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 4 of 9.
“It enshrines the right to self-determination and self-government for the Red River Métis, recognizing that this right is inherent and protected by the Constitution and is no longer dependent on the federal government's goodwill. As for its contents, the treaty begins with the internal governance of the Red River Métis: citizenship, institutions, elections, accountability, government operations. It does not infringe on the areas of jurisdiction of other levels of government. It is the result of a process of co-development and ongoing negotiations between Canada and the Manitoba Métis Federation, where the Red River Métis defined their own governance priorities rather than having a unilateral model imposed on them.”
“The bill addresses the shameful way in which Canada has treated the Métis in the past by marginalizing them, stripping away their rights, imposing military repression and making them invisible in the education system. The bill finally grants express legal and political recognition. It is consistent with the goal of nation-to-nation co-operation in that it formally recognizes the Manitoba Métis Federation as the government of the Red River Métis and establishes a lasting policy framework for intergovernmental relations. The treaty clearly recognizes the political unity of the Red River Métis as a distinct indigenous community with a recognized democratic government, rather than merely a collection of scattered communities.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois clearly supports the principles of the bill. I commend the minister and thank her for her speech. Bill C-21 implements the first modern treaty between Canada and a Métis government, which represents a historic milestone for the Red River Métis. Recently, in committee, the president of the Manitoba Métis Federation, David Chartrand, indicated that the treaty is more symbolic than anything else. The Métis people are not asking for funding or anything else from the federal government. They are simply asking for the right to have the recognition treaty that was promised to them a long time ago. This bill corrects a historical injustice by making good on the promise of a treaty made to Louis Riel and his provisional government 150 years ago when Manitoba entered into Confederation.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is far from optimal. The decisions being made are never optimal when there are overlaps and duplications. It is a reminder that we would be much better off if we managed 100% of the programs ourselves, using our own data. We would be much better off in terms of research, social services and education.”
“What I am asking, once again, is that the federal government take care of its own constitutional responsibilities, which it is currently failing to do, and that it provide adequate funding to meet the provinces' needs.”
“Mr. Speaker, the problem is that there is no federal department of education since education, including post-secondary education, is the constitutional responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. Whether Ottawa chooses to give out fewer scholarships or stop recognizing a particular program, this amounts to outright interference. Given that we pay too much in federal taxes, Ottawa's role has historically been to transfer those funds to the provinces so they can manage a good education system, since they have the expertise and can choose what to fund. I am by no means an expert on higher education and am not qualified to say which programs should be recognized, funded, and so on, but that expertise does exist, and it lies with the provinces.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would tell the parliamentary secretary that he is in a better position than I am to answer his own question, and he knows it, considering that he was once Quebec's finance minister. At a time when the federal government is imposing austerity to reach its zero deficit, he opted for the easy solution. I want to point out that Mr. Massé, who was a member of Jean Chrétien's government, spoke publicly of the plan that I mentioned. The Liberal government itself said it was doing that. At a time when Ottawa was cutting transfers and imposing austerity, the other provinces also had to go down the path of austerity. In Quebec, with a half-state and half the means, we managed to accomplish miracles. I commend former premier Pauline Marois for her hard work.”
“The issue we are discussing here has resulted from the cuts made in the 1990s, which limited the ability of Quebec and the provinces to take action in education, particularly with regard to student grants. Because Ottawa had surpluses, it was able to intrude, but without a comprehensive framework for accountability. This intrusion was possible because of the fiscal imbalance. In my view, the bottom line is that it would be much better for us to manage our own finances.”
“The authors discuss the neoliberal trajectory of Ottawa and the other provinces, which are becoming more like the United States in terms of inequality and poverty. In contrast, things in Quebec are more like what one finds in Scandinavian countries, which are the best according to these criteria. In particular, Quebec has a unique approach to families, especially single-parent families, with a game-changing family policy that covers parental leave, child care and more. In addition, tuition fees are much lower. A few years ago, economist Joseph Stiglitz applauded this kind of policy in a speech at the Observatoire québécois des inégalités. He noted that public policy plays an essential role in combatting poverty and praised the Quebec model. This demonstrates our ability to take charge of our own affairs.”
“During the 10 years that Trudeau was in office, an additional 109,000 public servants were hired. Imagine if Quebec and the provinces had hired an additional 100,000 nurses. Our health care system would be in much better shape, as would our education system, if it had been given those kinds of resources. Over the past few decades, Quebec has chosen a different path from the other provinces despite Ottawa's budget cuts. While the other provinces cut social services and leveraged tuition fees, Quebec chose to create new social programs to reduce poverty and inequality. My source is an excellent book published by the University of Toronto Press in 2017, Combating Poverty: Quebec's Pursuit of a Distinctive Welfare State .”
“In fact, the expert panel calculated that the amount it cost the Government of Quebec to deal with this interference exceeded the amount of the transfers, leading the panel to conclude that it would be more cost-effective to just turn down the money. That is the problem with the fiscal imbalance and interference, as we are seeing with higher education. There is $1 billion being spent here and $10 billion being spent there, with no oversight and no obligation to produce results, when Ottawa does not even provide any direct services to the public, except to first nations and veterans, and we all know how that is working out. Take, for example, the fact that the quality of services to the public is declining despite the recent significant increase in the number of public servants.”
“Before the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue veterans' hospital was transferred to Quebec, each procedure performed there cost two and a half times more than a similar procedure performed in a Quebec-run long-term care facility. That is the waste caused by fiscal imbalance. Since Ottawa has lots of resources, it it not as concerned about managing them well. In 2014, the Government of Quebec released an expert panel's report on federal intervention in the health and social services sector from 2002 to 2013. The Government of Quebec identified 37 federal programs that interfered in health care. It found that, while health transfers were not very generous in terms of dollar amounts, the interference was very significant and very costly to manage, and the public did not get its money's worth.”
“Once it has paid for the most essential services, it has no more room to manoeuver, while the federal government has no such constraints. It has so much money left over that it can afford to meddle in affairs that are none of its business, and it feels no need to manage its programs efficiently. That is the problem, and that is why having Ottawa issue grants is a problem. (1120) The waste in the current federal system is a natural result of the fiscal imbalance. For example, comparisons show that it costs Ottawa two and a half times more to process an EI claim than it costs Quebec to process a social assistance claim. It costs the federal government four times more to issue a passport than it costs the Quebec government to issue a driver's licence.”
“The idea was to weaken Quebec, to deprive it of its means, and then to intervene through foundations, notably through the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. While we are discussing federal waste in Ottawa, Quebec is struggling to fulfill its responsibilities, which include virtually all public services, including education and higher education. I am again referring to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who repeats the following every year in every fiscal sustainability report: The cost of Quebec's and the provinces' responsibilites is rising faster than their revenues, and Ottawa is collecting more money than it needs to fulfill its own responsibilities. The consequences of this fiscal imbalance are manifold. The Quebec government is stretched to the limit.”
“However, to ensure that the money paid to the foundations was taken out of the books, the government could not have direct control over it. This led to the scathing report that former auditor general Sheila Fraser published in 2005, with a chapter 4 entitled “Accountability of Foundations”. She found that the government had transferred $9 billion to 15 foundations between 1998 and 2002. Those $9 billion would amount to around $17 billion today. She found that the government had no control over $7 billion of the $9 billion. These foundations included the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, but also foundations in other areas, such as the Canada Foundation for Innovation, Genome Canada, and so on.”
“Deep cuts to health and social services transfers—a 40% reduction in transfers over three year—forced the Quebec government to make cuts of its own. Everyone remembers nurses retiring en masse and the difficulties in the education system. We have never fully recovered from that. Meanwhile, Ottawa began running large surpluses, surpluses so indecent in a time of austerity that they had to be covered up. This is how the idea arose to create a series of foundations. By pouring large sums into these foundations, the government emptied the federal coffers, shrank its surplus on paper and was able to then continue refusing to increase transfers that would have kept services afloat for the people Quebec is responsible for.”
“He used his expertise on the machinery of government to make some major changes that would make it so that Quebec would be stretched to the limit, while Ottawa would have plenty of financial leeway. He thought Quebeckers would begin to see the federal government as their government, the one they could turn to to meet their needs and to help them get things done. That way, they would go from being Quebeckers to being Canadians. Marcel Massé made no secret of what he was doing. In speaking about Lucien Bouchard, Quebec's premier at the time, he said, “When Bouchard has to make cuts, those of us in Ottawa will be able to demonstrate that we have the means to preserve the future of social programs.” He succeeded in part.”
“We are dealing with the same level of cutbacks when it comes to social services and higher education. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed this inequity between the levels of government. He looks at the revenue and expenditures and has pointed out that Ottawa has more room to manoeuver when it comes to public finances. Why is that? It is because, when the 1995 referendum happened, Ottawa got spooked. After realizing that it was essentially absent from Quebeckers' lives, the federal government began a major government restructuring that would benefit the federal government at Quebec's expense. At the time, Paul Martin was the finance minister, and the president of the Treasury Board was Marcel Massé, who was also a former clerk of the Privy Council.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to provide a bit of historical background. In the 1990s, Ottawa chose to cut transfers to the provinces to balance its books, specifically in the area of higher education. That is why there are now federal grants. When G7 leaders were complaining about protests against austerity outside their Parliament buildings, former prime minister Jean Chrétien told them that he did not have that problem. Basically, he cut transfers to the provinces, the provinces then cut their services, particularly in education, and the protests were held outside the provincial legislatures. That situation was never corrected. Chrétien's cuts were followed by cuts made by Harper, then Trudeau and now the current government. For example, Ottawa will soon be covering barely 18% of health care costs when it originally committed to covering half.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to stay on the topic of graduate scholarships offered by the federal funding agencies. My colleague reminded us that there are not enough of them to meet the needs of the student population and that they have not been adjusted for inflation in 20 years. What is more, the Quebec Student Union requested that the duration of scholarships be extended from 12 to 24 months for master's programs and from 36 to 48 months for doctoral programs. I am not aware of the latest developments on the government's side, so I would like to know if the government has agreed to this, because, as we know, completing a master's degree takes at least two years and a doctoral degree takes at least four. Has the government listened to the demands of the student associations?”
“Mr. Speaker, here is my question for my colleague. Why is he going to such lengths to attack the Conservative Party? Where I come from, when someone is down, the right thing to do is to stop kicking them. Things are not going well for the Conservatives right now. Some of their members crossed the floor, and now the Liberal Party has a majority. It is true that the newly elected MPs have not yet been sworn in, but the Liberals won a simple majority in the most recent elections. If their agenda is so important and they do not want to debate the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, then why not call for a vote in the House to get back to the government's agenda?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague and friend for her extremely thorough speech. It highlights her deep dedication to her work. She brought up comparisons to the Five Eyes and to things being done in other countries. She also said that there would be some leeway for the committee to improve this bill. She touched on a few topics. Can she give us a few ideas, other than the ones she mentioned in her speech, about possible improvements to this bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her detailed speech, which provided a thorough analysis of the situation. It was very interesting. I understand that there has been some criticism. Since the minister just said that he was open to making improvements in committee, I have the same question as the member who spoke before me. I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that this bill is worth debating and examining in committee.”
“This would be a gift to oil companies that would not be passed on to consumers because the price of crude oil is determined internationally and prices are soaring, which means more profit. Foreign capital owns about 75% of the oil industry in the west, and their profits go overseas. Why go into debt for that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the motion's last two points. First, the Conservative Party estimates that eliminating clean fuel standards would save seven cents per litre, but the actual savings would be zero cents per litre. This is because the Conservative Party's numbers are based on old data from back when oil prices were much lower than they are now with the current crisis and price spikes that have put oil on par with biofuels. Their math is wrong, and this measure would be pointless. Second, the last point is about eliminating the industrial carbon tax. Does my colleague realize that this will lower the cost of gas at the pump by zero cents per litre because the price of crude oil is determined by the market?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled by the Conservative party's calculations, particularly in today's motion. For example, the Conservative Party claims that we would save seven cents per litre when it comes to the clean fuel standard, which they want to eliminate. This is based on an estimate by the Parliamentary Budget Officer from some time ago, in which he compared the cost of biofuels to that of oil. However, since then, we have seen a sharp rise in oil prices. The price of oil has risen and is now on par with that of biofuels. If this measure were abolished tomorrow morning, the seven-cent-per-litre reduction would no longer apply; it would actually be zero cents per litre. Why would they not be more thorough in their calculations when moving motions in the House?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to find that, when members are speaking French in the House, English-speaking members often speak louder than those speaking French. This happened during my colleague's speech, and it is happening at this very moment as I prepare to ask a question. This occurs on both sides of the House. It is a deeply saddening situation. Considering the current spike in gas prices, should we not be doing more to limit our dependence on the oil economy, such as by expanding the electrification of transportation and by doing more than what is currently being done?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. parliamentary secretary on his content-rich speech. I would like to hear his thoughts on what tax specialist Luc Godbout said a few months ago about how we need to resist the temptation to lower the gas tax for either budget-balancing or environmental reasons. I would add to that the pressure that will be felt when the fuel excise tax comes back into effect on Labour Day. Will public pressure not be so strong that it will be difficult to bring that tax back in September? Finally, would it not have been wiser to implement targeted measures for the trucking industry and for people in greater need, for example, rather than temporarily suspending the fuel excise tax?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have two quick questions for my colleague. First, the total cost of everything being proposed here amounts to $13 billion annually, which would increase the deficit by that amount. Would it not have been better to propose more targeted measures? Second, with regard to the clean fuel standard, the motion says that it would save seven cents per litre. These calculations are based on the price difference between biofuels and oil at a time when oil was cheaper. However, with the current price surge, the two are now the same price. This means we go from saving seven cents per litre to saving nothing. Why does my colleague want to keep this part of the motion?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to say, but 30 seconds is not enough time to get through it all. The current crisis revolves around an oil shortage and rising costs. The answer is not to get even more oil out of the ground, but to reduce our reliance on it. If the member would stop talking long enough to let me answer in the few seconds I have left, I would tell her that the solution is not to rely even more on oil and suffer through the kinds of price spikes we are seeing now. The solution is to make oil a thing of the past. Economist Paul Krugman says that countries that are less oil-dependent are less affected.”
“What it boils down to is, should the deficit be increased? I do not believe it should. We clearly need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and maybe find a better way to collect taxes from the oil companies, which are primarily foreign-owned. For every dollar of profit they earn, 75¢ leaves Canada. This merits investigation.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are also dealing with inflation, where people are paying more for everything. There is that element. Also, in the trucking industry, for example, trucks cannot be converted to a different technology overnight. They must continue to be filled with diesel, which is more expensive. Would a measure targeting that aspect have been more effective and less costly? I would note that what is being proposed today will cost over $13 billion per year. That is a lot of money, and it will all be added to the deficit. Is that really the most effective solution? We need to work on more targeted measures. The inflation caused by the war started by Donald Trump and his ally Israel is clearly having an impact, but is the solution to adopt measures like this one that will cost a fortune?”
“Mr. Speaker, as economists, I am sure we have a number of passions and topics of conversation in common. First, Quebec has its own standards, which means that, if Ottawa were to change its standard, nothing would change in Quebec. Second, the Conservatives have made up this wacky number, seven cents per litre, based on an outdated analysis from when oil prices were lower. Now they are putting this out there at a time when oil prices are rising and are equivalent to biofuel prices. Getting rid of that standard would be nothing more than a gift to oil companies, just like getting rid of the industrial carbon tax would boost their bottom line without bringing down the price at the pump. What this really is is lobbying in the interest of the oil industry.”
“These are missed opportunities for Quebec. The current global context is giving us the opportunity to make the most of Quebec's strengths, to reconnect with our true nature and to act as a bridge between North America and Europe. However, neither the official opposition party nor the current government are promoting that approach.”
“As Krugman pointed out, however, the problem is that China is manufacturing everything at the moment. However, we could play a role here. Quebec has everything it takes to do so because our strength lies in the new clean economy. We do not have any oil, but we have renewable energy. We have everything it takes to be one of the key links in the new supply chain for states that are working to reduce their dependence on oil and gas. That is where our future lies. We need to support the development of a whole new sector, that of processing the resources that we have already. We need to embrace this shift toward reducing our dependence on oil and gas so that we can compete with China, which already has a huge advantage. However, that is not the choice that Ottawa has made so far. That is not what today's motion is proposing.”
“In doing so, the United States is becoming impoverished, falling behind technologically and losing influence in a world rushing toward the energy revolution. In the end, the United States is not simply burning fossil fuels, but also destroying its future. That seems to be what is being proposed here and it also seems to correspond to the measures the government is taking in the House. When the government says it wants to be an energy superpower, it is talking about oil and gas. It is forging blindly ahead. Oil is a non‑renewable resource, and climate change is real, whether we like it or not. The takeaway from the current crisis is that we urgently need to reduce our dependence on oil and aim for more stable and more sustainable economic development. Europe is choosing that path. We can do the same.”
“Krugman notes that under President Joe Biden, the United States took much needed steps to develop their own electrotech sectors, notably batteries and electric vehicles. It sought to accelerate the growth of renewable energy in general. However, the Trump administration has cancelled all of Biden's renewable energy programs and is also actively trying to block private commercial investments in this sector. Is that what needs to happen in Canada? That is my question. Krugman says that until America frees itself from Trump's obsession with fossil fuels, if it ever does, China's lead in renewable energy production will likely be insurmountable. He concludes that it is nonetheless unfortunate to see the United States self-destruct and yield the most important industry of the future to China.”
“Krugman notes that China's manufacturing sector is larger than those of the United States, Japan, Germany and South Korea combined. While China is strong in many industries, it is utterly dominant in electrotechnology, the cluster of solar panel, wind turbine, battery and electric vehicle industries at the heart of the renewable energy revolution. Krugman cites the Wall Street Journal, which notes that China's green industrial complex reigns supreme. China accounts for more than 80% of global production in all these sectors, with the exception of wind turbines, where China's share is 60%, with Europe retaining a significant role. China uses most of its production within its own economy. It is designed not only for export, but to reduce its dependence on oil and gas.”
“(1115) American economist Paul Krugman wrote a blog post on this issue today. He points out that soaring oil and gas prices, combined with the threat of shortages, highlights the risks of relying on fossil fuels. He demonstrates that economies that are more reliant on oil and gas have been more impacted by the soaring prices than those that use other sources. I would therefore like to repeat my question: Is the solution to remain reliant on fossil fuels? Paradoxically, Krugman explains that while Trump cancelled the previous administration's plan to develop more renewable energy, his adventurism in Iran has sparked a global rush to invest in solar power, wind power and batteries. Where will the world procure most of the renewable energy equipment it seeks? From China. As we know, China is the workshop of the world.”
“In the long run, consumers are the ones who lose out, because Donald Trump's reasoning, like that of the Conservatives today, neglects the savings that come from energy efficiency, in addition to completely ignoring the costs related to health and the environment. A few weeks ago, during our last sitting week, the Conservatives proposed removing standards and incentives for the electrification of transportation. The party is against high-speed rail. We are in favour, but with reservations about how the expropriation will be done, considering the safeguards that were removed in Bill C‑15 . Through all of this, the Conservatives are trying to keep us completely dependent on oil by opposing any other solution. That is their response to the current skyrocketing prices. It is something to think about.”
“In Canada, we refer to the number of litres per kilometre. I would remind members that this standard was introduced well before the government's commitment to address climate change. The corporate average fuel economy program, or CAFE, was adopted in 1975 to make the United States less dependent on foreign oil. At the time, vehicles averaged only 13 miles per gallon. That is why it was introduced. Abolishing such a standard encourages manufacturers to sell larger, more polluting vehicles, since selling those vehicles is more lucrative. It also makes industry and consumers more vulnerable to price shocks and oil shocks.”
“Many experts, including Luc Godbout, believe that this is not the right course of action, even temporarily. A few months ago, Mr. Godbout said that we need to resist the temptation to lower the gas tax for either budget-balancing or environmental reasons. As members know, it will be hard to reinstate this tax later because Canadians will have to absorb the increase. As I said, the government needs to take targeted measures, which are more effective. However, it would seem that both sides of the House would prefer to take broad measures. Is it wise to allow as much pollution as there is in Donald Trump's America, in other words, unlimited pollution? As members know, President Trump announced the repeal of the vehicle efficiency standard that has steadily increased vehicle range per gallon, as they say south of the border.”
“In their motion, the Conservatives also propose eliminating the industrial carbon tax. However, as they themselves indirectly acknowledge in their motion, this measure would not even result in a savings of 1¢ per litre. It is nothing more than a gift to the oil companies. Oil companies have production costs, and the price, which is determined globally, is rising. Consequently, oil companies are making more profit, and if we were to eliminate the industrial carbon tax for oil companies, they would receive yet another windfall that would fill the gap and remove any incentive to pollute less. As I said, the price of crude oil depends on global market prices. I would caution the government and the Conservatives when it comes to the excise tax.”
“Given the current state of public finances, more targeted measures should have been proposed, ones that cost less and have the most impact on the cost of living. Furthermore, the calculations in the motion are ridiculous. For example, the motion estimates that eliminating fuel standards would save seven cents per litre. However, that is completely untrue, because with today's high oil prices, biofuels now cost about the same as fossil fuels, so there are no extra savings to be made on that front. This idea that we would save seven cents per litre is far-fetched. I would also like to point out that Quebec has its own standards. Basically, what they are proposing here is that, since the price of oil and gas is rising, we should consume more of it. What a brilliant idea.”
“I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mirabel , who is also often my friend. As we know, gas prices have skyrocketed since the start of Donald Trump's and Israel's war against Iran. The military operation, which began on February 28, led Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, that handles 20% of global oil. The U.S. forces had anticipated this and warned that it would happen, and it did. Today, we are dealing with the Conservative motion, and the Prime Minister just announced that he is suspending the excise tax until Labour Day, which will cost about $2.5 billion. This is a blanket measure, but a targeted one might have been a better idea. In today's motion, the Conservatives are proposing a measure with a total annual cost of $13 billion, which would increase the deficit by 20%.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are currently witnessing a spike in hateful acts and hate speech. Promoting hate is a criminal offence. The first groups targeted by hate speech and hateful acts are members of the Jewish faith followed by members of the Muslim faith. In October 2024, preacher Adil Charkaoui called for the death of Jews in a prayer he gave at a protest. Under the Criminal Code, this constitutes the offence of promoting hatred. Why should we allow the religious exemption to be used as an excuse for promoting hatred? Why not ban it in all its forms?”
“We support freedom of expression and religion, but not to the extent of allowing the offence of promoting hatred. Does my hon. colleague believe that the preacher Adil Charkaoui had a right to call for the death of Jews in his street prayers?”
“Mr. Speaker, freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights. However, we have collectively agreed that freedom of expression cannot extend to the offence of promoting hatred. These are not trivial matters, differences of opinion or insults. Promoting hatred is no trivial matter. The issue here is eliminating the religious exemption in the Criminal Code for this offence. That means that we continue to guarantee freedom of expression and freedom of religion, but not to the extent of promoting hatred. I would remind the House that, in October 2024, the preacher Adil Charkaoui called for the death of Jews in his prayer at a protest in Montreal. Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions determined that he could not prosecute him. That is why this change is being made.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that the offence of promoting hatred involves publicly communicating with the wilful intent to target a group. I would like to hear my honourable colleague's thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebec no longer has any automobile manufacturing. There was a plant that made Camaros in Laval's north end a few decades ago. When that closed, Jean Chrétien decided to abandon that industry on the pretext that auto manufacturing belonged to Ontario. The Liberal legacy lives on. I recognize that these are very important jobs and that this is a very important industry for Ontario. I would also remind my colleague that this industry, like all others, is constantly evolving. We are facing crises, so we need to be able to adapt in order to face the future during this crisis and deal with Donald Trump's hostile policies, even though the U.S. will always remain our largest partner. What I am proposing is to accelerate the electrification of transportation, including in the automotive sector.”