Gabriel Ste-Marie

In response to a question from Gérard Deltell

“The government spent a lot of money over the last ten years to fight poverty. But housing became much less affordable and homelessness got worse. I want the prime minister and his ministers to use the next budget to fix this housing crisis.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and friend for his question and his speech. It is true, time flies. Where did those 11 years go? There is still a lot of work to be done. Of those 11 years, 10 were under the Trudeau government, a period marked by significant spending aimed at reducing poverty and improving affordability. Some examples include child benefits and the reinstatement of housing investment. However, I feel that housing affordability has ultimately worsened. In my speech, I spoke about homelessness. Unfortunately, over the course of those 10 years, homelessness has increased dramatically. Housing has become far less affordable. While there was undoubtedly a genuine desire to improve the situation, some of the policies may not have been sufficiently grounded in facts and statistics. Despite relying on expert advice, we have ended up in a situation where people who are struggling to make ends meet have seen their circumstances worsen. That is a problem. I hope that the current Prime Minister, together with ministers from the previous government, will be able to put forward measures, in the next budget, for example, to address the situation, particularly with regard to homelessness and the housing crisis.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Eric St-Pierre

“The government should bring back its energy-saving programs, like money for better home insulation. Instead of spending billions on oil pipelines in the west, federal energy money should support clean power and conservation.”

“Madam Speaker, there is obviously a lot of work to do when it comes to energy efficiency. The Bloc Québécois believes that energy efficiency relates to the environment and climate change. In Quebec, we are fortunate to have clean electricity, which is basically produced by hydro power. That is a big advantage, and we have a role to play in the economy of tomorrow. We think it is unfortunate that, here at the federal level, most of the funding to support energy development goes to western Canada’s oil and gas industry. There was talk of $43 billion for a new pipeline. We do not think that is the right way to go when it comes to developing the economy of tomorrow. There is still a lot of work to be done when it comes to energy efficiency. This includes, for example, better home insulation, more efficient energy use and energy conservation. The federal government used to have programs in place in this area, and we would like those programs to be reinstated. That would be a step in the right direction.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 29 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Many seniors cannot afford rent and food, and more of them are becoming homeless. The government only gave a pension raise to people aged 75 and older. I want the House to pass our bill to give that same 10% pension increase to seniors aged 65 to 74.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets. Both inflation and the housing crisis are hitting older Canadians particularly hard. The cost of living continues to climb, yet many seniors are living on fixed incomes so their purchasing power is eroding. A few months ago, Radio-Canada broadcast a report on retirees who were no longer able to pay the rent at their retirement home. It was reported that, since January 2025, Quebec’s administrative housing tribunal has ordered the eviction of at least 30 tenants in private retirement homes across the province for unpaid rent. That is just for the first half of the year. Given that 53% of people aged 65 and over live on less than $35,000 a year and that a third of older people have less than $25,000 a year at their disposal, it is clear that the ability to pay $1,680 a month for a room, not including services or meals, is by no means a given. The report also demonstrated that the situation is difficult even for those who are better off. For example, rent for a one-bedroom apartment, with services, can be as much as $3,900 a month. This is a major social problem. A Leger poll for Le Journal de Montréal found that a majority of Quebeckers aged 50 and up are worried about not having enough money for retirement. As an example of this reality, the article tells the story of a woman who was a personal support worker before she had to care for her father and then her husband while they were ill. The article says that now, at 69, she finds herself in a very financially insecure position. With rent and food prices soaring, the Quebec pension plan, the guaranteed income supplement and old age security no longer provide enough income. According to the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, half of those aged 60 and up live below the viable income threshold as defined by the Institut de recherche et d’informations socioéconomiques. Le Journal de Montréal reports that 24% of households made up of people aged 65 and up live in housing that is considered unacceptable because it fails to meet CMHC’s three standards for affordability, suitable size and adequacy. I would remind members that CMHC is the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. At a time when homelessness in general is on the rise throughout Quebec and Canada, homelessness among seniors is a growing issue. The Observatoire québécois des inégalités indicated that, based on the count conducted on the night of October 11 to 12, 2022, it is estimated that 6.5% of people who are experiencing visible homelessness were aged 65 and older and 29% were between the ages of 50 and 64. La Presse published an article on this sad subject a few weeks ago entitled “Homelessness crisis - On the street for the first time at age 65, 70 and 75”. It begins as follows, “Difficult to quantify but impossible to ignore: The Quebec commissioner of health and well-being is concerned about the fact that an increasing number of seniors in Quebec are becoming homeless for the first time in their lives. People on the ground are describing the situation as a humanitarian crisis.” Speaking of homelessness, I would like to remind the House that over 12,000 people in Quebec are homeless. What was once a big city problem has now spread to all regions of Quebec. People are suffering. They are hungry. They are at risk every day and they are dying. As we, unfortunately, learned yesterday, two homeless people have lost their lives. Of course, I want to express my deepest condolences those individuals’ loved ones on behalf of my party and all members of the House, I am sure. Quebec’s new government and its new premier are making the fight against homelessness a national priority. I wish the Prime Minister would follow their lead. Just today, La Presse published an editorial under the headline, “The homelessness crisis: On the street, from the cradle to the grave”. The article reads, “Women, children, seniors. Homelessness affects everyone. Across the province, there are 12,077 people experiencing homelessness, a 20% increase in three years.” It also reminds us that “the proportion of homeless people aged 50 and over is 35.5%. Of those individuals, 17% were experiencing homelessness for the first time.” Urgent action is therefore needed. This is a national emergency, and we are calling on the government to do so much more. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, Canada ranks among the industrialized countries reporting the sharpest drop in purchasing power in retirement. Its net pension replacement rate is 47.3% of pre-retirement income. In other words, the transition to retirement involves a significant drop, by more than half, in the average standard of living. In comparison, the OECD average is 65.5%. In other words, when people here reach retirement age, their income is halved, while in other countries, on average, people retain two-thirds of their income. Of the 45 countries studied, Canada ranked 39th on coverage provided by mandatory public and private plans, far behind countries like the Netherlands at 86.6%, Spain at 80.6%, Portugal at 73.8% and Austria at 74.1%. Canada even placed behind the United States, which came in at 50.5%, despite the fact that income inequality is nevertheless very pronounced there, as we know. We must act now. Seniors need better protection against a decline in their standard of living. In Quebec, nearly four in 10 people aged 65 and older rely on the guaranteed income supplement to meet their needs. Historically, poverty among seniors declined thanks to government transfers. However, since the 2000s, the situation for seniors has been deteriorating relative to that of other age groups. This trend can be attributed in part to Ottawa’s decision to de-index the old age security pension from wage growth. In 1971, OAS represented 20% of the average industrial wage. Today, it is only 12%. It has fallen from 20% to 12%. To correct this injustice, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for an increase in this benefit for several years. In 2023, Justin Trudeau’s government agreed to an increase, but only for people aged 75 and older, leaving out 1.1 million Quebeckers aged 65 to 74 and thereby creating two classes of seniors. Since then, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for this increase to be extended to people aged 65 to 74. Before the last election, a motion to that effect had even been passed in the House of Commons during a minority Parliament. The government, however, refused to act on it. Today, the Bloc Québécois is back on the offensive. My colleague and friend, the member for Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent, introduced Bill C-261, which seeks to increase old age security by 10% for seniors aged 65 to 74 and to raise the employment income exemption for the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement by $1,500. This bill is essentially the same as the one introduced by my friend and colleague, the member for Shefford, in the previous Parliament, and which was supported by a majority of members through a motion in the House. The debate on this bill has just started. The position taken by Liberal MPs, who now hold a majority, will serve as a true test of their credibility regarding their commitment to the dignity of seniors and affordability. Obviously, the response to inflation, the housing shortage, particularly the shortage of affordable and public housing, and the loss of purchasing power among the most vulnerable goes beyond the scope of this bill. For now, unfortunately, the government is more interested in shielding multinational corporations that use tax havens from taxation, propping up the fossil fuel industry with tens of billions of dollars in subsidies, and skyrocketing its military spending. U.S. President Donald Trump is scary, but that is no reason to bow down to him, and it should not be used as an excuse to neglect the most vulnerable people, particularly seniors who are hard hit by inflation and, of course, people experiencing homelessness. Unfortunately, Quebec still depends on decisions made here in Ottawa, where concern for social inequality, homelessness, and the precarious situation of seniors appears far less pronounced. In a context of fiscal imbalance and the concentration of financial resources at the federal level, Quebec’s ability to act remains limited, and there is no denying that we are truly not masters in our own house. I hope my colleagues from Quebec will take note of that.”

“More than 12,000 people are homeless in Quebec, and the problem is spreading across the province. Quebec made fighting homelessness a top priority. I want to know if the federal government will do the same.”

“Mr. Speaker, there are more than 12,000 homeless people in Quebec. What was restricted to big cities now extends to all regions of Quebec. These are people who are suffering, who are hungry and who are at risk every day. They are dying, as we have sadly seen today. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois and no doubt all my colleagues in the House, I offer my deepest condolences to the loved ones of the woman who died. Quebec’s new government is making the fight against homelessness a national priority. Will the federal government follow suit?”

“Our labour laws are outdated because they still let employers use replacement workers during strikes. This drags disputes out instead of solving problems. Quebec banned replacement workers 50 years ago. Does the government agree we should ban them across Canada?”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for her speech. She spoke about the right to strike. Would she agree that the main problem is that the Canada Labour Code is outdated, especially since it allows the use of scabs during labour disputes? Quebec did away with that about 50 years ago. Because of that provision, labour disputes drag on. Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code and the amendments proposed by Bill C-39 send employers the message that if they let a labour dispute drag on, the government will step in and deal with the situation. When negotiations fail to result in new working conditions, issues that should have been resolved are instead pushed forward to the next round of bargaining, which undermines social cohesion. Does my colleague believe that we should remove the option of using scabs and modernize the Canada Labour Code?”

“The Supreme Court ruled that the right to strike is protected by the Charter. The government can only limit that right to protect public health and safety, not business interests. I believe the section of this bill on the right to strike violates the Constitution. I am asking my colleague if he agrees.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you in the chair. My question for my colleague has to do with labour law and the right to strike. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the right to strike as a fundamental right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That was in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan. The Bloc Québécois believes this proves that in order to infringe upon a protected right, there must be a valid reason, such as protecting the life, health or safety of the public. Serving corporate interests is not a valid reason. That is why the section of Bill C-39 dealing with the right to strike may be unconstitutional. What are my hon. colleague’s thoughts on that? Does he think, as I do, that the Liberals are going to tout the benefits of the notwithstanding clause to defend this part of Bill C-39?”

In response to a question from Greg Fergus

“I oppose this bill. It weakens environmental rules and worker rights just to help big international investors. It also takes power away from scientists and gives project reviews to regulators linked to the oil industry.”

“Mr. Speaker, first of all, that already happened with Bill C-5. As soon as a project is designated as being in the national interest, a whole host of environmental protection laws no longer apply. In this case, rather than maintain the consultation process involving scientists, a gain achieved under the Liberals in 2015—I do not know where the hon. member was at the time—the government is now proposing to have the Canada Energy Regulator take care of that process. A quick look at the list of commissioners shows that they are all oil industry lobbyists. Even if the regulator were to oppose a project, it would be pre-approved anyway, so the regulator would no longer have any power. That is what the government is doing. It is trampling on the environment and workers’ rights. I could take a highlighter to the 250 pages of the bill and show him every place where this bill clearly undermines workers’ rights and the environment for the benefit of big international investors. Is that what standing up for the public means to this government? Does it mean favouring big international investors? I think the government should have tried to strike a balance.”

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I do not want this bill. It takes environmental reviews away from scientists and gives them to the oil industry. It also hurts workers by making it easier to end strikes and use replacement workers. This bill serves big foreign companies instead of the public.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague the following question. What is the environment worth to his government? The impact assessments that used to be carried out by scientists are being taken away and handed over to the Canada Energy Regulator, which is an oil lobby. It will have the power to approve everything, and even if it does not approve a project, projects are authorized before they have even been assessed. That is why I want to know what the environment is worth to this government. What are workers’ rights worth when the rules can be changed to make it easier to pass special legislation ending labour disputes and the right to use scabs stays intact? What are workers’ rights worth? What is this government’s goal? Is it to serve large foreign interests or to defend the public’s interests? The public cares about the environment and workers’ rights. That is precisely what Bill C‑39 is trampling on, and it is unacceptable.”

