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 7 of 9.
“Mr. Speaker, according to the World Bank's data, there are 73 carbon pricing mechanisms in 53 countries. Out of all these mechanisms and countries, only one has been walked back, and it was done by the current government. We also see that the current Prime Minister and the new government have scrapped almost all of the environmental protection measures that Justin Trudeau's government had adopted over the past 10 years. How does my colleague feel about these decisions to walk back the climate change policies and the fact that Canada is the only one out of 53 countries to do so?”
“Madam Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleague and friend for his incredible demonstration of how the Liberal Party's backtracking on environmental measures shows that we have two parties that are two sides of the same coin. Almost everything that today's motion calls for has already been done by the current Liberal government or is in the process of being done. I would like to ask my colleague a question about the fact that the World Bank has identified 73 carbon pricing mechanisms in 53 countries. To my knowledge, no country has backtracked on these mechanisms except Canada, under the current government. What message does this send to the international community about the effort it takes to care for the planet?”
“In my opinion, this goes against the democratic opinion that was expressed in the last election. The Liberal leader should start talking to the leaders of other parties so that the government can govern as the people want it to.”
“Madam Speaker, this is the kind of measure that I feel is very effective in helping to combat poverty and address inflation among those who need it most. It is a very effective, direct measure that will truly help people. It proves that we are capable of agreeing with the government on some issues. However, I am disappointed that the minority government is not seeking support from another party in the House to move all of its legislative measures forward, or at least pass them one at a time. That is the mandate the people of Canada and Quebec gave the government. They asked it to come to an agreement with another party to move its legislative measures forward. It seems the government would rather poach Conservative Party members to buy or build a majority.”
“As I said in my speech, Canada is the only nation on the global stage that is backtracking on its commitments. It is shameful.”
“Madam Speaker, it is very disturbing indeed. What this shows is that we are in a petro-state. I spoke of a cheerleading competition. It offends me to hear talk of Canadian sovereignty when the oil sands industry is owned by foreign interests, most of them American. Are these really sovereignty-enhancing policies? As for the environment, I would like to remind the House that the current member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie left the government. He still sits as a Liberal MP, but he left the government following its repeated backtracking on environmental measures. I would say it is six of one or half a dozen of the other. While the Liberals may not like to hear it, to support oil and gas industries and fight climate change is to walk a very fine line.”
“Madam Speaker, obviously, that aspect is appalling and unacceptable. These are just more examples of backsliding in environmental action. What I find even more appalling is the current government's backtracking on all the measures that Justin Trudeau's government had put in place over the past 10 years to protect the environment. Why is this government backtracking so much? Also, why did my hon. colleague stand in this place and vote against compensating Quebeckers for funding the carbon tax, that is, the cheque that went out to everyone else as an election gift? That was detrimental to Quebec's interests. Why did he do that?”
“Otherwise, it is on a case-by-case basis. This undermines Quebec's comparative advantage. That is why the Bloc Québécois opposes any federal measure intended to counter the negative effects of the Trump administration that also undermines Quebec's efforts to diversify its export markets. That is why we oppose any reduction in industrial emissions pricing in Canada outside Quebec that undermines our comparative advantage.”
“As I mentioned, last spring the government abolished carbon pricing for individuals. Today, the Conservative Party is proposing to abolish it completely, including for polluting industries. If Canada chooses to return to the 20th century and abolish or reduce carbon pricing for its industries, it will undermine Quebec's efforts to diversify its exports and intensify its trade with Europe. Since Quebec companies will be part of a country with no or low carbon pricing, their exports may be taxed. Consider our aluminum smelters, which are taxed at 50% in the United States and are turning to Europe. What is being discussed here puts them at risk. We know that the United Kingdom and the entire European Union have an exemption system. Exporters from countries that already have carbon pricing are not subject to tariffs.”
