House Publications
The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
45th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • No. 117
CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 5, 2026
House of Commons Debates
Volume 152
No. 117
1st SESSION
45th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, May 5, 2026
Speaker: The Honourable Francis Scarpaleggia
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Petitions
Mr. Speaker, I rise once again in this House to submit yet another petition on behalf of the people of North Island—Powell River opposing ongoing attempts by a Bermuda-based company, Brookfield Renewables, to receive an unprecedented 30-year export permit to send Canadian hydroelectricity out of Powell River to the United States, in the middle of a trade war I might add, with no benefit to the people who live in the city, the province or our country.
While the petitioners are encouraged to hear the process is now proceeding to a more thorough full licensing review, they remain concerned that the granting of a simple permit may still come, and that the power, which used to supply the local pulp mill and support thousands of jobs, may be permanently and irreversibly sent out of the country. The petitioners are outraged that there is still no plan to hold public hearings in the city of Powell River.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present petition 451-00927.
The petitioners, including constituents of mine from the Sunshine Coast, want to draw attention to the fact that long COVID affects approximately 1.4 million Canadians, causing significant health and economic burdens. The amyloid microclot test is supported by global research. It can identify clots linked to long COVID, enabling targeted therapies. The test has not yet been approved by Health Canada, delaying access to critical diagnostics due to regulatory and validation barriers.
The petitioners state that Canadians deserve equitable access to diagnostics to address long COVID's impact.
The petitioners call upon Canada to prioritize the validation and approval of flow cytometry of amyloid microclots as a reference test, to consider funding a pilot program and to implement regulatory reforms to streamline the approval process for lab-developed tests addressing unmet medical needs like long COVID.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present petition 451-00928, which is calling on the government to reinstate the agriculture research stations to be closed, announced on January 23.
Over 665 positions were cut. This is a great concern to farmers and producers, as well as consumers in Canada, as we continue to undermine leading-edge research that is happening at Agriculture Canada research stations.
To recap, the government announced it was going to cut the research facilities at Lacombe, Guelph, Quebec City, Indian Head, Scott, Portage la Prairie and Nappan, as well as the organic and regenerative research program at Swift Current Research and Development Centre.
The petitioners are calling on the government to hire back the 665 researchers and scientists within Agriculture Canada, and to reopen all those facilities to support Canada agriculture and Canadian food consumers.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister prepares to appoint a new governor general, I would like to present petition e‑6839, which was initiated by Benoit Dutrizac.
The petition calls on the government to set the governor general's salary at a symbolic $1 per year, rather than at nearly $400,000, as is currently the case; sell Rideau Hall, which costs more than $2 million a year in maintenance, and distribute the savings to food banks; prohibit all travel outside Canada, which would save over $3 million based on Mary Simon's spending; cover wardrobe costs internally, which would save $130,000; remove chauffeur and limousine services; use chef services for formal meals only; and restrict duties to assenting to bills, hosting formal meals with dignitaries visiting Canada, attending commemorative or civic award ceremonies and delivering the Speech from the Throne.
The petition was signed by over 3,000 people, and I suspect that the vast majority of Quebeckers feel the same way.
[English]
Questions on the Order Paper
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]
Government Orders
[Business of Supply]
[Translation]
Business of Supply
Opposition Motion—Measures to Support the Manufacturing Sector
That the House:
(a) condemn the imposition of new United States tariffs that came into force on April 6, 2026, as contrary to the principles of free trade;
(b) note that the application of additional tariffs on the full value of products containing steel, aluminium or copper is affecting a growing number of businesses, particularly SMEs;
(c) express concern that this new trade environment will have irreparable effects on our manufacturing sector and the jobs that depend on it; and
(d) call on the government to take all necessary measures without delay to mitigate the impact of these unjustified tariffs, including providing direct support to affected businesses and workers in Quebec and Canada, until a trade agreement with the United States is restored.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my friend and colleague, the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.
Since April 6, Washington decided that the rules of the game were too simple, too transparent, almost fair, so it changed the rules without changing the game. Before, it was brutal but clear: 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum. It hurt, but at least we knew where the pain was coming from. Then, it fine-tuned the torture: it looked at how much metal was in a product, then imposed a tax equivalent to that percentage. It was a surgical and cold-blooded method that fit into the logic of a trade war.
However, the White House came up with something even better, simpler, and more absurdly elegant: If a product contains at least 15% steel, aluminum, or copper, the quantity or proportion no longer matters—everything is taxed. It is a 25% tax on the entire product, regardless of whether it is a machined part, a snowmobile, or even a folding chair. In short, metals are no longer taxed; the products made from them are.
As a result, things that used to be protected no longer are. CUSMA is a distant memory. According to Desjardins, a quarter of our exports to the United States have just veered into penalty territory. Some observers are relying on a University of Calgary study to estimate that as much as 55% of Quebec's exports could be affected. Perhaps the government should provide a clear picture of the situation, because it is catastrophic. It is urgent that we fully grasp its scope.
Some industries are escaping the net, but for the most part, this is a massive expansion of the strike zone. When the target is expanded, it always ends up affecting more people, even those who thought they were too small for Washington to notice.
The worst part is that the shock has not even hit yet, because the plants are currently working on orders that were placed months ago. The supply chains are operating, the machines are running and the order books are still full for the time being. However, when American buyers start doing the math, that is when silence will fall, the silence of cancelled orders and unrenewed contracts. A change like this does not make a lot of noise right away. It falls gently, like heavy snow. The closures we are seeing today are not the peak; they are the warm-up.
In light of this, we expected a swift, robust, coordinated response. What we got instead was an economic update that seemed to have been written before April 6, as if the situation had changed unexpectedly, which is exactly what happened. Then, yesterday, we finally got a reaction, an update to the update: $1 billion in loans and $500 million for the regional agencies. Is it good news? To a certain extent, maybe, but the announcement fails to really address the emergency that SMEs are dealing with.
All the businesses and associations that testified before the committee said the same thing: They do not want assistance in the form of loans. Offering loans to businesses that are already in debt is like offering a second credit card to someone who cannot even pay off their first. The problem is not access to money; it is that money is not coming in anymore. Offering loans of at least $2 million only to SMEs with at least $5 million in revenue will leave tons of SMEs out in the cold.
As for the $500 million to help businesses buy new machines, that is great for productivity, but it is not the right response when orders are drying up due to the 25% tariffs. What is the point of buying a new machine when production is down 50%?
Meanwhile, the Bloc Québécois has put forward a series of concrete measures. These are not band-aids, but tools to weather the storm, because a storm does not negotiate. Trump's executive order is not an accident or a blunder. It is a calculated move. There has been a shift from targeted measures to blanket measures. That is exactly the type of foreign intervention that everyone condemns. In reality, we are still watching the wave roll in.
The irony of all this is that they continue to call it free trade. When a partner unilaterally changes the rules with barely four days' notice, penalizing those who have invested in local manufacturing, it is no longer free trade. It is predation with a bill attached. It is illegal. It makes a mockery of CUSMA and it makes a mockery of the executive order, which is itself illegal, to impose a 50% tariff on steel and aluminum. I hope that American companies that are paying all these tariffs will start legal action as soon as possible to overturn these illegal executive orders from their irascible President.
What this new regime actually does is quite simple: It does not tax raw metal, the primary material, but rather the labour, engineering, processing and the value added to products right here at home, in our factories in Joliette, Boucherville, Saguenay, Drummondville, Victoriaville and across our regions. The Americans are basically saying, “Thank you for processing our aluminum. Now we are going to tax it twice.” Primary aluminum is still being taxed at 50%, but the processed product is now also taxed at 25%. This is double taxation, a penalty for having done more than simply extract the aluminum.
In Quebec, 441,000 people are employed in manufacturing. These are not mere statistics: These are paycheques, mortgage payments and school lunches. We have already seen 9,700 jobs in this sector disappear in just one year because of U.S. tariff policies. In certain industries that depend on the United States, employment has fallen by more than 5%. That was before April 6. Now the net is being cast wider.
The news is reporting multiple business closures every week. Companies that process, assemble and innovate are caught in a double bind. They themselves have become subject to tariffs and must prove, document and itemize every gram of metal. Every error becomes a risk, and every form is an obstacle. In this situation, U.S. buyers do what anyone else would: They call local suppliers. Even if it is more expensive, it is made cheaper because of the new tariffs. There is less paperwork, less risk, fewer tariffs and less of Quebec.
According to last week's economic update, tariffs are the new normal. That remains to be seen. Things may change this summer, or perhaps this fall with the mid-term elections. However, acknowledging the situation without taking action is a bit like announcing that it is raining without getting out the umbrellas. The update does not contain any targeted measures. Worse still, the Liberals are patting themselves on the back for having collected $10 billion in tariffs and distributing just over half of that amount. The rest is on hold while SMEs are closing their doors. Therein lies the contradiction: The government has the means, but not the will.
In an ideal or at least a functional world, the government would act on two fronts: It would protect and support. It would protect the sector with safeguard tariffs against dumping and unfair imports from Asia. It would adopt buy local policies, and it would not be content to simply make a commitment in that regard; it would pass a law. The government would also buy back countervailing duties for sectors like softwood lumber. It would provide support through a targeted one-time wage subsidy to enable businesses to keep workers employed and retain their expertise. The government would set up a one-stop shop to prevent SMEs from getting lost in a sea of executive orders. It would provide direct liquidity measures, rather than disguised debt, and it would simplify the duty drawback process.
Wage subsidies are not just some crazy idea. The government implemented them during the pandemic and they worked. In times of crisis, the worst thing a government can do is make cuts. Cutting jobs means losing expertise, and that is not something that can be recouped in a few months. The majority of SMEs that export their products rely on welders, machinists and operators—trades that are experiencing a labour shortage. If SMEs lose these workers, they will not be able to find them again. Right now, SMEs are staring down the barrel of a gun: They can continue to pay these workers even though their order books are empty, or they can lose them. However, if they lose their workers, they will not be able to meet demand when their order books start to fill up again because the employees will be gone. The government is offering to lend these businesses money. That means they can take on debt if they wish to continue paying their employees in the meantime. They can also take on debt to buy a new machine, and the government will pay part of the cost.
Meanwhile, the government is trying to sell us on a $25‑billion fund, a $25‑billion debt fund that will put the country deeper into debt and will most likely be used to support energy projects. This is essentially a philosophical debate. Would the government rather invest in hypothetical pipelines or in very real workers who have just lost their jobs? Just a fraction of that $25 billion could stabilize entire regions. We do not see that on a long-term graph. We see it when a factory does not shut its doors.
U.S. tariffs may be a blip, but they may be more than a temporary irritant. Time will tell. What we do know is that this is now the new normal. When a situation changes, the response must also change—not in six months, not in the next budget, but now. While we are here debating structures, programs, and mechanisms, somewhere, a small business is looking at its order book and realizing that the phone has stopped ringing. This debate is not about economics. This is about when someone comes to the stark realization that everything has just changed.
[English]
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?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the executive order seemed to catch the government off guard. Our leader asked the Prime Minister about it, and the Prime Minister was not aware of it. The following week, he said that yes, the government was aware of it and that the economic update would provide a response. The economic update talked about this executive order but offered no solutions. At the start of the week, the government came up with a solution that essentially consisted of loans that will not even be available to the smaller SMEs.
SME organizations and representatives appeared in committee to ask us to help them by means other than loans, because they already have too much debt and they could not last until July with this kind of support. Yes, a verbal understanding was reached, but in fact, on the ground, in practical terms, this is not what we are seeing. That is why we want to co-operate. We are making suggestions. Yesterday, two ministers said that they were open to adjusting the program. We hope that will prove to be the case.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we all agree that U.S. tariffs are hurting Canadian workers. Businesses are being squeezed and uncertainty is growing, but loans are not a solution. Even industry leaders are clearly saying that the tariff is the problem.
I would ask my colleague from the Bloc, if tariffs are the problem, does he agree that Canada needs real leverage, like building our energy resource capacity, to get those tariffs removed?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, just because we build a pipeline does not mean that Trump will lift his tariffs. What I said in my speech is that the government is creating a $25-billion sovereign debt fund specifically to build pipelines. What we are saying is that, before building pipelines, we need to save the businesses and small and medium-sized enterprises located throughout the regions across the country—many of them in Quebec—that are at risk of closing. With 25% tariffs, they are no longer able to sell their products. Their order books are drying up, even though these are often companies that have been around for decades.
What we are saying today is that we need to help these companies weather the current crisis so that they can continue operating in the future. That is the priority.
Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague just demonstrated that we are putting forward proposals that come from the front lines, and that there is no reason why this government should not listen to them and implement them.
There is one thing I would like to ask my colleague. It seems to me that almost exactly a year ago, this government was elected on the sole promise of ending the tariff war by June at the latest. It then pushed that deadline back to July, and then to September. A year later, the government has not only failed to resolve the tariff crisis, which has only grown worse, but it also refuses to listen to the opposition parties, who are proposing good-faith solutions. I would like my colleague to share his thoughts on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, that is a Liberal promise that appeals to those who want to believe it. It is impossible to resolve a conflict when the U.S. President does not want to resolve it and wants to make it worse. That means it was a false promise.
Given the current tariffs, what we need is to support businesses. What the government does not seem to grasp is the gravity of the situation in the short term. It is creating measures to increase productivity, to compensate for the 25% tariffs, but that takes years to implement, whereas the crisis is a matter of weeks or months. Businesses need short-term support to keep their skilled workers, whom they are at risk of losing, such as welders, machinists and operators. They have to be able to get through the crisis. Can this be resolved in July or in the fall with the mid-term elections? We do not know, but we have to help businesses make it to that point. The wage subsidy is an excellent way to do so without increasing the debt of small and medium-sized businesses, all while maintaining the employment relationship.
Mr. Speaker, an election was held about a year ago. A saviour came along and told everyone that he had all the right skills to solve the problem we were facing at the time because of the new, scary U.S. President and that he could get rid of the tariffs. Everyone would see that all the problems would be resolved in a matter of weeks, as if by magic. People wanted to believe in the fairy tale.
Here we are a year later, still in exactly the same place, waiting for the situation to be resolved. Not only has the situation not been resolved, but it is getting worse. While people's concerns about the current situation are entirely understandable, everyone also understands why businesses and workers are growing increasingly impatient and dissatisfied that the situation is not being resolved. To say that these folks are dissatisfied is really an understatement. People are beginning to realize that this government was elected to solve a problem that it is not solving, choosing to focus on all kinds of other things instead.
What is more, the situation is getting even worse. What happened on April 6? The Americans decided to rub salt in the wound. Instead of imposing tariffs of just 50% on the raw material or on the raw material component in the product, and to simplify the calculation, the Americans decided that if the product contained more than 15% steel or aluminum, they would apply a 25% tariff, period.
As everyone can imagine, this is hurting a lot of people. As angry as we may want to be at the United States, we have no control over the United States. We do, however, have control over what we do. Unfortunately, when we elect someone to be in charge, we would expect a response from them. The most frustrating thing is that when our leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, asked the Prime Minister the question during question period on a Wednesday, and I should point out that it is rare for the Prime Minister to be there on Wednesdays, the Prime Minister was not even aware of the change in—
I have to interrupt the hon. member to remind him to be careful not to mention the presence or absence of a prime minister, a member of the Cabinet, or any member of the House during debates in the House.
I invite the hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères to continue his speech.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the reminder. I was just pointing out that I would like to see the Prime Minister in the House much more often. I am sure that this perspective is shared by many in the House.
What I wanted to focus on is that the Prime Minister was not even aware that there had been a change in U.S. tariffs. Our leader asked him the question not the morning after or the same day but in fact about two weeks after the change was made through an executive order, and he still was not aware of it. There is something wrong with that picture. Something is not right. When people elect a representative to do something and that person does not do it, the people have every right to be angry and frustrated. When the Prime Minister was asked again about this issue, he said not to worry, that the government was going to fix it, or at least try to. He said that the government was going to announce new measures in the upcoming economic statement and resolve the situation.
However, there was absolutely nothing in the economic update. There was not a single line, not a single sentence, nothing to suggest that there would be support measures or adjustments to government programs in response to the U.S. tariff changes. It is frustrating to see this kind of situation unfold. First, the Prime Minister was elected to resolve the situation. Second, he was warned that there was a problem and he was unaware of it. Third, he made a promise that he has decided not to keep.
Faced with this completely absurd situation we find ourselves in, the government finally made an impromptu announcement yesterday, and the industry minister said there would be loans for companies. Ultimately, that was the announcement. It is rather disappointing when a government gets elected by saying that the economy and our relationship with the United States will be its priority, but then it becomes clear, in the end, that that is not its priority. We would like to know what it is actually working on.
This situation has a major impact on Quebec. I am a member from Quebec. Among other things, there is a steel mill in my riding. According to Desjardins, 24% of Quebec exports would be affected by the changes, and 24% is a lot. For months, the government has been telling us that we did not need to worry about the tariff crisis, that we had the best deal in the world with the United States and that it was ultimately better to do nothing.
However, the government is realizing that with the regulatory change that has been ordered, we are going from an average effective rate of 5.7% to 9.6%. Roughly speaking, our situation has just gotten about twice as bad. Businesses are going to suffer. They already were suffering; that is the worst part.
I am sad to say that when people talk about steel, they often forget about Quebec. They only ever think about Ontario steel. Ministers always hold their press conferences in Hamilton, Ontario. Quebec might as well not exist. I have some news for this House: Many processed and manufactured products contain steel. Many processed and manufactured products contain aluminum. What is more, Quebec produces 20% of Canada's steel and represents about 20% of the population. We are doing our fair share, so we expect to receive our fair share of the attention and programs when there are government initiatives regarding steel. The government should stop favouring Ontario all the time.
Quebec steel is suffering right now. Are my colleagues aware that 200 employees lost their jobs at the metal powder plant in Sorel‑Tracy last year? That is 200 fewer people working in the steel industry. That is a lot of people. Are my colleagues aware that 90 people lost their jobs when the La Perle foundry in Saint‑Ours closed down? Why did the foundry close down and why was it having such a hard time? One of the reasons was the U.S. tariffs.
I am talking about Sorel‑Tracy and Saint‑Ours, which are right next door to where I am, a stone's throw away from my riding. There is also a steel mill in Contrecoeur, where more than 1,500 people work in the sector. People are telling us that. Workers call me and we talk to them regularly. We also talk to company representatives quite often. What we are being told is that the numbers are down. There are no more overtime hours. Machine maintenance is being spread out. Fewer trainees are being hired. Vacations are being stretched out. They are finding all sorts of ways to stretch out contracts because things are not going well right now.
Last year, morale was still high, because this crisis was seen as temporary, and the thought was that there would be negotiations and that the magician on the other side of the House would sort it all out. This year, I would say that people are finding the situation a lot more serious. They are starting to lose hope, because the crisis is not going away, and there is a sense that the government is not taking the situation seriously. The longer the problem drags on, the more the situation will become permanent and the faster job losses will be felt, because people will eventually realize that this situation might not be temporary, but permanent.
What is unfortunate is that there are things that the government could have done and could already be doing to resolve the situation, without even having to resolve the tariff crisis with the United States. It is hard to understand why they are not doing it. It cannot be said that there has been no action at all. There were in fact a few limited actions taken in 2024 to reduce import volumes and set quotas. The problem is that the import volumes were already so high that this did not really change much. It mainly affected our market share. Canadian steel consumption is equivalent to what is produced in Canada: We produce roughly 100 million tonnes of steel and consume roughly 100 million tonnes. The problem is that 50% of what is being produced is going to the United States. That was already the case even before the tariff crisis.
If we have just lost 50% of our exports, our hope is that we will not lay off 50% of people, that 50% of jobs are not going to disappear and that 50% of mills are not going to close. We have to react and take measures to control our market, since that is what we can control. If we are producing 100 million tonnes of steel and consuming 100 million tonnes, why are we not guaranteed a larger share of the domestic market? The reality is that before the tariff crisis, we held about 35% of the market. Now, it is about 40%. There is still a lot of room, but, in the meantime, the federal government is unfortunately not resolving the issue. For example, there are cases of Chinese dumping still taking place, and the reciprocal tariffs on American steel have been completely dropped. That means that we are affected by tariffs, but the Americans are not when they come here.
Another problem has to do with the fact that, in November, the government promised a subsidy system for rail transportation from coast to coast to coast. There are still no conditions. It is still unclear how it will work. The government announced it in November and it is now May. Businesses and workers are tapping their feet. They have no idea what the conditions will be. What is more, marine shipping is excluded. Quebec businesses will suffer as a result, because there is a kind of unfair competition in the system.
That is the federal government we have. We are not impressed.
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?
Mr. Speaker, I do not see any connection between his question and the issue we are discussing today. It is a shame, because we are in a difficult situation where people are worried about their jobs, and the government is trying to distract us by bringing up other topics. I would urge my colleague to focus instead on the problem we have brought to the table today and to talk to his colleagues so we can resolve this.
Let us take the “buy Canadian” policy as an example. Before Christmas, the government promised to make buying Canadian a priority. What happened in the end? A few weeks later, the government could have bought Canadian steel to build future ferries in the Vancouver area, but instead decided to give that contract to the Chinese. That is $1 billion going to China.
We could also talk about the renewal of Via Rail's fleet. A contract is coming up. Will it be awarded to Alstom, or will it go to Siemens again, like last time, when the Americans were given $1 billion to build it?
It is important to choose to keep our people employed rather than constantly sending money abroad.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, if Canada wants to deal with the United States, we need leverage. Our leverage comes from our strengths, our energy, our critical minerals and our ability to supply the inputs that North American industry depends on.
Conservatives believe we should be building that strength, developing our resources, expanding our capacity and creating the conditions for investment so that Canada can negotiate from a position of power, not weakness.
I know that the riding I represent, London—Fanshawe, has a manufacturing sector that has had to deal with the U.S. tariffs. Repeatedly, the Prime Minister has said that by a certain date, he would deal with U.S. tariffs, especially last July, and then on repeated dates.
I am wondering if the member from the Bloc can expand on the continuing issue of the tariffs that we have to deal with today.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I think it is a shame that my colleague is asking me this question, even though I think it came from a place of good intentions.
I do not think it is a solution to say that, because of the tariffs, we are going to abandon all our economic sectors and throw ourselves headfirst into the oil industry. That is not Quebec's strength. Quebec wants to move toward the energy transition. Our strength lies in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from steel production. The federal government should take that into account with, for example, a border carbon adjustment. It should consider the carbon footprint when evaluating bids for major projects.
The reality is that Quebec steel is made with hydroelectricity. It is about a hundred times less polluting than all the steel that exists elsewhere on the planet. It cannot be compared to what is being done in countries like China, where they use coal. That could be a great strategy from the government: to really accelerate the energy transition in order to have greener infrastructure and support our steel sector.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague on his excellent speech and his answers.
Can he tell us how important SMEs are to Quebec's economy?
Jacques Parizeau said that Quebec's economy relies mainly on regional SMEs. The reason there are so many jobs in all medium-sized cities across Quebec is often thanks to metallurgical SMEs that often focus on exports to the United States.
Can my colleague tell us how the current tariffs announced in the latest executive order threaten these businesses? Can he tell us why the government's response so far has been inadequate?
Mr. Speaker, there is actually a mill in my riding that produces steel that could be termed first-level steel. It is not highly refined; it is minimally processed. Afterward, other manufacturing companies will refine it further, especially for export.
The problem we are currently experiencing with the new tariff changes is that the steel-processing companies will no longer order steel from major Canadian steel mills. If all these SMEs are no longer ordering—
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.
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech.
I would like to ask him a question, because he did not touch on something that I believe is important. In 2025-26, Canada collected $10 billion through retaliatory tariffs. However, the portion that was redistributed to businesses amounts to just $5.7 billion.
That means that Canada has collected twice as much money as it has distributed to businesses through support measures. In these circumstances, how does my colleague explain the fact that the government is not listening to the industry more and that all the government has to offer is loans? How does he explain the fact that the economic update did not even mention the tariff crisis or the assistance needed for businesses that use steel?
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.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister calls himself the master negotiator, yet he changes his tone on the U.S. faster than the weather changes in April. One day he is talking about a rupture, the next day about a mutual success, then a weakness, and now, being stronger together.
Steel tariffs have doubled, lumber tariffs have tripled, and manufacturing tariffs are hitting our workers here at home. However, after all the Liberal rhetoric and illusions, there is still no trade deal after more than a year. At what point are the Liberals going to stop excusing their own failures and admit that the Prime Minister does not have a coherent negotiation strategy at all, that it is just illusions dressed up as diplomacy?
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.
[Translation]
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?
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.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech. I welcome the fact that the government is leaving the door open to further support measures should it deem them necessary. We will continue to try to convince it that this is the case.
As for the support program announced yesterday, the government says it is for SMEs with minimum annual sales of $5 million, for a minimum loan of $2 million. Many SMEs are telling us that this is a huge amount of money and some businesses are not that big and have never gotten a loan of more than $1 million.
Would the government consider rethinking the loan program, or even expanding it through other measures? That way, it would cover smaller businesses affected by tariffs as well as businesses that supply companies exporting to the United States.
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.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, but what does he think about the forestry sector?
Thousands of jobs have been lost and businesses are closing.
What is the status of the negotiations for the forestry sector?
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.
[English]
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.
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.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing today is really something. The parliamentary secretary is telling us that we should not rush into an agreement. However, we were told in April 2025 that there was a deadline. The Prime Minister himself said that the tariff issue would be resolved by June 2025. He then extended the deadline to July and then again to September.
If what my colleague says is true, that would mean that the promises that were made at the time should never have been made. Does my colleague agree that the government should never have promised Quebeckers and Canadians that the tariff crisis would be resolved in April and that this promise has not been kept?
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.
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time.
It is a pleasure, a privilege and an honour for me to stand before this House to represent and defend the interests of the people of Beauce.
I am rising today to condemn the Prime Minister's inaction in response to U.S. tariffs. The Prime Minister was elected on a promise to quickly resolve the issue with the Americans. Since then, nothing has been resolved. Worse still, the tariffs have doubled. The unjustified tariffs imposed by the United States have caused economic chaos for all Canadian communities from coast to coast to coast, and especially in my region, Beauce, the capital of entrepreneurship.
The impact is real. Our workers, our businesses and our families are being hit hard. Let us be clear: every day these U.S. tariffs remain in place, jobs are lost, businesses are closing and others are at risk. The steel, lumber, and manufacturing sectors—such as garage door and furniture manufacturing—are particularly vulnerable and at risk. While our regions suffer, this Liberal government is showing a glaring lack of leadership in defending Canada and in initiating formal negotiations with the Americans to achieve results.
The Prime Minister likes to talk about a tariff war, but all he does is announce temporary measures. At the end of the day, these are nothing more than band-aid solutions. There has been no progress in seven months. That is insane. The Prime Minister has no interest in tackling the root of the problem, which are the U.S. tariffs, nor is he taking the time to do so.
I invite the Prime Minister to come visit Beauce and see what businesses are going through. Let him come see the workers who are losing their jobs. The Prime Minister is deliberately refusing to negotiate with the Americans. It makes no sense.
My message to the Prime Minister is simple: The U.S. tariffs are a harsh reality. They are killing jobs, forcing businesses to close, and taking a toll on families. Once again, it is business owners and families who are being hit hard. Our businesses are suffering. Yet again, this is the result of a lack of leadership, a glaring lack of action, and an outright abandonment of our businesses by the Prime Minister.
Along the U.S. border in Beauce, the impact is even more severe. Some businesses generate 90% of their sales from exports to the United States. The government is just tinkering as it goes. It lends money; it provides subsidies. However, the people and businesses of Beauce do not want government money; they do not want to depend on the government. Instead, they want the government to give them the tools to make their products. They are proud people, but they do not have the tools. The government says it wants a fair deal with the Americans, but it is not even talking to them. It is not even taking the time to speak with them. This is unacceptable. This government is lacking leadership.
As I mentioned, every day that this tariff war continues, jobs are being lost and businesses are relocating. Local businesses are relocating and sending their contracts to the United States. That is what is happening. This was supposed to be resolved a year ago, but the government keeps putting it off and doing nothing. Once again, this is a lack of leadership.
I recently had the opportunity to visit Garaga, a local company and the largest garage door manufacturer in Canada and North America. It is a real jewel in our community.
The new section 232 tariffs on steel, which have applied as of early April, have quite simply made Canadian manufacturers uncompetitive, with total tariffs of 50% on finished products. It is also important to consider the exchange rate and finished products. The government has not implemented any measures on imports from Indonesia. These imports are coming in to the tune of $600 million. The Americans, however, have done so.
We have no tools to work with. We are not competitive. Our manufacturers have the necessary resilience, but negotiations must move forward. I met with Canada's ambassador to the United States last week. It has been seven months since talks have happened. Someone needs to explain that to me. The reality is clear. People in Canada and in Beauce do not want or need temporary measures. They do not want band-aid solutions. They want a negotiated agreement. I cannot express that enough.
They want a level playing field for businesses and predictability from the government to help them maintain their productivity and competitiveness.
Again, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister claimed he was the leader best equipped to deal with the U.S. President and protect our interests. Now the tariffs have doubled. Let him go explain that to South Shore Furniture in Sainte-Croix. It does not matter. The Prime Minister declared that the Americans have become our weakness. Let us go explain that to the people who lost their jobs at South Shore Furniture. That is 126 workers. At Domtar in Baie-Comeau, 186 workers lost their jobs. Let the Prime Minister go explain that the Americans are our weakness. The Americans will always be our biggest financial partners in exports.
I am all for developing new markets. That is great. However, I have enough experience to know that new markets will not pay off for another 10 or 20 years. We need to make progress today. Today, that means focusing on the United States.
This raises the following question: Why are we not actively engaged in negotiations with our largest trading partner? Hundreds of thousands of jobs are on the line. Some of our finest companies are fighting for their survival. Families are being hit hard. I will say it again: The negotiators have not spoken in seven months.
The government lacks leadership on this file. I have talked about this: For India, it is 650 million dollars' worth of imports. Our steelworkers are not being protected. There are also 193 million dollars' worth of imports from Indonesia.
The problem is only in Canada. Negotiations between Mexico and the United States are going quite well. Meanwhile, Canada is sitting on the sidelines. I would like someone to explain that to me. It is deliberate. Avoiding these negotiations is unacceptable.
The Prime Minister claims to be the right man for the job, but his actions say otherwise. I invite him to come to Beauce to talk with the workers who have lost their jobs, the people at the businesses on the verge of experiencing difficulties, the businesses that are once again going to send their production abroad. At a press conference in Beauce last week, one of them, a prized local business, told me that if this continues, the business will move its jobs from Beauce to the United States. That is sad.
It is sad that this government is not taking action. It is sad that all this government is doing is making announcements, not taking action. It is not tackling the root of the problem: the U.S. tariffs. As I have said, the exchange rate is the reason we are not competitive. Every day, the government says it is helping our businesses. Loans do not help businesses; they hurt them. One need not have spent 30 years in business to know that. If businesses take out more loans, they will eventually have trouble paying them back. They will not be profitable.
The ambassador says he is ready to negotiate, and the U.S. says it is ready, so why are they not calling each other? He says he has their number, so why is he not sending them a message?
Our businesses are suffering because of these threats, and they have had enough. Why is the government not taking steps to protect our steel sector? The government is offering band-aid solutions while our global competitors are protecting their markets aggressively. This government's response is a day late and a dollar short. Let me be clear: The Liberal government is still deliberately choosing to delay negotiations with the United States, and that is unacceptable.
Our constituents expect us, as members, to stand up for them, not our own personal interests. That is why we are here: to stand up for our constituents. The government's job is to stand up for them and reach an agreement with the Americans. Canadians expect their government to be at the negotiating table, to fight for them, day in and day out, until the agreement is signed.
In closing, I urge the Liberal Prime Minister to show leadership and stand up for Canada's interests on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Beauce comes from a region that has indeed been hard hit by the current situation, but also by the government's failure to respond. My colleague mentioned the proposals put forward by the opposition parties in good faith to improve the situation quickly.
Does my colleague support the Bloc Québécois's proposal to immediately and quickly establish a wage subsidy mechanism for businesses affected by the current illegal U.S. tariffs?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean, an incredible region that I visited last week with my children for a tournament.
In my opinion, this is just another band-aid solution. I am repeating myself, but we do not need band-aid solutions or temporary measures. We need permanent measures. There is only one permanent measure, and it involves sitting down with the government, negotiating in good faith and resolving the tariff situation.
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?
Mr. Speaker, I agree that no one wants a bad deal. However, if a mouse pesters an elephant, the elephant will end up stomping on the mouse. What happened? The tariffs doubled. Why? It is because they did not have a discussion.
The government can take all the measures it wants and negotiate deals all over the world, but that is not going to fix the real problem, which is that our biggest trade deal will always be with the U.S. The government needs to sit down, pick up the phone, call the White House and get a deal.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, earlier, the member for Winnipeg North said negotiations take time. As the representative for London—Fanshawe, we have a large manufacturing base. These tariffs are hitting Canada, and especially my riding, hard. My concern is what I should tell my constituents who have to line up at the food bank and are now in the unemployment line in the manufacturing sectors, especially the auto sector, which has been hit hard by the tariffs.
I wonder if my hon. colleague could expand on how the tariffs are hurting his riding as much as they are hurting London—Fanshawe.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague.
As I mentioned earlier, my riding is on the U.S. border. We have lived alongside the U.S. for decades. Some of the companies in my riding do 90% of their total business, not just exports, on the other side of the tariffs. We are right up against the border. It is like the bridge here between Ottawa and Gatineau. My colleague needs to understand that we have been physically dealing with the U.S. for years. That is why our businesses are hurting so much.
