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 7 of 10.
“Everyone remembers when Alexandre Bissonnette walked into a mosque in Quebec City in January 2017 and killed six Muslims in cold blood while wounding five others. This case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Crown prosecutor had requested that Mr. Bissonnette, who pleaded guilty, be given a life sentence without parole for 25 years for each of the six murders. This meant that Mr. Bissonnette could not apply for parole for 150 years. The challenge focused on this point, and the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional because it violated an individual's fundamental right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. In its 2022 ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the sentence in this case was so absurd that it “would bring the administration of justice into disrepute”.”
“Now, is the solution devised by the Conservative Party or by my colleague from Edmonton Griesbach the right one? Let us look at that together. First, it is a solution that raises constitutional issues. I touched on that briefly. For example, I talked about section 12, which talks about cruel and unusual punishment. We could also change the Constitution. A political party could ask to reopen the Constitution and change the charter. However, as long as we are in the current system, it is there, and all laws that come out of Parliament must comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Conservative government passed legislation that aimed to allow consecutive sentences.”
“These are the guiding principles that we live by and that we are trying to reconcile. The problem that Bill C‑243 seeks to address is real. I think that we need to pay attention to that. There are families whose loved ones have been murdered. These people appear before the Parole Board of Canada and have to relive their suffering. Obviously, that stirs up all the feelings of grief that follow such acts of violence. It is completely understandable that this is extremely hard on these people. Under the existing legislation, a person who is denied parole can reapply the following year. The victims' families say that this is too much to bear, that it is a terrible burden. That is the problem that needs to be addressed, and I think we need to address it.”
“This liberty may be restricted, but only in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. My colleague from Edmonton Griesbach wishes to amend another extremely important principle that is enshrined in the law, and that is the very purpose of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act: The purpose of the federal correctional system is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by (a) carrying out sentences imposed by courts through the safe and humane custody and supervision of offenders; and (b) assisting the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens through the provision of programs in penitentiaries and in the community. This shows that the goal is to strike a balance between public safety and rehabilitation.”
“Mr. Speaker, today we are here to debate Bill C‑243 , introduced by my colleague from Edmonton Griesbach . Under this bill, someone who has been convicted of first- or second-degree murder will no longer be able to apply for parole a second time if their first application is refused. That person would have to wait a minimum of five years before submitting a new application. Before discussing the bill itself, I would like to talk about certain principles that govern our society, principles that are enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These are fundamental freedoms. Section 12 states that everyone has the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. There is also section 7, which states that everyone has the right to liberty.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Edmonton Griesbach for his account and the testimony he presented to us in the House. We have to understand the pain and suffering that victims go through when they have to return to the Parole Board. Everyone can understand that. Has my colleague considered alternatives to limiting the number of times a murderer can apply to the Parole Board? Has he considered other alternatives? For example, we could arrange for the testimony of relatives to be sent to the board without them having to travel and face their loved one's murderer.”
“Madam Speaker, the Liberals have the choice of three parties to support their budget. Of course we would prefer that they work with us because our demands meet the needs of Quebeckers on health and seniors' purchasing power. We would like them to invest more in Quebec than in the oil companies or in tax breaks for big tech. It is up the Liberals. What is the choice of the Liberals right now? They have decided not to work with anyone. Why are they holding Quebeckers hostage with threats of a Christmas election instead of negotiating?”
“Madam Speaker, Halloween is here, as we have just heard, and the Liberals are trying to give people a fright. They are threatening to call an election if their budget is not passed, yet they are a minority. All they have to do to get their budget passed is come to an agreement with the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives, the NDP or any of the parties. The Bloc Québécois's demands concern Quebeckers. The Liberals can meet these demands or pick others to support their bill, yet they refuse to negotiate with anyone. Are they truly acting in good faith?”
