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 7 of 9.
“Mr. Speaker, I would say that, true to form, the member for Winnipeg North is not acting in good faith, and that is putting it politely. The amendments introduced by the government are a direct attack on the amendments that were voted on in committee. They simply undo the amendments that were voted on in committee. However, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's remarks in committee, we are not talking about 500, 600, 700, or 1,000 people who would be affected by the bill, but rather 115,000 to 150,000 people. The Minister of Immigration told us that it is impossible to estimate. We have worked hard to set guidelines to ensure that our work is thorough. This bill is important to people who have experienced injustice.”
“Despite what my colleagues opposite may think, the amendments adopted by a majority of the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration are consistent with that approach. I look forward to questions.”
“The Chair knows better than anyone in the House that when we step into this place, our goal is always to work for our constituents, not for anyone else. We in the Bloc Québécois are here for Quebeckers who care about Quebec's future, and not just when it is time to cater to our electoral ambitions. People know that. They saw the work we did in committee on this bill. They heard the evasive answers from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration officials when we asked them questions in committee. I sincerely hope that the efforts and energy that my colleagues and I have put into studying this bill will be given due consideration and respect. I want to reiterate that citizenship status must be equal for everyone, and Canadian laws must be consistent.”
“However, that does not mean I am in favour of shoddy work. I am talking about swift but effective adoption. I am talking about adoption that is the result of rigorous work that has allowed the bill to follow the usual steps, including committee review and the tabling of a report in the House. I am talking about adoption that respects the decision of the majority of members of the House and the important work of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I find it a shame when I read amendments like the ones proposed today. I believe they reflect a lack of consideration for the work that is done at committee. As parliamentarians, we need to tackle the issues that matter most to our constituents with a strong sense of duty and without partisanship. At the Bloc Québécois, that is what we always do.”
“We know for a fact that they aim to restore amended clauses to their original form, except for the one about the three requirements, in other words, the security, language and citizenship test for persons between 18 and 55 years of age. In addition, one insidious aim of the amendments is to overturn the careful work done by a majority of committee members to achieve this outcome. In that respect, the Bloc Québécois demands respect for the work of committee members. It blows me away to think that the House needs to be told to respect the work of committee members. For that reason, we are going to oppose the amendments proposed by the government at report stage. As the House knows, I was in favour of Bills S‑245 and C‑71 . I am obviously in favour of quickly passing Bill C‑3 to meet the court's requirements.”
“There can never be too much accountability where the federal government is concerned. We will require the tabling of a report containing annual statistics on the number of citizenships granted under this legislation, which seems perfectly normal and understandable to me. We sincerely believe that these amendments address the court's ruling that we determine what is meant by a real connection to Canada. Since everyone should be considered equal before the law, replicating the naturalization requirements for second-generation children born abroad establishes that the same rules apply to everyone. (1350) The amendments brought forward by the government at this stage are problematic.”
“Bill C‑3 calls for citizenship to be granted to children as long as one of the parents spends a minimum of 1,095 days in Canada over an indefinite period before the child's birth. To ensure consistency across federal laws, we supported an amendment calling for this 1,095-day requirement to be met within a five-year period, as is the case for someone seeking citizenship through the immigration process. We also supported an amendment that will require people who are over 18 at the time of their citizenship application to comply with additional requirements. They would have to meet the same requirements as those imposed on naturalized citizens, namely, to pass a language test, to pass a citizenship knowledge test and to undergo a security assessment. Furthermore, Bill C-3 will now hold the federal government accountable to some degree.”
“As parliamentarians, we must be thorough and mindful of the impact our decisions have. The Bloc Québécois has always worked that way, and it will continue to do so. Before continuing, I would like to confirm that, as was the case with Bills C‑71 and S‑245, the Bloc Québécois agrees with Bill C‑3 as amended by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. My colleagues and I have done work on this bill that may have been perceived as harsh, but after gathering some information and analyzing the facts, it was quite obviously necessary. In particular, the bill was amended in committee to ensure that the requirements for passing on citizenship by descent to second-generation Canadians born abroad are identical to the requirements for naturalized citizens.”
