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 9 of 10.
“Mr. Speaker, that study, which was conducted by the U.S. attorney general in 1999, came to two conclusions. First, after looking into the history of 300,000 prisoners, some of whom came from places where there was a “three strikes and you go to jail for a long time” rule, and others from places where there was no such rule, they realized that there was no effect on the recidivism rate. However, what they observed was that, in some places, the longer the sentence, the higher the risk of reoffending. They found a correlation. Once we accept the fact that people who commit crimes are still people, that we cannot get rid of them and that we have to work on them, rehabilitation becomes the obvious option.”
“Mr. Speaker, once a person has served part of their sentence, a decision is made by the Parole Board of Canada. As far as I know, it is not automatic. It depends on how the person behaves. We could potentially discuss improvements we could make, because it is true that we see articles in the media and do not understand why the person was released.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree that giving judges some discretion and allowing the justice system to identify the most appropriate solution on a case-by-case basis, according to the criteria set out in the Criminal Code and therefore based on the legislator's intent, is the right way to ensure that our justice system works properly. I will give an example. I once represented a woman who had a child to raise and who was charged with fraud for a significant amount of money. We were able to negotiate a stay. Instead of going to jail, my client was able to continue working while complying with a curfew. She could contribute to society while being there for her son. I think that is the way to get her back on the right track.”
“evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years, Then there is the following situation: evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim There is also the circumstance where the offender is already a member of a criminal organization. We can see that the Criminal Code already sets limits and allows judges to make informed decisions. The Bloc Québécois will be voting against the Conservatives' motion. Not only are we far from certain it will achieve anything, we believe it undermines a system that, all things considered, is well balanced.”
“If they have already committed serious offences, the Crown prosecutor will certainly argue that, and the judge will take it into account. I think that mandating a given sentence whenever someone commits a third offence is not the way to go. I do not think this kind of automatic sentencing serves the justice system. A number of factors can already be considered to be aggravating circumstances, for example: evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion [or] sex All of this is already taken into consideration by our justice system. There are also the following circumstances: evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused [among others] the offender's intimate partner There was already a question on that earlier.”
“(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders Another fundamental principle that is already in our body of legislation, specifically in Criminal Code section 718.1, states: A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The judge already has the flexibility needed to impose a more serious sentence when the crime is more serious. Paragraph 718.2(a) sets out the sentencing principles. It says that “a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances”, so criminal history is already taken into account. During sentencing, after an offender has been found guilty, the judge looks at their record.”
“Section 718 of the Criminal Code states the following: The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct; (b) to deter the offender This objective is already well established in the Criminal Code. (c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; That is entirely possible. (d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; I do not think this goal should be overlooked, given that the offender will eventually regain their freedom.”
“I would still like to explain that there are many provisions in the Criminal Code. What the Conservatives are proposing is to tinker with a Criminal Code that already sets out many principles that are perfectly adequate. The Conservatives are calling for 10-year minimum sentences for three serious offences. Let us look at the main principles for determining sentencing in section 718 of the Criminal Code. We will see that the Criminal Code already has everything a judge needs to impose harsher sentences when needed.”
“(1600) We can still look at what the Conservatives are proposing to change. They are saying that when a person has committed three serious offences, they will be imprisoned for a minimum of 10 years. As a former legal aid lawyer, I can say that what I really appreciated in a court of law was that no shortcuts were taken and that every case was analyzed individually because every case is different. When the government imposes minimum sentences, it takes away the justice system's ability to impose a sentence that truly fits the crime. Minimum sentences may appeal to a certain electorate who may legitimately feel unsafe, but by taking such shortcuts, we risk committing injustices in the fight again crime. It is far from certain that the Conservatives' proposal will have any impact whatsoever.”
“However, I appreciate that we are told that this is common sense, that it is basic common sense, that if we put somebody in prison they will not commit a crime. Still, I believe that a more informed approach is needed because simply putting somebody in prison does not make them disappear forever. This person will come back to society. The question is, what state will they come back in? The idea behind rehabilitation is to give people a purpose. It means telling them that they have committed a crime for reasons that are their own and that they are responsible for their actions but that they will receive support. They are offered therapies and given a purpose in life, because life outside crime is ultimately much more comfortable and allows a person to truly set themselves free. In my view, this is what we need to do.”
“Some jurisdictions had legislation whereby, after three offences, criminals ends up in prison for much longer, whereas others had no such legislation. This law was found not to have any impact. No study could prove that longer or shorter prison sentences reduce recidivism. It was also noted that when someone is put in prison, they are surrounded by criminals. There are things that are discussed between criminals. It is often said that prison is crime school. Studies seem to indicate that the longer the sentence, the greater the risk of reoffending because people who spend 10 years in prison are not fit to return to society. They spent far too long surrounded by criminals. We are a long way from knowing whether this idea will reduce crime.”
“Personally, I believe we need to focus on rehabilitation. What I learned during my 10 years working in legal aid, dealing with all kinds of people in very difficult situations, is that we need to give people hope. We need to give them a way out. Yes, we must give second chances and believe people have the ability to improve themselves and overcome their demons to lead a more acceptable life in society. With their motion, the Conservatives are telling us we should instead adopt a “three strikes” law. The question I asked earlier remains the same. Does the “three strikes” approach work? The studies I have read say that this has no impact. I will cite these studies again. The U.S. Attorney General compiled 50 studies involving 300,000 prisoners. Comparisons were made between different parts of the U.S.”
“Based on what I observed as a legal aid lawyer in the Gaspé region and from my interactions with people accused of crimes, I tend to think that environmental factors partly explain criminality. We cannot ignore people's individual responsibility, of course, but environmental factors do play a role in criminality. Perhaps an even more pertinent question is what enables people to leave crime behind. How can we ensure that someone who commits a crime or is a repeat offender can leave crime behind and get back on the path to a life without crime, a life that is more conducive to public safety and to that individual's personal development? Should we impose harsher penalties? That is what the Conservatives are proposing. Criminals should be incarcerated for longer periods of time, and, in their opinion, this would reduce the crime rate.”
“Mr. Speaker, crime is up. Statistics show this to be true, in both Quebec and Canada. Between 2015 and 2024, there was a 47% increase in violent crimes in Quebec and a 63% increase in Canada. Between 2015 and 2024, there was a 138% increase in sexual assaults in Quebec. If we look at the figures per 100,000 inhabitants, they are slightly lower, but still, we see that crime is on the rise and that we have reason to be concerned. We have good reason to discuss the best ways to reduce crime. Therefore, the question is this: How do we respond to the rise in crime? We have to ask ourselves what causes crime. This is a complex question, one that has no definitive or final answer.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech, which was eloquent. I heard what she said about environmental factors that can partly explain crime, such as overcrowded housing and problems related to poverty. My question for my colleague is this: Why does she think rehabilitation is a better way to reduce the crime rate than lengthy prison sentences?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will ask my colleague the same question I asked earlier. Is there any evidence to prove that keeping people behind bars longer reduces crime? The member for Edmonton Gateway gave a rather simplistic answer to my question. He said that when someone is behind bars, they cannot commit crimes in the community. That is true, but eventually they will be released and re-enter society. In 1999, the U.S. Attorney General compiled 50 studies on 300,000 inmates. They found there is no link between longer periods of incarceration and the crime rate. Instead, when people spend more time in prison, they learn things. When they get out, they run a greater risk of reoffending. What is my colleague's response to that?”
“Mr. Speaker, crime reduction is an important issue that is worth discussing. I have a question for my colleague. This act seeks to incarcerate more criminals for longer periods of time. Can my colleague provide us with even one statistic showing that this type of legislative measure eventually reduces crime in places where it is implemented?”
“What is more, she was given a role in Stephen Harper's cabinet straightaway as minister of fisheries and oceans, a position that is crucial for her region and mine. She was the first woman from Prince Edward Island to become a minister. She remained in the Conservative cabinet until she left politics in 2015. Ms. Shea was known in her part of the country for standing up for the Maritimes, specifically by resisting stubborn misconceptions about the seal hunting industry. Everyone who knew her, including her political opponents, remember her most as a woman who never forgot where she came from or the people she represented, including fishers. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois and as my party's critic for fisheries and oceans, I offer my sincere condolences to Gail Shea's family and loved ones.”
“Mr. Speaker, today we honour the life and contributions of Gail Shea, a former Conservative minister and, more importantly, a dedicated citizen of Prince Edward Island, who passed away on August 21 at the age of 66. Ms. Shea came from a fishing family in western P.E.I. She had a knack for bringing people together across political lines, first by being elected to the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island in 2000 as a Conservative in a Liberal stronghold. Up until her departure in 2007, she made her mark there, notably by shouldering the heavy responsibilities of the role of minister of transportation and public works. Then, in 2008, she was lured away from home by a new challenge: federal politics. Once again, Gail Shea won voters' trust as a blue candidate in the red stronghold of Egmont.”
“Mr. Speaker, last summer, the Conservatives called for a 100% surtax on electric vehicles manufactured in China, and a few months later, the Liberal government imposed that surtax. Of course, we share the Conservatives' concern about the cost of electric vehicles. I would like to know the government's position on this. According to an Abacus poll released yesterday, 53% of Canadians would prefer for the import surtax that is being imposed on Chinese vehicles at the request of U.S. to be lower to make electric vehicles more affordable. What is the Liberal government’s position on this?”
“Madam Speaker, to summarize what is in Bill C-5 , once cabinet has decided that a bill is in the national interest, 13 laws will be set aside. They say that the ministers thought this bill had to move forward, regardless of all the legislation that has been passed over the years. Section 21 of the bill is quite alarming. It allows the government not only to set aside 13 laws and several regulations, but also to add new ones. These laws are essentially intended to ensure that the projects implemented are good ones that respect the environment and protect species at risk, for example. Why does my colleague want to support Bill C-5, which will even allow bad projects to go ahead?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. The idea behind Bill C‑5 , a bill that the government is determined to pass quickly, is to allow certain major projects to move forward without too many checks and balances. That is a matter of deep concern to the Bloc Québécois because we believe that the environmental protections put in place over the years serve a purpose. Why is the part of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that deals with the disposal of pollutants in marine environments so unnecessary that it needs to be shoved aside to make way for major projects that suddenly need to get done at lightening speed?”
“Why does my colleague think that a major project deemed in the national interest must necessarily be carried out at the expense of preserving fish?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to talk to my colleague. In our opinion, Bill C-5 is a major democratic setback. It is also a step backwards in our environmental protections. My colleague must know that supporting the closure motion and eventually the bill will not just put this on the Liberals' record; it will also be on the Conservatives' record. What will Bill C‑5 do? When a major project is proposed and is considered to be in the national interest, some legislation will no longer need to be circumvented, such as the Fisheries Act. What is the purpose of the Fisheries Act? Section 2.1 of that act states that the purpose of the act is to provide a framework for the management and control of fisheries, as well as the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat.”
“Mr. Speaker, when we pass a bill, there is usually a reason. When we pass environmental protection measures, there is usually a reason. It is to protect the environment. My question for my colleague is this: What part of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act section that deals with disposal of pollutants in marine environments is unnecessary? Why do these protections need to be bulldozed to allow major projects to go ahead?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is imposing a gag order on Bill C‑5 , which would give him the power to make decisions about energy projects by order in council, with no regard for Quebec or social licence. He is also rushing the passage of Bill C‑4 . He is appointing ministers without a mandate letter stating his intentions, and he has ended Justin Trudeau's tradition of answering all questions in question period on Wednesdays. In short, there is no debate, no transparency and as little accountability as possible. Do the Liberals really think this is what Quebeckers expect from a minority government?”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier, I was telling the story of a law-abiding couple who made an honest mistake and yet were pursued relentlessly by the federal government. They still need to pay back that debt, so some clarity is in order regarding the legal action the government says it wants to take against GC Strategies. Has a notice been sent? I might remind members that we have been waiting for this for over a year. Have negotiations begun? If not, has an application been filed in court?”
“At the time, I asked Minister Duclos to step in and cancel the debt. That never happened. How can we be sure that no double standard will creep in and that the people who cheated the government, or at best behaved badly, will also have to face legal proceedings in this case?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a story with my colleague. It is the story of Jean‑Claude Martin and Gaétane Cyr, both residents of Baie‑des‑Chaleurs. I represented them as their legal aid lawyer. When they started living together, they filed a tax return as a couple. To get their guaranteed income supplement, they simply called and explained their situation to a public servant, without filling in any forms, since none had been sent to them. A few years later, the federal government suddenly woke up and decided to send my two low-income clients a letter demanding $38,000. It is not hard to imagine the stress they were under. We disputed this demand and asked the government to forgive the debt since it had been notified of the situation previously. We took the matter all the way to Federal Court and lost.”
“Mr. Chair, the runway at the Magdalen Islands airport is too short, impeding our ability to send cargo by air. Can we work together to extend the runway at the Magdalen Islands airport to create a better economy?”
“Mr. Chair, Via Rail is funded by the federal government to provide regional rail service. The rail line will be operational in the coming weeks. Does the minister agree with me that, under the circumstances, Via Rail should resume service to Port-Daniel—Gascons?”
“Does the minister agree with me that Via Rail must restore passenger rail service to Port-Daniel as soon as the line is operational?”
“Mr. Chair, regional routes are central to Via Rail's mandate. This year, according to the estimates tabled, the federal government will provide $383 million, which includes funding for regional passenger rail service. In my region, the Gaspé Peninsula, rail service was halted in 2013 because the line was in such poor condition. In a few weeks, however, the rail line will be completely restored and safe between Matapédia and Port-Daniel. Nearly 20,000 Gaspé Peninsula residents have signed a petition calling for rail service to resume. A motion adopted unanimously in the Quebec National Assembly calls for passenger rail service to be restored on the Gaspé Peninsula. This week, the Gaspé RCM wardens' table adopted a resolution asking for the same thing. In short, people want the train on the Gaspé Peninsula as soon as possible.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, who is very critical of the bill. One of the things he talks about is the importance of cracking down on fentanyl trafficking. What we see in the bill is that the Canada Post Corporation Act will now allow people who work for Canada Post to open not only parcels, but also letters, when they have reasonable grounds to suspect that something is not right. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that. Does he see this as a potentially useful way to more effectively crack down on trafficking, particularly fentanyl trafficking?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister. With regard to asylum claims, I understand that the problem related to the 14-day period has been resolved and that the period from which a claim for asylum can no longer be made has also been limited. Now we see, at first reading at least, that a new discretionary power has been given to the minister. When an asylum claim is deemed eligible by the officers, the minister has the power to authorize it or reject it before it is referred to the board. That is a new discretionary power for the minister. I would like to know where that idea came from.”
“Ultimately, one quality supersedes all the rest: the Gaspé Peninsula is a land of freedom. On June 5, I would like to wish a happy Gaspé Day to all those who love my corner of the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, if one was flying over our region, it would be impossible to decide where to touch down: in the rugged mountains of Haute-Gaspésie, where cliffs plunge into the depths of the sea; amid the gentle waves of Baie-des-Chaleurs, where, nestled between the sea and the mountains, a happy people sing; at the breathtaking Percé Rock; on the vibrant Gaspé Coast; in the Gaspé adventure park; among our Mi'kmaq friends; on the stages of one of our many festivals to hear the best talent perform; on the banks of one of our exquisite rivers, such as the Matane, the Matapédia, the Nouvelle, the Cascapédia, the Bonaventure or the York; and the list goes on. One could likely spend hours admiring this peninsula from above, soaking in the atmosphere from one area to the next.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comprehensive explanation of the variety of major challenges that Nunavut is facing. Nunavik in Quebec is also facing significant challenges. Recent events have led us to consider what we can do to improve drinking water and sewer infrastructure, particularly for the community of Puvirnituq. Can my colleague enlighten the House on how Nunavut is responding to this type of challenge?”
“Mr. Speaker, we have given the Liberal government the perfect opportunity to put its money where its mouth is. All it has to do is support our bill. It is one thing for the government to say that it wants to protect supply management, but it is another to then give up market share during negotiations, as was done during the last negotiation of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, with compensation for producers that took a long time to arrive. If the Liberal government is sincere, it should support our bill. Together, we will prevent the next round of negotiations from targeting this crucial sector of Quebec's economy.”
“Mr. Speaker, the challenge is not only to diversify our export markets, but to also diversify our economic activities. The fishing industry in particular needs to diversify the types of products it markets. It is working on diversifying and marketing redfish, but its progress is too slow and it needs support. The same is true for seal hunting, which is gaining ground too slowly even though the resource is available. The Bloc Québécois wants to support these sectors so they can diversify both their export sectors and their economic activities.”
“Mr. Speaker, what worries the Bloc Québécois about fisheries is the oil drilling that the Liberal government is prepared to green-light. It will definitely disturb marine wildlife, and that worries us. As for inshore fishing, we want to promote a model where fishing is done by family businesses that are handed down from father to son, with inshore fishers taking just enough from the sea to make a living, without going to extremes, like the factory ships have too often done in recent history.”
“I therefore call on the Liberal government to intervene with VIA Rail and compel it to reverse its decision and commit to resuming passenger rail service in the coming weeks. It is an essential service that allows people in my region to travel to other regions. This is a legitimate demand and would help strengthen our economy by improving people's productivity. My final suggestion is this. If we want adequate infrastructure, the runway at the Magdalen Islands airport needs to be extended.”
“First, if the Liberal government wants to build the best economy in the G7, it seems to me that this requires an adequate rail transportation system across the country. The Gaspé rail line will be operational to New Carlisle by September 2025. However, VIA Rail refuses to resume service from Matapédia to New Carlisle, even though regional connections are at the heart of its mandate. Through their tax dollars, the people of the Gaspé contributed more than $400 million in federal funding to VIA Rail in 2024 so that it could provide service in the regions. It should also be noted that when VIA Rail suspended service in 2013, it was because the rail line was no longer safe.”
“We need to support our forestry companies, and I made a commitment during the last election campaign to guide them through the coming crisis and to call for assistance programs that are adapted to the reality of the Gaspé and Quebec. The forestry industry must also diversify its export markets and focus on developing the domestic market. In that regard, the Bloc Québécois's proposal to promote local purchasing in federal government contracts could increase market opportunities for Quebec softwood lumber. That brings me to my final point. Where are the infrastructure investments we were promised? Building a strong economy requires adequate infrastructure, and I am going to try to fill the gap in the Speech from the Throne with two suggestions that would strengthen my region's economy.”
“That is crucial to building a strong economy. The fact that the forestry sector has been overlooked is another disappointment. I would like to remind the government that the U.S. Department of Commerce announced in March that it planned to nearly triple the duties on Canadian softwood lumber, bringing total levies to nearly 27%. Let us not forget that the Canadian softwood lumber industry is already subject to a 14.4% levy on its exports to the United States. The additional tariffs could come into effect as early as August. If they are implemented, they will have a significant negative impact on Quebec's forestry industry, because 50% of Quebec's softwood lumber is exported to the United States.”
“As for the things that disappointed me, for starters, the throne speech seems light on detail about the government's plan to build the best economy in the G7. The focus is more on eliminating federal barriers to trade and less on diversifying the economy. There is not one word in the speech about fisheries, for example. More than 80% of the seafood produced in the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands is exported to the United States. The past few months have driven home the importance of diversifying our export markets. We need to reduce our dependence on the U.S. market because it is so unstable right now. I was surprised to learn that there is no federal funding allocated to trade missions for Quebec's fisheries sector. The federal government must support the fisheries sector with multi-year funding so it can find new markets.”
“This is important for Quebec's farmers, our dairy, egg and poultry farmers. In my riding, the farmers under the supply management system are faring the best in the income crisis facing the agricultural sector right now, because supply management provides them with a stable income. We know that when CUSMA is renegotiated, the Americans will again try to get a bigger share of the dairy, egg and poultry markets. That is why the leader of the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill yesterday that would prohibit Canadian negotiators from making any concessions on supply management. The Liberal government's response has been fairly positive. I invite the Liberals to support our bill in order to provide our farmers with protective legislation as quickly as possible.”
“In the meantime, the Bloc Québécois will introduce a bill during this session to allow elected members of this House to opt out of swearing an oath to the King. Our proposal is to make the oath to the King optional and allow elected officials to take an oath of office instead. This would be a step forward and would show some respect for the freedom of conscience of elected officials. I invite my colleagues to reflect on our motivations and recognize that this bill is legitimate and deserves their support. (1245) Enough about the messenger. Now I want to talk about the message. I will start with something positive and then move on to the things that disappointed me. On a positive note, I was pleased that the government mentioned that it wants to protect supply management.”
“I would respond that yes, they did, but as we say in Quebec, je me souviens —never forget. Perhaps the fact that Quebeckers never forget is also the reason that 87% of respondents to a Leger poll this week said they felt no attachment to the British monarchy. Perhaps this is also why a majority of Quebeckers, 52%, would vote to end the monarchy and create a republic. Perhaps this is also why the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a motion this week to sever all ties with the monarchy. In short, in Quebec, we have a problem with the messenger, the person who delivered the Speech from the Throne. The Bloc Québécois has a plan for independence for the Quebec nation, a plan that will enable Quebeckers to adopt their own meaningful symbols and enjoy the freedom to shape their own future.”
“Of the 99 patriots who were sentenced to death, a total of 12 were hanged. The rest were sentenced to hard labour in Australia. The Patriotes movement was a push for democracy. The patriots demanded that decisions be made by their elected representatives, not the governor general, who was controlled by the King of England. This fair and legitimate demand for responsible government was harshly suppressed by the British Crown. Quebeckers had their rights and freedoms suspended for four years during the unrest surrounding the Patriotes rebellion. Perhaps these historical reminders will help the House better understand why having King Charles III visit and deliver the Speech from the Throne did not generate much enthusiasm from me and many of my fellow Quebeckers. Some will say that these events happened a long time ago.”