“As mentioned earlier, federal carbon pricing does not apply in Quebec, which has its own cap-and-trade system. However, Quebec is not acting alone. Through the Western Climate Initiative, carbon credits are traded with companies in California and Washington State, two states whose combined GDP totals $4.8 trillion, or two and a half times the GDP of Canada excluding Quebec, which is $1.9 trillion. In the United States, there has never been carbon pricing at the federal level. It is the states that are taking action. In that respect, the election of the current U.S. President has not changed the situation. Today, Canada finds itself swimming against the global tide, which puts Quebec at risk. In a world where pollution has a cost, Quebec enjoys a clear comparative advantage thanks to its abundant zero-emission energy production.”
“Initially, the tariff will only apply to certain categories of products, including aluminum, iron, steel, cement, fertilizer, hydrogen and electricity, and will be extended to other goods gradually. Although carbon adjustment is new, border tax adjustments are common and in line with trade rules. For example, the excise tax on tobacco or alcohol, which is charged when these products leave the factory when they are made in Canada, is imposed at the border when the goods are imported. A number of countries have implemented measures to put a price on pollution. In 2023, the World Bank identified 73 carbon pricing mechanisms in 53 countries. That is 5 more than in 2022, 12 more than in 2021 and 69 more than 20 years ago. No country in the world has abolished carbon pricing, except Canada, which was the first to choose this path.”
“The European Union adopted legislation in 2023, Regulation 2023/956, establishing Europe's carbon border adjustment mechanism, or CBAM. In order to prevent carbon leakage and unfair competition from competitors located in places where it is free to pollute, Europe started to impose a tax adjustment on certain imported products from countries with no or low carbon pricing starting January 1, 2026. The U.K. adopted similar legislation in 2024, and it will come into force on January 1, 2027, which is next year. Since the beginning of the year, when a product enters Europe, the European Union imposes an import tax equivalent to what the carbon pricing would have cost had it been manufactured in Europe.”
“Here we see the party line and the pan-Canadian vision being put ahead of the interests of the people they are supposed to represent, at least for the two major parties. At a time when the U.S. administration is sowing uncertainty by piling tariffs on our industries, it is important to strengthen our trade ties with reliable partners that provide a predictable environment. (1115) In this regard, Quebec, which accounts for one-third of trade between Canada and Europe, attracts close to 40% of European investment in Canada. Quebec therefore has an advantage. In a way, it is the bridge between North America and Europe. The Bloc Québécois hopes Quebec will double its trade with Europe, including the U.K., from $42 billion to $84 billion within five years. This brings me to the carbon border adjustment mechanism.”
“Members will recall that this injustice was condemned by the members of the Quebec National Assembly, including those of the Coalition Avenir Québec, the Quebec Liberal Party, Québec Solidaire and the Parti Québécois. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois supports Quebec and demands that Ottawa unconditionally pay Quebec compensation equivalent to the $814 million paid by Quebeckers for the $3.7 billion in fake April 22 carbon tax rebate cheques that Quebeckers were not entitled to get. Unfortunately, the House approved that theft last spring, and I was deeply saddened to see that the Liberal and Conservative members from Quebec voted against the interests of the people they are supposed to represent.”
“That decision cost the federal government $3.7 billion. The rebate had always been paid in advance, in anticipation of household spending. It was not a reimbursement, meaning that the final round of cheques was intended to cover the period from April to June of last year, when the carbon tax for individuals no longer applied. Obviously, Quebeckers never received those cheques because Quebec has had its own carbon market since 2013. That did not stop Quebec taxpayers from having to pay for those federal cheques with their tax dollars during the election. The people of Quebec ended up paying for Canada's environmental recklessness. Quebec was penalized by Ottawa, by this government, for its efforts to fight climate change.”
“Members will recall that 90% of the revenues collected through the federal carbon tax in the provinces were directly redistributed to residents in the form of quarterly rebates. The remaining 10% were invested in energy transition programs. The vast majority of households, or 8 out 10 households received more through rebates than they paid in the carbon tax through the targeted redistribution that focused on individuals instead of businesses. However, all of that was abolished. As soon as he took office, the new Prime Minister signed an order setting the consumer carbon tax at $0 per tonne. This measure came into force on April 1 last year before the tax was abolished through legislation. Members will also recall that Ottawa decided to go ahead with one final rebate payment on April 22, which helped it at the ballot box.”
“It would seem that trying to send more dividends to foreign interests is the Liberal and Conservative version of defending Canada's economic sovereignty. Federal politics looks like a cheerleading contest, with each party competing to win favour with this influential lobby. Now, the Conservative Party is proposing getting rid of the industrial component of the carbon tax. However, the Liberal government has already eliminated the individual component of the carbon tax. Members will recall that up until March last year, the federal government had a carbon tax on fossil fuels in eight provinces that did not have their own carbon pricing system. Quebec and British Columbia were excluded because they had their respective provincial systems: the carbon exchange in Quebec and a provincial carbon tax in British Columbia.”
“I would like to point out that members of the Pathways Alliance, which represents 80% of oil sands production, are mainly held by foreign interests. Canadian Natural Resources, Cenovus Energy, Imperial Oil and Suncor Energy are 73% foreign-owned and 60% American-owned, and yet the Conservatives are talking about Canadian sovereignty. ConocoPhillips Canada, the Canadian subsidiary of the American oil company, and MEG Energy, which was taken over by Cenovus Energy, are 85% foreign-owned. These businesses made record profits between 2021 and 2024, raking in $131.6 billion. They paid $79.7 billion in dividends, nearly three-quarters of which went to foreign shareholders, including 62% to American shareholders. That is what beautiful Canadian sovereignty looks like.”
“Madam Speaker, first, I wish to inform the House that I am going to be splitting my time with my colleague and friend, the member from Repentigny . Were it not for the calendar on the clerks' table, I would have thought that today was February 2, Groundhog Day. Why? Because today is a Conservative opposition day and, as they have done a hundred times before, they are proposing cutting environmental measures and providing more support for the oil and gas industry. Today, the Conservative Party is asking us to get rid of all environmental protection measures and to roll out the red carpet further for the oil and gas industry. However, there is a nice change with this motion, which is that they are making these traditional requests under the guise of sovereignty.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very interesting speech. She spoke at length about the importance of working with first nations. She also acknowledged that we are on unceded territory. The Assembly of First Nations is calling on the government to withdraw from its memorandum of understanding with Alberta to build a pipeline. However, the government has said that it will consult with first nations. Can my colleague confirm that the government is committed to not building the new pipeline if first nations say they do not want it?”
“In my opinion, that is problematic. I would like to know what my hon. colleague, with whom I had the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Finance in the past, thinks about this.”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe the document the parliamentary secretary is referring to is House of Commons Procedure and Practice , the fourth edition of which was just published. On a more serious note, I am no longer a permanent member of the Standing Committee on Finance, but I stood in for my colleague from Mirabel today. I witnessed over two hours of filibustering, including an hour and a half from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue . This is because the Liberal members, who are in the minority, are insisting on a pre-study of the budget implementation bill. Before it is passed in the House at second reading, they are refusing to allow the committee to conduct any other study in the meantime, such as a study on the Canada Revenue Agency and all the issues it is plagued with.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up where my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord left off. He said that we proposed an amendment to Bill C-9 so that the religious exemption could no longer be invoked for hate speech. The Liberal Party was in favour of that amendment at one point, but that no longer seems to be the case. My colleague therefore asked the government representative a question, and she replied that it was up to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to look into this. However, as I understand it, the Liberal chair has decided to stop convening the justice committee for the time being, hence the report we are discussing today. I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that.”
“A party that forms the government but does not have a majority should reach out to the other parties to try to work together, make some progress and move forward with the other parties. That is what my hon. colleague and friend said, yet the first thing we heard afterwards was some reprehensible language, and the member refuses to apologize for what he said. What message does that send to my hon. colleague?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to sincerely thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, who is also my whip and my friend, for his speech. In his speech, he spoke candidly, frankly and with an open heart about how we, as parliamentarians, could work better together in the House and in committee. He concluded his speech by saying that we could create a virtuous circle by showing more respect for one another and by working more collaboratively. However, the first question was asked by a member of the Liberal Party who stood up and shouted reprehensible comments at him. I will not repeat the words here, but it went against everything my colleague said, and it put us back in the vicious circle.”
“If the Liberal members chose to fly solo, to work alone, then they should not be surprised when they have a hard time getting things done. What does the parliamentary secretary think about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, my question is for the gentleman who seems upset. The Liberals chose to fly solo. The people elected a minority government. The government tabled a budget without seeking the support of another party to get a majority of votes in the House. The same thing goes for Bill C-15 . The other opposition parties chose to let the budget move on to the next step so as not to trigger an election, even though it was not to their liking. Now, the member wants to change the rules of the House. Why? It is so that a minority government can govern like a majority would. I do not think that will happen. I would like to humbly remind him of the way things work. People vote to elect members of Parliament. The government needs to listen to members and get a majority of votes in the House. That is where the problem lies.”
“Mr. Speaker, roughly halfway through the nearly 650 pages that make up Bill C‑15 , there is a hidden amendment that gives any government minister the power to exempt any company from any federal law, other than the Criminal Code, for a period of three years. Bloc Québécois members find this very disturbing. What does my hon. colleague think?”
“Mr. Speaker, what I take away from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report is that this will not meet the needs in housing. I acknowledge that the parliamentary secretary is talking about affordable housing. I would like us to talk more about social housing or non-market housing. In the past few years, we have seen that when the government introduces programs for affordable housing, the funding is often earmarked for housing that is not affordable. I find the solutions being considered by the government to ensure that housing is truly affordable interesting, but it is definitely time to roll up our sleeves and get to work. We look forward to getting more details about this project.”
“Just because there are countries in the world, such as our neighbours to the south, where authoritarianism is on the rise does not mean that we should be heading in that direction as well.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Mirabel for his remarks. This is obviously troubling and very worrisome for the health of democracy. Earlier, I pointed out that this is a minority government. Normally, a minority government tries to talk to the other parties in order to build a majority in the House and to move bills and the legislative agenda forward. What we have here is a government that does not do that and instead acts like a lone cowboy. Independent voices are saying that its accounting method of calling expenditures investments does not hold water. This worries the government, because it does not fit its narrative. It is very concerning and unfortunate to see a government member muzzle one of those voices. We need democracy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for her question. I have the pleasure of working with her on housing needs. I would invite her to go back and read the report that the Parliamentary Budget Officer released this morning. The report says that basically, what has been presented so far regarding Build Canada Homes shows that it is an empty shell and will do nothing to meet the targets. That worries us. Neither the budget nor Bill C‑15 provides any details on Build Canada Homes, and this is cause for concern. Once again, we applaud the fine words, but we are concerned that this will not translate into concrete action. My experience in the House over the last decade has taught me that when money is announced and voted on, it can take years for it to be released. I am really worried about that right now.”
“It contains 80 legislative measures that create or amend 49 laws in a wide range of areas. Some are quite good, others are simply minor legislative amendments. In addition to containing almost none of the Bloc Québecois's pre-budget priorities, Bill C-15 includes certain measures that we find utterly unacceptable. For example, it includes billions of dollars in new fossil fuel subsidies. It deepens the media crisis and permanently scraps the digital services tax. Lastly, I must condemn the amendment the government hid in the middle of its omnibus bill, which gives any minister the power to exempt any company from the application of any federal law, except the Criminal Code, for a period of three years. This is completely unacceptable. That is why we will be voting against Bill C-15 .”
“They play acted and voted after the fact. It was all a sham. We do not accept this government's vision. We do not accept bowing to the powerful, pandering to billionaires, abandoning workers, treating the provinces with contempt, and stepping back on the environment. We do not accept centralization, arrogance and injustice. We want respect for Quebec. We want to continue to fight against the use of tax havens. We want to support our media, and we want to protect workers. We want adequate funding for health care. When it comes to Donald Trump, we want fairness and dignity. That is our fight, that is our duty. We are going to fight with all our might, because we know that history belongs to those who refuse to back down. The Bloc Québécois will not support Bill C-15 . It is an enormous omnibus bill nearly 650 pages long.”
