“Donald Trump's tariffs and trade actions hurt Canadian industries. Our government is supporting these workers and protecting their jobs.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to make it very clear, when we talk about these industries, that we have a Prime Minister who has been in the chair for a year. We understand the impact on these industries. That is the why we want to make sure that, for the workers in those industries that are so vulnerable, the Prime Minister, the government and all Liberal members of Parliament are going to have their backs. That is why we are providing the type of supports that are necessary. We recognize the impact that President Trump, the tariffs and trade issues are having on Canada. It is very real. It is tangible, which is why the Government of Canada is taking the actions necessary to protect those jobs. We believe in those workers. They are the best in the world. Would the member not agree with those comments?”

“The government just put a lot of money into the port of Contrecoeur. I want to know if this money will help the Quebec businesses the member talked about.”

“Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague’s speech and that of my colleague from Joliette—Manawan . My colleague talked about Quebec businesses. As a member from Ontario and parliamentary secretary, I am more concerned with businesses in Ontario, but I know that the minister and my colleague, the parliamentary secretary and member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, are very involved with Quebec businesses. I also appreciate my colleague’s comments on specific businesses. My colleague from Joliette—Manawan and I heard about them at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. Now, I have a question for him. We know that the government has just made major investments in the port of Contrecoeur. Will these investments help the companies he is talking about?”

