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 ·

Combatting Hate Act

“People are upset about this hate crime bill. Does the member agree the government did a bad job explaining it, which let false information spread? What will the government do to explain its bills better next time?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, my colleague has provided an accurate description of the turmoil and concerns that Bill C-9 has caused among the people. Does he not acknowledge that the government may have failed to explain Bill C‑9 properly, allowing the situation to escalate because of what appears to be incorrect information? What will the government do differently next time to explain its legislative initiatives more effectively?

“This bill already protects religious speech, as long as it does not promote hate or downplay the Holocaust. I want the Conservatives to tell me why they are still worried.”
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?

Government Orders ·

Combatting Hate Act

“I want to hear my colleague's thoughts on the changes my party made to this bill. Why was it important to make sure the Attorney General must still agree before anyone is charged with promoting hate?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for all of the work he did during the study of this bill, which required a lot of effort, listening and compromise. I personally was pleased to be here to listen to his speech from beginning to end. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on the amendments that the Bloc Québécois managed to get adopted during the study of Bill C-9, particularly the one aimed at restoring the consent of the Attorney General to lay charges for the crime of promoting hatred. Why was it important to secure that win?

Government Orders ·

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

“The Conservatives say they want to save public money, but they do not speak out against subsidies for oil and gas companies. Those companies are making record profits. That money should be used to help the people of Saskatchewan instead.”
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?

“Our economy is hurting because of the trade fight with the United States. I want my colleague to share what his American contacts are saying about the next trade talks. I also want his opinion on how the government is handling these negotiations.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 20 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, behind the economic update lies an economic situation that is strongly affected by the trade war with the United States. I would like to ask my colleague for his insights. I would like him to tell us what he has heard from his contacts in the United States regarding the next steps in the renegotiation of CUSMA. Also, what is his view of how the Liberal government is currently conducting the negotiations?

“The government gave in to Donald Trump's demands by dropping the digital tax on big tech companies. I want the government to make these American companies pay their share to support our culture and media.”
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?

Government Orders ·

Strong and Free Elections Act

“People say our voting system is strong, but we had to wait over 150 years for a law that clearly bans bribes to change how people vote. I want to know why it took so long.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague and riding neighbour for his contribution. I would like to add a dose of moderation to our discussion. People boast that our electoral system is strong. However, it took a bill, the one that we are about to pass, to make it clear that bribes meant to force a vote, or bribes meant to persuade someone to vote one way or another, are prohibited. The infamous “brownies” made headlines. How does my colleague explain the fact that we had to wait over 150 years following Confederation before a clause like this was introduced?

Private Members' Business ·

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

In response to a question from Dan Albas

“We support this bill. Products like phones and appliances should last longer and be easier to fix. Making things last keeps waste out of landfills and protects the environment, as long as the federal government respects Quebec's powers.”
  • A repeated line

    “It is a step in the right direction.”

    Said 8 times by 8 members since May 1.

    Every time it was said
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.

Government Orders ·

Strong and Free Elections Act

“I want to know if the member is open to adding more ridings so they do not get too big.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have a follow-up question for my colleague. I really enjoyed his answer, and we read the same Supreme Court decision. My question is this: Is he ready to consider increasing the number of federal ridings to ensure that they retain their human scale?

“Quebec added more seats to its legislature so ridings would not be too big and voters could stay connected to their politicians. Would you consider doing the same for federal ridings?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his kind words about Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine, which is an absolutely wonderful place. I would like to ask him another question. The action that the Quebec National Assembly took to reconcile these two principles, or in other words to guarantee equality of voting power and ensure that the ridings are not too big, led to an increased number of MNAs. The number of members of the Quebec National Assembly is going to increase from 125 to 127. Is my colleague prepared to consider that type of solution to ensure that federal ridings remain manageable in size so that citizens truly have access to their MP?

“Quebec passed a law to protect some ridings from becoming too big. When ridings get redrawn, we have to balance having equal numbers of voters with keeping ridings small enough to manage. My riding is huge, and some are even bigger. What should we do to balance these two things better?”
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?

“I want to ask the minister about a bill Quebec passed yesterday to protect certain voting districts.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take advantage of the fact that the minister responsible for democratic institutions is here to get his perspective on something that happened in the National Assembly. Yesterday, they passed a bill to protect certain electoral districts. As we are well aware, each time a redistribution happens, we try to reconcile—

Government Orders ·

Build Canada Homes Act

“The government wants to use factory-built homes to lower costs. But shipping the parts to rural areas like the Gaspé Peninsula is expensive, so it does not actually save money. I want to know if the government will account for these shipping costs in its housing plans.”
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?

“Building homes costs much more in remote areas like my riding. Will this new housing agency adjust its funding to match these higher costs? Right now, local projects are stopped because the budgets are based on cheaper city costs.”
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.

Government Orders ·

Main Estimates, 2026-27

“The government avoids answering our questions in committee meetings just to waste time. The public sees this and does not understand it. I want to know why my colleague thinks the government does this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said something that resonates with me because it is something I have felt as well. According to feedback from the public, when they saw the exchange between my colleague and the Minister of Finance, they did not understand why the minister was not answering. I must admit that, over the past year, this is one of the things I have noticed that really amazes me. When we go to a committee meeting and ask questions, it seems as though the government’s primary goal is to avoid answering questions and just run out the clock. I really do not understand what the point of that is. Does my colleague have any explanation or possible theories to share?

“The government just spent an extra $60 billion on defence in 10 months. Canada waited too long to do its part, and now it is rushing to spend this money. I worry this money will be wasted or used badly. Does the member agree that Canada acted too late?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, with regard to defence spending, what has been done over the past few months is pretty spectacular. The government has invested an additional $60 billion in the space of 10 months. What I have to point out is that Canada was a laggard and had not been doing its part since 2014. Our fear is that one big push can come with certain risks, such as the risk of abuse, the risk that the money will be invested unwisely. Is my colleague willing to acknowledge that Canada was dragging its feet and that it only woke up when global instability spiked?

“The government keeps passing bills that give ministers more personal power and bypass other laws. I am asking my colleague what risks he sees with this move away from democracy.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thought my colleague’s speech was very interesting, especially the first part, when he talked about drifting away from democracy. It resonated with me, because I was elected last year and I have noticed that, month after month, the government keeps introducing legislation to bypass lots of other legislation, saying that, from now on, as much power as possible is going to be placed under certain ministers’ discretion. What risk does my colleague see in all that?

“I want to know where the member's party stands on increasing the old age pension for seniors aged 65 to 74. It would cost just over $3 billion a year and would help seniors who cannot easily earn more money.”
  • 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
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 34 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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question to determine his party’s position on a request that is very important to the Bloc Québécois and that was brought to me again yesterday. I was in the Magdalen Islands, and some seniors came to see me to ask about the status of the Bloc Québécois’s request to increase the old age security pension for seniors aged 65 to 74. This would cost just over $3 billion per year and would be good for our seniors, whose purchasing power has been eroded and who are not always in a position to earn more. What is my colleague’s position on our request?

Statements by Members ·

Retirement Congratulations

“Today is Gaspé Day. I am celebrating the people of my region and how close and caring our community is.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, today is Gaspé Day, a day to celebrate the region that I love. The landscapes there are breathtaking, but let us talk instead about the people back home and, above all, about the bond that unites us. Loneliness is taking a toll on society, but the Gaspé is an exception. Back home, when I see an ambulance go by, my heart sinks as I wonder who has run into some misfortune. Back home, I only ever honk my horn to get my friends’ attention when I pass by their house and they are puttering around their yard. Back home, the cashier at the grocery store comments on what people buy and sometimes shares recipes. Back home, my son plays hockey with the son of my childhood friend, whose father coached us 30 years ago. Back home, we love to tease each other, laughing as we look back on our own clumsy mistakes. It is as if the Gaspé Peninsula, with its sea, mountains and rivers, seeps into our souls and makes us better people, not perfect, but cheerful and warm-hearted. Since June 4 is Gaspé Day, I encourage everyone to let a little bit of Gaspé into their hearts.

Statements by Members ·

Journée de la Gaspésie

“Today is Gaspé Day. I am celebrating my home region and its close, caring community.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, today is Gaspé Day, a day to celebrate the region that I love. The landscapes there are breathtaking, but let us talk instead about the people back home and, above all, about the bond that unites us. Loneliness is taking a toll on society, but the Gaspé is an exception. Back home, when I see an ambulance go by, my heart sinks as I wonder who has run into some misfortune. Back home, I only ever honk my horn to get my friends’ attention when I pass by their house and they are puttering around their yard. Back home, the cashier at the grocery store comments on what people buy and sometimes shares recipes. Back home, my son plays hockey with the son of my childhood friend, whose father coached us 30 years ago. Back home, we love to tease each other, laughing as we look back on our own clumsy mistakes. It is as if the Gaspé Peninsula, with its sea, mountains and rivers, seeps into our souls and makes us better people, not perfect, but cheerful and warm-hearted. Since June 4 is Gaspé Day, I encourage everyone to let a little bit of Gaspé into their hearts.