MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Alexis Deschênes

Follow by RSS

Deschênes fights Bill C-39’s regions of national interest, which would exempt projects from some 20 environmental laws, presses to end the EI spring gap for seasonal workers, and wants the $600 million promised for local media released. Nearly every question opens with thanks—“I thank my colleague for his insightful remarks”—before pressing the point. Deschênes backs arguments with figures and asks for specifics, demanding definitions and evidence.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
88 / 100 over 82 statements
Signal 78 / 100
Relevance 87 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 96 / 100
Loses points more than most for Thanks and tributes.2.6 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.6 Loses points less than most for A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 82 of 107 statements graded so far.

Statements 107

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

“This bill lets the government skip many rules in special regions and do a regional assessment instead. Regional assessments are not as thorough as regular impact reviews. I want to know what these new assessments will cover, and if projects will still be checked under every law being set aside.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her contribution to this important debate. Yesterday, there was a lot of discussion about creating regions of national interest. One of the government’s responses is that there are a dozen laws and seven regulations, that authorizations are deemed to have been granted in those regions, and that a regional assessment will take place. If we dig a little deeper, we see that this regional assessment process already exists, but it is really not the same kind of thing as an impact assessment. Can my colleague tell me, before the regions of national interest are defined, what the regional assessment will cover? Will an analysis be done for each of the laws that will then be set aside?

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

“This bill says the minister can only put conditions on a project if they are feasible. The minister already has the power to set conditions. I want to know if my colleague agrees this new rule just helps project developers.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his contribution to the debate. I am interested to hear his thoughts on something that comes up a lot in Bill C-39. I am referring to the message being sent to the minister. The minister is told that he will have the authority to impose conditions determining whether a project moves forward, yet he already has that authority. The new spin with Bill C‑39 is that the minister has to consider the feasibility of any conditions he adds on. That comes up in several places. I saw that as a message for the minister that he is expected to facilitate things for the proponents. How does my colleague see that?

“The government claims this bill does not lower environmental standards, but it does. It removes rules about fishing and dumping waste at sea in certain areas. About 20 laws and rules will no longer apply in regions that the cabinet will pick later. I want the member to explain how the government can say standards are being kept.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his contribution. I get the impression that they are trying to sell us apple pie, but that is not what is on offer in Bill C-39. The government tells us that the bill does not lower standards, but that is not what Bill C-39 says. Bill C-39 says a lot of things, but among other things, it states that regions of national interest are now being established and that, within these regions of national interest, projects will no longer need to get approvals in order to comply with the Fisheries Act or with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act provisions governing the disposal of waste at sea. Several protections are being set aside. I need to hear my colleague’s opinion because I do not understand how the government can tell us that it is maintaining environmental standards when some 20 regulations and laws will no longer apply in regions that have not yet been defined and that will be defined by cabinet following the bill’s predictable and unfortunate passage.

“This bill lets projects ignore several laws in special regions, but it does not define what those regions are or list them. I want to know if the member agrees with this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his contribution to this debate. I want to hear his thoughts on a subject that really troubles me. I am talking about this step forward in Bill C‑39, or rather this major step backward, to identify regions of national interest in which several laws will not apply when the projects move forward. What is a region of national interest? That fundamental principle is not defined in Bill C‑39. There is a schedule that should list the regions, but no regions are mentioned. Does my colleague agree with that approach?

“This bill lets the government approve projects before doing an environmental review. I want to know what my colleague and her party think about that.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 15 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her contribution to this debate. I want to ask a question about something that is planned or proposed in Bill C‑39 that is, in my opinion, absolutely mind-boggling, and that is the government’s ability to pre-approve development projects. In other words, it could allow a development project to go ahead without even doing an environmental assessment. The assessment would come afterward and then we would see what happens. What do my colleague and her party think of that part of Bill C‑39?

“A past Conservative prime minister signed an agreement to protect nature. This bill lets projects go ahead even if they put at-risk animals and plants in danger. I want to know what my colleague thinks about that.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a brief step back and remind my colleague that Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney, who was considered one of the most pro-environment prime ministers, signed the Convention on Biological Diversity on Canada’s behalf. What does my colleague think of Bill C‑39, which will allow projects located in regions of national interest to move forward even if they put species at risk?

In response to a question from Jean-Denis Garon

“This bill lets the Prime Minister pick which regions and projects get special, easier rules. Everyone else would still have to go through the normal approval process, which is unfair.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I believe my colleague has a lot of political experience, and his comment is informed by his observations of what is going on. The Prime Minister will define what is in the national interest and what constitutes a region of national interest. Those that gain his favour, if I may put it that way, will enjoy a special legislative regime that requires relatively few approvals. Meanwhile—and this is something the Conservatives do not talk about much—all other individuals and businesses in Canada will have to continue to undergo assessments that, in my opinion, are justified, though not without room for improvement.

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“This bill gives the government too much power. It lets ministers decide what counts as the national interest, but they have never even defined what that means. Now they want to expand that power from single projects to entire regions.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that excellent question. I have no comment. I am simply overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of this discretionary power. Section 4.1 of Bill C-5 states that cabinet will, by order, define what is in the national interest. Those 28 cabinet ministers were going to tell us that. However, that order was never issued. Before even defining what the national interest is, the government is going even further by telling us, in Bill C-39, that it used to be projects of national interest, but now it will be regions of national interest.

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“This bill gives cabinet the power to approve projects based on whatever it wants. The environmental studies will not matter. Projects in Chaleur Bay could move ahead without protecting fish habitats, and I want to protect the fishers in my riding.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who represents a riding next to mine, for his well-researched question. Environmental assessments will have to be done beforehand, but it is up to cabinet to designate a region as being of national interest. The legislation says it may do so based on whatever factors it considers useful or relevant. A token assessment will be done beforehand, but ultimately, cabinet will act as it sees fit in determining what is in the national interest and what a region of national interest is. What is likely to happen is that projects, perhaps situated between our two ridings in our magnificent Chaleur Bay, could move forward with no consideration of the impact on fish habitat. As everyone knows, industrial development projects are in the works for Belledune. There are fishers in my riding, and I want to protect them.

