Joseph defends Bill C-9’s protections against hate, especially for Black communities, pushes job creation for Quebec’s small businesses through defence and trade legislation, and backs the national school food program his riding’s organizations rely on. He opens nearly every exchange with thanks or tributes, such as “I appreciate my colleague,” before posing his question. He often asks pointed yes-or-no questions, such as “Does he condemn this member’s remarks?”Written by AI from their statements. Updated .
Average grade
B–
The average grade of 18 analysed statements. 12 more were analysed but were too short to grade.
72 / 100 over 18 statements
Signal61 / 100
Relevance66 / 100
Respect100 / 100
Clarity97 / 100
Loses points more than most for Thanks and tributes.2.2 times as often as most members.What the tags mean →×2.2A remark off to the side of the point.2.1 times as often as most members.What the tags mean →×2.1A story that illustrates instead of making a point.1.8 times as often as most members.What the tags mean →×1.8Loses 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 18 of 30 statements graded so far.
“I support freedom. It is surprising that the member asks about this when his party wants to remove Quebec from multicultural rules.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I would say no. I am committed to freedom, full stop. As for freedom of expression, as the saying goes, when one has nothing left to say, one should stop talking. What is more, it is really surprising that my Bloc Québécois colleague is asking me this question when his party recently proposed taking Quebec out of the multiculturalism framework, unless my colleague is at odds with his party.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I would say no. I am committed to freedom, full stop. As for freedom of expression, as the saying goes, when one has nothing left to say, one should stop talking. What is more, it is really surprising that my Bloc Québécois colleague is asking me this question when his party recently proposed taking Quebec out of the multiculturalism framework, unless my colleague is at odds with his party.
“This bill protects Canadians from hate and intimidation, including Black, Muslim, and Jewish people. Everyone has the right to live safely and in peace.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is a surprising question coming from my colleague, a lawyer. Bill C‑9 is meant precisely to better protect Canadians from hate and intimidation, whether they are Black, Muslim, Jewish or members of any other community. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect, to live in safety and, above all, to have peace and tranquility. That is the law.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, this is a surprising question coming from my colleague, a lawyer. Bill C‑9 is meant precisely to better protect Canadians from hate and intimidation, whether they are Black, Muslim, Jewish or members of any other community. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect, to live in safety and, above all, to have peace and tranquility. That is the law.
“I want the House to pass this bill. Hate crimes are rising in Canada, and Black Canadians and religious groups are often targeted. This bill makes hate crimes a specific offence and makes it illegal to use hate symbols like a noose to scare people.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak on behalf of the people of Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert. There are days in the House that are full of procedure and routine, and then there are days like this, where Parliament is doing exactly what it was created to do. These are the moments that give true meaning to the office we hold. My colleagues have explained the mechanics of Bill C‑9. I will use my speaking time to address the reality that this bill recognizes. Let us start by stating the obvious: Hate is real in Canada. It exists today, in 2026, in our workplaces, our schools, our places of worship, and our neighbourhoods. Statistics Canada data confirms this year after year: Police-reported hate crimes have risen sharply. Synagogues are being targeted, mosques are being targeted, and people are being singled out because of their background, faith, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Black Canadians are consistently among the groups most affected. I am going to talk about these communities that are being targeted. Black communities have been part of the fabric of this country from the beginning. They have helped to build it, defend it, care for it and educate it. The Haitian community has had roots in Quebec for over 60 years. It has given us doctors and nurses who have kept our health care system afloat. It has given us teachers, entrepreneurs, artists and members of the House of Commons and Quebec National Assembly, and yet these very communities face a dual reality that Parliament must have the courage to acknowledge. Black Canadians are overrepresented in our prisons. Reports from the Office of the Correctional Investigator have been documenting this for years. At the same time, they are also overrepresented among victims: victims of hate crimes, victims of intimidation, victims of acts meant to remind them that they will always be seen as different. Bill C‑9 tells this community and all communities targeted by hate that the law sees when they are targeted. The amendment regarding the noose is the clearest expression of all this. This symbol carries a history of terror that all Black families know without needing to be taught. When it appears on a construction site or in a locker room—and yes, that still happens—its message is instantly understood. Until now, a victim who reported such acts would find themselves thrown into a legal maze. However, from now on, Canadian law will clearly state that using this symbol to intimidate or promote hatred is an offence. Confronting anti-Black hate means naming it. That is exactly what this amendment does. I would like to highlight the fact that this amendment comes from the Senate. It was the senators who listened to their communities, who scrutinized this bill thoroughly and who saw that it could be improved. I thank them. This is our parliamentary system at its best: two chambers working together to produce better legislation. The stand-alone hate crime offence, the heart of the bill from the outset, completes this work. Hate takes forms that leave no visible mark: repeated threats, violence and intimidation. This offence gives the justice system the tools to prosecute these acts for what they are: criminal offences. For victims, no matter which community they belong to, the equation changes. Reporting will be worth it. No single law can resolve decades of inequality on its own, but this law does what it can. It acknowledges suffering that has long gone unnamed, and it tells Black Canadians and Haitian Canadians, as well as all communities affected by hate, that their government sees what they are going through and takes it seriously. There is no room in Canada for symbols that deliberately promote hate. Voting for this bill will be one of my proudest moments in this House. I urge all of my colleagues from every party to do the same.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak on behalf of the people of Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert. There are days in the House that are full of procedure and routine, and then there are days like this, where Parliament is doing exactly what it was created to do. These are the moments that give true meaning to the office we hold. My colleagues have explained the mechanics of Bill C‑9. I will use my speaking time to address the reality that this bill recognizes. Let us start by stating the obvious: Hate is real in Canada. It exists today, in 2026, in our workplaces, our schools, our places of worship, and our neighbourhoods. Statistics Canada data confirms this year after year: Police-reported hate crimes have risen sharply. Synagogues are being targeted, mosques are being targeted, and people are being singled out because of their background, faith, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Black Canadians are consistently among the groups most affected. I am going to talk about these communities that are being targeted. Black communities have been part of the fabric of this country from the beginning. They have helped to build it, defend it, care for it and educate it. The Haitian community has had roots in Quebec for over 60 years. It has given us doctors and nurses who have kept our health care system afloat. It has given us teachers, entrepreneurs, artists and members of the House of Commons and Quebec National Assembly, and yet these very communities face a dual reality that Parliament must have the courage to acknowledge. Black Canadians are overrepresented in our prisons. Reports from the Office of the Correctional Investigator have been documenting this for years. At the same time, they are also overrepresented among victims: victims of hate crimes, victims of intimidation, victims of acts meant to remind them that they will always be seen as different. Bill C‑9 tells this community and all communities targeted by hate that the law sees when they are targeted. The amendment regarding the noose is the clearest expression of all this. This symbol carries a history of terror that all Black families know without needing to be taught. When it appears on a construction site or in a locker room—and yes, that still happens—its message is instantly understood. Until now, a victim who reported such acts would find themselves thrown into a legal maze. However, from now on, Canadian law will clearly state that using this symbol to intimidate or promote hatred is an offence. Confronting anti-Black hate means naming it. That is exactly what this amendment does. I would like to highlight the fact that this amendment comes from the Senate. It was the senators who listened to their communities, who scrutinized this bill thoroughly and who saw that it could be improved. I thank them. This is our parliamentary system at its best: two chambers working together to produce better legislation. The stand-alone hate crime offence, the heart of the bill from the outset, completes this work. Hate takes forms that leave no visible mark: repeated threats, violence and intimidation. This offence gives the justice system the tools to prosecute these acts for what they are: criminal offences. For victims, no matter which community they belong to, the equation changes. Reporting will be worth it. No single law can resolve decades of inequality on its own, but this law does what it can. It acknowledges suffering that has long gone unnamed, and it tells Black Canadians and Haitian Canadians, as well as all communities affected by hate, that their government sees what they are going through and takes it seriously. There is no room in Canada for symbols that deliberately promote hate. Voting for this bill will be one of my proudest moments in this House. I urge all of my colleagues from every party to do the same.
“Our immigration system needs clear rules and strong security checks to stay fair and trustworthy. We are spending $188.1 million to collect photos and fingerprints from applicants around the world. This helps us confirm people's identities, stop fraud, and keep Canadians safe.”
“Mr. Chair, before I begin, I should inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Moncton—Dieppe. I want to thank the minister for working so tirelessly since taking charge of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, as well as for collaborating so constructively with Quebec on the management of asylum seekers. I am pleased to rise today to speak to the integrity and security of Canada’s immigration system, as well as the tools that enable us to keep the system fair, orderly and trustworthy. The strength of an immigration system does not depend on the number of people Canada takes in. It depends on clear rules, reliable controls, secure processing and public trust. That is why the main estimates 2026-27 provide funding for the individuals, systems and tools supporting identity verification, program integrity and secure decision making. A fair immigration system must also be secure. Rigorous screening and identity verification are not barriers to immigration. They are safeguards that protect Canadians and legitimate applicants while upholding trust in the systems. The Government of Canada’s approach to immigration screening is not based on a single decision point. It involves a continuum supported by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and international partners. It starts before a person travels to Canada and continues when they seek entry at the border. It may continue post-arrival as new information becomes available or as other immigration decisions are made. The goal at each step is to facilitate lawful movement and immigration while identifying risks and protecting the system’s integrity. Before someone arrives in Canada, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, examines their application for a visa or electronic travel authorization. Officers examine the information provided, assess whether the applicant meets the requirements for entry to Canada, and review the application based on risk factors and other verification criteria. Personal information, including fingerprints and photos, helps confirm the individual’s identity and support criminal background checks. This information can be compared against Canadian databases and, as applicable, against information held by trusted international partners. These checks help officers to determine whether there are grounds for deeming someone inadmissible to Canada, including security concerns, criminal activity, false statements or other reasons set out in Canadian law. In some cases, applicants may have to undergo additional screening by security partners. IRCC works with the CBSA, CSIS and international partners to support screening and decision-making. This collaboration is vital. No one tool can protect the system. The system’s integrity depends on officer training, clear rules, reliable intelligence, security systems and strong government partnerships. Biometrics is one of these important tools. This data helps to answer one of the most fundamental questions of any immigration system: Is the applicant really who they claim to be? Biometrics make the system more reliable by helping to establish identity, detect identity fraud, conduct background checks and confirm that decisions are based on accurate information. This protects Canadians. It also protects legitimate applicants by ensuring that those who follow the rules are not adversely affected by those who try to use a false identity or fraudulent documents or those who make false statements. That is why the 2026-27 main estimates include $188.1 million under the Department of Citizenship and Immigration for the cost of biometric data collection. This funding helps maintain the continuity of biometric data collection services through a global network of visa application centres, or VACs. These third-party providers are mandated to provide administrative support to applicants, particularly with regard to the collection of biometric data, and to help deliver services in many parts of the world. Let me be clear. Visa application centres do not make decisions regarding applications. They do not provide advice on visas. Decisions remain in the hands of trained immigration officers who apply Canadian law. IRCC also provides oversight of visa application centres through performance-tracking agreements, inspections and requirements related to security and privacy. VACs help ensure that the process is secure and accessible. They allow applicants to complete important administrative steps, including the collection of biometric data, while officers focus on assessing applications and making decisions. Privacy and security are at the heart of this work. Information collected for immigration purposes must be treated with care and in accordance with Canada’s laws, policies and protections. The security continuum continues at the border. A visa or travel document does not guarantee entry into Canada. When an individual arrives at a port of entry, border services officers play an important role in assessing their admissibility and ensuring that they continue to meet the requirements to enter Canada. This means that, even if the screening is done before the trip, the system still has safeguards in place at the port of entry—”
Official Hansard
Mr. Chair, before I begin, I should inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Moncton—Dieppe. I want to thank the minister for working so tirelessly since taking charge of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, as well as for collaborating so constructively with Quebec on the management of asylum seekers. I am pleased to rise today to speak to the integrity and security of Canada’s immigration system, as well as the tools that enable us to keep the system fair, orderly and trustworthy. The strength of an immigration system does not depend on the number of people Canada takes in. It depends on clear rules, reliable controls, secure processing and public trust. That is why the main estimates 2026-27 provide funding for the individuals, systems and tools supporting identity verification, program integrity and secure decision making. A fair immigration system must also be secure. Rigorous screening and identity verification are not barriers to immigration. They are safeguards that protect Canadians and legitimate applicants while upholding trust in the systems. The Government of Canada’s approach to immigration screening is not based on a single decision point. It involves a continuum supported by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and international partners. It starts before a person travels to Canada and continues when they seek entry at the border. It may continue post-arrival as new information becomes available or as other immigration decisions are made. The goal at each step is to facilitate lawful movement and immigration while identifying risks and protecting the system’s integrity. Before someone arrives in Canada, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, examines their application for a visa or electronic travel authorization. Officers examine the information provided, assess whether the applicant meets the requirements for entry to Canada, and review the application based on risk factors and other verification criteria. Personal information, including fingerprints and photos, helps confirm the individual’s identity and support criminal background checks. This information can be compared against Canadian databases and, as applicable, against information held by trusted international partners. These checks help officers to determine whether there are grounds for deeming someone inadmissible to Canada, including security concerns, criminal activity, false statements or other reasons set out in Canadian law. In some cases, applicants may have to undergo additional screening by security partners. IRCC works with the CBSA, CSIS and international partners to support screening and decision-making. This collaboration is vital. No one tool can protect the system. The system’s integrity depends on officer training, clear rules, reliable intelligence, security systems and strong government partnerships. Biometrics is one of these important tools. This data helps to answer one of the most fundamental questions of any immigration system: Is the applicant really who they claim to be? Biometrics make the system more reliable by helping to establish identity, detect identity fraud, conduct background checks and confirm that decisions are based on accurate information. This protects Canadians. It also protects legitimate applicants by ensuring that those who follow the rules are not adversely affected by those who try to use a false identity or fraudulent documents or those who make false statements. That is why the 2026-27 main estimates include $188.1 million under the Department of Citizenship and Immigration for the cost of biometric data collection. This funding helps maintain the continuity of biometric data collection services through a global network of visa application centres, or VACs. These third-party providers are mandated to provide administrative support to applicants, particularly with regard to the collection of biometric data, and to help deliver services in many parts of the world. Let me be clear. Visa application centres do not make decisions regarding applications. They do not provide advice on visas. Decisions remain in the hands of trained immigration officers who apply Canadian law. IRCC also provides oversight of visa application centres through performance-tracking agreements, inspections and requirements related to security and privacy. VACs help ensure that the process is secure and accessible. They allow applicants to complete important administrative steps, including the collection of biometric data, while officers focus on assessing applications and making decisions. Privacy and security are at the heart of this work. Information collected for immigration purposes must be treated with care and in accordance with Canada’s laws, policies and protections. The security continuum continues at the border. A visa or travel document does not guarantee entry into Canada. When an individual arrives at a port of entry, border services officers play an important role in assessing their admissibility and ensuring that they continue to meet the requirements to enter Canada. This means that, even if the screening is done before the trip, the system still has safeguards in place at the port of entry—
“I am asking my colleague if it is right that the Conservatives support big American web companies instead of Canadian and Quebec artists.”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously, this motion sends a clear message to our artists in the Quebec and Canadian cultural sectors. My question for my colleague is this. Does it seem right that the Conservatives are choosing American web giants over Quebec and Canadian artists and culture?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, obviously, this motion sends a clear message to our artists in the Quebec and Canadian cultural sectors. My question for my colleague is this. Does it seem right that the Conservatives are choosing American web giants over Quebec and Canadian artists and culture?
“Can the member admit that at least one thing this government did helped people in Quebec? Or is he just ignoring good things for political reasons?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue along the same lines as my colleague. The member said that the government is just giving the impression of helping people. Is he willing to acknowledge at least one measure that has helped Quebeckers, or is his strategy to deny that any progress has been made, for political reasons?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue along the same lines as my colleague. The member said that the government is just giving the impression of helping people. Is he willing to acknowledge at least one measure that has helped Quebeckers, or is his strategy to deny that any progress has been made, for political reasons?
“I want to ask my colleague a question. Would he hurt Quebec's economy just to rush and sign any deal without thinking it through?”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague’s wonderful speech. I can see that he is really upset, that he is angry. Here is the question I would like to ask my colleague. Would he be prepared to sacrifice Quebec’s economy in order to hurry up and sign any agreement, without thinking it through?”
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague’s wonderful speech. I can see that he is really upset, that he is angry. Here is the question I would like to ask my colleague. Would he be prepared to sacrifice Quebec’s economy in order to hurry up and sign any agreement, without thinking it through?
“I understand why the Bloc is angry about American tariffs on Quebec's economy. But a bad deal is worse than no deal, and our government is already working. Does the Bloc agree that Quebec businesses need to rely less on the U.S. and sell to other countries instead?”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague’s speech. It was a very fine speech. If I were in his shoes, I too would be angry and asking questions. This morning, I listened to the leader of the Bloc Québécois. I know that the Bloc is critical of U.S. tariffs on Quebec’s economy, and rightly so, but our government has already gotten to work. I would remind my colleague that a bad deal is worse than no deal at all. In this context, does the Bloc Québécois also see the importance of reducing this trade dependency? Do they recognize the needs of Quebec’s SMEs to access new international markets?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague’s speech. It was a very fine speech. If I were in his shoes, I too would be angry and asking questions. This morning, I listened to the leader of the Bloc Québécois. I know that the Bloc is critical of U.S. tariffs on Quebec’s economy, and rightly so, but our government has already gotten to work. I would remind my colleague that a bad deal is worse than no deal at all. In this context, does the Bloc Québécois also see the importance of reducing this trade dependency? Do they recognize the needs of Quebec’s SMEs to access new international markets?
“Our economic choices are helping the country. Can the member share examples of how our plan helps families, young people, and businesses in Quebec?”
“Madam Speaker, our government is making responsible choices to support the economy. That is a fact, even though the opposition members seem to be the only ones oblivious to it. Can my colleague give me concrete examples of how these measures are strengthening prosperity in Quebec and supporting families, businesses and, above all, our young people?”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, our government is making responsible choices to support the economy. That is a fact, even though the opposition members seem to be the only ones oblivious to it. Can my colleague give me concrete examples of how these measures are strengthening prosperity in Quebec and supporting families, businesses and, above all, our young people?
“A majority government brings stability and gets things done for Canadians. I do not understand why the opposition fears a majority instead of putting the country first.”
“Mr. Speaker, having listened to my colleague, I understand that he feels vulnerable. We know full well that a majority means stability and action for Canadians and Quebeckers, moving beyond partisan deadlocks. Why is the opposition so afraid of a majority when the national interest should take precedence over political calculations? That is the question I am asking myself.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, having listened to my colleague, I understand that he feels vulnerable. We know full well that a majority means stability and action for Canadians and Quebeckers, moving beyond partisan deadlocks. Why is the opposition so afraid of a majority when the national interest should take precedence over political calculations? That is the question I am asking myself.
