Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

An Act to Authorize Certain Payments to be Made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund

2026-06-16

“A long time ago Louis Riel was hanged for fighting for his people. Some members still celebrate Sir John A. Macdonald. I don't like that.”

“Canadian law used to forbid French like China forbids Tibetan now. A Tibetan leader said so. Your family lost French because of that law. But you're proud of it.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, these people had to fight to speak French. They had to hide to speak French. They were forbidden from speaking French at school. It was prohibited under Manitoban law. I recently attended the International Uyghur Forum in Berlin. While I was there, I met the prime minister of Tibet in exile, who told me that day schools and residential schools currently exist in China where Tibetans are prohibited from learning Tibetan. He told me that it was like what we lived through in Canada, in Manitoba and Ontario. The prime minister in exile of the Parliament of Tibet used Canada as an example of mass, coercive francophone assimilation. The member opposite is proud of that. He is proud that he lost his language. His family lost its language because of a ban on learning French in his birth province. It is incredible.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The francophone population in Manitoba used to be much higher. Laws stopped French instruction in public schools and now he speaks English not French. I'm not actually answering the question.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am going to do what the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons does during question period. I am going to deflect the question and not answer it. My colleague across the way forgets one thing. I imagine he knows his history. In 1870, when Manitoba joined the Canadian Confederation, 50% of its population was francophone. Today, the francophone population is about 2.5% to 2.7%. Why is that? It is because, for years, Manitoba laws prohibited French instruction in public schools. My colleague opposite has a French last name. I will not name him, since I am not allowed to. Today, however, he does not speak French. Do members know why he does not speak French? It is because learning French in school was prohibited. It is because of the Canadian Confederation that the member opposite now speaks English rather than French.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm here to talk about a bill the government took too long to give us details about. It will let the finance minister send money to provinces and territories for housing. That's good, but the bill doesn't say how much each province will get. The government wouldn't tell us for months. They say this will fix the housing shortage, but it might not. They say the Minister of Finance can send the money whenever and however he wants. That could be a problem. We've seen how the government adds strings attached to money for things that aren't federal jurisdiction. Quebec usually gets less than its share. The bill doesn't promise Quebec will get its fair share. The government wouldn't tell us Quebec's share for months. Now we're almost out of time to spend the money this construction season. The government wasted two months. But we'll vote for the bill because we want the money for housing. We just wish the government had been more open and let us debate it properly without rushing.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we hear it all the time, but this time it is especially true. I am pleased to rise to speak to the long-awaited Bill C‑26. It took a long time to understand the actual impact of Bill C‑26. Even though the bill contains too few details for us to judge, the government refused to provide us with information or answer our questions for two months. These were two months wasted, and here we are studying the bill under a time allocation only a few days before summer. What is Bill C‑26? With only one clause, a person might think it insignificant, but that is far from true. The first subclause of this one-clause bill provides the following: The Minister of Finance may make payments to the provinces and territories, the total of which is equal to $1.‍713 billion, for the purpose of improving housing supply. This is wonderful, but the second sentence, less so. The amount of each payment is to be determined by the Minister of Finance. The second subclause provides the following: Any amount payable under subsection (1) may be paid by the Minister of Finance out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund at the times and in the manner that the Minister of Finance considers appropriate. The words “at the times and in the manner that the Minister of Finance considers appropriate” carry serious consequences, but I will return to that later. Let us start with the positive. Bill C-26 finally provides funding that will go directly to the provinces and territories for housing without going through a new federal structure or entity such as Build Canada Homes. Once the bill receives royal assent, the transfer will essentially be unconditional, as long as Quebec and the provinces use it for housing initiatives. That is a good thing. There continue to be acute housing needs, and only a transfer that does not come with unnecessary conditions can get projects off the ground quickly instead of sparking a protracted tug-of-war between Quebec City and Ottawa. This means that $1.7 billion will be going directly to provincial governments to support the housing supply. That is exactly what the government should have done for all of its housing initiatives, because the housing situation is not the same in Rimouski, Montreal, Val-d'Or, Sept-Îles, Alma, Dolbeau or Roberval. It is even less so from one province to the next. To claim that a centralized structure in Ottawa can impose a uniform vision that works everywhere is to profoundly misunderstand regional realities and the constitutional division of powers. We saw this with the programs managed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. When Ottawa selected projects, Quebec systematically received less than its share. It was only when there was a transfer with an envelope set aside for each province that things went smoothly. I am thinking here of the rapid housing initiative. Not only that, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated in his December report on Build Canada Homes that “[Build Canada Homes] will add about 26,000 units over five years, representing a 2.1 per cent increase in housing completions relative to [the Parliamentary Budget Officer's] baseline projection.” An increase of 2.1% as a result of $7.3 billion in spending is a pretty expensive percentage. It is $3.5 billion to be exact. We are supposed to believe with these estimates that Ottawa knows better than the provinces when it comes to housing, which, I repeat, is within their own jurisdiction. We would have been quite happy to vote on this bill sooner, if only the government had been transparent and provided us with the details we requested two months ago, instead of dragging its feet as usual. In fact, we have had to keep pressing it for these answers ever since the bill was introduced in March. We know the federal government well. I have been an MP for seven years. When a transfer is announced, it usually comes with strings attached, even when funds are transferred for areas of jurisdiction that are not federal. Details about potential hidden conditions are exactly what we have been trying to obtain for two months, as I said. The bill, with its single clause, makes no mention of this. However, it contains this magical phrase, which is magnificent, “at the times and in the manner that the Minister of Finance considers appropriate.” The press release announcing Bill C-26 was just as vague. It mentioned the build communities strong fund and a “requirement on provinces and territories to reduce development fees and other charges to homebuilding.” What does that mean, exactly? Is this $1.7 billion part of the build communities strong fund? Is it a mandatory requirement for accessing the fund? Is it simply a guideline? Nothing is clear. We are in the dark. Unfortunately, experience has taught us to be cautious. All too often, vague wording hides requirements that are, in fact, very real. Beyond the issue of the terms, there was another equally crucial issue: Quebec's share. When nothing is set in black and white for Quebec, we know how it ends. Quebec is almost always underfunded in federal housing initiatives. That is why we need a clear guarantee that Quebec will receive at least its share, proportional to its population. The second sentence of the bill states that the amount of each payment is to be determined by the minister. That is far from a guarantee. We asked the Minister of Finance and National Revenue about this two weeks ago during the business of supply. He assured us that Quebec would receive its fair share, that the Government of Quebec was aware of the amount and had approved it. We are somewhat reassured by that answer, but it took two months to get it. We are nearing the end of this parliamentary session. We are debating under a closure motion. Meanwhile, the situation remains urgent. Housing needs have not diminished, and projects have not progressed any faster. Worse still, this delay comes at a particularly critical time for Quebec. As my colleagues are aware, the October general election in Quebec is fast approaching. Once the election campaign gets under way, the government will be restricted to dealing with day-to-day business. We hope that the Parti Québécois will win the next election. I look forward to debating the merits of a referendum on Quebec independence with my colleague from Winnipeg North. This is going to be fun. Now, I will get back to my speech. In order to actually get the funding provided for in the bill where it needs to go, Quebec first has to sign an agreement with Ottawa and then it has to sign funding agreements with the municipalities. We are running out of time if we want shovels in the ground this spring, but the Prime Minister's refusal to discuss the matter has caused a two-month delay. I will say it again. I do not know how many times I have said that we are two months behind, but that is what is happening. I am not making that up. Because of this, we could miss an entire construction season. Not only that, but if we look at the January 21 agreement between Ottawa and Quebec under the Canada housing infrastructure fund, we really do have cause for concern. In that case, the agreement was two years late because Ottawa wanted to impose conditions, so that was a job well done, as usual. There is also cause for concern because, as my colleague mentioned, Quebec only got about $1 billion, when the total envelope was $6 billion. My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue is much smarter than I am, but we still have the same numbers. As he said, that represents 16% of the envelope, which is far less than Quebec's demographic weight in Canada, which is about 22%. The Union des municipalités du Québec has estimated that Quebec should have received $1.3 billion, but it received $1 billion. That means there is a shortfall of $300 million. I am used to speaking in the House. It will soon be seven years. I am used to it. I always say that when something is good, we vote for it, and when it is not good, we vote against it. I am talking about Quebec, of course. In this case, we will vote in favour of the bill. We would have liked to have voted in favour of the bill sooner. We would have liked to have done so following a proper parliamentary and democratic debate, without debate being curtailed. I do not understand the government's position on this matter, and that is unfortunate, but we will be there. We will carry on. We will be there just to be there, as former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau used to say. We will be there just to be there.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm talking without saying anything new. I'm filling time without any real point.”

Government Orders

Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C‑26

2026-06-16

“The Liberals compared their Canada Strong fund to the sovereign wealth funds of Norway and Saudi Arabia. I don't think that's a fair comparison. I want my colleague to explain why he thinks the funds are different, because I believe the government misled people.”

Government Orders

Main Estimates, 2026-27

2026-06-08

“I want the Conservative to commit to ending subsidies for oil and gas companies. I want to draw attention to the fact that the Conservative leader has already agreed to this. I think it's a financial scandal that the government is giving money to these companies.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, some things are indeed ridiculous. Public funds are being wasted and there are financial scandals with this government. It never ends. One of the things that the leader of my colleague's party has said is that he is against corporate welfare. This was in response to a question from my colleague from Jonquière ahout whether the government should stop subsidizing the oil and gas industry, which is getting $14 billion this year. The Conservative leader agreed and said that we need to fight corporate welfare. Will my colleague proclaim loud and clear, like his leader, that one of the current government's worst financial scandals in the estimates we are voting on is that there is a subsidy of $14 billion that is coming out of taxpayers' pockets and going directly into the pockets of those who are making the biggest record profits, namely oil and gas companies?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You should feel guilty. Your museum says you care about human rights. Now your government isn't giving us new anti-slavery laws. How can you accept that?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the opposite side of the House comes from a city that is home to the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, which is an extraordinary museum, by the way. The problem is that, in the 2023 budget, this government announced its intention to introduce much tougher anti-forced labour legislation. That same intention was included in the 2024 budget, but, suddenly, since the new Prime Minister took office, this intention does not appear in the 2025 budget. It has been abandoned. That means that today, we are voting on appropriations that do not include funds earmarked for strengthening anti-forced labour legislation. How can my colleague, who has the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in his own city, accept such an about-face by his government?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I think the government just gives out random gifts. They say it's this tax coming back to you, but that tax was cancelled so how can it be a return? You never paid it! They're just throwing it around without a reason.”

“I want the government to put a military project in my riding. It will spend a lot of money and that's good for me.”

“I want more military spending in my riding. It's a good project. Many people support it. I hope the government agrees. I want the Department of National Defence to spend the money.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. In fact, I have to say that the government is being open. We had meetings today. I hope that, in addition to this political openness, there will be openness on the part of the Department of National Defence. I am certain that we can convince people at the Department of National Defence to create this unit or subunit. We have the support, which is rare, of the mayor of Roberval, the mayor of Dolbeau-Mistassini, the reeve of the Domaine‑du‑Roy RCM, and the reeve of the Maria‑Chapdelaine RCM. Many municipalities will be voting on resolutions at their city councils to support this idea. Saint‑Félicien has a CEGEP and reservists get 50% of their post-secondary education paid for by the army when they pursue this opportunity. In short, I think this is a great project for northern Lac‑Saint‑Jean.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“That's right, there are good jobs at Bagotville base. But it's far away. The government doesn't give my riding enough jobs. I dream that one day Quebec and Canada will have separate armies and defend the Arctic together.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows his history well. That is indeed the reason why the Bagotville base was created. It was to protect the aluminum smelters, which were a key sector in the war effort. Indeed, there are good federal jobs, but my colleagues should know that these jobs are in La Baie. Speaking of La Baie and Saint-Félicien, the drive between the two locations still takes a good two and a half hours. The drive between my town, Alma, and my colleague's riding is shorter. That should give you some idea. Still, it is a long way, which is why we commissioned this study proving that northern Lac-Saint-Jean is under-represented when it comes to federal jobs. As for protecting Canada's north, my dream is that the Quebec army and the Canadian army will one day conduct joint exercises to defend the Arctic.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The softwood lumber industry is in trouble. That's making people lose their jobs. I want the government to bail them out like they bailed out the auto sector. I also want a military unit in my riding.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague listened to the question, he would have realized that I want a Canadian Armed Forces reserve unit in Saint-Félicien, in northern Lac-Saint-Jean. He said I was wrong about the forestry industry, but he is the one who is completely off base. Sawmills are closing right now. I invite him to come meet the workers who have just lost their jobs, who have just been laid off because the government did nothing. It did not stand up to the Americans over the illegal countervailing duties. That is what happened. We are in the middle of the sixth trade war, and they are still wondering what they are going to do to respond to this affront from the Americans. They have not done a thing. Meanwhile, when the auto industry gets hit with tariffs, they write a cheque during the election campaign. It took them a week to respond. They are doing absolutely nothing for the forestry industry, even though we have been subject to tariffs for years. Honestly, that is pretty weak.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want the government to spend a lot of money and attention on my region. We're not satisfied with what we have now. We have a project to bring military reserves to our region. It can create jobs and help the economy. The government should do this to meet its own goals. The government also needs to help the forestry industry more. People in my region work hard in forestry. The government gave lots of money to oil and gas but not enough to forestry. It's shocking the government won't do more to help workers in this important industry. The government doesn't understand what these workers are going through.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and especially for his last answer, which I think was quite intelligent, and full of common sense and wisdom. As my colleague also said in his speech, at the Bloc Québécois, and in Lac‑Saint‑Jean in particular, we are not satisfied with simply noting that economic challenges exist. We propose ambitious but above all achievable ideas to help our regional economy grow. It is in that spirit that I wish to draw the attention of the House to a very real opportunity for our region. A unit or subunit of the Canadian Armed Forces reserve is being established in northern Lac‑Saint‑Jean. At a time when the federal government is announcing historic investments in defence and looking to increase its military personnel to 39,000 members by 2032, Lac‑Saint‑Jean has everything that a reserve unit needs. The project being considered in Saint‑Félicien has strong local and regional support. In fact, the mayor of Saint‑Félicien was here on the Hill today to promote this great project with people from the Department of National Defence. I should mention that this work had already begun several years ago. A feasibility study had confirmed the project's potential, but the 2021 federal election put a halt to the process. There had even been discussions in the early 2000s. Today, however, the timing has never been better. The federal government is seeking to strengthen the capabilities of the Canadian Armed Forces, increase the recruitment of reservists and invest more in defence. Our project is directly aligned with these objectives and will generate lasting economic benefits for the Lac-Saint-Jean region. It is a win-win opportunity for both the Department of National Defence and our region. Moreover, Canada's new defence industrial strategy raises the important question of the capacity of our regions to support growth and meet the current needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. This is precisely where Lac-Saint-Jean stands out. This riding, which I am proud to represent, has very real strengths: solid regional support, clearly expressed by municipal and regional elected officials; infrastructure already in place that can tangibly support training, recruitment and operational support activities; and above all an engaged population. We are not starting from scratch. We are talking about a region that is already organized and structured, and that is capable of hosting a reserve project. Of particular note is the strategic location of Saint‑Félicien and northern Lac‑Saint‑Jean, which truly serve as the gateway to more northern regions. At a time when Arctic and northern sovereignty issues are becoming increasingly important, this location is turning into a real asset to the government's proposed strategy. In my riding, we have ambitious but achievable ideas for growing our regional economy. This is the first time I have spoken about this initiative, I know, but there is nothing improvised about it. It is a solid, well-documented project that can have a real impact on achieving federal defence objectives. Moreover, this kind of project is not of military interest only; it also has a role to play in stimulating regional development, maintaining a federal presence in our regions and creating economic benefits for our communities. Indeed, the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean has five times fewer federal jobs than average compared to other Canadian regions. This was confirmed by the study we commissioned, so it is clearly an inequity that must be addressed. The establishment of a military reserve is a golden opportunity to create jobs, retain our young talent, diversify our economy and strengthen the political weight of our regions. I repeat: In my riding, we have ideas that are ambitious but above all achievable for growing our regional economy, because in Lac-Saint-Jean, we are not content to be mere observers. We want to be key players in the development of our communities. If the government is serious about its approach and truly wants to achieve the Canadian Armed Forces' modernization and growth objectives, it must absolutely focus on regions like ours. One thing is certain: The federal government will not be able to meet its recruitment goals by limiting itself to major urban centres. Regions therefore have an essential role to play. As mentioned earlier, Lac-Saint-Jean has the infrastructure and resources to host a reserve unit. This project, as I said, is realistic, relevant and beneficial for everyone. In closing, the message I bring today is quite simple. Lac-Saint-Jean is ready and can truly do its part. I sincerely hope this government will heed my call. Speaking of which, I have to say that it took months, if not years, before the federal government lifted a finger to help the forestry industry. When it finally did, it still stubbornly refused to address the lumber industry's top priority, which is for the government to buy back the countervailing and anti-dumping duties that are sitting idle in the United States and implement a loan and loan guarantee program to match the amounts being withheld by the United States. When it comes to the forestry industry, the current government lacks one thing: an understanding of the situation faced by people who make a living from the forest. I understand that situation. Before I was lucky enough to represent the people of Lac-Saint-Jean, I worked on the paper machines at what was then known as the Resolu mill and which is now called the Domtar mill. I know what life is like for those people. Forestry workers get up very early in the morning and work 12‑hour shifts on a 3‑2‑2‑3 rotation schedule. Does anyone on the other side know what a 3‑2‑2‑3 rotation schedule is? It is three day shifts and two days of leave followed by two night shifts and three days of leave, and then the whole thing starts again but this time with three night shifts and two days of leave followed by two days shifts and three days of leave. That is what life looks like for pulp and paper mill workers. What does life look like for a guy who harvests lumber? He wonders whether he will have enough money when he gets back to make the payments on his machinery, which costs a fortune. When a sawmill worker wakes up one morning only to be told that there is going to be a temporary shutdown after all, that is what life is like in the forestry sector. For small forestry communities, it also means that everyone is laid off. For the mechanic, the guy at the corner store or the town's grocery store, it means that people can no longer spend their money there. It means that they will move elsewhere to find work. It means that schools will close. That is the reality for people in the forestry industry. Meanwhile, the government is telling us that it is going to announce $10 billion over 10 years. We are talking about $10 billion over 10 years that are not even funded for the forestry industry. The government just gave $14 billion to the oil and gas industry for one year, and yet they are telling me that the government is taking action for the forestry industry. The reality for people in the forestry industry is that this industry is in crisis. The time to help them is now. Meanwhile, the government is singing the praises of its Minister of Finance, who is actually the member for a region where forestry is a key industry. It is hard to believe. This Minister of Finance is flinging money at the oil and gas industry while sawmills are shutting down in his own backyard. That is the reality for the forestry industry. It is downright shocking and frankly bizarre to see what this government's attitude has been for years. It will not raise a finger to help the forestry industry, to help workers. What is more, those workers are the lifeblood of the industry that is in the best position to fight greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, yet the government is giving money to the industry that is in the worst position to do those things. In fact, the industry it is giving money to is actually making climate change worse. That is just insane. I hope the government will eventually understand what workers are going through. I hope it will eventually realize that this industry is circular. First, workers need to go get the lumber. Then they need to haul it back by truck. Then they process it into wood chips, which are put through pulpers to make pulp. They also have to make kraft pulp. Then it is sent to the sawmills. This government has no idea. It does not realize how important this is to Quebec's forestry regions. I will stop there.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want the government to take money away from oil and gas and give that money to forestry. I like forestry. I don't like oil and gas. I think oil and gas is bad for the planet. I want to punish that industry.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, one thing that is not part of the current debate is the clear disparity between the forestry industry and the oil and gas industry when it comes to the funds the government allocates to these two different industries. The oil and gas industry gets billions of dollars in subsidies, while the forestry industry gets nothing. We know full well that the forestry industry is the industry best positioned to combat greenhouse gases and that the oil and gas industry is the industry that is most harmful to the planet. Does my colleague think it makes sense that, year after year, budget after budget, appropriation after appropriation, we subsidize the industry that pollutes rather than the one that is better for the planet?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Statements by Members

Vladimir Kara-Murza

2026-05-28

“A Russian prisoner was released. I want you to cheer for my friend's group for taking credit.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to acknowledge the invaluable presence on Parliament Hill of the great political figure, former prisoner of conscience and steadfast Russian opposition activist Vladimir Kara-Murza. On April 17, 2023, the Moscow City Court sentenced Mr. Kara-Murza to 25 years in prison for high treason. To this day, this is the harshest prison sentence ever imposed on a political prisoner in Putin's Russia. This August will mark the second anniversary of his release. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the work of the Montreal-based Raoul Wallenberg Centre, founded by lawyer, former justice minister and personal friend Irwin Cotler, as well as the efforts of all the parliamentarians who rallied to his cause. Since regaining his freedom, Mr. Kara-Murza has actively resumed his leading role in defending democracy and the rights of thousands of political prisoners. Vladimir Kara-Murza may rest assured that the Bloc Québécois will always stand with him in his fight for freedom and justice.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-28

“You didn't answer the question. I'm asking you again: what did the government get for canceling the tax? I want you to say what the government got for giving up on collecting that money.”

“I don't need you to lecture me about protecting culture. Answer my question. If you could intervene, would you reverse the CRTC decision or not? Your answer will show if you really care about culture or just want to avoid the topic.”

“You say you support your town's industry, but you really just want American culture. You don't care about protecting Canadian culture. You've already given up and become American.”

“This motion looks like you're just scared of Donald Trump. The Conservatives are saying we should lower taxes and override the CRTC to make him happy. The Liberals already tried that. They gave up a tax, got nothing back, and looked silly. Why should we think this will go any better?”