“In that sense, and without wanting to be partisan, I still believe that we must at least assess the overall impact of bills such as this on the public. Let us come back to the matter at hand today. Although some believed it was 500 to 600, IRCC's initial estimates at the time were that between 100 and 200 people had still not regained their citizenship. In committee, it quickly became apparent that the number of Canadians stripped of their citizenship was difficult to assess. Various publications, including that of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, came to the same conclusion. According to the Minister of Immigration, who was there in committee, it would be impossible—that was the word she used—to estimate the number. Times like these demonstrate the importance of the parliamentary work done in House of Commons committees.”
“The bill responds to an Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling declaring that the first-generation limit on citizenship applicable to the children of Canadians born abroad is unconstitutional. The government then had six months to amend the law. Bill C‑3 was introduced as a safeguard, because Bill S‑245 and even Bill C‑71 unfortunately could not proceed for partisan reasons. On this point, I would like to reiterate the following. Despite my occasional differences of opinion with my colleagues from other parties in the House, as we all know, I am not in the habit of engaging in partisanship. I even think that being non-partisan often allows me to do my job well for the people of Lac‑Saint‑Jean, who, since 2019, have allowed me to proudly represent them in the House of Commons.”
“Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, I spoke to Bill C‑3 , a reiteration of Bill C‑71 , and Senate Bill S‑245 , intended to correct a historic injustice by granting citizenship to Canadians whose files had fallen through the cracks. I talked about children, born abroad to Canadian parents, who had lost their citizenship because of changes in federal rules or based on other conditions that seemed to me difficult to justify at the time. Basically, what all these bills tell us is that we need to restore citizenship to everyone who lost their status because of exceedingly complex and often unfair provisions of previous Canadian legislation. In fact, Bill C‑3 incorporates all of the amendments proposed to Bill C‑71, which sought to correct injustice and errors in the Citizenship Act.”
“Mr. Speaker, I participated in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration meetings on Bill C‑3 . We heard from expert witnesses, and we carefully analyzed their testimony. Amendments to Bill C‑3 were proposed, debated and supported by the majority of committee members. Now all of a sudden the Liberals are using some sort of procedural tactic to try to undo, in the House, the amendments that were voted on and supported by the majority of committee members. What does my colleague think this says about the Liberals' view of the rigorous work we do in committee? That is part of our job as parliamentarians. What does this say about the Liberals' view of democracy and committee work?”
“That is why the Bloc Québécois would like to amend the motion moved today in order to emphasize the role of non-profit organizations and small international co-operation centres. In my opinion, this amendment befits the principle of the motion moved by my colleague from York South—Weston—Etobicoke . We will support the motion, but we hope that the member who moved the motion today will agree to the following amendment. Amendment I move: That the motion be amended by removing “and” at the end of (b) and by adding the following at the end of (c): “; and (d) by ensuring that small non-profit organizations (NPOs) and international cooperation centres located outside major urban areas have the same opportunities for federal funding as larger organizations”.”
“For example, it is not hard to imagine the Liberal government funding mining companies abroad under the pretext that it creates jobs, even though we are well aware of many horror stories about local populations being exploited, not to mention all the other impacts it can have on communities. I am also concerned that the smaller players in the development assistance sector will be at a disadvantage when it comes to securing funding for their projects, which may be smaller but are just as important and beneficial for communities. My riding is home to the Centre de solidarité internationale du Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. It is headquartered in Alma and does exceptional work. Its work is often very concrete and measurable, and it has a direct, local impact on the people.”
“This is partly why I support my colleague's motion. However, I do have some concerns. I am concerned that the Liberal government is using the motion as a way to withdraw from international assistance. I am concerned that the government's economic ambitions will unfortunately influence its decisions on funding international assistance. Yes, funding projects that provide reciprocal economic benefits can be a way to help other countries while keeping some of the money in our economy. However, I fear that the federal government is looking only at the economic benefits, without considering any other official development assistance objectives.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, my colleague's motion assumes that international assistance can have a positive impact on our domestic economy. The motion does not say that the government should stop funding international organizations or put a stop to more traditional assistance, but rather that it should encourage projects that are mutually beneficial. On this point, we agree. Of course, there is no denying that corruption is present in the development assistance sector. In our view, by ensuring that international assistance benefits businesses here as well, we can mitigate the risk that funds will be misspent due to corruption. We would also be ensuring that some of the money stays in this country. Still, make no mistake: Provided that the money is properly invested, development assistance is not a waste of public funds.”