“In our opinion, the budget will hurt Quebeckers and so we voted against it, while all the other opposition parties chose to let it pass. The Green Party member initially stomped on the budget in front of cameras because it did not contain anything for the environment but ultimately chose to support it. There were two NDP abstentions, which gave the Liberals a majority, even though this was a Conservative budget that will result in massive cuts of 40,000 public service jobs over four years. Lastly, the Conservatives used a strategy that allowed them to vote after everyone else to ensure that the budget passed. The House leader and the caucus chair walked into the House of Commons after the vote, before the results were released, claiming that they had experienced technical difficulties voting remotely.”
“Some of the subsidiaries that operate in Canada even received funding through the wage subsidy program during the pandemic even though they report income in tax havens to avoid paying taxes in Canada. That is the moral of this government: the powerful take and Canadians pay. The Liberals have a minority government, but with this budget and other initiatives introduced in the House, they are behaving as if they have a majority government. They did not negotiate any agreement to secure support from any party and chose to conduct themselves like cowboys. They banked on the fact that people were wary of an election during the holidays to advance their political agenda. The Bloc Québécois remained true to its principles and made its budget requests. All of these requests were ignored.”
“There is a new setback when it comes to tax havens. Canada is abandoning the 15% global minimum tax on U.S.-based businesses. Members will recall that Canada announced this tax with its G7 partners during the summit held in western Canada in June. That is another significant setback in the fight against the use of tax havens, which also stemmed from agreements with the OECD, or the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. That is another capitulation. Who does this benefit? Brookfield, a company that was headed by the Prime Minister before he joined politics less than a year ago. Brookfield, which moved its headquarters to New York for tax reasons. Brookfield manages many subsidiaries in tax havens.”
“Donald Trump and his billionaire tech friends did not like this tax, so in June, the Prime Minister decided to repeal it in order to negotiate an agreement with Trump by July 21, 2025. No trade agreement was ultimately reached, but the budget confirms the commitment to amend the law so that web giants will no longer be taxed. Billion-dollar multinationals can once again shirk their fiscal responsibilities. What is even more upsetting is that we in the Bloc Québécois have been advocating for many years to use part of this tax to support media that are struggling financially as a result of advertisers shifting their business to digital platforms. (1545) The budget contains increased funding for CBC/Radio-Canada, but it does not allocate anything to other media. The government expects them to fend for themselves.”
“This was a handout to those taxpayers that cost Quebec taxpayers $814 million. The government still refuses to compensate us for that. With this Prime Minister, the environmental laggards are rewarded by the people who are actually making an effort. Added to that is the government's stubborn refusal to reimburse Quebec for the assistance provided to refugee claimants, leaving us on the hook for $700 million. That is how they treat a compassionate nation. The budget confirms that the tax on web giants has been scrapped. As the big five tech giants use tax havens to pay almost no tax here and elsewhere, Canada had passed the legislation suggested by the OECD consisting of a tax equal to 3% of revenue earned in Canada.”
“When it comes to housing, in his budget, the Prime Minister has reiterated his commitment to Build Canada Homes to tackle the housing shortage but has not given any details about this plan, other than expressing a desire to centralize this area, which should be a Quebec and provincial jurisdiction. There will be significant delays of several years before approved funds can be spent. In the meantime, families and individuals are still waiting for housing. For provinces that did not have a carbon pricing system, which is all of them except for Quebec and British Columbia, the federal government implemented a carbon tax that was offset by cheques sent to households. During the election campaign, the Liberals abolished the tax but still sent a cheque to the residents of every province except Quebec and British Columbia.”
“That is barely twice the amount needed to refurbish a hospital in Montreal. In the meantime, our roads, our water systems and our overall infrastructure needs will have to wait. Wait for what? Wait for a government that actually believes in the future. The health sector is getting worse, with a 3% increase in health transfers, even though costs have gone up by 6%. This hearkens back to Stephen Harper's government. The federal share will continue to decrease steadily, along with access to health care. That is the dollars and cents approach that is compromising social justice.”