“I am voting against this bill. It lets 28 cabinet ministers pick regions where companies can ignore environmental laws that protect at-risk animals, birds, and water.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, thank you for calling me to order. You were quite right to do so. If the current government decides that this electricity transmission line project is located in a region of national interest, then itcan go ahead under Bill C-39, even if the project will jeopardize a species at risk or lead to that species’ extinction and would have normally been prohibited. Let us look at another example. Let us say that someone wants to build a liquefied gas terminal, but the construction plans involve dumping waste into the ocean. Normally, that would be prohibited under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, part of which prohibits the disposal of certain substances at sea. However, if the government of the day decides that this liquefied gas terminal is located in a region of national interest, then there is no problem. The proponent would not need to get any authorization and would be exempt from these environmental protection laws. I have one last example to illustrate my point. Let us consider a pipeline project. Unfortunately, the construction of the pipeline would release substances that are harmful to migratory birds. Normally, this is prohibited under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994. That act prohibits the release of substances harmful to migratory birds, but if the pipeline is in a region of national interest, as defined by the current government, there will be no problem. Before, there were projects of national interest, and now regions of national interest have been added. Anything inside these regions will be exempt from obtaining authorizations under the Migratory Birds Convention Act. That is a radical departure. That is why I am saying today that Bill C-39 seeks to authorize the destruction of the environment in Quebec and Canada, at cabinet’s discretion. The next question is about what constitutes a region of national interest. I have read Bill C-39, and I saw that clause 96(2) defines a region of national interest as “a region named in Schedule 3”. I found Schedule 3. It exists, but there is nothing about that in it. There is nothing in Schedule 3. There is just the heading “Regions of National Interest”. The regions have not been identified yet because the government, meaning cabinet, will decide later which regions are of national interest. Twenty-eight people will decide that in Canada, and especially in Quebec in my case, there are sectors where people will be able to do all the things I just criticized. Some people will tell me that they have to base it on something. That is sort of true, because there are some factors in the bill. The government’s ability to allow itself flexibility and discretion on a scale bigger than this chamber is admirable. The bill says that to establish whether a region is a region of national interest, the government may consider any factor it deems relevant. I want to emphasize the word “may”. It is not even required to do that. That is a loophole as big as the Earth. Still, the government is kind enough to give us certain guidelines and include certain criteria in the bill, including the one I am going to talk about because it is unbelievably broad. It is the condition requiring the project to provide economic or other benefits. The discretion this government is getting, allowing it to authorize the destruction of the environment, is mind-boggling. It is mind-boggling and disturbing. What will happen when the government decides that a region is a region of national interest? I want to point out that it is not clear what criteria the government plans to use. I also look forward to hearing government members explain why their region should be a region of national interest. I want to come back to the fact that several laws no longer apply. I mentioned the Fisheries Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, and the Canada Transportation Act, for example. It used to be that an application for authorization was necessary to build a railway, but that will no longer be the case. I talked about the Canada Marine Act, which governs public ports and the St. Lawrence Seaway. It will no longer be necessary in regions of national interest. Part 7, Division 3 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which deals with disposal at sea, is being set aside. The Species at Risk Act is being disregarded because development is the priority. The Impact Assessment Act and relevant regulations, like the migratory bird sanctuary regulations, the wildlife area regulations and the marine mammal regulations, are also being shoved aside. Clearly, these laws must have been completely useless. That is what Bill C‑39 does. We do not know what constitutes a region of national interest. What we do know is that, once a region is designated as being of national interest, all of those laws, and several others I have not mentioned, cease to apply. The bill effectively assumes that all necessary approvals and authorizations are already in place for projects located in such regions. I will conclude by saying that the irony is that 28 people will define what constitutes the national interest of Quebec and Canada, even though it will result in the destruction of the environment. I believe that Quebec’s national interest lies in ensuring that economic development does not come at the expense of the environment. We can grow our economy without compromising our habitats, fish habitats and endangered species. We can develop our economy while keeping future generations in mind. Unfortunately, Bill C-39 deviates from that. We are heading towards destructive economic development. That is why we will be voting against the bill.

“I oppose this bill. It lets cabinet name whole regions where projects can ignore environmental laws. This will let companies destroy fish habitats and harm animals at risk.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, as fall sets in here in the House of Commons, one bill is set to authorize the destruction of the environment in Quebec and Canada, at the whim of 28 people, namely, the Carney government’s cabinet. Bill C-39 does a lot of things, but I will focus on what I think is the most dangerous one: From now on, authorization will be given to destroy the environment not only for projects of national interest, but also for entire regions, regions of national interest. Some might say that I am exaggerating, but I am not. I will give some examples of what Bill C‑39 will do. Let us say that the government wants to launch a nickel mining project, a project that will destroy fish habitat. Destroying fish habitat is prohibited under section 35 of the Fisheries Act. However, if the government decides that the nickel mining project is in a region of national interest, there will be no problem, and the nickel mining project can proceed. Authorization under section 35 of the Fisheries Act will no longer be required. That is what Bill C‑39 proposes. I will give another example. Let us say that there is a proposal to launch an electricity transmission line project. The problem is that the line will jeopardize species that are already at risk. Take, for example, the Gaspé caribou, the warbler, the red knot, the lark and the plover. All of these species are currently on the list of species at risk set out in the Species at Risk Act. Well, if the electricity transmission line is located in a region of national interest, as determined by the 28 members of the Carney government’s cabinet, then there is no problem. Normally, a proponent would not be permitted to move forward with such a project under the Species at Risk Act—

“I want the member to define what a region of national interest is. Under this bill, projects in these regions will not have to follow about 20 different laws.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her contribution. I have a very simple question for her: What is a region of national interest? Can she define it? That is one of the major changes that Bill C‑39 makes. When a region is determined to be of national interest, all projects in that area will be exempt from complying with 20 or so laws and obtaining authorizations. What is a region of national interest?

