Gabriel Ste-Marie
Joliette—Manawan, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, Amnesty International has denounced the inhumane housing crisis that the Atikamekw nation of Manawan is experiencing. In Manawan, as many as 23 people may be crammed into housing that is often unsanitary. These conditions contribute to the spread of respiratory illnesses.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are discussing an important bill. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the Barreau du Québec's response to this bill. The Barreau du Québec agrees with the principles, but it has some reservations.”
“Mr. Speaker, Amnesty International has launched a campaign to denounce the glaring underfunding of housing in indigenous communities. The organization focused on the situation in the Atikamekw community of Manawan. Isolated and dependent on federal funding, Manawan is facing a severe housing crisis.”
“Mr. Speaker, does my colleague believe that the Liberals improperly broadened the scope of the provisions on bail conditions and other procedural safeguards that are applicable to intimate partner offences? This raises serious concerns in our view.”
“Mr. Speaker, we support Bill C-16 , as does the Barreau du Québec. However, in a statement, it indicated that while it feels the bill's objectives are laudable, it believes that “incorporating them into a single piece of legislation creates regulatory complexity that will hinder the analysis, review and practical application of these prov…”
“Amnesty International and the community are calling for urgent action, and we are echoing their demands: invest heavily and sustainably, work in partnership with communities, adapt policies to guarantee dignified living conditions and put an end to discrimination. Chief Sipi Flamand took these requests directly to the Prime Minister .”
The complete record
Every one of 411 lines we hold for Gabriel Ste-Marie, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 9.
“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.”
“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.”
“I get the impression that the government does not grasp the current sense of urgency. Furthermore, in Ontario, there are, for example, mould makers—”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. (1010) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“moved: Motion 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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. (1105) Other funds also exist, like the Canada growth fund.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. (1725) 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.”