Alexis Deschênes · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Combatting Hate Act

2026-06-16

“You said we shouldn't repeat hurtful remarks. But then you repeated those remarks in your own speech. Aren't you contradicting yourself?”

“I already asked this once. Here it is again. The bill says people can still talk about their religion or politics or science, as long as they don't willfully promote hatred. Why won't you take yes for an answer?”

Official Hansard

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 biblical text. The following involves subsections 319(2) and 319(2.2): 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 debate, if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement. Why is my colleague not reassured by Bill C-9's interpretive clauses?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“Madam Speaker, my friends say some scary things happened. The bill must be why it happened. The government needs to do more to sell it better next time.”

“I want Conservatives to explain what's missing from the bill that they don't like. It looks okay to me. The bill says it won't stop people from talking about their religion unless they promote hatred. Why doesn't that reassure them?”

Official Hansard

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. The goal is not to prevent individuals from worshipping in accordance with the religions they wish to follow. There are two interpretive clauses that say pretty much the same thing. 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 debate, if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement. That includes people who make religious statements. The second clarification uses more or less the same wording, but states the following at the end: ...if they do not wilfully promote antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust. Why are my Conservative colleagues not reassured by these interpretive clauses?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Combatting Hate Act

2026-06-15

“I want to praise my colleague for his work and speech. He's done a lot. The Bloc worked hard to get amendments added to this bill. I want to talk about how important it was to make sure the Attorney General has to agree before charging someone for 'promoting hatred'. Making sure charges need the Attorney General's okay was an important change we got through.”

Government Orders

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

2026-06-15

“You talk about being responsible with public money. But your party keeps quiet about subsidies for oil and gas companies. Those companies are making huge profits. Why don't you speak up against that? Couldn't that money be better spent on what Saskatchewan needs?”

Official Hansard

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 Conservatives often talk about reducing the deficit, as my colleague mentioned, and being responsible with public funds. Our party is constantly condemning the subsidies for oil and gas companies. We see these companies raking in huge profits these days, practically record profits. Why are my colleague and his party not speaking out about the public funds going into the oil and gas companies' pockets? Could that money not be put to better use addressing Saskatchewanians' needs?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to use my question to make the Liberals look bad. Tell me something bad about them.”

“The government should tax big tech companies more. More tax money would be good for culture. The government was not tough enough on big tech. We should tax tech to show we are independent from America.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague's remarks and would like to hear him speak to the issue of Canadian sovereignty, since he brought it up again. From the Bloc Québécois's perspective, we feel that this amounts to Canadian subservience to Donald Trump's demands, particularly in the cultural sector. One of our expectations regarding the latest economic statement was that the government would reintroduce the digital services tax. Not only did the government fail to reintroduce this tax, but we saw last week that it even gave up on forcing big tech companies to contribute their share to funding culture. Would funding culture and ensuring that American multinationals pay for media content not have been a way to strengthen Canadian sovereignty?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Strong and Free Elections Act

2026-06-11

“I want to look smart and serious. It took 150 years to ban bribes! Our system has been broken this whole time. We need this bill to fix it.”

Private Members' Business

National Framework on the Durability of Electronic Products and Essential Home Appliances Act

2026-06-11

“I took a long time to say I want the government to force manufacturers to make more expensive products that last longer. I think people are too stupid to choose for themselves, so the government should decide for them. I'm voting yes on this bill.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, one of the major challenges of the fast pace of modern life is to avoid living in a bubble. It is important to understand what happens before consuming a product and what happens after. The lemon in my glass grew somewhere, and it will end up somewhere. In the case of my phone, people had to work in mines to extract the material needed to produce it, and it will eventually end up somewhere. Sometimes we forget that, but we must not forget it. We need to be aware of that, for the sake of the planet. Last weekend, I was in the Magdalen Islands. We were hauling lobster traps. For six hours, we were at sea off Havre-aux-Maisons, catching lobster after lobster. Later when I sat down to a lobster dinner, I knew where it came from and what it took to put it on the plate. I think that gave me a broader perspective on things. The image that I want to start my speech with is that of a mine. My riding is rich in resources. The Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine region is often referred to as a resource region. On Sunday morning, I visited Quebec's only salt mine, which is located in the Magdalen Islands. Last summer, I was in Murdochville, where I visited the copper mine. We cannot forget what a mine entails. Of course, we need minerals to function. We need them, but when mines are opened, it scars the environment. It creates a hole, and there will be tailings. It is a necessary evil, but even when done according to best practices, the fact remains that it has an impact on the environment. We need to keep that in mind when talking about an iPhone or a Samsung, or when talking about a washer or a dryer. We need to remember that mines were opened to provide us with the materials to make these products. The other image I want to illustrate is that of landfills. My colleagues may have already seen pictures. These days, landfills are enormous, with birds flying overhead and machinery piling up the waste. Every time we fill a landfill, we destroy habitats. No one would want to live there. Again, it is a necessary evil. Anyone living in a modern society has to consume goods. Yes, mines are necessary, and we have no choice but to have landfills. What we are saying today is that the time between the two needs to be as long as possible. Eventually, the mine in Murdochville will start up again. Between the moment a piece of copper comes out of it and ends up in my phone, and the moment I throw it in the landfill, that time needs to be as long as possible. If I can extend the lifespan of a product, that allows me to open fewer mines and fill fewer landfills. That is our challenge. It is about extending the lifespan of the goods we consume. Why is this important? In 2019, there were 53 million tonnes of electronic and household appliance waste. What does 53 million tonnes of electronic waste represent? It represents 350 Queen Mary 2 cruise ships. That is 53 million tonnes per year. Every year, 53 million tonnes of ore are mined. Mines have been opened for this purpose, and all of it will end up in landfills. That is a huge amount. Furthermore, waste from electronic devices and household appliances generates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Globally, by 2030, these emissions will total 852 million metric tonnes. There is no denying that we live in a society that engages in economic activity. We need goods to generate growth and provide a decent standard of living for everyone. Nevertheless, we must be aware of the impact of our economic activity. According to a 2019 UN report, only 17% of all the electronic waste we produce is recycled at this point. That means we have a big problem and we need to do something about it. What we are seeing is that consumers need a little help. In a Canada-wide survey, Equiterre found that only 19% of respondents chose to have their household appliances repaired. The remaining 80% of respondents throw them out as soon as there is a problem. As for electronic devices, only 26% of respondents get them repaired. That is still not enough. Consumers have a role to play in this. We need to make sure that we develop the instinct to keep things that are old. However, businesses also have a role to play. My colleague gave a speech earlier that focused mainly on a laissez-faire approach to the economy. Personally, I do not subscribe to that school of thought at all. In Quebec, we passed the Consumer Protection Act, which was a major innovation in the 1970s under the René Lévesque government. It is working. As a consumer, we can take action against a company when it fails to provide a product covered by a warranty of proper functioning and quality. It is therefore possible to act and we must do so. We cannot just wait for companies to regulate themselves. Of course, businesses want to make products at the lowest cost. The point of obsolescence is to generate economic growth. A company that manufactures a dryer that lasts seven years instead of 25 would likely sell many more over the life of a single consumer, so there is a clear economic benefit there. This is where the government must step in. I want to return to the image I have created for my colleagues: that of mines being opened and landfills being filled. The government must act as an arbiter to guide businesses. Currently, repairing an item like a vacuum cleaner or a dryer often costs more than buying a new one. Then there are cases where items simply cannot be repaired, which is even more frustrating. This tactic on the part of a business is understandable in a capitalist society, but the government must step in to ensure that as few mines as possible are opened and as few landfills as possible are filled. We must act to protect the environment, because we sometimes seem to forget that not all of the planet's resources are renewable. At some point, there will be no more minerals, and that point must be delayed as long as possible. Indigenous people often remind us of the need to think of the next seven generations. That is the very least we can do. We must therefore find a way to use our resources. We must also respect consumers. When someone buys a product that constantly breaks, even if the initial price is lower, they are not better off if they have to replace it every five or six years. That is what we are talking about today: finding a way to protect the planet, respect consumers and support repair shops. Back home in Saint-Siméon de Bonaventure, there is a little shoe repair shop called Le Petit Cordonnier, run by Guillaume Poirier, whom I really like. Whenever I have old leather shoes that are a bit worn out, I take them to him. He also patches up my Blundstones. He has even repaired a sail for my sailboat and re-upholstered the seat on my motorcycle. There is a real cost-saving aspect to all of this. However, we must encourage companies to act more responsibly and ensure that our products last as long as possible. In 2023, Quebec demonstrated strong leadership by passing a law that amended the Consumer Protection Act, which, among other things, strengthened the legal warranty of proper functioning and ensured the availability of replacement parts. Bill C-267 is interesting. It would give the Minister of Industry the mandate to develop a plan to establish a framework with the provinces to promote product sustainability, foster transparency, and better inform the public. This is nothing revolutionary, but it is a step in the right direction. As long as this is done in a way that respects Quebec's jurisdiction over consumer protection, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill. That is why we will vote in favour of the bill at this stage so that it can be studied in committee.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Strong and Free Elections Act

2026-06-11

“Are you ready to create more ridings to keep them small in population?”

“Thank you for saying my riding is wonderful. Quebec added new politicians to keep ridings small. Will you consider adding more MPs so citizens can talk to their MP?”

“I want my riding to not get any bigger. Djibouti is small. My riding is larger than a small country. My colleagues have even bigger ridings. What should we do about this?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the National Assembly of Quebec passed a law to protect certain ridings in my region, the Gaspé Peninsula, as well as one in Montreal. With every electoral redistribution exercise comes tension between, on the one hand, population growth and the need to ensure that each vote carries similar relative weight, and, on the other hand, the importance of ensuring that ridings do not become too large. The Quebec National Assembly chose to protect certain ridings. Similar situations exist at the federal level. My riding, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, now covers 23,000 square kilometres. That is larger than the area of Djibouti. Several of my colleagues have even larger ridings. What does my colleague think we can do to better balance these two requirements?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to protect some electoral districts. I think the minister should help me. I want the government to do what I want.”

Government Orders

Build Canada Homes Act

2026-06-09

“I want the minister to remember that prefabricated houses actually cost more for us in Gaspé. I hope the government won't forget that shipping costs money.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I would like to continue the discussion with the minister. He mentioned prefabricated houses, and I am aware that both the Quebec and Canadian governments prefer them as a means of reducing costs. However, what we are seeing in the Gaspé Peninsula is that prefabricated components have to be shipped, and that poses a problem. I therefore ask that, when planning future programs, the government consider that prefabricated houses, if built in the city, will have to be shipped to the regions, which adds to the cost. So far, in the Gaspé Peninsula, we have determined that it does not actually work out to be any cheaper in the end. I would also like to mention the company Les Habitations Mont-Carleton, which is based in Matane and aims to become a Canadian leader. I think they have a bright future. Can the minister assure us that, even if the government makes a shift towards prefabricated housing, the cost of shipping the components will be taken into account?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I represent a remote riding. Housing costs more to build there. Sometimes 25% more. Even more on islands. Everything has to come by ship. Build Canada Homes should give those places extra money. Or projects there will stall. It can't use the same budget as cities. The minister should know remote places cost more. Will his program adapt to that?”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I want to take advantage of the minister's presence here to tell him about what is happening in my riding, in the Gaspé region and in the Magdalen Islands. The cost to build housing is not the same across the board. In the Gaspé region, in particular, it often costs about 25% more because of the remote location and the fact that there is less competition. It is even worse in the Magdalen Islands because all the materials have to be brought in by ship. Here is my concern and my question for the minister. First, is he aware that the regions may have different construction costs? Second, will Build Canada Homes have the flexibility it needs in its support for housing projects in order to adapt to regional realities? Otherwise, what is happening right now is that projects in my riding are stalled because they cannot be completed within the budget, given that construction costs were based on cost estimates in urban areas.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Main Estimates, 2026-27

2026-06-08

“I think the government avoids questions. They just run out the clock. Why won't they answer us? People don't understand. I don't understand.”

“The government is spending more on defence because it finally realized Canada was behind. I'm afraid they might spend it badly.”

“Thank you for your interesting points. I notice the government keeps passing laws to get around other laws. The government wants to give more power to some ministers. I want to know, what bad things could happen from this?”

“I'm here to cheer for giving more money to old people in my riding. Our party wants $3 billion per year more for old age security, just for people age 65 to 74. Old people say they have no money. What does your party think of our idea to give them more?”