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“I do not want the House to pass this bill. It takes project reviews away from independent scientists and gives them to a regulator run by former oil executives. It also lets the government force striking workers back to their jobs, which violates their rights.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by telling a little story. Ten years ago, almost to the day, on August 29, 2016, the National Energy Board arrived in Montreal. The board’s commissioners were there to hold public hearings on the energy east pipeline project. People in Quebec wanted nothing to do with that pipeline. It would do nothing to improve our energy security. It was just a big oil pipeline going from one side of Quebec to the other. It would cross 800 waterways that provide drinking water to most of Quebec’s population. Over 130 municipalities, accounting for 70% of Quebec’s population, opposed the pipeline. I have to say that the proponent, TransCanada Pipeline, did nothing to help its cause. It was full of contempt and kept telling anyone who would listen that Quebec had no say in the matter, that it did not recognize the authority of the Quebec government and that Ottawa, and Ottawa alone, would decide. It was against this tense backdrop that the commissioners of the National Energy Board left Calgary and went to Montreal to listen to the little people. Things got off to a bad start. Half of the commissioners did not speak a word of French, and things only got worse from there. The public realized that the consultations were a sham, that most of the commissioners were from the oil industry and that the board was basically an extension of the American oil companies. Needless to say, tempers flared, and the whole thing almost turned into a riot. It reminds me of the Félix Leclerc song L’alouette en colère, in which he talks about how he became a separatist because of Canada’s contempt. He sings about how “the big neighbour from across the street came over” and how this stranger’s rude behaviour filled him with rage. That sums up what happened at the government’s sham consultations. In the end, the commissioners shut down the hearings. The energy east pipeline was scrapped, the commissioners got on a plane back to Calgary, and we never saw them again. Ottawa realized that stacking the deck in the oil companies’ favour only stoked more opposition. The National Energy Board was too toxic, so it was rebranded as the Canada Energy Regulator, which sounded better. Most importantly, its mandate was confined to energy-related matters. Public consultations and impact assessments would no longer be conducted by former oil company lobbyists. Now, they would be done by neutral, objective, serious-minded people, scientists working together at an impact assessment agency. That was a big step forward. Thanks to Quebeckers, Canada was making progress. That is what the government wants to destroy with the stroke of a pen. Bill C-39 is even worse than the process that angered Quebeckers 10 years ago. This bill rolls out the red carpet for American oil companies, as if the way to resist Donald Trump is to copy him. Forget about impact assessments; the Canada Energy Regulator will be in charge of reviewing projects. What is the Canada Energy Regulator? Simple: It is oil companies. There is no making this stuff up. There are seven commissioners. The lead commissioner is the former senior legal counsel for TransCanada Energy, formerly known as TransCanada Pipeline, which changed its name after the energy east fiasco. The deputy lead commissioner is a former executive of Royal Dutch Shell. Another commissioner served as legal counsel for the Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada Limited. Another one is from Imperial Oil and Canadian Oil Sands Limited. Yet another is from Cenovus Energy, the oil sands company. That is the Canada Energy Regulator in a nutshell. Bill C‑39 sidelines scientists and replaces them with oil company lawyers. It basically hands the fox the keys to the henhouse. In the energy east saga, Quebeckers helped Canada move forward. Today, Canada is setting Quebec back. We will remember that. Even if the structure of the energy regulator could be completely changed, even if oil lobbyists could be removed and replaced by genuinely neutral individuals, that would not do much. The regulator could ask that the pipeline be painted green, but that would be the extent of its authority. Regardless of what the regulator says, the projects will already have been approved. The regulator will not be able to say that the projects are bad, and if it did, it would not change anything. The projects are all pre-approved. The entire process is tainted. In fact, the process does not even really exist anymore. Now projects will be approved at the Prime Minister’s whim. The emperor’s word is final. I do not know of any government that has rolled back environmental protections so much, except Donald Trump, perhaps, and we are told that he is a fool. Stephen Harper would not have dared gut environmental protections so brutally. He would not have dared tell the public that he did not want to hear their opinions because he had decided everything on his own. He knew that would not go down well. Why is the government so distrustful of the public that it does not want to hear from them? Apparently, it has to act this way because Donald Trump is a fool. Go figure. As children, we were told to go inside or the bogeyman would get us. It was a trick to keep us quiet. Today, the bogeyman wears orange makeup and has yellow hair, but it is the same thing. We are being told, “Hide and stay quiet or the bogeyman will get you”. By fearmongering about Donald Trump, the government is trying to make us accept things that we would never put up with otherwise. Donald Trump will not be around forever. Two months from now, he should already have less power. Two years from now, he will be gone. However, the setbacks and damage from Bill C‑39 will remain. The Liberal members who are bragging here today will likely have a hard time hiding their shame in two years. Democratic processes are not the only thing that Bill C‑39 throws out the window. It does not just sacrifice the fight against climate change in a complete betrayal of our children and grandchildren. It also attacks workers’ rights. In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to strike is a fundamental right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that there must be a very good reason for infringing on a protected right. Protecting the life, health or safety of the public is a good reason. However, protecting the interests of large companies is not. That is essentially what the Supreme Court wrote in its ruling in the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour case. As a result, it is possible that this part of Bill C-39 may be unconstitutional. I cannot wait to hear the Liberals extol the virtues of using the notwithstanding clause to defend Bill C-39. It will be quite the sight, watching them twist themselves into knots. The Canada Labour Code is outdated. It allows for the use of replacement workers, a practice that has been abolished in Quebec for almost 50 years. That is why disputes at the federal level drag on. When that happens, the government ends the strike through special legislation or stops negotiations and imposes working conditions by invoking section 107 of the federal labour code, which amounts to the same thing, but without the democratic debate. We need to be aware of what this means. Since the negotiations never reach a conclusion, the disagreements are never resolved. They are swept under the rug, but the thorny issues remain. Invariably, they resurface as even bigger problems in the next round of bargaining, and the cycle begins all over again. The dispute becomes harder to resolve and eventually drags on indefinitely. The government ends the strike. The issues are put off until later, but nothing is ever actually resolved. Bill C-39 makes the situation even worse. It will make it easier to end strikes. It will ensure that disputes and disagreements are never resolved. It will only postpone them until later, when they will be even bigger. It will undermine bargaining and the work environment, because employers will know full well that it is better for them if things come to a standstill. Thanks to the bill, they will know in advance that the government will be there, ready to end the strike and impose working conditions that benefit employers, of course. What is great about democratic societies is that they allow for peaceful resolution of disagreements. That is what makes life in a democratic society better and easier. There are built-in conflict resolution mechanisms, places where people can go to and be heard, knowing that their voices count. Parties can negotiate in good faith in an environment where everyone’s rights are respected. However, when consultations take place after the decision has been made, when an emperor’s decree replaces social licence, when the interests of the powerful replace scientific facts and serious analyses, and when negotiations are rigged in favour of companies, the social contract starts to fall apart. When the only choice for people to be heard is to take to the streets, social peace is in jeopardy. Bill C-39 is a downward spiral and a democratic, environmental and social step backward. When the social contract starts to get ripped apart, who knows where we can end up. Gilles Vigneault put it best when he had his character Ti-Cul Lachance say these words to a corrupt politician:That’s a lot of hot air you’ve been sowingBut it seems like you’re obliviousTo the great whirlwind you’ll end up reaping We in the Bloc Québécois are not oblivious and we will firmly oppose Bill C-39.”

