even if Bill C‑12 passes.”
“They are making no effort at all to take in their share of these asylum seekers. I want to remind the House that, in 2024, the former immigration minister, the member for Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs , who is currently the heritage minister and is already making unseemly remarks, announced with great fanfare that he was going to form a committee and make sure asylum seekers were distributed across the country. It was all a dog and pony show. He held a big press conference alongside provincial immigration ministers from across the country. The federal government proudly proclaimed that it had finally found the solution. Since then, all that we have heard is dead silence. The committee was never mentioned again. The Liberals never came up with any more solutions. It is a damn shame.”
“Given that the training is different, the claims will likely just be transferred from one processing centre to another, which means that the overall volume of claims will not change. The claims will just be moved from place to another. Not only will the volume of claims not change, but the processing times will skyrocket. There will likely not be enough employees with the training to deal with pre-removal risk assessments. They will not be able to deal with those claims. Obviously, my other concern is the distribution of asylum seekers. It is not right that asylum seekers arriving in Montreal suddenly find themselves without shelter because we lack the means to properly provide for them on arrival. Meanwhile, some provinces in the rest of Canada are doing absolutely nothing.”
“(1055) As I was saying, overall, the Bloc Québécois is satisfied with the principle of Bill C-12 , and we applaud the government's intention. However, several questions remain unanswered. I am thinking about resources in particular, but also about processing times for asylum claims, which I have to say are more than problematic. After analyzing the bill, I am having a hard time understanding how those processing times will be reduced. I quickly realized what the government is really doing with Bill C-12: It is transferring the influx of claims from one place to another and it is getting away with it by saying that it has solved the problem. The public servants who process asylum claims and those who conduct pre-removal risk assessments have different training. That was mentioned in committee.”
“I am thinking in particular of the colleagues with whom I have the honour of serving on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, as well as my peers on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, whom I recently worked with to study Bill C-3 on lost Canadians. Our amendments to that bill received support from the majority of committee members, but they were stripped out when the bill got to the House. Today, I must reiterate the importance of the work parliamentarians do in committee. I know that this aspect of our work requires a lot of rigour, precision and, above all, willingness to work together and improve things. Unfortunately, it is clear that this government does not seem to understand the amount of work that is involved in serving on a committee or the legislative scope of that work.”
“The bill would mostly ensure that the system that welcomes migrants is fairer and more effective. I wish to commend my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for their tireless work on this bill. I am sure that like me, many members of the House have noticed that the important parliamentary work and committee work being done in this Parliament does not appear to be of much interest to the new Prime Minister of Canada. He seems far more interested in meeting with the leaders of what I will politely call countries with unsavoury reputations, such as China and Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, parliamentarians are working diligently in committee to improve bills and to contribute to reports and recommendations on issues that are often complex and poignant.”
“It really depends on whether the federal government is willing to implement more effective measures to secure the border, while responding to a request from current officers. This is a straightforward and practical request that is coming from the union, but we know what the Liberals are going to say: Why do things the easy way when we can do them the hard way? The Bloc Québécois has been calling on the government to make changes for some time now. Overall, we are satisfied with the principle of Bill C‑12. We applaud the government's intention. The bill seeks to address several issues that we have been raising for months, if not years. Like all Quebeckers, the Bloc Québécois remains staunchly committed to welcoming people fleeing persecution and hardship.”
“Although the government stated that the border plan it introduced in December 2024 would result in the hiring of additional officers, I am sure members will agree with me that we are still nowhere near the staffing levels the union asked for, and nowhere near the number the Liberals promised during the election campaign. This is another broken Liberal promise. In an effort to resolve this issue, the Bloc Québécois and the customs union are asking Ottawa to allow CBSA officers to patrol between border crossings. The aim is not to replace the RCMP, but rather to give federal agencies more depth and flexibility in enforcing the law. This would not require a legislative amendment, only a regulatory change, or maybe even just an administrative change.”
“The Bloc Québécois believes that with Bill C-12 , formerly Bill C-2, the government is indeed taking a step in the right direction. However, we also believe that this bill, if passed, leaves one major problem unaddressed, and that is the staffing shortage at the CBSA and the RCMP. Let us go back a few months. In its election platform, the Liberal Party promised to hire 1,000 additional RCMP officers and 1,000 additional CBSA officers. The Speech from the Throne mentioned the 1,000 RCMP officers, but there was no mention of the 1,000 CBSA officers. The customs union is saying that the CBSA needs another 2,000 to 3,000 officers in order to do its job properly.”
“Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, it is important to note that in introducing the nearly 130-page document originally known as Bill C-2 , an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures, the government was doing a complete 180°. I say this because, as I am sure members will recall, the Liberal government has mismanaged a lot of border crises over the past few years. I am thinking in particular of the wave of irregular immigration at Roxham Road, the human smuggling rings that sprang up at the border to take advantage of migrants and that continue to thrive, the Mexican cartels that set up shop at the border, the wave of car thefts at the port of Montreal, gun trafficking, and plenty of other examples.”
“How is it that they are forced to introduce a bill that completely overturns the laws of three departments: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness; Citizenship and Immigration; and Justice? Why do the Liberals have to resort to this when they have been in power for 10 years?”
“Mr. Speaker, indeed, it is the holiday season. We are going to be nice when we ask our questions and make our comments because we do not want to part on bad terms right before Christmas. I understand that the government is introducing Bill C-12 . It used to be Bill C-2 and was much more robust. My Conservative colleague and I sit on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, where we made many amendments to Bill C-12. I think we improved it considerably. If we can come up with such robust, significant measures to change what is happening at the border and in immigration, because this also affects the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, what has the Liberal government been doing for the past 10 years that caused them to show up today with Bill C-12 ?”
“As a spokesperson for Les Petits Frères and the Salon des aînés de Saint-Jérôme, Béatrice Picard was engaged. She generously donated her time and energy in the service of others. Yes, a grande dame has left our midst. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, Quebeckers and more personally, the Duceppe family, I offer her loved ones and her family our sincerest condolences. To Béatrice, I say thank you for everything.”
“Mr. Speaker, a grande dame has left our midst. One of our most distinguished actors, Béatrice Picard, passed away yesterday at the venerable age of 96, yet we all feel that she has left us too soon. Béatrice Picard was a fixture of Quebec's theatre scene for over 60 years. She played iconic roles in over 40 plays at the Duceppe theatre, which will forever be linked to her name. Examples include French versions of The Death of a Salesman and Harold and Maude , a role she only recently performed. She brought our big and small screens to life, and brought down the house with her acclaimed roles in Survenant , Un gars, une fille , Symphorien and The Simpsons . Perhaps more than anything, Béatrice Picard was also the epitome of graceful aging.”
“Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me. We are always forgotten, but we are part of the House, unfortunately for the other two recognized parties. I just want to understand. I have been here since this morning, and there is something I really do not understand. Quebeckers are watching everything that is going on right now and finding it completely surreal. The Bloc Québécois's proposal is not complicated: take the Criminal Code and remove the exemption that allows hate to be promoted under the guise of religion, even if it is done in good faith. Since the beginning of the day, there have been big speeches about religious freedom. That is not what the Bloc Québécois is attacking. I would just like to understand. Is my colleague fighting to allow people to promote hatred under the guise of religion?”
“Mr. Speaker, it would be hard to overstate how disappointed people would feel if they heard what is being said here. Quebec has already had this debate. The National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code. Seventy-five per cent of Quebeckers support the Bloc Québécois's proposal to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code. People would be disheartened to see what is going on. Does my colleague agree that it is outrageous for the committee not to be sitting today, or for us not to be able to work on this issue to get this bill passed? Once and for all, we have to realize the importance and reasonableness of removing this exemption.”
“Some people from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs support the Bloc Québécois's proposal. Irwin Cotler does. All we want is to remove a religious exemption from the Criminal Code, nothing more. No religion is under attack. Does my colleague get that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. At least he is clear, straightforward and honest, unlike the Liberals. He says what he thinks. He debates. The Bloc Québécois is the same. I think that the objective behind our proposal to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code is straightforward, honest and clear. As we have seen, the Liberals do not want to work. They are making sure that there will be no committee meeting, and I think that their caucus is bickering a little. Once again, the Liberals are not being very clear. That being said, let us come back to what my colleague said. Quebeckers who are watching this debate in the House are having a hard time understanding why Conservative members are missing the point. We are not attacking any religion. I have met with people from the Jewish community.”
