“American tariffs on our metals hurt Canadian workers and businesses. We are giving $1.5 billion to help these companies, making employment insurance easier to get, and finding new countries to trade with. We will not take a bad trade deal from the United States.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the Bloc Québécois for introducing this motion on U.S. tariffs. I would especially like to thank my colleague from Joliette—Manawan, who is the sponsor of this motion. I have had the opportunity to work closely with him for many years and have always been impressed by his professionalism, pragmatism and kindness, even when we were in deep disagreement. It is clear that the unjustified tariffs imposed by the United States on Canadian metals directly affect workers, businesses and communities in Quebec and across the country. This is a very serious situation, and our government takes these measures very seriously. The imposition of tariffs on steel, aluminum and copper is not an abstract decision. These tariffs have very real consequences for business owners and workers in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and the north shore, as well as in Hamilton or Sault Ste. Marie, and for manufacturers and small and medium-sized businesses across the country. From the very beginning, from day one of these unjustified tariffs, our government has been working hand in hand with the Aluminum Association of Canada and the Canadian Steel Producers Association, with business leaders, yes, but also with workers and the entire aluminum and steel sector. That is why we are providing $1.5 billion in targeted support for affected businesses. This includes a new $1-billion program from the Business Development Bank of Canada to support liquidity and investment, as well as an additional $500 million to support businesses directly on the ground. We are providing $1.5 billion in targeted support for businesses affected by these tariffs. This support will help companies maintain operations, protect jobs and adapt in the face of disruptions. While we cannot control the decisions of the White House, we can control how we respond to them and how we prepare for our own future. Our approach is not only one of mitigation. It is also one of transformation. We are taking concrete steps to support those sectors most impacted, as we diversify our trade and increase our exports to reliable trading partners around the world. This work has been a major focus of our government over the last year, and we are already seeing concrete results. Canada’s non‑U.S. exports are up nearly 40%. Our aluminum exports, in particular to Europe, have surged as producers pivot to new markets. Canadian businesses are demonstrating incredible resilience, adaptability and ambition, and our government is backing them every step of the way. We are accelerating investments in strategic sectors and strengthening Canada’s economic sovereignty. As part of this work, Canada has now concluded 56 different critical mineral agreements with over 10 different countries, positioning Canada as a global leader in the economy of the future. Canada has also signed over 20 different trade and security agreements across our four continents over the last year, strengthening our ties with trusted allies and opening new markets for Canadian businesses. As we work to diversify, we continue to engage constructively with our American partners to seek a fair and sustainable agreement that benefits both our economies. I believe that my colleague, the member for Burlington, will be sharing time with me, as she would also like to contribute to this debate. Let us be very clear that, as the Prime Minister has said, “We need a good deal...what we don’t need is chasing a small deal that disadvantages us.” The risks of such an approach are very plain to see. Just last week, the United States announced significant new tariffs on European goods, despite the EU’s having signed a tariff deal with the U.S. on July 27, 2025. That is a clear warning. A deal must be worth the paper it is written on. Canadians expect their government to stand firm and to protect their interests, and that is exactly what we are doing. As we respond to this trade war, we are also building a stronger and more resilient economy at home. We are already seeing a rise of nearly 40% in non‑U.S. exports. We are investing in the economy of tomorrow while supporting Canadians during this very difficult transition period. We have also strengthened our social safety net. Employment insurance is more flexible, with temporary measures to support workers impacted by these tariffs, including extended benefits and faster access. We have also enhanced the work-sharing programs to help employers retain their workforce and avoid layoffs. We are also advancing a game-changing defence industrial strategy, one that will boost economic growth, create high-quality jobs and reinforce Canada’s sovereignty in an increasingly uncertain world. Our leadership is being recognized internationally, and I am proud to state that Canada has just been chosen, through a unanimous vote, to host the new defence, security and resilience bank, reflecting the confidence of our allies in Canada’s stability, credibility and economic strength. If we are fighting so hard to protect our sovereignty and to build our economy stronger, it is because we believe in Canada and in the values that define us as a country and as Canadians. That is why we introduced a climate competitiveness strategy, ensuring that Canadian industries remain leaders in low-carbon production. Canadian aluminum, for example, is among the cleanest in the world. That is a competitive advantage, and we intend to build on it. Our country’s greatest riches are in its people and in its land. We are investing in training and in the talent that thrives in every single Canadian. We are also investing in the beauty and in the biodiversity of our land. We are providing $4 billion for a historic nature strategy to protect and strengthen Canada’s natural infrastructure. This strategy supports new protected areas while also mobilizing and protecting more money for national parks and urban green spaces, and supporting indigenous leadership in conservation. This is how we build a more resilient, competitive and sustainable economy for Canada and for our children. We are putting nearly $4 billion on the table for a historic strategy to protect nature because Canada’s wealth depends as much on its lands as it does on its talent. This investment will support conservation projects across the country and help build a more resilient, competitive and sustainable economy. Protecting nature also means building a sustainable and resilient economy. To conclude, in the face of this trade war, Canada is taking decisive action. We are supporting our workers, we are standing up for our industries, we are diversifying our trade, we are strengthening our alliances and, most importantly, we are standing united against this threat. As a proud Quebecker and proud Montrealer, I would be remiss if I did not mention the Montreal Canadiens’ victory in game 7 against the Tampa Bay Lightning last Sunday. In this long-standing rivalry with our neighbour and largest trading partner, this time the result was conclusive and certainly satisfying. The Montreal Canadiens reminded us that when Canada plays with determination, discipline and trust, we can do great things. We know how to win.”

“People in the member's riding will soon get a government cheque to help pay for groceries and essentials. We also announced 1.5 billion dollars to help businesses hurt by tariffs keep their workers.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member raised affordability concerns in his riding. He should let his constituents know that they will be receiving a cheque for the Canadian groceries and essentials benefit in a few weeks’ time. It is an important measure by our government that will support the most vulnerable Canadians across the country. With respect to tariffs, just yesterday we announced $1.5 billion in order to support the sectors that have been hit particularly hard by these tariffs. This will ensure that companies can retain their employees to see them through this difficult time in order to continue to grow as they export to new partners.”

“We respect Quebec's powers. We listen to what Quebec wants and put measures for it in our budget. We will work with Quebec on its own programs and give it the funding it negotiates, as usual.”

“Mr. Speaker, respect for areas of jurisdiction is obviously very important. The Premier of Quebec met with our Prime Minister within hours of his taking office. It was very important for our Prime Minister to ensure that he was responsive to Quebec’s requests. We have put forward several measures in our budget. We made it quite clear, both to the Quebec government and to the Bloc Québécois, that we would work hand in hand with Quebec on the programs it wishes to advance itself. It will receive the negotiated funds as usual. Our deputy is working with his counterpart in Quebec to that end.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I want my colleague to talk more about why Canada must take its time to get the best trade deal with the United States. The government must focus on what is best for Canadians, our economy, and new trade opportunities.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague could provide some additions to her comments about getting a good deal with the United States, with a “good deal” being defined as what is in the best interest of Canadians. Whatever time it takes, it is absolutely critical that the government focus its attention on getting the best deal possible and that it is consistent with what has taken place over the last year. That has been a holistic approach, whether it is building one Canada, the major projects program or the number of initiatives the government has taken to date to build on Canada’s economy, to look at other opportunities to trade and to bring in additional investments. There is a litany of things that the government has done to build Canada strong, a strong country for all people. Could my colleague provide her thoughts on why it is so important to take that holistic approach and wait to get the best deal?”

“We are working with the United States to get a good deal for Canada, and I believe we will. At the same time, we are building major projects like high-speed rail and expanding ports in Montreal and Churchill.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is a very large question to respond to in a very short period of time. What we need to get is a good deal, and we are working with our American partners in order to get to that deal. We are in constant communication and are confident that at the end of the day Canada will get a great deal. It is important for us also, in parallel, as we are doing, to advance the major projects that will help build this country. I am very proud of the projects we are working on, including our high-speed train, including expanding the port of Montreal and including the port of Churchill. I could go on and on about this topic.”

• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 48 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

“We must stand together against the unfair American tariffs on our steel, aluminum, and auto sectors. These taxes break our trade deal and hurt thousands of workers, especially in Ontario and Quebec. The government is giving $1 billion to help affected businesses, and we must help our companies find new markets so we rely less on the United States.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking our Bloc Québécois colleagues for moving this motion today. It is important that we stand together as a nation at this point in time to address the unjustified tariffs imposed by the United States, so I would like to thank them for that. I come from Burlington, Ontario. When I look to the west and the south from my constituency office, I see the steel mills in Hamilton. When I look to the east, I see the Ford Motor Company assembly plant in Oakville. In between and all around me, there are small and medium-sized manufacturers in the steel and automotive business that are major exporters to the United States and employ tens of thousands of people in my community and surrounding areas. This conversation today is so important because the section 232 tariffs are in direct violation of CUSMA, the agreement we signed with the United States. The tariffs are a challenge to the businesses, but, most importantly, to the people in my community who are looking for certainty and stability and hoping this issue will be resolved soon with the United States. I have spent so much time over the last year talking to business owners and employees in my community about what these tariffs mean for them. When they were first applied at 25% on the steel, aluminum, auto and softwood lumber industries, and now copper, they had a major impact, but when they were increased to 50%, it was devastating for our economy. I am really glad that the federal government and the Prime Minister recognize that and are acting swiftly to support these businesses. In fact, just yesterday, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Artificial Intelligence announced a $1‑billion additional fund to support businesses and tariff-affected sectors. I have heard from so many businesses in my community that this relief is so important. We need to ensure as a government that we are supporting these businesses in weathering this storm. We know we have some of the most innovative businesses, some of the best manufacturers and most highly skilled workers in the world in southern Ontario and around the country, but we need to support them in getting through this time, and support them to retool, re-skill and find new export markets to make sure they can continue to thrive and be successful. I had the pleasure of touring some of these amazing plants. I was at a company on Saturday evening in my riding, the Thomson-Gordon Group and Thordon Bearings. They make these incredible ship bearings that do not use oil. They are eco-friendly and export around the world. This is an opportunity for us to showcase that Canadian talent, Canadian skills and Canadian products and use this opportunity to double our exports around the world, to make sure we are bringing this Canadian ingenuity, skill and talent right around the globe. I do not want to minimize the importance of the relationship with the United States. Eighty per cent of Canadians live within 100 kilometres of the U.S. border. When I talk to manufacturers in southern Ontario, I hear that often 50% to 70% of their exports currently go to the United States. It is so important for us to get a good deal with the Americans, and that is exactly what this government is aiming to do. However, in the meantime, we also have to make our economy more resilient and less dependent on the United States so that we can weather these shocks. I was in Washington, D.C., a couple of weeks ago and talked to some American colleagues there. One of the key things we have to understand is that we have a lot of friends in the United States. We have a lot of allies in the United States who want to do business with Canada and continue to support what has made both of our countries prosperous, the cross-border trade, the North American economy that we have developed that is so integrated over the last few decades, but we also need to demonstrate to them that we are an important partner and they have to be able to show us that we can trust them into the future. When the Prime Minister talks about the fact that our relationship has irrevocably changed, what he is talking about is whether Canadians and Canadian businesses can trust that, moving into the future, the agreements that we sign with our American partners are going to be honoured and respected. As Canadians, we value the relationship we have with the United States. We value that cross-border relationship when it comes to our economy, our friendship and our Armed Forces, which have served side by side in conflict after conflict. We are friends, allies and business partners and we want that to continue. However, Canadians need assurances that when the Americans sign those agreements they are going to honour them into the future. When it comes to the section 232 tariffs, this latest change that we saw on April 6 is going to be really difficult for Canadian companies. That is why yesterday’s announcement by the government that we continue to support our Canadian companies is so important. There was a report that came out of the University of Calgary a couple of weeks ago that looked at the impact of the section 232 tariffs on the overall economy. While it is true that upward of 85% of Canada’s exports to the United States are still covered under CUSMA, and we need to do everything we can to protect that and ensure that continues, the sectors that are affected by the 232 tariffs are disproportionately in Ontario and Quebec because it is steel, aluminum and auto manufacturing that are most impacted. When we look at Ontario and Quebec, we see that the percentage of our U.S. exports that are hit by the 232 tariffs in Ontario is 60%, and in Quebec it is almost 55%. This is our manufacturing heartland and something we need to protect, nourish and support moving into the future. If we are going to move forward, as we are planning to, with the defence industrial strategy, building Canada and ensuring we have the infrastructure we need, we need to have a strong and vibrant steel and aluminum sector. That is why we are providing supports to the steel sector. It is why we have imposed import duties on non-free trade partners when it comes to steel in Canada. It is why the buy Canadian strategy when it comes to steel in our infrastructure is so important. These are the industries we rely on to build our country. I will conclude by saying that today’s motion and debate are really important, because we need to be unified. We need to be team Canada. We need to protect the businesses, employees and people who make our country strong and make it run.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “That is exactly what this government wants to do.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since May 1.