“This bill hurts workers' rights. Giving the government the power to end labour disputes just delays the problem instead of fixing it. We should fix the Canada Labour Code instead and ban replacement workers, just like Quebec did 50 years ago. I want to know if my colleague agrees.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech. I would like to discuss the erosion of workers’ rights in this bill. The government is giving itself powers to end disputes and issue an order. This change merely kicks the problem down the road. It does not make it go away. On top of that, the problems between employers and unions remain unaffected, and this has a snowball effect. The problem, in my view, is that the Canada Labour Code has not been reviewed in a very long time. This has led to the problems we are seeing. They will not be resolved by passing special legislation, like the provisions in Bill C‑39, but rather by amending the Canada Labour Code and, as a first step, introducing anti-scab legislation and prohibiting the use of scabs, as Quebec did roughly 50 years ago. This would help resolve labour disputes. What does my hon. colleague and friend think about that?”

“Will the minister admit that oil companies run the Canada Energy Regulator? Its leaders used to work for big oil companies. This bill pushes scientists aside and replaces them with oil industry lawyers.”

“Mr. Speaker, does the minister agree that the Canada Energy Regulator is effectively run by the oil companies? The lead commissioner is the former senior legal counsel at TC Energy, previously known as TransCanada Corporation, the owner of the TransCanada pipeline, which changed its name following the energy east fiasco. The deputy lead commissioner is a former executive at Royal Dutch Shell. Another commissioner is a former legal adviser to Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada Limited. Another one comes from Imperial Oil and Canadian Oil Sands Limited. Then there is one from Cenovus Energy, an oil sands company. Does my colleague agree that the Canada Energy Regulator is effectively run by oil companies and that Bill C-39 sidelines scientists and replaces them with lawyers from this industry?”

“We support this bill to protect victims. But Quebec lawyers warn that putting all these rules into one law makes it too complicated to use. What does the member think about that?”

“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 provisions”. What are my hon. colleague’s thoughts on that?”

“Too many women are killed in Quebec and Canada every year. This bill helps, but it does not do enough. I want to know what my colleague thinks about it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am extremely concerned about the number of femicides committed each year in Quebec and across Canada. There have already been 10 in Quebec this year. This bill will take a step toward reducing them, but I feel it is insufficient. What does my hon. colleague and friend think?”