“Is my colleague saying that 75% of Quebeckers and 100% of the members of the Quebec National Assembly are imperialists and colonialists?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think Quebeckers who are watching what is happening here must be finding it a bit surreal. Everyone is missing the point. Let us take a good look at the Bloc Québécois's proposal concerning the religious exemption. The Criminal Code says that it is against the law to promote hatred, to incite hatred. Unfortunately, there is a small paragraph that provides an exemption when a religious text is involved. The bill simply removes this religious exemption. Nobody is attacking any religion. My colleague says that this proposal is steeped in imperialism and colonialism. I would say that 75% of Quebeckers are in favour of this proposal. Moreover, all 125 members of the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion in favour of this proposal.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are having a strange debate today. From what I understand, the Liberals do not want to debate this in committee and the Conservatives are clearly against the provision. However, as my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord pointed out in his speech earlier, there was an agreement. As my colleague from Drummond said—and I thank him for his excellent speech, by the way—75% of Quebeckers are in favour of the Bloc Québécois's proposal. What is more, the Quebec National Assembly has made a unanimous request for this. The 125 members of the Quebec National Assembly, across party lines, have asked the government to support the Bloc Québécois's proposal. My question for my colleague is this: Does he know very many members of the Conservative caucus from Quebec who are saying that the Bloc Québécois's proposal is unacceptable?”
“There is a general consensus in Quebec to support the Bloc Québécois's mission to remove this provision from the Criminal Code. What does my colleague have to say to the Quebec National Assembly, which unanimously supports the Bloc Québécois's position on this issue and is calling for the removal of the religious exemption from the Criminal Code?”
“Madam Speaker, I just want to reassure my colleagues: The Bloc Québécois is not on a mission against people of faith, believers or those who represent different religions. That is not the case at all. The Bloc Québécois wants to remove a provision of the Criminal Code that makes it possible to incite hatred under the guise of religion. Take, for example, Mr. Charkaoui. Unless I am mistaken, the members who rise the most in the House to support the Jewish community are my Conservative colleagues. The Jewish community in Quebec was extremely concerned about what he did, but criminal charges have not even been brought against him. Many people are saying it is because of the religious exemption in the Criminal Code. Quebec's Jewish community supports the Bloc Québécois in its efforts.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague compared the current Prime Minister to former prime minister Trudeau, saying that they were exactly the same. Allow me to disagree. These days, Quebec television programs are comparing the current Prime Minister to Stephen Harper. We can look to the budget to see if that is true. That comparison is not far-fetched at all, considering that the budget contains a measure that will gift $100 billion in tax credits to the oil and gas industry. That is irresponsible on two fronts, whether in fiscal terms and or in terms of assisting an industry that rakes in record profits year after year while worsening climate change by producing ever-growing amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. Does my colleague agree with me that the current Prime Minister is less like Mr. Trudeau, and more like Stephen Harper?”
“Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, the Bloc Québécois voted against this budget and will be voting against its implementation. I listened closely to every word my colleague said. There is something I have been wondering about from the start. We have been hearing a lot about how this budget wastes public money and does not spend it on the right things. For example, the government just extended tax credits for oil and gas companies from 2035 to 2040. Those tax credits were costing us all $83 billion, but now they will cost us up to $100 billion for an industry that logs record-breaking profits year after year. Does my colleague see this as a prime example of wasting money?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been asking a few questions about what is not in the budget. One thing that is missing from the budget is the $814 million that the Bloc Québécois was calling for. We wanted that money to be returned to Quebeckers following the spring rebate on a carbon tax that had never been paid. Cheques totalling $4 billion were sent out across Canada, except to Quebec and British Columbia. The tax had not been paid, but it was reimbursed anyway. That is not a rebate; that is a gift. On top of that, to pay for the gift, $814 million of that $4 billion came from tax dollars paid by Quebeckers. That is theft. Does my colleague agree with me that this $814 million should have been reimbursed to Quebec in the budget?”
“On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton introduced Bill C‑251 , which would reverse the burden of proof in cases of forced labour and child labour. Do the Conservatives agree that we absolutely have to pass this bill and that we have to do the government's job because it is incapable of doing it?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, which was thorough and to the point as always. We have talked a lot about things in this budget that are not good for ordinary people. For example, we talked about the $100 billion in tax credits that are still being given to the oil and gas industry, even though it logs record-breaking profits year after year. That said, there is one thing that was in the last two budgets but is not in this one: a plan to pass legislation on forced labour and child labour. There is nothing in this budget about the government's intentions in that regard. That was one good intention the government had back when it truly cared about human rights.”
“Madam Speaker, I have asked my Conservative colleagues two questions now. I am not sure whether they have been given orders not to answer questions from the Bloc Québécois, but both times their answers completely sidestepped the very specific question I was asking. What I am thinking now is that, if they want to replace the government one day, then they have to be able to answer questions when they are in the opposition, so I will ask a question that is very serious, very direct and very easy to understand. My colleague completely tore apart the budget that was presented by the Liberal government and its implementation. My question is very simple. When it came time to vote, why did his party let this budget pass?”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. I think he did a good job. He tore apart the budget point by point in an extremely methodical and serious way. Listening to his speech, I felt that he was right on several points. Eventually, a question popped into my head: Why did the Conservative Party allow the budget to pass?”
“Madam Speaker, once again, we share many of the Conservatives' concerns about this budget and its implementation. For example, my colleague mentioned the waste of money. If there is one clear and compelling example of money-wasting in this budget, however, it is no doubt the $100 billion we are collectively leaving on the table only to fill the pockets of the oil and gas industry. That is the choice this government has made for an industry that posts record profits year after year. Could there be a more glaring and shameful example of wasting taxpayer money?”
“My colleague's bill also helps reignite discussions on this subject, which I think is extremely positive. I will conclude my speech by commending my colleague's work and confirming that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑219 , which will, however, have to be studied in committee. We will be thorough and we will collaborate, as usual. I am more than ready to work with my colleagues. This bill is likely to be studied by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, of which I am a member. We will be there. I believe this is a bill that can truly make a difference and have a real impact on people who are fighting for the freedom of their loved ones. I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to deliver this speech tonight.”
“Anyone who encourages repression must be held accountable for their actions. Bill S‑219 therefore adds something to the legislation. It adds the fact that sanctions can be imposed in cases of transnational repression. The bill would also force the minister to respond to a parliamentary motion calling for sanctions against a corrupt foreign leader. This means that I, along with my Bloc Québécois colleagues, will support Bill C‑219 introduced by my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman . While the provisions of the Sergei Magnitsky Law and the Special Economic Measures Act both allow for targeted sanctions, only the Special Economic Measures Act is currently used for this purpose. The Sergei Magnitsky Law has not been used to implement targeted sanctions since 2018.”
“I do not want to identify them by name, but I know for a fact that they know who they are. I am thinking of people who care deeply about democracy and justice and who, simply because they believe in a better future for their loved ones, are subjected to intimidation, harassment, threats and even imprisonment and torture. I am thinking of people like Jimmy Lai, a human rights defender who has become a prominent figure in the fight for freedom and democracy. Right now, Mr. Lai, who is 77 years old, is languishing in appalling conditions in a Hong Kong prison. His crime was that he supported journalism and freedom of the press. Obviously, my thoughts are with his son, Sebastien, to whom I once again express my solidarity. Repression can be insidious, so insidious that it can be hard to see at times.”
“The bill defines “transnational repression” as follows: tactics used by a foreign state to intimidate, harass, surveil or threaten individuals or groups located outside the state borders or physically harm such individuals or members of such groups, including elected officials, political dissidents, human rights defenders, exiled journalists, diaspora communities, civil society activists and refugees, for the purpose of silencing dissent and stifling activism. As I speak these words in the House, I am thinking of several members of various communities who, here in this very place, day after day, week after week, bear the burden of foreign repression, of transnational repression. They are human rights defenders, refugees and civil society activists. These people, who were once acquaintances, have now become friends.”
“It reads as follows: an individual who, in contravention of international human rights standards, has been detained or otherwise physically restricted solely because of their identity or their conscientiously held beliefs, including religious or political beliefs. As I said earlier, the bill also adds a definition for transnational repression. I want to reiterate that this was a Bloc Québécois proposal made during the last election campaign. Since we have fewer members that can introduce bills, we appreciate when our colleagues incorporate our ideas into theirs.”