“Madam Speaker, I have two questions for my colleague. I know he is quite capable of answering more than one. My first question is this. What does my colleague make of the current situation in Parliament? Two opposition parties worked together in committee to improve a bill, to make it better and more reasonable. Now, with this debate, all the work that was done in committee could be completely tossed aside because the makeup of the House is a little different. My second question is this. Why does he think this government is rejecting an amendment that we introduced that calls for greater accountability? This transparency would allow us to let everyone in the country know how many new citizens this legislation creates.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It really is so important, because what people want is reassurance. Perhaps the first thing to do is explain to people how the system works now, which is why I humbly took some time to explain the current rules. I think one way to provide that reassurance is to help them better understand how criminal law works.”
“Mr. Speaker, under the Criminal Code, a person charged with murder is held in custody before their trial. Certain reverse onus provisions already apply. For example, if a person has been previously convicted or discharged of a charge of intimate partner violence, if it happened before and the person is charged again, the onus is reversed. This makes it much easier for the Crown prosecutor to keep the person in custody. Reverse onus is a significant legislative change and no trivial matter. Above all, before pursuing this course, the problem must be carefully documented.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague says that the demand is real. I know that people are worried, including in his home province of Manitoba. Yes, they do not feel safe, but we have to look beyond feelings. We have to look at the Criminal Code as it stands and the values that underpin it, including the presumption of innocence. We will study all that. There is a risk that, in responding to a perception of being unsafe based on specific cases that have an impact on people, we may move toward a criminal justice system that puts innocent people in prison if we fail to look at the big picture.”
“It is a sensitive issue, because every single case is one case too many. I have met victims of crime and I am aware of how devastating it can be. However, when we legislate, we must still take a comprehensive and rational approach, so let us document the problem properly and then find appropriate solutions.”
“What the statistics show is that, first of all, it is harder now to obtain interim release than in the past, and it is harder here than it is in Great Britain. In 1980, 75% of accused persons were released. In 2025, only 25% of accused persons manage to be released. In Canada, 70% of people in provincial and territorial jails are awaiting trial, compared to only 20% in Great Britain. Statistics show that it is harder to be released on bail than in the past, and it is harder here than some other places. The Bloc Québécois therefore supports the principle of studying this bill. That is why we agree that it should be studied in committee. We believe that we must be vigilant because there is the risk of putting innocent people in prison. What we are proposing is a rational approach. The problem must be documented.”
“However, the criminal law section of the Canadian Bar Association, which is made up not only of defence lawyers, but also Crown prosecutors, has written an open letter about Bill C‑14 . The letter states: ...reverse onus provisions and modifications to the ladder principle may not achieve their intended deterrent effect, and we question whether such provisions would be Charter compliant...[especially given the] disproportionate effect on Indigenous accused and [other racialized accused].... We have testimony from lawyers who work in the courts. We looked at the Criminal Code. Tools do exist. We have no data from the government, apart from a few impressions. However, there are some statistics.”
“Release for these defendants is far from guaranteed. Judges consider the accused's history, particularly when it involves crimes against the person and breaches of conditions (probation, undertakings and promises). Moreover, in the case of a breach of promise or undertaking, the burden of proof is already reversed. ...While not perfect, the current system has the necessary flexibility to detain those who need to be detained and release those who can be released with minimal risk. ... The system could be improved, but not at the expense of individual liberties. I thought his last point was well said. Perhaps someone will point out that Mr. Caissy is a criminal defence lawyer.”
“There will always be one, two or even fourteen people who will be released and commit new crimes. If we want that number to be zero, it would mean keeping people in prison as soon as they are charged. Where does that leave the presumption of innocence? Basically, they are proposing that we undermine that principle, even without evidence. I find that quite worrying. I was curious about how things work in practice. I worked for 10 years as a legal aid lawyer. I practised criminal law off and on, but not often. I wrote to one of my colleagues, Hugo Caissy, who has been practising criminal law for about 20 years and is an excellent lawyer. I asked him what he thinks about this bill. He wrote me this: In reality, the claim that violent criminals are easily released is false. The opposite is true.”