“The member said environmental reviews are only used to delay projects. I want him to explain that. Does he really believe these reviews are not meant to study harm and stop bad projects, but just to slow things down?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his contribution. In his speech he said that the environmental assessments were used to hold up projects. I find that fascinating and I would like him to elaborate on that. Is that what he really thinks? Does he think that environmental assessment processes were put in place to calculate the environmental impact of projects such as pipelines, not with the aim of getting answers and trying to ensure that projects are improved or that bad projects are blocked, but with the aim of slowing down projects? Is that really what he thinks?

“Why does the member support moving forward with projects that could wipe out species at risk just because they are called national-interest projects?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have a specific question for my colleague. Why does he agree that a project in an area deemed of national interest can move forward, even if it is contributing to the disappearance of a species at risk?

“I oppose this bill because it lowers environmental standards. In certain areas, it ignores about 20 laws and rules, letting projects destroy fish habitats without normal permits. I want the member to explain how that protects the environment.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his contribution to this debate. I am having a hard time reconciling what my colleague and his Prime Minister are saying, namely that Bill C-39 does not lower standards. That seems completely wrong to me. Bill C-39 will make it possible to designate areas of national interest, and within those areas, about a dozen laws and seven regulations will not apply. This will allow for projects that destroy fish habitats without having to seek authorization under the Fisheries Act. How can my colleague say that we are upholding environmental standards when, for all projects in regions of national interest, we are going to set aside some 20 laws and get the required authorizations even if it means destroying the environment?

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

“This bill lets projects start before their environmental assessments are done. An assessment is useless if work has already begun. I want the member to explain how that protects the environment.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by welcoming our new colleague on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. I would like to congratulate him on his election, and I hope that we will have fruitful debates in pursuit of the common good. My colleague talked about development, but he also talked about environmental protection. If a project is approved before an environmental assessment has been done, and if the project is already under way, what value can that environmental assessment possibly have when it is carried out? How can anyone seriously believe the environment will be protected if the assessment does not happen until the project is already under way?

“This bill lets the government approve projects before checking their impact on the environment. That makes environmental reviews useless. If a review finds problems later, people might have to tear down work they already started. I want the Conservative leader to explain why he thinks this bill does not go far enough.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear from the leader of the official opposition about a very specific aspect of Bill C-39. I am referring to the government’s option to approve development projects even before an environmental assessment has been done. What purpose do environmental assessments serve? They serve to ensure that approved projects are good projects and not too environmentally harmful. Environmental assessments are supposed to come first, before the project. In some cases, Bill C-39 will pre-approve projects that are ready to get started. What happens if the assessment is negative? Proponents will be asked to come tear down any work already done. So much for predictability. In other words, these will be sham assessments, junk assessments. With that in mind, how can the leader of the official opposition say that this bill does not go far enough?

