“I want the member to say if he supports this motion. Will he vote for it or against it?”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague did not indicate in his speech whether he would be supporting the motion. I am curious. Does he agree with what is before the House today? Will he vote for or against the motion?”

“The federal government spends billions of dollars helping the oil and gas industry, but it ignores Quebec's forestry and aluminum industries. American tariffs are hurting these sectors, and our local businesses are not getting the help they need. I want the government to stop pouring money into fossil fuels and start supporting Quebec's workers.”

“Mr. Speaker, what a nice introduction. I will pick up on what my colleague just said. He supports anyone who supports Canada. The major issue with the tariff crisis is that the federal government keeps crowing about building Canada. However, looking at the proposals that the government put forward these past few weeks, it looks more like building Canada while ignoring Quebec. Which two sectors are the most impacted by the U.S. government’s tariffs? There is the aluminum sector, which is primarily based in Quebec. Then there is the forestry sector, which is subject to a mix of countervailing and anti-dumping duties on top of 10% tariffs, for a total of 45%. The forestry products we send across the border to the U.S. have their profit margins cut by 45%. No economic sector can withstand that. The entire forestry industry back home is in upheaval and going through incredibly tough times, and the government is not doing anything to help. I just wanted to mention that as a response to what my colleague said. What I want to highlight today is the double standard. I have been here since 2019. Whenever the auto sector or the energy sector—which the government generally equates with oil and gas—is in trouble, the government is there to help. The economic update includes investments in oil and gas. That is a normal thing for the government. When it comes to the more Quebec-centric sectors, however, the government is nowhere to be found. I am feeling generous, so I will split my time. I was getting a bit agitated, but I am calming down now. As I was saying, there is a double standard, and it is major. As I mentioned on Friday, just for fun, I looked through the economic update to demonstrate this double standard. To figure out the intentions behind a document, we can simply search for keywords. How many times do the words “forest” or “forestry” appear in the government’s economic update? I searched for both terms. They show up six times. How about the word “aluminum”? It shows up 12 times. Just for the heck of it and to satisfy the member for Repentigny, I looked up “climate change”; there are five occurrences. If we want to hit a home run, to use the federal government’s language, we need to talk about oil and gas. If we look up the word “gas” in the latest economic statement, we see that it appears 45 times. That is the federal government’s primary interest. The word “oil” shows up 153 times. That is what the federal government is interested in, as we have seen in recent weeks. It offers well-thought-out, deliberate strategies for the oil and gas sector, and it offers absolutely nothing for the forestry and aluminum sectors, which are facing the highest tariffs. I will quickly talk about forestry, because we submitted a proposal to the government. That was part of the discussions that the Bloc Québécois wanted to have with the government, discussions that did not take place when the economic statement was being prepared. Some people got together to talk about how to solve this problem of countervailing and anti-dumping duties. That is money that is being held at the border, and it has likely exceeded $13 billion to date. How can we get this $13 billion back and ensure that it is invested and that the operations and facilities of the forestry sector are maintained? We wondered why Export Development Canada would not play a leading role and make it possible to buy back a portion of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties at the end of each month. The government refused and ignored that. Do members know what I find shocking? The Standing Committee on Natural Resources invited EDC representatives as witnesses, and we spoke with them. Let us look at the double standard I am talking about. In 2022, EDC invested $9.3 billion in the oil and gas sector in tax benefits and incentives. Yes, just in that one sector. It is clear where the federal government’s major investments are going. In 2023, the amount was $7.3 billion. If a fraction of that was going to support the forestry sector, we would be over the moon. We would be very happy. However, the federal government has never suggested such a thing. For carbon capture and sequestration strategies alone, EDC handed out $102 million in 2023 and $464 million in 2022. Obviously, the federal government is focused on the energy sector. Forestry is definitely the part of the natural resources sector that gets the least attention. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean and I actually did a comprehensive study to figure out what the federal supports for the forestry sector amounted to. The economic benefits for the federal government coming from our region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean alone exceed the sum total of federal supports for the forestry sector. That is quite something. Why is that? It is because the federal government has always been afraid of standing up for softwood lumber. It is so shocking that even babies are screaming in the House. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mario Simard: I lost my train of thought. I am sorry. I was saying that my region is giving more to the federal government in terms of economic benefits that the sum total of supports it is getting for the forestry sector. Federal investments in the forestry sector go through EDC. The government has never stood up for that sector because primary processors are told that they need to go through Global Affairs Canada. Global Affairs Canada then says that no financial supports can be offered because that would be in violation of trade deals with the U.S. and our trade dispute with the U.S. regarding softwood lumber. Consequently, not a single primary processor of softwood lumber can receive any kind of support from the federal government. We took a closer look at this, because it seemed so unfair. For medium-sized businesses in the forestry sector, the primary market is Canada. The primary market is domestic; it is within Quebec. Even businesses that do not export anything to the U.S. cannot get any sort of financial support from the federal government. The federal government will soon be tabling a strategy for retooling the forestry sector so that it can get through the crisis and create more added value. That is what we hear, but in the past 20 years, the federal government has never given so much as a dime to the forestry sector. Now it is wondering why it is so hard to invest in infrastructure and why all the small communities in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and the rest of Quebec that depend on forestry are losing their shirts. It is insane. Sawmills are consolidating. The pulp and paper sector is ailing. Meanwhile, the tariff crisis is going on, but there is no federal government support in any form. Last August, the federal government allocated funding to the forestry sector. Seven or eight months later, no one had yet seen a penny of that money. The program parameters had to be tightened to be able to fund certain forestry companies. I get the impression that the same thing is going to happen in the aluminum sector. Primary aluminum is doing relatively well, because the price is adjusted according to the U.S. Midwest premium. However, aluminum processors, based primarily in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, are in an impossible situation. They are currently paying off loans they took out in 2018, and now the government says it is going to allow them to take out new loans. Who can operate that way in an industrial sector, constantly taking out loans to cover the cost of tariffs because the government is not doing its job? What was announced may be a good start, but we will see how it plays out over time. What I personally hope is that the federal government stops investing Quebec’s share in fossil fuels and instead uses it to defend Quebec’s own interests. I hope that our colleagues from Quebec, both in the government and in the Conservative Party, will be ready to support us on this.”

“Our biggest problem is that foreign companies own most of Canada's oil industry, especially American ones. We pay for their infrastructure while they take record profits out of Canada and send them to the United States. We should focus on that.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk to my colleague about the worst dependency we have. It is the 80% of the oil sector, the major players in that sector, that is owned by foreign interests, and the 60% of the oil sector that is American‑owned. There is capital flight. The sector has made record profits in recent years. Where do all those dividends go? They are going to the United States. That is even more troubling than the forestry sector’s dependence on the American market. We are paying for oil and gas sector infrastructure, while the industry bigwigs are taking their dividends and investing them in the United States. That is what my colleague should be addressing.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The government should help businesses in Quebec instead of putting money into oil. That unfair spending hurts Quebec's forestry and aluminum industries. I want a real plan to support our businesses, not just loans.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think that what the government should be focusing on right now is finding a lasting solution for Quebec businesses that are suffering as a result of the current situation. Instead, as I was saying earlier, the government has created a road map for investing in the energy sector. This is blatantly unfair. Let me be very clear: This is blatantly unfair to Quebec and is undermining Quebec’s two strongest economic sectors, which are forestry and aluminum. What I want is not just loans from the government, but a comprehensive strategy that will help support our businesses and industries. What I want is for the government to stop throwing all our money at oil, as we saw in the last budget statement and in the budget.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 27 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The Prime Minister promised to solve the trade fight over tariffs a year ago, but it has only gotten worse. The government has failed to fix this with the Americans. It should focus right now on quick, easy ways to help our businesses and workers.”

“Mr. Speaker, this time almost a year ago, this government and this Prime Minister were elected purely on a promise to resolve the tariff crisis. The Prime Minister told us that it would be resolved in June. Then he said it would be in July. In the end, he said that it might happen in September. A year later, not only has the tariff crisis not been resolved, but it has gotten worse with Donald Trump’s executive order and the April 6 tariffs. We understand that this government set the bar far too high when it came to negotiating. We now see that the government is incapable of keeping its promises. In the meantime, while we wait for an agreement with the Americans, should the government’s priority not be to take quick, effective and easy-to-implement measures that would help our businesses, our SMEs and Quebec’s economic fabric, as well as our workers?”

“The government needs to act quickly. Right now, it gives almost all its financial support to the oil and gas industry. I want the government to support the forestry sector just as much. That would be fair.”

“Mr. Speaker, what an intelligent question. That was fantastic. Yes, that is absolutely true, but it needs to be done quickly. People in the forestry sector and other stakeholders are proposing solutions to the government. The major problem with this federation is that, right now, our entire fiscal capacity to support certain economic sectors is going to the oil and gas sector. I would just like a little bit of that to go to the forestry sector. I would like to see the government have the courage to support the forestry sector in the same way that it supports the energy sector. On that day, we might see a little more fairness in this federation.”

“The forestry and aluminum industries in Quebec are struggling. Mills are closing and people are losing their jobs. The federal government gives money to western oil and gas instead of helping our workers. Ottawa must listen to our local businesses and unions and give real support to our industries.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière, whose speeches are always both eloquent and insightful. I am starting my 11th year in the House, and I have lost count of how many times I have risen to speak about the forestry and aluminum sectors or about the broader issue of Quebec, of course. Earlier, a government member asked a question about our dependence on the United States. As a sovereignist, I would say that the first way that we are, unfortunately, unavoidably dependent on the U.S. is through the Canadian federation. We see how the government and the Prime Minister fail to recognize Quebec. The Prime Minister said that his first major move had to be economic. Perhaps that was necessary since he took office just a few months after the arrival of Trump and the tariffs he imposed. The Prime Minister spoke of a strong Canada and continues to repeat that ad nauseam today. However, after more than a year, I fail to see any real benefits back home in my riding. I mentioned my riding, but this also affects the ridings of Lac-Saint-Jean and Jonquière, for example, because we are talking about the aluminum and forestry sectors, which are really struggling right now. There are three forestry companies in my riding, two of which shut their doors after briefly resuming operations. In short, the forestry sector is hanging on by a thread because the government is doing nothing to help it. This all happened over the course of a year, but as I said earlier, I have been talking about this for 11 years. We could even say that people have been talking about forestry for 40 years, this sector that is of little interest to the federal government in everything it does. For example, the government asked Quebec to diversify our markets by exporting to Asia. There were programs for that, but that got us absolutely nothing. I am thinking of the businesses back home, the people from Arbec, of course, all the workers who were laid off at the Outardes sawmill and all those families, because entire communities are being affected by the government’s refusal to work together and listen. The government has decided that the money would go to one place but it is failing to understand the industrial fabric of Quebec and its regions, including mine. Today, I want to say that I stand with the families in my riding and elsewhere who are struggling to put food on the table. It is the same thing in the aluminum sector. The largest aluminum smelter in North America, Alouette, is in my riding. Alcoa is there too. That sector is very strong. At the same time, we are sending the message that it might be a bit easier for large corporations to find other export markets. Let us not forget all the SMEs, the main focus of today’s debates, that are forced to shut down and face uncertainty and fear because the government is not doing anything. It says it is, but it is simply empty rhetoric. What is it actually doing? As my colleague from Jonquière mentioned, the government is offering new loans for businesses, but if it truly wanted to discuss things with people and businesses, it would be listening to what the unions are proposing. The Steelworkers, for instance, have made several proposals to help the various sectors. The same goes for the forestry and aluminum sectors. It is not only the unions. Sure, workers make proposals, but major corporations and SMEs also have demands. We have to listen to the people on the ground. They know what the needs are. They know better than we do, in our offices far, far away from our ridings. To figure out what the needs are, we have to be there on the ground and talk to people. The government is not doing that. I will give an example. Yes, the Bloc Québécois is an opposition party, but we want to offer constructive opposition. What people back home are asking for is to keep their jobs. When a business has to close down because it is threatened by tariffs, it is important that it have the certainty that it will retain its employees and their expertise, and that these employees have the certainty that they will continue to receive a salary, in the form of a benefit. The employment relationship with workers is extremely important for all sectors, because it assures businesses that the workers will be there as soon as they resume operations. We must not delude ourselves into thinking that workers are everywhere, readily available and properly trained. I live in what is considered a remote region, a rural community spanning 350,000 square kilometres with a population of 100 people, and we definitely need workers. When sectors of our economy are weakened, folks will leave the region and may never return. We are truly caught in a vicious cycle. This is what businesses, SMEs and workers are all asking for. They are simply asking that the government ensure this employment relationship can be maintained, as it did during the COVID-19 pandemic. Everyone wants a strong economy, as the Prime Minister says. We must ensure that everyone has the tools needed to build a strong economy. Driving workers away is not a solution. Telling businesses to take on more debt when they are struggling the most is also not a solution, and that is exactly what the government is doing right now. I was saying that the government was not meeting the needs, and I gave just one example. Not meeting the needs is one thing, but not anticipating is another. What we have noticed is that the government is always reacting to what is happening. CUSMA, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, and the negotiations are nothing new. They are cyclical, predictable issues. With the current President of the United States, I think we could have guessed that there would be obstacles, since he has been putting up roadblocks for over a year. Once again, there is nothing concrete in the government’s economic update or in the measures that should be taken based on the renegotiation of CUSMA. Nothing is being done, and that is worrisome. The government is reactive. With respect to the economic update, I listened to the Minister of Finance and he repeated slogans, which is just fine during a campaign, but now they keep coming back with slogans revolving around the sacrosanct notion of economic strength, but there is nothing for our sector. When I told one of my colleagues on the government side that we no longer want this dependence on the federal government, it is because our money, Quebeckers’ money, is not going where it would help. Quebec sends taxes to Ottawa—a fact that is sometimes forgotten—and we get money back while always being told, in a completely patronizing way, how to use it and what we should be doing in Quebec. Right now, it is clear that this is not working. The government has decided to contribute to industries that are not the choice of Quebeckers. When they talk about pipelines and western oil and gas, that is not what we want at all. We want to develop in other ways. I talked about forestry and aluminum. That is what we do at home, and we do it well. We would like to see that money come back to us. Even a small percentage that could go back to the forestry industry would be extraordinary, but the government is not doing that. In closing, I would like to urge and formally invite the government to revisit the proposals the Bloc Québécois has put forward to help the industries and to help the workers, because these are not two separate issues, and to invest in strengthening these sectors. I was particularly struck when the Minister of Finance unveiled the sovereign wealth fund. That, too, was almost a slogan. A fund that belongs to itself, that is the be all and end all, and will fix everything that needs fixing in Canada’s economy. It is a fund that is actually a debt. Should we call it a sovereign debt or the Prime Minister’s debt? I wonder. It is debt, and the government is choosing to go into debt for oil and gas projects when it cannot even support Quebec businesses, forestry companies and aluminum companies. It is easy to see why we opposed the government’s measures. I hope they will listen and take action, but it has been 11 years. I feel like I do not even believe in it anymore.”

“The Liberals say the economy is strong, but people in my riding are losing their jobs. The government has done nothing to help them keep their jobs or get through this crisis. Its programs just give businesses more debt, and it takes too long to get the money.”

“Mr. Speaker, that brings to mind a Dalida song. We keep hearing about a strong economy. I would like the Liberals to come to my riding and tell the workers who have lost their jobs that there is absolutely nothing to help them maintain their employment relationship or get through this crisis. I would like the Liberals to come and tell them that the government has strong measures in place. These strong measures mean more debt for businesses. What is more, no one knows when they will see this money, which could be put to use by the businesses themselves. They are being asked to diversify, but also to innovate. While this could be a viable option for some in a crisis, not everyone is necessarily in a position to do so. In my view, the government has done absolutely nothing for the industry.”

“I want the government to help pay the U.S. tariffs on Canadian wood. The government would get this money back after the trade dispute ends. This will help forestry companies keep selling wood to the United States.”

“Mr. Speaker, indeed, things always get a bit loud right before oral question period. I want to congratulate my colleague on her speech. I also have some questions for her about forestry. Can she explain to us again what we are proposing, what the industry and the unions are proposing, which is that the government take on part of the countervailing duties? Once the dispute is resolved, it will be returned to the industry, so the government would get its money back. This would allow the industry to continue exporting to the United States, despite the immoral and in fact illegal tariffs imposed by the irascible U.S. President.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Respect 62 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The government has 4.4 billion dollars sitting unused that should go back to workers and help the industry survive. This would not cost the government anything new. I want them to accept our plan.”

“Mr. Speaker, sometimes people say that to ask a question is to answer it, and that is what the member did. However, it is true that there is money that is sitting idle, that is, the $4.4 billion that is being unused and that should be going back to the workers. The bottom line is that government has an opportunity to ensure that this money can be used by the industry to get through the crisis. This measure really comes at no cost to the government. The money is there, it is not being used. I do not understand why the government is not accepting this Bloc Québécois proposal, or the other proposals made today, which are all just as relevant and meaningful.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →