Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Gabriel Ste-Marie

Bloc Québécois Joliette—Manawan 84 statements translated

Follow by RSS

Ste-Marie fights Bill C-39’s rollback of environmental assessments and strike rights, presses Ottawa to buy back half the duties paid by forestry firms like the Saint-Michel sawmill, seeks higher old age security for seniors 65 to 74, and funding for the Atikamekw community of Manawan. He argues through stacked figures and witness quotes, but often leaves out who must act: “Urgent action is therefore needed.”Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A
90 / 100 over 79 statements
Signal 84 / 100
Relevance 89 / 100
Respect 99 / 100
Clarity 97 / 100
Loses points more than most for Wording that hides who did something, or who will.2.6 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.6 A remark off to the side of the point.2 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.0 Thanks and tributes.1.9 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.9 Loses points less than most for A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 79 of 84 statements graded so far.

Statements 84

Oral Questions ·

Small Business

“Small businesses hurt by tariffs do not need loans. They need direct money and wage help without taking on debt. I want the government to give them better support now.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the SMEs at risk of closing because of the tariffs do not need more loans. They need wage subsidies and direct support, without incurring debt. We do not want to be the bearer of bad news, but the crisis is far from over. Businesses are currently surviving thanks to contracts signed before the new tariffs took effect. Under the new tariffs, they are no longer competitive, and there will be no new contracts. The current crisis has not peaked. It is just the beginning, and the federal government must act now. Will the government improve its support measures to protect small businesses, please?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Private Members' Business ·

Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada Act

“My party supports this bill. It makes the regulator check if phone companies are telling the truth about their cell coverage. It also forces the government to update its old rules so rural areas actually get service.”
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 Grade A View analysis
“I want to know why cell phone companies do not use all of their network space. It makes no sense to leave it unused.”

  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 27 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Campton—Stanstead on her bill and her speech, which was rich in content and information. It was well researched. I would like to come back to the case of unused spectrums. Why do the cell phone companies choose not to develop them, in the hon. member’s view? To me that is absurd.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C– View analysis

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“I want the government to help pay the U.S. tariffs on Canadian wood. The government would get this money back after the trade dispute ends. This will help forestry companies keep selling wood to the United States.”

  • Question or comment in debate

    Respect 62 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “the irascible U.S. President”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, indeed, things always get a bit loud right before oral question period. I want to congratulate my colleague on her speech. I also have some questions for her about forestry. Can she explain to us again what we are proposing, what the industry and the unions are proposing, which is that the government take on part of the countervailing duties? Once the dispute is resolved, it will be returned to the industry, so the government would get its money back. This would allow the industry to continue exporting to the United States, despite the immoral and in fact illegal tariffs imposed by the irascible U.S. President.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis
“Small businesses are hurting from new 25 percent tariffs on goods sent to the United States. Many could run out of money and close down before they find new Canadian customers. They need help right now, and they need direct support, not loans that add to their debt.”
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 Grade A+ View analysis
“Small businesses hit by US tariffs cannot wait for new contracts. They will run out of money and close before help arrives. They already have too much debt to take more loans. Does the member think the government understands how urgent this is?”
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 Grade A View analysis
“Small businesses told us that the 25% tariffs are hurting them and they cannot take on any more loans. We want the government to help pay workers' wages instead. If businesses have to lay off skilled workers, it will cost the government just as much in benefits, and those workers will be hard to hire back.”
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 Grade A+ View analysis
“I want my party leader to talk about getting American businesses, lawmakers, and state governments to pressure President Trump. The new U.S. tariffs are illegal and break our trade deal. Only Americans can challenge them in court.”
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 Grade A+ View analysis
“The new loan program is only for larger small businesses. Many smaller companies cannot borrow that much money. I want the government to change this program so it also helps smaller businesses hurt by tariffs.”
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 Grade A View analysis
“Small and medium businesses drive Quebec's economy and create jobs by selling goods to the United States. How do the new American tariffs threaten them, and why has the government's response been too weak?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague on his excellent speech and his answers. Can he tell us how important SMEs are to Quebec’s economy? Jacques Parizeau said that Quebec’s economy relies mainly on regional SMEs. The reason there are so many jobs in all medium-sized cities across Quebec is often thanks to metallurgical SMEs that often focus on exports to the United States. Can my colleague tell us how the current tariffs announced in the latest executive order threaten these businesses? Can he tell us why the government’s response so far has been inadequate?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

In response to a question from Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

“The Liberals made a promise they cannot keep because the American president will not end the trade fight. Businesses face 25 percent tariffs right now. The government's long-term plans take too long. We need to give businesses wage subsidies right now so they do not lose skilled workers.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
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 Grade A+ View analysis

In response to a question from Tamara Jansen

“Building a pipeline will not stop Trump's tariffs. The government wants to spend 25 billion dollars on pipelines. Instead, we should use that money to help local businesses that might close because of the 25 percent tariffs.”
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 Grade B View analysis

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The government was not ready for the American executive order. Its plan only offers loans, which will not help small businesses that already have too much debt. We want to work together to change this program and give businesses real help.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
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 Grade A+ View analysis
“I want the House to condemn new US tariffs on products containing steel, aluminum, and copper. These unfair taxes hurt our manufacturers and threaten jobs. The government must give direct money and wage help to affected businesses and workers right now, instead of just offering them more loans.”

  • Speech on a motion

    Respect 97 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “their irascible President”.

    See full analysis
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 Grade A View analysis

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“New American trade taxes are hurting Quebec manufacturers, especially small businesses that risk shutting down right now. Today's government announcement ignores them. I want the government to change its plan and help them immediately.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the revised U.S. tariff schedule in effect since April 6 is a disaster for Quebec’s manufacturing industry. The Desjardins Group reports that a quarter of all Quebec exports to the United States are now subject to tariffs. We are talking about a 60% increase overnight. Moreover, it is our small and medium-sized businesses that are being hit. Today’s announcement ignores the businesses that are most at risk. They cannot take on more debt to modernize in the medium term when they are at risk of shutting down right now. They need help today. Will the government change course?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Xavier Barsalou-Duval

“The government's new fund is not a real sovereign wealth fund. Those funds are paid for with extra money, but the government is borrowing money to create this one. It has no clear purpose and is just a gimmick.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis

  • A repeated line

    “That is not a sovereign wealth fund.”

    Said 4 times by 4 members since April 30.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I 100% agree with what my colleague just said. A sovereign wealth fund is funded by surpluses. The government has no surplus, so it is going into debt to make it look like it does. That is not a sovereign wealth fund at all. There is a reason most analysts in the media are wondering what the point of it is. As Francis Vailles of La Presse said, it is a gimmick. Sovereign wealth funds have a clear objective, but what is the point of this particular sovereign wealth fund? On page 55 of his economic update, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue stated, “The Canada Strong Fund will focus on building Canada.” Well, that says it all.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The government is borrowing money to set up an investment fund instead of using surplus cash. They promised details and private investors, but we have neither. This is just a trick to hide $25 billion in debt off the budget.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
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 Grade A View analysis

In response to a question from William Stevenson

“I agree with my colleague. The Prime Minister is borrowing taxpayers' money to fund projects that private businesses do not want to pay for. He has not shared the details of his plan, and he is creating a new fund when the government already has a bank that does the same thing.”
Official Hansard

I completely agree with my colleague. The Prime Minister tells us that we are going to invest to build Canada strong, but in reality, it is the private sector that is going to invest in oil projects, ports and all that. There is money to be made. He waited a while, did some networking, travelled around the world, and then realized that no one was showing up. Then he wondered what he should do and decided that the solution was to put our money into it. However, he had already gone into debt. His deficits are twice as large as Justin Trudeau’s. He has no money left, so he is planning to borrow money to keep things going, but get the private sector involved too. How will the private sector get involved? The day before the economic update, he told us that he did not have many details to share at that time, that perhaps the money could be guaranteed, and that he would provide details during the economic update. The next day, when the economic update was tabled, we were told that the details would be provided in a few months. We are being left in the dark. The Canada Strong fund does much the same thing as the Canada Infrastructure Bank. If there were a desire to invest direct funds—borrowed money—the government could simply modify the existing structure rather than creating a new one, which is unnecessary. Clearly, the government is instead choosing to invest by borrowing taxpayers’ money for projects that are not profitable for the private sector.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis
“I oppose the new Canada Strong fund. The government is borrowing 25 billion dollars for it instead of using a surplus. It adds more debt, hides spending from Parliament, and takes on all the risk for private companies.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend, the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères. What is the point of the Canada Strong fund? Initially, we were told that it is a sovereign wealth fund. When I hear the word “sovereign” I think it must be autonomous, independent, somewhat proud, a fund that makes decisions on its own. We are told, however, that it is the government that chooses the projects. It is sovereign, but regulated. It is independent, but monitored. It is free, but with permission. It is a bit like a teenager being told that they are free, as long as they get home by 9 o’clock, do their homework and do what they are told. I wonder, what is the point of a sovereign wealth fund if it is not sovereign? Then the government says that it is not an expense. What a joke. It is costing $25 billion dollars, yet it is not an expense. Imagine that scenario in real life. Someone’s girlfriend shows up and says she bought a cottage, but it is not an expense. It is an off-budget transaction backed by an asset. What is more, she says that she has borrowed to pay for it, but that it does not count. We are talking about $25 billion that somehow does not count. I would love to have a credit card that works like that. I could spend and spend, but it does not show up anywhere. That is the “Canada Strong” dream. The media are saying that the government is taking on less debt than expected because the economy has performed slightly better than expected; there have been fewer natural disasters than expected; fewer batteries are being built than expected; and they have not seen the $25 billion. It makes me wonder. A fund that costs $25 billion but that does not count: What is the point? Let me get this straight. The government is borrowing $25 billion to invest where the private sector does not want to invest, because it is too risky and unlikely to pay off. In other words, Ottawa does not have any money so it is going to borrow it. Meanwhile, interest on the debt is going up, from $54 billion today to $81 billion in a few years. We are talking about $81 billion in interest alone, which is far more than the amount spent on health care. It is like someone paying a mortgage on a house their whole life—a house that is never theirs but that they paying into anyway because of the Canada Strong fund. I have to wonder, what is the point of a fund that increases the debt? Let us compare that to the situation in Norway. If Norway has a surplus, it invests abroad in foreign currencies to counter Dutch disease and to better withstand economic shocks. Its fund is worth $3 trillion. Meanwhile, we are running a deficit and borrowing. What is more, the fund selects the projects chosen by the Prime Minister, but, of course, it is still sovereign. We are not even in the same league. Norway is playing in the NHL, while we are playing ball hockey in a church basement, and the government is telling us that it is the same thing. That