Discussion · Government Orders
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Québécois
“I do not want this budget bill to pass. It does nothing to help Quebec's forestry and aluminum industries, even though American tariffs hit our province the hardest. It also gives more subsidies to oil companies, weakens pesticide rules, and limits oversight of government contracts.”
“Madam Speaker, this week, in fact the day after tomorrow, the Minister of Finance will table the 2026-27 federal budget. I sincerely hope that the minister will heed Quebec’s requests regarding important sectors like aluminum and forestry. In Laurentides—Labelle, particularly in the northern part of the riding, the forestry sector is a major part of the economy. It is one of the three economic pillars of the Antoine-Labelle RCM. Some people in our communities are worried. I am talking specifically about wage earners who, because of the tariffs, feel that a sword of Damocles is hanging over their heads. I am also thinking about the entire business community, local merchants, and the vitality and appeal of our region. When we talk about supporting specific economic sectors, it is because they carry a significant economic weight in the region, and any hardship they face will have far-reaching repercussions throughout the broader economy. The Minister of Finance should be sensitive to this reality, given that he himself represents a region with a strong forestry sector. However, Bill C‑31 does nothing to address forestry, despite the Bloc Québécois’s offers, requests and proposals. Indeed, we made thoughtful proposals developed in consultation with key stakeholders in the sector. A year ago, in fact, we asked a number of municipal officials to come to Ottawa, including Daniel Bourdon, reeve of the Antoine-Labelle RCM and mayor of Mont-Laurier, as well as the mayor of Ferme-Neuve. They were here to support the measures we were proposing, alongside a number of softwood lumber stakeholders, including Unifor, Rémabec and Chantiers Chibougamau. The Bloc’s proposal made sense then and it still makes sense today. It would have cost the government nothing. The idea was to use the customs duties collected to help support the forestry sector. It was a win-win situation for everyone. Our proposal fell on deaf ears. Bill C-31 contains no support measures for our small and medium-sized businesses, our industrial sectors or our communities. In recent weeks, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that Quebec is the province most affected by Donald Trump’s American tariffs. I understand the concerns of my colleagues from southern Ontario who are worried that the automotive sector will be decimated by U.S. policies. I understand why people in Hamilton are worried about Stelco. However, I am equally concerned about my own region. I worry that our processing industry will go into a tailspin. I fear that well-paid workers will lose their jobs. I am afraid that Quebec’s economy, an economy that is diversified, industrial, manufacturing-based and service-oriented, is not sufficiently dependent on any single industry to be deemed worth saving. That is essentially what we are experiencing. There is a desire to save one industry and ensure that everyone benefits from it. With all due respect to the government, Quebec is more complex than that. Helping Quebec means understanding it, loving it and appreciating it. That way, Quebec will be further ahead than Quebeckers could have ever dreamed. I have no doubt that I will soon be reminded that there are more than 40 MPs in this House who are here to defend Quebec’s interests. What about when it comes to the forestry sector? What about standing up to talk about aluminum? What about fighting for our tourism sector so that it has funding to replace its infrastructure? Not only does Bill C‑31 ignore Quebec, but it also further increases oil industry subsidies. It now considers hydrogen production from methane to be a form of clean hydrogen, unlike Quebec City, which maintains that green hydrogen must be produced using renewable energy sources. Several measures in Bill C‑31 open the door to more powers for the government and less transparency, such as restricting who can file a complaint with the procurement ombud and which complaints the ombud can review. It seems that every time I rise to speak during a debate, I repeatedly ask where we are headed. It is in fact a constant pattern with the federal government. It is clearly seeking to limit transparency, dismantle safeguards, remove checks and balances, and move full steam ahead toward a specific objective while disregarding basic democratic principles. I know that talking about the procurement ombud does not make for a stirring speech. It will not bring the House to its feet, but accountability does not have to be dramatic to be essential. What we are seeing take shape in the government is deeply troubling. There is a slide toward authoritarian control, where checks and balances gradually weaken until they can be silenced altogether. It is a very subtle way of going about it. The government will never openly say that it wants to silence them. No, instead, it creates Crown corporations with mandates that raise questions. It circumvents laws and plays with words. Taken in isolation, these actions may appear technical, but when viewed as a whole, it becomes clear where the government is leading us. Bill C‑31 adopts an excessively permissive approach to public health and pesticides. I am very concerned about these changes because they could weaken oversight of pesticides. In Europe, pesticide approvals are based on scientific study and the precautionary principle. Any risks to health or the environment must be taken seriously. The economy must serve people, not the other way around. We all know that, but the government seems to be dismissing these concerns in the name of efficiency and economic interests. The government also wants to give the minister more discretionary powers. However, when important decisions are not subject to debate and parliamentary oversight, that is no mere administrative adjustment; it is a big step in the wrong direction. I am extremely concerned. Think about pressure from lobbyists. Think about the agricultural workers who could be exposed to dangerous pesticides. Think about the impact on people and what we want to leave to future generations. They keep talking about efficiency, but the question remains: Who will benefit from these changes? Our requests concerning the economic update were clear. As dictated by our guiding principles, we had to take care of our people, as should we all. I will briefly review what we requested. We proposed introducing a wage subsidy program for sectors affected by the U.S. tariffs. We proposed relaunching EI reform with a clear timetable. We have been calling for that since 2015, and we were promised it. We proposed reimbursing Quebeckers for the electoral gift, which people seem to have forgotten about, that the Liberal Party of Canada handed to people elsewhere in the country during the last election campaign under the guise of a carbon tax rebate. We proposed supporting our media through three key measures involving expenditures of $387 million over five years and generating an additional $7.2 billion in revenue over the same period. We proposed locking in a 6% health transfer escalator, which could be easily done. We proposed increasing old age security benefits for seniors aged 65 to 74. We want no more discrimination. There were other proposals as well. In the end, however, the government chose not to consult us. That is politics. However, when the government ignores us, it also ignores the 1,236,349 Quebeckers who put their trust in us on April 28, 2025. We will be there and we will stand up for our values.”
Madam Speaker, this week, in fact the day after tomorrow, the Minister of Finance will table the 2026-27 federal budget. I sincerely hope that the minister will heed Quebec’s requests regarding important sectors like aluminum and forestry. In Laurentides—Labelle, particularly in the northern part of the riding, the forestry sector is a major part of the economy. It is one of the three economic pillars of the Antoine-Labelle RCM. Some people in our communities are worried. I am talking specifically about wage earners who, because of the tariffs, feel that a sword of Damocles is hanging over their heads. I am also thinking about the entire business community, local merchants, and the vitality and appeal of our region. When we talk about supporting specific economic sectors, it is because they carry a significant economic weight in the region, and any hardship they face will have far-reaching repercussions throughout the broader economy. The Minister of Finance should be sensitive to this reality, given that he himself represents a region with a strong forestry sector. However, Bill C‑31 does nothing to address forestry, despite the Bloc Québécois’s offers, requests and proposals. Indeed, we made thoughtful proposals developed in consultation with key stakeholders in the sector. A year ago, in fact, we asked a number of municipal officials to come to Ottawa, including Daniel Bourdon, reeve of the Antoine-Labelle RCM and mayor of Mont-Laurier, as well as the mayor of Ferme-Neuve. They were here to support the measures we were proposing, alongside a number of softwood lumber stakeholders, including Unifor, Rémabec and Chantiers Chibougamau. The Bloc’s proposal made sense then and it still makes sense today. It would have cost the government nothing. The idea was to use the customs duties collected to help support the forestry sector. It was a win-win situation for everyone. Our proposal fell on deaf ears. Bill C-31 contains no support measures for our small and medium-sized businesses, our industrial sectors or our communities. In recent weeks, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that Quebec is the province most affected by Donald Trump’s American tariffs. I understand the concerns of my colleagues from southern Ontario who are worried that the automotive sector will be decimated by U.S. policies. I understand why people in Hamilton are worried about Stelco. However, I am equally concerned about my own region. I worry that our processing industry will go into a tailspin. I fear that well-paid workers will lose their jobs. I am afraid that Quebec’s economy, an economy that is diversified, industrial, manufacturing-based and service-oriented, is not sufficiently dependent on any single industry to be deemed worth saving. That is essentially what we are experiencing. There is a desire to save one industry and ensure that everyone benefits from it. With all due respect to the government, Quebec is more complex than that. Helping Quebec means understanding it, loving it and appreciating it. That way, Quebec will be further ahead than Quebeckers could have ever dreamed. I have no doubt that I will soon be reminded that there are more than 40 MPs in this House who are here to defend Quebec’s interests. What about when it comes to the forestry sector? What about standing up to talk about aluminum? What about fighting for our tourism sector so that it has funding to replace its infrastructure? Not only does Bill C‑31 ignore Quebec, but it also further increases oil industry subsidies. It now considers hydrogen production from methane to be a form of clean hydrogen, unlike Quebec City, which maintains that green hydrogen must be produced using renewable energy sources. Several measures in Bill C‑31 open the door to more powers for the government and less transparency, such as restricting who can file a complaint with the procurement ombud and which complaints the ombud can review. It seems that every time I rise to speak during a debate, I repeatedly ask where we are headed. It is in fact a constant pattern with the federal government. It is clearly seeking to limit transparency, dismantle safeguards, remove checks and balances, and move full steam ahead toward a specific objective while disregarding basic democratic principles. I know that talking about the procurement ombud does not make for a stirring speech. It will not bring the House to its feet, but accountability does not have to be dramatic to be essential. What we are seeing take shape in the government is deeply troubling. There is a slide toward authoritarian control, where checks and balances gradually weaken until they can be silenced altogether. It is a very subtle way of going about it. The government will never openly say that it wants to silence them. No, instead, it creates Crown corporations with mandates that raise questions. It circumvents laws and plays with words. Taken in isolation, these actions may appear technical, but when viewed as a whole, it becomes clear where the government is leading us. Bill C‑31 adopts an excessively permissive approach to public health and pesticides. I am very concerned about these changes because they could weaken oversight of pesticides. In Europe, pesticide approvals are based on scientific study and the precautionary principle. Any risks to health or the environment must be taken seriously. The economy must serve people, not the other way around. We all know that, but the government seems to be dismissing these concerns in the name of efficiency and economic interests. The government also wants to give the minister more discretionary powers. However, when important decisions are not subject to debate and parliamentary oversight, that is no mere administrative adjustment; it is a big step in the wrong direction. I am extremely concerned. Think about pressure from lobbyists. Think about the agricultural workers who could be exposed to dangerous pesticides. Think about the impact on people and what we want to leave to future generations. They keep talking about efficiency, but the question remains: Who will benefit from these changes? Our requests concerning the economic update were clear. As dictated by our guiding principles, we had to take care of our people, as should we all. I will briefly review what we requested. We proposed introducing a wage subsidy program for sectors affected by the U.S. tariffs. We proposed relaunching EI reform with a clear timetable. We have been calling for that since 2015, and we were promised it. We proposed reimbursing Quebeckers for the electoral gift, which people seem to have forgotten about, that the Liberal Party of Canada handed to people elsewhere in the country during the last election campaign under the guise of a carbon tax rebate. We proposed supporting our media through three key measures involving expenditures of $387 million over five years and generating an additional $7.2 billion in revenue over the same period. We proposed locking in a 6% health transfer escalator, which could be easily done. We proposed increasing old age security benefits for seniors aged 65 to 74. We want no more discrimination. There were other proposals as well. In the end, however, the government chose not to consult us. That is politics. However, when the government ignores us, it also ignores the 1,236,349 Quebeckers who put their trust in us on April 28, 2025. We will be there and we will stand up for our values.