“Furniture makers told us today that the government's new help is not enough. The government was not prepared for the April 6 order and still does not have a real plan to help these businesses. I want our leader to talk about why the government was so unprepared.”

“Mr. Speaker, people representing the furniture industry are on Parliament Hill today. My colleagues and I met with them this morning. I know that people from the industry are meeting with colleagues from the other parties as well. When we met with them, they basically told us that the measures announced yesterday would not go very far for very long. They also told us that time is ticking and that it may already be too late. The furniture industry, like industry in general, is surprised that the federal government did not even have a strategy on hand to prepare for what happened on April 6. Today, a month later, there is still no sector-specific strategy to help businesses deal with this new executive order. I would like to hear what the leader of the Bloc Québécois has to say about the fact that the government was so unprepared, even though it seems to have a strategy for just about everything except what happened on April 6.”

“I worry the Prime Minister has given up on a quick trade deal with the United States. I am afraid he will let struggling businesses fail instead. He needs to help our most creative and promising businesses survive.”

“Mr. Speaker, my esteemed colleague and friend will be disappointed: I have no explanation. However, I have one concern. My concern is that, from a financial perspective, in the very broad international sense of the term, the Prime Minister’s approach is to abandon the idea of a short-term agreement with the United States because he does not believe it is possible. I am afraid he thinks that, in any case, it will be for the long term, and that the best businesses survive and the businesses that cannot survive do not. If that were the case, it would be tragic. I want to think it is not, but it is up to him to reassure us with measures to help businesses survive, because the ones being threatened are often the most innovative, the most creative and the most promising for the future.”

“A lumber reserve is risky because someone has to pay for the wood, which just sits there without making money. The forestry industry wants to keep selling wood to other countries. The government should help pay back some of the trade duties instead, so sawmills can stay open and keep exporting.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am saying this quite off the cuff while also sidestepping the very appealing image of maple syrup. I think that if the forestry sector had made this suggestion, it would be a good idea. I think that is the direction they would have steered us in. However, strategic reserves always carry one risk, which is that someone needs to purchase the product. Either the product is tied up without generating income, or the government funds the purchase. The forestry sector tends to propose solutions that help move timber and continue to get it exported. Even if the Canadian government only bought back some of the countervailing tariffs, the industry has made it clear that even a partial buyback would be enough to maintain exports at a level that would in turn sustain activity levels in our forests and sawmills.”

• 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 thinks it did a great job over the past year. But it has achieved no results, and businesses will tell them that today.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat taken aback by the cult that apparently believes it has been touched by the hand of God. Occasionally, though not often, he sits among them. Everything that has happened over the past year has been extraordinary. The only problem is that it has yielded no results, and businesses are going to tell them that today.”

“I want my party leader to talk about getting American businesses, lawmakers, and state governments to pressure President Trump. The new U.S. tariffs are illegal and break our trade deal. Only Americans can challenge them in court.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like the leader of the Bloc Québécois to say a few words about how important it is for local businesses affected by tariffs to reach out to their customers in the United States, so that American companies can put pressure on the Trump administration. I would like him to talk about the importance of members of the House of Commons putting pressure on U.S. lawmakers, so that they, in turn, put pressure on the U.S. President. I would like him to talk about how important it is for the governments of Quebec and the provinces to pressure the governments of the U.S. states to, in turn, pressure the Trump administration. The executive order is illegal. It violates the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement. It violates free trade. Only Americans will be able to challenge it in court. What does the leader of the Bloc Québécois think?”

“All parties need to work together with business groups from Canada and the United States. We have the same goals, and the government must bring more people together so our voices are heard.”

“Mr. Speaker, a one-man team is bound to lose in the end. That is probably the greatest weakness of the current President of the United States. As I mentioned in my remarks, everyone who shares our interests and vision, across party lines, since we have common interests here in the House, must speak and work together. I met with representatives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, who were making arguments very similar to the ones we make here in the House. These voices need to be heard, and the government needs to rally even more voices together.”

“The government only focuses on oil companies and pipelines, and gave them more tax credits. It is ignoring the tariff crisis it was elected to fix. I want to know why the government forgot about this crisis.”

“Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary’s speech was quite interesting. However, looking at this government’s actions since it was elected, it appears as though the only thing it can talk about is pipelines, pipelines, pipelines, and oil, oil, oil. The latest economic update included yet more new tax credits for oil companies. The government is constantly signing agreements to build new pipelines all over the place. Meanwhile, the government seems to be losing sight of what it was elected to do, which was to manage the tariff crisis. This crisis was completely ignored in the economic update. My question for the parliamentary secretary is this: Is the government so obsessed with oil that it has forgotten about the tariff crisis, or is it because it was elected on false pretenses?”

“We proposed paying part of workers' wages to help businesses hurt by tariffs keep their staff until we reach a deal with the Americans. I want the parliamentary secretary to tell me if he supports this plan, and if not, why.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly simple question for the parliamentary secretary. We are here in good faith. The Bloc Québécois always comes forward with proposals. We are not an opposition party that opposes everything just for the sake of opposing it. We come forward with proposals. One of the proposals we put forward—which, incidentally, comes from several stakeholders currently affected by the tariffs—is a wage subsidy program designed for businesses impacted by the tariffs. This would help retain jobs and preserve expertise. It would ease the transition until an agreement is reached with the Americans. On this specific point, does my colleague support the Bloc Québécois’s proposal to implement such a wage subsidy? If he does not support this proposal, I would like him to explain why.”

“The Prime Minister broke his promise to end the tariff fight with the United States, and now American taxes on our goods are even worse. The government has collected billions in countertariffs, but it is not using that money to help our struggling businesses. I want the government to give that money back to affected workers and companies right away through wage subsidies and direct support.”

“Mr. Speaker, I should mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Shefford. One year ago, the government was elected on a single, simple promise: to fix the tariff crisis. We all remember the departure of former prime minister Trudeau and the arrival of the new Prime Minister, who was portrayed as the man who would save us from the Trump administration, as a businessman who could hold his own against the most formidable negotiators. One year on, however, it is clear that the promise has not been fulfilled. Where are the results? Again, the members of this government and the Prime Minister were elected one year ago, almost to the day, purely on the strength of a promise to end the tariff crisis. In April 2025, the Prime Minister promised that the crisis would end in June. Then he pushed it back to July. Then he pushed it back to September. Now a year has passed and not only is the tariff war still going, but it has escalated thanks to Mr. Trump’s recent executive orders. Worse still, we were presented with one of the most absurd ideas ever last week: Borrow $25 million on Quebeckers’ collective credit card and create a supposedly sovereign fund that is neither sovereign nor independent. That speaks volumes about the government’s long-term vision. Right now, it raises the question of whether we are dealing with pure improvisation. The icing on the cake is that on April 6, the Trump administration issued a new executive order. There is now a flat 25% tariff on the full value of the export if the percentage of Canadian steel, aluminum or copper in the product exceeds 15% of the total composition. As a result, many products protected by CUSMA that were not taxed before are being taxed today. When we asked the Prime Minister about this issue—when my leader asked about it, I was right beside him—we realized that he did not even know about it. Amazing. He did not even know about an executive order signed two weeks earlier. According to a study by Desjardins, this new 25% tariff applies to one-quarter of exports to the U.S. It is significant. There are exemptions, like for the aerospace sector and products that contain American steel or aluminum, but, for the most part, this new American surtax is hitting our industries much harder than previous ones. The cumulative effect is very clear. It is the added value of our economy that is being taxed—skilled trades, engineering and local processing. Washington is no longer taxing our exports; it is taxing what we are building. That is unprecedented. The people had put so much faith in this Prime Minister and his government to put an end to the tariff war, but the result, as I said earlier, has been an escalation of that war. What are we doing in the meantime? The Bloc Québécois proposed a series of measures when the so-called economic update was being drafted. The government did not use a single one of them. These measures would have been easy to implement, would have barely cost anything and would have directly helped the people most impacted by the tariff crisis in Quebec: workers and SMEs. Today, we are back at it again for the sake of our workers and businesses, who are sick of waiting for this government. After months of waiting, on May 4, the government finally announced new measures: $1 billion in loans and $500 million for economic development agencies. It is worth mentioning something here, because the government does not seem to realize that it is missing the mark. Although I do want to acknowledge that these agencies are very useful, they do not address the concerns of businesses that are already in debt. The problem is that with this announcement, the government is helping businesses that will be affected in the future, not the ones already being affected by the crisis. We estimate that Quebec businesses alone have lost about $8 billion in one year. The $1.5‑billion measure announced by the government is woefully inadequate. I would remind the House that ahead of the economic update, the Bloc Québécois proposed numerous measures to support businesses. For the benefit of my Liberal friends, I will outline some of the seven measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois to support workers and businesses severely impacted by the tariff crisis. The first of our demands is the one that resonates most with the public. It is to implement a wage subsidy program modelled after the one rolled out during the pandemic to prevent layoffs, maintain employment relationships, and protect the expertise within businesses during the tariff crisis. The Bloc Québécois’s second proposal is to impose safeguard tariffs to protect the hardest-hit sectors, including the softwood lumber, aluminum and steel industries, from cheap imports. These tariffs would apply to products from the United States or any other source that resorts to harmful trade practices, such as dumping, as my colleagues mentioned earlier, or the misrepresentation of Canadian origin. We proposed another measure, and that is buying back a portion of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties that softwood lumber manufacturers pay when they export to the United States. We proposed this measure a long time ago. It was also proposed by the industry and supported by the various unions representing workers in this industry. We could also stimulate the secondary and tertiary processing of our resources. The Bloc Québécois always aligns its proposals with industry demands. AluQuébec, the secretariat of Quebec’s aluminum industry cluster, is calling on governments to implement an urgent response on three fronts: subsidies or interest-free loans, preferential procurement rules for Quebec, and anti-dumping quotas or duties on imports. The CEO, Charlotte Laramée, says that the aluminum processing sector deserves the same treatment as the steel sector, and that includes immediate protection against unfair competition. For their part, steelworkers and the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, or FCCQ, are taking the same stance. The CEO of the FCCQ, Véronique Proulx, sent a clear message when she said, and I quote: “For businesses whose survival is currently in jeopardy, this is not enough. They need to have the cash flow necessary to maintain their day-to-day operations, not take on more debt or make investments that will only benefit them in the medium to long term”. In the latest economic update, however, the government did not include any targeted measures for businesses affected by Donald Trump’s illegal tariffs. On the contrary, the Liberals patted themselves on the back for taking in more than $10.1 billion in tariffs in 2025‑26 and redistributing $5.7 billion. Wow. That means that $4.4 billion in countertariff revenue is sitting idle in Ottawa’s coffers while SMEs are going out of business. The Liberals are celebrating that. The government clearly has the tools, but as my colleague from Joliette—Manawan said earlier, it does not have the will. Real solutions do exist, though. Another proposal that the Bloc Québécois made was a wage subsidy program for businesses affected by the tariffs. We calculate that the government could allocate $5.5 billion for such a measure. This is an expediture that could easily be offset by cutting back on the numerous subsidies going to oil and gas companies, since they are making record profits anyway thanks to rising global oil prices. Their costs are not going up, so these multinational corporations are pocketing the difference. Not providing wage subsidies in response to the ongoing tariff war is tantamount to condoning the inevitable wave of layoffs, letting decades of expertise go to waste, and permanently crippling whole industrial clusters in Quebec and Canada. The Bloc Québécois’s request today is very simple. The revenue generated by our retaliatory tariffs must be redistributed, as a priority, to the workers and businesses that are bearing the brunt of these measures. It must not be diluted in centralizing programs that encroach on Quebec’s areas of jurisdiction or subsidize fossil fuels. For every dollar collected on the targeted imports, a significant portion must be used to maintain wages here, keep factories open, and keep our regions alive. What needs to be made clear today is that the real urgency is not to maximize returns on a fund that will bet on oil and gas. The real urgency lies with our workers, our small and medium-sized businesses, and our regions, which are bearing the brunt of a trade crisis triggered by Donald Trump’s decisions. With just a fraction of those $25 billion, we could take action now. We could set up a special fund to immediately support businesses hit by tariffs, protect jobs, support retraining and give our small and medium-sized businesses the means to weather the storm. That is what a responsible response looks like. That is what rising to the challenge look like. Instead, the government seems to be taking a different path. Either it does not believe in its ability to negotiate an agreement that will put an end to these unfair tariffs, or it has already accepted that our economy must slowly adapt to a new reality where our traditional markets and our SMEs—which form the economic fabric of Quebec and keep it afloat—no longer matter to the government. We need answers now. We need a government that chooses to defend jobs, support businesses and invest in the future. Ultimately, the question is simple: Will the government choose to wait, or will it choose to act? We choose to act. We are doing it for our workers, for our SMEs, for our businesses, for Quebec and for our regions. Everything the Bloc Québécois does is done out of love for Quebec.”

“The government's plan is not helping businesses in the real world. Forestry companies in my riding are still struggling. The Bloc Québécois has clear ideas to help businesses affected by tariffs, and I want the government to work with us.”

“Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague’s question about the government’s approach, but it is all theoretical and only exists on paper. We are not seeing results in real life. If my colleague visits my riding and sits down in the offices of Petit Paris, Resolute-Domtar or Arbec for a chat, he will find out that this situation is not working for them. We support the idea of helping our businesses, of course, because no one is against good things. However, the Bloc is offering clear proposals that would improve the situation and that are largely based on requests made by stakeholders directly affected by the tariffs. I hope the Liberal government will take the hand we are holding out today.”

• 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 failed to end the tariff fight with the United States as promised. That is why we put forward this motion. It will save jobs and businesses, especially in Quebec. I want every member to vote for it.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why we moved today’s motion. We all know the government promised to end the tariff war and reach an agreement with the United States quickly. That was a year ago. Unfortunately, it is not happening, and we cannot pretend that it will happen anytime soon. That is exactly why we put this proposal forward today. We hope all members of the House will agree with the wording of the motion. I cannot imagine anyone—Conservative, Liberal or independent—voting against this motion. It is reasonable, it is based on stakeholder proposals and it will have an immediate and direct impact on the current crisis. It will save jobs, save businesses large and small, and keep Quebec’s regions alive.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Small businesses told us that the 25% tariffs are hurting them and they cannot take on any more loans. We want the government to help pay workers' wages instead. If businesses have to lay off skilled workers, it will cost the government just as much in benefits, and those workers will be hard to hire back.”

“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech. What SMEs told us in committee, during an emergency study of this matter, is that they need help, that the 25% tariffs are a disaster, but that the loans have to stop. They are already carrying too much debt. That is why we are proposing a wage subsidy, which has the advantage of maintaining the employment relationship. These businesses often employ welders, machinists and operators, all trades with a severe worker shortage. Without a wage subsidy, companies may have to lay them off. Their EI benefits would amount to about as much as a wage subsidy. However, when the time comes to rehire them, they might be harder to get back. Can my colleague explain this to us some more and try to convince the government about how important this measure is?”

“The government should quickly approve our request to support businesses and workers. Small businesses and industries need it because they cannot find enough skilled workers like mechanics, welders, and engineers. We already have the tools to do this from the pandemic, so it can be set up right away.”

“Mr. Speaker, in my view, it is essential that the government agree to our request, which is not only a Bloc Québécois request, but also what many SMEs and various industrial and economic sectors have been calling for. What is interesting about this measure is that it does not call for any new mechanisms to be developed. They were already developed during the pandemic. In fact, one of the reasons put forward for doing so during the pandemic was to maintain these employment relationships so that businesses would not lose their employees in the midst of a labour shortage in occupations that are difficult to fill, frankly. It is hard to find welders, machinists, mechanics and electrical engineers, for example. There is a real need to put this in place quickly. I hope the government is listening to what we are doing. This is not at all political. It is truly a proposal for the benefit of our businesses and our workers. I am convinced that, if the government is serious, it will agree to our request and implement this quickly.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I support this motion. New American tariffs on metals are hurting Quebec businesses and workers, and the federal government is not doing enough to help them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on today’s important Bloc Québécois motion on the U.S. tariffs and the impact on businesses and workers. They absolutely need our support in this time of uncertainty. I welcome this motion, and I am very pleased to speak to it. Since April 6, Quebec has been hit hard by a major economic shock. Donald Trump made a decision to impose new tariffs, which come as a direct attack on our businesses. These are not abstract numbers. Workers, SMEs and entire regions are affected. I would like to commend our whistle-blower, the member for Joliette—Manawan, who alerted us through his amazing work on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. I thank him for notifying us and for keeping an eye out on behalf of Quebec businesses. What we are currently facing is no mere trade dispute. It is an economic crisis that threatens the very fabric of our industry. The city of Valcourt, in my riding of Shefford, is a symbol of Quebec industry, of Quebec entrepreneurship, where a small garage grew into today’s Bombardier. As the member for Shefford, I am well aware of Quebec’s unique industrial fabric and the entrepreneurship developed over the years that now sets us apart. What happened on April 6 is a total game-changer. Since then, a 25% tariff has been applied to the total value of products containing over 15% steel, aluminum or copper. As a result, products that were once exempt are now being taxed. This means that a lot more companies are now being affected. Here are a few key facts: 24% of Quebec’s exports to the U.S. are now targeted, and the average effective tariff rate has climbed from 5.7% to 9.6%. Now, Washington is not just taxing metal, but also Quebec’s value added, know-how and labour. The economic impact is already very real and the consequences are already being felt in Quebec: 9,700 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector. Other data indicate that there is a 5.1% decline in employment in some sectors and 441,000 manufacturing workers are at risk. In the aluminum sector, 65% of SMEs are reporting a drop in sales and 47% are anticipating layoffs. Nearly one in three businesses are worried about their survival. This is not a future risk; it is a full-fledged crisis. This has a real impact on businesses. Some businesses are experiencing very immediate consequences, such as cancelled orders, loss of competitiveness and sudden cost increases. For example, a $30,000 part can generate $7,500 in tariffs. Some businesses are losing between 30% and 50% of their sales in the span of just a few weeks.U.S. buyers are turning to local suppliers to avoid risk. This is a reality throughout Quebec, including in the highly entrepreneurial and industrial city of Granby, in my riding of Shefford. It is home to many small and medium-sized manufacturers. I want to acknowledge the work of Granby Industriel and the incredible Granby industrial park. From Rougemont to Racine, businesses allow the beautiful riding of Shefford to thrive. However, we have to recognize that we are dependent on exports to the United States. It took media coverage about one case for us to wake up. It was the case of BRP, whose share price plummeted. Even without a specific high-profile case, the signals are still clear: loss of contracts, delayed projects and growing economic uncertainty. Businesses have to adapt, but many fear that they will have to reduce their staff. In Granby and elsewhere, businesses no longer know whether to invest or simply survive. This is a reality they are experiencing. The problem is the government’s response, which is inadequate—”

“The government is not doing enough to help businesses hurt by tariffs. Offering more loans does not work because businesses are already too deep in debt. The government collected billions in tariffs and should spend that money directly on grants, wage subsidies, buying local goods, and fixing employment insurance.”

“Mr. Speaker, I sincerely apologize to the interpreters. I never turn the pages like that, but I forgot. They will be going in another direction. The problem is the government’s inadequate response. The government was slow to react, and the economic update initially contained no measures tailored to the crisis. While $10.1 billion was collected in tariffs, only $5.7 billion is being redistributed. This leaves $4.4 billion unused while businesses are struggling, and the announced measures rely primarily on loans. They are proposing $1 billion through the Business Development Bank of Canada and $500 million through regional agencies. This is good, but the problem, as my colleague from Joliette—Manawan said and as he heard in committee, is that businesses are already over-indebted. He heard this from representatives of economic organizations in Quebec, who raised this point. That will not solve the problem, because the fundamental issue is not that businesses lack access to credit; it is that they are already in debt, as I said. However, they are cash-strapped and unable to continue their operations during this period of uncertainty, so we do need to offer loans to businesses that are experiencing revenue losses. However, if we focus solely on that solution, it amounts to increasing their debt burden, so we are not coming out ahead. The Bloc Québécois is instead proposing concrete measures that are tailored to the situation. We keep coming back to our first idea: the wage subsidy. This solution is based on the model used during the pandemic, which worked well. The advantage is that it helps maintain employment relationships and prevents mass layoffs. By protecting the employment relationship, this measure helps to retain expertise and avoid higher social costs. That is important. There is also the idea of buying local. We suggest introducing a local procurement policy to support local processing and economic self-sufficiency. This morning, I met with representatives from companies such as Lassonde, which sells beverages. This morning, these food processing companies emphasized that there is no policy, no commitment. Government must lead by example. Much of it depends on institutional frameworks, but we must put this policy in place. It was part of the Bloc’s proposals during the last election campaign, a year ago. We wanted Canada to pass a sort of “Buy Canadian Act” to prioritize buying local. We also want to support businesses directly by prioritizing grants over loans and addressing their short-term cash flow needs. We are also proposing another solution: a one-stop shop for SMEs to simplify access to programs, reduce the administrative burden and provide clear, centralized support. As the employment and labour critic, I would also add that employment insurance reform is necessary and of utmost importance to ensuring support for those who, despite everything, will lose their jobs during this crisis. Our social safety net must be adjusted to account for 2026 conditions. The Bloc Québécois believes employment insurance reform is crucial, and we will continue to push for it. The economic risk of doing nothing is immense. Quebec will lose an estimated $8 billion per year. Potential consequences include plant closures, brain drain and long-term regional decline. When a business closes, the jobs and expertise do not necessarily come back, and that is deeply tragic. Sometimes these things are lost forever. In conclusion, Quebec is particularly vulnerable because its economy is centred on manufacturing and exports. Its economic model is based on SMEs and very small businesses. This context calls for swift, targeted, meaningful action. It is vital to support businesses, protect workers and stabilize the regions. This is so important. I would remind the House that our ridings are home to some incredible family businesses, and we want them to stay in businesses. Every dollar of countertariff revenue should be reinvested directly to support the people grappling with the consequences of the tariff war. That was mentioned earlier by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean. Inaction and inappropriate measures could have a lasting effect on our economy. It is time to take rigorous, responsible and effective action, as the Bloc Québécois has always done for the sake of Quebec’s diversified business and economic sector.”

“The government ignores Quebec industries like lumber and aerospace. It was much faster to help Ontario's car industry than to support Quebec.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would respond to my colleague by asking him a question. Did this government really act swiftly to protect the lumber industry? Did it adopt a real aerospace policy? He should be aware that the lumber and aerospace industries and other Quebec-specific sectors tend to be neglected in negotiations and during these troubled times. The government was quicker to help Ontario’s auto industry than to support Quebec-specific sectors.”

“The government promised to fix this trade dispute a year ago, but nothing has changed. Talks with the Americans are taking too long and hurting our businesses. I want to know if the Conservatives will support our motion to help.”

“Mr. Speaker, this government was elected last year by leading people to believe that it would resolve this conflict with the wave of a magic wand. Here we are, one year later, stuck in this situation. We must act now, because negotiations with the Americans have indeed been dragging on. This continues to have negative impacts. Now that we see that the government has not moved forward or advanced negotiations in the past year and that businesses need help, I would like to know whether the Conservatives will support our motion.”

“The Liberals say they have done enough to fight American tariffs. I am asking my colleague if the businesses and workers in her riding agree.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Shefford gave an excellent speech. She is known for being present in her community and for fighting for her constituents day in and day out for nearly six and a half years, if not longer. The Liberals are telling us that the measures that have been put in place are enough and that they will truly make a difference. When my colleague speaks with business leaders and workers in her riding, is she hearing the same thing on the ground, that the government has done enough to counter the current tariff war with the Americans?”

“The government's plans do not match what businesses in my riding need. They already have too much debt and do not want more loans. They also need better solutions for temporary foreign workers. I want all parties to work together to truly help our local businesses.”

“Mr. Speaker, businesses in my riding are obviously asking questions. The government is taking steps, but the steps often do not match up with the businesses’ needs. For example, the loan announced yesterday is smoke and mirrors. It will add a burden for businesses, because the assistance is still in the form of a loan, even though businesses in my riding already have loans. At the economic discussions we attended, representatives of Granby Industriel told us that they did not want any more loans because they already had too many. Representatives of BRP also say that they want other solutions and want to know that the government will help them in other ways, for example by using other means that the Bloc Québécois is proposing. This is clearly not enough for our local businesses. I hear about other concerns that the government has not acted or has let things drag on. For example, its inadequate announcement on the issue of temporary foreign workers is having consequences on businesses. I think that, if we can get beyond the smoke and mirrors, we can work together, collectively, in the House of Commons, with as little partisanship as possible, to help our local businesses.”

“Small businesses hit by US tariffs cannot wait for new contracts. They will run out of money and close before help arrives. They already have too much debt to take more loans. Does the member think the government understands how urgent this is?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the member on his very good speech. I welcome the big-picture vision that the comprehensive response is based on. For example, there is talk of strengthening the domestic market for products that SMEs can no longer export to the United States because of the 25% tariffs. The domestic economy can compensate for that. However, does he think that the government understands the crisis and the urgency of the transition? By the time contracts are awarded in the domestic economy or new opportunities open up abroad, SMEs’ order books will be empty. Without any more income, they are at risk of closing down. For example, every week in Quebec, businesses that had been around for decades are closing down. Those businesses came to tell the committee that it was not enough to give them loans, because they already had too much debt. What does the hon. member think about that?”