is like me saying that I have a bank account just like Bill Gates. Yes, we may both have bank accounts, but we do not have the same amount of money in them. I will come back to my question. What is the point of having a fund like Norway’s that is nothing like Norway’s fund? Countries around the world have funds generated from surpluses, and each of those countries has a clear goal. China’s funds are used to buy strategic infrastructure around the world, like ports in Africa or Europe. The Persian Gulf countries use their funds to set money aside to facilitate their transition when their reserves run out. Quebec’s generations fund is used to reduce debt for future generations. However, here we have a debt fund and we do not even know yet what it will be used for. We are talking about a $25-billion debt fund that will independently decide what the Prime Minister tells it to decide. The economic update says what it will be used for. I would encourage members to brace themselves and take a seat. On page 55, the Minister of Finance wrote, “The Canada Strong Fund will focus on building Canada.” Well, that answers that question. We should have thought of that. It is certainly true. We sure know what the point is now. It gets even better. The fund will pay for projects without going through Parliament. How convenient. It is convenient because Parliament asks questions and debates things and stirs up trouble. Here we have an agency. If things do not work out, it is not the government’s fault; it is the agency’s. Who created it? The government. Who controls it? Not the government; it is independent. It is independent except when it comes to selecting projects. The government does that. This is like someone saying they are not driving, they are just holding the wheel. What is the point of a fund that is not accountable to Parliament? Never mind the rest of it. Agencies, structures, layers of bureaucracy; they keep adding more and more. When something does not work, they do not make it better, they pile more on top. This is like putting coats of paint on a cracked wall. The paint gets thicker and thicker, but the wall does not get any stronger. We already have an infrastructure bank, funds and tools, and yet another one is being created. The government already created the Canada Infrastructure Bank to fund infrastructure development. Its purpose, like the sovereign wealth fund, is to attract the private sector and have it fund infrastructure projects. Other funds also exist, like the Canada growth fund. Instead of changing the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s mandate to include direct project participation through share purchases, for example, the government is choosing to create another structure with another undoubtedly well-paid director. It will certainly require another president, another office and other salaries, for a big, strong, beautiful, and most of all well-organized Canada. What is the point of another fund to do what was already being done? What I like most is the part where we are told that the private sector is going to invest. Why would the private sector suddenly want to invest in projects that no one wants to fund? It is because the government is on board. That is reassuring, not to mention that the government may even guarantee their capital. It is a dream come true. If it works, the private sector wins. If it does not work, the public sector pays. It is capitalism at its finest. It is the great ongoing history of the Dominion continuing to unfold. What is the point of a fund if the risks are public and the profits are private? Meanwhile, businesses and workers are suffering because of the 25% tariff on steel, aluminum and copper. The forestry sector and entire regions are affected. There is almost nothing for those sectors and yet, Ottawa has a fund. It has a big, fat fund that does not appear in the budget, only in the debt, and is not reflected in the results. Imagine if my house were on fire, but I think everything is fine because I bought myself a nice, big stainless steel barbecue. This is really astounding. I therefore had to ask the question, not to criticize the government or to complain, but to really understand: What exactly is the point of the Canada Strong fund? It is basically a fund that is not sovereign, that is financed by debt, operating outside the budget and controlled by the government. It is not accountable to Parliament, but will invest in risky projects and hope for the best. It certainly looks and sounds good, and instills a lot of hope. I like hope. I used to be hopeful. However, it usually cost me less than $25 billion.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis

Government Orders ·

Weights and Measures Act

“We will vote to send this bill to committee so experts can study it. We agree our measurement laws need updating, but we worry the bill gives the minister too much power. We also want an independent way for businesses to appeal decisions made by Measurement Canada inspectors.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to being by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports the idea of modernizing the Weights and Measures Act. We have a lot of questions, and there will be a lot of work to do in committee in order to hear from a number of experts on the matter, given that this is a highly technical and specialized issue. Before discussing the substance of the bill itself, I would like to share a story about a business that ran afoul of Measurement Canada. It demonstrates that the current appeals process and the lack of an ombudsman pose a major problem. This took place in the constituency of my colleague and friend, the member for La Pointe-de-l’Île. I want to share the sad story of an entrepreneur from his constituency who ran afoul of Measurement Canada. This is the story of Mr. Lamontagne, president of a company called C.E.L.L. Inspection Inc., which was incorporated at the time these events took place. The company inspected commercial gasoline dispensers for accuracy and compliance. It was suspended by Measurement Canada in 2018 through a procedure that appears unusual and less than transparent. Here is some background information. Between 2006 and 2018, Mr. Lamontagne was president of C.E.L.L. Inspection, which became an authorized service provider employing a number of technicians accredited by Measurement Canada. The company issued over 450 certificates, some of which relied on a method that Measurement Canada had approved. That method eventually led to the company’s suspension. C.E.L.L. Inspection worked with various types of volumetric standards, including some leased from Mr. Lamontagne, who also manufactured patented volumetric standards approved and certified by Measurement Canada. The use of these volumetric standards is what led to the problem. According to Mr. Lamontagne, these vapour retention volumetric standards were more accurate than the major brand-name volumetric standards recommended by Measurement Canada. In some respects, this may have worked to the advantage of the big oil companies. They were therefore using a more accurate technology that was recognized by Measurement Canada, and that would end up causing a problem. Here is a brief review of the facts. In February 2018, a new inspector came to evaluate two C.E.L.L. Inspection company technicians, although she refused to consider the methods used for the vapour retention volumetric standard by the manufacturer, Jacques Lamontagne, even though these methods were approved by Measurement Canada. The Measurement Canada inspector abruptly ended the inspections after telling one technician that she had failed, but without offering a clear explanation or discussing the matter, meaning that she did not provide the usual guidance. C.E.L.L. Inspection repeatedly requested the results and detailed reports on the tests from Measurement Canada, including through its lawyers in April 2018. Measurement Canada responded more than three months later with two notices of violation. The company responded to both violations, completed three corrective action plans and attended a meeting at which the company still did not receive a detailed report. Instead, it received its own corrective action report, which was amended with certain passages withdrawn and a few notes from the inspector. C.E.L.L. Inspection then received an email from Mathieu Parent, a senior program officer at Measurement Canada, notifying it of its suspension. At that point, there were still two other certified technicians who could have continued to do tests for the company. As member of Parliament for La Pointe-de-l’Île, my friend and colleague became aware of the issue and contacted the office of the then minister of innovation, science and industry, Navdeep Bains. My colleague then held a conference call with Marc Gervais, director of parliamentary affairs for the Hon. Navdeep Bains, Measurement Canada president Diane Allan and Mr. Lamontagne. It was stated during the conference call that an independent appeal process could be undertaken. C.E.L.L. Inspection therefore filed an appeal. However, this procedure consisted solely of an internal review of the case, without a hearing at which Mr. Lamontagne and his attorney could have presented their case. The revised decision was communicated on December 6, 2019, in a letter from Nathalie Campeau, regional director of Measurement Canada. It stated that the suspension was upheld, still in general terms, without specifically addressing the arguments put forward by Mr. Lamontagne and his lawyer. C.E.L.L. Inspection filed a second appeal in January 2021, where Mr. Lamontagne was able to discuss his case via a conference call and email exchanges. The second review resulted in a brief two-page document that reiterated the suspension and indicated that, if his specific calibration setup required a unique operating sequence, then he should inform the regional volumetric specialist, even though his technology had already been approved and certified by Measurement Canada’s chief engineer. It was just a formality when he was told that he needed to mention this. My fellow MP then attended Mr. Lamontagne’s third appeal hearing. Initially, the president of Measurement Canada said that she wanted to exclude the parties involved in the first and second appeals along with their reports. Excluding the previous parties from the decision-making process may have seem justified since this was an independent appeal, but failing to review and use the information on the facts that led to the suspension and resulted in it being upheld during the previous appeals was unusual to say the least. Looking into the facts that led to the suspension was clearly no longer a priority. Instead, the president tried to get C.E.L.L. to take further steps to regain its certification by refusing to compensate the company. She then broadly reiterated the previous decisions. Ultimately, Mr. Lamontagne took legal action, but he did not have the same resources as the team of lawyers at Measurement Canada. As a result, he lost his first appeal on a technicality. For lack of resources, he could not pursue a long process in court to win. Faced with an army of lawyers, he was forced to concede. In short, there is the appearance of serious misconduct and an abuse of power by Measurement Canada, which caused significant harm to C.E.L.L. Inspection and the calibration trolley manufacturer Jacques Lamontagne. Even trolleys with designation certificates were suspended by Measurement Canada, as they even cancelled the meeting for their certification. There does not seem to be a formal appeal process in place for the decisions of Measurement Canada, the agency responsible for certifying gas pumps at big oil companies’ stations. My colleague and friend, the member for La Pointe-de-l’Île wrote letters requesting meetings with the successive ministers responsible at various stages of the process involving Mr. Lamontagne and C.E.L.L. Inspection, as suspensions fall under the minister’s authority pursuant to the registration agreement. His first request to Minister Bains led to a meeting with the minister’s director of parliamentary affairs and Diane Allan, president of Measurement Canada, during which it was agreed that Mr. Lamontagne could initiate an independent appeal process. Subsequently, during a meeting with the minister’s parliamentary assistants, my colleague indicated that the company had merely been referred to Measurement Canada’s supposedly independent appeals process. More recently, the former minister of industry, now Minister of Finance, was reluctant to intervene, noting that Measurement Canada is a quasi-judicial body. I have just outlined the unfortunate situation in which a Montreal-based company was apparently the victim of an error by Measurement Canada, and where it did not appear possible to correct that error. This is a serious problem. Does Bill S-3 adequately address the changes needed to the laws to ensure that this situation does not happen again? That remains to be seen. It needs to be examined. This is very technical. Would it be helpful to establish a genuinely independent appeal process in the event of a dispute? We say yes, without a doubt. Should an ombudsman position be created for this purpose? That is also quite possible. This is worth pursuing and I urge the government to improve how appeals are handled in disputes and to improve the impartiality of the process when decisions that appear unfair are challenged. We will see. To my knowledge, the company had to cease operations because a technician intervened. Measurement Canada swapped out their technician during the assessment, and this technician failed to recognize an instrument that was, in fact, more accurate and certified by Measurement Canada. Using her discretion, she was able to drive a business into bankruptcy. That is unacceptable. Subsequently, my colleague, accompanied by company representatives, met with the team of the minister responsible, who informed them that an independent appeal process was an option. In the end, there was nothing independent about it. The case had to go to court, pitting a small business against an army of lawyers employed by Measurement Canada. In my view, a grave injustice has been done here. While it is, unfortunately, too late to rectify it now, I do hope that the legislation passed here will enable us to approve rules, practices, procedures and safeguards to ensure that unfortunate stories like this never happen again. As I said at the outset, we will be voting in favour of the principle of the bill at second reading so that this highly technical bill can be studied in committee and so that the committee can hear from key witnesses such as Hydro-Québec and Énergir. Manufacturers of measuring instruments such as Mr. Lamontagne, president of C.E.L.L. Inspection, will be able to share their stories. As usual, we will try to keep a close eye on this government, which, with each new bill, is giving itself more and more powers, in particular in the hands of ministers, as Bill S-3 proposes. Yes, this bill does give the minister greater powers. We will try to act responsibly and ensure that Quebec’s prerogatives are not undermined by this bill. Given the technical nature of this bill, its scientific jargon and the many provisions it contains, we will ensure that the work done in committee is as rigorous and thorough as possible. We realize that the legislative and regulatory framework needs to be modernized, and that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada has called for just that, because the department believed, as the parliamentary secretary said in his speech, that the current framework lacked flexibility and was becoming outdated with the advent of new technologies. Digital measurement systems and all software that can be associated with trade are not implicitly covered by the current legislation. Budget 2024 talked about the government’s intent to modernize this legislation, in particular to ensure that the minister has the authority to “establish standards and provisions related to calibration, inspection, contractors and certification.” As members may know, the bill has 59 clauses. The first few, clauses 1 to 27, amend the Weights and Measures Act to modernize the framework that governs measuring devices used in trade. While most of the amendments are technical in nature and consensus-based and seek to ease the bureaucratic burden, others deal with expanding the minister’s authority, which must be justified, as I was saying. Questions are also being raised about the proposed suggestions regarding the authorization, certification and use of certain measuring devices. For example, clauses 3, 5 and 10 of Bill S-3 propose giving the minister new powers to approve and review measuring devices. One of the measures that is of concern to us at the moment is that the minister could designate an entity other than the National Research Council of Canada to calibrate and certify reference standards for inspections. Why is that necessary? That is the type of question we are going to ask her in committee. As for clauses 12 and 13, despite the fact that the Department of Justice has indicated that the bill complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this bill grants significant powers when it comes to inspections and telewarrants. In light of the story I just told, it will be interesting to hear the reasons why it is absolutely necessary to grant the government such powers. I see that I am running out of time. I think I covered the key issues. I prepared a 20-minute speech, but I had a little less time than I thought, so I will stop there.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis