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 5 of 9.
“Mr. Speaker, what we need to do is seize this crisis as an opportunity to modernize by adopting the next-generation economic model adopted by Europe and most of the rest of the world, with the exception of Donald Trump's United States and, unfortunately, our own country under our government's excessively timid measures. We must accelerate transportation electrification. One of the most promising ways forward is to develop the resource and get that manufacturing happening here, not to invest $30 billion in Ontario's auto industry, which does not have that great a comparative advantage, as the results have shown.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his remarks. I could not agree with him more. The entire transportation electrification industry brings into focus one fundamental principle, which is predictability. While the transition to the electrification of transportation is under way in Europe, China, and everywhere else in the world other than the United States and Canada under this government, we are now seeing our American neighbours move backward. It appears that the Prime Minister and his predecessor are taking a page from Donald Trump's policies by doing less and destabilizing the supply chain, preferring to remain stuck in the past rather than looking to the future, while under this model, Quebec has everything it needs to succeed.”
“We can move away from the oil-based development model and resolutely choose a sustainable economy. If we commit to it, we can give Europe the ability to abandon the petro-state model without becoming dependent on China. We can be the new economic Eldorado. Unfortunately, Canada has chosen the petro-state model, which is not our own. When the government talks about being an energy superpower, it is referring to oil and gas. These are two things that Quebec would be wise to get rid of because they are making it poorer. The government is talking about pipelines so expensive that they will only break even if they operate at full capacity for 20 years, locking the next generation into this outdated model. When the Conservatives ask us to import Donald Trump's policies, they want to lock us into that model and throw away the key.”
“In this area, we have a comparative advantage. In fact, we have a unique asset: the resource itself. It is an asset that would have made us indispensable in the new economy, but that was not the choice Ottawa made. Our projects ended up underfunded. Many collapsed. Quebec lost money. Canada and its petro-state policy represent a missed opportunity for Quebec. Yet the current context gives Quebec the opportunity to take full advantage of its own strengths and to reconnect with its true nature. Quebec is the bridge between America and Europe. We are that bridge through language and culture, as we know, but we are also that bridge economically. While Quebec attracts only 9% of American investments in Canada, it represents 40% of European investments. The trend is the same in trade, even if it is less pronounced.”
“My colleague, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue , who was the Bloc Québécois industry critic before me, understood that. His region sits on rich deposits of critical minerals. When the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology undertook a study of batteries and the modernization of the auto industry, it became clear that there were two opposing models. The first one involves subsidizing the auto industry to help it modernize. That is what Ottawa did when it spent over $30 billion, more than 90% of which went to Ontario for projects where Canada had no real comparative advantage, except in winning a subsidy race with the United States. The results are clear today. However, there was another option. It would have been possible to support the development of an entirely new market: the processing of an existing resource.”
“The same could be said for Canada. When Canada says it wants to be an energy superpower, it is referring to oil and gas, but that is a pointless choice. Oil is a non‑renewable resource and climate change is real, whether or not people are willing to admit it. Then there are the electrostates, which are shedding their dependence on oil and switching to less unstable and more sustainable economic development. Europe has chosen this model, but there is one problem: That leaves it dependent on China, which currently controls the entire supply chain for that new economy. That is where Quebec comes in. The new clean economy is really our strength. We do not have oil; we have renewable energy. We have everything we need to become one of the main links in the electrostates' new supply chain. That is where our future lies.”
“There was another oil crisis in 1979 with the Iranian Revolution and the bankruptcies of Chrysler and American Motors Corporation. We are seeing something similar today. The world is realizing that dependence on oil goes hand in hand with instability, and this realization will certainly have lasting effects. Yesterday, I was reading an article by historian Nils Gilman in Foreign Policy magazine. He said that the new Cold War would be different from the previous one, which pitted capitalism against communism. The two competing models today are the petrostates and the electrostates. They have two different development models, two different types of infrastructure, and two different supply chains. Donald Trump's United States is a caricature of a petrostate, anxious to make the age of oil last as long as possible.”
“Now today's motion is playing right into Donald Trump's hands by proposing to replace CUSMA with the auto pact. I have to say that I do not really get this. Does it mean that everything is fine and we do not need to do anything? No, on the contrary. We are currently in a crisis. It is global, and we are right in the eye of the storm. Then again, crises are periods of accelerated change, and accelerated change can bring opportunities. The 1973 oil crisis, when the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries turned off the tap, put an end to the American auto industry's monopoly over the continent. The three-ton gas guzzlers that got five miles per gallon became obsolete. Japanese cars arrived en masse and were here to stay.”
“If the three countries agree to change the agreement, then it could be changed. If they do not agree, then it will remain as is. That is the current situation. Obviously, if the U.S. Congress decides to vote in favour of withdrawing from the agreement, then it can do so and give six months' notice at any time. Does anyone in the House seriously believe that the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, which require a 60% margin, will vote in favour of that? (1120) In the U.S., treaties are ratified and terminated by elected officials, not the President. Donald Trump does have power over how treaties are implemented, which does give him the ability to create chaos, but he cannot change or terminate treaties. Only Congress can do that, and it has never given any indication that it intends to so. It is quite the opposite, actually.”
“The agreement was signed. It later became the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, which then became the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA. Today, the wealth gap between Quebec and Ontario is half of what it was back then. It is important to remember that, in 1965, Quebec was mainly exporting raw materials. Our leading manufacturing industry was textiles and clothing. That meant low wages, occupational illnesses and a third-world economy. As for the idea that today's motion will help make Canada great again, things were not so great in Quebec. I want to emphasize that today's motion is ill advised when it comes to trade. The Conservatives are eating out of Donald Trump's hand. Under CUSMA, the three North American countries must sit down together on July 1, but that is all it provides for.”
“Under the auto pact, Canada agreed to lift its tariffs, but on condition that tariffs would only be abolished for companies that maintained a Canadian production level comparable to our share of the North American market, around 10%. The auto industry operated under this protectionism-lite, known as managed trade, for 23 years, until the 1988 Canada‑United States Free Trade Agreement. It sparked a rather heated debate at the time. Ontario was opposed to free trade, which it saw as a threat to the auto pact. Turning down a free trade deal with the United States was the 1980s version of “elbows up”. On the other side, Quebec, led by Jacques Parizeau, Bernard Landry and the steelworker union, supported free trade. For us, it was a way of gaining access to the world, rather than being locked up inside Canada. We know what happened next.”
“Since American cars were subject to high tariffs, American industries began assembling cars in Canada for the Canadian market. That is how Ontario's auto industry developed. However, it was not very efficient. Automakers had to do everything twice. The same model would be assembled in two plants: one in Canada and one in the United States. Cars were more expensive and fewer models were available. Such was the price of protectionism. That is why the auto industry demanded an end to this system. In the late 1940s, automakers began calling for free trade and an end to tariffs, but Canada refused, fearing it would lose its industry. That brings us to 1965, the year referred to in today's motion.”
“This motion goes against the interests of Quebec. However, that is not all. The Conservatives also want Canada to import Donald Trump's policies on pollution and climate change. Their way of resisting Donald Trump is to imitate him, to quietly turn Canada into the 51st state. As I was saying, their car is in reverse. That is not all. They want to set our trade relations back to 1965. This seems like a good time for a little history lesson. Ontario's auto industry developed in the early days of the automobile in the 1920s and 1930s. My colleagues may recall that the United States introduced very high tariffs after the crash of 1929 under the controversial Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. The rest of the world, including Canada, adopted reciprocal tariffs.”
“By the way, in 2025, 43% of the zero-emission vehicles sold in Canada were purchased by Quebeckers. I am not sure why the Conservatives want to punish Quebeckers with their motion today, but that is the way it is. In addition, 22% of new vehicles sold in Quebec in the last quarter were electric. That is a good thing. Every litre of gas put into a car is money that leaves Quebec. That money is transferred directly from Quebec to Canada, particularly to the west. Conversely, every kilowatt of electricity put into a vehicle is money that stays in Quebec, creates jobs in Quebec and funds Quebec's own government, schools and hospitals. This is not only an environmental issue; it is an economic issue. If only for that reason, the Bloc Québécois would be justified in opposing the Conservative motion.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my friend from Repentigny . Today's debate makes me think of Back to the Future , a movie that was popular when I was a kid. The characters used a car to go back to the 1960s. A few years later, Hollywood came out with Back to the Future Part II . The movie was no good, but at least they thought of using a car to propel themselves into the future. That is not the case in Ottawa. Here, the Conservatives keep wanting to bring us back into the past. Their car has just one gear: reverse. The motion essentially proposes three things. The Conservatives want to put an end to the transportation electrification initiative, scrap the rules that require manufacturers to make electric vehicles available and eliminate the measures that encourage consumers to choose electric vehicles.”
“Should the government's main objective not be to develop this sector and expertise in this area, and then enter into various partnerships, especially with Europe?”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. Times of crisis are known to bring about rapid change and opportunities for growth. We saw this during the first oil shock in 1973, which led to the rise of more fuel-efficient vehicles, such as the Japanese cars that are still on the roads today. In 1979, the second oil shock left Chrysler and American Motors bankrupt. We are probably going through something similar today. I think that the world is realizing that dependence on oil and instability go hand in hand, and something is going to come out of that. Does my colleague not think that our comparative advantage lies in processing the resources and critical minerals that we have here?”
“Mr. Speaker, why do they want to put an end to transportation electrification when every country in the world, except the United States, is working toward that? Also, as another member just said, would we not just be playing into Donald Trump's hands by reinstating the 1960s auto pact?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking my colleague and friend for his speech. He certainly knows what he is talking about, as Olivier Guimond used to say in his famous slogan. In his speech, my colleague often referred to the fact that this agreement contains clauses from another era that are no longer really found in modern agreements. I would like him to discuss that a bit more, focusing on the issue of ensuring that we do not import goods that are produced with child labour. There is also the issue of the environment. He talked about palm oil, deforestation, and so on. Then there is the whole issue of protecting the investments of Canadian mining companies. As he said, foreign investment often comes here to get incorporated in Canada, resulting in less accountability. Can he tell us how the agreement could have been better drafted?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the departing member, but I am not sure whether he will understand it. I would like to ask him about palm oil. Indonesia is one of the major producers of palm oil. Palm oil imports are skyrocketing in Canada. This is causing problems with deforestation of tropical forests and is affecting local populations, who are often forced to work on these plantations, as well as indigenous peoples. Does my colleague think that Canada should follow the European Union's example and create a special group to monitor developments in this area?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague told us that this agreement would be good for his riding and for the Quebec City area. I applaud that. I would like to know if he is aware of any businesses in his riding or in the Quebec City area that currently export goods to Indonesia. I would like him to give us some concrete examples. I would also like to know whether he has any reservations concerning respect for workers' rights. We know that a little over one million children work in Indonesia. There are health and safety issues related to chemicals used in the textile industry or in leather tanning, for example. What parameters have been included in this agreement to ensure that we do not import products that involve worker exploitation?”
“Prohibiting the promotion of hatred is one guideline, and yet there is a religious exemption. Why does the hon. member want to defend this tooth and nail?”
“Mr. Speaker, the amendment is based on the Criminal Code's prohibition against promoting hatred, which is a criminal offence. There have been situations, like that of imam Charkaoui, for example, who promoted hatred against the Jewish people. He was not prosecuted because of the religious exemption. Eta Yudin, vice-president of the Quebec chapter of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said that this demonstrates clear shortcomings in the Criminal Code, meaning that, in its current form, the legislation is incapable of protecting the public against hate speech. That explains the call for change that we are making today. What does it mean to defend freedom? Yes, everyone must be able to practise their religion and have their own ideas, even if it causes discomfort, but collectively, we must set boundaries.”
“Madam Speaker, a few years ago, preacher Adil Charkaoui said the following at a demonstration: “Allah, take care of these Zionist aggressors. Allah, take care of the enemies of the people of Gaza. Allah, identify them all, then exterminate them. And don't spare any of them.” Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions said that he did not have the tools to make an arrest following these hatred-promoting remarks. According to Eta Yudin, the vice-president of the Quebec branch of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, this shows clear gaps in the Criminal Code, which has not been adapted to protect the public from hate speech. Here is my question for my colleague: Should the government take action in that regard?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. I believe we are discussing a serious offence here, that of promoting hatred. Can the hon. minister remind us what promoting hatred means in legal terms?”
“Mr. Speaker, I went to an Alto event last week in Berthierville where the farmers of Lanaudière turned out in force. They are deeply worried. In my colleague's opinion, what does Bill C‑15 require in terms of taking rights away from expropriated individuals? If that was not part of Bill C-15, what would stop the project from moving forward, perhaps with a little more respect for the people it would affect?”
“Mr. Speaker, at the end of his speech, my colleague mentioned the Prime Minister 's interests in Brookfield and his other investments. I would like to ask him a question about the governance choices the Prime Minister is making and the potential benefits to Brookfield, for example. One example is his elimination of the minimum tax for American companies that use tax havens. Brookfield had just moved its headquarters from Toronto to New York to take advantage of this. His Bill C-15 eliminates the tax on web giants. However, we know that he has a stake in web giants. With regard to all the subsidies the Prime Minister will be giving to industries and how these align with economic development, does my colleague believe that there is sufficient separation between his decisions and his interests?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague more questions about high-speed rail and the contents of Bill C‑15 , which takes rights away from expropriated individuals. Last week, I attended high-speed rail consultations in the town of Berthier, in my riding, near Joliette. I witnessed a massive mobilization effort by farmers, who are deeply concerned. The government says that a corridor 10 kilometres wide is planned to decide where the high-speed rail will run. The government is also suspending existing remedies, and if something happens to any of the farm buildings, renovating or replacing them will not be possible for years. Farmers also want to know if overpasses will be provided to allow them to cross this potential route. They recalled that it took many years before they got one in my area. They suspect that none will be provided.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech. I want to come back to a point he raised about the open banking system, consumer protection, data portability and things like that. To his knowledge, has the Government of Quebec been consulted and is it on board with the content of Bill C-15 ? To his knowledge, has there been communication between the Government of Quebec and the federal government? What was the federal government's response to a collaboration on an issue that, honestly, should not be controversial?”
“My question is this: What message does this send to our international allies in countries that have implemented these taxes when they see Canada breaking ranks in this way and throwing itself into the arms of the American President?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and friend for his excellent speech and congratulate him on it. I would like to continue with the issue of taxing web giants. This is a matter of basic fairness. These multinationals use tax havens to avoid paying a single penny of taxes in Canada. The government had put in place a tax to offset that, but over the summer, the current Prime Minister said that he was going to put an end to all of this on the pretext that, as of July 21, Canada was going to have a new trade agreement with the United States to resolve tensions. That was on July 21, and the tax was not implemented. I was stunned to see this tax repealed in the budget and in Bill C-15 . In my opinion, there is no reason for that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my hon. colleague. First, does she agree that the main problem with regard to asylum claims is the processing time, which is currently more than 40 months? Let us look at Europe, for example, which is dealing with waves of migration and where officials have made a significant effort to reduce processing times. In France, the processing time is six months, and in Germany, it is eight months. Should this government do the same? Second, the last part of the motion talks about passing policies to “immediately expel foreign nationals convicted of serious crime in Canada”. Currently, convicted criminals must serve their sentences and are then deported. Under this motion, they would no longer have to serve their sentences here, and there is no guarantee that they would serve them in another country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her compassionate speech. My question has to do with a point that she raised in her speech and in her response to the government, and that is the atrocious processing times for claims. We are currently talking about roughly 40 months, whereas some European countries that are also facing waves of migration have implemented measures to speed up the process. In France, for instance, the wait time is around six months, and in Germany, it is around eight months or just slightly longer than that. Should the government take urgent action to reduce these unacceptable processing times?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a question concerning the last part of the motion, which reads: “(d) pass policies to immediately expel foreign nationals convicted of serious crime in Canada”. Under the existing legislation, a person who is found guilty of an offence must serve their sentence before being deported, while under the motion, such individuals would be deported without serving their sentence. I am thinking of the victims of Driver Inc. truckers, for example. What would the victims' family members and loved ones think if they were told that the person found criminally liable would no longer have to serve a sentence here and that they may not even have to serve their sentence abroad? Why put that in the motion? We asked other colleagues this question and none of them had an answer. Can the hon. member give us an answer?”
“Madam Speaker, at the end of their motion, the Conservatives ask the House to “pass policies to immediately expel foreign nationals convicted of serious crime in Canada”, but under the existing legislation, such individuals serve their sentences here in Canada and are then deported. Our concern is that people who are convicted of serious crimes will be immediately deported without having to serve their sentence. There is no guarantee that the person will serve that sentence outside of Canada, in another country. I am thinking about the families of victims of Driver Inc. truckers who lost their loved ones as a result of criminal negligence. We will have to tell them that the person who was found guilty will be deported without having served their sentence. What is the reasoning behind this part of the motion?”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his insightful comments. The government's intention is to create a new structure to reduce red tape and bureaucracy and to consolidate services that were scattered across various departments and agencies. Like my colleague, I am cautious. Will the government really succeed in simplifying the process and reducing bureaucracy? That remains to be seen. Given that housing and affordable housing are provincial responsibilities, what we are asking is that the funds be transferred directly to the provincial governments so that the money gets out the door faster and more housing can be built more quickly, as I have said several times.”
“However, the same dollar that was invested in year one will buy much less lumber and fewer doors and windows in years three, four or five. That money will therefore build far fewer homes, all because an agreement had to be reached, details needed to be negotiated and so on. Plus, there is the issue of red tape. That is why the Bloc Québécois has always said that areas of jurisdiction must be respected. When a dollar is earmarked for something, it must be sent directly to the provinces so that it can be put to use as quickly as possible. The need is there. With prices rising sharply due to inflation, the faster the dollar is spent, the more we get for our money. I would like to thank my colleague once again for her insightful remarks highlighting the needs of the FQM and the UMQ.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for her question. This is an ongoing issue. We have seen it. In this case, we are talking about Build Canada Homes. What will the delays be? The government must take quick action, in collaboration with Quebec through a memorandum of understanding, so that every dollar voted in the budget gets out the door as quickly as possible. We know that the cost of building housing is skyrocketing. A one-year delay represents a very significant percentage increase, and it is even worse for a two- or three-year delay. What we have seen in recent years is that, for Quebec, federal programs administered through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation take years to make an impact. A dollar voted in year one could end up only getting out the door in year three, four or even five.”
“It skipped town, dropped everything and left families and people in need of low-cost housing to cope with the disaster. We do not want that to happen again. That is why respecting jurisdictions is important.”
“The federal government is having a hard time carrying out its core missions, and yet it is always sticking its nose into the areas of jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces to get some some visibility. There is a housing crisis. We applaud the fact that funds are being allocated to address it. Ideally, we would have preferred that the money be transferred. As I was saying, my fear and the fear of the Bloc Québécois is that this is a priority for the government now, but will it still be a priority in four years? In recent decades, we have witnessed the federal government in Ottawa disengage from social housing and low-income housing overnight, leaving a path of destruction in its wake, and yet, social housing is not its jurisdiction.”
“Madam Speaker, the need is great. There is a crisis, so yes, urgent action is needed. We are asking the federal government and the Quebec government to come to an agreement. They signed an MOU. They seem to be in agreement. I want to make sure that the areas of jurisdiction are respected. Why? It is because we want the federal government to do a good job in its own areas of jurisdiction, which it is not currently doing. Take the Cúram software, for example. The government is unable to properly pay out OAS benefits. Development costs for this software have skyrocketed. In terms of EI, the government is unable to make reforms because the software is faulty. It is unable to care for veterans or fund health care.”
“In our opinion, the simplest solution would be to pay out the $13 billion, to transfer Quebec's share to the Government of Quebec and entrust it to build social and affordable housing. That would eliminate an administrative level and a ton of red tape and paperwork for everyone. The money could be sent directly to where it is needed and housing could be built a lot faster. That is what we want and that is what we are calling for.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment and question. In the most recent budget, the government committed to keep the deficit at just $78 billion this year. That is double Justin Trudeau's deficits and makes him look positively frugal. The government is saying that it is going to make cuts to the public service, that it is going to cut 40,000 jobs, which is huge. We are still waiting and we are interested to see that. We have been told that those jobs may be replaced by AI. We will see. What we do know is that the government is putting a new program in place to try to simplify the task for organizations and stakeholders. We will see if it succeeds.”
“That is what worries us here. If there is good co-operation between Ottawa and Quebec on this issue, then that is perfect. However, we would like the bill to be more detailed and include more guarantees to ensure that the government continues to report on the appropriate use of funds. We would also like to have access to the memorandum of understanding in order to confirm that that is the case, but we have been told that we cannot currently read it. The bill makes the Crown corporation an agent of the Crown. As such, it is given full powers and would not have to comply with any municipal bylaw. Again, we are being asked to blindly trust the government, but we are not prepared to do that.”
“Madam Speaker, it is not complicated. We have been in a housing crisis for several years now. Housing prices have skyrocketed, and people no longer have access to home ownership. There are not enough condos, apartments or houses. More importantly, there is a huge shortage of social housing. The most vulnerable people are making immense sacrifices to find housing, often in unacceptable conditions. Ottawa is providing $13 billion over four years, and everyone welcomes that. Finally, Ottawa is fully acknowledging the current crisis, and the government is introducing a bill and allocating $13 billion in the budget to address it. We are very pleased about that. However, as I was saying, this falls under Quebec's jurisdiction. Ottawa has been known to bring in projects and then pull out of them overnight, leaving a mess.”
“We also really need to have access to the text of the agreement to make sure Ottawa fully complies with all of the Quebec government's priorities. In closing, I would just like to remind the House that the bill gives the Crown corporation Build Canada Homes the status of agent of the Crown, which gives it the powers of the government, including the power to expropriate land, the power to avoid paying municipal taxes and the power to get around Quebec's laws and municipal bylaws. We were told that this was not the government's intention and that the issue will be corrected in the agreement, but we are keeping an eye on that.”
“We want guarantees to ensure that taxpayer dollars, money from the people we represent, is invested properly and is not diverted. In the meantime, we remain extremely concerned. However, Ottawa has signed a memorandum of understanding with Quebec. As I said, Quebec was the first province to sign on, which is quite rare and exceptional. Caroline Proulx, the minister in Quebec City, and my friend, whom I wish to acknowledge, noted in a press release that “the agreement announced today is a major step forward in housing. It is significant and fully respects Quebec's jurisdiction, priorities, and legislative framework.” This gives us enough assurance, even though we have not yet seen the document, to say that we will support the bill at this stage. I have no doubt the committee will find ways to improve it. We will work on that.”
“Quebec had to step in to clean things up, and I am genuinely concerned that with the latest intrusion into an area that falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, the same thing will happen in a few years' time. When this issue is no longer fashionable, when it is no longer in vogue, the government will slash the whole program, and Quebec will once again have to pick up the pieces and go back to the drawing board. If my party has to vote on the bill as it stands, we would have some reservations. We support the principle of social housing, but the bill falls far short of the government's commitments. There are far fewer guarantees. We are not prepared to sign a blank cheque for the government and say we trust it and we know it will do a great job. We will not do that because we want the government to be held accountable.”
“We do not just want more housing. We want more truly affordable housing, which ideally means more social housing. We would have liked to see a guarantees regarding social housing in this bill. We would have liked to see guarantees for local purchasing in construction and for environmental standards. We would have liked to see guarantees for transitional housing to lift people out of homelessness. We would have liked to see a standard that ensures fairness between the provinces to make sure that Quebec gets its fair share. As I said at the beginning of my speech, Ottawa has a record of doing some great things on social housing, but overnight, the government changed priorities and left things in a state of ruin.”
“Given what the minister has said in media interviews, FRAPRU is now concerned because the Build Canada Homes tool box comes with financial levers that the government can use to have the private sector develop housing. Some of that housing could be considered affordable, but there are no guarantees. Organizations like FRAPRU believe that this will undermine the mission of Build Canada Homes. Are we talking about projects where support or subsidies will be granted to construction companies or real estate developers to build more housing, or will the spirit of the bill truly prevail, meaning that more affordable housing will be built? Supply and demand dictates that if there is more housing overall, prices will tend to fall. However, the members of the Bloc Québécois are asking for more than that, as is FRAPRU.”