Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

“Quebec has handled its own international relations in its own areas for over 60 years. Canada does not respect this. Canada showed this by refusing to let Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon speak at the Canada-European Union summit. The federal government does not even know Quebec's rights anymore. This proves Canada does not understand Quebec and cannot speak for us.”

“Mr. Speaker, for over 60 years, Quebec has conducted its own international relations in areas under its jurisdiction. It has been doing so for more than 60 years. However, it is clear that Canada does not respect Quebec’s prerogatives, as illustrated by Canada’s refusal to let Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon speak at the Canada-European Union summit. That is not even the worst of it. The federal government is no longer even aware of Quebec’s prerogatives. This strikes me as the ultimate proof that Canada does not understand our nation and cannot speak for us. Is that not true?”

“Liberal members say the federal government does not interfere in provincial areas. But when I asked a Liberal member if worker mobility belongs to Ottawa or the provinces, he could not answer. Liberals do not seem to know what is in their own Constitution.”

“Mr. Speaker, we are learning all kinds of things on this wonderful evening. The member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert says that he has never seen the federal government interfere in Quebec’s jurisdictions. That is actually quite amazing. We will be sending him loads of documentation. He can dive in and get an understanding of what this is all about. Earlier, I asked my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, a question. He is a pretty regular participant in debates in the House. He has quite a few hours under his belt, I think. He has been participating in these debates for years, and he apparently knows the Constitution off by heart. I asked him twice whether labour mobility was a federal or a provincial responsibility. Both times, he could not give me an answer. For a man who is intelligent, who understands and knows the Canadian Constitution and the agreements between Quebec and the federal government, it is rather surprising that he could not answer such a question. This raises some questions. I would like to ask my colleague what planet the Liberals are living on, considering that they do not know the various jurisdictions set out in their own Constitution.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Respect 79 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “For a man who is intelligent, who understands and knows the Canadian Constitution and the agreements between Quebec and…”.

  See full analysis →

“The government is dropping its values just to win a trade war. It is making deals with countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, which abuse human rights. I want the member to answer if we really share values with these governments.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Bourassa, with whom I have the good fortune to serve on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. He spoke about what a responsible government does. He said we needed to diversify our alliances abroad. He said that while we do not control what happens outside our borders, we can control our choices. Now to my question. Does he think that we share common values with the Erdogan regime when it comes to democracy, respect for human rights, the rule of law and freedom of expression? Can my colleague tell me if we share the same values as, for example, Saudi Arabia, where there is outright gender apartheid? Does my colleague think that Mohamed bin Zayed is involved in what is happening in Sudan? He was welcomed with a huge banquet last night, but at the same time, he was condemned this morning in a press release. Is my colleague telling me that, if the current tariff crisis had occurred in the 1980s, his government would have signed deals with South Africa, which was under the apartheid regime? So far, that is what I see. I see a government that is setting aside its principles and values under the pretext of a trade war. Members are talking about what a responsible government does. They are rewriting history. It is Orwellian. I would like him to answer my question.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 8 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I am honouring Jean-Eudes Senneville, who recently died at 86. He helped build the wild blueberry industry in Lac-Saint-Jean. I offer my condolences to his family.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Jean‑Eudes Senneville, who passed away on October 4 at the age of 86. A disciplined businessman and visionary, Mr. Senneville was a true pioneer of the wild blueberry industry in my riding of Lac‑Saint‑Jean. He was a community builder who helped shape the blueberry economy for more than half a century, but his legacy extends far beyond his company. In 1979, he opened his first freezing plant, which became the cornerstone of Quebec Wild Blueberries. Nearly 50 years later, four state-of-the-art processing plants are helping our wild blueberries reach markets far away from our region. Although his forthright manner occasionally ruffled a few feathers, he forged lasting partnerships and left an indelible mark on the blueberry industry. Mr. Senneville’s influence on Lac‑Saint‑Jean and Quebec will continue to be felt for years to come. To his family and loved ones, we offer our most sincere condolences.”

“Canada condemned violence in Sudan this morning, but tonight the Prime Minister is hosting a banquet for the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates. The UAE arms the group committing that violence. Canada is ignoring human rights abuses, and the Prime Minister must raise this issue tonight.”

“Mr. Speaker, speaking of hypocrisy, this morning, Canada signed a joint statement condemning the genocide-like violence in Sudan that is being committed by the Rapid Support Forces, or RSF. Who is the primary supplier of military equipment to the RSF? It is the United Arab Emirates, whose crown prince the Prime Minister of Canada is hosting tonight. This morning, Canada condemned the massacres, but tonight, it is hosting a banquet in honour of one of the people responsible. Once again, Canada is downplaying human rights abuses. Will the Prime Minister at least raise this issue at his event tonight?”

“The government says it is cutting the fuel tax because gas prices are high. I want to know if the government will bring the tax back on the date in the bill even if gas prices stay high.”

“Mr. Speaker, the government justifies this measure on the grounds that gasoline prices have risen as a result of the oil shock. It even tells us that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has called on certain member countries to take this approach. However, if gasoline prices have not come down, the government’s entire rationale falls apart, and what it is proposing makes absolutely no sense. That is my main question. I am being told that the bill specifies a date, but what the bill proposes is tied to the price of gasoline. Let me be clear. The question is straightforward. I do not want to hear about a date. If, when the bill calls for the excise tax to be reinstated, gasoline prices have not fallen and remain at the same high level, will the government nevertheless restore the excise tax regardless of the price of gasoline? That is my question.”

“The government is paying a former bank executive nearly $700,000 a year to run this defence work. It is also stopping the procurement watchdog from reviewing these contracts. This plan wastes public money and hides the government's biggest purchases from proper oversight.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about commitment. The government is committed to paying Douglas Guzman a salary of nearly $700,000 annually, which is double the salary of the Minister of Finance and National Revenue. Douglas Guzman is a former associate of the Prime Minister’s at Goldman Sachs. He is committed to satisfying Guzman, since Guzman was threatening to leave his position because he felt that working in the public service was ineffective. It is committed to being the only country among its NATO and Five Eyes allies to have such a structure, which raises a number of questions about transparency, ministerial responsibility and the use of public funds. Furthermore, it is committed to preventing the Office of the Procurement Ombud from reviewing contracts signed with the Defence Investment Agency, or DIA, since it does not have the authority to investigate Crown corporations. This means less transparency and less control over the government’s most expensive procurements. Is that the kind of commitment the government was elected on?”

“I want to welcome former Afghan women politicians visiting Parliament today. Members from different Canadian parties helped six of them escape Afghanistan. A seventh, Mursal Nabizada, was killed in Kabul before she could get out. I am honouring her memory and everyone who risks their lives for freedom.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to acknowledge the presence on Parliament Hill of former Afghan women parliamentarians. These women were able to escape Afghanistan thanks in part to the efforts of a small group of parliamentarians, a group of which I am proud to be a member. They were members of the Afghan Parliament until the fall of Kabul, when they were forced to flee their country. There were seven of them, but only six managed to escape the Taliban. On January 15, 2023, we heard the tragic news that Mursal Nabizada had been brutally murdered in her home at the age of 32, along with her bodyguard. I was deeply saddened by her passing, but I am proud of what we accomplished. We demonstrated that, regardless of political affiliation, the common good must always come first. We drew courage from the example of a woman who should have been here with us today but sadly is not. That is why I wanted to say a few words in her memory and pay tribute to all the women and men who risked their lives for democracy and freedom.”

“The Bloc has a plan to help businesses with high diesel costs. When diesel prices jump, businesses would automatically get their diesel tax refunded. We can pay for this by stopping government subsidies to oil and gas companies. I want to know if the member supports this idea.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my highly esteemed colleague. The Bloc Québécois proposed a more targeted mechanism in which the excise tax on diesel would be credited for people who use it as an input when the price of diesel in a given quarter exceeds the price from the same quarter of the previous year by a certain number of percentage points. If the rate is set at 20%, for example, a 20% increase in prices compared with the same period in the previous year would automatically result in a refund for businesses and entrepreneurs affected by higher operating costs. This mechanism could be permanent, and it would be extremely easy to fund. In fact, my friend’s leader has always said that he is against corporate welfare. The biggest example of corporate welfare in this country is the oil and gas industry. Hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money are being used to subsidize it. If we got rid of just those subsidies, everyone would be happy, and the Bloc Québécois proposal would lower the price of diesel. Would my friend support such a proposal?”

In response to a question from Sébastien Lemire

“Members opposite should not celebrate Sir John A. Macdonald. He hanged Louis Riel for defending his people and his language.”

“Mr. Speaker, what happened was that he was hanged. I am not kidding. Louis Riel was hanged because he was fighting for his people. There are statues standing today. Liberal hero Sir John A. Macdonald had Louis Riel hanged. Today, some members opposite rise in celebration of Sir John A. Macdonald. It is unbelievable. A member for Manitoba is applauding Sir John A. Macdonald, who hanged a man who was fighting for his people and for his language.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →