Gabriel Ste-Marie
Joliette—Manawan, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, Amnesty International has denounced the inhumane housing crisis that the Atikamekw nation of Manawan is experiencing. In Manawan, as many as 23 people may be crammed into housing that is often unsanitary. These conditions contribute to the spread of respiratory illnesses.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are discussing an important bill. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the Barreau du Québec's response to this bill. The Barreau du Québec agrees with the principles, but it has some reservations.”
“Mr. Speaker, Amnesty International has launched a campaign to denounce the glaring underfunding of housing in indigenous communities. The organization focused on the situation in the Atikamekw community of Manawan. Isolated and dependent on federal funding, Manawan is facing a severe housing crisis.”
“Mr. Speaker, does my colleague believe that the Liberals improperly broadened the scope of the provisions on bail conditions and other procedural safeguards that are applicable to intimate partner offences? This raises serious concerns in our view.”
“Mr. Speaker, we support Bill C-16 , as does the Barreau du Québec. However, in a statement, it indicated that while it feels the bill's objectives are laudable, it believes that “incorporating them into a single piece of legislation creates regulatory complexity that will hinder the analysis, review and practical application of these prov…”
“Amnesty International and the community are calling for urgent action, and we are echoing their demands: invest heavily and sustainably, work in partnership with communities, adapt policies to guarantee dignified living conditions and put an end to discrimination. Chief Sipi Flamand took these requests directly to the Prime Minister .”
The complete record
Every one of 411 lines we hold for Gabriel Ste-Marie, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 9.
“Mr. Speaker, does my colleague believe that the Liberals improperly broadened the scope of the provisions on bail conditions and other procedural safeguards that are applicable to intimate partner offences? This raises serious concerns in our view. The amendments I am referring to simply remove the violence criterion from the procedural safeguards for crimes committed between intimate partners, without replacing it with a targeted alternative criterion. What does my colleague think?”
“Mr. Speaker, we support Bill C-16 , as does the Barreau du Québec. However, in a statement, it indicated that while it feels the bill's objectives are laudable, it believes that “incorporating them into a single piece of legislation creates regulatory complexity that will hinder the analysis, review and practical application of these provisions”. What are my hon. colleague's thoughts on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am extremely concerned about the number of femicides committed each year in Quebec and across Canada. There have already been 10 in Quebec this year. This bill will take a step toward reducing them, but I feel it is insufficient. What does my hon. colleague and friend think?”
“Mr. Speaker, we are discussing an important bill. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the Barreau du Québec's response to this bill. The Barreau du Québec agrees with the principles, but it has some reservations. It describes the objectives of protecting against gender-based violence, improving evidentiary procedures and modernizing criminal law as commendable. However, the Barreau du Québec believes that incorporating them into a single piece of legislation creates regulatory complexity that could hinder their analysis, review and practical application. Could the member comment on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, Amnesty International has denounced the inhumane housing crisis that the Atikamekw nation of Manawan is experiencing. In Manawan, as many as 23 people may be crammed into housing that is often unsanitary. These conditions contribute to the spread of respiratory illnesses. They hinder children's development, their academic success, and even their basic needs. They exacerbate domestic violence. In short, these are unacceptable living conditions that would never be tolerated anywhere else. Why does the government continue to allow the underfunding of indigenous housing to leave communities in these conditions?”
“Amnesty International and the community are calling for urgent action, and we are echoing their demands: invest heavily and sustainably, work in partnership with communities, adapt policies to guarantee dignified living conditions and put an end to discrimination. Chief Sipi Flamand took these requests directly to the Prime Minister . We are calling on the Prime Minister to act now.”
“Mr. Speaker, Amnesty International has launched a campaign to denounce the glaring underfunding of housing in indigenous communities. The organization focused on the situation in the Atikamekw community of Manawan. Isolated and dependent on federal funding, Manawan is facing a severe housing crisis. Housing is inadequate, often unsanitary, overcrowded and poorly maintained: conditions that violate the right to adequate housing. The consequences are serious: the spread of disease, lack of privacy, increased violence, poverty and homelessness. Despite the council's efforts, the lack of funding remains.”
“Mr. Speaker, the tariff crisis has just forced Matawinie's biggest employer to seek protection under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. The Saint-Michel sawmill and its 250 jobs need immediate, debt-free liquidity, otherwise it is all over. The Bloc Québécois warned the government that its support measures for the forestry sector would not be enough. Ottawa needs to buy back 50% of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties paid by our companies. This measure would cost the government nothing, but it could save businesses like the Saint-Michel sawmill. When will the government understand that urgent action is needed?”
“Mr. Speaker, I hope that is the case, because eliminating the Canadian consumer protection initiative will have no impact on public finances. It is a drop in the bucket. Then again, eliminating it is quite a gift for large corporations that cut corners. The Liberals are preventing consumer protection agencies from investigating things like shrinkflation in grocery stores, contracts in the telecommunications and banking sectors, airline pricing practices, and the list goes on. They are literally helping large companies protect themselves from consumers who are well informed about their rights. How can the minister justify that?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals announced on Thursday that they were eliminating the Canadian consumer protection initiative. That is a fund that supported research into things like the cost of living and competition. It would have gotten $7 million between 2025 and 2027. That is peanuts to a government that is handing out tens of billions of dollars to oil companies. However, losing that funding reduces our organizations' ability to work. When it comes to consumer protection, why is the minister standing up for big business instead of Canadians?”
“People said he was too kind, as if kindness could ever be excessive. The sheriff with the heart of gold will never be forgotten. His memory lives on in every invisible act of kindness and compassion. I salute Robert and I thank him.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Robert Boyer, a man who continues to light up our lives. Following a career with the Sûreté du Québec, he served as a trusted confidante to our former leader, Gilles Duceppe, inspiring confidence in everything he did. In Rawdon, his memory still moves everyone who knew him and those who are mourning his passing. He had a quick smile and had lived a thousand lives. From the open seas to Camp Mariste, he was driven by a hunger to live life to the fullest, despite the weariness of the flesh. He gave, and gave, and gave some more, until he became the gift itself. His wife, Suzanne, the gentle guardian of his final years, gave unto him what he could no longer give unto others, like a light returning to the source. My heart goes out to his children and grandchildren, and to his family and friends.”
“Mr. Speaker, does my colleague think that the government is doing too much for the oil industry? The industry got $10 billion in subsidies last year. The government is rolling out the red carpet for oil and gas and suspending environmental regulations and laws. Meanwhile, globally, oil prices are through the roof, yet production costs here have not gone up. As a result, oil companies are generating record profits that are essentially going straight to shareholders, most of whom are in the United States. Does my colleague think that the government is doing the right thing when it comes to oil companies?”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend my colleague on her speech, which she gave entirely in impeccable French. It is always very moving to hear that. I will come back to the Liberal government's announcement to suspend the excise tax until September. That meant a savings of 10¢, but it was quickly offset by an increase of more than 10¢ in refinery margins. The way I see it, refineries saw an opportunity to fill a gap created by the government. This increase in refinery margins cancels out the price reduction, while still leaving us with a deficit. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader is proposing to lower fuel taxes, but the Liberals already did that more than a month ago by reducing the excise tax by 10¢. We saw that the price at the pump dropped temporarily, but then refinery margins rose by more than 10¢, filling the gap and leaving us with an unchanged price at the pump and a deficit that has grown by $2.4 billion. What the Conservative leader is proposing today is to lower taxes even further. We can expect the same behaviour from the oil companies, which will increase their profit margins, and we will end up with an even larger deficit. This Prime Minister is running deficits twice as big as Justin Trudeau's. Why would we implement measures that increase the deficit so much?”
“Furthermore, when we look at economic policies, we see that the Liberal government has essentially adopted all the Conservatives' ideas: tax cuts, unconditional support for oil development, and even the reduction in gas taxes being advocated today. The Liberals did this a month and a half ago. Is the parliamentary secretary saying, then, that the Liberals themselves are members of a far right party?”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary kept repeating throughout his speech that the Conservatives are members of a far right party. I think we need to be very careful and cautious with our words. By repeating this over and over again, we end up diminishing the weight of those words. Even though I do not share the values of Conservative members, I believe that the Conservative Party is clearly not a far right party, and one should never say that in the House. I believe there is a world of difference between the policies it advocates and what is being done in the United States under the current presidency, for example.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is also a pleasure to work with the parliamentary secretary, particularly on social housing issues. Do I agree with those investments? They are important, but the government is also taking steps backwards. For example, there is $5 billion less for public transit, and we have other similar concerns. The government is taking several steps backwards, while still providing a lot of assistance to oil companies. The fact that the former environment minister is saying that the current government's environmental policies, especially its support for oil companies, are worse than those under the Harper government is a big deal, and analysts are saying that he is absolutely right. In my opinion, the evidence is clear.”
“When the government pulled back, they thought they could charge a higher price and occupy that space. Is that the solution? That is what the Liberals did, and that is what the Conservatives are telling us to do even more. In the end, this mainly helps the oil companies, which are making huge profits. That is not the solution.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for his question. First, the price of a barrel follows the global price. When there is trouble in Iran, there could potentially be a shortage of oil to the tune of 20%, which drives up prices, including the prices here, even though extraction costs do not go up. When the excise tax on gasoline was reduced by 10¢, we saw that the price at the pump went down, but then continued to go up because of the price per barrel. Refineries here quickly saw their margins increase by 10¢, fully offsetting the excise tax. This suggests that refineries and oil companies, which seek to maximize their profits, as my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères was saying, saw a window of opportunity there.”
“When we start looking at the big picture of these massive deficits, we see that there are targeted measures to help the less fortunate, but there are also targeted supermeasures for big corporations that seem to benefit Brookfield, a company in which the Prime Minister still owns at least $10 million in shares, as far as we know.”
“Mr. Speaker, yes, this measure is well targeted and it helps people. It is the type of thing we are asking for. What is poorly targeted is the $10 billion invested last year to help oil companies. I quoted former environment minister Catherine McKenna, who said how much they do not need it and that they are taking advantage of the system. I have a question. We know that Brookfield has a $16‑billion stake in the pipelines. Were the investments in pipelines deliberately targeted? I am wondering the same thing about the subsidies for small modular reactors that will go to the oil sands, because Brookfield has subsidiaries in that sector. Was that support deliberately targeted?”
“It is like two people saying the same thing, but one speaks louder than the other, hoping that this makes their idea sound better. That is not how things work. It simply creates more noise for no reason. When push comes to shove, they have the same agenda, the same instincts and the same solutions. They are two parties with one idea. This is no longer opposition; it is an echo.”
“It brings up fond memories of the cheques that the Prime Minister sent to the rest of the country last year in the middle of the election campaign. That $814 million was paid for by Quebeckers, but they did not receive a cheque. When the Bloc Québécois demanded a refund, the Conservatives and Liberals voted against it. When it matters, they are far more alike than they let on. This motion is not a solution. It is posturing, and we do not vote for posturing. The poor Conservatives come up with ideas, only to see that the Liberals have already stolen them and even gotten them passed, not in a watered‑down version, but as a full course meal, including dessert. The Conservatives look at this and wonder what they should do. What do they do? They ratchet it up even more. It is one‑upmanship.”
“This is not a plan. It is a knee-jerk reaction. I have said it before and I will say it again: These measures are not targeted. Why not propose a targeted measure for people with lower incomes and for those living in rural areas, starting with farmers? I know why they did not go that route. The Liberals did not announce any targeted measures either. Once again, the more someone has, the more they get. It is even worse in Quebec. Some of the measures the Conservatives want to scrap do not even exist in Quebec, yet we are still going to foot the bill for their massive deficit. We always end up paying; that is just how it works. No, this measure is not for everyone. On top of all that, this is an administrative headache for the other provinces. It is obviously not thought through.”
“In the end, the government is left with lower revenues and a decision that it cannot see through to the end. That is not policy; it is passing the buck. It is going to take targeted measures, not unilateral cuts, to help those who really need it. We should not just throw money at everyone and hope it lands in the right place. However, implementing targeted measures is more complicated. Simplicity still seems to be very popular, even when it does not work. Coming up with targeted measures is not our friends' strong suit, and besides, gas consumption will go up. That does not help those who are struggling the most, it does not help the environment, and it costs a fortune. It is a bad idea all around. What is more, they want to extend this measure until the end of the year without knowing how long the international situation will last.”
“(1125) Experts like Luc Godbout have said it clearly: Lowering the gas tax, even temporarily, is a bad idea. This is not rocket science: It is a bad idea. It is bad for balancing the budget because the money disappears, and it is bad for the environment because, strangely enough, when gas is cheaper, people use more of it. He says we have to resist temptation. We cannot try half measures to see what happens or do something just because it sounds good at a press conference. We must resist temptation. In politics, however, resisting temptation is not always easy. Price reductions are an easy sell. The problem comes later, because the tax will have to be reinstated eventually, and that will not be easy. People get used to paying less, and then the cost goes up. It is like offering a permanent but temporary discount. People do not buy it.”
“Another problem is that the measure is not targeted and does not focus on helping those who need it most, those who are struggling to pay for groceries and rent. These are folks who earn very little and spend less on gas than the wealthy. The Liberal measure suspending the excise tax until September will save the lowest-income 20% of households $59, while the wealthiest 20% will save $211. That is three and a half times more. That is a lot of money that could have been used to provide more help those who need it most if it had been targeted. Under the Conservative plan, those with more money get more help. It is not complicated. It is simply not fair. Let me remind the House of something simple that everyone knows, except those who pretend not to understand.”
“Meanwhile, oil companies are raking in money as though it were an Olympic sport. Regardless of what happens elsewhere, we continue to pay. It is a convenient system, especially for those who can cash in. When even gas stations start offering discounts on gas, it might be because the price hikes are not as inevitable as some would have us believe. The Conservatives also say that deficits are dangerous. Their solution is to make it even bigger. There comes a point where it is not a contradiction; it is part of the game. They want to cut taxes and lose out on billions of dollars, while refusing to say where they would cut, because that would upset people. They prefer to stay vague than be transparent.”
“I want to quote from a Canadian Press article published last month: In an interview with The Canadian Press, former federal environment minister Catherine McKenna described the leaders of Canada's oil industry as “fat cats” close to Donald Trump who are “taking us for fools” and making “huge profits” from the war while “feeding the climate crisis”, “putting the economy at risk” and “demanding subsidies”. Wow. The Conservatives keep telling us that gas prices are 50¢ higher than they were in 2014. In 2014, the Canadian dollar was worth almost one U.S. dollar. Today, that is no longer the case. Oil is sold in U.S. dollars. That means that we are comparing apples to oranges. However, that is the kind of detail that gets in the way of a good story and they like telling stories.”
“Gas is being sold here at global prices, even though what is happening in the Strait of Hormuz is having no impact whatsoever on our supply. The gas we use here comes from the west and the United States, but prices are still keeping pace with the global panic. How convenient. While the price goes up, oil and gas companies are making record profits. These are not just good profits; they are record profits. That money does not even stay here. Most of it goes directly to the United States because most of the western oil companies are owned by American investors. We are paying more to make foreigners rich.”
“They throw in some other taxes to be scrapped to make it look like they are innovating, but everyone has seen through their ploy. We have also seen the real effect of this measure. Prices fall slightly and refinery margins rise. The result is that the consumer gains nothing. The deficit, meanwhile, takes a $2.4-billion hit. The trade-off is quite clear. There is no tangible benefit for regular folks, yet there is a hefty bill for everyone. Now the Conservatives are coming along and saying we should keep going and do more. When something is not working, the solution, of course, is to do more of the same. How very logical. While people are paying more at the pumps, the oil companies are unaffected. They are pocketing the entire price increase.”
“Analysts are watching this unfold and they are all saying the same thing: Today's Liberals are more pro-oil than the Conservatives are. That used to be the Conservative Party's turf. What is more, there are actually about 15 Liberal MPs who think this makes no sense, but they are protesting in silence. They are hiding in a corner, probably whispering over their coffee. The result is clear: The Conservative Party has been outmanoeuvred on its home turf. It is the same old story with today's motion. The government already suspended the excise tax over a month ago. It is a done deal. The Conservatives show up after the fact, out of breath, and say that they too want to suspend it, but that they want more than that.”
“Mr. Speaker, the poor Conservative Party has been outmanoeuvred by the Liberals on its own turf, not on some minor detail or side issue, but on a central priority. The Liberals are rolling out the red carpet for the fossil fuel industry as if it were a gala. They are telling the industry to step right in, make itself at home, and take everything. They want more oil, more gas, and more pipelines. We can talk about the climate later, when it is too late. From subsidies to suspended laws, anything goes, and they are not even embarrassed. Things got so bad that the former environment minister quit cabinet. He has been clear that what his government is doing today goes further than what Harper did. That is saying something. When a former Liberal minister says the government has gone too far, then things are really not looking good.”
“Why have the Conservatives become bigger spenders than the Liberals, and why do they want to run larger deficits than the Liberals?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend for his very interesting speech. Throughout his speech, and especially at the end, he drew a parallel between the measures put in place by the pro-oil Liberal Party and the Conservatives' position. In fact, since the new Prime Minister has been in office, there is no difference between these parties when it comes to defending the oil and gas companies. The Conservatives are saying that the Liberals keep running large deficits and that the Prime Minister has created a deficit that is twice as high as Justin Trudeau's deficits, which is mind-boggling. However, today, the Conservatives are proposing a measure that will swell the deficit even more. What does my hon. colleague think about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, as we have seen, the reduction in the federal excise tax has been offset by the increase in refining costs, which means that the price at the pump has not gone down. I would like my colleague to tell me the following: How many billions of dollars will all the measures in the federal government's budget cost? How do the Conservatives plan to pay for that? Will they further increase the already sky-high deficit? If their plan is to make cuts, what would they cut? Which taxpayers would pay more in taxes?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his very interesting speech. I will come back to what he said at the beginning about the deficit, which is lower than expected because growth was higher than expected, given that government spending was deferred. There is also another factor. The disaster mitigation and adaptation fund was used less than anticipated. If there had been more floods or fires, we would have had the expected deficit. I want to raise another point that my colleague mentioned later in his speech: the Canada Strong fund. That is $25 billion over three years. It does not appear on the balance sheet. In accounting terms, it is off-budget because it is asset-backed. However, as the member said, it still adds $25 billion to the government's debt, even if it does not appear in the deficit. Is that a good idea?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would first like to welcome the newly elected member and congratulate her on her excellent speech. I believe this is her first speech. Large parts of it were delivered in impeccable French. It is heartwarming to hear that. I was very moved by my colleague's concern for health care. That is the top priority for people in Quebec. People often speak to me about it. Unfortunately, our health care system is under strain. This is often due to a lack of funding. One demand the Bloc Québécois has been making of the government for years is to increase funding for the health care system. Health transfers are increasing by about 3% a year, but the costs of the system are rising by 6% a year. We are therefore in the same situation as we were during the Harper years. Will my hon.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a somewhat technical question. The bill impacts several laws, including the Bank Act. If I understand correctly, the government is making it easier for foreign entities to take control of Canadian banks. The government was elected on a promise to protect the public from President Trump, yet it now appears to be facilitating the takeover of Canadian banks by various entities, particularly American ones. Could this be because Brookfield is now registered in the United States so that it can continue to use tax havens, or is this really just kowtowing to the American president?”
“Mr. Speaker, the SMEs at risk of closing because of the tariffs do not need more loans. They need wage subsidies and direct support, without incurring debt. We do not want to be the bearer of bad news, but the crisis is far from over. Businesses are currently surviving thanks to contracts signed before the new tariffs took effect. Under the new tariffs, they are no longer competitive, and there will be no new contracts. The current crisis has not peaked. It is just the beginning, and the federal government must act now. Will the government improve its support measures to protect small businesses, please?”
“At least this bill is heading in the right direction, a direction where access to the network is not a luxury, but a basic necessity; where calling for help does not depend on one's postal code, as my colleague pointed out in her speech; and where people finally stop pretending the whole country is covered just because it looks good in a PowerPoint. This bill does not reinvent the wheel, but at least it tries to get it rolling. Again, I want to congratulate and thank the member for Compton—Stanstead for her important bill.”
“The Bloc Québécois has a simple reminder: If spectrum is a public asset, then it should serve the public, not only in profitable areas, not only in large urban centres, but everyone, including those who live at the far end of the road. It is true, Bill C-268 is not going to solve everything. There will still be reports, consultations and committees—the usual trio. There may also be a bit of stalling, because, let us face it, the CRTC sometimes moves at the speed of an old 56-kilobit-per-second modem that goes beep, beep, beep.”
“The bill aims to force the CRTC to ensure that coverage maps are not just fiction. It seeks to compel the government to revisit a policy framework that dates back to 2007, nearly 20 years, to a time when the word “streaming” still meant watching water flow. (1815) The fact is that spectrum is a rare resource—invisible, but rare, much like the government's willingness to listen. When two signals overlap, it creates noise. When no one uses it, it creates emptiness. In both cases, it helps no one. The current framework leaves a lot in the hands of the market by letting companies decide, which is fine as long as nothing goes wrong. In more rural areas, however, the market's motivation is about on par with that of a teenager on a Saturday morning: it exists on a theoretical level.”
“Bill C-268 is essentially saying, politely but firmly, that the government needs to either develop the network or let someone else do it. Meanwhile, we keep hearing that 99.5% of Canadians have access to LTE, the generation preceding 5G. That sounds pretty impressive, except for the fact that it still leaves about 200,000 people in a sort of digital void. Two hundred thousand people is not exactly a small village. We are talking about an entire region staring at their phones the way people used to watch the sky for snow, hoping something would fall. Even when coverage exists in theory, making a call on a rural road is often practically impossible. If someone has an accident in February, it is not just the ditch that is deep, but also the network. The bill seeks to bring some order to all that.”
“Connectivity assessments will be done, some related to public safety, because when things go wrong, a phone is not a luxury, but a lifeline. Data will be gathered on actual coverage, not the kind of data shown on PowerPoint slides. Ideally, proposals will be submitted to fix a system that quite frankly is falling apart at the seams. In short, consultations will be held, information will be compiled and analyzed, and then action must follow. Cell signal is not going to wait around for the next report before deciding to disappear or finally become available. The crux of the problem is simple: Companies can buy pieces of the spectrum—which is a public good, after all—and decide not to use them, but rather to keep them on a shelf like an old toaster that was bought on sale and never used.”
“In real life, it sometimes looks like a family dinner where everyone talks at once, except that no one really has the power to cut the cake when it is time for dessert. That said, the topics to be discussed are by no means trivial. One of them is competition, a Canadian fantasy that is often talked about but that remains mysteriously absent from monthly phone bills. Another topic is the deployment requirement, in other words, forcing companies to do what they are supposed to do, but do not always do. The topics also include the issue of unused licenses, those bits of spectrum lying dormant somewhere, probably in a virtual drawer, hoping they might have a use someday. The report will have to contain concrete information, not just impressions, but results.”
“In Canada, when we are not quite sure what to do, we write a report. Here, at least, there is a deadline, which, in the world of public policy, is already something of an adrenaline rush. Bill C‑268 also provides for an extensive consultation process, as should be the case for any good report. They will talk to everyone, including telecommunications giants and elected officials in rural municipalities, in other words, those who know very well what it is like to have no signal. They will talk to public safety agencies, academics, the CRTC and, obviously, any other stakeholder as needed. Loosely translated, it means that anyone who is breathing and has an opinion on the topic has a good chance of ending up on the list. On paper, it is beautiful. It gives the impression of a big, inclusive circle where everyone has their say.”
“The bill's objective is to modernize the way spectrum is managed, because things currently work as if the BlackBerry was the absolute peak of technological advancement. The bill would force the government to dust off its policy every five years. Five years is a long time in a world where phones become obsolete before we can even finish reading the box. There is also this almost subversive idea of asking the CRTC to verify whether companies are telling the truth when they claim to cover a region. I know, the word “verify” sounds radical, as in “really verify”. Apparently, on paper, Canada is covered just about everywhere, except where there are people, roads, or an accident on a stormy night. We are also asking the Minister of Industry to produce a report within 18 months.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his speech. The lesson to be learned from this parable is that we have a good Samaritan for connectivity in the House. I want to salute the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead and announce that my party will also support Bill C-268 , even if it is the member for Compton—Stanstead's bill. It goes to show that anything is possible. I am kidding, of course, there is nothing else to say. In all seriousness, this bill is important. I want to officially congratulate the hon. member for bringing it before the House. I think it could really make a difference. I congratulate and thank her. This is not a revolutionary idea. We want to bring signal to places where there is currently nothing but a total void.”