“Is there any evidence that our system gives people a “get out of jail free” card? There is no data on this. When I ask my colleagues questions, they base their answers on cases in their riding or some other riding. Every one of these cases is heartbreaking. Nevertheless, if an individual is charged and released, it is because the judge was of the opinion that there was no likelihood of another crime being committed, no worries about that individual being released. If the individual is released and commits another crime, and members of Parliament point to such an incident here and another there to prove that something must be done, what that basically means is that, logically, as soon as someone is charged, they should be kept in prison. We would have to keep everyone in prison.”
“Here is another argument that can be made: (c) if the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice This makes it possible to argue the seriousness of the offence. That is the current system. That is how things are done in courts across the country right now. My question for the government is, what is wrong with this system? Where is the problem? What is not working? What is missing? We ask these questions and we are not really getting any answers. We have asked government representatives these questions to find out whether they had any facts to prove that the system is not working and the answer is no. (1720) What we do know is that people do not feel safe, and this feeling is legitimate. It must be addressed. People need reassurance.”
“Here is another argument that Crown prosecutors can make right now: (b) where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public It is already written in black and white. The Crown prosecutor may refer to the protection of victims, witnesses to the offence, or children under the age of 18. He or she may explain the circumstances that make it necessary to detain the person, even if they are presumed innocent, even if it will take months, because the public must be protected. The Criminal Code provides the following clarification: including any substantial likelihood that the accused will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice; That alone is already a very useful tool for Crown prosecutors.”
“Generally, if the Crown prosecutor does not want an accused person to be released, there will be a bail hearing. The accused, their lawyer and the Crown prosecutor will appear before the judge. Normally, the burden is on the Crown if it wants the accused to remain in custody. What tools do Crown prosecutors have, as outlined in the Criminal Code? There are actually quite a few. The Crown prosecutor may request that an accused remain in custody on the following grounds: (a) where the detention is necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court in order to be dealt with according to law; If the person has failed to appear in court in the past, or if the person already had a plan to escape, these arguments can be made and the person can be detained.”
“According to this principle, the decision-maker “shall give primary consideration to the release of the accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions that are appropriate in the circumstances”. That is because the person has not yet been found guilty. Does that mean that our system permits someone who is arrested to simply pull our their card to get released? No, that is not the case at all. Very specific Criminal Code provisions allow for pre-trial detention in certain cases. Sometimes, it can take months before a trial is held. In some cases, a person may be held in custody while still presumed innocent, because the necessity to protect the safety of the public takes precedence over the presumption of innocence, as set out in subsection 515(10) of the Criminal Code. Here is how it works.”
“That person will have to appear before a judge within 24 hours. Even if the accused has not yet been found guilty, there is a possibility that that individual may remain in prison until their trial. The cardinal principle behind all this is the presumption of innocence. Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: Any person charged with an offence has the right ... (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; That is a key principle of our criminal law. A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This principle implies that, if a person is arrested, they are presumed innocent until a court of law finds them guilty. What follows from the presumption of innocence is the principle of restraint.”
“Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-14 , which was introduced by the Minister of Justice last week. When he introduced the bill, he said it was important to get rid of the “get out of jail free” card. That is really what I want to focus on, even though there are a lot of other things in this rather dense bill with 80 clauses. Among other things, the bill proposes to amend the provisions on interim release. According to the Minister of Justice, under the current system, an accused person just has to pull out a “get out of jail free” card, like in Monopoly, and they will be released. For the people listening to us, let me start by defining interim release. What is interim release? It is when a person is charged with a crime that is serious enough for the police to take them into custody.”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier I asked one of the member's colleagues to give us the facts that the government is working from to call for an amendment to the Criminal Code's bail provisions. I did not really get an answer earlier. We were told that some people were complaining. I will give the government another opportunity, through the member, to explain to us the current problem with the bail system. What is stopping a judge from denying bail and keeping an accused in prison to protect the public?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. The Minister of Justice said that under the current system, when someone is charged, they have a free pass that they can show and they will be released right away. I want to know the factual basis for that claim. The figures show that, in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, 70% of people in provincial prisons are currently awaiting trial. By comparison, in England, that figure is 20%. We imprison a lot more people before their trial here in Canada. Another thing worth noting is that people are being put in prison to await their trial far more now than they were in the 1980s. What exactly is the problem that my colleague and his government want to solve?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. What is the factual basis for the government's claim that the bail system is broken? When the Minister of Justice announced Bill C-14 , he said that accused persons had a "get out of jail free" card, and that being granted bail was incredibly easy. The figures show that, in Canada, 71% of inmates in provincial or territorial prisons are currently awaiting trial. These are people who were denied bail. In the 1980s, 75% of people were denied bail and now it is even harder to get. What is the factual basis for what the government is trying to do?”
“Mr. Speaker, indeed, we support the principle behind Bill C‑3 . In the course of our work and research, we realized that, of course, wrongs need to be made right, and we agree in principle, although the impact of this could be quite significant. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer told us. Up to 150,000 more people could become Canadian citizens unless we establish guidelines. At the least, we need to know what the future will look like once the bill is passed. In the meantime, we think that the guidelines we are proposing will help correct injustices, as long as the parent of the person born abroad was living in Canada for three of the five years preceding that person's birth. We consider that entirely reasonable.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for asking her question in my language. Obviously, that is basically what we are saying. My fear is that this is going to make the entire process futile and pointless. In other words, we will meet in committee, decide on certain things, then return to the House and tear up everything we did. I think we need to find a way to include the amendments we have proposed. These are reasonable amendments that promote transparency. If we are going to welcome 150,000 new citizens over the next few years, it would make sense to be able to enlighten the House and the entire population on the impact this bill is going to have. This is quite important. What we are asking for is accountability and transparency. It seems to me that everyone should agree on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague the following question: What is the purpose of parliamentary committees? I understand what my colleague is saying, and of course, the House is sovereign in its votes, but the committee, which includes members of recognized opposition parties, worked hard to improve the bill. Today, the government is trying to undermine the work of the committee by joining forces with an unrecognized opposition party. Of course, that party has the right to have its say, but should that mean completely undoing all of the committee's work?”
“Mr. Speaker, the idea of diversifying our trade partnerships over the next 10 years, as the Prime Minister proposes, is a good one. However, for workers in our sawmills, at Paccar, at our aluminum smelters and steel plants, 10 years is forever. The Prime Minister has an obligation to get results for Quebeckers now living with a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. We need the diversification rhetoric to translate into contracts and job creation. Support for industries and workers has to be flexible and much more readily accessible. When can we expect results?”
“Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump has broken off talks. We are a long way from an agreement, despite the Liberal rescue promised during the election campaign. Yes, some things are unpredictable, but other things are in Ottawa's control, including how we protect our people. As yet, assistance for the lumber sector is still on hold. Three hundred jobs were lost at Paccar because of truck tariffs. Meanwhile, Ottawa is making cuts to measures that simplify access to EI. With everything in Washington off the rails, what is the Prime Minister going to do to make sure that Quebeckers do not pay for this new setback?”
“Why oppose a transparency measure? Why refuse to learn what effect this new law will have on the number of Canadian citizens? I do not understand this. That is why we will vote against the amendments proposed by the government and the member at report stage and support the version of the bill as amended by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. These amendments remove important safeguards that were added in committee by a majority vote in order to avoid a situation where, in righting wrongs, we leave the door too wide open, causing citizenship to lose its value.”
“Apart from those three things, the amendments introduced by the government seek to overturn the work of the majority of the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. The government's intent is to restore the bill to the way it was before it was studied in committee, reinstating the requirement that one of the parents must have been present for 1,095 days over an indefinite period, rather than within the five years preceding the birth of the child, in order for the child to obtain Canadian citizenship by birth. In our opinion, it is reasonable to require the parent to have been present in Canada for about three of the five years before the birth. The amendment also removes the requirement to table an annual report in Parliament on the number of citizens who have benefited from the law in order to obtain citizenship.”
“That is a significant number of people. I think it is important to understand what effect this new legislation will have. We believe that these amendments respond to the court's ruling calling on us to determine what constitutes a real connection to Canada. By aligning the naturalization requirements for second-generation children born abroad with those for individuals seeking citizenship through immigration, we are ensuring a level playing field for everyone. However, the amendments that the government and the member from an unrecognized party are now proposing to the House seek to restore the amended clauses to their original form, except for the three requirements regarding security assessments, the French language and citizenship tests for people aged 18 to 55. At least that is something.”
“Furthermore, we also supported an amendment to require citizenship applicants over the age of 18 to meet additional requirements. Like naturalized citizens, they would have to pass a language test, pass a knowledge and citizenship test and undergo a security assessment. Another amendment adopted in committee establishes some degree of accountability by requiring that a report be tabled in Parliament containing the annual statistics on the number of citizenships granted under the new law. It is important to know what kind of impact this new legislation is having. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that the new rules could result in 150,000 new Canadian citizens over the next five years. That is more than the entire population of the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands, and more than the vast majority of ridings in the House.”
“The bill was amended so that the requirements for passing on citizenship by descent to second-generation Canadians born abroad would align in every way with the requirements applied to naturalized citizens going through the immigration process. Bill C-3 proposed that citizenship be granted to children if one parent had spent at least 1,095 days in the country, the equivalent of about three years, over an indeterminate period prior to the child's birth. The Bloc Québécois supported an amendment to include this 1,095-day requirement, but over a five-year period instead, to match the requirement for people seeking citizenship through the immigration process. This amendment corrects injustices and ensures that new Canadians have a real and substantial connection to their new country, not a tenuous one.”
“This seems to be at odds with the message sent by voters, who wanted to give more power to opposition parties. (1050) There seems to be a risk that, at the end of the process, we will ask ourselves the same question: What is the purpose of parliamentary committees in the current Parliament? The Bloc Québécois asks that the work done by the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration be respected. We ask this because we believe it is a matter of parliamentary democracy and respect for the will of the voters, but also, in our opinion, because the amendments adopted in committee improve the bill amending citizenship. The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-3 as amended by the committee.”
“The bill as improved by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is a bill that contains more informed measures and, in our opinion, better reflects the wishes of the public. However, the government now wants to revisit the work that has been done and undo the improvements made in committee. It should be noted that the amendments now being proposed in the House come from the government, but also from a member of a non-recognized party. It could be argued that, although that party is not recognized, its members should still be involved in the law-making process. That is difficult to dispute. The real question is, how involved can they be? Can they go so far as to erase almost all the work done in committee, to the point of setting aside the votes cast in committee by representatives of recognized parties?”
“Did the people not give power to one party while asking that the other parties be more involved in law-making? I think so. Yvon Pinard, the then president of the Privy Council, said the following about committees on November 29, 1982, and I quote: “Experience has shown that smaller and more flexible committees, when entrusted with interesting matters, can have a very positive impact on the development of our parliamentary system, upgrade the role of Members of Parliament, sharpen their interest and ultimately enable this institution [or committees] to produce much more enlightened measures that better meet the wishes of the Canadian people.” I think the last part of that statement is the most relevant part.”
“After reviewing 26 briefs, hearing from 14 witnesses, holding two meetings and conducting four hours of work, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is sending the bill back to us with nine amendments. These nine amendments were adopted by a majority of committee members. What is the purpose of parliamentary committees in the context of a minority government like the one we have now? Are they a necessary but futile step, at the end of which the House overturns all the amendments that the parliamentary committee adopted by a majority vote? Alternatively, are committees a place where the will of the people can be expressed by representatives of recognized opposition parties? I would remind members that, in April, the people elected more opposition members than government members. Were they sending a message?”
“She would not be able to choose to work abroad at some point in her career and give birth to a child abroad, because her child would not be able to obtain Canadian citizenship. That is ridiculous because the child was only born in Switzerland because of circumstances related to her parents' work and she spent most of her life in Canada. The bill seeks to correct this type of injustice, which is why the Bloc Québécois supported it at second reading. Today, this bill has been sent back to the House from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for report stage consideration. At this point, we must ask ourselves a very simple question: What is the purpose of parliamentary committees?”
“The parties challenging the law represented seven families that were discriminated against by this law, and the court recognized that the ban introduced in this law was unfair, especially for those who were forced to choose between the birthplace of their child and the transmission of citizenship. The case of the Brooke-Bjorkquist family illustrates the problem perfectly. A child was born in Geneva in 2010 to Canadian parents who were working for the government abroad. Despite the fact that this child was born to two Canadian parents and she returned to Canada at the age of one, she would not be able to follow in her parents' footsteps under the provisions of the act.”
“Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-3 , an act to amend the Citizenship Act. This bill responds to a court ruling. Let us take a look at the historical background. In 2009, the Harper government amended the Citizenship Act to prohibit the transmission of citizenship beyond the second generation for children born outside Canada, even if their parents are Canadian. In December 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck down provisions of this law on the grounds that they violated section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which deals with mobility rights and states that every citizen has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada, as well as section 15 of the charter, which deals with equality rights.”
“Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, today's debate raises important questions about democracy. What role do judges play and what role do legislators play? The judge said it was discriminatory and told legislators to do their job and determine what the real connection is between a Canadian born abroad and his or her country. A guideline has been proposed, a reasonable limit that mirrors the immigration system. That is the job of legislators. It is not up to judges to decide everything, because otherwise we would have a government of judges, and that is not what we want. I would like to know what my colleague has to say about the state of our parliamentary democracy if everything that is decided in committee is overturned when the report is presented to the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the amendments that were voted on in committee, there is this notion of righting wrongs as well as setting guidelines and ensuring that people who become Canadians continue to maintain a genuine connection to their new country. Can my colleague discuss another key amendment, which provides for the publication of an annual report to determine the impact of this legislation? My colleague referred to a few thousand people but the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that there would be up to 150,000 new citizens within the first five years. It seems to me that it would be a good idea to understand the impact of the laws that we pass. Why is my colleague moving an amendment today that ultimately goes against transparency and accountability?”
“Mr. Speaker, the people of the Gaspé have been abandoned by Via Rail, which refuses to reinstate the service it used to provide there, despite the $1.3 billion it receives in federal assistance for things like operating regional routes, and despite the $355 million that Quebec has spent on repairing the rail line as far as Port‑Daniel. Via Rail takes money from Ottawa to serve the regions, but it refuses to provide the service and fulfill its obligations to the people of the Gaspé. Will the government call on Via Rail to reinstate service between Matapédia and Port-Daniel as soon as possible?”
“Mr. Speaker, I noticed that my colleague used the word “discipline” in her speech and that she spoke on the importance of being disciplined and diligent when managing public finances. I would like to hear what she has to say about the action taken by her government immediately before the election, when it eliminated the carbon tax and refunded Canadians outside Quebec and British Columbia nearly $4 billion, even though the carbon tax had not been paid. How does that show discipline or diligence?”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his passionate speech. One of the problems we have when we talk about public finances is that there is no transparency right now. We still do not have a budget. I would like to discuss something with my colleague. When the votes were tabled in June, we noticed certain things. First, transfers to individuals will hardly increase at all, and federal bureaucratic operating expenses appear set to skyrocket by 16%. Spending on consulting firms would explode by 26% and equipment purchases would increase by 300%, not counting military procurement. What does my colleague think of this preliminary overview we have of public finances?”
“Mr. Speaker, sound management of public finances is a concern for us in the Bloc Québécois. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about his government's recent decision to drop the digital services tax. We know that we will be facing a huge deficit. We are still waiting for the numbers on November 4. With a 3% tax on the activities of multinational web companies in Canada, the digital services tax would have brought in $7.2 billion over five years. Why did this government decide to forgo this revenue?”