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 8 of 9.
“Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member recognize that, in the budget, the government is taking away one-time health transfers and returning the transfers to Stephen Harper's level of 3% per year? It is a well-known fact that costs are increasing by 6% a year. All Quebec governments, regardless of party affiliation, have asked for a 6% escalator in transfers, and the federal government has refused. Does my hon. colleague recognize that, with this budget, the government is reducing its share of health care funding, which is the top priority?”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for the eloquent answer he just gave. I want to go back to the issue of the deficit announced in the budget, which is $78 billion this year. The government is saying that this includes so much investment that it is no longer calculating the deficit the way it did in the past. When we look at the details, we see, for example, the Parliamentary Budget Officer saying that “the Government's definition of capital investments is overly expansive”. He even suggests that this subjective definition be reviewed by independent experts. With that method, the Trudeau government's deficits were much smaller. What are my hon. colleague's thoughts on that?”
“Madam Speaker, the government announced in the budget that it was eliminating the tax on web giants. That could well be included in the budget implementation bill. This tax was supposed to make up for the fact that these web giants pay no income tax. It was announced two years ago. Earlier this summer, the Prime Minister announced that he was scrapping the tax in order to secure a trade agreement that would get the U.S. President to lift the tariffs. The agreement did not materialize, however, yet that is still in the budget. Does my hon. colleague believe, as I do, that this tax should be reinstated to restore a little fairness between our SMEs, businesses that are active here, and the web giants?”
“Madam Speaker, organizations that support people experiencing homelessness have expressed concerns about the funding for the community encampment response plan. What we understand from reading the budget is that the amount allocated for 2024-26 will not be renewed and that there will be no increase in funding to help organizations. However, we know that this is a serious problem. Can the hon. parliamentary secretary confirm that Ottawa is withdrawing assistance to tackle homelessness outside of housing initiatives, for instance to address encampments?”
“I therefore ask the Chair to determine whether, in the case before us, there is a prima facie case to find that members who were not informed that the paper documents they received were incomplete have been impeded in the performance of their parliamentary duties and whether there is a prima facie breach of their parliamentary privilege. (1555) If so, I can move the appropriate motion to have the matter studied by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.”
“In that ruling, the Speaker referred to a ruling by his predecessor, at page 13868 of the Debates, and emphasized that “access to accurate and timely information is an essential cornerstone of our parliamentary system”. The Speaker went on to say: There is not only great truth but also great power in these few words, for they represent a right that is integral to the health of our democracy. They also explain, to some extent, why members take seriously the need to defend their right to access timely and accurate information in order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, particularly their role of holding the government to account.”
“On this issue, Bosc and Gagnon point out, in the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice , that parliamentary privilege protects members from any interference with their ability to perform their duties. On page 116, they state that misleading a member or members can be considered a form of obstruction that could hinder the business of the House. Parliament's right to obtain the fullest information possible on matters of public interest is indisputable. The issue here concerns the importance of the right of members of Parliament to have access to accurate and complete documents in order to exercise their responsibility to hold the government to account. A ruling by Speaker Regan on March 27, 2018, published in the Debates of the House of Commons at pages 18134 and 18135, appears to recognize that principle.”
“I would like to draw the Chair's attention to the fact that lock-ups give the other parties' critics and economic experts a chance to review all of the government's budget measures. However, failing to provide information in a fair manner, so that all members can have access to the full and complete facts, infringes on members' right to have all the information concerning government affairs. This is essential, particularly when the elected government is a minority government. Members of the opposition parties must have access to all the information in order to do their job and hold the government accountable on behalf of their constituents. It is also important to note that not having all the information could, in certain circumstances, mislead members.”
“This situation not only shows how blatantly unprepared the government was, but, in our opinion, it also violates the right of all members to full and fair information and could obstruct members in the performance of their parliamentary duties. It should be noted that not all members are authorized to take part in budget lock-ups and that only a limited number of people from each political party are allowed to attend. In our opinion, if the paper copy was missing pages or incomplete information on the government's budgetary policy was distributed, this could compromise the ability of members who received the incomplete version to understand and analyze all of the budget measures and to prepare for debates.”
“It is also worth raising the issue of fairness in accessing the budget information, since some members who participated in the lock-up were informed by the government that the PDF document was the official and complete version of the budget, while others received this information only after the lock-up. Worse still, members who received only the paper copy, just before attending the House sitting on the economic statement, were never informed that the paper copy did not contain the full and complete version of the budget. That raises serious concerns, especially since this was the version that most members received.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege concerning the proceedings of yesterday's budget lock-up and the budget documents that were distributed to members of Parliament. It turns out that members of Parliament who consulted the budget in paper format only, as distributed by the government during the lock-up and during the government's economic statement at the end of the day, did not receive all the information in the government's new budget policy. In fact, we have found that the PDF version, in other words, the electronic version, is 559 pages long, while the paper version is more than a hundred pages shorter at 448 pages.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Finance for his speech, which was as long as a Fidel Castro speech. The minister says this is a generational budget. When we read it, we see that it mentions $115 billion for infrastructure. When we look at the numbers, we see only $9 billion in new money over five years. That is not even $2 billion a year in new money for all infrastructure, despite the massive deficit. Is that what he considers a generational budget?”
“Mr. Speaker, youth unemployment is indeed a major concern, and we need to address it. I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for her speech on this. However, I have two questions for her. My first question has to do with the drastic changes made to the approach to the temporary foreign worker program. In my riding, many small and medium-sized businesses in the steel industry, the insurance industry and others are saying that these radical changes are jeopardizing their survival. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that. My second question is this. The hon. parliamentary secretary is also the member for Trois‑Rivières. In her view, is it a good idea to have chosen to give a speech in the House in English only?”
“Madam Speaker, the issues surrounding youth employment are very worrisome. However, I would like to talk instead about the jobs of tomorrow for young people, with the artificial intelligence revolution replacing more traditional jobs, especially in the service sector. Should the government not be implementing economic strategies to ensure that we have jobs for the future?”
“Mr. Speaker, here we have the story of the ant and the grasshopper. The Liberals have been busy singing all summer long, and with 24 hours to go before the budget, they are completely unprepared. They threaten an election, fudge the numbers and make partisan attacks. However, they knew that the Bloc Québécois would be asking for money for health care. That is Quebeckers' number one priority. They knew that we would be calling for an increase in pensions for seniors. We have been asking for this for four years. The Liberals have been aware of all our costed demands for ages. With 24 hours to go before the budget, do they want our support, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has manufactured more than just his own new shoes. He also manufactured an entire election crisis on the eve of the budget. His government did not hold any consultations. No witnesses appeared before the committee. It did not respond to any of the opposition's requests. There has still been no real negotiations between the parties. The budget is coming down roughly 24 hours from now, and the only thing the government has done is threaten an election. Instead of making his shoes today, why is the minister not working on a deal to get his budget passed?”
“As the saying goes, Mr. Speaker, we are rubber and he is glue. The housing crisis is at an all-time high, and the Liberals are to blame. The Parliamentary Budget Officer calculated that rents have increased by 26% solely because of the federal government's excessively lax immigration policies. People across the country, including immigrants themselves, are paying 26% more in rent because of the Liberals. To fix this debacle, the rapid housing initiative needs to be extended and made permanent, and Quebec's share must be transferred unconditionally. That is the bare minimum. Why are the Liberals so unwilling to include this in the budget that they are threatening to call an election?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. The Chair has chosen to group all of the amendments presented at this stage in a single vote. In other words, a single vote in the House will decide whether all the work that was done in committee will be undone. With a single vote, the House will let the committee know whether everything it accomplished was for nothing. What does my hon. colleague think about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, your office just grouped all the NDP and Liberal amendments into one vote. In other words, a single vote in the House will decide whether all the work that was done on this bill in committee will be wiped out. How much respect does the government have for the work of this committee?”
“Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the debate, the government and its representatives in the House have been saying that it would be much more important to discuss Bill C‑3 , which is not being passed quickly enough. First, I want to remind members that if the government did not try to undo the work that was done in committee, things could move forward much faster. Second, can my colleague tell us why it is important to talk about ethics, about the rules that must be reviewed every five years, and about the fact that this can be done in the House rather than in committee?”
