Alexis Deschênes

“The minister supports sharing asylum seekers fairly across all provinces. I want to know what she is doing to make that happen.”

“Mr. Chair, I understand that the minister is working toward the objective of distributing asylum seekers fairly among the various provinces and, therefore, that she supports this principle. Now, what steps is she taking to achieve this?”

“I want the minister to answer the question. Does she agree that asylum seekers should be shared fairly across provinces based on population?”

“Mr. Chair, can the minister answer the question? Does she agree that the number of asylum seekers should be distributed fairly among Canada’s provinces based on their population?”

“I want the minister to answer a simple question. Does she agree that asylum seekers should be shared among all the provinces?”

“Mr. Chair, I would like the minister to answer this very simple question. I understand that conversations are going on and that there may be some shining examples. However, does she agree with the principle that asylum seekers have to be distributed among the various Canadian provinces?”

“I want to know if the minister agrees that asylum seekers should be shared fairly among all the provinces.”

“Mr. Chair, I understand that this is a conversation and that the government has already paid Quebec compensation for its efforts. My question for the minister is the same. Does she agree in principle on the need for equitable distribution among the provinces?”

In response to a question from Lena Metlege Diab

“I want to know if the minister agrees that asylum seekers should be shared fairly across all provinces.”

“Mr. Chair, does the minister agree in principle that it is appropriate to distribute asylum seekers fairly across Canada’s various provinces?”

In response to a question from Lena Metlege Diab

“I want to know if the minister thinks asylum seekers should be shared fairly among the provinces.”

“Mr. Chair, does the minister agree that it is appropriate for the number of asylum seekers to be distributed fairly among Canada’s provinces?”

“Quebec takes in almost 39% of all asylum seekers in Canada, but only has 22% of the country's population. I want to know if the minister agrees that asylum seekers should be shared fairly among all provinces.”

“Mr. Chair, Quebec is a welcoming place. Quebeckers are welcoming. We understand that we have a duty of solidarity toward asylum seekers. We also understand that asylum seekers and those who become refugees are an asset and that they contribute to Quebec. Figures released this morning clearly show that this is still the case. Quebeckers are taking in a very large proportion of asylum seekers. I would say that this is a disproportionate share relative to their weight within the Canadian federation. As of April 1, 2026, while Quebeckers make up 22% of the Canadian population, nearly 39% of all asylum seekers in Canada are in Quebec. Does the minister agree in principle that asylum seekers should be distributed fairly among Canada’s provinces?”

“Big foreign streaming companies make a lot of money here without helping fund local news and culture, while our own broadcasters have to pay. The real issue is whether taxing them helps support our culture, especially in Quebec. What does my colleague think about that?”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to address the argument put forward by my colleague and his party about how we must never, ever tax web giants because that would be a trade irritant. Why is it a trade irritant for the Americans? Obviously, because massive corporations like Amazon, Netflix and Prime Video want to come here and make as much money as possible without contributing to the media ecosystem while traditional broadcasters and distributors pay their share to support cultural and news programming. The real question is not whether this is a trade irritant. The real question is whether or not it is good for culture, especially Quebec culture, to make sure there is money available for it. What are my colleague’s thoughts on that?”

“The Liberals say they support our culture and producers, but they gave up on the digital services tax. How can the member explain this contradiction between his words and his government's actions?”

“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his remarks, and I have no doubt about his commitment to culture and the importance of giving our producers a chance. Otherwise, they will be crushed. I still want to point out the hypocrisy of all this. Liberal Party members of Parliament are talking to us today about defending culture, but they have given up on pushing for the digital services tax. I think that might also explain why the CRTC decided to raise it. It is because the Liberals did not do their job. How does my colleague feel about this contradiction between what he says and his government’s actions?”

“Big tech companies make money from our culture, and our cultural industry needs that money. The government backed down on taxing them so it would not upset the United States. I want to know how hard the member will work to convince the government to bring back this tax on digital giants.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell us more about her intention to work toward convincing the government to reinstate the digital services tax. Earlier, I was talking about the Conservative Party’s pathetic obsequiousness. I think the same thing happened with the Liberal Party last year. To avoid ruffling feathers south of the border, the government decided not to tax a percentage of the revenue of the digital giants, even though they are making money here by using our cultural products, and even though our cultural industry needs that money. How far is my colleague willing to go to convince her government to reinstate the digital services tax?”

“I agree with my colleague. The Conservatives are siding with American companies instead of helping our culture and media, which are losing advertising money. It is not fair that American companies can make money off our culture without paying taxes here.”

“Mr. Speaker, on the whole, I agree with my colleague. We are witnessing a pathetic display of obsequiousness by the Conservative Party today. It has decided to champion the interests of American companies in the House even as our culture and media sectors are being hit hard by an unprecedented advertising revenue crisis. We have to support them. Some American companies are going to use our cultural products to make a profit here, yet we should not tax them. How is that fair?”

“I want to know what the member thinks about the government changing its mind on the digital services tax.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome my colleague and congratulate her on her first speech in the House. I would like to hear her comments on the Liberal government’s backtracking on the digital services tax. What are her thoughts on this?”

“We need to protect our culture and our media. Why did the government cancel the tax on big tech companies that would have supported them?”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. He said a number of things that the Bloc Québécois agrees with. I often say that we protect what we love. We love our culture. We love our free, independent press. We want to protect it and give it the means to continue entertaining and informing Quebeckers. I have a question for my colleague. If he loves Quebec culture and the free press, as we do, why did his government cancel the digital services tax a year ago, a tax that would have been used to take money out of the pockets of web giants and give it back to our culture and media?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 11 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want to know why the government decided to appeal this case.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his contribution to the debate. I thought my colleague’s tone had a hint of reassurance in it, but the question I would like to ask him is this: Why has the government decided to appeal this case?”

“We must see both sides of the Cowichan court decision. It allows for negotiations, but it also says Indigenous land rights can exist on private property. Landowners have real reasons to worry, and we need to understand their concerns.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her contribution to the debate. I do believe we need to work toward reconciliation. Part of our job as elected officials is to reconcile competing interests. We have try to see both sides. My colleague seems to be severely downplaying the legal uncertainty resulting from the decision in the Cowichan case. While it does not resolve everything, it is true that the decision opens the door to negotiation. That is essentially what is being said. We understand that there is a legal process. However, I think we still need to consider the perspective of certain private property owners. Perhaps they have been influenced by certain political rhetoric and are more concerned than they need to be. Nevertheless, the key conclusion of the ruling is that aboriginal title can exist even on privately owned land. Does my colleague not agree that there may be some legitimate concern over this?”

“This issue depends on how the courts interpret the Constitution. How can the government solve it today without letting the court process finish first?”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the official opposition for his contribution to the debate. My question is the following. Given that the decision is based on an interpretation of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and that the courts must therefore interpret that section of the Constitution, how could the government possibly provide a solution today without allowing the judicial process to run its course?”