“Only a few temporary measures have been extended. That is the reality. The budget contains the support that was announced in August for the forestry industry, with $700 million in loan guarantees, but this measure is still not accessible. Only one forestry company in Quebec has accessed it so far. While we acknowledge this measure was recently enhanced, we strongly disagree with the fact that it is not accessible four months after it was announced, four long months for workers at Scierie St‑Michel who are still waiting for this assistance. The budget includes an investment superdeduction for businesses. That is all well and good, but it is not enough given the tariff crisis. The government claims this is a generational budget, but there is only $9 billion in new money over five years for infrastructure, $9 billion for the whole of Canada.”
“Where is the plan? Where is the vision? They are nowhere to be found. This is not reform; it is a threat. The step backward on the environment is tragic. Green policies have been abolished. The oil and gas industry is getting maximum support, so much so that the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture disagreed and opted to resign. That is the price for defending the planet in this government: isolation, silence, or exit. For now, the former minister is still a Liberal member. How he handles his options remains to be seen. While the Prime Minister was elected on a promise to stand up to Trump and protect our businesses and workers impacted by the tariff crisis, this budget contains a few paltry support measures. In terms of reforming the EI system to make it more accessible and functional, we will have to keep waiting.”
“Mr. Speaker, we need to be frank and clear-eyed. Instead of tabling its budget last spring after the election, the Liberal government chose to table it this fall. Why? It simply was not ready back then. This budget clearly reveals the new Prime Minister 's policy orientation: a big deficit and Conservative policies. Let us look at the facts. Two measures dominate this budget: massive military spending and the tax cuts announced last spring. The government plans to spend billions on defence to satisfy Donald Trump's demands even as it slashes foreign aid. That is the order of priority: weapons before solidarity, submission before co-operation. This record $78-billion deficit makes Justin Trudeau look positively frugal, and that is saying something. That deficit will be achieved only if the public service sheds 40,000 jobs in four years.”
“His entire body of work is a mirror reflecting our wrinkles and our smiles back at us, and we say to ourselves, yes, that is us, and we can be damn proud of it. I salute Jean-Claude and I thank him.”
“Mr. Speaker, Jean-Claude Germain passed away earlier this year, leaving behind a stir of words, stories and laughter that still buzz in our ears to this day. Two weeks ago, he was given a warm and colourful tribute at the Centre du Théâtre d'aujourd'hui. Playwright, screenwriter, writer, journalist, lyricist, historian and so much more: with Germain, the labels jostled for position like actors in the wings. He was larger than life and had a knack for capturing all of Quebec in a single well-turned phrase. From Le Petit Journal to honorary chair of the Salon du livre de Montréal, he shook up Quebec theatre until it spoke in joual and stood on its own two feet. I knew him at L'aut'journal. Working alongside him was like taking a class where the professor laughed louder than everyone else in the room.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Shefford and congratulate her on her excellent speech. I would like her to tell us more about what our party, the Bloc Québécois, has put forward. I would also like her to talk about the concerns she raised in her speech in relation to the Jordan decision.”
“On this day, let us remember that to give is to affirm life and prepare for the future. May philanthropy remain a guiding light and a duty for us all.”
“Mr. Speaker, philanthropy is the quiet force that lifts society up. It is a living connection between liberty and fraternity, between the individual and the community. It reminds us that the greatness of a people is measured not only by its laws and institutions, but also by the generosity of its members. November 15 was a day for remembering a certain truth, that philanthropy is hope in action. Today, as philanthropists are here visiting the Hill, I want to salute them and send them my heartfelt thanks. I especially want to pay tribute to Philanthropie Lanaudière, which embodies the quest for justice and solidarity. Through its actions, the team and its partners are challenging indifference and opening doors so that all people can find their place and live with dignity. They are proof that real wealth is about sharing, not accumulating.”
“Mr. Speaker, during the last election, the government chose to abolish the carbon tax for individuals but sent out cheques to compensate them. However, provinces like Quebec that do not pay this carbon tax because they have their own system were not compensated. Through the taxes they paid, Quebec's taxpayers contributed nearly $900 million to this election giveaway. Does my colleague believe, as my party and I do, that the government should repay Quebec's taxpayers the amount they contributed to this election giveaway?”