“What can be done to ensure that the public does not wonder whether he did this to enrich himself personally, knowing that there are GAFAM shares in his blind trust? What can be done to regulate this?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague and thank him for his speech. He talked about Brookfield subsidiaries in tax havens. I want to remind the House that there are five that are active in Canada that received the wage subsidy during the pandemic at the same time as they were not paying taxes in Canada because they were registered in tax havens. That is unacceptable. This is my question for my colleague. The Prime Minister makes a decision that will enrich him personally, for example scrapping the tax on digital services imposed on web giants, saying that this will enable an agreement to be reached with the U.S. government before July 21. Obviously, that did not happen.”
“The same goes for the web giants, GAFAM. He decided to scrap the digital tax that targets them. However, since his trust also holds shares in this sector, he is benefiting and making money. What does my hon. colleague think about that?”
“Madam Speaker, first, we would like to have a French version of the amendment. That would help us with our work in this debate. With regard to the question just asked by the government representative, I would say that the big difference is that elected officials in the opposition do not have the same influence as the Prime Minister does. Do not forget that when the Prime Minister worked at Brookfield, he moved the head office from Toronto to New York to avoid the minimum corporate tax. That would not be possible in Canada. At the last G7 summit, he succeeded in getting the G7 members to back down on the demand to introduce a global minimum tax on American companies. By so doing, the Prime Minister is helping to make himself richer because he can probably assume that his blind trust still holds shares in Brookfield.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for introducing this very important bill in the House. As he said, most European countries and the United States have a process that involves parliamentarians before final ratification. I was elected in 2015, and there was a lot of talk about protecting supply management. I am pleased because we just passed a law that protects it, but in the last three trade agreements, supply management was sacrificed and used as a bargaining chip with other countries, whether it was with Europe, the United States, or as part of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. If we had a more democratic law, such as this one and such as exists in Europe and the United States, would Parliament have had the tools and means to protect the supply management sector?”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his fine speech. I have the pleasure of working with him on the Standing Committee on Industry. As he said, my party will also support this bill at second reading. We look forward to thoroughly analyzing this bill in committee. That said, the major problem we see is that there are a lot of commitments, but there are staff shortages at the CBSA and the RCMP. What does my hon. colleague think about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, we have talked about the good intentions in what the government is saying. However, my colleague also raised the fact that there is a shortage of officers. He said that the government has promised to hire 2,000 more officers, which may not even be enough. During the election campaign, we were told that about 2,000 officers would be hired, but the Speech from the Throne only mentioned 1,000 additional RCMP officers, not CBSA officers. The Customs and Immigration Union is asking Ottawa to allow border services officers to patrol between border crossings, not to replace the RCMP, but rather to give federal agencies more depth and flexibility in enforcing the law. The Bloc Québécois also supports this request. Can my colleague comment on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, in order for customs officers to be able to do their jobs properly, more officers need to be hired. The union says that the Canada Border Services Agency is short between 2,000 and 3,000 officers. During the last election campaign, the Liberal Party platform said that it would hire 1,000 additional RCMP officers and 1,000 CBSA officers. The 1,000 RCMP officers were mentioned in the throne speech, but the 1,000 CBSA officers were not. Let me repeat that the union has said that it needs between 2,000 and 3,000 officers. Will the government commit to hiring them?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom I have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. I congratulate her on her speech. I would like to raise an important question. Naturally, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑10 , whose implementation is crucial. That said, Liberal MP Robert Falcon Ouellette expressed some concerns about Bill C‑5 , which was passed last spring. He called it “a dangerous step backward”. He also said, “For indigenous peoples, this bill is not a step forward. It is a modern version of the Indian Act.” He opposes that. What can a commissioner with no power to enforce compliance do against a government that passes a law violating the basic rights of indigenous peoples, under a gag order, and with support from the Conservatives?”
“Mr. Speaker, five years ago, we learned about the shocking death of Joyce Echaquan, a 37-year-old wife and mother of seven. Five years have passed since she filmed and broadcast her experience with racism in a deeply tragic, but also infuriating, form. We remember her and what she went through. We stand with the Atikamekw nation and indigenous peoples in the fight against racism in all its forms, including within our institutions, as evidenced by so many personal accounts from first nations people. Bill C‑10 creates the position of commissioner. It is a small step in the right direction, but should this position not be accompanied by the ability to make binding recommendations?”
