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 6 of 9.
“However, there are no guarantees in this bill, so that is a concern. (1310) I would like to mention a tenant advocacy organization in Quebec, the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, or FRAPRU, which is located in Montreal. After reading an interview published by The Canadian Press on February 7, members of FRAPRU publicly expressed their concern that Build Canada Homes could be used to financialize housing. They said, and I quote, “The cat is out of the bag. After promising to build affordable housing through Build Canada Homes, the...government's new strategy is becoming clear. Build Canada Homes will be nothing more than an investment bank”. These people, who are on the ground fighting for tenants' rights so that we have social housing and so that people can live with dignity, had a lot more to say.”
“Build Canada Homes has considerable latitude to do great things. However, depending on the government's goodwill, it also makes it possible for housing projects intended for social housing or transitional housing to be converted into housing projects that would not really be affordable. There are no restrictions in this regard. That is obviously a serious concern. Yes, the government said so. Yes, it was in the presentations last fall. Yes, the Build Canada Homes website says there will be money for transitional housing for people trying to get out of homelessness. The government says that funds will be allocated and that there will be partnerships with the provinces. That is what we want, so we welcome that. There will be opportunities to fund co-ops, social housing and low-income housing. We welcome that, too.”
“Again, the Build Canada Homes website states that the government would aim for regional fairness, but this is not in the bill. What does regional fairness mean? There are no standards or obligations. Build Canada Homes will not be required to say that each province will have its share. What we have learned over the past years is that when this standard is not included, Quebec does not get its share. This is a matter of great concern for us. It is a question of fairness. When there is no standard, Quebec does not get its share. There is no standard here. I will say it again: We have some real concerns. As I said a few moments ago, Build Canada Homes is structurally very flexible. It allows for partnerships, it allows for funding to be transferred directly to the provinces, and so on.”
“In fact, the committee heard from a great CMHC economist who had done the study the committee was discussing. He told the committee that at the rate things were going with the Century Initiative, which was a major factor, rents and home prices were going to double between 2019, the base year he was using, and 2030. That is deeply concerning. When CMHC officials appeared before the committee, they presented some tables that the committee had requested showing the various CMHC affordable housing programs. The committee found that standardizing programs, such as the rapid housing initiative, ensured each province and each territory received its fair share on a per capita basis. Quebec would receive its share. As for the rest of the programs that were not standardized, Quebec did not receive its fair share.”
“However, the government has said that people need to maximize local benefits, make efforts to ensure that the materials purchased are produced locally and drive Canada's economy. That is all well and good, and we welcome that. However, that is also in a schedule that is neither on the website, nor in the bill. The government has made a commitment, but what kind of accountability mechanisms will there be? Once again, it is not within the Crown corporation's mission, and it is not in the bill. We have to trust the government, which will not be required to keep its commitments afterwards. I was a member of the Standing Committee on Finance prior to the last election. The committee heard from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC.”
“The government says it needs to make an effort to fight climate change and set higher standards. That is set out in a document online stating that, yes, efforts must be made in that direction, but it is not in the bill and it is not in the mission. Build Canada Homes is not required to ensure that environmental standards are in place for the projects it will support. Once again, we are supposed to just trust the government. Once Bill C‑15 , the budget implementation bill, is passed, the government and the Crown corporation will no longer be accountable to the House. We are being asked to trust the government, and this raises concerns. It is the same thing with local materials. Obviously, when people buy two-by-fours or two-by-sixes, they do not import them from the U.S. or Europe. We make enough of those products here in Canada.”
“If we can trust the government when it says that it will build affordable housing, then that is great. However, the bill provides no guarantee that the housing will actually be affordable. We have no guarantee that any of the funding will go to social housing. That is really worrying. Social housing, whether it is co-operatives, low-income housing or housing from other organizations, is based on the ability of households, as I was saying, of individuals, to pay based on their income. That is what we need to focus on. Bill C‑20, the Build Canada Homes act, allows for that. However, if Build Canada Homes did not build any social housing at all, it would still be within its framework or mission. That is a serious concern. (1305) The same is true for energy efficiency standards, for example.”
“For example, the government's definition of affordable housing can be found on the website for Build Canada Homes, which was initially mistranslated in French as “Bâtir Maisons Canada”. That definition states that affordable housing should cost 30% of the median income of the neighbourhood or region, so we are not talking about an individual's ability to pay. A person living in poverty has an income below the median income of their neighbourhood. This is completely different from social housing, which is based on ability to pay and is set at 30% of the income of the person or household living in the dwelling, rather than on the median income of the neighbourhood. Meanwhile, this definition is nowhere to be found in Bill C-20. It is only found on the Build Canada Homes website, not in the legislation.”
“The agreement was signed and my riding neighbour, Caroline Proulx, the Quebec housing minister, praised this agreement and said that the MOU respected Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. We find that reassuring and it encourages us to support the principle of this bill, but, obviously, we will have to look at the specifics of the MOU. Bill C-20, however, leaves much to be desired. The bill establishes the Crown corporation and gives it a plethora of possible tools. The corporation can do great things, but the House has no control over it. The Crown corporation and the government have a great deal of power to develop affordable housing, but, after that, there is no accountability.”
“We shall see, and I will come back to that since it is not specified in Bill C‑20 , which establishes the Crown corporation. However, an agreement, a memorandum of understanding, was signed between Quebec and Ottawa in that regard. We need access to that document, but we do not have it. Why? This is not unusual. Ottawa waits until it has signed agreements with all of the provinces before disclosing the content of those agreements. Why? The reason is that, often, Quebec manages to negotiate a little more autonomy than the other provinces, and Ottawa does not want the other provinces to follow Quebec's lead. That is why Ottawa generally tends to sign agreements with Quebec last. However, in this case, it seems that the federal government was in a rush to reach an agreement.”
“Then a few decades went by without Ottawa putting any money back into social housing, and that was a serious problem. Over the past 10 years, under Justin Trudeau, there has been a renewed focus on affordable housing, and even some social housing programs, which we welcomed. However, it has been a pittance given the housing shortage and skyrocketing housing costs. That is our concern. Now, all of a sudden, Ottawa is getting on board and creating a Crown corporation. It is putting money in the budget that will be transferred to the new Crown corporation. Yes, but what will happen in four years, six years, eight years, ten years? Will organizations and people who want to submit projects then have to go to the federal government, continue to work with the SHQ or turn to the Quebec government?”
“We welcome this gesture, but we are concerned about jurisdiction. Why? Up until the late 1980s, there used to be many partnerships between Quebec and Ottawa in the area of social housing, such as low-income housing, for example. Then, all of a sudden, the federal government decided that it was no longer interested and was abandoning the whole thing. All of a sudden, Ottawa, which had been involved in an area of provincial jurisdiction, changed its policy and left people in poverty. In other parts of Canada, this was a real disaster, a real dismantling of social and affordable housing. In Quebec, because we care, we decided that we could not let that happen. The Government of Quebec came to the rescue and saved the day by taking over the federal government's share.”
“However, the expenses that the provinces have to cover in order to deliver services in areas under their jurisdiction, such as education, health care, roads and so on, are much higher than those incurred by the federal government in meeting its responsibilities, which essentially consist of transferring funds to either the provinces or to individuals. Examples include EI and OAS. The federal government has fewer exclusive jurisdictions. National defence is one, although the government made a significant shift in this area in its most recent budget. The fiscal imbalance means that Ottawa does have some flexibility, as documented every year by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. (1300) The government sees the crisis that it helped to create, and it is saying that it will do its part and take decisive action.”
“We in the Bloc Québécois are concerned when we see that Ottawa wants to bypass the provinces and Quebec to tackle the housing issue. Yes, we are happy that the government is putting money on the table. Why is the government putting money on the table? It is because it can afford to do so. Why can it afford to do so? It is because of the fiscal imbalance, which is thoroughly documented in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's annual reports. These reports point out that, when taxpayers pay their taxes, about half of the revenue goes to the federal government while the other half stays in the provinces.”
“Justin Trudeau's government and his finance minister Chrystia Freeland put a few measures in place to mitigate that. For example, there was the anti-flipping measure, which required a certain amount of time to pass before someone who bought a house could resell it. There was that too. There is also the fact that a lot of people are living in increasingly larger spaces, which leaves less space available, in terms of housing stock, for people who need it. Now the government is putting its shoulder to the wheel and finally making a major effort, which we applaud. It is going to invest $13 billion over the next four years, with the possibility of more to come later on. Housing essentially falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec.”
“Increasing immigration to such a level, which no other OECD country has done in terms of immigration, was very risky. Neither McKinsey nor the government even thought about implementing measures to support this sudden spike in immigration. Such support would include schools and hospitals and, of course, housing. That played a major part in the situation we are now in. Of course, one of the problems related to the housing crisis concerns the financialization of housing. Rather than investing in shares in companies that produce goods and services and then receiving a portion of the profits, some people are relying on the housing market's tendency to rise in value and buying a condo or house without necessarily intending to reside there, but rather to put it back on the market in a few years and make a profit. This is another major problem.”
“Why are people who are struggling to make ends meet no longer able to find a place to rent? Why are they no longer able to move, to find a new place to live at a price that does not force them to make sacrifices when it comes to putting food on the table or buying other basic necessities? That is the housing crisis we are facing today. I must remind the House that the housing crisis was caused, in part, by Justin Trudeau's government, in other words, by the Liberals sitting here today, through the Century Initiative, which planned to increase Canada's population to 100 million people by the end of the century. The immigration floodgates were opened. The Bloc Québécois supports immigration, but the government must ensure it can meet its ambitious goals.”
“Madam Speaker, today, we are discussing Bill C-20 , which seeks to establish Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation to build affordable housing. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of that. The budget, which is currently being debated as part of Bill C-15 , provides for $13 billion over the next four years, until 2030, and gives the government and the Crown corporation the power to build so-called affordable homes. For several years now, we have been experiencing a major housing crisis. The Bloc Québécois is pleased that the government and the minister, whom I commend, are taking steps to expedite efforts to build affordable housing, but why are we in the midst of a housing crisis to begin with? Why are young people no longer able to buy a home, since prices have skyrocketed in recent years?”
“Why is the government behaving as though it has a majority when it has a minority government and up to four opportunities to come to an agreement with parties and move its work forward?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am increasingly concerned about the parliamentary secretary's growing anger. I have had the honour of serving with him for just over a decade. Instead of talking about the motion, he is saying that the government is unable to move its legislative agenda forward as it would like. He is talking as though the government has a majority, when, as we know, this is a minority government. The government is so close to having a majority, that before some Liberal members resigned, it was one vote away from a majority. This means that the Liberals could come to an agreement with the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP or even the Green Party member to move their work forward. There are measures that can be used to block stalling tactics if one has a majority of votes in the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, the motion calls on the government to “bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims”. However, it seems to overlook the existence of political refugees, people falsely accused of committing criminal acts by corrupt authoritarian regimes. If adopted as is, the motion would prevent someone like Raif Badawi from joining his family in Canada. That is why the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada exists: to determine whether or not the charges these people face are valid. Barring anyone who is facing charges from entering the country makes no sense, considering some could be political refugees. Is the hon. leader of the Conservative Party prepared to amend his motion to that effect?”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for his speech that revolved around social justice and responsibility. In his speech, he spoke about the Canadian federal government's backtracking in recent years in terms of protecting human rights. In his response to the parliamentary secretary, he provided the example of Jimmy Lai. Can my colleague provide us with other examples of this backtracking?”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would also like to thank him for sponsoring this bill. As we know, people who work in health services and as first responders do essential work. As we see in the media, they are increasingly facing acts of violence. I have a lot of family members who are paramedics, and they have talked to me about this. My friend Louis-Olivier Roussin, the operations manager at Ambulance St-Gabriel, came to the Hill a few months ago to raise awareness about this issue. It is therefore important to get this bill passed. Why is it so urgent to get it passed? I know my colleague touched on this in his speech. I would like him to expand on why he thinks it is important to pass it now, without delay.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mirabel for his eloquent speech. He addressed a number of topics related to the bill. I would like to hear his thoughts on a few things. First, he pointed out that we are in a kind of oligopoly when it comes to food retailers. He noted that their numbers have declined over the past few decades. How is that putting pressure on people's grocery bills? Second, the Bloc Québécois has often suggested increasing the GST credit. Can my colleague expand on that a little more? Finally, why was this measure not included in the budget?”
