SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Gabriel Ste-Marie

  • Member of Parliament
  • Member of Parliament
  • Bloc Québécois
  • Joliette
  • Quebec
  • Voting Attendance: 68%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $132,165.46

  • Government Page
  • May/23/24 4:56:46 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, first of all, it was not about the substance of what was said, but it was really about the heckling. I am sitting next to the member for Mirabel, and I could not hear him respond. My question is this. In the last budget, the government told Quebec that it has until January 1 to sign an agreement or it will negotiate with the cities on housing. That is illegal in Quebec. The Conservative housing plan does the same thing. It is forcing cities to increase construction by 15% or else it will cut its support in other areas. That is illegal in Quebec. We saw this during the Harper years. The federal government has continued to grow its tentacles and its size. Basically, in Ottawa, between the Liberals and the Conservatives, is it not six of one and half a dozen of the other?
147 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/19/24 11:38:18 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, there is not a penny more for seniors in the budget. Let us talk about housing. Imagine a Quebecker who is looking for a one-bedroom apartment in July but cannot afford the $1,600 in rent. He does not have access to affordable housing because the federal government has invested only 6% of the money in Quebec. He sees in the budget that the federal government is putting off 96% of its investments in apartment construction and 91% of its investments in housing infrastructure until after the election. It will be years before he sees the impact of the budget measures, and that is only if the Conservatives do not scrap them. Why not allocate that money now?
121 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/23/23 11:26:24 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the importance of getting affordable housing off the market in order to protect it from financialization. I would like her to talk about the importance of defining affordability based on tenants' ability to pay rather than comparing it to the average market price.
49 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/23/23 10:55:18 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to first point out that my hon. colleague did a tour of Quebec to talk about housing. He stopped in Joliette. We had a full house. Everything he is contributing is wonderful and informative. My colleague spoke about the financialization of housing and how to put an end to that. For example, that is what we are seeing in Montreal, and it is mainly the Bronfman family's company that is doing it. It is hard to get any closer to the Liberal Party than that. These people are taking affordable housing off the market, and not enough housing is being built to counter that. What we suggested is to offer an acquisition fund interest rate, which is something that the Union des municipalités du Québec has been calling for. This would involve implementing a measure to fund the purchase of these buildings at an interest rate that is lower than the market rate, to get them out of the financialization spiral that is causing people to be evicted and rents to go up. The current market rate is very high. However, with the borrowing authority of the government or the CMHC, we could simply pass the better rate on or even subsidize it to make this acquisition possible. Let me give an example. The government borrows at 3.6%. Suppose we want to give a non-profit organization an interest rate of 2% for one billion housing units that we want to get out of the financialization trap and that we are going to make truly affordable in the long term. That would cost $16 million. The difference between 3.6% and 2% is almost nothing for the government. By using its leverage, the non-profit would have an advantage. That would prevent financialization, which is what happens when big conglomerates like the Bronfmans get their hands on housing that is affordable and make it so that it is no longer affordable. This is one possible solution we are proposing to the government.
343 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/23/23 10:49:49 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for her very deep, content-rich question. As I said, Bill C‑56 has some good measures for fighting inflation, but they are just a drop in the bucket. They are inconsequential. Will eliminating the GST on the construction of rental housing lower the price of homes and apartments? The answer is no, far from it. Even the government is unable to tell us how much it expects and by how much the rents could go down. If it has any research or models, it is keeping them well hidden and we cannot get any access to them. It is a principled position. It is limited. We know that improving the Competition Act will help lower prices, but we cannot turn back time. It will help stop or slow down the situation, nothing more. Many other measures need to be taken. Fighting inflation is complex. If the government's response to inflation is just that, then it is lacking. It is a drop in the bucket.
174 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about his leader's bill, Bill C‑356. With that bill, Ottawa would require all municipalities with high housing costs—the list is getting longer and longer—to increase housing starts by 15% over the previous year. If a municipality's housing starts do not increase as required by Ottawa, the Conservative leader is proposing to cut its gas tax transfer and public transit transfer by 1% for every percentage shortfall from the target he has unilaterally set. For example, in Quebec, housing starts are down 60% this year, mainly due to interest rates, rather than up 15%. That is a difference of 75%, so transfers would be reduced by 75% for cities and towns in Quebec. In the economic statement, the Minister of Finance said that she wants to do something similar. Could my colleague comment on that?
147 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/22/23 3:07:45 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, the economic update proves once again that the Prime Minister does not understand the word “emergency”. The housing crisis is an emergency. Nevertheless, not only will the new funding be inadequate, but there is not a single new measure that will take effect before 2025, in other words, after the next election. The only thing the Prime Minister is offering is money starting in 2025 if people vote in a Liberal government. When will he understand that what we need today is money for housing, not election promises?
92 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/21/23 5:29:42 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, inflation is affecting everyone, particularly the most vulnerable members of our society. It is really worrisome. There is nothing in the fall economic statement to counter inflation. There is nothing to deal with it. The Liberals are just whistling past the graveyard. The hon. member spoke about housing. Yes, the government should do more about housing. However, this year, it is making $37 million in cuts to housing. We see that on page 31 of the English version of the economic statement. It shows $37 million being subtracted. The member is talking about funding for co-operative housing. He does not need to explain to me or any member of the Bloc Québécois what co-operative housing is. There is plenty of it in Quebec. We believe in the co-op model. We are always telling the government to do more in the way of social housing, including co-operatives. How much money is the government putting into housing co-operatives this year, in 2023-24? Zero dollars. However, the situation is urgent. How much money is the government putting into housing co-operatives next year, in 2024-25? Again, zero dollars. The situation is urgent. The situation was urgent this summer and last spring. We need to act now. Today, the government should not be making statements and commitments in principle about what it is going to do two, three, four, five or six years down the road. The situation is urgent now. This government is truly out of touch with people's urgent needs.
265 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Oct/5/23 5:44:13 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-56 
Mr. Speaker, the member from the governing party just reminded us that the government has reinvested in housing. However, the federal government prefers the concept of affordable housing over that of social housing, which includes co-operatives. For us, the concept of affordable housing is vague, which means that the money earmarked for it is often not used to build affordable housing. Would my hon. colleague care to comment?
69 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Oct/5/23 5:15:14 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-56 
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑56, but, as it has said, we need to go much further than the bill does. Currently, when the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, manages a parcel of land, it must sell it at the going market price. To my understanding, the minister has the power to authorize the CMHC to give away the land or sell it at a lower price. Can the minister confirm that he has that power? Currently, there is a situation in Joliette for a social housing project on an enclosed parcel of land. The municipal assessment is not so bad, but the market value is $1 million and the project is blocked because of that. Does the minister have the power to authorize the CMHC to sell the land at a lower price or give it away? Ultimately, that would free up social housing projects in Quebec.
160 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/21/23 12:42:07 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
Mr. Speaker, we spent one day in camera studying the budget. We wondered whether there really was an inflationary crisis, a housing crisis and a seniors' purchasing power crisis. It seemed to be a budget created in a vacuum, without any context. One could almost believe that it was generated by ChatGPT based on the last 30 or 40 years. This budget came out of nowhere. We see that in Bill C‑47, too. What is there for social housing or housing? There are 430 pages, and 59 statutes are affected, but there is nothing at all for housing. That is unacceptable.
104 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Mar/22/23 8:55:47 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Obviously, I will let the Conservative Party explain its reasons. To answer the question on inflation, there are a number of elements. We can think, in particular, of social housing, which should be better funded. In the budget being tabled by the minister next Tuesday, we hope to see significant funding allocated to social housing to ensure change, even if only at this level. To come back to the excise tax, I hope that my colleague will be able to speak with his cabinet colleagues. We would like to have the same model for microdistilleries as for microbreweries, namely a progressive excise tax to allow small players to enter the market and compete with the giants.
126 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/3/22 5:49:36 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Elmwood—Transcona for his question. I am fortunate to serve with him on the Standing Committee on Finance. I can say that we often work very collaboratively together, and it is a pleasure to work with him. On the housing issue, the fundamental problem is supply. There is not enough housing, that is, not enough houses and condos to meet the needs of the population. We need to build more. However, there is not enough capacity in the construction sector to meet the needs and to ensure acceptable equilibrium prices. Obviously, the solution to ensure that the price remains affordable is to have properly funded social housing. The cost of rent should not exceed 30% of people's income. Yes, there are some exceptions, but this government is basically just funding affordable housing, which is a catch-all concept. It needs to start funding social housing again. Under Bill C-31, most people living in social housing in Quebec will not receive any assistance. This is unacceptable and should have been changed in committee, but this government refused to do so.
190 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Sep/29/22 4:47:22 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, the current inflationary crisis is affecting everyone and putting millions of households in hopeless situations. Families must make agonizing choices to be able to continue making rent or mortgage payments. Many low-income people are cutting back on food and going hungry. The same is true for many middle-class households that are heavily in debt. Such a huge increase in prices, especially for food, energy and housing, creates considerable hardship, and that is not something to take lightly.
81 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/16/22 7:23:35 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Chair, the economic situation is out of control. People are worried about inflation, and rightly so. For instance, gas is at $2.24 a litre today in my riding, Joliette. This is devastating. The hardest hit are obviously low-income families whose obligations force them to drive a lot. The current reality is also really tough for businesses in certain sectors such as transportation, of course, as well as agriculture. Rising prices will help the energy transition in the long term, but will increase misery in the short term. The cost of housing is no more encouraging. Finding available affordable housing has become mission impossible. The price of houses and condos has exploded. However, according to experts, rising food prices could soon overtake energy and housing prices by a wide margin. The world is at risk of a food shortage this year, which will lead to skyrocketing prices and a serious global famine. The current situation is in large part a result of the war in Ukraine. Russia and Ukraine are the world's breadbasket. These two countries account for 30% of global wheat exports and 20% of global corn exports. They also export 65% of the world's sunflower oil. Russia has significantly cut back on its exports so that it can continue to feed its citizens at the same cost. As for Ukraine, its existing reserves are difficult to export, and there is a great deal of uncertainty about potential future harvests. Food prices in Ukraine are skyrocketing, and Ukrainians could be facing a famine. For example, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, or FAO, around half of the wheat reserves and nearly 40% of the rye in Ukraine are in war-affected areas. The damage caused by the war will reduce grain reserves and limit production and cultivated acreage for years to come. The damage to infrastructure makes it difficult to get humanitarian aid to Ukraine and to transport the resources that can still be saved. According to the World Bank, global agricultural commodity prices rose 41% between January and May and are still rising. During the same period, the price of corn jumped 54%, and the price of wheat jumped 60%. With its current budgets, the UN World Food Programme cannot feed as many people. Also according to the FAO, war and climate change are the main causes of global food insecurity, in Ukraine and elsewhere. It predicts that 44 countries will require food aid in 2022, particularly in West and East Africa due to conflicts in those regions, food commodity prices, and crop failures. Faced with the expected risk of food shortages, several countries have begun halting exports in order to strategically prioritize their own people. For instance, India stopped exporting its wheat, and then Indonesia halted palm oil exports. This food protectionism could trigger a domino effect with even more tragic consequences. Here, as elsewhere, production costs will soar, because the price of inputs has also exploded. For example, fertilizers come mostly from Russia and Belarus. Their prices had increased even before the war. Now they have doubled or tripled. What is more, this government is still imposing a 35% tax on them, even though they were ordered and paid for before the invasion of Ukraine. The rising cost of diesel fuel must also be taken into account. When economist Sylvain Charlebois appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance last month, the agri-food market expert said that supply chain issues are making it difficult for farmers to plan. Their inputs are not consistently available. He also reminded the committee that last summer, western Canada, the United States and Russia experienced major droughts, while Germany experienced major flooding. The result of all this was that the 2021 crops were so poor that reserves are currently low. They were counting on 2022 to replenish their reserves, but with the war, that will not be possible. The economist also added that it was not possible to increase cropland acreage in the short term. However, he did say that the spring flooding in Manitoba is not expected to have much of an impact on the harvest, as it delayed seeding by only a few weeks. All that adds up to significantly higher food prices in the coming months, much higher than what we are seeing now. For example, Germany is expecting grocery prices to increase by an average of 50%. Food will be 50% more expensive. It should be less than that in Quebec and Canada. That is how it is likely to play out in rich countries. People in poor countries will likely face famine, which is why international institutions are calling for greater solidarity, especially seeing as less wealthy countries were encouraged to go into debt to get through the pandemic more easily. As a result, they are now deep in debt and will not likely have the means to import enough food at high prices. Add to that the fact that many of them are already subsidizing basic foods to make sure their citizens can feed themselves. These countries will have to import food at high prices even as they spend more of their budget on food subsidies. African countries are particularly vulnerable. A significant portion of crops are now traded on the stock exchange. For example, a future crop can be sold in advance and traded several times on the stock exchange. This practice can drive up the price of commodities for speculative purposes. It is a bit like oil. People take advantage of the context to drive prices up and line their pockets. This situation is a reminder of the limits of using markets. The situation is such that food will be a major problem this year and for years to come. According to a partner with the firm McKinsey, even with an optimistic view of the crisis, things are unlikely to return to normal before 2024. The food crisis will require an exemplary demonstration of international solidarity. It also reminds us that war always has a greater impact than anticipated. Let us hope that a peaceful resolution will be negotiated to end this war, primarily for the sake of the Ukrainian people, but also to limit the effects of a food crisis that has already begun. We have an obligation to show solidarity to combat hunger on a global scale. We also need to do more to support our farmers. Finally, we must do more to ensure global peace and do our part to limit climate change. I hope this government is taking notes right now.
1104 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/8/22 12:18:45 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canada is short 1.8 million housing units. The government's plan is to provide 100,000 more units. It is true that we need to build more housing units, but saying so and doing so are two different things. I also want to raise the issue of social housing. Even though the budget does mention it indirectly, the government chose to use the expression “affordable housing”. That is not at all the same thing, and it could turn out that a two-bedroom apartment for $1,200 per month is considered affordable housing. The government says it is going to build 6,000 units, which is really not enough. We need clearly defined social housing, not affordable housing. I also criticized another aspect of the speech. In the budget, Ottawa is threatening municipalities by telling them they will get their infrastructure transfer if, and only if, Ottawa thinks they have built enough social housing units. It is not up to Ottawa to tell municipalities how to do things and play father knows best. We expected much better.
182 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Mar/4/22 1:30:05 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-8 
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent, dynamic speech. My question has to do with the underused housing tax. Constitutional expert Patrick Taillon told the Standing Committee on Finance that it was probably unconstitutional and would be nullified by the courts. One of the concerns Mr. Taillon raised was that, in the meantime, Ottawa would have put a whole system in place to collect a property tax and that it would use this system in the future. There is a risk here. What does my colleague think about that?
93 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Mar/4/22 10:33:51 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-8 
Mr. Speaker, I thank my brilliant and esteemed colleague from Mirabel for his speech. The housing shortage is affecting everyone throughout Quebec and Canada. It is a major problem. A whole series of measures is required to remedy it. Yes, a 1% property tax for non-resident owners of underused housing is more than marginal. It is symbolic, and this level of government has no business collecting it, at least not without the co-operation of the provinces. The problem is that there is not enough housing. The government really needs to make up for all the lost time and, most importantly, build more social housing. Once again, Ottawa abandoned social housing back in the 1990s, and today we are paying the price many times over. We are now seeing where decades and decades of underinvestment has led.
138 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Mar/4/22 10:19:57 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-8 
Mr. Speaker, we are at report stage for Bill C-8, the economic and fiscal update implementation act of 2021, which contains a number of measures. The Bloc Québécois agrees with the thrust of the bill. However, from the beginning, we have been pointing out a major problem, and that is the fact that the federal government is sticking its finger in the property tax pie. This is the first time that has happened. There is a housing shortage. The proposed measure will mean that foreign residents who are not permanent residents or citizens will pay more if they have a residence in Canada that they are not living in. This measure could marginally assist in addressing the housing crisis. We do not disagree with the principle, but as the song by Jacques Brel says, il y a la manière, there is a right way to do things. We see this as a dangerous precedent that brings to mind other similar cases in Canadian history. Today, Ottawa is proposing to interfere in a new taxation area, the only remaining area that it is not already involved in, and that is property taxes. The part of Bill C‑8 that targets non-residents proposes a 1% tax on underused housing. As I said, the idea may be a good one, but is it right for Ottawa to do this in such a cavalier fashion without consulting the municipalities and the provinces? I have a bad feeling about it, and we see this as a serious problem because different levels of government all have their own taxation powers. Property tax is under the jurisdiction of the municipalities and other creations of the provinces, such as school boards. Revenue sources are limited, so when Ottawa steps in and helps itself to a portion of the property tax base, that sets an unfair precedent. Moreover, the federal government will collect this tax without even talking to the people, the organizations and the levels of government that handle this area of taxation. That is a serious problem. We are only talking about some $100 million annually, which will not have a huge impact on the fiscal imbalance. The real problem here is precedent. To collect this new tax, the federal government, its departments and the Canada Revenue Agency will have to develop a brand-new mechanism and will have the power to collect this revenue from property taxes. The history of taxation in Canada gives us reason to worry. During the First World War, the government decided to introduce a corporate tax to fund the war effort, citing exceptional circumstances. That tax was justified and was supposed to be temporary, but Ottawa never cancelled it and is still collecting it to this day. The same scenario reappeared during the Second World War, when Ottawa introduced individual income tax to pay for the war. This exceptional tax was supposed to be temporary too, but Ottawa is still collecting it to this day. Everyone in Quebec remembers Mr. Duplessis's rallying cry “give us back our loot”, which I would like to co-opt today for property taxes. This is how Ottawa works. Once it takes hold of a taxation area, it never gives it up, even if temporary and extraordinary circumstances might seemingly justify it. That is the problem with this machine. It is always getting bigger and taking over everything, aiming to be the be-all and end-all. We are telling the federal government to be careful. Municipalities, school boards, and organizations associated with the provinces and Quebec have the opportunity and the power to manage this area, which they do while drawing only limited resources. We have to be careful not to let the federal government get its hands on this area of taxation, since the provinces and municipalities are already under-resourced and struggling to provide all the services within their jurisdictions. As we know, the Parliamentary Budget Officer publishes a fiscal sustainability report nearly every year. Even with Ottawa's extraordinary spending during the pandemic, his findings have not changed. In the long run, over the next few decades, Ottawa will have a budget surplus, and without major changes, the provinces will be saddled with debt levels from which they will never recover. That is why all the provinces are asking Ottawa to fund health care at 35%, or just over a third of spending, simply to restore some balance. Studies by the Conference Board of Canada have reached similar conclusions. The Council of the Federation also says that balance needs to be restored. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's studies remind us of this every year. Rather than agreeing with us and saying that the federal government is taking too much tax for the services provided and will therefore increase health transfers or leave tax points, now Ottawa wants to get its hands on the last taxation area that it has not waded into until now. This is unacceptable. It makes no sense. This is what constitutionalist and law professor Patrick Taillon said on February 17, in parliamentary committee: However, being a good idea is not an excuse to flout our constitutional principles. From the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the division of powers, the spirit and letter of the Constitution must be respected. Without the prior consultation of the provinces or an agreement with them—in other words, without some legal due diligence—this good idea has vulnerabilities. It is clear that the pith and substance of the measure involve the regulation of housing law, and there is no doubt that the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over housing when it comes to private law, specifically, property and civil law and, generally, in relation to social policies and local affairs. What the constitutional expert, Mr. Taillon, is saying is that because the purpose of this tax is to change behaviour in housing, an area of jurisdiction, it is highly likely that it is a regulation in disguise and would in fact be unconstitutional. He said that unfortunately, it is the courts that will have to rule on this. It would have been interesting, smart and pragmatic to check all this ahead of time instead of exposing ourselves to court challenges that could end up overturning the legislation, knowing that if the act were to be struck down, the federal government's entire property tax infrastructure would already be in place and spending already committed. The damage would have been done. This would undermine the municipalities. Should it not be deemed unconstitutional—we cannot assume how the courts will rule—it would nonetheless set a dangerous precedent because the tax will have been introduced without co-operative federalism, which could worsen the fragile fiscal balance within the federation. The balance would be unfair, and that is truly a serious problem. In closing, the Bloc Québécois proposed a very simple amendment in committee stating that if Ottawa wants to move ahead with this tax, it must have the province's agreement to impose it, ensuring that there are consultations with the municipalities. In closing, I take exception to your decision, Mr. Speaker. I take issue with you this morning, because you, and I am obviously directing my comments to the table, deemed that our amendment was out of order. We do not agree with that decision. Our amendment did not broaden the scope of the act, nor did it alter it. It merely sought to make the bill respect the Constitution. We are therefore very disappointed with your decision, which makes the historic precedent set by Bill C-8 against the rights of the municipalities and provinces even worse. In spite of my rebuke, Mr. Speaker, I thank you.
1309 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border