“New American tariffs are hurting our businesses and costing jobs, especially in Quebec. The government is not doing enough to help. Offering loans is not the answer. I want the House to vote for our motion to protect our workers with wage subsidies, support key industries like steel and lumber, and buy local.”

“Mr. Speaker, what is happening today goes way beyond a temporary trade spat. Since the U.S. administration’s April 6 executive order, we have been seeing a methodical, systematic and deeply harmful hardening of the rules that our businesses were required to follow. Up until yesterday, there was a logical rationale behind the already excessive steel and aluminum tariffs. Today, Washington chose to hit hard by imposing a flat tariff of 25% on the total value of products that contain more than 15% Canadian steel, aluminum or copper. In other words, it is no longer just a tax on a raw material. It is a tax on our ability to process, innovate and export. It is a tax on our economic intelligence. The consequences are immediate. Products that were once protected by trade agreements are now being hard hit. According to available analyses, nearly a quarter of our U.S. exports are affected. This figure of one-quarter needs to be taken seriously. It is a major blow to our economy. However, and this is where the problem lies, the government’s response so far has been timid, if not downright inadequate. The recent economic statement included zero provisions, and the subsequent measures announced yesterday—while showing some awareness of the situation—essentially rely on businesses taking on additional debt when, in many cases, they are already stretched to the limit. They are being offered loans, when what they need is breathing room. They are being offered bureaucratic processes, when what they need is predictability. Meanwhile, the reality is harsh. Orders will fall off, perhaps not today, perhaps not tomorrow morning, but in the coming months, once the current orders have beeen filled. At that point, it will no longer be a question of worrying. It will be a question of closures, job losses and entire regions on shaky ground. The government needs to stop managing on a day-to-day basis. It must act with diligence, consistency and, above all, ambition. We must start by protecting human capital. A temporary wage subsidy, modelled on what has been successfully implemented in times of crisis, would enable us to keep workers employed, maintain expertise and avoid a brain drain that would take years to recover from. Next, we have to defend our strategic sectors: wood, aluminum, steel. These are not things of the past. They are the pillars of our industrial future. We need safeguards to counter unfair practices, whether from the U.S. or any other country. We also have to take a smart financial approach. Buying back part of the countervailing duties that our softwood lumber producers are subject to, for example, is not an expenditure; it is strategic repositioning. Above all, we need to stop trying to act as if buying local were optional. It must become a nation-building obligation. The government has to be an economic driver, not a spectator. We also need to take concrete, pragmatic measures: simplify duty drawback mechanisms, offer centralized support to SMEs and, above all, develop a clear, complete and detailed picture of impacted businesses. Governing means understanding, and understanding requires measurements. Finally, I will say it bluntly: Quebec is facing $8 billion in potential losses, but the response from across the aisle is only $1.5 billion. Numbers do not lie: The response is not serious, it is not enough, and it is not the way to protect our economy. We have to tell it like it is. Donald Trump’s executive order is a direct attack on SMEs in Quebec and Canada. It is a targeted, bold and deeply destabilizing attack. This is no mere trade dispute. These are trade-distorting tariffs imposed by a foreign country with no regard for the established rules. The change in the way section 232 tariffs are calculated, which is now based on the full customs value of the product rather than just the metal content value, is exactly the type of foreign economic interference that the House has always spoken out against. We are talking about a rule that was imposed unilaterally, without notice, which distorts competition and penalizes those who made the right choice: to process here, invest here and create value here. Let us make no mistake. These tariffs are being imposed in bad faith. To keep those measures in place, the White House is circumventing the very spirit of certain United States court rulings. In other words, the American President is governing as he pleases. In light of that, Ottawa’s responsibility is clear: It must protect the Quebec and Canadian economies, protect their workers and protect their businesses. Yet what are we seeing? We are seeing Ottawa dragging its feet, hesitating, reacting, but always one step behind. The Prime Minister was elected on a promise to defend our economy against this type of trade aggression; yet still today, he remains on the defensive, as though the situation were going to resolve itself. That is not going to happen. Things are only going to get worse. There are more tariffs now than there were when this government took office. While Ottawa is dithering, this is having very real consequences on the ground. Quebec, which is already more vulnerable to the United States’ tariff policies than the rest of the country, is being hit extremely hard. In the manufacturing sector alone, thousands of jobs have been lost over the past year. Entire industries, from forestry to certain segments of the cultural sector, have seen their employment rates decline significantly. With the new measures announced in April, the situation is only going to get worse. It is not just the metal being taxed now. It is the labour, the ingenuity, and the value added by Quebec and Canada. Every processed product becomes a target. Every company that has chosen to move upmarket is penalized. It is a perverse logic that rewards raw materials and punishes economic intelligence. We cannot accept that. Supporting our motion is not a symbolic gesture. It is a necessary step in defending the very credibility of our trade agreements, including the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement. We negotiated these agreements in good faith, with the goal of creating a stable, predictable and equitable economic space. Washington has decided to change the rules midway through the game. This is not trade. It is commercial predation. Predation cannot be met with a wait-and-see attitude. It must be met with firmness. It must be met with concrete measures. It must be met by rising to the challenge. On April 21 in the House, the leader of the Bloc Québécois asked the Prime Minister a very simple question: Will there be any transitional measures to support our businesses and workers affected by the new U.S. tariffs? The answer was clear: Yes, they will be in the economic update. However, the update was tabled on April 28, and it does nothing to address the urgent situation. I mean it when I say “nothing”. There are no targeted measures to counter the tariffs imposed by Donald Trump’s administration. There is no structured response to support the businesses directly affected by the tariffs. There is no plan to protect our industrial base. What we are presented with instead are improvised financial schemes, a $25‑billion so-called sovereign wealth fund, which is sovereign in name only and whose mandate could just as easily have been given to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which, by the way, has not even used all the funds allocated to it. Meanwhile, the debt continues to grow, and with it the cost of servicing that debt, which will exceed $80 billion within a few years, far more than what is being transferred to the provinces for health care. I would remind the House that Ottawa is not complying with its own legislation. However, there are proposals. We had some, we still have some and we will continue to have more. The Bloc Québécois came up with a series of concrete and realistic measures that were adapted to the crisis. Not only were these proposals ignored, but Ottawa did not even see fit to consult us. That says a lot. That is indicative of a government that governs in isolation. That is indicative of a government that confuses a parliamentary majority with not having to listen. Even more troubling, while our businesses are suffering, Ottawa is patting itself on the back for its revenues. More than $10 million was collected in tariffs, but just over half has been redistributed. The remaining $4.5 billion is sitting idle in Ottawa’s coffers while SMEs are forced to shut down and workers are losing their jobs. The tools are there and the money is there. What is missing is the political will. To add insult to injury, the government continues to rely on outdated data to assess the impact of the tariffs. That is not good crisis management. That is improvisation. In an economic crisis, improvisation always negatively affects the same folks: workers, the regions and SMEs. Recognizing a problem is one thing, and that is great. That is probably the first step. Taking action, however, is another matter entirely. At pivotal moments, the nations that come out on top are not those that wait for the storm to pass, but rather the ones that mobilize to confront it directly. While Canada may not be ready to do so, Quebec will do it every time. There are many solutions that just need to be implemented. I hope the House will adopt today’s Bloc Québécois opposition day motion. This is what it comes down to.”

“My party generally supports free trade agreements, and they have helped Quebec in the past. But we will not support any deal that is bad for us.”

“Mr. Speaker, no. I think that goes without saying. I have always said that we agree with trade agreements in principle, but that our support is not unconditional. In fact, the sovereigntist movement in Quebec was initially a major driving force behind the shift towards free trade and opening up the economy. It was Jacques Parizeau and Bernard Landry who worked very hard in the 1980s to convince Quebeckers to embark on this venture. It has been beneficial to us. If an agreement is flawed, if it contains aspects that will have negative repercussions, we will not agree to it, obviously. That goes without saying.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Some rules and taxes are good if they are used the right way. We voted with the Conservatives before on their motion. Now I want the Conservatives to vote for our motion to help industries that need it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is up to me to explain the behaviour of the Liberal government. That is not my function, not my job. That said, I would like to clarify that some regulations may be good and some taxes may be good. It all depends on how they are applied. As for the rest, this sovereign wealth fund is sovereign in name only. In fact, we voted with the Conservatives on this during their opposition day. Considering our proposals to help sectors in urgent need, I hope that the Conservatives will vote in favour of our opposition motion, as we did for theirs.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 34 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The federal government quickly helps the car and oil industries, but it gives very little help to Quebec's economy. I want to hear my colleague's ideas on the best solution for Quebec.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague will probably agree with me. Once again, we have proof that Quebec is trapped in the Canadian straitjacket. In 2008, during the financial crisis, money was there for the automotive sector. Today, the logic goes like this: The government is rushing to take action for the auto sector, and the same goes for the energy sector, by which I mean oil and gas. However, when it comes to supporting Quebec’s economy, the response is very, very feeble. I know a solution for that. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts. What would be the best solution for Quebec today?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 43 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 want Quebec to become independent soon. Staying part of Canada costs much more than becoming our own country.”

“Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, we were talking about the medium or long term. Now, we can start talking about the short term, or at least I hope so. I will let my colleague guess what solution I recommend. I know that he recommends the same one. I will simply remind him that Pierre Falardeau said that, while there is certainly a cost to independence, there is also a cost to dependence, and it is immeasurably higher.”

“The government should have taken action on many issues a long time ago. We need new rules for how the government buys goods and services. For too long, the rules have favoured American companies instead of our own.”

“Mr. Speaker, generally speaking, it is clear that there are significant differences between the solutions the Bloc Québécois favours and those the Conservatives favour. That is a fact. We are a democracy. That is just the way it is. Still, there are indeed many criticisms we can level at this government, even if they do not always come from the same perspective. We are currently focusing our criticism on the fact that more proactive steps should have been taken on a wide range of issues a long time ago. I gave the example of targeted measures, such as the wage subsidy. One of the most urgent issues is the public procurement policies. We are expecting these policies very soon. I know there is talk that this should happen. We look forward to reviewing the policies in question. We look forward to seeing what they entail. However, for far too long, we have seen that, in the context of the U.S. economic offensive, procurement policies, or policies designed to circumvent procurement, have often been deliberately crafted to give priority to U.S. companies. There are all sorts of things that should be done and prioritized, but so far, that is not what we have seen.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The government ignores Quebec workers. It focuses on oil, gas, and cars instead of Quebec's forestry and aluminum industries, which are hurt by tariffs.”

“Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague from Winnipeg North say earlier that we need to support workers. We in the Bloc Québécois stand up day after day because we support Quebec workers. The main problem is that our colleagues opposite stand up and say that they are here to build Canada. Unfortunately, from what I have seen since the last election, they are here to build Canada while ignoring Quebec. All they talk about is oil and gas and the auto sector. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on the double standard. In Quebec, the tariffs are hitting the forestry and aluminum sectors the hardest, but we are still waiting for a response from the government that lives up to our expectations.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 30 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 →

“The government protects the auto industry but ignores softwood lumber. When I went to Washington with the trade minister, she only talked about cars, not lumber. The Prime Minister did not even include lumber in the minister's job instructions. This shows an unfair double standard.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade for a long time, and I have been working on this portfolio since I was first elected to the House of Commons. I can give numerous examples. I specifically remember one telling anecdote. The United States had announced new softwood lumber tariffs and, at roughly the same time, it also announced the Inflation Reduction Act, which would have affected Canada’s auto industry. Both came at the same time. I was invited by the former minister of international trade, Ms. Ng, to go to Washington on an urgent mission. I thought we were going to discuss softwood lumber, but that did not come up at all. The only thing on the agenda was the auto industry. A short time later, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sent out his mandate letters. There was not a word about softwood lumber in the then minister of international trade’s mandate letter. Examples like this abound, and I think they illustrate the double standard my colleague was talking about.”

“The government should stop giving money to oil companies and spend it on other needs instead. That money could help pay for health care, fix employment insurance, support local businesses hit by tariffs, and give equal pensions to seniors under 75.”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton’s speech on this motion, which was entirely relevant and appropriate under the circumstances. The situation that the Bloc Québécois is speaking out against is one that is long-standing and extremely problematic. The government is always playing catch-up. That is what is happening with health care. In the beginning, the federal government was covering 50% of health care costs. Now it is covering less than 20% of those costs, and it takes everything we have got to try to get it to cover 6% of the annual cost increases. The federal government is not there yet. It does not want to. The federal government does not want to put money into health care, even though Quebec and the provinces are asking it to. Let us come back to the problem of agreements with the United States. I understand that the Prime Minister of Canada cannot decide to remove the tariffs. The American President is the one who imposed them. However, when the Prime Minister took office, he made promises and commitments in that regard. He told us that he would put an end to the tariffs within months, which did not happen. As my colleague pointed out, the tariffs have even increased. That is a sign of failure. If the government cannot keep its word and deliver what it promised last year, should it not find other ways to at least cushion the blow for Quebeckers and Canadians? Yes, that would cost money, but we have talked about a number of things. All of that can be funded relatively easily. My colleagues from Jonquière and Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton just noted that the federal government always invests to save businesses elsewhere in Canada but very rarely in Quebec. What if the government cut the oil subsidies? That is a commitment we made. Members will recall that Canada signed the Paris Agreement. It made environmental commitments. It is clear, as every observer and auditor has confirmed year after year, that Canada is not meeting its targets, it is not on track to meet its targets, and it is not making any changes to make that happen. Let us try to live up to our commitments. Let us eliminate the oil subsidies. That would help the government meet its Paris targets and save $25.7 billion over five years that it could use to support the energy transition. This money could also be used for other programs. The idea of $25.7 billion is a bit abstract, but it is basically $25,700 million, cash. That is $5,140 million a year or $428.33 million a month. I can break it down even further than that. It is $99 million a week. The government would have access to an extra $99 million every week for five years. We could afford plenty of support programs for our businesses. We could support our workers as well as our softwood lumber, aluminum and steel industries. We would be able to support everyone who needs support. Unfortunately, it seems that this government does not have the political will to do it. We should recoup that $25.7 billion and put it to use. For example, in just two months out of that five‑year period, the government could repay the $814 million owed to Quebeckers because the federal government decided to hand out an election bribe last year by channelling that money to citizens in western Canada. Quebec has been left high and dry. That $814 million could be paid back. It would help. Why not reform employment insurance and address the infamous spring gap that we have been talking about fixing year after year? I have been here since 2015, and I have been hearing about the spring gap since 2015. Let us take this opportunity to fix it. It would help Quebec and Canadian workers get through the tariff crisis. There are many more ideas like that. Our regional media outlets, and even our national media outlets, are not being subsidized. I have seen criticism from commentators and Radio-Canada analysts about other private media outlets. I have a great deal of respect for Radio-Canada and I certainly would not want to see it disappear, but why not try to bring a little balance to the media landscape? Why not provide a little more support to private media companies or give them fairer opportunities, while maintaining funding for Radio-Canada? Why not fix the issue with old age security? The previous federal government decided to create two classes of seniors. The government increased benefits for seniors 75 and over, but those 65 to 75 were told to manage on their own. Maybe they could receive support. That might not be a bad idea in a period of austerity like the one we are in now. There are other ideas like that. I was speaking earlier about health care. The increase in transfers is 6% per year, which amounts to $14 billion over five years. Earlier I mentioned that $25.7 billion over five years could be recouped just by eliminating the oil subsidies. There are plenty of solutions, and I could list many others. Again, I get the message. I may not be an economist, but I get it. I get the Prime Minister’s message that he cannot solve the tariff crisis on his own and that it was Donald Trump who imposed these tariffs. I get that, I am not dense, but there are other things that are within our control. The oil subsidies are within the government’s control. As for the media crisis, the government holds all the cards. The election bribe it sent to western Canada using Quebec’s money—now that is serious—was within the government’s control. The government could sign cheques. It could fix the EI spring gap. I encourage our Prime Minister to use the skills he says he has, which I do not doubt. After all, he has held several important economic and financial positions over the course of his professional career. I have no doubt of his qualifications, but could he use them for our benefit, since that was why he was elected? Rightly or wrongly, a lot of Canadians and Quebeckers believed that he was the man to help us solve the tariff crisis. A year later, however, we see that not only has he failed to help, but the situation has actually gotten worse. Let us put that aside for a moment and make use of the tools we have. We could cut the oil subsidies, equalize benefits for our seniors, refund Quebeckers the money they are owed, support our media industry and fix the problems with EI. I could list many other things, but I think that, even with just these, there is plenty of work to be done. The means and the needs are there. This is something our Prime Minister is capable of doing. The question is, does he have the will to do it?”

“The government needs to stop talking and take action. I want them to help people deal with tariffs by supporting seniors, media, workers, and businesses, just like the wage subsidies that worked during the pandemic.”

“Mr. Speaker, what my colleague has just said is a comment, not a question. I will take note of his comment and say the same to him. I am not going to repeat what I said, but, since he is part of this government, is he capable of persuading his leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, to take action? It is all well and good to talk and announce measures, but is he capable of taking action around benefits for seniors, the media, the EI spring gap and wage subsidies? Wage subsidies were a proposal put forward by the Bloc Québécois during the pandemic six years ago. It worked and we saved businesses. Can we use the tools we have, follow the well-trodden paths that have proven their worth, and help the citizens of Quebec and Canada get through the tariff crisis?”