“Mr. Speaker, my question is this: When the government implements measures like this one to reduce the tax burden, does my colleague prefer measures that target people with lower incomes, meaning those who need it most, or does he prefer measures that help everyone, such as the tax cut that was announced in Bill C-5 and included in the budget? Speaking of which, what does my colleague think about the fact that this bill was not incorporated into last fall's budget?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the member. The government is proposing a measure that we welcome and support because it will really help people, but it is going to cost a lot of money. Why did the government not include that measure in the budget that was tabled just a few months ago so that we could see the overall fiscal plan? We were already talking about a $78-billion deficit. This measure will add an extra $3.1 billion for this year and nearly $12 billion more over five years. Why does my colleague think that the government did not include this measure in the budget? Also, my colleague touched on this at the beginning of her speech: Should these payments not be monthly so people have more cash flow, rather than going into debt over a longer period and incurring interest charges?”
“Mr. Speaker, of course, we support this measure, which targets the people who need it most. However, I have two questions. First, why not make the payment monthly? Receiving the payment every three months could cause some people to accumulate credit card debt for three months, and they would have to pay interest on that. If they received a cheque every month, that could reduce the interest they pay on their credit cards. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Second, the government presented its budget just a few months ago. Why did it not include this measure, which will cost several billion dollars, in its budget plan so that we could get a comprehensive picture of the public finances? We are talking about a deficit of $78 billion, plus a few billion extra this year.”
“When the benefit is paid out every three months, people max out their credit cards and accumulate interest. If it were paid out every month, they would have to pay far less interest. Why not make it a monthly payment?”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously, the Bloc Québécois strongly supports this measure. It will help those who need it. I have two questions for my colleague. First, this measure will cost nearly $12 billion over six years, and the first payment will cost $3.1 billion. Why did the government not think to include this in the budget it tabled just three months ago? We want to have a clear picture of public finances so we know where we are headed. We already have a $78-billion deficit. Why was this not taken into consideration? My second question relates to the answer my colleague just gave. Yes, people welcome the fact that they are receiving more money, but if they received this money every month, it would be even more helpful. Why? Those who need it use it to pay for groceries.”
“Mr. Speaker, a few decades ago, we had 13 grocery chains and now we are down to three. That number goes up to five if we include Walmart and Costco. In other words, we are dealing with an oligopoly. In the last Parliament, the government enhanced the powers of the Competition Bureau, not necessarily to bring more players into the sector, but to prevent future mergers or acquisitions. The Governor of the Bank of Canada says that this lack of competition means that all the increases in input prices are passed on to consumers. What does my hon. colleague suggest we do to ensure that there are more retailers and more competition in the grocery sector?”
“Mr. Speaker, going by the calendar on the Table, I see that it is February 3, but it sure feels like February 2, Groundhog Day, because this is yet another Conservative opposition day dedicated to talking about the carbon tax, even though the government eliminated the consumer portion. The motion also deals with groceries, so I would like to ask my colleague about two things. The government introduced measures to address the labour shortage in the agri-food sector and the impact of climate change—which causes droughts, floods, forest fires and so on—on harvests. Does the government need to do more to adapt, protect the environment and minimize these changes?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about food production costs and the labour shortage in the agri-food sector. What is his government proposing to address this shortage? There is also the issue of climate change, which is causing floods, droughts and wildfires, all of which have a direct impact on food production in this country. The government recently backtracked on many of the environmental protection measures taken during Justin Trudeau's 10 years in office. What could the government do to better protect the environment?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised by the response that was just given. Rather than competing to see who is the best cheerleader for the oil industry, we should be considering the wide variety of measures that can be implemented to reduce inflation. My Liberal colleague shared a few of them, and I will share some others. What does my hon. colleague have to say about the labour shortage in the food sector, and what are his thoughts on climate change adaptation measures, which are having a real impact on food production in Canada?”
“Quebeckers simply want to handle divorce proceedings themselves, and they are calling for an end to this two-tiered system.”
“Considering that family law is highly developed, regulated, and rooted in Quebec's civil law tradition, the Bloc Québécois calls on the federal government to give up this last piece of common law, the Divorce Act, which is an anomaly in separation and divorce management. This archaic separation, which was politically motivated at the time, is no longer necessary. Quebec courts have shown that they can deal with different separation cases seriously and professionally. What is more, Quebec's justice minister introduced unified family tribunals, or UFTs. Since October 10, 2025, civil union-related claims are now heard by the Court of Québec's Unified Family Tribunal. This is another example of the Quebec government's expertise and seriousness in this type of civil litigation.”
“We must trust the various professionals throughout a difficult process such as divorce, and we believe that a parent who engages in parental alienation, intimidation or coercive violence towards their child will ultimately be found out and made to answer for it. The Bloc Québécois believes that any amendment to the Criminal Code must be carefully considered, and we want to avoid weighing the legislation down with controversial provisions. Nevertheless, we will vote in favour of the bill so that experts can weigh in on the wording and so that the committee can debate the best practices for protecting children during a contentious divorce. If the committee deems it appropriate to improve the bill or remove parts of it where there are differences of opinion, the Bloc Québécois will offer its full co-operation.”
“According to the experts in psychology and law who were consulted, it seems that this phenomenon is rare and that there is no consensus on this matter. Lastly, as previously mentioned, it is difficult to imagine removing a concept that comes from the field of psychology and that has been used by the courts for many decades because of an emerging minority theory that lacks consensus. One of the cardinal principles of justice is equality before the law. Creating an exception risks causing more harm to children than good. We cannot brush aside the fact that a parent may use coercive alienation against their children.”
“It is therefore a holdover from another era that unnecessarily complicates family law and allows Ottawa to have the final say on marriages. The Bloc Québécois is therefore calling for marriage and divorce to be handed over to Quebec City in order to ensure uniform rights, regardless of the type of union individuals choose. (1800) The Bloc Québécois supports the objectives of Bill C‑223 , namely to guarantee the well-being of children in divorce cases, and it is prepared to revisit this sensitive topic. However, we reject the premise that parental alienation has a harmful and disproportionate impact on one group. The proposal to remove this concept from the Criminal Code to avoid cases where this may have happened seems excessive to us.”
“A child may have experienced abandonment, insecurity, fear, emotional detachment early in life or aggression from a parent. In short, the child might already be detached from a parent and therefore alienated without having been through a divorce. Historically, divorce has remained a federal jurisdiction since the adoption of the Constitution Act, 1867, which placed marriage and divorce under federal jurisdiction. The stated objective was to ensure that the rules were consistent across provinces and to avoid contentious situations if a spouse decided to move somewhere else in Canada. Unofficially, this has allowed Quebec to maintain control over family law, despite its clear distinction in the handling of separations by following French civil law tradition.”
“This implies that the judiciary, many family law attorneys, and in some cases the police, medical professionals, or child protection workers are not doing their jobs properly because they lack the judgment to detect potential acts by an abusive parent who encourages a child to reject the other parent. Unfortunately, parents sometimes get into a fight where the children can be caught in the middle and used as weapons against the other parent. Quite often, one or both parents will convince one or all of the children to choose a side through a myriad of tactics, arguments, lies and defamatory statements at the expense of the other parent. On the other hand, a child may become alienated from a parent long before the divorce process begins.”
“Furthermore, parental alienation is difficult to argue in court because evidence gathering is difficult and there is still some debate over this psychological concept. In a study conducted in Ontario between 1993 and 2011, 170 legal decisions referred to parental alienation. In the majority of these cases, the allegations of alienation were unfounded or there was insufficient evidence to reach a verdict. Let us be clear: parental alienation, a phenomenon that the medical community can observe and measure and that a majority of family law attorneys use, is not abstract and cannot be dismissed on the grounds that it no longer corresponds to the findings of a few researchers with differing opinions on the subject.”
“When a child flatly rejects one parent, seems to have made their choice, is no longer or not torn between their parents, there is reason to suspect that one of the spouses is engaging in parental alienation. That said, a child, usually a teenager with more advanced critical thinking skills, may have made an informed choice without being pressured by either parent. If there are reasonable grounds to believe that parental alienation has occurred, Mr. Harrison suggests contacting a lawyer to have an action plan put in place to address the situation. This process illustrates how professionals are able to detect credible parental alienation and that mechanisms are set in motion long before a trial.”
“Van Gijseghem points out that there is not necessarily a causal link between the two parts of the definition. He adds: Despite the apparent simplicity of the definition, diagnosing parental alienation “disorder” is no easy task and requires a rigorous and thorough psychological and family assessment that includes all family members. Family law lawyer Jérôme Harrison believes in the importance of identifying two situations where the child is the focus of tension. When a child still feels torn, feels like they need to make a choice, we speak of a conflict of loyalty. This type of conflict can be fuelled by a wide range of disparate factors.”
“Objectively, the definition of parental alienation proposed between 2010 and 2013 by the Parental Alienation Study Group, or PASG, to the DSM-5 preparatory committees is the one that is now nearly unanimously accepted among experts who subscribe to the concept: Parental alienation is a mental condition affecting children or adolescents (often in the context of high-conflict parental separation) and characterized by two elements: 1. The child or teenager allies strongly with one parent. 2. The child or adolescent unreasonably rejects the other parent, without legitimate justification. The child or adolescent resists or refuses contact with that parent, even when ordered. Forensic expert, retired professor at the Université de Montréal and recipient of the Noël-Mailloux Award from the Ordre des psychologues du Québec Dr.”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to reiterate how sensitive my party and I are to violence against women and their children. We must work tirelessly to ensure that all women and children can thrive in a safe environment at all times. A woman was killed in the north of my riding recently and I am quite shaken up by it. This has to stop. The bill under consideration seeks to remove parental alienation as a concept from family law. In our view, it is not up to the legislature to decide whether a concept should disappear as a psychological phenomenon, let alone be removed from the Criminal Code, just because there is an emerging and minority hypothesis that parental alienation disproportionately harms one group.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank and congratulate my colleague and friend for his speech. He is truly an expert on matters of international trade. He has depth and a strong, confident philosophy. A few hours ago, the Liberals and a majority of the Conservatives voted against a Bloc Québécois bill on the prior review of treaties by Parliament. He touched on this in his speech, but I would like to ask him the following. If such a law had been passed by the House, what would it have allowed us, as parliamentarians or legislators, to do with regard to the treaty under consideration?”
“Then there is the leather tanning industry, which uses chemicals that are hazardous to the migrant workers, who are often women. What does my hon. colleague think about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague and friend on his very interesting speech. He always shares such insightful thoughts with us in the House. We are in favour in principle of having an agreement with Indonesia. We must continue to diversify markets, but, as he said, the United States is still our main partner, so we will have to continue to negotiate and trade with it. I want to ask my colleague about workers' rights. Modern trade agreements should increasingly include provisions to ensure that these rights are upheld. Indonesia, a big country with a rich culture, is committed to this, but the reality is that the widespread use of subcontracting has given rise to a number of confirmed cases of child labour. About one million children are reportedly engaged in child labour. We know how important the textile industry is there.”
“Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that, if a company gets a grant to develop an innovation and then sells that innovation to foreign interests, the company has to pay back a portion of the grant. I would like my colleague to elaborate on that. To his knowledge, which countries already apply the kind of measure he referred to in his speech?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that the European Union adopted a carbon border adjustment mechanism in 2023, which took effect on January 1 of this year. The United Kingdom has passed similar legislation that will apply as of January 1, 2027. The concern here is that, if Canada were to eliminate its carbon pricing, Canadian exports to Europe would be subject to tariffs to compensate for the fact that Canada backtracked on its carbon pricing system. This would hurt Quebec's exports because, even though Quebec has its own system, it is part of a country that would have scrapped its system. What does my hon. colleague think of his government's backtracking, particularly when it comes to the fight to protect the environment and consumer carbon pricing?”