Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, my question concerns environmental assessments. The government is removing the task of assessing energy projects from scientists and handing it over to the Canada Energy Regulator. Let us look at who the commissioners are: The lead commissioner is the former senior legal counsel for TC Energy; the deputy lead commissioner is a former legal adviser with Royal Dutch Shell; another is a former legal adviser with the Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada Limited; another was formerly with Imperial Oil and Canadian Oil Sands Limited; and another comes from the Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada Limited. Why should oil company lobbyists be entrusted with assessments previously conducted by scientists?

Mr. Speaker, indeed, we could call it pipeline spaghetti. Bill C‑39 also undermines workers' rights. At the federal level, strikes always play out the same way. Employers allow negotiations to deteriorate while they wait for Ottawa to put an end to them using section 107. That would not change. What is changing is that Ottawa is now going to tell unions when and how to begin negotiations. It would also be able to stop negotiations by invoking vague concepts of national interest and social disruption. According to the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, Bill C‑39 would give the government the power of life or death over the right to strike. Why would anyone trust the federal government with that power?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you in the chair. My question for my colleague has to do with labour law and the right to strike. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the right to strike as a fundamental right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That was in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan. The Bloc Québécois believes this proves that in order to infringe upon a protected right, there must be a valid reason, such as protecting the life, health or safety of the public. Serving corporate interests is not a valid reason. That is why the section of Bill C-39 dealing with the right to strike may be unconstitutional. What are my hon. colleague's thoughts on that? Does he think, as I do, that the Liberals are going to tout the benefits of the notwithstanding clause to defend this part of Bill C-39?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for her speech. She spoke about the right to strike. Would she agree that the main problem is that the Canada Labour Code is outdated, especially since it allows the use of scabs during labour disputes? Quebec did away with that about 50 years ago. Because of that provision, labour disputes drag on. Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code and the amendments proposed by Bill C-39 send employers the message that if they let a labour dispute drag on, the government will step in and deal with the situation. When negotiations fail to result in new working conditions, issues that should have been resolved are instead pushed forward to the next round of bargaining, which undermines social cohesion. Does my colleague believe that we should remove the option of using scabs and modernize the Canada Labour Code?

Mr. Speaker, why remove environmental assessment processes carried out by scientists and hand them over to the Canada Energy Regulator, which is essentially an oil lobby? The CER's lead commissioner is the former senior legal counsel at TC Energy. The deputy lead commissioner is a former employee of Royal Dutch Shell. Another commissioner is a former legal adviser to Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada. Another one comes from Imperial Oil and Canadian Oil Sands Limited. Then there is one from Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada. Then, a fifth comes from Cenovus Energy. If that is not an oil lobby, what is it? Why take this away from scientists, impartial people who are carrying out a proper assessment, and hand it over to people who appear to have a conflict of interest?

Mr. Speaker, does the minister agree that the Canada Energy Regulator is effectively run by the oil companies? The lead commissioner is the former senior legal counsel at TC Energy, previously known as TransCanada Corporation, the owner of the TransCanada pipeline, which changed its name following the energy east fiasco. The deputy lead commissioner is a former executive at Royal Dutch Shell. Another commissioner is a former legal adviser to Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada Limited. Another one comes from Imperial Oil and Canadian Oil Sands Limited. Then there is one from Cenovus Energy, an oil sands company. Does my colleague agree that the Canada Energy Regulator is effectively run by oil companies and that Bill C-39 sidelines scientists and replaces them with lawyers from this industry?

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech. I would like to discuss the erosion of workers' rights in this bill. The government is giving itself powers to end disputes and issue an order. This change merely kicks the problem down the road. It does not make it go away. On top of that, the problems between employers and unions remain unaffected, and this has a snowball effect. The problem, in my view, is that the Canada Labour Code has not been reviewed in a very long time. This has led to the problems we are seeing. They will not be resolved by passing special legislation, like the provisions in Bill C‑39, but rather by amending the Canada Labour Code and, as a first step, introducing anti-scab legislation and prohibiting the use of scabs, as Quebec did roughly 50 years ago. This would help resolve labour disputes. What does my hon. colleague and friend think about that?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by telling a little story. Ten years ago, almost to the day, on August 29, 2016, the National Energy Board arrived in Montreal. The board's commissioners were there to hold public hearings on the energy east pipeline project. People in Quebec wanted nothing to do with that pipeline. It would do nothing to improve our energy security. It was just a big oil pipeline going from one side of Quebec to the other. It would cross 800 waterways that provide drinking water to most of Quebec's population. Over 130 municipalities, accounting for 70% of Quebec's population, opposed the pipeline. I have to say that the proponent, TransCanada Pipeline, did nothing to help its cause. It was full of contempt and kept telling anyone who would listen that Quebec had no say in the matter, that it did not recognize the authority of the Quebec government and that Ottawa, and Ottawa alone, would decide. It was against this tense backdrop that the commissioners of the National Energy Board left Calgary and went to Montreal to listen to the little people. Things got off to a bad start. Half of the commissioners did not speak a word of French, and things only got worse from there. The public realized that the consultations were a sham, that most of the commissioners were from the oil industry and that the board was basically an extension of the American oil companies. Needless to say, tempers flared, and the whole thing almost turned into a riot. It reminds me of the Félix Leclerc song L'alouette en colère, in which he talks about how he became a separatist because of Canada's contempt. He sings about how “the big neighbour from across the street came over” and how this stranger's rude behaviour filled him with rage. That sums up what happened at the government's sham consultations. In the end, the commissioners shut down the hearings. The energy east pipeline was scrapped, the commissioners got on a plane back to Calgary, and we never saw them again. Ottawa realized that stacking the deck in the oil companies' favour only stoked more opposition. The National Energy Board was too toxic, so it was rebranded as the Canada Energy Regulator, which sounded better. Most importantly, its mandate was confined to energy-related matters. Public consultations and impact assessments would no longer be conducted by former oil company lobbyists. Now, they would be done by neutral, objective, serious-minded people, scientists working together at an impact assessment agency. That was a big step forward. Thanks to Quebeckers, Canada was making progress. That is what the government wants to destroy with the stroke of a pen. Bill C-39 is even worse than the process that angered Quebeckers 10 years ago. This bill rolls out the red carpet for American oil companies, as if the way to resist Donald Trump is to copy him. Forget about impact assessments; the Canada Energy Regulator will be in charge of reviewing projects. What is the Canada Energy Regulator? Simple: It is oil companies. There is no making this stuff up. There are seven commissioners. The lead commissioner is the former senior legal counsel for TransCanada Energy, formerly known as TransCanada Pipeline, which changed its name after the energy east fiasco. The deputy lead commissioner is a former executive of Royal Dutch Shell. Another commissioner served as legal counsel for the Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada Limited. Another one is from Imperial Oil and Canadian Oil Sands Limited. Yet another is from Cenovus Energy, the oil sands company. That is the Canada Energy Regulator in a nutshell. Bill C‑39 sidelines scientists and replaces them with oil company lawyers. It basically hands the fox the keys to the henhouse. In the energy east saga, Quebeckers helped Canada move forward. Today, Canada is setting Quebec back. We will remember that. Even if the structure of the energy regulator could be completely changed, even if oil lobbyists could be removed and replaced by genuinely neutral individuals, that would not do much. The regulator could ask that the pipeline be painted green, but that would be the extent of its authority. Regardless of what the regulator says, the projects will already have been approved. The regulator will not be able to say that the projects are bad, and if it did, it would not change anything. The projects are all pre-approved. The entire process is tainted. In fact, the process does not even really exist anymore. Now projects will be approved at the Prime Minister's whim. The emperor's word is final. I do not know of any government that has rolled back environmental protections so much, except Donald Trump, perhaps, and we are told that he is a fool. Stephen Harper would not have dared gut environmental protections so brutally. He would not have dared tell the public that he did not want to hear their opinions because he had decided everything on his own. He knew that would not go down well. Why is the government so distrustful of the public that it does not want to hear from them? Apparently, it has to act this way because Donald Trump is a fool. Go figure. As children, we were told to go inside or the bogeyman would get us. It was a trick to keep us quiet. Today, the bogeyman wears orange makeup and has yellow hair, but it is the same thing. We are being told, “Hide and stay quiet or the bogeyman will