Gabriel Ste-Marie · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

2026-05-06

“I don't understand that program but it sounds like it costs a lot. I think the government is hiding some of the cost because I want to make them look sneaky.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his very interesting speech. I will come back to what he said at the beginning about the deficit, which is lower than expected because growth was higher than expected, given that government spending was deferred. There is also another factor. The disaster mitigation and adaptation fund was used less than anticipated. If there had been more floods or fires, we would have had the expected deficit. I want to raise another point that my colleague mentioned later in his speech: the Canada Strong fund. That is $25 billion over three years. It does not appear on the balance sheet. In accounting terms, it is off-budget because it is asset-backed. However, as the member said, it still adds $25 billion to the government's debt, even if it does not appear in the deficit. Is that a good idea?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“Health transfers only go up 3% a year. But health costs go up 6% a year! I want more health spending.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to welcome the newly elected member and congratulate her on her excellent speech. I believe this is her first speech. Large parts of it were delivered in impeccable French. It is heartwarming to hear that. I was very moved by my colleague's concern for health care. That is the top priority for people in Quebec. People often speak to me about it. Unfortunately, our health care system is under strain. This is often due to a lack of funding. One demand the Bloc Québécois has been making of the government for years is to increase funding for the health care system. Health transfers are increasing by about 3% a year, but the costs of the system are rising by 6% a year. We are therefore in the same situation as we were during the Harper years. Will my hon. colleague put pressure on the government to increase health care funding?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You're making it easier for foreign companies to take over Canadian banks. I think you broke a promise and you're helping American companies avoid taxes.”

Oral Questions

Small Business

2026-05-06

“I want the government to spend more money on small businesses. Subsidize their wages. Give them direct support without taking on debt. Otherwise they will close. The crisis is not over. We are just at the beginning. The government must act now. Will you agree to spend more taxpayer money to protect small businesses?”

