SoVote

Gabriel Ste-Marie

Member of Parliament
Member of Parliament
Bloc Québécois

Joliette
Quebec
Voting Attendance: 68%
Expenses Last Quarter: $132,165.46

Government Page

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

May/3/24 12:31:20 p.m.
Watch

I would ask for a bit of decorum in the House. I thank the hon. member for his point of order. Obviously, there is a difference between using that unflattering term to characterize a policy or a decision and using it to describe a person. That is how the Chair has interpreted the Standing Orders. I therefore invite the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby to continue his speech. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

78 words

Context: House Hansard - 215 - Jun/16/23

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Jun/16/23 12:50:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-8 Bill C-9 Bill C-47

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to share my opinion on the gag orders, because judging by what the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the minister are saying, one would have to wonder whether gag orders are not the best thing since sliced bread. I consider gag orders to be a technique used to systematically muzzle the elected members of the House, which is unacceptable. I believe that when the government invokes closure, it is because the government House leader has mismanaged the time spent on House business. All parties support Bill S‑8. We are now at third reading, the committee did a good job, everything is going well, and I do not think that there were many members who wanted to speak at this stage. I will give an example. Last night, until midnight, we discussed Bill C‑9. We have discussed this several times before, even before the last election. Why has the government House leader not been able to say that this is important, that it enjoys a fairly broad consensus and that it will be implemented quickly? Instead, it takes years to be adopted and implemented. I have two other examples. Closure was also invoked for Bill C‑47 , the budget implementation bill. It is hundreds of pages long and all the organizations that wanted to delve into it would have needed time to do so. Imposing closure on such a bill limits the amount of time available to go through it and the ability to correct the flaws in committee. One last and extreme example dates back to the pandemic, when the government was not taking action. At one point, it came up with a bill that was to go through all stages immediately. We asked for a few weeks to study it. We wanted it to be introduced so that people could go through it and improve it. However, the government did not want to do that and said that everything had to be passed as soon as possible, without any study or review. Well, it then had to present other bills to fix the first one. That is an unacceptable and absolutely amateurish way of doing things.

372 words

Context: House Hansard - 110 - Oct/7/22

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Oct/7/22 2:31:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-281

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper. Before adjourning the House, on behalf of the speakership, I would like to wish a happy Thanksgiving to all members and to all employees of the House, who do extraordinary work, from the Parliamentary Protective Service to the interpreters, not to mention the pages. I cannot name everyone so I will sincerely thank you all. It being 2:31 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday, October 17, at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1). (The House adjourned at 2:31 p.m.)

119 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 51 - Apr/1/22

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Apr/1/22 12:19:52 p.m.
Watch

Is it the pleasure of the House that the foregoing questions be made orders for returns and that they be tabled immediately? Some hon. members: Agreed.

26 words

Context: House Hansard - 34 - Feb/19/22

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Feb/19/22 11:08:28 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague said that we need the Emergencies Act to secure the joint participation of police forces. That is completely false. That sort of thing is commonly done under ordinary laws. The same is true for criminal financial activity, which can be dealt with under existing laws. In fact, when we look at everything that is invoked in the orders, there is not a single measure that is not already enshrined in existing acts and regulations. Why bring out the atomic bomb of the Emergencies Act when everything that is invoked in the orders is already written into ordinary laws? It makes no sense.

107 words

All Topics

SoVote

Member of Parliament

Gabriel Ste-Marie