“By the federal government's own admission, however, Canada has no plan to reach the 0.7% target. While international assistance is often criticized for all the red tape it generates, it is also important to acknowledge the benefits to the countries receiving and providing the aid. My colleague's motion assumes that international assistance can—”
“The UN asks countries like Canada to contribute 0.7%. The average for OECD countries ranges from 0.4% to 0.44% of GDP. We are doing worse under the Liberals than we were under the Harper government. The government that has been the most stingy in terms of providing support for international human rights as a percentage of GDP is the current government, or the old government, as the Liberals like to remind us. It is six of one, half a dozen of the other. As we know, Canada is not a military or economic power. However, it can play a role in humanitarian assistance and international development. Under commitments made by the UN in 1970, Canada must increase the amount it spends on official development assistance to 0.7% of its gross national income.”
“It is often criticized, and rightly so, because it generates so much red tape, carries colonialist overtones and can be weaponized for political purposes. Nonetheless, assistance is still the only mechanism for transferring resources internationally and the only framework we have right now for co-operation and maintenance of international standards. However, I must point out that, under the Liberals, the Canadian government has achieved the unenviable feat of doing worse than Stephen Harper's government in terms of international assistance. In addition, Canada failed miserably at securing a seat on the UN Security Council after mounting a last-minute campaign in 2020. Experts attribute this failure in part to Canada's abandonment of humanitarian assistance. Canada currently spends 0.3% of its GDP on international assistance.”
“The third paragraph calls on the Minister of International Development to table an annual report in Parliament to measure the effectiveness of international assistance and its impact at home. As we know, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of greater transparency, especially when it comes to how the money of Quebec and Canadian families is being spent. In its election platform, the Bloc Québécois proposed investing 0.7% of gross national income in international assistance, albeit with better monitoring of investments and priority given to issues such as education, health, climate change adaptation and poverty reduction. It is crucial to recognize that assistance is also a cost-effective investment that plays a fundamental role in global stability.”
“Mr. Speaker, in 2023, the Auditor General noted that Global Affairs Canada had failed to demonstrate whether its $3.5 billion in annual development assistance, allocated under the government's feminist policy, had improved the lives of women and girls. Furthermore, only half of the projects funded were included in the annual reports to Parliament. It was therefore impossible for the department to properly report on the results of the projects it funded. The motion moved by my colleague from York South—Weston—Etobicoke demonstrates a desire to improve performance measurements in order to determine whether investments are producing the desired outcomes.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I waited for the conversations to end but there was chatter on both sides while my colleague was asking his question. No consideration was shown for the question asked. The noise was very loud. If people want to talk, I urge them to go outside. One member is shaking his head at me as if to say no, yet he was shouting his head off while my friend was asking a question. If he cannot behave with decorum in the House, he should go outside.”
“Mr. Speaker, there has been some verbal sparring between the various parties since the beginning of this debate. However, there is one thing that has not been mentioned, and that is the fact that this is a minority government. The government received a minority mandate from the people. Normally, in that sort of context, the government must ask an opposition party for help in passing the budget. I have not heard any rumblings about the government deciding to consult with any given opposition party to determine whether they have demands and whether they could agree on the budget. My question is this: Is this government behaving like a majority or a minority government?”
“Mr. Speaker, we are talking about expenditures and revenues. Obviously, the public coffers need to be managed responsibly, but those who manage them must also take into account the people hardest hit by the economic crisis, which seems to be having an impact on a considerable segment of the population. Does my colleague agree with the position of his own party, which supported the member for Shefford 's bill to restore fairness between seniors aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and over with regard to OAS benefits? Even though it is an expenditure, does he think it is a good expenditure that could in turn benefit the Canadian economy, since those people are going to spend that money here?”
“Sadly, the members on the other side of the House are not living up to their word. Honestly, it is disappointing, coming from people who are supposed to be representing the public.”