  Every time it was said →

“I worry about small and medium businesses in my riding. We announced $500 million yesterday to help businesses hurt by these tariffs. We will see if that is enough money.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned about the future of small- and medium-sized businesses in my riding. I have spoken about the big businesses next door to my riding. In my riding, however, small and medium-sized businesses are the ones that need this help. Yesterday, we announced an envelope of $500 million dollars for regional development agencies. The goal is precisely to support SMEs affected by section 232 tariffs. Will that be enough? We shall see. We will see how long this lasts, and how we will need to support SMEs.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The U.S. President made this decision, not Canada. Most of our trade with the U.S. is still protected under our trade deal, and the government is supporting Canadian businesses. We must work to get these American tariffs removed to protect our economy.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is not something that the Canadian government wants. I do not think any Canadian wants this. I think most people realize that this is a decision of the U.S. President. We need to do what we can to support Canadian industries. That is exactly what the government is doing. It continues to be an evolving process. As I mentioned, 85% of exports from Canada to the United States are still covered under CUSMA. We need to protect that. We need to ensure that this continues. We need to do everything we can to ensure that the section 232 tariffs are removed across the board, so that we can protect the vital industries that are so important to our economy.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I agree with the Bloc motion against the new tariffs. These tariffs hurt many businesses. Will my colleague talk about how our plan helps workers and builds a stronger economy?”

“Mr. Speaker, I agree with the premise of today’s Bloc motion to condemn the new tariffs. These tariffs affect a growing number of businesses. Could my colleague please talk about our response, which puts workers first? It is all about building a stronger economy at home.”

“Our government is supporting industries like steel and auto manufacturing. We are doing this to protect the jobs of the people who work in them and keep our economy strong.”

“Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, what we are trying to do as a government is build a strong and resilient economy. We know it is extremely important that we support our industries so that we support our workers. When I talk about the steel sector, and when I talk about the automotive sector, it is not about the plant; it is about the people who work in those plants. I had the opportunity to visit Dofasco with the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago. We spoke to the employees. I met a third-generation steel worker at Dofasco. The whole reason we are doing this is that we want to ensure that she continues to have that job, that she continues to be able to make a good living and that she has that respectable job that we can continue to have in this country. All of these measures are about supporting those workers. They make up our community and they make up our economy. The strength of Canada’s economy is in our people.”

• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 37 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

“Can the member talk more about how the people in his riding are affected and how important it is for small and medium businesses to keep their workers?”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. As he mentioned, we work very well together at the Standing Committee on Finance. I very much appreciate everything he said. I want to ask him to tell us a bit more about how his constituents are affected and how important it is for them to get the support that they need. I liked when he talked about SMEs and the importance of retaining workers. Does the hon. member have anything more to say on that subject?”

“A company in my riding lost jobs because of cheap goods from China. We asked for an official trade investigation into this. Did the member talk about this investigation in his meetings, and what did he hear?”

“Mr. Speaker, I felt compelled to speak when my colleague from Mirabel mentioned South Shore Furniture, a company in my riding. I salute its employees, who unfortunately lost their jobs recently. I have worked very closely with the Laflamme family on the challenge that they are currently facing. This company has borne the consequences of Chinese dumping in recent years. Together with the Canadian Wood Products Alliance, we met with the Minister of Finance, who has asked the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to launch an investigation. I would like to know whether my colleague discussed this investigation during his meetings. What feedback has he received?”

“The member mentioned that we are bringing back an existing program. I think this is good because it helps struggling businesses quickly. I want to know what he thinks about that.”

“Mr. Speaker, everyone can see that my colleague’s economic knowledge serves him well. However, he said in his speech that the government was resurrecting an existing program. I think that is a good thing, so that companies that are truly in need receive help quickly. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.”

“I agree with most of the Bloc motion about American tariffs. These tariffs hurt Canadian businesses and workers, especially in steel, aluminum, and forestry. Our government is already helping them with billions of dollars, buying Canadian goods, and finding new countries to trade with.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to have the opportunity to debate motions tabled by the opposition parties. Today, our hon. colleague from Joliette—Manawan moved a motion about the challenges posed by the U.S. tariffs, particularly for our manufacturing sector. I appreciate the way the Bloc Québécois has presented this motion today, because I think the wording of the motion is relatively fair. I have friends on the other side of the House of Commons, among the Conservatives. However, I find that there is always some sort of catch in how the Conservative motions are worded. That said, I feel that the Bloc’s work presents an opportunity for MPs from all parties to discuss a crucial issue, namely the impact of the U.S. tariffs, particularly the section 232 tariffs. This is important for communities across the country, including those in Quebec, of course, as well as in southwestern Ontario and in my riding. I am pleased to have the opportunity to present the perspective of my constituents in Kings—Hants, as well as my own as Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. I think everyone here understands that the situation is difficult. There are four aspects to the Bloc Québécois motion. Point (a) condemns the imposition of the new U.S. tariffs that came into force on April 6, 2026, as contrary to the principles of free trade. We agree with that aspect of the motion. It is important to remind all Canadians that we have the best agreement with the United States, CUSMA. More than 85% of our goods and services trade is tariff-free. This is very important for our national economy. However, it is true that, for the sectors affected by the section 232 tariffs, things are very difficult. Things are difficult for the steel industry, for the aluminum industry and for the forestry sector. Now, with the revised tariff structure, it is no longer simply a matter of a tariff on certain non-U.S. products, but rather a tariff imposed on the full price of products in general. This increase stems from a decision by the U.S. administration. In some cases, there was a tariff of 2% or 3%, and it has now risen to over 20%. There are many examples. Our colleagues have mentioned some today. We agree with the first part of the Bloc Québécois opposition motion. Point (b) says that the application of additional tariffs on the full value of products containing steel, aluminum or copper is affecting a growing number of businesses, particularly SMEs. We agree on that. As I mentioned, it is how the U.S. administration decided to expand its section 232 policy. That is a problem for our SMEs across the country. We generally agree, but we have some reservations about point (c). It is not that it is problematic, but rather that we are already taking corrective action and helping our businesses. Point (c) of the motion expresses concern that this new trade environment could have irreparable effects on our manufacturing sector and the employees who depend on it. Yes, we understand that the situation is very difficult, but I believe that now is the time to help the sectors affected by tariffs and, at the same time, build a resilient economy. I would like to raise some important points about our government’s approach to addressing the challenge posed by tariffs for the affected sectors, as well as for the economy as a whole. First, we will be our own best customer in the steel, aluminum and softwood lumber sectors. That is why the minister responsible for procurement here in Canada is focused on how to buy more from our SMEs and our industries in general. I am proud of the products made by our local companies, I understand them better and I know that Canadians are now proud, too. With the government’s purchasing power, we have an opportunity to support our businesses across the country. When it comes to helping businesses, the next focus will be on agriculture and agri-food. We have a lot of farmers, especially in Quebec, but also in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. Based on certain aspects of U.S. policy, I think it is also important to help farmers, especially our small-scale farmers, with a buy local policy. The national school food program provides an opportunity to buy local products. That is one aspect of our national policy. With the goal of being our own best customer in mind, I am thinking of the Irving Shipyard in Halifax. We likely have more than 4,000 local workers, skilled workers, who have the opportunity to build and repair Royal Canadian Navy ships. This is a good example of our investment in the defence sector. It will be an opportunity not only to support members of the Canadian Armed Forces, but also to create good jobs across the country. There are other examples, such as the Davie Shipyard in Quebec City, CEI in Montreal, and Bombardier. There are many examples across the country. Now is the time to help these sectors. It is also important to find other markets. We agree with the proposal to continue our long-standing good relationship with the United States and recognize the importance of that market for our industries in general. That said, we must find other markets to support our businesses and diversify our free trade relationships around the world. I am very proud of the work done by our government to open new markets and create export opportunities for our products. There are many different sectors in that context, but it is very important in Europe, in South America, in the Asia-Pacific region, just as it is in India, Indonesia and China, in some cases. I am aware of the impacts on some of the manufacturing sectors, but new markets are very important in certain areas. When it comes to supporting workers involved with the EI extension and the specific funding initiatives for companies impacted by U.S. tariffs, we have invested over $5 billion in a program called the strategic response fund in order to help companies in the auto, steel and forestry sectors withstand the impacts of the section 232 tariffs and the tariffs imposed by the U.S. Department of Commerce. We recognize the importance of finding a way forward in the context of free trade with the U.S. administration. However, at the same time, we are here. We are here for workers in Quebec, in Ontario and across Canada. In the Atlantic, we have other products that are targeted by the U.S. tariffs. We have programs in place. I am also proud to highlight the importance of the funding allocated to Canada’s regional development agencies. There are various agencies across the country, and there are funds dedicated to helping affected companies, but funds are also being distributed to provide regional support in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, the Prairies, and western Canada. My colleague from Winnipeg North is familiar with the programs available in western Canada. There are two other important aspects to consider when building a resilient economy. One is major projects. The opposition motion we are seized with today was moved by my Bloc Québécois colleague from Joliette—Manawan. I am going to talk about major projects in Quebec, such as the Port of Montreal project in Contrecoeur, which is very important. It is very important for Montreal, for Quebec, but also for Canada. This is an example of a major project aimed at benefiting many sectors, such as the sectors affected by tariffs, including steel and aluminum, as well as workers, who face various challenges because of the tariffs. Nouveau Monde Graphite is a good example of a critical mineral project in Quebec. It is a good example of innovation in Quebec and Canada. Alto is also important when it comes to transportation and Canadian procurement. This is an opportunity to support that industry. In Nova Scotia, there is the Wind West transformation project, which is important for energy in Atlantic Canada. There is the Bay du Nord project in Newfoundland and Labrador. From what I understand, the premier of New Brunswick wants to implement a nuclear project in the province. We therefore have many opportunities to strengthen our economy in general. I also think that we need to invest in major projects to increase our export capacity. I mentioned the Contrecœur port, but the Minister of Transport has over $5 billion to invest in railways, ports, airports and logistics hubs through the trade diversification corridors fund. There are many important investments that can act as catalysts for private sector investments. That is another reason why it is important to get to work and focus on what helps us to be masters in our own house. We recognize the importance of finding a path forward with the U.S. in the context of CUSMA. That being said, as the Prime Minister noted, it is impossible to control the President of the United States, Mr. Trump. What we do have control over is our regulations, our initiatives here in Canada and our economic vision for the future of our communities and regions. I think this aspect is absolutely crucial in the context of what is to come. Now that I have gone over the first three points of the Bloc Québécois motion, I will read the last one, point (d): (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. We still have free trade with the United States, but we like the idea of charting a path forward in a context where tariffs are reduced or eliminated for the affected sectors. As I mentioned, we have more than $500 billion set aside specifically for companies, sectors and industries directly affected by the U.S. tariffs. We believe in the importance of these sectors and our workers in this context. The repercussions are known, and they affect not only Quebec and Ontario, but the entire country, given our continental economic integration with the United States. That is why we are going to seek out other markets. We are going to continue to help businesses, SMEs and workers affected by the tariffs. We understand that the situation is very difficult and that companies have little room to maneuver. We will also continue to invest in the Canadian Armed Forces. We have invested billions of dollars to buy more equipment and provide homes for our soldiers, for Canadian Armed Forces personnel. We believe that these investments are crucial for protecting our sovereignty, but also for our industrial capacity across the country. That includes Quebec companies. I see that I am out of time. It was a pleasure to have the opportunity to highlight the federal government’s measures in general and to share some personal insights at the same time. I am ready to answer questions from my colleagues.”

“The forestry industry is vital to rural communities, including in Nova Scotia. The industry is facing hard times because of our dispute with the United States. We have set aside over $1.5 billion to support it, and we must listen to new ideas and promote wood construction to protect its future.”

“Mr. Speaker, I agree that the forestry sector is important in Canada. My riding is home to companies such as Elmsdale Lumber and Ledwidge Lumber. In Nova Scotia, the forestry sector is absolutely crucial to our rural communities. I think that we can place greater emphasis on all the ideas put forward by members of the House of Commons to ensure that we have specific programs in place to help the sector as a whole during these very difficult times. We have over $1.5 billion earmarked for the forestry sector. Things are tough right now due to the conflict with the United States, but we need to focus on this sector to ensure it has a future. Solid wood construction is also more important in the context of Build Canada Homes.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 44 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I will not apologize for speaking French. Our government is working to build energy and natural resource projects in Canada. The Conservatives told us to give up too easily during the last trade talks. We will make sure any new trade deal protects Canadian workers and businesses.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of my use of French here in the House of Commons. Of course I speak English too, but I will not apologize for speaking French. To address the member in his own language, he talked about the work that this government is doing. We are focused on building, and maybe he did not hear because he was not listening very closely through the translation about the work that the government is doing to build up energy and natural resource projects in the country. That is exactly what we are doing. We are engaged, and we are at the table. We will take no lessons from the Conservatives. We see the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North going down and engaging. He is not in a mandate to actually do that. I will remind my hon. colleague that before his time in the House, in the last NAFTA renegotiation, the Conservatives suggested that the government should fold and try to get a deal at the time. We are going to make sure that the deal we make is in the best interest of Canadian industry and workers. When we are at that point, we will have more to say on that.”

• Echo ×9

  A repeated line

  “We will take no lessons from the Conservatives.”

  Said 9 times by 4 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

“My riding and the member's riding both depend on manufacturing and farming. Can he explain how we are supporting our farmers during our current troubles with the United States?”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from Kings—Hants. I note that we have relatively similar ridings in terms of wood, steel and aluminum manufacturing processing. We share another similarity, and that is agricultural products. My colleague provided a good outline of what we are doing for the primary sectors he mentioned. Can he also explain how we are supporting the agricultural sector given the difficult situation we are facing with the United States?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 28 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I support my colleague's bill to improve cell service in rural areas. It is an important issue for our communities. We are also working on a national food strategy to help our farmers.”

“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on introducing her bill regarding the importance of cellular service in rural areas. I am very proud of her and her work because this is a very important issue in the riding of Compton—Stanstead, in my riding of Kings—Hants as well, and in many rural communities. In the agricultural sector, we are going to introduce a national food strategy that will be particularly important to farmers in both of our ridings. I could give many examples, but I do not have much time. That said, we are paying particular attention to agricultural issues in general.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 34 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We have funding programs to help industries hurt by U.S. tariffs. The industry minister is open to ideas from all parties to support affected workers, and I will share them with him.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, we have a lot of funding programs available to support sectors currently affected by the U.S. tariffs. I think and I imagine that the hon. Minister of Industry is open to suggestions from all the parties in the House of Commons. I will pass these ideas on to the minister. I know that it is important to the minister that they be brought to the government’s attention. All options are on the table, because we understand the importance of supporting our workers affected by the U.S. tariffs.”

“Most Canadians support our government's vision. We are helping people and businesses deal with hard times, and we are investing in local jobs. I want the member to support our programs to help people who are struggling.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will leave it to the Canadian people to decide whether or not the Prime Minister and the government have the vision they are looking for. I would remind my hon. colleague that according to basic statistics right now, almost 70% of Canadians approve of the general direction of the government. It is not for me to say and perhaps not for him to say. We obviously wear different partisan-coloured shirts in the House, so to speak, but I believe, in the context, and I have travelled across this country, that Canadians believe in the vision the Prime Minister is putting forward. We obviously understand that right now this is a difficult context of sectors that are being impacted, and I would suggest that it is through no fault of the government. We did not walk in wanting this. We are dealing with the circumstances. When I think about businesses in London, I think about the defence sector and the investments we are making that can help support business in London and help support people who are being impacted. With respect to affordability, I would ask the member to support the programs we are putting in place for some of the most vulnerable people. Accordingly, it is important for him to jump on board to support the government for some of the people who are being impacted.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 25 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →