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 9 of 9.
“Mr. Speaker, as world leaders gather at the G7 summit, we must speak with one voice about international human rights and freedom of expression. The G7 is happening at a critical juncture. The trial of Jimmy Lai, Hong Kong political prisoner and defender of freedom of expression, is set to resume in mid-August. He is 77 years old, diabetic and has already spent four and a half years in arbitrary and illegal detention that UN experts have condemned. Jimmy Lai's case is probably one of the most publicized in the world. In 2023, both the House of Commons and the Senate unanimously approved motions calling for Mr. Lai's immediate release. Parliamentarians from all parties believe that granting him honorary Canadian citizenship will put pressure on the Hong Kong government to release him.”
“Mr. Speaker, Justin Trudeau welcomed “those fleeing persecution, terror and war” to Canada. We remember the fiasco that this tweet caused and the impact that it had on our intake capacity. Nevertheless, Justin Trudeau wanted to welcome the persecuted. Now the new Prime Minister has chosen to welcome the persecutors. Are there any Liberals on the other side who will talk to their leader, the Prime Minister, and ask him to rescind the invitations to Modi, bin Salman and bin Zayed, or are we to understand that the Liberals now see human rights as a thing of the past?”
“Mr. Speaker, what do a foreign entity involved in the killing of a Canadian on Canadian soil, a tyrant who ordered the dismemberment of a journalist at an embassy in Turkey, and a malicious leader who silences any form of opposition have in common? The answer is, of course, that they are all honoured guests of the Prime Minister at the G7. Human rights should not get in the way of a good business opportunity, after all. That is the new Liberal government. Will the Prime Minister listen to reason and immediately withdraw his indecent invitations?”
“Madam Speaker, there is talk of social licence when it comes to this government's energy projects, such as running a pipeline through Quebec. Do the government's plans include giving public money to oil companies to build pipelines?”
“Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for La Prairie—Atateken on his election. In his speech, he said that he and his government would protect our economic interests. Today, that same MP had the opportunity to walk the talk by protecting Quebec's economic interests and by asking the federal government to repay the $814 million that it stole from Quebec. The Bloc Québécois is not the only one saying it. The Quebec National Assembly unanimously called on the government to pay that money back. All the elected officials in the Quebec government and the Quebec National Assembly are asking for that money back. How does it feel to be a Quebec MP who is going against the will of the Quebec National Assembly?”
“Mr. Chair, will the government amend the changes that were made in the fall, yes or no? This is very important to people, especially business owners and foreign workers in the regions, who are feeling scared and anxious right now.”
“Mr. Chair, last fall, the previous government implemented measures for temporary foreign workers. Those measures are currently having an extremely negative impact on businesses in Quebec's regions. For example, in the housing sector, if a company builds roofs on site, 20% of its workers can be temporary foreign workers. If the roofs are built in a factory, only 10% of them can be temporary foreign workers. The measures that were adopted last fall are extremely detrimental. Will the government change this so these companies can survive? Right now, they are in big trouble.”
“Mr. Chair, the minister says she is helping and supporting Quebec, but the Quebec government has spent $500,000 providing social assistance to asylum seekers. This is not included in the appropriations. When will the government reimburse Quebec for that social assistance?”
“Mr. Chair, I am talking about social assistance. Quebec is asking for $500,000 for the social assistance it paid. This is not included in the appropriations. Will Quebec get that money? Furthermore, I do not think Quebec received $750 million for asylum seekers. If we had, we would be very happy. I think the minister meant $750,000.”
“Mr. Chair, the minister just admitted that Quebec is doing more than its share and that its intake capacity has in fact been exceeded, yet she says she supports Quebec. Quebec is asking for $500,000 to cover the social assistance cheques it sent to asylum seekers in 2024 alone. Asylum seekers are actually a federal responsibility, but the $500,000 is not included in the appropriations. Why is that?”
“Mr. Chair, asylum seekers fall exclusively under federal jurisdiction, pursuant to the international conventions that Canada has signed. No province has authority over asylum seekers. Does the minister think asylum seekers are currently being distributed evenly throughout Canada? Does she not think that they are concentrated in certain provinces, such as Quebec and Ontario?”
“Mr. Chair, I will drop that question. Does the minister believe that asylum claims fall under federal jurisdiction? If so, does she believe that asylum seekers are being divided evenly throughout Canada?”
“Mr. Chair, if they are working to reduce processing times, that must mean they have a target. Without a target, reducing processing times is absolutely meaningless. It is not complicated. It is a yes-or-no question: Is there a target? Reducing is not a target. Is there a target of six months, a year or two years for the time it takes to process an asylum claim?”
“Mr. Chair, it is not complicated. I want a number. Are we talking about six months, a year, two years, three years, four years or two months? What is the government's target processing time for asylum claims? The government must have a target for how long it should take to process an asylum claim. What is the target?”
“Mr. Chair, we will try again in committee. I believe the Conservative member asked the minister earlier about processing times for asylum claims. What is the government's target? I am told that the government wants to reduce processing times. By how much? Do they have a number in mind? What should the processing time be for an asylum claim in Canada?”
“Mr. Chair, in 2022, the government invested $85 million to hire 500 officers and reduce processing times. In 2024, those times increased and the department laid off 3,300 officers. Can the minister explain the logic behind all that? Is that what we should expect in the coming years?”
“Mr. Chair, in February 2022, the minister's predecessor announced an $85-million investment to improve the client experience and modernize the immigration system. That plan was in the 2021 economic and fiscal update. It would have reduced processing times and addressed difficulties encountered during the process. The plan also called for 500 new officers to be hired. In 2024, her department announced that it would be cutting 3,300 officer positions. I would like to know how the department spent $85 million in 2022 to hire people and reduce processing times, only to reduce the number of officers and increase delays in 2024. What happened to that $85 million? Is her department's way of doing business productive?”
“Mr. Chair, the 2024-25 budget committed $4.1 billion in spending. Ultimately, $6.3 billion was spent. For 2025-26, $5.1 billion in spending is projected. The Liberals were off by $2 billion last year. How many billions of dollars does the government think it will be off by this year?”
“Mr. Chair, as of today, June 9, 2025, the ministerial plans have still not been tabled. Normally, they are tabled after the estimates. My understanding is that the minister will not be tabling a departmental plan in June. Normally, there is a departmental plan, a kind of forecast that is presented after the estimates. Someone needs to get their ducks in a row.”
“Mr. Chair, when the estimates were tabled, the minister said that her government would also table the departmental plans for her department in June. Is it correct that the government was supposed to table the plans in June?”
“Mr. Chair, I want to reassure the minister that I am not here to put on a show or to impress my leader or the House leader of the Bloc Québécois . I would like to ask the minister some questions and have a constructive debate with her. In any case, not many people are watching this evening, and I am not looking to get any sound bites from our discussion. I will begin with the following question. When the estimates were tabled, the government said that the departmental plans would be tabled in June. Is that correct?”
“Madam Speaker, do I have 30 minutes to answer that? I hope that the answer to my colleague's question is yes; sadly, however, I do not know exactly how that will happen. Is improving processing times really a government objective? I am not convinced that it is. The fact remains that it is not right for a G7 country to take four, five, six or seven years to process a refugee claim filed in-country. One of them took 12 years to process, which is crazy.”
“I would also like to mention the fact that this government essentially cut in half the hours of certain border crossings that are in extremely high-risk locations in terms of gun, human and drug trafficking. Meanwhile, border officers are being prevented from doing their jobs when legislation is not even required. The government could give these officers more power tomorrow morning if it wanted to. The Liberal government has indeed been lax on these issues.”
“Madam Speaker, the Liberals have indeed been lax on many issues. It is abundantly clear that border security and the immigration department have been mismanaged for the past 10 years. I believe, and I am sure everyone will agree, that the most dysfunctional department in the federal government is the immigration department. Today, we will look at what the Liberals are proposing in Bill C‑2 in terms of immigration. With regard to border security, as my colleague said earlier, the government could go ahead and take administrative steps without having to make any legislative changes. For example, the government could allow border services officers to patrol outside border services and work more closely with the RCMP.”
“Madam Speaker, I am clearly more focused on immigration-related issues, covered in parts 7, 8 and 9 of the bill. My colleague can correct me if I am wrong, but the bill appears useful on the issue of car theft in that it will make it easier for authorities to inspect the contents of certain containers in ports and certain shipments on trains. I think I am correct in saying that. That is already a positive point. This is very positive, in the Bloc's opinion. That is why I am saying that we support the principle of the bill. However, we also have a number of questions, which is normal with an omnibus bill like this one. As we said, it is a 130-page bill that impacts several laws and several departments and contains a huge number of clauses.”
“They will tell us which clauses of the bill would stand up in court and which would not. When we examine the bill clause by clause—which we had two days to do—it raises concerns about passing the bill in its current form. The Bloc Québécois already believes there will be legal challenges. We will all need to talk to each other to ensure the bill achieves its main objective of securing the border and welcoming asylum seekers in a humane and compassionate way. We will also need to ensure that the other provinces do their part when it comes to the distribution of asylum seekers and that the minister is not granted excessive powers. At this time, the extent of the powers the minister would be granted is not very clear. I will say it again: The Bloc Québécois is going to work very hard. We have extraordinary members.”
“In the meantime, other provinces and territories are not taking on their share of the responsibility. Quebec and Ontario are doing all the work. Some provinces outright refuse to welcome asylum seekers. The government promised better distribution of asylum seekers throughout Canada. In short, I think this is an important bill. It is a step in the right direction, but hard work and collaboration will be needed. I would like to remind my colleagues from all recognized parties in the House that the Bloc Québécois is well placed in committee to have good discussions with everyone, given that this is a minority government. Make no mistake: We will have to make some deals. Above all, we will need to listen to the expert witnesses who will tell us what is feasible and what is not.”
“Like all Quebeckers, the Bloc Québécois remains firmly committed to welcoming people fleeing persecution and misery. The primary purpose of the bill is to ensure that the system for taking in migrants is fairer and more efficient. Nevertheless, there seems to be one thing missing from the government's approach. In June or July 2024, the then immigration minister announced with great fanfare that he would form a committee to ensure the fair distribution of asylum seekers throughout Canada. It was announced with great fanfare during a press conference. Since then, there has been radio silence. The distribution of asylum seekers is one of the main concerns when it comes to Quebec's intake capacity. It is not right that half of all asylum seekers should end up in Quebec. It is not that we do not want to help them, but we have finite capacity.”
“What I understand today is that it will not necessarily be what we are asking for, but that there may be a way to agree on other terms. We will see what happens next. All of the Bloc Québécois members are acting in good faith. That means that, overall, as I said, we are satisfied with the principle of the bill. We applaud the government's intention. The bill aims to address several issues that people have been raising for months, if not years. We are relieved that Bill C‑2 provides for the possibility of applying for a pre-removal risk assessment for those who are ineligible to apply for asylum. At the very least, this guarantees that those individuals are protected. As a result, we will fulfill our obligations under the Geneva Convention, which I believe is very important.”
“The same would be true for asylum claims made after 14 days by someone in hiding within our borders. There are concerns there as well. The Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement , who is also the member for Louis-Hébert, said that this measure aims to close what was seen as a loophole in the safe third country agreement. Obviously, I remain concerned on a number of levels. In practical terms, Bill C-2 would close the loophole in the safe third country agreement, which allows a person who has illegally entered Canada to circumvent the agreement by staying in Canada for more than 14 days, but that remains to be seen. We were the ones who raised the problem related to this loophole in the safe third country agreement because of the 14‑day period.”
“In addition to giving himself this broad power, the minister is also giving himself the authority to prescribe by regulation the requirements for further consideration, such as the time limits for submitting documentation, control measures or the designation of a representative for minors. On reading parts 7, 8 and 9 regarding immigration, we quickly see that the federal government wants to change its immigration laws so it can easily cancel the resident permits of certain migrants and suspend the possibility of making certain claims for staying in Canada. (1230) Furthermore, if the bill is passed, asylum claims filed more than a year after a potential refugee sets foot in Canada will be deemed inadmissible for referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, which is normally responsible for assessing claims.”
“Certain provisions even raise questions about protecting the public. I am thinking in particular of the provision that states that the Refugee Protection Division cannot compel the minister or any member of his staff or person working in his office to appear for a hearing. I am very interested to hear why this was included in the bill. As for examinations, the minister will have more power over decisions on asylum seekers. Someone will have to explain to me how, but under Bill C-2 , the minister gives himself the power to further consider all asylum claims made in Canada even if officers have already made determinations on those claims. From now on, a claim will not be sent to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada until the minister has authorized it. I can hardly wait to see how all of that works out.”
“As the Bloc Québécois critic for immigration and refugees, I will focus on the items that concern immigration. Incidentally, this bill was introduced by the Minister of Public Safety , but it contains a whole section on immigration. As I was saying, we support the bill in principle, but there are still a lot of unanswered question that we need to ask. On its surface, the proposed legislation reflects a stricter stance on delays, irregular entries and inefficiencies in the system, but we will wait and see if anything actually changes, since the Liberal Party does not have a very good track record in that regard. The bill uses a number of rather vague expressions like “in certain circumstances”, “reasonable grounds” and “in the public interest”. That is rather broad and could mean anything.”
“Consider the wave of irregular immigration at Roxham Road, thriving human smuggling rings at the border that took advantage of migrants and vulnerable people, Mexican cartels setting up operations at the border, the wave of car thefts at the port of Montreal, gun trafficking and so on. While the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑2 in principle, we will have to wait and see how all the clauses are unpacked in committee. One thing is certain, this study will be a long-term, exhaustive effort. As every observer of federal politics knows, that is precisely how the Bloc Québécois has always worked. Our method is to be thorough and meticulous, especially when dealing with bills like this one, which affects a dozen or so laws and at least three departments. Bills like this one have to be treated very seriously.”
“Thanks to them, I am once again able to represent the people of Lac‑Saint‑Jean, this time in the 45th Parliament. Let us get to the matter before us. Obviously, I will focus more on the immigration issues in this bill. It is important to note that this 130-page document, which was introduced 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 , is a complete 180. I say this because, as I am sure members will recall, over the past few years, the Liberal government has failed to manage a large number of border crises.”
“Madam Speaker, this is my first speech in the House, and I am truly pleased to see you sitting in the Speaker's chair because, as you know, you are my favourite. As this is indeed my first speech in the House in this 45th Parliament, I would like to thank the citizens of Lac‑Saint‑Jean from the bottom of my heart for placing their trust in me for a third time. It is an honour to represent them in the House. That said, this would not have been possible without all the supporters, volunteers and election workers who made sure my team came out on top in this election, and I want to thank them as well. Of course, none of this would have been possible without my partner, Mylène; my son, Émile; and my daughters, Simone and Jeanne. I really want to thank them.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague is someone who is really in touch with her constituents. I think that everyone in the House and everyone in her riding knows that. I would like her to tell us how important border security is for the people in her riding. I would also like her to talk about how border security has been neglected over the past 10 years. What would a bill that secures the border mean for the people in her riding? How can we achieve that?”
“I am thinking in particular of the suggestion to remove the possibility of compelling the minister and members of his staff to appear before the Refugee Protection Division. Why was this included in the document presented by the minister today?”
“Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced two days ago, and we have had to analyze all 130 pages of it. At first glance, we are generally in favour of the bill in principle. However, given that it is 130 pages long, affects more than three departments and could possibly amend some 20 laws, I hope that the minister agrees with me that it will require thorough, detailed work in committee. There is no way that such a bill should be fast‑tracked; that would not make any sense. There are far too many clauses to consider, and we do not even know if some of them would stand up in court. I am going to test the minister. There are so many questions surrounding this bill, but there is one that must be raised.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yukon did not answer the question from my colleague from Repentigny, but it is not that complicated. A tax was scrapped, and then a rebate cheque was sent out to offset payments that had not been made. So much for sound fiscal management. This measure is going to cost Canadian taxpayers $3.7 billion. The worst part is that Quebeckers did not get that cheque, but they are going to have to pay $800 million to reimburse Canadians who did not pay the tax. Can someone explain to me what goes through the Liberals' minds when it comes to managing public finances?”