Official Hansard
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.