“Mr. Speaker, the proposed commissioner will not have the authority to enforce compliance, as my hon. colleague pointed out. Their role is to point a finger at the federal government's shortcomings and failures to comply with modern treaties. Their limited powers will only permit them to conduct performance reviews and audits. Would the hon. member like the commissioner to have an enforcement role or does she think that would still be too much red tape?”
“Mr. Speaker, based on what I understand from this bill, the mechanism of tabling reports in the House and requiring the audited federal institutions to respond is similar to the mechanism for the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. It sounds like it will become increasingly more difficult for the government to avoid taking responsibility for its shortcomings. What does my hon. colleague think of this?”
“Mr. Speaker, does my colleague agree that the government has really taken too long to introduce this bill or its previous version, Bill C‑66 ? Members will recall that, when the scandal broke, the Liberal government decided to appoint Justice Louise Arbour to make the military justice system independent of the chain of command. That was six years after the Deschamps report, which made the very same recommendation. According to the Toronto Star, when Louise Arbour was called, she wanted to know if she was seriously being asked to do this work that had already been done. The Arbour report was tabled in May 2022, and there was also the report by Mr. Morris Fish. Why delay the passage of such a bill for 10 years?”
“Mr. Speaker, why does my colleague think the government took so long to introduce this bill? Yes, there was Bill C‑66 , but it died on the Order Paper. The government has known for 10 years that it needed to act quickly, but it failed to do so. As for General Vance, there were allegations even under the Conservatives. Members will recall that the Liberal defence minister refused 12 times to meet with the ombudsman, who asked to meet with him on this issue so that action could be taken and legislation could be passed. The minister refused to even look at any evidence. Could my hon. colleague share his thoughts on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague and friend to share his comments on the actions, or lack thereof, of the former Liberal minister of national defence in the case of Mr. Vance. I will remind members that the ombudsman attempted to meet with the minister 12 times and that, on those 12 occasions, the minister refused to meet with him and review the evidence, saying he did not want to interfere with the investigation. However, his government did not hesitate to go after Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, who was speaking out against the actions of Scott Brison, who was part of that government at the time.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague whether such an amendment should have been made years ago. Various allegations were made, but little action followed, and the previous government did not really make a proactive effort to respond to these allegations.”
“This is precisely what the federal government is seeking to do by challenging the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause, even though it is provided for in section 33 of the Constitution. Let us not forget that Quebec did not sign the Constitution.”
“Mr. Speaker, following the reasoning presented by the hon. parliamentary secretary, which the government also argued in court, today in Le Devoir , journalist Marie Vastel said: However convoluted it may be, this reasoning would lead to a federal rewriting of the constitutional compromise that would usurp parliamentary sovereignty and give judges the final say. According to this logic, it would be up to the courts to create this new criterion for assessing the use of the notwithstanding clause and then, on a case-by-case basis, to judge its irrevocability. Once again, there seems to be a desire to remove political debates from the chambers of elected representatives and hand them over to the courts.”
“He justified the importance of the notwithstanding clause by saying that it “allows...legislatures to have the final say on various social and political issues on some occasions, rather than leaving it to the judiciary.” I would like to hear the hon. parliamentary secretary's thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely congratulate the hon. parliamentary secretary on his speech, much of which was delivered in French. I think that is a first for him in the House, so I applaud and congratulate him. I have the pleasure of serving with him on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, where we are doing very constructive work, at least from my perspective, so far. I really enjoyed hearing his life story, the journey that led him to take a stand on the topic of today's debate. I find that very interesting. However, I would like to hear his reaction to the comments made by the late Benoît Pelletier, who was a constitutional law professor in Ottawa and a Liberal member of the Quebec National Assembly.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on what André Binette, a constitutional lawyer, has written. He points out that the notwithstanding clause first appeared in Canadian law in the Canadian Bill of Rights, a federal statute passed by John Diefenbaker's government in 1960. Yes, he was a defender of individual freedoms but, coming from western Canada, he was also a fervent admirer of British institutions. Parliamentary sovereignty, which emerged from the British Glorious Revolution of 1688, a century before the French Revolution, was for him a legacy of civilization. What does my hon. colleague and friend think?”
“Mr. Speaker, I sincerely want to congratulate my friend and colleague on his passionate speech. I would like him to tell us, what exactly are notwithstanding clauses, also known as parliamentary sovereignty clauses? We know that the Quebec Court of Appeal upheld the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding or parliamentary sovereignty clause in Bill 21. At the Supreme Court, there was the Ford decision. The difference this time is that the Supreme Court is being asked to overturn its clear jurisprudence. What does my colleague think about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my hon. colleague on his excellent speech. I would like to quote a few lines from constitutional lawyer, André Binette. Defending the Canadian Constitution means defending the notwithstanding clause, and everyone must accept that. It is impossible to remove it because it is the central component of the 1982 political compromise from which Quebec was excluded. The notwithstanding clause is not unique to Quebec. It is part of the very essence of Canada. I would like my colleague's reaction.”
“Madam Speaker, former U.S. president Barack Obama said we are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it. Does my hon. colleague agree with this statement? If so, what measures does she suggest we take, aside from eliminating the cap on greenhouse gas emissions?”
“Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to congratulate my colleague and friend who will also soon be celebrating 10 years in the House. We were elected at the same time on October 19, 2015, although he served as a member of the Quebec National Assembly before that, and I did not. I also want to thank him for his kind words about the history I gave on this bill. I try to learn as much as I can about the history of Quebec and Canada. However, the Bloc Québécois relies on a tremendous team of researchers who help us put what we already know into words. The problems in my riding are growing. I would say that about half of the constituency casework that I do to help the people of Joliette is related to the Department of Immigration, and it is not as though I am serving in a downtown Montreal or downtown Toronto riding.”
“If there is not a way, and if a lot of MPs want to talk about a bill, that may mean the government did not communicate the information properly.”
“Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we, as legislators, are the only elected officials in the entire system, which goes from judges and the Senate to ministers and the Prime Minister . We legislators are elected. In that sense, we are all the government's boss. If the government introduces a bill that elicits concern or opposition from elected members, those members are duty-bound to raise those concerns in the House and launch the debate by telling the government that they are not on board and that they have doubts, concerns or issues. That is the basis of the parliamentary system we practise here. I have no problem with debate. It is the government's job to make sure it talks to all MPs and all parties to see if there is a way to speed things up.”
“When it comes to citizenship, and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in particular, there are still a number of ongoing problems and irregularities that need to be addressed. I cannot describe in parliamentary language how this department functions. It should be thoroughly reviewed and improved. In each of our constituency offices, we receive numerous calls, emails and requests almost every day from people asking us to speed up the process, deal with lost documents and provide assistance. In most cases, these are heart-wrenching stories. These are people who are living in uncertainty and facing challenges. Our immigration and citizenship legislation needs to be completely overhauled to simplify and clarify the process. The department needs to speed up the process, because in most cases, it is inhumane.”
“To address it, Canada adopted a series of legislative reforms in 2005, 2009 and 2015. Errors and inconsistencies persisted, however, and Bill C-3 seeks to correct them. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill before us. There will be some very important discussions in committee and amendments will be proposed to improve the bill and allay the fears and uncertainty that have been raised in the speeches in the House. For the Bloc Québécois, these are technical adjustments being made in the interest of justice that seek to harmonize the application of laws and to correct injustices committed in the past. To us, it is a matter of principle. This bill, which I believe is technical in nature and responds to a court ruling, should, in our opinion, have been passed within six months of the ruling.”
“The second is people who were born abroad to a Canadian parent before the current Citizenship Act came into force in February 1977. The third is people who lost their citizenship between January 1947 and February 1977 because they or a parent acquired the citizenship and nationality of another country. Lastly, there are second- and subsequent-generation Canadians born abroad since the current Citizenship Act came into force in February 1977. Their plight was brought to the public's attention thanks to Don Chapman, a former United Airlines pilot who found out that he had been stripped of his citizenship when his father emigrated to the United States. By deftly showing that this problem was affecting many Canadians unbeknownst to them, he forced Parliament's hand. Even General Roméo Dallaire was affected by the problem.”