Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

“I will vote for this bill because it sends housing money directly to the provinces without federal rules. The government wasted two months hiding the details, but sending this money straight to Quebec is the right choice.”

“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.”

“I want to know if there is anything about this bill my colleague has not talked about yet.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if there is anything my colleague has not mentioned. This evening, we are considering Bill C-26. Is there any aspect of Bill C-26 that has not been mentioned that my colleague would like to address?”

“The government promised in the last two budgets to make stronger laws against forced labour. Now that plan is gone, and this budget does not have money for it. I want the member across the way to explain why he supports this change.”

“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?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 17 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The government wastes public money. It gave out carbon tax rebates using money that Quebec paid into, but Quebec never got anything back. I want my colleague to tell me if he agrees that this was a waste of public funds.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, whom I hold in high regard and who, I would point out, knows his figures. Whenever he looks closely at public finances, we can always be sure that he will uncover wasteful spending by this federal government, as he demonstrated in his speech. One of the most glaring examples of wasteful government spending was when the federal government used the money from the carbon tax, which it had scrapped, to issue a rebate. Quebec had paid for that, but it never received anything in return. Does my colleague agree that providing a rebate of a tax that was never paid is a clear example of wasting public funds? I would like my colleague to answer this very specific question.”

“I want a military reserve unit set up in Saint-Félicien. The military is spending more money and recruiting, so I am asking my colleague to support this project.”

“Mr. Speaker, I mentioned a project earlier that we support. It involves setting up a reserve unit in the northern part of the Lac-Saint-Jean region. Right now, the Department of National Defence is looking to spend more money and recruit more people. If I pass the file on to my colleague, could she put in a good word for me and lend her support to the reserve unit project in Saint‑Félicien?”

In response to a question from Rhéal Éloi Fortin

“I want the military to create a new reserve unit in northern Lac-Saint-Jean. Local leaders support this plan, and it will help college students get their schooling paid for.”

“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.”

In response to a question from Gérard Deltell

“Northern Lac-Saint-Jean does not get its fair share of federal jobs. They are too far away in La Baie. Also, I hope a Quebec army and the Canadian army will train together one day to protect the Arctic.”

“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.”

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I want an army reserve unit in Saint-Félicien. The government is also failing our forestry industry. Sawmills are closing and people are losing their jobs because the government did not fight American tariffs. The government quickly gave money to the auto industry, but it does nothing to help forestry.”

“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.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 43 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I want the government to put a military reserve unit in Lac-Saint-Jean. My region has the buildings and workers to help the military grow, and it would create needed jobs. I also want the government to give real financial help to our forestry workers instead of giving billions to oil and gas companies.”

“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.”

“The government gives billions of dollars to the oil and gas industry, but gives nothing to forestry. Oil and gas hurts the planet, while forestry helps fight climate change. I want to know why we keep funding the industry that pollutes instead of the one that helps.”

“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?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The Liberals say they cannot step in on the CRTC's decision because it is independent. I want to know what they would do if they could step in. Would they ask to overturn the decision to protect culture, or not?”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my Liberal colleague’s speech. He is telling us that the Liberals want to defend culture. From the beginning, the Liberals’ argument about the Conservative motion has been that they cannot intervene in the CRTC’s decisions, since it is an independent body. The logical question is this: If they cannot intervene, that is one thing, but if they had the power to intervene, what would they do? Would they ask the CRTC to reverse that decision or not? That is the important question. Their answer will tell me whether or not they are protectors of culture.”

“The Conservatives say protecting our culture hurts trade. That means they are giving up on our language and culture, and just accepting American culture instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, by claiming that standing up for culture is a trade irritant, as the Conservatives do in point (iv) of their motion, they are also giving up on linguistic and cultural diversity and, above all, accepting English American culture as the standard. If the Conservatives do not have that cultural sensitivity, is it because they have already embraced that standard? Is it because, for them, the culture we are talking about is the U.S. culture?”

“The Conservatives want us to change our policies because they are scared of Donald Trump. The Liberals already tried doing that and got nothing in return. It will not work for the Conservatives either.”

“Madam Speaker, here is what I want to know. The fourth point of the Conservative motion basically says that we are scared of Donald Trump, that we should lower the tax and overrule the CRTC’s decision because we are scared of Donald Trump. The Liberals did just that last July. They repealed the digital services tax out of fear of Donald Trump. They believed they would get something in return. In the end, they got diddly-squat. I love that expression. If it did not work for the Liberals, why do the Conservatives think it will work for them?”

“I want the member to explain why my party will vote against this motion.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain to me why the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this motion.”

“Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals support Quebec and French-language culture. The Liberals broke a campaign promise and dropped the 3% tax on digital products to appease Donald Trump. I want to know how much money the government lost by dropping that tax.”

“Madam Speaker, it is pretty clear to me that the Conservative motion is completely off base when it comes to Quebec and francophone culture and production, among other things. I wonder if my colleague could talk about the fact that the Conservatives are not the only ones abandoning the cultural sector. This Liberal government also turned its back on culture when it eliminated the 3% tax on digital products last July. It was in the Liberal election platform, but barely three months after getting elected, they reversed course, hoping that would get them back to the negotiating table with Donald Trump. I would like to ask my colleague the following question. How much revenue was ultimately lost because this government eliminated the digital services tax, despite its election promise to keep it?”