Private Members' Business

Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada Act

2026-05-05

“I'm filling time with cute jokes and roadside stories. That's the difference between 'coverage' on a map and actual signal on the road. This cozy government-corporate game leaves rural people without working phones. The bill pushes government to check if companies tell the truth and take back unused spectrum to actually use it. Never mind the reports and committees, the point is the public should get its money's worth everywhere, not just cities.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his speech. The lesson to be learned from this parable is that we have a good Samaritan for connectivity in the House. I want to salute the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead and announce that my party will also support Bill C-268, even if it is the member for Compton—Stanstead's bill. It goes to show that anything is possible. I am kidding, of course, there is nothing else to say. In all seriousness, this bill is important. I want to officially congratulate the hon. member for bringing it before the House. I think it could really make a difference. I congratulate and thank her. This is not a revolutionary idea. We want to bring signal to places where there is currently nothing but a total void. The bill's objective is to modernize the way spectrum is managed, because things currently work as if the BlackBerry was the absolute peak of technological advancement. The bill would force the government to dust off its policy every five years. Five years is a long time in a world where phones become obsolete before we can even finish reading the box. There is also this almost subversive idea of asking the CRTC to verify whether companies are telling the truth when they claim to cover a region. I know, the word “verify” sounds radical, as in “really verify”. Apparently, on paper, Canada is covered just about everywhere, except where there are people, roads, or an accident on a stormy night. We are also asking the Minister of Industry to produce a report within 18 months. In Canada, when we are not quite sure what to do, we write a report. Here, at least, there is a deadline, which, in the world of public policy, is already something of an adrenaline rush. Bill C‑268 also provides for an extensive consultation process, as should be the case for any good report. They will talk to everyone, including telecommunications giants and elected officials in rural municipalities, in other words, those who know very well what it is like to have no signal. They will talk to public safety agencies, academics, the CRTC and, obviously, any other stakeholder as needed. Loosely translated, it means that anyone who is breathing and has an opinion on the topic has a good chance of ending up on the list. On paper, it is beautiful. It gives the impression of a big, inclusive circle where everyone has their say. In real life, it sometimes looks like a family dinner where everyone talks at once, except that no one really has the power to cut the cake when it is time for dessert. That said, the topics to be discussed are by no means trivial. One of them is competition, a Canadian fantasy that is often talked about but that remains mysteriously absent from monthly phone bills. Another topic is the deployment requirement, in other words, forcing companies to do what they are supposed to do, but do not always do. The topics also include the issue of unused licenses, those bits of spectrum lying dormant somewhere, probably in a virtual drawer, hoping they might have a use someday. The report will have to contain concrete information, not just impressions, but results. Connectivity assessments will be done, some related to public safety, because when things go wrong, a phone is not a luxury, but a lifeline. Data will be gathered on actual coverage, not the kind of data shown on PowerPoint slides. Ideally, proposals will be submitted to fix a system that quite frankly is falling apart at the seams. In short, consultations will be held, information will be compiled and analyzed, and then action must follow. Cell signal is not going to wait around for the next report before deciding to disappear or finally become available. The crux of the problem is simple: Companies can buy pieces of the spectrum—which is a public good, after all—and decide not to use them, but rather to keep them on a shelf like an old toaster that was bought on sale and never used. Bill C-268 is essentially saying, politely but firmly, that the government needs to either develop the network or let someone else do it. Meanwhile, we keep hearing that 99.5% of Canadians have access to LTE, the generation preceding 5G. That sounds pretty impressive, except for the fact that it still leaves about 200,000 people in a sort of digital void. Two hundred thousand people is not exactly a small village. We are talking about an entire region staring at their phones the way people used to watch the sky for snow, hoping something would fall. Even when coverage exists in theory, making a call on a rural road is often practically impossible. If someone has an accident in February, it is not just the ditch that is deep, but also the network. The bill seeks to bring some order to all that. The bill aims to force the CRTC to ensure that coverage maps are not just fiction. It seeks to compel the government to revisit a policy framework that dates back to 2007, nearly 20 years, to a time when the word “streaming” still meant watching water flow. The fact is that spectrum is a rare resource—invisible, but rare, much like the government's willingness to listen. When two signals overlap, it creates noise. When no one uses it, it creates emptiness. In both cases, it helps no one. The current framework leaves a lot in the hands of the market by letting companies decide, which is fine as long as nothing goes wrong. In more rural areas, however, the market's motivation is about on par with that of a teenager on a Saturday morning: it exists on a theoretical level. The Bloc Québécois has a simple reminder: If spectrum is a public asset, then it should serve the public, not only in profitable areas, not only in large urban centres, but everyone, including those who live at the far end of the road. It is true, Bill C-268 is not going to solve everything. There will still be reports, consultations and committees—the usual trio. There may also be a bit of stalling, because, let us face it, the CRTC sometimes moves at the speed of an old 56-kilobit-per-second modem that goes beep, beep, beep. At least this bill is heading in the right direction, a direction where access to the network is not a luxury, but a basic necessity; where calling for help does not depend on one's postal code, as my colleague pointed out in her speech; and where people finally stop pretending the whole country is covered just because it looks good in a PowerPoint. This bill does not reinvent the wheel, but at least it tries to get it rolling. Again, I want to congratulate and thank the member for Compton—Stanstead for her important bill.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You did a good job on your speech. It had lots of information. I want to ask you a question. Why don't cell phone companies use all the spectrums? That seems dumb to me.”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-05-05

“You're doing great, but it's loud. Anyways. I want the government to pay countervailing duties for us. The government will get paid back eventually. Then the industry can keep exporting to America despite those mean U.S. tariffs.”

“I'm filling time with kind words and saying nothing anyone could pin down later.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I fully understand the government's plan to diversify the economy and stimulate growth in various sectors. Towards the end of his speech, my colleague said, “We are going to make sure that no one is left behind.” What worries us is that many small and medium-sized businesses in Quebec, Ontario and elsewhere are being hit hard by the new 25% tariffs on the value of goods that were exported to the United States. By the time these businesses can get back on their feet by securing contracts in the domestic market, for example, they will be short of cash, their order books will be empty, and they may even be forced to shut down. What they came to tell the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology is that they need help, but that it cannot take the form of a loan, as they are already heavily in debt. I get the impression that the government does not grasp the current sense of urgency. Furthermore, in Ontario, there are, for example, mould makers—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't think the government understands how urgent this really is. The government's plan will take too long. Businesses are closing now. Loans won't help businesses that already have too much debt. The government needs to do something faster before more businesses go under.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the member on his very good speech. I welcome the big-picture vision that the comprehensive response is based on. For example, there is talk of strengthening the domestic market for products that SMEs can no longer export to the United States because of the 25% tariffs. The domestic economy can compensate for that. However, does he think that the government understands the crisis and the urgency of the transition? By the time contracts are awarded in the domestic economy or new opportunities open up abroad, SMEs' order books will be empty. Without any more income, they are at risk of closing down. For example, every week in Quebec, businesses that had been around for decades are closing down. Those businesses came to tell the committee that it was not enough to give them loans, because they already had too much debt. What does the hon. member think about that?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm praising a fellow Bloc MP. Small firms need a bailout program tweaked our way. Businesses already owe too much to borrow any more. Giving them money to pay wages instead will keep jobs from being cut.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech. What SMEs told us in committee, during an emergency study of this matter, is that they need help, that the 25% tariffs are a disaster, but that the loans have to stop. They are already carrying too much debt. That is why we are proposing a wage subsidy, which has the advantage of maintaining the employment relationship. These businesses often employ welders, machinists and operators, all trades with a severe worker shortage. Without a wage subsidy, companies may have to lay them off. Their EI benefits would amount to about as much as a wage subsidy. However, when the time comes to rehire them, they might be harder to get back. Can my colleague explain this to us some more and try to convince the government about how important this measure is?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want my leader to say it's important for everyone to pressure American politicians. That way they might pressure Trump. I think his tariffs are bad and unfair.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like the leader of the Bloc Québécois to say a few words about how important it is for local businesses affected by tariffs to reach out to their customers in the United States, so that American companies can put pressure on the Trump administration. I would like him to talk about the importance of members of the House of Commons putting pressure on U.S. lawmakers, so that they, in turn, put pressure on the U.S. President. I would like him to talk about how important it is for the governments of Quebec and the provinces to pressure the governments of the U.S. states to, in turn, pressure the Trump administration. The executive order is illegal. It violates the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement. It violates free trade. Only Americans will be able to challenge it in court. What does the leader of the Bloc Québécois think?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm glad the government might spend more money later. We want them to. But on yesterday's announcement, I'm really here to gripe that the loan program isn't big enough yet. Even smaller businesses need these subsidized loans. Expand the program so taxpayers cover more companies. Also cover the suppliers of exporters. The government should spend more on all of them.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech. I welcome the fact that the government is leaving the door open to further support measures should it deem them necessary. We will continue to try to convince it that this is the case. As for the support program announced yesterday, the government says it is for SMEs with minimum annual sales of $5 million, for a minimum loan of $2 million. Many SMEs are telling us that this is a huge amount of money and some businesses are not that big and have never gotten a loan of more than $1 million. Would the government consider rethinking the loan program, or even expanding it through other measures? That way, it would cover smaller businesses affected by tariffs as well as businesses that supply companies exporting to the United States.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I like my friend's speech. Quebec's economy needs small businesses. Especially ones that export to America. The new tariffs will hurt them. I want to know why he thinks the government hasn't done enough.”

“I don't think the government is doing enough to help businesses with the tariff crisis. The government made a false promise to fix it. The U.S. President doesn't want to fix it. The government needs to give businesses money now to help them keep their workers. The government's plans take too long. We need to give businesses a wage subsidy now to help them survive.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is a Liberal promise that appeals to those who want to believe it. It is impossible to resolve a conflict when the U.S. President does not want to resolve it and wants to make it worse. That means it was a false promise. Given the current tariffs, what we need is to support businesses. What the government does not seem to grasp is the gravity of the situation in the short term. It is creating measures to increase productivity, to compensate for the 25% tariffs, but that takes years to implement, whereas the crisis is a matter of weeks or months. Businesses need short-term support to keep their skilled workers, whom they are at risk of losing, such as welders, machinists and operators. They have to be able to get through the crisis. Can this be resolved in July or in the fall with the mid-term elections? We do not know, but we have to help businesses make it to that point. The wage subsidy is an excellent way to do so without increasing the debt of small and medium-sized businesses, all while maintaining the employment relationship.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't want to build pipelines. Building pipelines won't make Trump lift his tariffs. I want the government to spend money on helping businesses instead of building pipelines. Businesses are suffering because of the tariffs. We need to help them first. That is more important than building pipelines.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, just because we build a pipeline does not mean that Trump will lift his tariffs. What I said in my speech is that the government is creating a $25-billion sovereign debt fund specifically to build pipelines. What we are saying is that, before building pipelines, we need to save the businesses and small and medium-sized enterprises located throughout the regions across the country—many of them in Quebec—that are at risk of closing. With 25% tariffs, they are no longer able to sell their products. Their order books are drying up, even though these are often companies that have been around for decades. What we are saying today is that we need to help these companies weather the current crisis so that they can continue operating in the future. That is the priority.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The government was unprepared. They didn't know about the problem at first. They know now but aren't doing enough. The Prime Minister says they're aware now, but there's still no good solution. Businesses have too much debt already. Loans won't help them. They won't last until July with just loans. We need to do something else. I want the government to change the program. They say they're open to adjusting it. I want them to do that.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the executive order seemed to catch the government off guard. Our leader asked the Prime Minister about it, and the Prime Minister was not aware of it. The following week, he said that yes, the government was aware of it and that the economic update would provide a response. The economic update talked about this executive order but offered no solutions. At the start of the week, the government came up with a solution that essentially consisted of loans that will not even be available to the smaller SMEs. SME organizations and representatives appeared in committee to ask us to help them by means other than loans, because they already have too much debt and they could not last until July with this kind of support. Yes, a verbal understanding was reached, but in fact, on the ground, in practical terms, this is not what we are seeing. That is why we want to co-operate. We are making suggestions. Yesterday, two ministers said that they were open to adjusting the program. We hope that will prove to be the case.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want the government to spend more money now to offset effects of US tariffs on Canadian manufacturing companies and workers. I don't like the government's slow response and focus on loans instead of direct support. I think the US tariffs violate free trade principles and hurt our economy.”