Private Members' Business ·

Jury Duty Appreciation Week Act

“I support this bill to create a week recognizing jurors. Jury duty is a hard, mandatory job, and citizens who serve on juries deserve our thanks. The provinces must still stay fully in charge of their own courts and juror support.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see you again and to be back here in the House with all my colleagues. I hope that everyone had a good summer and that we will have productive debates in the pursuit of the common good. A few years ago, I received a call from an acquaintance who was in a bit of a panic. This person was calling me because they knew I was a lawyer. They had been summoned for jury duty and wanted to know how to get out of it. They told me they did not have the time because they were working. It is true that being a juror is not an easy task. Jurors have to stop working for the duration of the trial, and it is no vacation. They make decisions of critical importance not only for the accused, but also for the victim and their loved ones. In the Gaspé in 2015, for example, 12 members of a jury sat through a trial that lasted a month and a half. It was the first trial of Johanne Johnson, who was accused of murdering her partner, James Dubé. It involved a month and a half of trial proceedings, followed by three full days of deliberations before reaching a verdict, which was subsequently overturned on appeal, meaning the trial had to start all over again. All this to say that being a juror takes time. Above all, it means accepting a heavy responsibility involving tragic events. Each juror must join with 11 other jurors in deciding another person’s fate by finding him or her guilty or not guilty. They must weigh the evidence presented and judge the credibility of the testimony given. Usually, jurors are exposed to horrific accounts of crimes involving sordid facts. In our criminal system, this is the most solemn type of case and involves the most serious types of crime, like murder. Although they represent only about 1% of criminal cases, these are usually the most grave, complex and impactful cases, both for the victims and the accused. A heavy load and responsibility are therefore placed on the jurors’ shoulders. Of course, while serving on a jury may be a civic duty, it comes with no training. Members of the public are randomly selected from the Quebec voters’ list. This is what prompted the call from my acquaintance seeking an exemption from jury duty. Their wish for an exemption is nothing unusual. The Canadian Juries Commission conducted a national opinion poll in June 2020 that found that only 18% of Canadians expressed a willingness to participate in jury duty. There is some degree of civic disengagement in our justice system when it comes to jury duty. In fact, it is at a point where some judges are now used to issuing arrest warrants and summoning people who fail to appear in order to improve participation rates. In Quebec, the issue falls under the Jurors Act, and people are required to appear. The use of sanctions to ensure participation is a consequence of the lack of a positive culture around this obligation. Civic disengagement is not the only issue. After speaking with some Crown prosecutors, I learned that most jurors complete their service with a feeling of accomplishment and of having served justice. However, other jurors come out of the experience traumatized. The first to make this point was Mark Farrant, who was the jury foreman in an Ontario murder trial in 2014. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder after the trial. He sued the Government of Ontario and the Government of Canada, alleging a failure in the duty of care. His public testimony sparked a collective reflection and a series of reforms that led to the founding of the Canadian Juries Commission. As I understand it, it also motivated the work of Senator Lucie Moncion, which led to the introduction of the bill we are debating this afternoon, Bill S‑226, an act respecting jury duty appreciation week. We in the Bloc Québécois support this initiative. Establishing a jury duty appreciation week would recognize and value the essential work done by ordinary citizens, without whom our criminal justice system could not function. It is also a way to address civic disengagement with positive action. Jury duty is one of the few truly binding civic obligations under Canadian law. People have the right to vote, but they are not required to do so, and mandatory military service has been abolished. Jury duty, however, remains mandatory, and yet it is the only civic duty that has not been recognized with a national week of appreciation. Bill S-226 fills that gap. Some people might argue that designating jury duty appreciation week is merely symbolic. That is true, but there is value in symbolism. Parliament regularly adopts national designations. Mental Health Week, Black History Month and the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation are examples of this. The value of all these initiatives lies precisely in recognition. That said, as members of the Bloc Québécois, we are firmly devoted to defending Quebec’s jurisdiction when it comes to the administration of justice. The division of powers set forth in the Constitution Act, 1867, expressly gives the provinces jurisdiction over the administration of justice. This jurisdiction unambiguously encompasses everything related to jury duty, including jury selection, compensation, conditions of service and post-trial support. Quebec exercises its jurisdiction with rigour and a consistency that deserves to be highlighted. As the only civil-law jurisdiction in North America, Quebec has developed robust judicial institutions over several centuries, rooted in the values and culture of its society—notably by increasing daily allowances for jurors to a rate that is much more generous than in most other Canadian provinces. Quebec also reimburses psychotherapy fees for jurors who are traumatized by a trial. We know full well that these advances are the result of thoughtful Quebec governance, not a federal directive. It is in this spirit that we support Bill S-226, because it recognizes without constraining, commemorates without imposing and brings people together without requiring uniformity. Any concrete action arising from this initiative must be carried out through voluntary collaboration, with full respect for the autonomy of Quebec and the provinces. Jury duty appreciation week derives its value from its simplicity. Let it therefore remain what it is: a tribute to citizens who serve justice.

Government Orders ·

Combatting Hate Act

“The member said we should not repeat hurtful comments. But he just repeated them in his speech. Is he contradicting himself?”
Official Hansard

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. He spoke on the importance of not repeating remarks that might be hurtful to others, yet by taking a few minutes of his speech to go over these remarks again, is he not contradicting himself?

“This bill says people can still practice their religion and share their beliefs, as long as they are not spreading hate. I want my colleague to explain why that does not reassure him.”
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?