“I want the House to condemn new US tariffs on products containing steel, aluminum, and copper. These unfair taxes hurt our manufacturers and threaten jobs. The government must give direct money and wage help to affected businesses and workers right now, instead of just offering them more loans.”

“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. He said: 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.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a motion

  Respect 97 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “their irascible President”.

  See full analysis →

“The government was not ready for the American executive order. Its plan only offers loans, which will not help small businesses that already have too much debt. We want to work together to change this program and give businesses real help.”

“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.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Building a pipeline will not stop Trump's tariffs. The government wants to spend 25 billion dollars on pipelines. Instead, we should use that money to help local businesses that might close because of the 25 percent tariffs.”

“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.”

“The government promised to end the tariff crisis quickly, but it has only gotten worse. It also refuses to listen to our good solutions. I want to ask my colleague what he thinks about this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague just demonstrated that we are putting forward proposals that come from the front lines, and that there is no reason why this government should not listen to them and implement them. There is one thing I would like to ask my colleague. It seems to me that almost exactly a year ago, this government was elected on the sole promise of ending the tariff war by June at the latest. It then pushed that deadline back to July, and then to September. A year later, the government has not only failed to resolve the tariff crisis, which has only grown worse, but it also refuses to listen to the opposition parties, who are proposing good-faith solutions. I would like my colleague to share his thoughts on this matter.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 36 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 Liberals made a promise they cannot keep because the American president will not end the trade fight. Businesses face 25 percent tariffs right now. The government's long-term plans take too long. We need to give businesses wage subsidies right now so they do not lose skilled workers.”

“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.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The Prime Minister promised to end U.S. tariffs, but the problem is getting worse. The Americans added more tariffs on steel and aluminum, and the Prime Minister did not even know about the changes.”

“Mr. Speaker, an election was held about a year ago. A saviour came along and told everyone that he had all the right skills to solve the problem we were facing at the time because of the new, scary U.S. President and that he could get rid of the tariffs. Everyone would see that all the problems would be resolved in a matter of weeks, as if by magic. People wanted to believe in the fairy tale. Here we are a year later, still in exactly the same place, waiting for the situation to be resolved. Not only has the situation not been resolved, but it is getting worse. While people’s concerns about the current situation are entirely understandable, everyone also understands why businesses and workers are growing increasingly impatient and dissatisfied that the situation is not being resolved. To say that these folks are dissatisfied is really an understatement. People are beginning to realize that this government was elected to solve a problem that it is not solving, choosing to focus on all kinds of other things instead. What is more, the situation is getting even worse. What happened on April 6? The Americans decided to rub salt in the wound. Instead of imposing tariffs of just 50% on the raw material or on the raw material component in the product, and to simplify the calculation, the Americans decided that if the product contained more than 15% steel or aluminum, they would apply a 25% tariff, period. As everyone can imagine, this is hurting a lot of people. As angry as we may want to be at the United States, we have no control over the United States. We do, however, have control over what we do. Unfortunately, when we elect someone to be in charge, we would expect a response from them. The most frustrating thing is that when our leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, asked the Prime Minister the question during question period on a Wednesday, and I should point out that it is rare for the Prime Minister to be there on Wednesdays, the Prime Minister was not even aware of the change in—”

“The Prime Minister is failing to help the steel industry deal with American tariffs. Quebec produces one fifth of Canada's steel, but the government only focuses on Ontario while Quebec plants close and workers lose jobs. The government must do more to support Quebec steel and make sure Canadian builders buy Canadian steel.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the reminder. I was just pointing out that I would like to see the Prime Minister in the House much more often. I am sure that this perspective is shared by many in the House. What I wanted to focus on is that the Prime Minister was not even aware that there had been a change in U.S. tariffs. Our leader asked him the question not the morning after or the same day but in fact about two weeks after the change was made through an executive order, and he still was not aware of it. There is something wrong with that picture. Something is not right. When people elect a representative to do something and that person does not do it, the people have every right to be angry and frustrated. When the Prime Minister was asked again about this issue, he said not to worry, that the government was going to fix it, or at least try to. He said that the government was going to announce new measures in the upcoming economic statement and resolve the situation. However, there was absolutely nothing in the economic update. There was not a single line, not a single sentence, nothing to suggest that there would be support measures or adjustments to government programs in response to the U.S. tariff changes. It is frustrating to see this kind of situation unfold. First, the Prime Minister was elected to resolve the situation. Second, he was warned that there was a problem and he was unaware of it. Third, he made a promise that he has decided not to keep. Faced with this completely absurd situation we find ourselves in, the government finally made an impromptu announcement yesterday, and the industry minister said there would be loans for companies. Ultimately, that was the announcement. It is rather disappointing when a government gets elected by saying that the economy and our relationship with the United States will be its priority, but then it becomes clear, in the end, that that is not its priority. We would like to know what it is actually working on. This situation has a major impact on Quebec. I am a member from Quebec. Among other things, there is a steel mill in my riding. According to Desjardins, 24% of Quebec exports would be affected by the changes, and 24% is a lot. For months, the government has been telling us that we did not need to worry about the tariff crisis, that we had the best deal in the world with the United States and that it was ultimately better to do nothing. However, the government is realizing that with the regulatory change that has been ordered, we are going from an average effective rate of 5.7% to 9.6%. Roughly speaking, our situation has just gotten about twice as bad. Businesses are going to suffer. They already were suffering; that is the worst part. I am sad to say that when people talk about steel, they often forget about Quebec. They only ever think about Ontario steel. Ministers always hold their press conferences in Hamilton, Ontario. Quebec might as well not exist. I have some news for this House: Many processed and manufactured products contain steel. Many processed and manufactured products contain aluminum. What is more, Quebec produces 20% of Canada’s steel and represents about 20% of the population. We are doing our fair share, so we expect to receive our fair share of the attention and programs when there are government initiatives regarding steel. The government should stop favouring Ontario all the time. Quebec steel is suffering right now. Are my colleagues aware that 200 employees lost their jobs at the metal powder plant in Sorel‑Tracy last year? That is 200 fewer people working in the steel industry. That is a lot of people. Are my colleagues aware that 90 people lost their jobs when the La Perle foundry in Saint‑Ours closed down? Why did the foundry close down and why was it having such a hard time? One of the reasons was the U.S. tariffs. I am talking about Sorel‑Tracy and Saint‑Ours, which are right next door to where I am, a stone’s throw away from my riding. There is also a steel mill in Contrecoeur, where more than 1,500 people work in the sector. People are telling us that. Workers call me and we talk to them regularly. We also talk to company representatives quite often. What we are being told is that the numbers are down. There are no more overtime hours. Machine maintenance is being spread out. Fewer trainees are being hired. Vacations are being stretched out. They are finding all sorts of ways to stretch out contracts because things are not going well right now. Last year, morale was still high, because this crisis was seen as temporary, and the thought was that there would be negotiations and that the magician on the other side of the House would sort it all out. This year, I would say that people are finding the situation a lot more serious. They are starting to lose hope, because the crisis is not going away, and there is a sense that the government is not taking the situation seriously. The longer the problem drags on, the more the situation will become permanent and the faster job losses will be felt, because people will eventually realize that this situation might not be temporary, but permanent. What is unfortunate is that there are things that the government could have done and could already be doing to resolve the situation, without even having to resolve the tariff crisis with the United States. It is hard to understand why they are not doing it. It cannot be said that there has been no action at all. There were in fact a few limited actions taken in 2024 to reduce import volumes and set quotas. The problem is that the import volumes were already so high that this did not really change much. It mainly affected our market share. Canadian steel consumption is equivalent to what is produced in Canada: We produce roughly 100 million tonnes of steel and consume roughly 100 million tonnes. The problem is that 50% of what is being produced is going to the United States. That was already the case even before the tariff crisis. If we have just lost 50% of our exports, our hope is that we will not lay off 50% of people, that 50% of jobs are not going to disappear and that 50% of mills are not going to close. We have to react and take measures to control our market, since that is what we can control. If we are producing 100 million tonnes of steel and consuming 100 million tonnes, why are we not guaranteed a larger share of the domestic market? The reality is that before the tariff crisis, we held about 35% of the market. Now, it is about 40%. There is still a lot of room, but, in the meantime, the federal government is unfortunately not resolving the issue. For example, there are cases of Chinese dumping still taking place, and the reciprocal tariffs on American steel have been completely dropped. That means that we are affected by tariffs, but the Americans are not when they come here. Another problem has to do with the fact that, in November, the government promised a subsidy system for rail transportation from coast to coast to coast. There are still no conditions. It is still unclear how it will work. The government announced it in November and it is now May. Businesses and workers are tapping their feet. They have no idea what the conditions will be. What is more, marine shipping is excluded. Quebec businesses will suffer as a result, because there is a kind of unfair competition in the system. That is the federal government we have. We are not impressed.”

“The government needs to focus on protecting local jobs. It promised to buy Canadian, but it keeps giving billion-dollar contracts to foreign companies instead of supporting our own workers.”

“Mr. Speaker, I do not see any connection between his question and the issue we are discussing today. It is a shame, because we are in a difficult situation where people are worried about their jobs, and the government is trying to distract us by bringing up other topics. I would urge my colleague to focus instead on the problem we have brought to the table today and to talk to his colleagues so we can resolve this. Let us take the “buy Canadian” policy as an example. Before Christmas, the government promised to make buying Canadian a priority. What happened in the end? A few weeks later, the government could have bought Canadian steel to build future ferries in the Vancouver area, but instead decided to give that contract to the Chinese. That is $1 billion going to China. We could also talk about the renewal of Via Rail’s fleet. A contract is coming up. Will it be awarded to Alstom, or will it go to Siemens again, like last time, when the Americans were given $1 billion to build it? It is important to choose to keep our people employed rather than constantly sending money abroad.”

“We should not turn to the oil industry to deal with tariffs. Quebec's strength is green energy and low-carbon steel made with clean electricity. The federal government should support cleaner steel by taxing high-carbon imports at the border and picking greener bids for big projects.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think it is a shame that my colleague is asking me this question, even though I think it came from a place of good intentions. I do not think it is a solution to say that, because of the tariffs, we are going to abandon all our economic sectors and throw ourselves headfirst into the oil industry. That is not Quebec’s strength. Quebec wants to move toward the energy transition. Our strength lies in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from steel production. The federal government should take that into account with, for example, a border carbon adjustment. It should consider the carbon footprint when evaluating bids for major projects. The reality is that Quebec steel is made with hydroelectricity. It is about a hundred times less polluting than all the steel that exists elsewhere on the planet. It cannot be compared to what is being done in countries like China, where they use coal. That could be a great strategy from the government: to really accelerate the energy transition in order to have greener infrastructure and support our steel sector.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Small and medium businesses drive Quebec's economy and create jobs by selling goods to the United States. How do the new American tariffs threaten them, and why has the government's response been too weak?”

“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?”

“New tariff rules are hurting a steel mill in my riding. Other companies are stopping their orders of Canadian steel.”

“Mr. Speaker, there is actually a mill in my riding that produces steel that could be termed first-level steel. It is not highly refined; it is minimally processed. Afterward, other manufacturing companies will refine it further, especially for export. The problem we are currently experiencing with the new tariff changes is that the steel-processing companies will no longer order steel from major Canadian steel mills. If all these SMEs are no longer ordering—”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Canada collected 10 billion dollars from retaliatory tariffs, but gave only 5.7 billion dollars back to businesses. Why is the government offering only loans instead of listening to the industry? Why did the economic update ignore this crisis and the help steel businesses need?”

“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. I would like to ask him a question, because he did not touch on something that I believe is important. In 2025-26, Canada collected $10 billion through retaliatory tariffs. However, the portion that was redistributed to businesses amounts to just $5.7 billion. That means that Canada has collected twice as much money as it has distributed to businesses through support measures. In these circumstances, how does my colleague explain the fact that the government is not listening to the industry more and that all the government has to offer is loans? How does he explain the fact that the economic update did not even mention the tariff crisis or the assistance needed for businesses that use steel?”

“The new loan program is only for larger small businesses. Many smaller companies cannot borrow that much money. I want the government to change this program so it also helps smaller businesses hurt by tariffs.”

“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.”

“The Prime Minister promised to solve the tariff issue by June, but he kept pushing the deadline back. Now the government says we should not rush an agreement. Does the member agree that the government broke its promise to Canadians?”

“Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing today is really something. The parliamentary secretary is telling us that we should not rush into an agreement. However, we were told in April 2025 that there was a deadline. The Prime Minister himself said that the tariff issue would be resolved by June 2025. He then extended the deadline to July and then again to September. If what my colleague says is true, that would mean that the promises that were made at the time should never have been made. Does my colleague agree that the government should never have promised Quebeckers and Canadians that the tariff crisis would be resolved in April and that this promise has not been kept?”

“I want to know if the member supports our plan. We want to quickly give wage subsidies to businesses hurt by illegal U.S. tariffs.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Beauce comes from a region that has indeed been hard hit by the current situation, but also by the government’s failure to respond. My colleague mentioned the proposals put forward by the opposition parties in good faith to improve the situation quickly. Does my colleague support the Bloc Québécois’s proposal to immediately and quickly establish a wage subsidy mechanism for businesses affected by the current illegal U.S. tariffs?”

“The Prime Minister says he does not care or lose sleep over tariffs. Tariffs matter to a lot of people. I am asking my colleague what he thinks of the Prime Minister's attitude.”

“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. I have a question for him. When we hear the Prime Minister say things like “Who cares?” in response to a question about tariffs, and when we hear that this subject does not keep him up at night, what does that tell my colleague about the Prime Minister’s attitude and his apparent lack of interest, even though it is such a priority for so many people?”

“The government has failed to make a trade deal with the Americans to end tariffs. Until we get a deal, we need temporary measures to protect our workers and businesses. The Conservatives should support our motion to help them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. I really appreciate her work, and we are both members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. That said, I am having a hard time understanding the Conservative Party of Canada’s position on today’s motion. Like us, the Conservative Party has clearly concluded that this government is unable to fulfill the promise it made a year ago to resolve the tariff crisis. That crisis has only gotten worse. The Conservatives’ response to our motion is that they do not support the Bloc Québécois’s proposed temporary measures. They think the only response to this situation is to come to some agreement with the Americans, but, over the past year, this government proven itself incapable of doing that. That being the case, should we not proceed with the Bloc’s proposed measures to protect our jobs, our workers and our industries, at least until there is an agreement? I think the Conservative Party has an opportunity to support this approach now.”

“American tariffs are hurting our businesses, and the government is not doing enough to help them right now. Offering loans is not the answer because these companies cannot take on more debt. The government should bring back wage subsidies so companies do not have to lay off their workers. It must also protect our forestry and manufacturing sectors, pass a law to buy Canadian goods, and work with American businesses to fight these tariffs.”

“Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Eighteen months ago, Donald Trump was elected President of the United States. He took office in January 2025, around the same time that the current Prime Minister was portraying himself as something of a saviour for Canadians and the Canadian economy. About 13 months ago, he became that saviour by saying, “No crisis? No [his own name]”. I am not allowed to name him here. The same President of the United States is still in office. I do not want to blame the government or the Prime Minister, but we cannot help but note that the measures taken have not been as successful as anticipated and that the situation is getting worse every day. The Prime Minister has chosen to focus first and foremost, if not almost exclusively, on diversification. Market diversification is a principle that we support. It was part of the Bloc Québécois’s proposals even before the current Prime Minister was a candidate to succeed Justin Trudeau. However, we were aware that it would be a long process, that geography is dangerously stubborn, that the Canadian and American economies are closely linked and that the vast Great Lakes and St. Lawrence region accounts for 40% of the entire North American economy. However, there is one concept that has been overlooked and has not guided the government’s decisions. With few exceptions, no Quebec or Canadian company does business with the White House. Indeed, Quebec and Canadian companies do business with American companies. American companies share a common adversary with us: the President of the United States and his policies. The American companies with which Quebec and Canadian companies do business also want to lift this serious and destructive burden that tariffs represent. Failing to grasp the full extent of this reality, the Prime Minister set out on his pilgrimage—not in old, worn-out shoes, but with a certain degree of comfort—and embarked on a series of stops that resembled not a simple prayer but a novena, travelling all over the world and announcing hypothetical trade agreements. They are all potentially valid, with a few exceptions. For example, it is deplorable to kowtow to China’s dictatorial and communist regime, which tramples on human rights in all the territories surrounding it, including those it has conquered and which, under international law, are still not officially part of China. China resorts to slavery and forced labour; China has interfered directly in Quebec and Canadian politics. At the same time, one of China’s biggest potential victims is Taiwan, which has a trade agreement with Canada, but which the Prime Minister has sidelined and ignored so as not to upset the Chinese government. This reflects the virtuous principle of diversifying our markets, but also reflects an ignorance of the fact that it is going to take time. We can have the best of both worlds. We can have market diversification. We can have increased productivity and innovation. We can have a policy stronger than the current policy of buying local and reserving government contracts for Quebec and Canadian businesses. We can work on the purchasing power of citizens, who are spending their money again to support the Quebec and Canadian economy. We could even talk about greening the Quebec and Canadian economy, though there is not much to say. Rather, to the immense satisfaction of the Bay Street banks, Canada is forging ahead with oil, a decision that will have no short-term impacts on the Canadian economy, much less on the Quebec economy. After one year, we are seeing, in a way that might have been reassuring, that the tariffs have not had as negative an impact as had been feared. The Prime Minister said that 85% of our exports are not affected, but 50% tariffs still apply to very significant portions of our exports. Businesses are under strain, but they are holding up. They do not want to lose their markets or their workers. Public finances have also held up fairly well in the first year. Oil tax revenues have recently been rising. Ironically, inflation is boosting revenues for the Canadian government, which has delayed or forgone spending. The fiscal position is less dire than might have been feared. Now the White House has changed how it calculates the tariffs on processed steel, aluminum and copper. Because determining the proportion of those materials in products exported to the United States is too complex, the U.S. says that a 25% tariff will be imposed on any product containing aluminum, steel or copper, and this has had a devastating effect on businesses. Very quickly, far too many businesses are having to lay off workers, and several of them are closing. We know that it is not in the nature of businesses to complain or to point out problems, but some have had no choice. Businesses in my riding are being hit hard. I am thinking of Ambulances Demers, Cyrell AMP, and one of the steel companies in Marieville. While there are businesses across Quebec that have not yet publicly spoken about their distress, some are saying that they are in trouble. This is what they are telling MPs. They are probably saying the same thing to MPs in the government and the official opposition. Everyone is bringing forward proposals. About three weeks ago, I addressed the Prime Minister during question period. I could be wrong, but it seemed like he did not know what I was talking about. Two weeks ago, he promised me that transitional measures for businesses would be included in the economic update that was coming the following week. However, the economic update contained nothing of the kind, sparking a backlash from the business sector. Both unions and chambers of commerce said that that was crazy, that businesses would not be able to get through the crisis without transitional measures, because all of the government’s other solutions, however virtuous they might be, would not have an impact for years. Even the Prime Minister’s dewy-eyed admirers were expressing doubts. Once again, as soon as Mr. Trump was elected, as soon as this Prime Minister came to power, as soon as the election campaign kicked off, before the budget, after the budget, before the economic update and after the economic update, the Bloc Québécois suggested a whole raft of measures that the business world agreed with and that would make a huge difference for businesses. Sometimes I jokingly say that the Bloc Québécois reaches across the aisle so often that one of our arms is getting longer than the other. However, the other side was not listening. Our top suggestion is a wage subsidy program, an idea that came from the pandemic era. Why are we suggesting a wage subsidy program rather than sending workers to employment insurance? It is because it ensures a continuing employment relationship. Companies that are worried about labour shortages get to maintain a connection with their employees. In addition, they keep expertise and workers within the company, people who might otherwise leave for another company or go abroad and whom the affected company would be unable to bring back later. Another solution is to impose safeguard tariffs to prevent—let me be blunt—Chinese dumping. I recently visited companies in the Drummondville area that process hardwood for the U.S. market. They have been speaking out against the fact that China is sending finished products to Canada, products that just need three screws or a coat of varnish, then claiming that they are Canadian-made and shipping them to the United States. We will see how this plays out, because the minister has agreed to have it investigated. We need to take action against this. We need to take action against the massive influx of steel and aluminum into the Canadian market that is often destined indirectly for the U.S. market and is hurting our own industries. The forestry sector proposed a solution involving buying back the countervailing and anti-dumping duties imposed by the United States, because they are illegal and because we know that they will have to be refunded. This is a zero-cost measure for the Canadian government and was proposed by the industry itself. For over a year, the government has been saying that it is going to do something significant for the forestry sector, but for over a year, that has not happened. The sector is struggling. The buy local policy is a government policy, but it should become a law, a “Buy Canadian Act”. This binding law would require, as far as trade rules allow, which is a lot, that Canadian products be prioritized in public contracts. The act would also generally encourage buying local. There is also a need to really push for putting a negotiating strategy in place with the United States. When I talk about a strategy, I mean that the government should not stop at calling Mr. Greer and Mr. Lutnick, only to be told that they do not feel like talking to it. A strategy involves overcoming obstacles, putting feelers out, reaching out to people who agree with us and getting U.S. states, lobbies and the business community to exert pressure on the White House, which will have to get the message sooner or later. We also suggest that the government continue to be mindful of purchasing power. We believe that, in this complex situation, the government should set up a support service for businesses, because adapting to U.S. tariffs is complicated for companies that often lack this kind of in-house expertise. We believe that there should be a register of the businesses that are affected, whether by closures or layoffs, so that we can keep track of what is going on. The government must not wait for private institutions to do their work and then use that work if it is convenient or ignore it if it is not. It is the government’s job to do that. We still need independent studies to ensure that studies are not being conducted for political purposes, namely to cover up problems or mistakes. Yesterday, the government announced two measures as though it was rushing to make an announcement after forgetting to do so. The first measure is a long-term deferred loan program at favourable rates, which will give some, although certainly not all, businesses access to cash flow. That could be a good tool and it is available to businesses that borrow a minimum of $2 million. However, we need to recognize that many businesses will not be borrowing $2 million because they are not financially stable enough to take on a loan of that size, not to mention the fact that the eligibility criteria are quite restrictive. Loans can be for up to $50 million. The second measure is a half-billion-dollar program aimed at enhancing productivity in general. I am not saying that these are not useful tools. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It can help businesses adapt and it can help with cash flow, which is a problem in many cases. Of course, it can help enhance productivity, but it comes with some pretty big caveats. First, the government did not listen to what the business community was asking for before the economic update was delivered and again after the economic update was delivered. The government is probably offering loans because it wants to limit its financial commitment, but businesses cannot take on any more debt. Businesses were already saying several months ago that they had reached the limit of their borrowing capacity just to stay afloat. They cannot borrow money to pay wages to people who cannot work because there is no market to export the product. That approach will not work. Businesses cannot take on any more debt. They are stretched to the limit. As I mentioned earlier, employment relationships are not being maintained and expertise is not being retained. There is a risk of losing increasingly scarce skills. The government is not saving a cent because, broadly speaking, EI measures cost the same as wage subsidies. What is more, income from a wage subsidy is taxable. Due to the time it will take to implement these new programs, businesses will not be able to benefit from them in time. This has happened in the past. There are no readily accessible emergency funds to enable those eligible for the measures announced to get through this “pre-transition” period. On the other hand, the $500-million program to improve productivity, and even loans, have long-term effects, but they have no effect on short-term adjustments to tariffs or changes to the White House’s calculation method. The measures are not tailored to the reality of businesses, particularly SMEs in Quebec and Ontario. The government seems to be trying to instead help the strongest businesses adapt to this period, which could last several years, between now and when markets actually diversify. It is a kind of natural selection that will make a good number of businesses unable to get through the crisis, but the strongest will do so. The strongest are the largest. They do not fall under the “S” in “SME”, nor do they fall under the “M”. SMEs are often owned locally and by Quebeckers, and they are a legacy of Quebec taking control of its economic development tools. Some of them—including some of the most innovative and most promising—are at risk of closing down in the meantime. Either the government has no confidence in its ability to negotiate an agreement to end all these tariff determinations, re-determinations and transformations on a lasting basis, or else its plan or vision lies elsewhere. Its outlook is essentially financial, not based on the reality facing SMEs owned and operated in Quebec or Ontario, or on the features that make up the economic fabric of these two economies. It overlooks the geography and integration of economies and businesses in Canada, Quebec and the United States. It overlooks the importance of SMEs to these economies. In addition, the government is creating a kind of selection process — denounced by the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec — that allows it to examine the figures of the various companies and decide whether they get loans or not. This means that businesses hit the hardest by tariffs for a year now are the ones to be denied access to the cash they need to survive these tariffs. This inconsistency demands a review of the program, if only to take pre-tariff business figures into account. Has the government given up on what it was elected to do, which was to get through the tariff and trade crisis by reaching an agreement with the United States, regardless of how offensive that country can be, often on a daily or even hourly basis? Geography being what it is, the government cannot in good conscience keep telling Canadians and Quebeckers that there is any immediate, short-term solution other than reaching an agreement with the U.S. market. As I said, we do not do business with the White House. We do business with businesses, and we cannot allow Quebec’s economy or even Canada’s to be sacrificed by measures that are ill-suited to the enormous economic challenge we face. That is why we are once again reaching out to the government with ideas. It is not too late to implement them and study them, thereby acting on the recommendations of both trade unions and the business community.”

“I support finding new trade partners for Canadian and Quebec businesses, but we must be realistic. New trade deals with small markets will not change much. We are not too dependent on the United States. We share the same land, so our economies are naturally connected, and we should keep working with them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that we support the idea of diversifying export markets for Canadian and Quebec businesses. This was already happening under the father of the previous prime minister, who wanted to diversify Canada’s markets. Now, let us not deceive ourselves. If we sign a trade agreement with a country that accounts for less than half of 1% of our exports and we say we are going to double that amount, it will be just 1%. If we already have a free trade agreement with Europe and even that agreement does not have a significant short-term impact on the percentage of our non-U.S. exports, we have another kind of problem. I disagree with the word “dependence”. We are not dependent on the American economy. We are on the same land mass. There is no ocean or mountain range from one side of the border to the other. Since there is no physical border, the U.S. and Canadian economies are deeply integrated, and we need to move in that direction.”

“We cannot blame the Prime Minister for how the American president acts. But the government must understand how big this problem is and how closely tied we are to American businesses. The government should act on what it has been saying for the past year instead of making careless moves.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think I understand the question. I believe it would be unwise to suggest that the Prime Minister of Canada is to blame for the behaviour, attitude and vagaries of the President of the United States, to say nothing of his absence of mind. We are, all of us, victims of that. Nevertheless, the first thing the government needs to do is recognize the scale of the challenge, assess the extent of our economic ties to U.S. companies and, perhaps, act in accordance with what it has been saying for the past year. That is not what it has done. It seems strange to speak out against empires two days after reaching an agreement with China. After all, provocation serves no one. This could all have been handled differently.”