Official Hansard

moved: That the House: (a) condemn the imposition of new United States tariffs that came into force on April 6, 2026, as contrary to the principles of free trade; (b) note that the application of additional tariffs on the full value of products containing steel, aluminium or copper is affecting a growing number of businesses, particularly SMEs; (c) express concern that this new trade environment will have irreparable effects on our manufacturing sector and the jobs that depend on it; and (d) call on the government to take all necessary measures without delay to mitigate the impact of these unjustified tariffs, including providing direct support to affected businesses and workers in Quebec and Canada, until a trade agreement with the United States is restored. He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my friend and colleague, the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères. Since April 6, Washington decided that the rules of the game were too simple, too transparent, almost fair, so it changed the rules without changing the game. Before, it was brutal but clear: 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum. It hurt, but at least we knew where the pain was coming from. Then, it fine-tuned the torture: it looked at how much metal was in a product, then imposed a tax equivalent to that percentage. It was a surgical and cold-blooded method that fit into the logic of a trade war. However, the White House came up with something even better, simpler, and more absurdly elegant: If a product contains at least 15% steel, aluminum, or copper, the quantity or proportion no longer matters—everything is taxed. It is a 25% tax on the entire product, regardless of whether it is a machined part, a snowmobile, or even a folding chair. In short, metals are no longer taxed; the products made from them are. As a result, things that used to be protected no longer are. CUSMA is a distant memory. According to Desjardins, a quarter of our exports to the United States have just veered into penalty territory. Some observers are relying on a University of Calgary study to estimate that as much as 55% of Quebec's exports could be affected. Perhaps the government should provide a clear picture of the situation, because it is catastrophic. It is urgent that we fully grasp its scope. Some industries are escaping the net, but for the most part, this is a massive expansion of the strike zone. When the target is expanded, it always ends up affecting more people, even those who thought they were too small for Washington to notice. The worst part is that the shock has not even hit yet, because the plants are currently working on orders that were placed months ago. The supply chains are operating, the machines are running and the order books are still full for the time being. However, when American buyers start doing the math, that is when silence will fall, the silence of cancelled orders and unrenewed contracts. A change like this does not make a lot of noise right away. It falls gently, like heavy snow. The closures we are seeing today are not the peak; they are the warm-up. In light of this, we expected a swift, robust, coordinated response. What we got instead was an economic update that seemed to have been written before April 6, as if the situation had changed unexpectedly, which is exactly what happened. Then, yesterday, we finally got a reaction, an update to the update: $1 billion in loans and $500 million for the regional agencies. Is it good news? To a certain extent, maybe, but the announcement fails to really address the emergency that SMEs are dealing with. All the businesses and associations that testified before the committee said the same thing: They do not want assistance in the form of loans. Offering loans to businesses that are already in debt is like offering a second credit card to someone who cannot even pay off their first. The problem is not access to money; it is that money is not coming in anymore. Offering loans of at least $2 million only to SMEs with at least $5 million in revenue will leave tons of SMEs out in the cold. As for the $500 million to help businesses buy new machines, that is great for productivity, but it is not the right response when orders are drying up due to the 25% tariffs. What is the point of buying a new machine when production is down 50%? Meanwhile, the Bloc Québécois has put forward a series of concrete measures. These are not band-aids, but tools to weather the storm, because a storm does not negotiate. Trump's executive order is not an accident or a blunder. It is a calculated move. There has been a shift from targeted measures to blanket measures. That is exactly the type of foreign intervention that everyone condemns. In reality, we are still watching the wave roll in. The irony of all this is that they continue to call it free trade. When a partner unilaterally changes the rules with barely four days' notice, penalizing those who have invested in local manufacturing, it is no longer free trade. It is predation with a bill attached. It is illegal. It makes a mockery of CUSMA and it makes a mockery of the executive order, which is itself illegal, to impose a 50% tariff on steel and aluminum. I hope that American companies that are paying all these tariffs will start legal action as soon as possible to overturn these illegal executive orders from their irascible President. What this new regime actually does is quite simple: It does not tax raw metal, the primary material, but rather the labour, engineering, processing and the value added to products right here at home, in our factories in Joliette, Boucherville, Saguenay, Drummondville, Victoriaville and across our regions. The Americans are basically saying, “Thank you for processing our aluminum. Now we are going to tax it twice.” Primary aluminum is still being taxed at 50%, but the processed product is now also taxed at 25%. This is double taxation, a penalty for having done more than simply extract the aluminum. In Quebec, 441,000 people are employed in manufacturing. These are not mere statistics: These are paycheques, mortgage payments and school lunches. We have already seen 9,700 jobs in this sector disappear in just one year because of U.S. tariff policies. In certain industries that depend on the United States, employment has fallen by more than 5%. That was before April 6. Now the net is being cast wider. The news is reporting multiple business closures every week. Companies that process, assemble and innovate are caught in a double bind. They themselves have become subject to tariffs and must prove, document and itemize every gram of metal. Every error becomes a risk, and every form is an obstacle. In this situation, U.S. buyers do what anyone else would: They call local suppliers. Even if it is more expensive, it is made cheaper because of the new tariffs. There is less paperwork, less risk, fewer tariffs and less of Quebec. According to last week's economic update, tariffs are the new normal. That remains to be seen. Things may change this summer, or perhaps this fall with the mid-term elections. However, acknowledging the situation without taking action is a bit like announcing that it is raining without getting out the umbrellas. The update does not contain any targeted measures. Worse still, the Liberals are patting themselves on the back for having collected $10 billion in tariffs and distributing just over half of that amount. The rest is on hold while SMEs are closing their doors. Therein lies the contradiction: The government has the means, but not the will. In an ideal or at least a functional world, the government would act on two fronts: It would protect and support. It would protect the sector with safeguard tariffs against dumping and unfair imports from Asia. It would adopt buy local policies, and it would not be content to simply make a commitment in that regard; it would pass a law. The government would also buy back countervailing duties for sectors like softwood lumber. It would provide support through a targeted one-time wage subsidy to enable businesses to keep workers employed and retain their expertise. The government would set up a one-stop shop to prevent SMEs from getting lost in a sea of executive orders. It would provide direct liquidity measures, rather than disguised debt, and it would simplify the duty drawback process. Wage subsidies are not just some crazy idea. The government implemented them during the pandemic and they worked. In times of crisis, the worst thing a government can do is make cuts. Cutting jobs means losing expertise, and that is not something that can be recouped in a few months. The majority of SMEs that export their products rely on welders, machinists and operators—trades that are experiencing a labour shortage. If SMEs lose these workers, they will not be able to find them again. Right now, SMEs are staring down the barrel of a gun: They can continue to pay these workers even though their order books are empty, or they can lose them. However, if they lose their workers, they will not be able to meet demand when their order books start to fill up again because the employees will be gone. The government is offering to lend these businesses money. That means they can take on debt if they wish to continue paying their employees in the meantime. They can also take on debt to buy a new machine, and the government will pay part of the cost. Meanwhile, the government is trying to sell us on a $25‑billion fund, a $25‑billion debt fund that will put the country deeper into debt and will most likely be used to support energy projects. This is essentially a philosophical debate. Would the government rather invest in hypothetical pipelines or in very real workers who have just lost their jobs? Just a fraction of that $25 billion could stabilize entire regions. We do not see that on a long-term graph. We see it when a factory does not shut its doors. U.S. tariffs may be a blip, but they may be more than a temporary irritant. Time will tell. What we do know is that this is now the new normal. When a situation changes, the response must also change—not in six months, not in the next budget, but now. While we are here debating structures, programs, and mechanisms, somewhere, a small business is looking at its order book and realizing that the phone has stopped ringing. This debate is not about economics. This is about when someone comes to the stark realization that everything has just changed.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

The Economy

2026-05-04

“The tariff change hurt Quebec businesses. Many businesses can't export as much now. Small businesses need urgent help. The government's existing plan doesn't help the ones who are struggling the most. I want the government to help them today instead.”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-04-30

“The government shouldn't create a sovereign wealth fund with debt just because it wants to look like other countries. I agree with my colleague. This proposed fund is a gimmick with no clear objective. I don't think the government should spend more.”

“The Canada Strong fund is not a real sovereign wealth fund. Canada has no surplus to invest. The government is going deeper into debt to create this fund with no clear details. This is just a gimmick to hide $25 billion of debt and make the deficit look smaller.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals wanted a sovereign wealth fund too, and they decided to call it the Canada Strong fund. Sovereign wealth funds are built using surpluses, but Canada is deeply in debt, so the government decided to go even deeper into debt to set this up. What are the details? They were supposed to be part of the economic update, but when the update was presented, we were told the details would be provided in a few months. We are not really sure what the details are. We were told that several projects in Canada would create jobs and that the private sector would be involved. In the end, the private sector is not investing, so what is the government doing? As journalist Francis Vailles put it, this is just a government “gimmick”, because no one can figure out what it does. The Canada Infrastructure Bank could have been part of this, but no, the government wants to create a whole new structure. This has nothing to do with a sovereign wealth fund. It is a $25-billion debt that does not appear in the budget, artificially reducing the deficit.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