“Mr. Speaker, yes indeed, the same thing is happening in Lac‑Saint‑Jean. I think this problem exists everywhere, in every region of Quebec and probably in the rest of Canada too. Once again, I want to commend the member for Shefford for all the work she is doing to protect seniors, retirees and the most vulnerable among us. She is so caring and dedicated to helping others. I mentioned caring and dedication, but unfortunately, some people on the other side of the House are missing both of those qualities. However, what they lack most of all is courage. They unanimously voted for the bill in committee, but they are going to present us with a budget that likely does not mention what the bill proposed. They were just pretending. I almost used an unparliamentary word.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to elaborate. Former prime minister Justin Trudeau also used to work himself into a frenzy over the carbon tax. I remember how worked up he would get and how passionate his speeches were when he talked about how important it was. The Liberals are criticizing us today for voting in favour of a Conservative motion. However, looking at the Liberal platform, roughly half of what it proposes was in the Conservative election platform. That is why I do not pay any attention whatsoever to that kind of rhetoric from the Liberals. What I cannot abide is that, while the most vulnerable people in our society have no money in their pockets, the government has decided to help the wealthy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was ready to faint just then. It is a good thing I was sitting down. I have been here for six years, and I have lost track of the number of times that that member has worked himself into a frenzy telling the Conservatives how important the carbon tax was, how fundamental it was, and how this government policy was one of the greenest in the world. However, he just stood up and told me that the Liberals did a very good thing by getting rid of the carbon tax. Let us take a look at the blues together. That member has made about 14,000 speeches defending the carbon tax. He just stood up, looked me in the eye and said that getting rid of the carbon tax was a good thing in the end. I do not want anyone to tell me that we vote for the Conservatives or with the Liberals.”
“There are plenty of things that can be done to save money, but subsidizing the oil industry at the expense of the seniors and retirees who built the society we live in is certainly not one of them. We will gladly vote with the Conservatives, because the current government is doing a very poor job of managing public finances. The way it is acting right now is intolerable. I get the impression that the Liberals are forgetting that it was the public that decided to give them a minority. At some point, they are going to have to get that into their heads.”
“Meanwhile, the government is going to build a pipeline that will cost a fortune, which cost 10 times more than it was supposed to. The private sector did not even want to build it. Given its spending and current fiscal management, this country is heading straight for a wall. The member for Shefford also had a great proposal that would allow pensioners who wish to re-enter the workforce to be less impacted at tax time. This is targeted spending but, ultimately, it is actual investment that helps retired people make more money and put more food on their own tables. This would also be good for their mental health and physical health. It would help businesses and facilitate the transfer of expertise from this generation to a younger generation entering the workforce.”
“Earlier, I heard the Liberal member say that that the Bloc Québécois wanted more spending. We we are proposing is targeted spending. Liberal members voted for the bill introduced by the member for Shefford to increase OAS for seniors aged 65 to 74 to address this inequity. They did that. What I heard earlier is that they were going back on their word. Once again, they are failing the most vulnerable people and that is unacceptable. What is also unacceptable is the $83 billion in oil subsidies that I mentioned earlier. We have to stop that. This industry does not need money. It is making record profits and, moreover, it is contributing to the climate crisis in a very negative way. That also costs taxpayers money.”
“Meanwhile, here are two examples of transfers to individuals that would help the most vulnerable people cope with rising food prices, for which the federal government is to blame. First is employment insurance. The reform we have been waiting for, which has been promised since 2015, is still not on the table. This would make a big difference, especially in the current economic climate. We also have old age security, of course. Pensioners and seniors, the people who built the society we have today, are in a tough spot. These seniors are now facing very challenging situations, and that is unacceptable. Each and every one of us has a duty to fix this. This issue should be above partisanship, as the majority of federal members who supported the previous bill introduced by my colleague from Shefford understood.”
“The entire preamble of the Conservative motion is true. People are experiencing high levels of financial anxiety, and middle-income households are suffering the most. It is also true that inflation is currently under control and has dropped below 2%, which led the Bank of Canada to lower its interest rates by 25 basis points last week. However, it would be false to say that the families everyone here represents are better off financially. That picture is misleading. Families' two most basic expenses, housing and food, are far too high. We absolutely have to protect the most vulnerable people. The lower a person's income, the greater the proportion of that income they have to spend on food. It is basic math.”
“The answers I received in committee were mind-blowing. The officials were unable to tell me what a CEGEP is. This is quite astonishing. People wonder why we want to make Quebec its own country. This was a blatant example of the lack of understanding of Quebec's unique differences that exists in the rest of Canada. (1115) That is unfortunate, because too many of this government's decisions over the past few years have sent that same signal. It was then as it is now. The government still has no coherent plan. Let us return to today's topic. The Bloc Québécois does not agree with every statement in the Conservative Party's motion, but we will vote in favour of it anyway. The federal government's mismanagement and the recurring deficits it is generating are a serious problem that we need to find solutions for.”
“What this decision confirmed was that, as usual, before implementing these measures, the minister and his colleagues did not consult anyone directly involved on the ground or the institutions that were going to be impacted by the measures. For Liberals, the word “consultation” usually seems to mean hiring more consultants. They forget to consult the actual stakeholders, the ones who are on the ground and who are affected by all these measures. Turning back to the matter of international students, it soon became clear that the citizenship and immigration minister's response was totally improvised. Worse still is the fact that the federal government did not even seem to know what was going on. I observed this myself in committee: The officials present were not familiar with Quebec's education system and its differences.”
“The result: instead of solving problems, Ottawa's involvement nearly always makes them worse. Recent examples are self-explanatory and speak clearly to the situation we are in today. This was notably the case with the international student file during the last session, when the Minister of Immigration at the time restricted access to post-graduate work permits for students who completed certain programs. At the same time, the federal government announced an across-the-board measure to address challenges specific to Ontario. This was a red flag for many stakeholders, who said that this change could adversely impact them, and that parts of Quebec, in particular, might suffer.”
“Prices that are already too high are staying that way, and although they have stopped skyrocketing, people are getting poorer. Even worse, the steepest rise has been in the price of basic necessities, particularly the cost of rent and food. All across Quebec and Canada, household debt levels have skyrocketed. Unfortunately, the lowest income earners are the hardest hit. As we know, the federal government is bloated, inflexible, costly, and often dysfunctional, and that is because it is out of touch with the reality of families, workers and communities. All too often, the federal government creates poorly designed programs that miss the mark. In its desire to standardize and centralize everything, the federal government forgets that each region has its own needs, its own unique features and its own priorities.”
“Let us take a moment to think about that. We on this side of the House quickly realized that when the Liberals brag about Canada's low inflation, they are actually celebrating low growth. There is a bit of bad news buried in what may seem like good news. Prices have stopped rising excessively only because they are already far too high. The fact is, this stagnation shows how little spending power Quebec and Canadian families have right now. In other words, it means our constituents do not have enough money in their pockets. The numbers speak for themselves. With almost zero growth, or just 1%, the GDP per capita will go down this year, and probably next year, too. The government can say what it wants. While Canada is not technically in a recession, the people certainly feel like they are in one. It is not complicated.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin . First, I would like to go back to the discussions we just had. Quebec receives equalization payments. We always forget that when a Quebecker buys gas that comes from Alberta, Alberta receives royalties from the oil companies. At some point, we need to set aside the myth surrounding equalization payments and acknowledge that subsidizing the oil industry not only exacerbates the climate crisis, it financially benefits people who are already raking in record profits. We have repeatedly heard our government colleagues celebrate the low inflation rates Canada has had in recent months. Incidentally, this supposed return to normal last August, when inflation sat at roughly 1.9%, enabled the Bank of Canada to lower its key interest rate to 2.5%.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are having some great discussions today. I have a rather fundamental question for my colleague. The Liberal Party is saying that it is there for the middle class, that it wants to defend the most vulnerable, that it wants to help the poorest members of our society increase their purchasing power and that it wants to put money back in their pockets. What does my colleague think about the government taking $83 billion from Quebec and Canadian taxpayers to subsidize big oil companies, whose owners are likely among the richest people in the world? Is that his idea of giving more money to the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always fun to sit here and listen to my Conservative and Liberal colleagues argue about who ran the smallest deficit or the largest surplus. The fact is, every time there has been a surplus in Canada, particularly under Paul Martin, the savings came from cutting transfers to the provinces, nowhere else. That is my first point. My second point involves my Conservative friend, whom I would like to congratulate on his speech. I agree with him. The Liberals' management of public finances is a disaster, and it has been for a very long time. Oil subsidies are one of the reasons for that. Would my Conservative colleagues agree with me that sound fiscal management would require the government to stop handing out subsidies to oil companies?”
“I want to reiterate our hope that the current negotiations will lead to a lasting peace that includes the release of all hostages, as well as to a two-state solution and the free flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza. Lastly, and most importantly, I call on all Quebeckers of every religion and background to show each other more empathy and respect.”
“Mr. Speaker, two years ago, the unthinkable happened. On October 7, 2023, Hamas attacked Israel, killing 1,219 people, including women and children, with unspeakable violence. It took 251 people hostage, 48 of whom still remain in captivity and approximately 20 of whom are still missing but presumed to be alive. On October 7, the Middle East was plunged into war. On behalf of the Bloc québécois, I want to honour the memory of the innocent victims of October 7. I stand in solidarity with the entire Jewish community of Quebec. I want to reiterate that we firmly condemn Hamas, which must be denied any role in the future of Gaza and Palestine.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave a very impassioned speech. It is clear that the current situation inspires strong emotions in him, as it does for all of us. I thought that he gave a very good speech and I appreciated it. In terms of the motion, I think that Parliament is important. I think that parliamentarians have a job to do in the House. When it comes to such a sensitive, significant and fundamental matter, should we not avoid moving too fast? Should we not study the details of the motion in depth? In particular, should we not come up with something that makes sense and that will satisfy everyone for a change, rather than rush ahead with something that will be overturned later?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague says she is open to suggestions relating to crime. I would like to know whether she supports the Bloc Québécois's suggestion to create a list of criminal organizations and to make it a crime to wear or display the colours of those organizations. I am thinking about the Hells Angels in particular.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that everyone here is saddened by what happened again this week, namely, the murder of Gabie Renaud. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord spoke about it. It happened in his riding. Everyone is saddened by that. It is because everyone is saddened that only one question comes to mind regarding today's Conservative motion. When dealing with issues of such magnitude, why is it absolutely necessary to quickly bring in a measure without studying it in depth? After all, this affects fundamental rights, such as the right to freedom and the presumption of innocence. Obviously, we want to work toward the same goal and we do not want things like this to keep happening. That is unacceptable in a society like ours. Why can we not take the time to do the job right once and for all? That is all we are asking.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could talk more about the fact that the Conservatives want to pass this bill quickly, under a gag order, without giving it reasonable and normal consideration, as we usually do. What implications might such an approach have?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a good idea but the motion, as written, is misguided, unfortunately. We cannot vote for it. A tax is a charge levied by a government to fund public services. However, according to the Conservatives, anything they do not like is a tax. A deficit is not a tax, particularly if it is the result of, among other things, reducing taxes. Phasing out and replacing single-use plastics is not a tax. Requiring that fuels create less pollution is not a tax. I am in favour of voting for good motions. However, it appears that the Conservative Party's whole objective in introducing this motion is for it to be defeated so that Conservative members can generate content for their social media.”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier today, during his speech on his own bill, the Minister of Justice indicated, in response to one of our questions, that he would be open to an amendment on the religious exemption. Let us not forget that, in the last Parliament, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to abolish that exemption in section 319 of the Criminal Code. That provision currently allows individuals to engage in hate speech without being arrested, provided the speech is based on religious text. We think that is completely absurd. If I understand correctly, the minister is open to such an amendment. My question is the following. Given that the Liberals already know our position on this exemption, can my colleague explain to me why we are waiting for an amendment to be proposed when the provision could have already been included in the bill?”
“Madam Speaker, while we are on the topic of making suggestions in good faith, I am not sure whether this was an accidental or deliberate oversight by the minister and his team, but unfortunately this bill does not remove the religious exemption for hate speech. It is currently possible to publicly engage in hate speech in the name of religion, and we think that is completely absurd. We introduced a bill to fix this during the last Parliament. I had the opportunity to sponsor it. Is the minister open to adding this item to the bill if we were to propose an amendment?”