get you”. By fearmongering about Donald Trump, the government is trying to make us accept things that we would never put up with otherwise. Donald Trump will not be around forever. Two months from now, he should already have less power. Two years from now, he will be gone. However, the setbacks and damage from Bill C‑39 will remain. The Liberal members who are bragging here today will likely have a hard time hiding their shame in two years. Democratic processes are not the only thing that Bill C‑39 throws out the window. It does not just sacrifice the fight against climate change in a complete betrayal of our children and grandchildren. It also attacks workers' rights. In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to strike is a fundamental right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that there must be a very good reason for infringing on a protected right. Protecting the life, health or safety of the public is a good reason. However, protecting the interests of large companies is not. That is essentially what the Supreme Court wrote in its ruling in the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour case. As a result, it is possible that this part of Bill C-39 may be unconstitutional. I cannot wait to hear the Liberals extol the virtues of using the notwithstanding clause to defend Bill C-39. It will be quite the sight, watching them twist themselves into knots. The Canada Labour Code is outdated. It allows for the use of replacement workers, a practice that has been abolished in Quebec for almost 50 years. That is why disputes at the federal level drag on. When that happens, the government ends the strike through special legislation or stops negotiations and imposes working conditions by invoking section 107 of the federal labour code, which amounts to the same thing, but without the democratic debate. We need to be aware of what this means. Since the negotiations never reach a conclusion, the disagreements are never resolved. They are swept under the rug, but the thorny issues remain. Invariably, they resurface as even bigger problems in the next round of bargaining, and the cycle begins all over again. The dispute becomes harder to resolve and eventually drags on indefinitely. The government ends the strike. The issues are put off until later, but nothing is ever actually resolved. Bill C-39 makes the situation even worse. It will make it easier to end strikes. It will ensure that disputes and disagreements are never resolved. It will only postpone them until later, when they will be even bigger. It will undermine bargaining and the work environment, because employers will know full well that it is better for them if things come to a standstill. Thanks to the bill, they will know in advance that the government will be there, ready to end the strike and impose working conditions that benefit employers, of course. What is great about democratic societies is that they allow for peaceful resolution of disagreements. That is what makes life in a democratic society better and easier. There are built-in conflict resolution mechanisms, places where people can go to and be heard, knowing that their voices count. Parties can negotiate in good faith in an environment where everyone's rights are respected. However, when consultations take place after the decision has been made, when an emperor's decree replaces social licence, when the interests of the powerful replace scientific facts and serious analyses, and when negotiations are rigged in favour of companies, the social contract starts to fall apart. When the only choice for people to be heard is to take to the streets, social peace is in jeopardy. Bill C-39 is a downward spiral and a democratic, environmental and social step backward. When the social contract starts to get ripped apart, who knows where we can end up. Gilles Vigneault put it best when he had his character Ti-Cul Lachance say these words to a corrupt politician:That's a lot of hot air you've been sowingBut it seems like you're obliviousTo the great whirlwind you'll end up reaping We in the Bloc Québécois are not oblivious and we will firmly oppose Bill C-39.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague the following question. What is the environment worth to his government? The impact assessments that used to be carried out by scientists are being taken away and handed over to the Canada Energy Regulator, which is an oil lobby. It will have the power to approve everything, and even if it does not approve a project, projects are authorized before they have even been assessed. That is why I want to know what the environment is worth to this government. What are workers' rights worth when the rules can be changed to make it easier to pass special legislation ending labour disputes and the right to use scabs stays intact? What are workers' rights worth? What is this government's goal? Is it to serve large foreign interests or to defend the public's interests? The public cares about the environment and workers' rights. That is precisely what Bill C‑39 is trampling on, and it is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, that already happened with Bill C-5. As soon as a project is designated as being in the national interest, a whole host of environmental protection laws no longer apply. In this case, rather than maintain the consultation process involving scientists, a gain achieved under the Liberals in 2015—I do not know where the hon. member was at the time—the government is now proposing to have the Canada Energy Regulator take care of that process. A quick look at the list of commissioners shows that they are all oil industry lobbyists. Even if the regulator were to oppose a project, it would be pre-approved anyway, so the regulator would no longer have any power. That is what the government is doing. It is trampling on the environment and workers' rights. I could take a highlighter to the 250 pages of the bill and show him every place where this bill clearly undermines workers' rights and the environment for the benefit of big international investors. Is that what standing up for the public means to this government? Does it mean favouring big international investors? I think the government should have tried to strike a balance.

Mr. Speaker, a Conservative government would never have gotten away with backtracking so much on the environment. There would have been an outcry from across society. Now people are afraid of our American neighbours, with good reason, so they are giving this Prime Minister carte blanche. For all his green promises, never has the environment suffered so many setbacks as it has under the current Prime Minister, including with Bill C-39. It is unprecedented. As the Bloc Québécois leader said, it takes decades to put measures in place to protect the environment and only five minutes to tear them down. That is what this government is doing.

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. Housing is inadequate, often unsanitary, overcrowded and poorly maintained: conditions that violate the right to adequate housing. The consequences are serious: the spread of disease, lack of privacy, increased violence, poverty and homelessness. Despite the council's efforts, the lack of funding remains. 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. We are calling on the Prime Minister to act now.

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. They hinder children's development, their academic success, and even their basic needs. They exacerbate domestic violence. In short, these are unacceptable living conditions that would never be tolerated anywhere else. Why does the government continue to allow the underfunding of indigenous housing to leave communities in these conditions?

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. It describes the objectives of protecting against gender-based violence, improving evidentiary procedures and modernizing criminal law as commendable. However, the Barreau du Québec believes that incorporating them into a single piece of legislation creates regulatory complexity that could hinder their analysis, review and practical application. Could the member comment on that?

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. The amendments I am referring to simply remove the violence criterion from the procedural safeguards for crimes committed between intimate partners, without replacing it with a targeted alternative criterion. What does my colleague think?

Mr. Speaker, the tariff crisis has just forced Matawinie's biggest employer to seek protection under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. The Saint-Michel sawmill and its 250 jobs need immediate, debt-free liquidity, otherwise it is all over. The Bloc Québécois warned the government that its support measures for the forestry sector would not be enough. Ottawa needs to buy back 50% of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties paid by our companies. This measure would cost the government nothing, but it could save businesses like the Saint-Michel sawmill. When will the government understand that urgent action is needed?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals announced on Thursday that they were eliminating the Canadian consumer protection initiative. That is a fund that supported research into things like the cost of living and competition. It would have gotten $7 million between 2025 and 2027. That is peanuts to a government that is handing out tens of billions of dollars to oil companies. However, losing that funding reduces our organizations' ability to work. When it comes to consumer protection, why is the minister standing up for big business instead of Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I hope that is the case, because eliminating the Canadian consumer protection initiative will have no impact on public finances. It is a drop in the bucket. Then again, eliminating it is quite a gift for large corporations that cut corners. The Liberals are preventing consumer protection agencies from investigating things like shrinkflation in grocery stores, contracts in the telecommunications and banking sectors, airline pricing practices, and the list goes on. They are literally helping large companies protect themselves from consumers who are well informed about their rights. How can the minister justify that?

Mr. Speaker, as we have seen, the reduction in the federal excise tax has been offset by the increase in refining costs, which means that the price at the pump has not gone down. I would like my colleague to tell me the following: How many billions of dollars will all the measures in the federal government's budget cost? How do the Conservatives plan to pay for that? Will they further increase the already sky-high deficit? If their plan is to make cuts, what would they cut? Which taxpayers would pay more in taxes?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend for his very interesting speech. Throughout his speech, and especially at the end, he drew a parallel between the measures put in place by the pro-oil Liberal Party and the Conservatives' position. In fact, since the new Prime Minister has been in office, there is no difference between these parties when it comes to defending the oil and gas companies. The Conservatives are saying that the Liberals keep running large deficits and that the Prime Minister has created a deficit that is twice as high as Justin Trudeau's deficits, which is mind-boggling. However, today, the Conservatives are proposing a measure that will swell the deficit even more. What does my hon. colleague think about that? Why have the Conservatives become bigger spenders than the Liberals, and why do they want to run larger deficits than the Liberals?

Mr. Speaker, the poor Conservative Party has been outmanoeuvred by the Liberals on its own turf, not on some minor detail or side issue, but on a central priority. The Liberals are rolling out the red carpet for the fossil fuel industry as if it were a gala. They are telling the industry to step right in, make itself at home, and take everything. They want more oil, more gas, and more pipelines. We can talk about the climate later, when it is too late. From subsidies to suspended laws, anything goes, and they are not even embarrassed. Things got so bad that the former environment minister quit cabinet. He has been clear that what his government is doing today goes further than what Harper did. That is saying something. When a former Liberal minister says the government has gone too far, then things are really not looking good. Analysts are watching this unfold and they are all saying the same thing: Today's Liberals are more pro-oil than the Conservatives are. That used to be the Conservative Party's turf. What is more, there are actually about 15 Liberal MPs who think this makes no sense, but they are protesting in silence. They are hiding in a corner, probably whispering over their coffee. The result is clear: The Conservative Party has been outmanoeuvred on its home turf. It is the same old story with today's motion. The government already suspended the excise tax over a month ago. It is a done deal. The Conservatives show up after the fact, out of breath, and say that they too want to suspend it, but that they want more than that. They throw in some other taxes to be scrapped to make it look like they are innovating, but everyone has seen through their ploy. We have also seen the real effect of this measure. Prices fall slightly and refinery margins rise. The result is that the consumer gains nothing. The deficit, meanwhile, takes a $2.4-billion hit. The trade-off is quite clear. There is no tangible benefit for regular folks, yet there is a hefty bill for everyone. Now the Conservatives are coming along and saying we should keep going and do more. When something is not working, the solution, of course, is to do more of the same. How very logical. While people are paying more at the pumps, the oil companies are unaffected. They are pocketing the entire price increase. Gas is being sold here at global prices, even though what is happening in the Strait of Hormuz is having no impact whatsoever on our supply. The gas we use here comes from the west and the United States, but prices are still keeping pace with the global panic. How convenient. While the price goes up, oil and gas companies are making record profits. These are not just good profits; they are record profits. That money does not even stay here. Most of it goes directly to the United States because most of the western oil companies are owned by American investors. We are paying more to make foreigners rich. I want to quote from a Canadian Press article published last month: In an interview with The Canadian Press, former federal environment minister Catherine McKenna described the leaders of Canada's oil industry as “fat cats” close to Donald Trump who are “taking us for fools” and making “huge profits” from the war while “feeding the climate crisis”, “putting the economy at risk” and “demanding subsidies”. Wow. The Conservatives keep telling us that gas prices are 50¢ higher than they were in 2014. In 2014, the Canadian dollar was worth almost one U.S. dollar. Today, that is no longer the case. Oil is sold in U.S. dollars. That means that we are comparing apples to oranges. However, that is the kind of detail that gets in the way of a good story and they like telling stories. Meanwhile, oil companies are raking in money as though it were an Olympic sport. Regardless of what happens elsewhere, we continue to pay. It is a convenient system, especially for those who can cash in. When even gas stations start offering discounts on gas, it might be because the price hikes are not as inevitable as some would have us believe. The Conservatives also say that deficits are dangerous. Their solution is to make it even bigger. There comes a point where it is not a contradiction; it is part of the game. They want to cut taxes and lose out on billions of dollars, while refusing to say where they would cut, because that would upset people. They prefer to stay vague than be transparent. Another problem is that the measure is not targeted and does not focus on helping those who need it most, those who are struggling to pay for groceries and rent. These are folks who earn very little and spend less on gas than the wealthy. The Liberal measure suspending the excise tax until September will save the lowest-income 20% of households $59, while the wealthiest 20% will save $211. That is three and a half times more. That is a lot of money that could have been used to provide more help those who need it most if it had been targeted. Under the Conservative plan, those with more money get more help. It is not complicated. It is simply not fair. Let me remind the House of something simple that everyone knows, except those who pretend not to understand. Experts like Luc Godbout have said it clearly: Lowering the gas tax, even temporarily, is a bad idea. This is not rocket science: It is a bad idea. It is bad for balancing the budget because the money disappears, and it is bad for the environment because, strangely enough, when gas is cheaper, people use more of it. He says we have to resist temptation. We cannot try half measures to see what happens or do something just because it sounds good at a press conference. We must resist temptation. In politics, however, resisting temptation is not always easy. Price reductions are an easy sell. The problem comes later, because the tax will have to be reinstated eventually, and that will not be easy. People get used to paying less, and then the cost goes up. It is like offering a permanent but temporary discount. People do not buy it. In the end, the government is left with lower revenues and a decision that it cannot see through to the end. That is not policy; it is passing the buck. It is going to take targeted measures, not unilateral cuts, to help those who really need it. We should not just throw money at everyone and hope it lands in the right place. However, implementing targeted measures is more complicated. Simplicity still seems to be very popular, even when it does not work. Coming up with targeted measures is not our friends' strong suit, and besides, gas consumption will go up. That does not help those who are struggling the most, it does not help the environment, and it costs a fortune. It is a bad idea all around. What is more, they want to extend this measure until the end of the year without knowing how long the international situation will last. This is not a plan. It is a knee-jerk reaction. I have said it before and I will say it again: These measures are not targeted. Why not propose a targeted measure for people with lower incomes and for those living in rural areas, starting with farmers? I know why they did not go that route. The Liberals did not announce any targeted measures either. Once again, the more someone has, the more they get. It is even worse in Quebec. Some of the measures the Conservatives want to scrap do not even exist in Quebec, yet we are still going to foot the bill for their massive deficit. We always end up paying; that is just how it works. No, this measure is not for everyone. On top of all that, this is an administrative headache for the other provinces. It is obviously not thought through. It brings up fond memories of the cheques that the Prime Minister sent to the rest of the country last year in the middle of the election campaign. That $814 million was paid for by Quebeckers, but they did not receive a cheque. When the Bloc Québécois demanded a refund, the Conservatives and Liberals voted against it. When it matters, they are far more alike than they let on. This motion is not a solution. It is posturing, and we do not vote for posturing. The poor Conservatives come up with ideas, only to see that the Liberals have already stolen them and even gotten them passed, not in a watered‑down version, but as a full course meal, including dessert. The Conservatives look at this and wonder what they should do. What do they do? They ratchet it up even more. It is one‑upmanship. It is like two people saying the same thing, but one speaks louder than the other, hoping that this makes their idea sound better. That is not how things work. It simply creates more noise for no reason. When push comes to shove, they have the same agenda, the same instincts and the same solutions. They are two parties with one idea. This is no longer opposition; it is an echo.

Mr. Speaker, yes, this measure is well targeted and it helps people. It is the type of thing we are asking for. What is poorly targeted is the $10 billion invested last year to help oil companies. I quoted former environment minister Catherine McKenna, who said how much they do not need it and that they are taking advantage of the system. I have a question. We know that Brookfield has a $16‑billion stake in the pipelines. Were the investments in pipelines deliberately targeted? I am wondering the same thing about the subsidies for small modular reactors that will go to the oil sands, because Brookfield has subsidiaries in that sector. Was that support deliberately targeted? When we start looking at the big picture of these massive deficits, we see that there are targeted measures to help the less fortunate, but there are also targeted supermeasures for big corporations that seem to benefit Brookfield, a company in which the Prime Minister still owns at least $10 million in shares, as far as we know.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for his question. First, the price of a barrel follows the global price. When there is trouble in Iran, there could potentially be a shortage of oil to the tune of 20%, which drives up prices, including the prices here, even though extraction costs do not go up. When the excise tax on gasoline was reduced by 10¢, we saw that the price at the pump went down, but then continued to go up because of the price per barrel. Refineries here quickly saw their margins increase by 10¢, fully offsetting the excise tax. This suggests that refineries and oil companies, which seek to maximize their profits, as my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères was saying, saw a window of opportunity there. When the government pulled back, they thought they could charge a higher price and occupy that space. Is that the solution? That is what the Liberals did, and that is what the Conservatives are telling us to do even more. In the end, this mainly helps the oil companies, which are making huge profits. That is not the solution.

Mr. Speaker, it is also a pleasure to work with the parliamentary secretary, particularly on social housing issues. Do I agree with those investments? They are important, but the government is also taking steps backwards. For example, there is $5 billion less for public transit, and we have other similar concerns. The government is taking several steps backwards, while still providing a lot of assistance to oil companies. The fact that the former environment minister is saying that the current government's environmental policies, especially its support for oil companies, are worse than those under the Harper government is a big deal, and analysts are saying that he is absolutely right. In my opinion, the evidence is clear.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary kept repeating throughout his speech that the Conservatives are members of a far right party. I think we need to be very careful and cautious with our words. By repeating this over and over again, we end up diminishing the weight of those words. Even though I do not share the values of Conservative members, I believe that the Conservative Party is clearly not a far right party, and one should never say that in the House. I believe there is a world of difference between the policies it advocates and what is being done in the United States under the current presidency, for example. Furthermore, when we look at economic policies, we see that the Liberal government has essentially adopted all the Conservatives' ideas: tax cuts, unconditional support for oil development, and even the reduction in gas taxes being advocated today. The Liberals did this a month and a half ago. Is the parliamentary secretary saying, then, that the Liberals themselves are members of a far right party?

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader is proposing to lower fuel taxes, but the Liberals already did that more than a month ago by reducing the excise tax by 10¢. We saw that the price at the pump dropped temporarily, but then refinery margins rose by more than 10¢, filling the gap and leaving us with an unchanged price at the pump and a deficit that has grown by $2.4 billion. What the Conservative leader is proposing today is to lower taxes even further. We can expect the same behaviour from the oil companies, which will increase their profit margins, and we will end up with an even larger deficit. This Prime Minister is running deficits twice as big as Justin Trudeau's. Why would we implement measures that increase the deficit so much?

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend my colleague on her speech, which she gave entirely in impeccable French. It is always very moving to hear that. I will come back to the Liberal government's announcement to suspend the excise tax until September. That meant a savings of 10¢, but it was quickly offset by an increase of more than 10¢ in refinery margins. The way I see it, refineries saw an opportunity to fill a gap created by the government. This increase in refinery margins cancels out the price reduction, while still leaving us with a deficit. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague think that the government is doing too much for the oil industry? The industry got $10 billion in subsidies last year. The government is rolling out the red carpet for oil and gas and suspending environmental regulations and laws. Meanwhile, globally, oil prices are through the roof, yet production costs here have not gone up. As a result, oil companies are generating record profits that are essentially going straight to shareholders, most of whom are in the United States. Does my colleague think that the government is doing the right thing when it comes to oil companies?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Robert Boyer, a man who continues to light up our lives. Following a career with the Sûreté du Québec, he served as a trusted confidante to our former leader, Gilles Duceppe, inspiring confidence in everything he did. In Rawdon, his memory still moves everyone who knew him and those who are mourning his passing. He had a quick smile and had lived a thousand lives. From the open seas to Camp Mariste, he was driven by a hunger to live life to the fullest, despite the weariness of the flesh. He gave, and gave, and gave some more, until he became the gift itself. His wife, Suzanne, the gentle guardian of his final years, gave unto him what he could no longer give unto others, like a light returning to the source. My heart goes out to his children and grandchildren, and to his family and friends. People said he was too kind, as if kindness could ever be excessive. The sheriff with the heart of gold will never be forgotten. His memory lives on in every invisible act of kindness and compassion. I salute Robert and I thank him.

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?

Mr. Speaker, I have a somewhat technical question. The bill impacts several laws, including the Bank Act. If I understand correctly, the government is making it easier for foreign entities to take control of Canadian banks. The government was elected on a promise to protect the public from President Trump, yet it now appears to be facilitating the takeover of Canadian banks by various entities, particularly American ones. Could this be because Brookfield is now registered in the United States so that it can continue to use tax havens, or is this really just kowtowing to the American president?

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

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

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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?

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 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?

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—

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.

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.

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.