“New American tariffs on steel, aluminum, and copper are hurting Canadian businesses. The government is offering $1 billion in loans to help these companies survive, adapt, and find new markets. We are taking the time needed to negotiate the right deal with the U.S. instead of rushing into a bad one.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the Bloc Québécois motion concerning U.S. tariffs on Canadian aluminum, steel and copper. We are at a critical juncture for Canada’s future. Canada’s thriving steel and aluminum industries are facing unprecedented tariffs. The adjustments made by the U.S. on April 6, 2026, to its tariffs on products containing steel, aluminum or copper risk undermining our advanced industrial capacity and our critical supply chains across Canada, and particularly in Quebec and Ontario. The revised tariff measures have significantly increased the burden on many manufacturers by applying duties to the total value of the product rather than just its metal content. The impact of these changes will likely be felt more strongly in products where metal makes up a significant part of the weight relative to the value of the good. Companies operating in Canada-U.S. integrated manufacturing networks will be the hardest hit, particularly when contracts are fixed, margins are thin, and short-term adjustments are difficult, if not impossible, to make. In these situations, the tariff burden will rise sharply and put immediate pressure on business viability. Many of the affected companies are now facing an immediate cash flow problem and cannot adapt quickly enough to absorb these costs. In fact, I believe that this tariff rate makes it nearly impossible for these companies to absorb these costs. The potential impact of these changes is not limited to direct producers of metals or metal derivatives. A wide variety of products are affected, and they are part of the broader industrial supply chains within critical Canadian manufacturing activities. This potential disruption could have a substantially negative impact on the Canadian economy. I quite like the expression used by my colleague, the member for Joliette—Manawan, who said that U.S. tariff policy has shifted from targeted measures to blanket measures. I think that is where we are now. Consequently, the Government of Canada is working with urgency to transform our strategic industries so they can adapt, compete and win in this new global environment. To this end, the government has launched a $1-billion support program for industries that manufacture and export products containing steel, aluminum or copper. Administered directly by the Business Development Bank of Canada, or BDC, the program will offer loans to affected businesses that make significant use of these metals in their production. The BDC program will therefore provide financing at favourable terms to allow businesses to address immediate pressures. The bank will also offer the industry a new tool to transform and adapt to future market conditions and opportunities. The BDC will offer working capital loans scaled to fit the size of businesses and their needs, from $2 million up to $50 million, with repayment conditions at preferential rates over 36 months. It is important to remember that, for the first year, there will be no obligation to repay the loan. Repayment will not start until after that. In addition, there will be no interest for the first three years; interest will start after that. Interest rates are at preferential rates. The BDC will focus on businesses that were viable prior to direct exposure to tariff measures in order to give them financial breathing room to weather the temporary cash crunch. The government expects Canada’s financial institutions to continue to work with the businesses as we lean in collectively to support this sector. This new program aligns with the government’s priority to provide rapid liquidity to viable businesses facing significant economic challenges as a result of these U.S. tariffs. These tariffs are unjustified, arbitrary and ultimately counterproductive for the Americans themselves, but that is a whole other story. We are taking concrete action to strengthen Canada’s economy by standing behind our steel, aluminum and copper industries. The new measures announced yesterday will protect workers and ensure companies have the tools and financing they need to keep operating, growing, and strengthening all the businesses in Canada. They will also keep production lines running and help our businesses transform and modernize in response to future market conditions. Canadian steel, aluminum and copper manufacturers are resilient. Our workers are qualified and well trained. Our businesses are ready to compete on the world stage with the right support. Through these investments, the Government of Canada is standing shoulder to shoulder with Canadian businesses and workers. This is not just a response. It is an integral part of Canada’s economic industrial strategy. In the short term, we will be providing liquidity to support and stabilize our businesses. In the medium term, we will be helping them adapt and pivot to be more competitive internationally. I would now like to take a moment to briefly review what we are already doing. We offer not only emergency assistance, but also the resources and policies needed to support businesses so they can look beyond their current operations, diversify, and explore other markets. Last year, on Montreal’s south shore, GE Vernova in Sorel received government support to secure public contracts for its very large turbines used for electricity generation. This is a very concrete example of how the Canadian government can support innovative companies that are gaining an increasing share of the Canadian market. Not far from there, the Hitachi Energy plant in Varennes also received government support to not only modernize but also ramp up production of its very large transformers, which are also vital to our power grid. We help and support Canadian and Quebec businesses that want to expand, compete in new markets and gain a larger market share. In this vein, the expansion of the Port of Montreal in Contrecoeur will gain significant momentum. Moreover, the construction of the port itself will create jobs in the region. Once construction is complete, the increased capacity of the Port of Montreal will open up opportunities for other Canadian and Quebec-based companies, especially those located near Contrecoeur, to gain faster access to foreign markets, particularly European markets. Getting back to our Bloc Québécois colleagues’ motion, let us look at the first point: That the House condemn the imposition of new United States tariffs that came into force on April 6, 2026, as contrary to the principles of free trade. I am sure we all agree on that. By definition, tariffs are contrary to the principles of free trade. Here is the second point: That the House note that the application of additional tariffs on the full value of products containing steel, aluminum or copper is affecting a growing number of businesses, particularly SMEs. That is the crux of the issue because a lot of SMEs in Quebec and Ontario specialize in products made with metal precisely because we have primary steel and primary aluminum. They redeveloped the existing metal product manufacturing sector, which was meeting with great success in the North American supply chain. I will now address the third part of the motion, which we view as a bit problematic. It proposes that the House express concern that this new trade environment will have irreparable effects on the manufacturing sector. Yes, this will have a very serious impact, but I hope we will be able to respond in time to support the industry as it seeks new markets and I hope we can avoid irreparable effects. The manufacturing sector has proven itself to be very resilient. Obviously, the government has a role to play. The Government of Canada has a role to play, as do the governments of Quebec, Ontario and the other provinces, so that we can continue to support businesses in their efforts to diversify. I truly believe that this will pay off in the medium term. We keep hearing that the situation with the United States not having been resolved yet is a failure on our part. I would like to remind our colleagues that many other countries, including European countries, rushed to sign agreements with the United States. What happened? New tariffs were tacked on European automobiles just last week. The EU thought it had an agreement with the United States, but no, apparently not. In the EU, it is raining new tariffs. That is why we have been saying for so long that a bad agreement is worse than no agreement at all. That is why we are going to take whatever time is necessary, and no more, to reach the best possible agreement with the U.S., because the goal is to get rid of these tariffs and retain access to the U.S. market. However, we are not going to do so at any cost. We have our limits, after all. Although we are not going to discuss these limits publicly—that would be counterproductive—there are some things we will not do. Over the longer term, we must relentlessly build a stronger domestic market and penetrate new foreign markets. Canada is not backing down. Together, we are meeting every challenge not out of fear, but to take action, show resilience and demonstrate optimism.”

“We are supporting businesses with more than just loans. Right now, we are providing emergency help. For the future, we are working to help businesses find and enter new markets.”

“Mr. Speaker, there is a wide range of support measures for the various industries. We are not just talking about loans. Many other measures have been put in place since last summer, and we will continue that work. We are working on two parallel tracks. For now, we are working on emergency measures, but, in the medium term, we are also working on more structural measures to diversify markets and capture new ones.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I completely disagree with the member. The Prime Minister has said that the world has changed and that a bad deal is worse than no deal. We still stand by that.”

“Mr. Speaker, obviously I disagree totally with what our colleague just mentioned. In fact right from the start, from the election campaign, our Prime Minister has said, and we repeat it very often, that this was a rupture and that the world as we knew it would no longer be the same. We also kept on saying that a bad deal would be worse than no deal. We stand by those principles.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Our exports to Europe went up by 31% in 2025. Based on my colleague's experience there, how does selling to different countries help our steel, aluminum, and copper industries?”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague has extensive experience in trade, particularly in Europe. We know that efforts to diversify exports are beginning to yield results. Exports to Europe increased by 31% in 2025. In my colleague’s experience, particularly with Portugal and other countries he knows well, what role does diversification play in the steel, aluminum, and copper sectors?”

“Canada is selling more goods and natural resources to Europe. Our trade deal with Europe took a long time to get going, but it is now helping Canadian businesses.”

“Mr. Speaker, our exports to Europe are starting to grow quite rapidly. We have natural resources that Europeans need, but we are now also beginning to see the benefits of the free trade agreement with the European Union. That agreement was negotiated several years ago, and it took us some time because the various governments, both here and there, did not seem particularly interested in developing this free trade agreement. However, it is beginning to bear fruit. The future for Canadian manufactured goods in Europe is very promising.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Regional development agencies are already doing this. The agency in Quebec just got more money to help small and medium businesses with smaller amounts.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is indeed the case. In fact, regional development agencies are already doing this. Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions has just received additional funding to support SMEs with smaller amounts than that. This will be done through the regional economic development agencies.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The forestry industry across Canada is having a hard time. We are still working to make a trade deal with the United States for forest products, and talks are moving forward.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is true that the forestry sector, whether in Quebec, New Brunswick, Ontario or British Columbia, is suffering a great deal. As we certainly know, the problems in the forestry sector are a little different from those in the manufacturing sector. This trade dispute has been going on for a very long time. Nevertheless, we remain fully committed to reaching a negotiated agreement with the United States, specifically on forestry products. The negotiations are moving forward.”

• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We all want a trade deal with the United States, but we must get the best deal for Canadians. Can the member explain why it helps Canada's economy to take our time and negotiate, instead of rushing into a bad deal?”

“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague’s comment that Canada needs to get the best deal, the best trade agreement, with the United States. At times the Conservatives and the Bloc say they want this deal. Gee whiz, we all want a deal. The issue is getting the best deal for Canadians. That is why I appreciated the member’s comments. Could the member expand on why it is important that we get the best deal by not rushing to get just any type of deal? It involves a great deal of negotiation, and we have to be prepared to wait it out in order to achieve that best deal. I wonder if he could provide some further comment with respect to how important that is to Canada’s economy.”

“We need to end these illegal tariffs and protect our trade deal with the United States. We cannot let them put taxes on our goods whenever they want.”

“Mr. Speaker, yes, it is hugely important, because our objective is not just to get rid of the tariffs, which is important enough, obviously. We also want to have a comprehensive trade agreement, which we do. CUSMA is still in place. We want to reinforce that agreement and make sure it prevails. Second, we want to put an end to the tariffs that have been illegally imposed on a country that has signed a trade agreement with the United States. That is where we are. That is why it is so important. We cannot remain vulnerable to having tariffs imposed at any time, for any reason. That makes absolutely no sense. The tariffs are ultimately illegal and counterproductive.”

“The world and our relationship with the United States have permanently changed. We always try to get the best deal possible for our country.”

“Mr. Speaker, what we have said from the outset is that the world we knew before and our relationship with the United States have changed for good. We said that this was not just a minor, temporary situation, that it was a major change and that we would get the best deal possible. That is what we always try to do.”

• 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 →

“We want the best deal possible, and a bad deal is worse than no deal. We have already taken action by pushing to buy Canadian and adding 500 million dollars to help with tariffs. Do these measures not help with the problem?”

“Mr. Speaker, I like that my colleague from Beauce shares stories about businesses in his riding, including the ones we heard at meetings of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. I think that all of us on both sides of the House agree that we want the best deal possible. On this side of the House, we believe that a bad deal is worse than no deal. My colleague called on us to propose concrete measures, so I have a question for him about two concrete measures that we have proposed. First, there is the buy Canadian policy and second, there is the additional $500 million for the regional tariff response initiative. Are these concrete measures not a response to the challenge mentioned by my colleague?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 32 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 →

“Trade is hurting, and our interests do not match like they used to. We should focus on big projects like the Alto project to create construction jobs and help our region.”

“Mr. Speaker, the only problem with Eisenhower’s comments is that they rely on rational actors who have the same interests in mind. I would suggest that perhaps our interests are not aligned like they may have been at that time when he said those words here. In lieu of the fact that trade is suffering and that we need to look for other opportunities, there is a great opportunity that comes, for our ridings and all of our neighbouring ridings, and that is the new Alto project, which would help, with a lot of building, with people working and with the steel and aggregate that is required. Are these not the nation-building projects that we should be focusing on right now? Does the member not believe that the Alto project will be tremendous for the region of the country?”

“We have signed about 20 trade deals in the last 11 months, and our exports to countries other than the United States grew by $33 billion this year. This helps key industries in Canada and Quebec, like aerospace, food, and seafood. I am asking the member to explain how this plan to trade with more countries helps our economy.”

“Mr. Speaker, in the member’s introduction, he mentioned the trade diversification strategy that we are putting in place. He made reference to the various trade agreements. We have signed about 20 agreements in the last 11 months, and those trade agreements are making a difference. Already, in 2025, we have increased the value of our non-U.S. exports by $33 billion over 2024. This will have a tangible impact on key sectors of the Canadian and Quebec economies. The aerospace industry, the agri-food sector and the lifting of the tariffs on seafood come to mind. In addition to negotiating a good agreement with the United States, how could this economic diversification strategy be essential to supporting the vitality of economic sectors in Canada and Quebec?”

“The Prime Minister has protected our workers and businesses from American trade threats and tariffs since the last election. We have given them a lot of financial support. Does the member agree it was important to act early instead of waiting until now?”

“Mr. Speaker, it is really clear that since the last federal election, the Prime Minister has been on top of the whole Trump, trade and tariff issue, recognizing that there are going to be serious impacts, and that is the reason that, from day one, the government has had the backs of workers, businesses and industries that have been and are going to be severely impacted. There has been a litany of support packages over the last number of months and general support as a whole. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on why it was important that we not just wait until today but have been on top of this file since the last federal election.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 41 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I support the motion to condemn new American tariffs. These unfair tariffs hurt Canadian workers and businesses. Our government is fighting back by making trade easier between provinces, investing in big building projects that use Canadian steel and lumber, and finding new trading partners around the world.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that we have this particular motion before us. I plan to provide a number of thoughts on it, but if I may, just before I do that, I want to recognize that tomorrow, May 6, is a very special day in Canada, as Ronald McDonald House has a major fundraiser, McHappy Day, which last year made $11 million going toward Ronald McDonald House. Those who are familiar with Ronald McDonald House will know that it is a home away from home for sick children and their families. It is a wonderful event for people to get behind and support our hospitals, support our families and children, especially those in rural communities who have to commute with severely sick children. My hat is off to Ronald McDonald House and to McDonald’s for having such a wonderful non-profit organization that has a real impact. Having said that, I want to get right down to the opposition motion. It is not too often that I am actually really happy with an opposition motion from the Bloc, but I like the way this particular motion is worded. I believe there is a lot of merit to it. I would like to think that the very first part would have unanimous support from the House: “condemn the imposition of new United States tariffs that came into force on April 6, 2026, as contrary to the principles of free trade”. I appreciate that statement in a very tangible way. On many occasions, I have stood on the floor of the House and talked about the importance of trade. Trade matters. Canada is a trading nation. We need to encourage and promote trade for the betterment of our nation and ultimately, I would even suggest, for the betterment of the world. I am very proud of the manner in which the Prime Minister and this government have focused so much attention on the issue of trade and on expanding Canada’s economy and opportunities that will generate the types of jobs and the sense of security that Canadians want and expect. That is something that is of the utmost importance. I want to highlight the degree to which trade is important to Canada. A very short way would be to say that when we look at total world trade, Canada contributes about 2.5% to world trade. We make up 0.5% of the world population. That should give us a good sense of the degree to which Canada needs to promote and encourage world trade. The other thing I want to highlight is that the position we find ourselves in today is primarily because of statements that flow out of President Trump. I often say it is the three Ts that are having a huge impact on Canada today: Trump, trade and tariffs. Today the focus is on tariffs, but it is all part of the package. We all need to be aware of what is taking place. On April 6, whether it was the aluminum, steel or copper tariffs, there were additional tariffs put on. There is the impact that these are having on our economy, not to mention the impact that tariffs are having on our lumber industry. These tariffs are not fair, nor was it appropriate for the United States to use them in such a fashion that they are hurting not only Canada but all of America. We can talk to some of the American consumers and listen to some of the American businesses that are out there. The other day, I was watching the hockey results and something flashed up on my news screen that made me feel good. I believe the Buffalo Sabres were having a playoff hockey game, and the mic failed during O Canada. The fans in Buffalo actually took over and sang our national anthem, O Canada. I believe it touched a lot of people. I thank the fans of the Buffalo Sabres and those who participated in the arena. It sent a wonderful, positive message, something I would reinforce by saying that the United States and Canada have had a long, healthy relationship. Every year, thousands of people from my home province of Manitoba travel to the United States. We call them snowbirds. The interplay between Canada and the United States is something I believe we all value. The impact of how our economies and our two countries have worked together over the years has been truly amazing, second to no other two countries in recent history. It would be challenging for anyone to point out any other countries that have gotten along as well as Canada and the United States have, with the economic and social benefit of that sense of co-operation between two great nations. Having said that, we are experiencing some very difficult times, because of a number of issues that are taking place with Donald Trump. I reflect back on the last election and the actions we have taken to date in regard to diversifying Canada’s economy, building a stronger, more independent nation and establishing a very clear goal. Whether it is the Prime Minister or any Liberal member of Parliament, members will find that we talk about the goal of having Canada be the strongest economy in the G7, an economy that will be there to serve all Canadians. That is our mission and our goal. That is what we want to accomplish. We want a stronger, healthier economy and society, so that we can continue to say that Canada is the best country in the world to call home. Members will find that our actions have spoken just as loudly as our words. All one needs to do is reflect to one year ago when Canadians went to the polls, looked at what the Liberal Party had to offer, in particular the background of our Prime Minister, and ultimately made the decision to provide the Liberal government another opportunity, with a new Prime Minister, to take on the economic challenges that Canada is facing today. To that end, the very first action we took was to provide economic relief in terms of the issue of affordability, for example by getting rid of the carbon tax and providing a tax break to Canada’s middle class, and 22 million people benefited. On the issue of the day in regard to tariffs and trade, and the comments coming from the south, we came up with Bill C-5 to build a stronger and healthier Canada, a Canada with one economy. That led to the Prime Minister having numerous meetings with premiers, indigenous leaders and many different stakeholders in terms of how we can continue to push for tariff relief, continue to push for trade with the United States and, at the same time, build a stronger economy. We took down the national barriers, which was necessary in order to demonstrate strong leadership at the national level in terms of making it one Canadian economy. We continue to work today with premiers to encourage them to look at trade not only in terms of widgets, but also in terms of labour mobility. Some provinces are working more than others, but I believe that the goodwill is there to take a team Canada approach. That was followed by major projects and the impact of that. When we talk about the tariffs today in the motion, now is the time for us to be investing in major projects, because they are going to be consuming steel and lumber and protecting the industries, such as our steel and lumber industries. The expansion and growth of major projects can make a difference. It is not just one region of the country. Every region of the country is benefiting from these major projects. I have often made reference to the expansion of the port of Montreal and how not only the province of Quebec, but all of Canada benefits from that expansion. We think of the small businesses that use copper, steel and other products, much of which comes from the province of Quebec, and the opportunities through the expansion of a port, along with potential marketplaces growing because of the aggressive nature of the government pursuing other trade opportunities. We can talk about the Montreal port, LNG out in B.C., the copper mines in Saskatchewan and B.C., mining in Manitoba, the potential of the port of Churchill, the major projects on nuclear in the province of Ontario, the new energy being developed in Atlantic Canada. It is in every region. In the north, investments were made just a number of weeks ago during the Prime Minister’s visit up north. We are protecting sovereignty, but also looking at ways in which we can enhance our infrastructure, build our major projects, work with different levels of government and get private sector involvement in these projects. We are talking about $100-plus billion. These projects are going to be consuming materials from many of the areas where tariffs are being unfairly applied today. That is why it is so important that we not only talk about the tariffs and what is taking place, but see tangible action. That is exactly what this government has done. When the Bloc members brought in this motion, they emphasized the worker. That is not new for the government. We are very much aware of the impact that tariffs are having on the worker here in Canada. That is why there have been some changes. That is why we have looked at how we could strengthen our employment insurance program and how that could assist. We have also looked at investments in re-skilling the workforce for the transition that will take place, to ensure that we retain skilled workers as they go through this time when specific industries are being hit hard. We want those industries, as much as possible, not to shrink in size but to be maintained and, where possible, even grow. These are the types of programs that we are bringing in. That was not just yesterday. Some of these actions have been taking place since the last federal election. Yesterday, we had a major announcement with the Business Development Bank of Canada of $1 billion to help these industries. Canada’s regional development agencies are also being brought into the package for half a billion dollars. We recognize the importance of the family and the importance of the worker. We recognize the impact that these decisions are having down south and the impact they are having here in Canada. That is why this government continues, every day, to look at ways in which we can make a difference. Let us talk about the announcement by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister in regard to having an infrastructure and investment Canada fund. I was really disappointed in the Conservatives and the Bloc taking the position that they oppose it. I really felt that they are off the mark on it. Having a sovereign wealth fund can contribute to additional big projects moving ahead and having finances. We will have to wait and see. The other aspect to this is diversifying our economy by getting other export opportunities. Our Minister of International Trade, Minister of Agriculture, Minister of Industry and a number of other ministers led by the Prime Minister himself have been very aggressive at looking at other export opportunities in other nations outside of the United States. I have raised the issue before. There is a very real possibility for trade agreements as early as this year, before the end of the year, with countries like Philippines and India. We have already done stuff on Indonesia. We have legislation that deals with the U.K. and Northern Ireland. We have a Prime Minister who is in high demand in the European Union. We are looking for ways we can get more trading opportunities. We have all sorts of opportunities that are there. When ministers who have travelled abroad come back here and I talk to them and ask them questions about it, the most common statement is that the world wants more of Canada. There are opportunities out there. We can never replace the amount of trade that takes place between Canada and the U.S., which, by the way, continues to grow, but it would be irresponsible for us not to look at trade diversification and not to take advantage of Canada’s diversity and the resources we have. When I mention India and Philippines, I think of the close to two million people who are of that heritage and the connections with those countries. There are opportunities for us to use those connections. With our resources and all the things that Canada has to offer, we can look at those export opportunities. This government, and particularly this Prime Minister with the background that he brings to the table, can make a difference. We can ensure that future generations will be able to say that Canada is, in fact, the best country in the world to call home. It is an aggressive agenda. It is an agenda in which we appeal to the Conservatives and the Bloc to have a team Canada approach and look for ways we can collaborate together. Let us not say that we have to have a deal with the United States tomorrow, though it would be nice. What is more important is that we get the best deal for Canadians, and that is what this government is fighting for. We will take the time to ensure that we get the best deal.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “That is exactly what the government has done.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since May 5.

  Every time it was said →

“The government supports Canadian industries and workers. We can grow our economy and energy projects, like expanding ports in Montreal and Churchill, while still protecting the environment and working with Indigenous people.”

“Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member and friend opposite that the government has not forgotten about the many different industries in the country, and the very backbone of those industries is the people who put in the work to realize those projects. One of the biggest things I constantly talk about, and Hansard will clearly show that, is the expansion of the port of Montreal. I see the benefit of that, just like I see the potential of Churchill having a port that could have LNG. We need to have an open mind. As a government, we can protect the environment, we can address indigenous issues and we can develop and become an energy superpower. Let us not deny opportunities for Canada to continue to grow and prosper for future generations.”

• Echo ×7

  A repeated line

  “The expansion of the Port of Montreal.”

  Said 7 times by 5 members since April 28.

  Every time it was said →

“Conservatives keep travelling to the United States, but we do not know what they actually want in a trade deal. Our government will finish the trade agreement with the Americans on time and get the best deal for Canadians.”

“Mr. Speaker, I was not necessarily going to bring it up, but I think I will. The member’s colleague from Oshawa, as members will remember, travelled to the United States. On behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada, he went to the United States and met with the vice-president and President. What did he say to Canadians when he came back? He said that he believed Canadians were having a “hissy fit.” That is the message he gave to Canadians. I understand that this member went back just last week. I think he even took a couple of his Conservative colleagues. The leader of the Conservative Party seemed to be somewhat shell-shocked when he found out that a team of Conservatives went there. We have no idea what the Conservatives genuinely believe on the trade agreement between Canada and the United States. All they say is to get it done. The Government of Canada will get it done. We are going to get it done in a timely fashion that ensures we get the best deal for Canadians. There is no selling out Canada on this side of the House. We are going to work hard for—”

“The industry minister announced 1.5 billion dollars yesterday. I want the parliamentary secretary to explain how that money will help businesses deal with their current challenges.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege over the last couple of months, as chair of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, of being part of lots of exceptional conversations with industry leaders and experts, who have given us significant guidance and insight. We had a conversation yesterday at the committee in relation to the $1.5 billion that the Minister of Industry announced yesterday. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary can comment on the ways in which those investments are going to allow the businesses we are talking about, in reference to this challenge in the House today, deal with the significant challenges they are facing right now.”