“Can we count on this government to actually consult the provinces and Quebec? A strong Canada must respect provincial powers and priorities.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Does she believe that building Canada strong and the “nationalism” advocated by the Prime Minister includes respect for provincial jurisdictions? Is a strong Canada not necessarily a Canada that respects the jurisdictions of the various provinces? In this regard, can we count on the current government to consult the provinces, to really consult them, take their opinions into account, and create programs that respect the jurisdictions and priorities of each province and Quebec?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The government's new loans help big industries, but they leave out small businesses that need help right now to keep their workers. I want my colleague to tell me if she thinks the government really did enough to protect these smaller businesses.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I work together on the Standing Committee on Finance. Things have been going well, at least so far. We will make sure it stays that way. My colleague mentioned the auto industry in her riding and many other large industries that have a certain degree of resilience and are able to secure the loans ranging from $2 million to $50 million that were announced yesterday. For our part, we are worried about the smaller businesses, which have never seen anything close to a $2-million loan and which will have to shut down tomorrow morning, in a week, or in two weeks if they cannot maintain that employment relationship. We believe that these businesses, which are part of the fabric of Quebec’s small and medium-sized enterprises, were not covered by the announcement made yesterday. Point (d) of the motion calls on the government to take all necessary measures to mitigate the impact. I would like my colleague to tell me whether she believes that yesterday’s announcement included all the necessary measures.”

“New American tariffs are hurting Quebec workers and forcing small businesses to close. The government's plan gives out loans, but small businesses cannot afford more debt. We need wage subsidies right now to keep people employed. The government also needs to protect local industries, speed up duty refunds, and give businesses clear information about these tariffs.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague just touched on the point I was going to start with when she said that we talk a lot about companies, industry and big name corporations, but that the reason we are having this debate today is, first and foremost, for the people who work, for the workers. Since the start of this tariff crisis, 9,700 jobs have been lost in Quebec. I am talking about well-paying, skilled jobs, often in our regions. Until very recently, we could say we had been spared because CUSMA protected 85% of our exports, although some sectors were more severely affected. The reality in Quebec today is that 441,000 manufacturing jobs are at stake. These are fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters. These are people we have a responsibility to protect. When we hear about businesses closing, these are the folks we need to think about. Since President Trump announced the new tariffs on April 6, there have been many closures in the furniture sector. Businesses like Bestar and South Shore Furniture come to mind. We have asked the government to follow up. We have asked for it to do something. That was a month ago. There was some resistance at first, but we feel as though the discussion is moving forward. However, the clock is ticking. I think it is important for us to look at the timeline to understand just how far behind the government is in terms of taking action. President Trump’s executive order was issued on April 6. That was about a month ago. From the very first day the order was issued, some businesses were confused and turned to customs and tax consultants to try to find out what it all meant. Even the consultants and lawyers did not know what was happening. People tried to get information from the government, but it was hard to get. We then asked the government some questions. The first week, the leader of the Bloc Québécois asked the Prime Minister what he was going to do about the United States’ new way of calculating tariffs, which meant that some businesses went from paying almost no tariffs to paying 25% tariffs, or just about the highest rate in the world. That day, the Prime Minister basically had no idea what we were talking about, and he was quite honest with us. He said that he would get back to us. We were patient. We waited a week and then we asked the Prime Minister more questions. On April 21, we asked him whether he was going to let these businesses quietly die? The answer was that we had to wait for the economic update, so we waited for the economic update. When I rent a thriller and there is no climax at the end, I sometimes feel as though I have been taken for a ride. That was the economic update. There were no measures to help these businesses. There was interference in workforce training. There was a sovereign wealth fund with no funding, no objectives, no governance rules, no private investment that would be attracted to the sovereign wealth fund. They had time to think about all sorts of things over the past month, but they never thought about the workers. We wondered what was going to happen. During the pre-budget consultations, we made a number of constructive requests. When South Shore Furniture closed, the Minister of Finance suggested that it was due to the new tariffs—and that was the case—but that the company also had other management and governance issues and that it was partly their own fault. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Jean‑Denis Garon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance suggested that. As usual, the Liberals are acting in bad faith. We eventually realized that it was a company that had won awards for its management and administration, so there was nothing to it. The tariff calculation in the economic update was wrong. The Liberals were still using the old tariffs. I do not have the document with me, but the economic update says that the tariffs are around 5%. We heard from the Governor of the Bank of Canada yesterday. He released the bank’s monetary policy report. While we accept that these reports are written slightly in advance, the report again said that the tariffs are roughly 5%. However, if we look at the independent study done by the University of Calgary, which has to be read carefully and with steel and aluminum thresholds properly interpreted, or if we look at the study produced by Desjardins Group, which expresses concern for its member businesses, we realize that the average tariff for Quebec’s economy is close to 10%. That is the very same tariff under the agreement signed by Europe, which the government calls a bad deal. The average is 10%, and approximately one-quarter of all Quebec exports are currently subject to tariffs. My colleague has presented different figures. I admit that we do not have exact figures, because the government is not providing them. We are being forced to consult university studies and banks, and there is a problem with the information and with mapping the impact of these new tariffs. In the requests we have submitted to the government, we are asking it to provide us with a clear picture so that we know who is affected by the tariffs, in which sector, in which province and at what rate, so that we can propose constructive solutions. What has President Trump decided to do? With his new tariff calculations, he has decided to destroy what is, in a sense, the most valuable aspect of the natural resources sector. Why? It is because, for years, Quebec has wanted to get involved in secondary and tertiary processing. We do not just want to produce wood, iron and steel. We want to produce things like furniture and machines. We want to do secondary and tertiary processing. Under the president’s new tariff structure, if steel or aluminum represents more than 15% of the value of a product, even just 16%, the tariff is a flat 25%. This is a direct attack on very small businesses that are in growth mode and that represent the economic future of our regions in many ways. Many of them are also suppliers to larger companies. Aerospace has a presence in my riding. A lot is at stake in Montérégie, Lanaudière and Beauce as well. That is what President Trump attacked. I suspect he knew it, in a way. The point of tariffs is to do damage. When one country goes on and on about being protected, about how tariffs have virtually no impact except on certain sectors, then the people on the other side may eventually decide to do more damage. We were calling for measures, including a wage subsidy for the businesses hardest hit by the new tariffs. The government did not provide anything in the budget update, and instead chose to introduce different measures. That was done yesterday by the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Artificial Intelligence. What are these measures? Criticizing the government’s decisions and actions is not necessarily partisan. There are very specific reasons why we think that these measures may be good in the medium and long terms. What is the government doing? First, it is putting $1 billion into business loans. Our smallest, most affected and most vulnerable businesses are already over-leveraged and unable to take on more debt. What the government did was say that there will be no interest in the first year, that interest will be lower in the second year, and that loans will have to be paid back after three years. Why is the government doing this? It is doing this for two reasons. First, the government did not think to come up with a new program tailored to the new tariffs. They instead looked to see what program they could resurrect to funnel money into it so they could make an announcement on Monday, yesterday, because they overlooked workers in the budget update. That is essentially what happened. We are hearing from business owners. The member for Joliette—Manawan shared stories of business owners who said they had never had loans for $2 million. They had never had that in their entire lives. They are not able to obtain those loans and do not need them. What they do need is to keep their staff employed. They employ welders and technicians. These are not people who need to go back to school. These people are productive. If they temporarily close their business or have to suspend production for a while in the midst of a labour shortage, they will lose these people, who will go somewhere else. The government told us that there would be an agreement. Where is the agreement? When will an agreement be finalized? We understand that there is uncertainty for everyone, including in the negotiation process. However, these businesses are seeing their workers leave. This does nothing for them. It jeopardizes their survival. That is why we need a wage subsidy that maintains the employment relationship, especially since, if these people are laid off, they will have to rely on employment insurance. Let us not forget that employment insurance has long been in need of reform. They keep rolling out one pilot project after another, one temporary measure after another. We need reform. As for public funds, these people are going to need employment insurance. The EI fund is already under strain. From an actuarial standpoint, it has to break even over a seven-year period. As members will recall, we experienced what is known as a pandemic from 2020 to 2022, which led to increases in payroll taxes in order to restore balance in the fund. This fund is not designed to withstand two crises in seven years. If we push these people toward EI, we break the employment relationship, we weaken businesses, it costs the public treasury money anyway, if not the same amount as a wage subsidy, and, ultimately, it will lead to higher payroll taxes for small businesses, businesses that are not even affected by tariffs. That, in itself, is a problem. The government needs to leave the EI fund alone and provide wage subsidies. How much would wage subsidies cost? That needs to be evaluated. If we pro-rate the number of closures based on a projected duration, and compare it to what happened during the pandemic, we probably end up with an amount that is lower than the suspension of the fuel excise tax that the government announced in order to keep businesses afloat and retain jobs. I want to come back to what my colleague said in her previous speech. These loans may be good for large businesses that are on solid financial footing and for which interest rates and the cost of financing are not an issue. For small businesses that are crushed by debt, however, it is hopeless, and that is a problem. There are people, workers, fathers and mothers who are being left behind. The second part is the most problematic in the short term, but it is interesting in the long term. A lot is happening in the short term, though. Businesses have started closing. The crisis has hit BRP, South Shore Furniture, Bestar and many more. The crisis has hit, and businesses are shutting down for good. The government says it will pump $500 million into the regional tariff response initiative so businesses can boost productivity, train workers and buy machinery. The thing is, boosting productivity takes time. It is not like businesses can just say they are investing, apply for a loan and increase productivity by 30% within a month. That is not how it works. Productivity is a long-term thing. Some small manufacturing businesses export exclusively to the United States. They do not have the resources to modernize their operations right away. As of April 6, their U.S. customers have to pay 25% more. For this measure to work, businesses would have to boost productivity enough to lower costs by 25% immediately. Again, that is not how it works. This is a medium-term measure. What about the wage subsidy? When a business gets hit with a 25% tariff, that is not its fault. Some businesses are very productive, but there are limits to what they can do when they have to deal with a 25% tariff. The Bloc Québécois is proposing measures to complement yesterday’s proposals, which address the most vulnerable part of our industrial fabric in a Quebec which, as Jacques Parizeau said, has an economy with a large number of SMEs in the regions. Although there are many towns and regions that are home to major industries, they are full of small suppliers who need help. Earlier today, I met with representatives from the furniture industry. I know they were also meeting with the Liberals, but they told us we are on the right track. I also met with people from the United Steelworkers today, and they said we are on the right track. Now, the government is telling us that export manufacturers and Jean Simard are happy. Of course they are. The measures announced yesterday will benefit large companies. However, there is something missing. The Steelworkers are telling us that we need to look after the workers, that we need a wage subsidy and that EI has not been overhauled since who knows when. I do not even know if I was old enough to vote the last time it was overhauled, and I am not getting any younger. We are on the right track. People in the furniture industry told us that it was already too late, that we could not possibly ask them to completely overhaul their production in a short time frame. A mattress manufacturer told me that there is no such thing as a queen-size bed in Europe because European standards are different. How is he supposed to get a loan to produce and export within two months mattresses that his machines cannot even make while facing an immediate crisis? In his economic update, the finance minister asked us to take his hand and dance with him. We have been extending our own hand for so long our shoulder is hurting. What are we asking for? We are asking for a wage subsidy so that these small businesses can survive, a subsidy that would be revenue neutral if we consider the fact that the laid-off workers will get EI benefits. We are also calling for permanent safeguard tariffs against dumping. We are all familiar with the issue of Asian furniture today. There is a decline in global demand and a slowdown. Dumping is a problem. Safeguard tariffs are needed, but they must be more permanent, especially with Asia, so that we are not constantly renegotiating them and that the unions are not always having to monitor whether they have been renegotiated. Part of the countervailing duties in the forestry industry must be bought back. These people are sending money that is held in trust to the United States, and they end up winning in court and getting the money back later. It is an asset, but they cannot use it as collateral to secure financing. That is an issue. The government could buy back some of those assets with its cash reserves and allow the forestry industry to continue operating. There needs to be a binding buy local policy. As for the “buy Canadian” slogan, “Canadian” for me is a brand of beer. The Liberals do not have a real buy local policy. They have a strategy that is riddled with holes and full of exceptions. If it is not binding, then people will only look at one thing, and the government will only look at one thing: the price. In order to make buying local a factor, a binding policy is needed. The duty refund program for re-exporters needs to be accelerated and simplified. Currently, some products containing steel and aluminum cross the border two, three, four or five times. That is the nature of the Canada-U.S. border. Folks pay the fees over and over again and, eventually, get them refunded. In the meantime, those companies do not have that liquidity. The program is not agile enough. It is not fast enough. This solution would also be revenue neutral, because the program already exists. Businesses need a single point of service where they can turn for help. Everyone here has to understand that for a company with 22 employees, managed by a limited number of staff, the prospect of paying $300 or $400 in legal or consulting fees just to grasp what is going on with these tariffs is a problem. The departments in the best position to inform these companies are Global Affairs Canada and the Department of Finance. There needs to be a single point of service. Someone who owns a small business has to be able to get precise information by phone. That also forces the government to keep up with the times because right now it always seems to be lagging behind, out of date. It gives the impression that the math does not add up, that the tariff rates quoted over the phone are somehow blurred with confusion. When the survival of their business is at stake, owners need a single point of service. Above all, they need a detailed understanding of the tariffs, including the number of businesses, industries and sectors affected. They need to know the average tariff, and the average by province and by region. They need to know the number of companies affected. There are smart people on both sides of the House; not all of them, but some. I jest. I am trying to make people laugh because I know my colleagues like that. People are capable of coming up with good ideas, but they need a road map, and it is typically up to the government to provide that. That is the intention behind our motion. I think it is important to listen to the other side. This is all constructive. I would like to take a few moments to say that some people I hold in high regard are on Parliament Hill today. I cannot say where they are, but I can give them my regards.”

“Wood businesses in my riding are hurting from tariffs. Small businesses tell me they are not getting enough information from the government. They also cannot survive on loans alone, just like many could not pay back their pandemic loans.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am in touch with wood processing plants in my riding that have been somewhat impacted for a long time. Some sectors have been subjected to 50% tariffs for a long time, and we know that a solution cannot come fast enough. The aeronautics and aerospace industries have been relatively spared, at least for the time being. In Mirabel, we have been lucky, but small businesses are worried. They have two points that they want to raise, and that is not rhetoric. Their first point is that they are not informed. They learn about tariffs on TV, on the radio and from Bloc Québécois members, because the Bloc Québécois is on top of things. Their second point is that they cannot hope to survive with only a loan, especially the smallest businesses. I want to end by mentioning the pandemic emergency loan. How many businesses were not able to pay, or are still unable to pay, even if they were profitable and were closed during the pandemic? I think that we need to learn from these lessons when it comes to smaller businesses.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 96 of 100

  Of this reply, 94% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“Smaller businesses need help because it is harder for them to find new markets outside the United States. Short-term loans for just a few years will not work for them. They need more time to change how they do business.”

“Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes, for the most vulnerable businesses. Similarly, I would like to point out that it is not equally easy for all types of businesses to diversify and seek out new export markets. A large manufacturing company has the resources to do so, but a smaller company often exports a larger proportion of its production to the United States. It is therefore more difficult, takes more time, and involves greater risks. It is also far from clear in the very short term whether these loans for one, two or three years are the solution. These businesses know that they are going to have to become more productive or diversify. However, a three-year time frame for small and medium-sized businesses is, in many cases, highly unrealistic.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“During the pandemic, the government used wage subsidies to save businesses. That worked. I want to know why the Prime Minister will not use an idea that has already worked.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière was right in saying that it is easy to see that the member for Mirabel used to be a university professor. He has a knack for putting things simply. I, on the other hand, am even simpler than that. I am not exactly an expert when it comes to economics and finance. When I am not an expert in a particular field, I tend to stay on the path forged by others who know more about the subject than I do. I remember the recent pandemic we experienced about five or six years ago. At the Bloc Québécois’s suggestion, the House passed a wage subsidy. My colleague talked about it in his speech and others have also talked about it. It worked and it helped to save businesses. That is the well-beaten path that I would tend to follow since I do not know much about this. However, our Prime Minister, who knows a lot about economics and finance, does not seem to want to follow that path. I do not understand why. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on that. Does he not think that we should rely on what has already been done rather than trying to reinvent the wheel and possibly falling flat on our faces?”

• 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 →