Alexis Deschênes
Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Madam Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague the same question I asked earlier. I hope I get an answer by the end of the debate. Bill C-9 contains interpretive clauses specifically intended to ensure that under no circumstances are individuals prevented from practising the religion of their choice or communicating the contents of a bibli…”
“Here is the first one: 11.1(1) For greater certainty, nothing in subsection 319(2) or (2.2) of the Criminal Code shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement made in the course of a discussion, publication or…”
“Madam Speaker, in the drafting of Bill C‑9 , some interpretive clauses were added that, in my opinion, address the concerns of my Conservative colleagues. I am going to read them, and I want my Conservative colleagues to tell me what is missing from these clauses so I can reassure them.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my riding neighbour for his speech. My colleague represents a riding on the other side of our beautiful Chaleur Bay. I want to ask him a question. He brought up remarks made yesterday in the House. I was there. It was about 11:50 p.m.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague has provided an accurate description of the turmoil and concerns that Bill C-9 has caused among the people. Does he not acknowledge that the government may have failed to explain Bill C‑9 properly, allowing the situation to escalate because of what appears to be incorrect information?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great speech. I heard all of his demands for his province of Saskatchewan that Ottawa has not listened to. I heard him list the things that Saskatchewan is asking for and not getting. I have a serious question for him about something that is bothering me.”
The complete record
Every one of 461 lines we hold for Alexis Deschênes, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 10.
“Mr. Chair, I understand from the minister's response that she supports this objective of distributing asylum seekers fairly. That goes without saying, because, obviously, the more asylum seekers we have, the higher the costs to the public treasury. In Quebec, there is also the challenge of integration in French. According to the French language commissioner, between 33% and 40% of asylum seekers arriving in Quebec have difficulty mastering the French language. Does the minister plan to revive the committee that was established in 2024 to work toward a better distribution among the provinces?”
“Mr. Chair, I understand that the minister is working toward the objective of distributing asylum seekers fairly among the various provinces and, therefore, that she supports this principle. Now, what steps is she taking to achieve this?”
“Mr. Chair, I would like the minister to answer this very simple question. I understand that conversations are going on and that there may be some shining examples. However, does she agree with the principle that asylum seekers have to be distributed among the various Canadian provinces?”
“Mr. Chair, I understand that this is a conversation and that the government has already paid Quebec compensation for its efforts. My question for the minister is the same. Does she agree in principle on the need for equitable distribution among the provinces?”
“Mr. Chair, Quebec is a welcoming place. Quebeckers are welcoming. We understand that we have a duty of solidarity toward asylum seekers. We also understand that asylum seekers and those who become refugees are an asset and that they contribute to Quebec. Figures released this morning clearly show that this is still the case. Quebeckers are taking in a very large proportion of asylum seekers. I would say that this is a disproportionate share relative to their weight within the Canadian federation. As of April 1, 2026, while Quebeckers make up 22% of the Canadian population, nearly 39% of all asylum seekers in Canada are in Quebec. Does the minister agree in principle that asylum seekers should be distributed fairly among Canada's provinces?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to address the argument put forward by my colleague and his party about how we must never, ever tax web giants because that would be a trade irritant. Why is it a trade irritant for the Americans? Obviously, because massive corporations like Amazon, Netflix and Prime Video want to come here and make as much money as possible without contributing to the media ecosystem while traditional broadcasters and distributors pay their share to support cultural and news programming. The real question is not whether this is a trade irritant. The real question is whether or not it is good for culture, especially Quebec culture, to make sure there is money available for it. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his remarks, and I have no doubt about his commitment to culture and the importance of giving our producers a chance. Otherwise, they will be crushed. I still want to point out the hypocrisy of all this. Liberal Party members of Parliament are talking to us today about defending culture, but they have given up on pushing for the digital services tax. I think that might also explain why the CRTC decided to raise it. It is because the Liberals did not do their job. How does my colleague feel about this contradiction between what he says and his government's actions?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell us more about her intention to work toward convincing the government to reinstate the digital services tax. Earlier, I was talking about the Conservative Party's pathetic obsequiousness. I think the same thing happened with the Liberal Party last year. To avoid ruffling feathers south of the border, the government decided not to tax a percentage of the revenue of the digital giants, even though they are making money here by using our cultural products, and even though our cultural industry needs that money. How far is my colleague willing to go to convince her government to reinstate the digital services tax?”
“Mr. Speaker, on the whole, I agree with my colleague. We are witnessing a pathetic display of obsequiousness by the Conservative Party today. It has decided to champion the interests of American companies in the House even as our culture and media sectors are being hit hard by an unprecedented advertising revenue crisis. We have to support them. Some American companies are going to use our cultural products to make a profit here, yet we should not tax them. How is that fair?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome my colleague and congratulate her on her first speech in the House. I would like to hear her comments on the Liberal government's backtracking on the digital services tax. What are her thoughts on this?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. He said a number of things that the Bloc Québécois agrees with. I often say that we protect what we love. We love our culture. We love our free, independent press. We want to protect it and give it the means to continue entertaining and informing Quebeckers. I have a question for my colleague. If he loves Quebec culture and the free press, as we do, why did his government cancel the digital services tax a year ago, a tax that would have been used to take money out of the pockets of web giants and give it back to our culture and media?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague's contribution to this debate. The Bloc Québécois welcomes the idea of making our democratic system more transparent and ensuring that taxpayers have a way of finding out when the government decides to write off debts. I commend his initiative and his ability to gather support across party lines, which is not nothing. Can he tell us more about the impact he thinks this registry would have? For example, there was the case of Chrysler, where the government forgave a $2‑billion debt all at once. If there had been a registry, what would he have thought about that? In the future, if other debts are written off, that information would become public. How does he think that would alter public discourse?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. As I listened to him, I wondered what he was actually proposing. What we are seeing here is the Conservative Party attacking guideline number 14, arguing that limitation defences were not argued. We see that it is possible for the attorney general to raise limitation arguments under common law simply by obtaining authorization from the assistant deputy attorney general. Now, my colleague has been talking a lot about the possibility of strengthening property rights and giving them constitutional status. I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. Is he proposing today that we reopen the Constitution so that property rights can be enshrined into it? I would like him to clarify that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his contribution to the debate. I thought my colleague's tone had a hint of reassurance in it, but the question I would like to ask him is this: Why has the government decided to appeal this case?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her contribution to the debate. I do believe we need to work toward reconciliation. Part of our job as elected officials is to reconcile competing interests. We have try to see both sides. My colleague seems to be severely downplaying the legal uncertainty resulting from the decision in the Cowichan case. While it does not resolve everything, it is true that the decision opens the door to negotiation. That is essentially what is being said. We understand that there is a legal process. However, I think we still need to consider the perspective of certain private property owners. Perhaps they have been influenced by certain political rhetoric and are more concerned than they need to be. Nevertheless, the key conclusion of the ruling is that aboriginal title can exist even on privately owned land.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the official opposition for his contribution to the debate. My question is the following. Given that the decision is based on an interpretation of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and that the courts must therefore interpret that section of the Constitution, how could the government possibly provide a solution today without allowing the judicial process to run its course?”
“What does my colleague have to say about this Quebec initiative, and does his bill have something better to offer Quebeckers?”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his contribution. The Bloc Québécois wants to fight planned obsolescence. It is a matter of respect for consumers and for what the planet has to offer us. Right now, we are consuming at a frantic pace, and the planet is having a hard time keeping up with our demand. This bill offers a viable alternative. I did not hear my colleague mention Bill 29, which was passed unanimously in the Quebec National Assembly on October 3, 2023. Perhaps he did, but I want to hear his thoughts on it. I am proud to say that Quebec was the first jurisdiction in North America to legislate against planned obsolescence. It passed a bill in 2023 containing a number of key measures, including the availability of parts, the warranty of good working order, the ability to choose repair services, and charger interoperability.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw on my colleague's expertise in the field of finance. We in the Bloc Québécois are concerned about this sovereign wealth fund. First, public funds are being invested in a framework whose lack of transparency is concerning to us. Has my colleague been able to estimate the total cost of the public funds that will need to be invested in the sovereign wealth fund, particularly to pay the interest on the $25 billion, but also to pay for all the tax credits that could be offered to encourage investment in this fund? Also, what does she think of the notion that public funds will be invested in infrastructure projects, particularly oil-related ones?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to clarify his thoughts. A few minutes ago, he told us that he believed the mechanism underlying the Canada health transfer to the provinces should be amended during future negotiations at the next federal-provincial meeting. What exactly does my colleague mean? What is he proposing? What is his opinion?”
“Mr. Speaker, extending the time frame for recruiting or renewing temporary foreign workers from four to eight weeks will cause businesses to miss their deadlines. The regulatory change that took effect on April 1 will prevent our businesses from fulfilling their contracts. There is an urgent need to revert to four weeks. Otherwise, the federal government’s new measure will have an impact on the Quebec economy as a whole, and even more so in the regions. Why not go back to a four-week period instead of delaying worker recruitment in a detrimental way?”
“Mr. Speaker, since April 1, the federal government has been unnecessarily delaying the hiring of temporary foreign workers. Businesses are now required to advertise a job for eight straight weeks without finding a candidate, rather than four, as was previously the case, before they can begin the process of hiring a temporary foreign worker or renewing their permit. Businesses outside the major urban centres do not recruit abroad by choice, but by necessity. Eight weeks is four weeks too many for no reason. Will the government change the requirement back to four weeks?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague's thoughts on the following premise. We are seeing the attitude of this government, which recently secured a majority and will have an even stronger one once the new members are sworn in. We see that at the first opportunity, the government decided to ignore the opposition and not consult with it before introducing this motion. Today, the government refuses to rule out the idea of using a closure motion to get this motion passed. What does my colleague think this says about how this government is going to use its new majority?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague on his eloquent speech, which ultimately called for the government to be magnanimous. He held out an olive branch, while acknowledging that the current government has indeed become a majority. Yes, it was achieved by taking in floor crossers, but the fact remains that it is a majority. Here is my question for my colleague. He mentioned the opposition's positive co-operation since this Parliament was formed. He mentioned the number of bills that have been passed in the last few months. Can he give some other examples so that the people watching at home can understand just how well this Parliament is functioning?”
“Mr. Speaker, when words are not followed by concrete action, they are worthless. The government said it wants to work constructively and collaboratively with the opposition. What did the government do next? It decided to move a motion without even bothering to reach out to the Bloc Québécois to negotiate beforehand, even though it knows full well that we are responsible and rigorous partners willing to work collaboratively. The first date did not go very well, then. Will the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons now confirm that he will not use closure to pass this motion? This will be another test of whether he is keeping his word. It would be a way to prove that he truly wants to work collaboratively.”
“Mr. Speaker, people often say that opportunity makes the thief. When action is taken to give law enforcement more powers, it must be done in such a way that the data are protected to a degree that constitutes a deterrent. The mere thought of holding on to a year's worth of metadata on everyone's movements would definitely seem like an opportunity to a thief. I think that organized crime would be itching to get its hands on these data. The best approach is to seek advice from top experts to ensure that the data are properly protected.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill 25 applies to organizations. At present, when police officers in Quebec conduct an investigation, they appear before a judge and must show that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been or will be committed. If officers successfully convince the judge, they obtain a search warrant and may then search cell phones. This is how it is currently done. The question that Bill C‑22 raises is: Should the burden of proof be lowered to make things easier for police officers?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I think that, when the time comes, we will have to take a closer look at what Bill 25 has accomplished. The idea behind Bill 25 was really to protect personal information in this increasingly digital age. As for Bill C‑22, I am really concerned about the businesses that will be affected by it. I think it will be important to put in place very specific measures. Service providers will be required to keep data, and we will have to make them ensure that it is the most secure data in the world.”
“Mr. Speaker, what the Bloc Québécois is asking for is a balanced approach. We want to give law enforcement the ability to act, adapt and modernize its capacity to act while also ensuring that the right to personal information and privacy remains a fundamental right that is protected in Quebec and Canada.”
“The minister's power to act through regulatory means and ministerial orders raises some concerns for us, as does this bill's alignment with Quebec's new Bill 25, which seeks to protect personal information and which forced businesses and organizations in Quebec to adapt to protect data. Is the federal government going to add another layer of protection? That will need to be done properly. We need to be careful about this so as not to duplicate legislative protections.”
“If law enforcement agencies are being granted expanded powers and significant amounts of personal data will be stored with service providers, we would at least like to be assured that the agency will have the resources it needs to take action. I also have questions about the regulatory powers that are being granted. Since April, the government has adopted the unfortunate habit of frequently proposing to proceed by regulatory means, so there are concerns. How will the government determine what exactly constitutes a service provider? Some banks are concerned. Will they be included in that definition? If they provide banking services, will they have to retain that data as well?”
“Normally, one would expect this agency to be given more financial and legal authority, as well as material resources, to do its job and to reassure us, at least a little, about this new surveillance system that is being put in place. One of our concerns is that, when interventions are made, the agency will not be notified until 12 months later. There are other countries, such as Australia, where the agency is notified in real time. However, 12 months is already quite far removed from the abuse of authority, if any abuse occurred, so we have a concern on that front. Next, we have concerns regarding funding. The government has announced across-the-board cuts that will affect this agency in particular. These cuts amount to 15%.”
“We know about hackers, but countless other situations come to mind if we think of all the metadata to be stored. I understand that people would be concerned about this. Questions must be asked, because these data banks will not be created by the government, but by businesses. They will be required to conserve these data, but what kind of data protection will be required? There are examples. A few years back, fraud was committed at Desjardins. Sometimes the mechanisms are good, but insiders have bad intentions. A year's worth of geolocation metadata is practically a treasure trove for hackers. The mind reels just thinking about it. Another concern we have is about the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency.”
“Of course, we understand how incredibly efficient this will be for law enforcement, because as soon as they have reason to suspect that a crime has been committed, they will be able to retrieve location data to determine where a person was on a specific date. It will help, but it raises some very legitimate concerns, because, as my colleague mentioned, a database will be created containing millions and millions of location data points for each individual. Each one of us has a phone, which means that with data from the past year, it would be possible to determine where we were at any given time. (1805) This is meant to target criminals, of course, but 99.9% of people in Canada are not criminals and their data are going to be captured somewhere. Any time that a large amount of data like that exists somewhere, it can attract organized crime.”
“They might keep some data for the purpose of commercial profiling, but they might not keep it for a very long time or in an orderly fashion, since they have no commercial interest in doing so. Essentially, however, what the government is proposing with Bill C‑22 is to require service providers to have the technical capability to retain metadata for one year, including the geolocation data of its subscribers. They will also be required to ensure that they can provide this information within a relatively short period of time, on the grounds that law enforcement may need it in order to know where a specific person was on a specific date.”
“We will have to ask this question and listen to privacy experts, because a police officer might be strongly tempted to quickly file a request for the production of documents, given that it will now be much easier to do so. Another point that is quite concerning and that will raise questions is that, under Bill C‑22 , the Minister of Public Safety will first have to determine which service providers would be required to develop technical capabilities. We need to understand where we are going with this. Right now, some telephone or social media service providers do not really keep the data they have because they are not interested in it, since they are only in business for commercial purposes.”
“The other order provided for in Bill C-22 concerns the production of subscriber information. Once again, the burden of proof that law enforcement agencies would be required to meet is low. If they have a phone number, for example, or an IP address, they only need to have a suspicion that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. That is a very low threshold, and it does not take much. They will be able to go before a court to obtain an order for the production of information. They will be able to obtain the name and address of the person to whom the IP address belongs and track them down. Is it possible to strike a balance with such a measure when the burden of proof is lowered?”
“The government wants to simplify the work of law enforcement when it comes to conducting investigations. How? It is creating a new order. The order will allow law enforcement to simply ask an Internet or electronic service provider whether or not a person is a subscriber. All that a police officer needs to make this request is a suspicion, and a suspicion is not much at all. A suspicion is the lowest bar there is in Canadian criminal law. Police officers are often asked to have “reasonable grounds to believe” that a crime has been committed. This remains the current state of the law today. Why are police officers required to have reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed? It is to prevent fishing expeditions and to ensure that police officers have a minimum amount of evidence before obtaining people's personal data.”
“Mr. Speaker, how can we ensure that law enforcement and CSIS have the resources they need to access digital data and effectively combat organized crime and threats to national security without descending into an era of widespread, intrusive and excessive surveillance? That is the question that we are facing today in this debate on Bill C-22 . How can we modernize our law enforcement without infringing on people's right to privacy? Bill C‑22 seeks to strike a balance. I understand that we will likely be able to find out in committee if this balance was struck. We in the Bloc Québécois have a number of questions about what is being proposed, although we support the goal of properly equipping our law enforcement agencies. We have questions about a number of aspects. The first question concerns the proposed new orders.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised some rather serious concerns in his speech, including on the idea of forcing service providers to go further than they do currently and develop capacity to retain metadata for one year, which may include geolocation. What parameters can my colleague propose to ensure that, if this bill moves forward, we can keep this data as secure as possible?”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑22 includes a change involving the burden of proof. The government wants to allow police forces and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to obtain warrants based on suspicions. Previously, it was necessary to prove to a judge that there were reasonable grounds to believe that a crime was committed or that a crime would be committed. From now on, what is required is to prove that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime was committed or that a crime will be committed. It is the lowest standard in criminal law, and that is now what is being proposed. In my colleague's opinion, what are the risks associated with this change?”
“Mr. Speaker, with the introduction of Bill C‑22 , one of the issues is what powers will be granted to the minister by allowing them to order service providers to keep metadata for a year. One of the concerns that this raises is that businesses that may not currently track users will now be required to do so. This will create a fairly substantial amount of information that law enforcement can access. Some Canadians might fear that their telephone will become a tracking device. What can my colleague say to reassure these individuals?”
“Several other organizations, including Plaidoyer Victimes, SOS Violence Conjugale, and Éducaloi, are also funded this way. (1755) There are many other options available. If the government truly wants to increase funding, I simply suggest that it increase transfers to the provinces so that we can pass the funds on to our community organizations.”
“In Quebec, this money is sent to a fund to help victims of crime, the Fonds affecté à l'aide aux personnes victimes d'infractions criminelles. According to the fund's activity report, only $3.2 million was collected in victim surcharges across the whole of Quebec in 2024–25, so we can see that this is not a panacea and that, in fact, criminals often have limited means. Still, it is better than nothing. Another existing mechanism involves funds derived from the proceeds of crime. Our justice system already has the means, when conducting criminal investigations and bringing charges, to seize the proceeds of crime and transfer them to the state so they can be used for good. This is already the case in Quebec. CAVAC, the crime victims' assistance centre, is already funded with this money.”
“This is not necessarily an easy process for organizations that are already doing outstanding work with limited resources. The other argument—and I believe this is the decisive one—is that measures already exist to fund community organizations. One specific measure already exists in the Criminal Code and is known as the victim surcharge. Under section 737 of the Criminal Code, the court may impose an additional fine, a victim surcharge, once a person is convicted. The Supreme Court has ruled on this and set parameters, but it used to apply in all cases. Now it is at the discretion of the judge, who may or may not order it. There are certain fixed fine amounts, but it is a mechanism that exists and serves much the same purpose: to take money out of criminals' pockets and use it for good.”
“They are few in number, they work very hard and they perform miracles. If they wanted to go ahead and use this provision, they need to be aware of the criminal remedies available to them. There is a lot of that in court. A number of charges are dealt with in court. Community organizations should monitor what is happening in the criminal court and make sure they are there at the time of sentencing. Take, for example, an organization that offers addiction treatment. First, they would need to know that there is a court hearing going on that day, and then they would have to show that it was the methamphetamine that was sold by this particular drug dealer that caused the overdose of this specific victim who turned to the organization's services on a specific date.”
“My colleague mentioned this. Let me give an example. Let us say it is a case of human trafficking, and a community organization, such as a shelter for abused women, wants to obtain an order. It will have to demonstrate that, as a result of the offence, it incurred expenses for the person's services, for example, or to provide shelter. There is a challenge, because causality will not be easy to prove in every case. It is also important to always remember that most people who are convicted do not have significant financial resources. How effective would this measure actually be? Another rather significant obstacle is the red tape involved in all this. I think that everyone here must visit community organizations in their ridings from time to time. In my riding, some community organizations recently said that they are stretched thin.”
“First, if this measure were adopted, it would force victims to compete with community organizations. As has been mentioned, people may think that drug traffickers are extremely wealthy. Some of them are, but criminals are often poor. (1750) In any case, if the bill is passed, there will come a time when, during sentencing in court, restitution will be sought by both victims and an organization, and the victims could lose out. To get a sense of what this could look like, let us consider the case of a woman who is a victim of human trafficking. One person is charged, and the woman we are talking about is the victim. The defendant pleads guilty. Then comes sentencing. At that point, the court will have to determine who should receive restitution. That is one issue. One of the obstacles in the bill has to do with causality.”
“The bill before us would add provisions such that not only victims, but also community organizations that provide services, such as helping individuals with drug addiction or providing shelter, can apply to the court for a restitution order for crimes related to drug and human trafficking, as stated in the bill. As my colleague mentioned, the intention is laudable. The member sponsoring this bill says that she wants to increase funding for community organizations. That is a laudable intention. To do so, she wants to hit drug traffickers and pimps where it hurts. The intention is laudable, but unfortunately, the proposed approach is flawed. That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill. The approach is flawed for several reasons.”
“A victim of crime who cannot work may apply to the court for a restitution order. This also covers the threat of bodily harm. The Criminal Code already contains provisions for ordering an offender to pay amounts to victims in cases of intimate partner violence when the situation results in the children or the mother or father having to relocate for a period of time. An order for restitution may be sought in such situations. The same applies for costs incurred as a result of identity theft. A victim who wishes to re-establish their identity must take certain steps, and the court may order the offender to pay damages. The same applies for reasonable expenses related to removing intimate images from the Internet. That is the law as it stands.”