As I said earlier, the people of Beauce do not want money. They do not want to be dependent on the government. They want this government to step up and show leadership. They want it to call our U.S. counterparts, sit down with them and negotiate a win-win deal.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.
I have a question for him. When we hear the Prime Minister say things like “Who cares?” in response to a question about tariffs, and when we hear that this subject does not keep him up at night, what does that tell my colleague about the Prime Minister's attitude and his apparent lack of interest, even though it is such a priority for so many people?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague was kind enough to flatter me a bit, so I will calm down before answering.
The PM said “Who cares?” and stated that our ties to America “have become weaknesses”. It is remarkable how many people come up to me and say that this is ridiculous. The focus should not be on China, but rather on the Americans.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, before I start, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge that, today, May 5, is Red Dress Day, when Canadians and our indigenous partners acknowledge, honour and learn about the epidemic of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls in Canada. I would like to thank the advocates from coast to coast to coast for their advocacy and teaching on this matter. I would especially like to thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for her efforts in bringing the issue into the public consciousness and into this chamber.
I am happy to rise today to speak to the Bloc Québécois motion condemning the United States' unfair and unjustifiable tariffs on Canada and, as the motion states, Quebec. I will lead with one comment. I was fairly certain that this motion, which was tabled the Friday prior to the government's announcement yesterday, would be a castoff. I suspect that the only questions and speeches we will hear from the government are about how the $1.5 billion announced yesterday is going to magically fix billions of dollars in lost tariffs. However, I am happy for any opportunity to speak to the broader issue of the source of this malaise: tariffs.
Yes, the Liberals announced something. Granted, it took over one year, but the point still remains. The issue here is that people do not want a handout. They do not want a band-aid. They want a deal, and patience is wearing thin.
Being in constant conversation with the affected industries, I want to thank all members in this place for the pan-partisan support the affected industries and, more importantly, their workers have received from all parties in this place during this trade war. It is always good to be reminded that although we may have differing views on the best path, generally speaking, this place has the same goals in mind.
I have to imagine that the vast majority of members in this place have at one point or another met with local industries in their ridings that are part of the downstream from the three specific industries mentioned in the motion from my colleague from Joliette—Manawan: steel, copper and aluminum. Of course, these punitive tariffs affect far more than just these three industries, but they are by and large the major targets in this current trade war.
The very unfortunate reality is that these protectionist attacks on Canadian workers are working.
The government has been extremely clear. It is the negotiator, and it does not want any help. Canadians may not know this, but this is in sharp contrast to previous trade negotiations with the U.S., when the previous government was more than happy to march hand in hand with the opposition down to Washington, where we remained a silent but willing partner to help the government do what was best for Canada. That is the government's prerogative, as is the self-described slow approach, but this brings pitfalls. However, given the Liberals' current polling, the pitfalls are not for them.
It is no secret that the U.S. administration's actions in this situation have broadly galvanized the average Canadian into a patriotic fever, granting a wide breadth to the current government and propelling the Liberals in the polls. The voting public is, by and large, content with the Prime Minister's approach. This is what the polls tell us. I am not here to argue with the pollsters, but I am here to talk about the element that is never brought up in the various community Facebook groups or at the coffee tables of the nation, which is the unseen, unspoken victims of this approach.
According to Statistics Canada, “iron and steel mills and ferro-alloy manufacturing (-19.1%) recorded its steepest decline since April 2020, coinciding with lower exports of steel products, as the US tariffs on Canadian steel imports doubled to 50% at the beginning of June.” To reiterate, the last time steel took this big a hit globally, trade shut down. The economic equivalent of the current U.S. tariffs on the Canadian industry is a once-in-a-century global pandemic, which brought global trade to its knees.
This is the economic reality of Canadian trade. Pre-tariffs, 80% of exports went to the United States. Nearly $1 trillion in trade flowed annually across our borders. Now, hundreds of thousands of Canadians employed in the industry are affected in one way or another by trade between two of the longest and strongest allies the world has ever seen.
The Prime Minister did not start this trade war, and his predecessor did not start this trade war, but he can end it. Every day this trade war drags on, it costs Canadians jobs and hammers our economy. I am not asking the Prime Minister to take any old deal. I am asking him to start negotiating for a serious resolution to this dispute. He has the political capital to wait. Canadian workers and families do not.
I want to finish off by thanking the various industry associations, manufacturers, unions and workers for their work. They have tirelessly raised the various issues these unjustified and unfair tariffs have brought to their lives. This is a massively convoluted and complex issue that requires pan‑partisan support on both sides of the border to resolve. I will again offer to the government my support, as well as that of my caucus colleagues, to collaborate and co‑operate with them in any way we can, whether at home or abroad.
I mentioned earlier that there was a bit of good luck on the government side that this opposition day motion will give it the opportunity to highlight its recent announcement, but serendipity does not shine exclusively on the government members today. While I do not have the authority to sign off on billions of economic loans or a trade deal yet, we here in the opposition do have other tools at our disposal.
To deflect from its failing trade talks, the government often touts the philosophy of controlling what we can at home, so I took that to heart. Far too many representatives of these industry-critical organizations have told me that they feel left out and ignored by the government. They do not know what is going on in D.C. or in Ottawa and resort to rumours and speculation to field some sense of understanding. To be clear, this is coming not only from the mom-and-pop shops in Bancroft but also from national and international industry associations headquartered in Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, New York and Washington. This is a sin being committed by administrations on both sides of the border.
As a result, next month, in conjunction with my colleagues from la belle nation de Québec, I am joining a series of round tables in numerous Quebec cities and towns that are directly affected by the tariffs on steel, aluminum, copper and softwood lumber. It is my responsibility, and I am humbled to be invited to visit with Québécois workers and industry leaders up and down the St. Lawrence River, from major urban centres to humble regional industrial hubs, to talk to affected workers, en français, of the very real effects the U.S. tariffs have had on Canadian strategic resources.
I want to finish with one final comment. Frustrations on both sides of the border are extremely clear, whether it is with our own administration or each other's. I share many of them, but we must remember that the relationship between Canada and the United States is forged in fire and bounded by blood. It is among, if it is not the, single strongest relationship between any two nations in the world today.
To close, I want to selectively re-enter into Hansard something that was spoken in this very place 68 years ago by President Dwight D. Eisenhower when he addressed Parliament:
...change is the law of life and of relations between nations. When two great peoples such as ours, energetic and optimistic, live side by side in all the diversity that freedom offers, change is rapid and brings in its wake problems, sometimes frictions.
...by mutual respect, understanding and with good will we can find acceptable solutions to any problems which exist or may arise between us....
There must never be a final word between friends.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. I really appreciate her work, and we are both members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.
That said, I am having a hard time understanding the Conservative Party of Canada's position on today's motion. Like us, the Conservative Party has clearly concluded that this government is unable to fulfill the promise it made a year ago to resolve the tariff crisis. That crisis has only gotten worse.
The Conservatives' response to our motion is that they do not support the Bloc Québécois's proposed temporary measures. They think the only response to this situation is to come to some agreement with the Americans, but, over the past year, this government proven itself incapable of doing that.
That being the case, should we not proceed with the Bloc's proposed measures to protect our jobs, our workers and our industries, at least until there is an agreement? I think the Conservative Party has an opportunity to support this approach now.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, from my perspective, we must put politics aside and do what is in the best interest of all Canadians. We have to recognize that we cannot do this alone, without the U.S. We have to recognize that we will not replace 75% of trade with only diversification. There is a lot of work to be done, but the urgency from the government on this is lacking and patience is wearing thin.
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?
Mr. Speaker, Alto cannot proceed. I am dead against it. It is $90 billion, and that is just a fraction of the cost that we are looking at.
Individuals, businesses, farms and communities across our riding of Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga are being threatened with loss of income. Their homes are being uprooted. This is the situation across the board. Expropriation is worrisome, and with the idea that Alto is going to be the grand fix when the situation across our country is dire, this is a tough and strange question from the government.
Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that a far more common-sense alternative to using up steel in Canada would be to have Via Rail acquire its own dedicated line, the Prime Minister's rupture, which he wants to be permanent, with the United States has come with his suggestion that we do more business with Europe.
Could the member explain to me how much steel Europe and our new strategic partner, China, might take from us instead?
Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize trade diversification is important. It always has been. In fact, the years between 2002 and 2009 were the key years with highlights on diversification. Going back to this presumption of the importance of trade diversification now is going back to what has always been done. Countries such as Brazil, Indonesia and China need what we make, so diversification with other countries is not the only option. It does not have to be an either-or, but we must always maintain that trading relationship with the United States.
[Translation]
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.
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?
Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that we support the idea of diversifying export markets for Canadian and Quebec businesses. This was already happening under the father of the previous prime minister, who wanted to diversify Canada's markets.
Now, let us not deceive ourselves. If we sign a trade agreement with a country that accounts for less than half of 1% of our exports and we say we are going to double that amount, it will be just 1%. If we already have a free trade agreement with Europe and even that agreement does not have a significant short-term impact on the percentage of our non-U.S. exports, we have another kind of problem.
I disagree with the word “dependence”. We are not dependent on the American economy. We are on the same land mass. There is no ocean or mountain range from one side of the border to the other. Since there is no physical border, the U.S. and Canadian economies are deeply integrated, and we need to move in that direction.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister calls himself a master negotiator, but he has only managed to flip-flop his position on the U.S. like a magician, distracting with illusions while nothing actually happens. Last year he said “elbows up” to Washington. Then, months later, he put his elbows down and said “who cares?” about talks with the U.S.
We can fast-forward to this year. The Liberal Prime Minister said U.S. integration is subordination. A quick few months later he changed course and said that we are “stronger together” with the U.S.
Canadians are confused. Here is the reality. Steel tariffs have doubled. Lumber tariffs have tripled. The manufacturing tariffs are hitting our workers here at home. After all the Liberal rhetoric and illusions, there is still no trade deal after more than a year. There is still no timeline and still no plan.
At what point will the Liberals stop blaming—
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I think I understand the question. I believe it would be unwise to suggest that the Prime Minister of Canada is to blame for the behaviour, attitude and vagaries of the President of the United States, to say nothing of his absence of mind. We are, all of us, victims of that.
Nevertheless, the first thing the government needs to do is recognize the scale of the challenge, assess the extent of our economic ties to U.S. companies and, perhaps, act in accordance with what it has been saying for the past year. That is not what it has done.
It seems strange to speak out against empires two days after reaching an agreement with China. After all, provocation serves no one. This could all have been handled differently.
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.
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.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague, the hon. leader of the Bloc Québécois.
My question is simple. There is only one product everywhere in Canada that is protected in a strategic reserve: maple syrup, of course. In my opinion, it might be a good idea to have a strategic reserve for our forestry products or for the others we share. I would like to hear the Bloc Québécois's policies on the idea of having strategic reserves for our natural resources here in Canada.
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.
[English]
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.
[Translation]
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.
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?
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.
[English]
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.
[Translation]
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?
[English]
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.
Mr. Speaker, 2.6 million Canadian jobs depend on getting those tariffs resolved, and a year in, there is still no deal, no timeline and no negotiation. The Prime Minister cannot even decide if our relationship with the U.S. is broken or stronger than ever.
When will the government stop the mixed messages and start real negotiations to remove these tariffs?
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—
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.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague and friend from Winnipeg South Centre is inspirational in regard to leadership on economic matters and he is able to encapsulate something really important. We are talking about the Business Development Bank of Canada, along with our regional development agencies. I believe the total is about $1.5 billion. Using those funds and supports shows, in a very tangible way, that the government is there to support, where we can, those vulnerable industries. Obviously, we are talking about the steel, copper and aluminum industries, and we will continue to be there for them. It is the right thing to do for the businesses. It is the right thing to do for the workers.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I think the government has clearly demonstrated an interest in supporting the workers. That is one of the reasons why we developed the work-sharing program.
With respect to other ways we can support workers, I am sure the department has been looking at whatever options might be there. I do not have the details with me right now, but I am sure they would be viable and ultimately assist the industry.
I would remind the member that I believe there is a work-sharing program. I do not know the exact design of it.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to focus a bit here on the forestry industry, which is not talked about a lot. Obviously, we have lost thousands of jobs in that sector.
The government talked about expanding opportunities in trade as something we definitely need to do. The Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay riding that I represent has six border crossings we depend on and have used historically for trade with the United States. With respect to the industries that are dependent on that cross-border trade, like the forest industry, what does the member think about the very little time spent in negotiations for this sector?
Mr. Speaker, it is one of the reasons why this whole buy Canada program is absolutely essential and would benefit our lumber industry as a whole. When I think of our lumber industry, most people do not realize the magnitude of it, not only the direct jobs but the many indirect jobs and how we put that all together, everything from the person cutting down a tree to the person planting a tree, all the way to those individuals who are manufacturing products and building components whether for a house or a couch. That industry is absolutely vital. It is one of the reasons I would amplify the importance of things like major projects, programs that promote modular homes and build Canada Homes. They are the types of programs that make a difference and will be there hopefully to protect our—
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with me.
I would say that one of the strengths of our government's strategy is that we are truly presenting a comprehensive plan. We are helping businesses that have immediate needs. We are diversifying our markets abroad. We are building a stronger domestic market, particularly through strategic infrastructure investments and our “buy Canadian” policy.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this strategy. Does he agree with me that one of its strengths is its coherence and the fact that it includes multiple components—both short-term measures for businesses that need help right now and long-term measures to strengthen our economy?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is truly a holistic approach with respect to dealing with Canada's economy and our very social fabric. If we continue to move forward, as we have been, at the end of the day I believe we will be able to continue to say that Canada is the best country in the world to call home.
[Translation]
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.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. As I listen to him and read the motion, I see our government's overall direction and the comprehensive approach we have taken on economic issues, from diversifying our international partnerships and providing immediate relief measures, such as the funds we just announced this week, to strengthening the domestic market and boosting demand.
Would my colleague from the Bloc Québécois agree that the spirit of the motion, particularly where it refers to helping businesses, is somewhat in line with the approach our government has been taking over the past year? That is what I gather from listening to him.
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.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister touts himself as the master negotiator, yet he flip-flops on his position on U.S. trade like a magician distracting with illusions while nothing actually happens. Last year, the Prime Minister said “elbows up” to Washington. Months later, he put his elbows down and said, “Who cares?” about the talks. Fast-forward to this year, and the Liberal Prime Minister said that U.S. integration is subordination. A quick few months later he changed course and said that we are stronger together with the U.S.
Here is the reality: Steel tariffs have doubled, lumber tariffs have tripled and manufacturing tariffs are hitting our workers here at home, yet after all the Liberal rhetoric and illusions, there is still no trade deal after more than a year. There is still no timeline and no plan.
At what point will the Liberals stop blaming tariffs for Canada's economic decline and start admitting that it is their failure to get a deal done and to reduce even a single tariff that is sending Canadians to food banks by the millions?
[Translation]
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.
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?
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.
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 notes the member is using are stapled together, I believe. When she turns the pages, they hit the microphone. It is causing problems for the interpreters, because it makes a very loud noise.
I invite the member for Shefford to continue while taking care to avoid that.
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.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my opening comments on the opposition motion, I actually do appreciate the debate that is happening today with regard to such a very important issue.
All government members are very much concerned about the tariff issue. I would not want those who might be following the debate to be under the impression that the government has not been taking actions to date. Since the last election, a year ago, we have had a very aggressive and proactive Prime Minister and government looking at ways in which we can support those vulnerable industries.
What happened on April 6 is not a good thing. We all agree on that. I think this aspect would be unanimously supported. We will continue to support our workers and our small businesses. It is more so—
[Translation]
I must interrupt the parliamentary secretary to give the member a chance to reply.
The hon. member for Shefford.
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.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, while Mexico is already at the negotiating table with the United States, Canada has not held serious negotiations for months now.
The Liberal Prime Minister likes to tout himself as a serious person, but Canadians are starting to see that there is nothing serious about his approach on trade with the U.S. First, he says our relationship with the U.S. is ruptured and then it is a mutual success. He twists into a pretzel and says our historical ties with the U.S. have been a vulnerability, but now we are “stronger together” with the U.S.
Behind all of the illusions and Liberal rhetoric, the reality is that 2.6 million Canadian jobs depend on resolving these tariffs. That means millions of paycheques, mortgages and rent payments and millions of families putting food on the table.
Why do you think the Liberal Prime Minister has allowed Canada to be sidelined and allowed Canadians to fall further behind while other countries move ahead?
Before I recognize the member, I want to remind members to speak through the Chair when using “you” and not to speak directly to members.
The hon. member for Shefford.
[Translation]
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.
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?
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.
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga—Lakeshore.
Today's motion concerns measures to support the manufacturing sector in the face of unjustified and illegal tariffs. The United States, the world's largest economy, is fundamentally reshaping its trade relations with the rest of the world. This rapid transformation is causing significant disruption and major upheaval for Canada, as well as for many other countries, and for our industries, our workers and our communities.
Faced with this reality, Canada has demonstrated that it is serious, committed, and ready to take action. We have approached negotiations with the United States with rigour and in good faith. However, let us be clear. While we wait for our American partners to be ready to engage in serious and constructive discussions, we are not sitting idly by. On the contrary, we are taking action. We are focusing on what we can control and on building Canada strong.
We have already announced a comprehensive tariff response plan to help Canadian businesses adapt, compete and grow in a new global environment. This includes support to help businesses retool and reinvest, measures to increase domestic demand for Canadian products, and actions to strengthen Canada's long-term economic resilience by building a stronger domestic market and diversifying trade abroad. We are taking a truly comprehensive approach to strengthen the Canadian economy and make it more resilient.
Of course, our government took immediate action to support and strengthen the strategic industries that are at the heart of our prosperity and that are particularly affected by these tariffs. These include steel, aluminum, copper and softwood lumber, critical sectors that help build our country, drive our exports and create thousands of high-quality jobs.
Behind these industries are skilled workers, families and entire communities that depend on a sector to live and prosper. That is why we have put in place concrete measures to support workers and businesses affected by the unjustified tariffs, while continuing our efforts to get the tariffs lifted.
We recently created a new $1‑billion Business Development Bank of Canada program to provide support and funding for businesses in our steel, aluminum and copper industries to help them address immediate pressures and transform their operations.
We are also allocating an additional $500 million to Canada's regional development agencies, as part of the regional tariff response initiative, to ensure that this support reaches every corner of our country. This will considerably strengthen our existing tariff response, which includes maintaining countertariffs on U.S. steel and aluminum, reducing freight rates for Canadian steel, adjusting tariff quotas to fight dumping, implementing a buy Canadian procurement policy so that new national infrastructure is built with Canadian steel and aluminum, and making diversification tools available to businesses through the $5-billion strategic response fund.
I would like to give a specific example of how this support is felt on the ground.
Through the regional tariff response initiative, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency administers $80 million to support small and medium-sized businesses. This funding enables businesses to modernize their operations, strengthen their supply chains and explore new markets.
In March, in my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, I announced the very first investment made through this tariff response initiative in Atlantic Canada. Max Steel, founded in 1987 and located in Clair, in the Madawaska region, is hailed as a regional leader in the design, fabrication, welding, and laser cutting of steel structures. I had the pleasure to announce, on behalf of the Government of Canada, a $750,000 contribution to support this local business. This investment will allow Max Steel to acquire specialized equipment such as a CNC structural steel beam production line and welding robots.
This major project will strengthen the value chain for my region's steel industry while integrating modern technologies that improve efficiency and encourage innovation. As Max Steel's chief executive officer said when the announcement was made, this support from the Government of Canada comes at a strategic time and will help the company accelerate its modernization, improve its productivity, and strengthen its competitiveness in the face of current business challenges, while also creating and maintaining skilled jobs in New Brunswick, including in the Madawaska region.
This initiative is the perfect example of what we want to accomplish: giving our businesses, including in rural areas, the tools they need to succeed in the current context of instability.
Building Canada strong also means building regions strong, and this means supporting our local businesses. I want to emphasize that point. Our rural regions are not on the margins; they are an essential pillar of our country and of our economy. As a member of Parliament, I am always pleased to announce investments that support local businesses and support good-quality jobs in my region.
In addition to our efforts to support businesses, we are also actively working to strengthen Canada's economy by diversifying and strengthening our trade partnerships around the world. That is why our government is implementing the most ambitious trade diversification strategy in a generation.
Canada has everything the world needs: abundant natural resources, a skilled workforce, and recognized expertise across a range of leading-edge sectors. We must capitalize on these strengths. We are therefore entering into mutually beneficial trade agreements with reliable partners across the globe.
In just 11 months, Canada has concluded 20 new economic and security agreements across four continents, and the results are already visible. In 2025, Canadian exports of goods and services to markets other than the United States increased by $33 billion over the previous year. This is just the beginning, because we will continue working to open new markets in order to expand opportunities for our businesses and our workers.
I want to give a concrete example of the benefits of our efforts to diversify our economy. In February, our government led a successful trade mission to Mexico, and we will soon be hosting a Mexican economic mission to Canada. These exchanges are not just symbolic. They produce tangible results. Recently, for example, Canada and Mexico agreed on new provisions allowing Canadian potatoes to be exported to the Mexican market for both processing and consumption. The potato industry plays a major role in the Canadian economy and in the economy of my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche. Potatoes are the fifth most important crop in Canada, contributing approximately $2.1 billion in farm cash receipts in 2024.
Our agreement with Mexico will give this industry access to a market of over 130 million consumers. From discussions I have had with farmers in Grand Falls, who are very excited about the idea of developing new markets, I know that this news was very well received back home. For our farmers and processors, this agreement represents a concrete opportunity to export their products to Mexico.
In addition to our efforts to provide immediate assistance to the businesses that need it most and to diversify our markets abroad, we have been working hard since day one to strengthen our domestic market. In June, we passed Bill C‑5, the One Canadian Economy Act, which removed federal barriers to domestic trade and labour mobility. Since then, the provinces and territories have also worked toward eliminating trade barriers, and we look forward to the provinces' and territories' next steps.
The buy Canadian policy makes it easier for small and medium-sized businesses to sell their products to the federal government and strengthens our supply chains. We value leading by example and being our own best customer to stimulate domestic demand.
We are also making major investments in building our country. That includes historic investments in housing and infrastructure that are part of an overall strategy to increase demand for Canadian products and an important tool to strengthen our economy and support our businesses.
In my riding, for example, softwood lumber is a mainstay of our economy. History shows that Canada was literally built by our forests and forestry workers. Today, we want to continue building our country with our softwood lumber, our steel and our aluminum. The willingness to buy Canadian is central to our strategy of becoming our own best customer and boosting domestic demand.
In closing, I would like to remind members that the challenges ahead are real, but that our government is determined to take action. Canada has a history of resilience, innovation and determination. By investing in our industries, workers and regions, we are not just responding to present-day challenges; we are building a future where our economy is stronger, more diversified and more independent, a future where Canada continues to stand out on the world stage.
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?
Mr. Speaker, I think that is why it is important to have a comprehensive strategy with short-term actions, including the assistance measures that were recently announced in the form of loans and various types of subsidies to help the businesses most affected by the tariffs. There are also medium- and long-term measures.
Strengthening the Canadian market means investments in our infrastructure and the buy Canadian policy that we are currently implementing. It also means diversifying our markets internationally.
We are also providing support through various programs to SMEs that want to explore new markets. That includes a range of measures that will have an impact in the short term to help the businesses most affected by the tariffs, but also to help strengthen these businesses in the long term and, ultimately, to strengthen the Canadian economy.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing Liberal rhetoric all day long about building major projects, but the Liberal Prime Minister likes to talk about Canada as an “energy superpower.” The reality is that the Liberals' own anti-development laws have been blocking our ability to build a pipeline to move our own resources to market. Meanwhile, the United States is approving energy infrastructure at record speeds on its terms, not ours.
Behind the Liberal illusions, the Enbridge CEO said, “the conditions don't yet exist for that pipeline to be built.” The CEO of TC Energy said, “capital goes where it is welcome. And for too long, it hasn't felt welcome here” with the Liberals. After a full year of their being in office, not a single major project has been approved by the Liberals' $246-million Major Projects Office.
How does the Liberal Prime Minister expect to negotiate lower tariffs or a better trade deal with the Americans when he refuses to build the very infrastructure that would give Canada unbreakable leverage abroad in the first place?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that, over the past year, we have announced a series of measures to support the development of major projects of national interest in Canada. I am thinking in particular of the offshore wind project off the coast of Nova Scotia and a whole range of other major projects. We have also announced a suite of targeted measures to support our businesses and various sectors affected by the tariffs.
I would like to point out that, on several occasions, our colleagues in the official opposition have had the opportunity to vote in favour of measures to support our businesses and workers, but that, on almost every occasion, they have opposed them. For our part, we are truly focused on strengthening the Canadian economy and delivering on our promises through major projects of national interest, while standing by our businesses and workers, something that does not seem to be the case for the opposition.
Mr. Speaker, Les Pays-d'en-Haut has about 1,000 lakes. My riding is home to a great business called Multinautic that manufactures aluminum docks. It was able to take advantage of a tariff response grant. The company's employees are very happy because they export a large part of their production to the United States.
I would like my colleague to explain how tariff response strategies work for small and medium-sized businesses.
Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I mentioned the importance of concrete examples. When we announce an additional $500 million through the tariff response initiative, for example, what does that mean for small and medium-sized businesses in our regions?
It means support for businesses in Les Pays-d'en-Haut. It also means support for businesses like Max Steel in Madawaska—Restigouche to modernize, adapt, retool and deal with the current challenges. In and of itself, I believe that this support is about more than just numbers to be debated in the House. It is about concrete assistance that makes a difference for our businesses, helps create and maintain good jobs in our regions and rural areas, and opens up new opportunities for these businesses to continue to prosper.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, these are challenging times. The global market and trade landscape has shifted rapidly, over the last year especially. This includes, of course, the imposition of tariffs.
I want to speak today about the opposition day motion, item (c) specifically, which states, “express concern that this new trade environment will have irreparable effects on our manufacturing sector and the jobs that depend on it”. My colleagues have spoken at length about the economic impact of the tremendous work that the government is doing to try to transform the economy, protect our sovereignty and bolster economic growth, but today I want to speak specifically about labour.
Tariffs have had a broad impact on Canada's labour market. It has been rightly stated that they have hit the steel, automotive and softwood lumber sectors the hardest. They are creating stress for workers, employers and communities right across the country. My city of Mississauga and the surrounding GTA, especially Steeltown, Hamilton, have been rocked by tariffs, but the people of Steeltown are fighters. They are strong, and the Canadian government is fighting alongside them.
In the midst of this, the member from Joliette—Manawan wants us to step back and condemn the imposition of American tariffs. He wants us to express our concern about the effects they will have on our jobs and our manufacturing sector. I get it. I understand, but I can assure the member opposite that we are well beyond polite expressions of outrage. Instead, we are meeting today's challenges with disciplined focus on building a stronger, more resilient economy. That is enough with the belly aching. It is time to take action, and we are. We are doing so co-operatively with stakeholders, industry and labour. That is how we will mitigate the impact of the tariffs.
A year ago, the Prime Minister was elected with a vision to build Canada strong together. Since that time, we have been relentlessly focused on protecting our sovereignty and our capacity to grow. We are not backing down from tariffs. We are standing up for workers to make sure they have the support they need to succeed. As we build Canadian and as we buy Canadian, we are giving every worker the tools they need to succeed in a changing economy. That is what investing in people means. It is about building the foundation for long-term economic strength.
The Prime Minister has said numerous times that as we cope with economic uncertainty, our most powerful recourse and our most powerful tool is to control what is within our power to control. In other words, we should take the bull by the horns. How do we do this? How do we mitigate the impact of these uncertain times to build a stronger, more inclusive economy? We invest in Canada. We invest in infrastructure, the defence industrial strategy and major projects, and we invest in Canadians, in people.
First are the skilled trades and apprenticeships. The government knows how vital tradespeople are. They build our homes, keep our cities running and take care of infrastructure we rely on. A strong skilled trades workforce builds Canada. It builds us strong. Canada needs more skilled trades to build the nation-building projects, the affordable homes, the new defence industries and stronger infrastructure. To meet this, team Canada Strong will recruit, train and hire up to 100,000 new Red Seal trade workers in the next five years. It is an ambitious agenda, one that will generate good-paying jobs now and into the future.
Step one of that plan is recruitment. Team Canada strong will provide young people with a clear path to learn and enter the trades, and to link up with employers. Young people will start in registered apprenticeships, earning income, gaining experience and contributing immediately to those major projects.
The second phase is training. We are boosting modernizing the apprenticeship training to expedite the Red Seal certification with $331 million in funding over five years, starting in 2026-27. We will also expand union training and innovation programs to enable union-run training centres to upgrade facilities and invest in modern equipment.
The final stage is hiring. Once certified in a Red Seal trade, tradespersons can receive up to $5,000 as a completion bonus. Income supports will also be available for those who are between the periods of training and work.
Training for the trades can take a long time, and sometimes income stability is a concern during the completion of those years, so we are going to make sure that apprentices get the financial support they need, starting now. We recently announced $75 million over three years, starting in 2026-27, to double the union training and innovation program, which supports union-based apprenticeship training. This is part of our current investment of nearly $1 billion a year to support the Red Seal program through tax credits and EI benefits and the project funding of unions, other tradespeople and stakeholders.
Next, I want to talk about why the Government of Canada is creating workforce alliances to help Canadian workers weather the tariff storm. Our government is committed to protecting and supporting workers in this period of uncertainty by creating one labour market. Existing workforce development approaches are fragmented and not well coordinated. There is a need for greater cohesion.
As part of a broader tariff package announced by the Prime Minister on September 5, and echoed in our budget of 2025, we are investing in modern measures to protect, build and transform Canada's workforce in these strategic industries. New investments include workforce alliances to tackle urgent labour market challenges in six priority areas: housing and construction, transportation and supply chains, advanced manufacturing, the care economy, mining and minerals, and energy and electricity. Our workforce alliances are unified by one core mission, which is to create lasting job opportunities for Canada's workers where they are needed most. Canada's workforce is the strongest when employers, unions and training partners work together. Together, they will keep Canada's workforce strategy grounded in the real needs of the country.
All this investment is essential. Canadian industry is the backbone of our country's economy. Every sector matters. That starts with steel, Canadian aluminum and Canadian lumber. Supporting these industries is about reinforcing our made-in-Canada industrial capacity, protecting good jobs and strengthening our communities.
Big things are getting built. What is going to strengthen our economy for generations to come is having them built. We set up the Major Projects Office. Fifteen projects have been referred, which will support 60,000 jobs across the country, from the Crawford nickel mine in Timmins, the Darlington nuclear plant in Ontario and the terminal container project in Montreal to the Grays Bay road and port project in Nunavut and the LNG project in B.C. That is just to name a few.
The work we are doing is focused on one thing: building a strong economy that supports great-paying jobs. This is the backbone of the build Canada strong agenda.
Canada's labour market is indeed experiencing unprecedented pressures from tariffs, skill shortages, supply chain disruptions and broader economic shifts. Our focus is on building the strongest economy in the G7, and we are holding our own despite the headwinds. Our economy is growing twice as fast as Germany's and three times as fast as Italy's. It does not feel that way sometimes in communities like Steeltown, but we are going to get there. We are going to make sure that no one is left behind.
Without skilled workers, we cannot meet the moment. Canada's independence and prosperity depend on the workers who build them. That is why, in March of this year, we announced $228 million for Ontario under the workforce tariff response. It is to support the people who are affected in the hardest-hit sectors to help adjust, especially to the new opportunities.
It has never been more important for a government to invest in people. It is all about investing. It is all about people. It is all about Canadians.
Workforce development is the cornerstone of economic strength. To meet the challenge of this moment, we are equipping workers with greater tools to strengthen Canada. To this end, in 2025, we introduced—
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I fully understand the government's plan to diversify the economy and stimulate growth in various sectors. Towards the end of his speech, my colleague said, “We are going to make sure that no one is left behind.”
What worries us is that many small and medium-sized businesses in Quebec, Ontario and elsewhere are being hit hard by the new 25% tariffs on the value of goods that were exported to the United States. By the time these businesses can get back on their feet by securing contracts in the domestic market, for example, they will be short of cash, their order books will be empty, and they may even be forced to shut down. What they came to tell the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology is that they need help, but that it cannot take the form of a loan, as they are already heavily in debt.
I get the impression that the government does not grasp the current sense of urgency. Furthermore, in Ontario, there are, for example, mould makers—
I must interrupt the hon. member to give the hon. member for Mississauga—Lakeshore a chance to reply.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, just yesterday, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of AI announced $1.5 billion. This is the quote from workers at the United Steelworkers: “Today’s announcement is a positive step for companies facing serious pressure from the ongoing U.S. trade war. It matters to workers because these businesses support good jobs across Canada’s industrial supply chain.”
Canada is stepping up to support them now.
Mr. Speaker, we are losing jobs in our country. We have lost hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs under the Liberal government. In the London region, which is close to Oxford county, we have had the highest number of manufacturing job losses. We have lost over 5,000 auto sector jobs, all under the Liberals' watch and their reckless policies.
The member listed off a lot of the programs and investments they have made, but these have actually led to the opposite effect. We have lost jobs, and we have the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7.
Can the member tell us, other than handouts, what have people really gotten back from the so-called programs the Liberals keep announcing?
Mr. Speaker, I disagree on a couple of issues, primarily the lack of government supports and interventions. I believe they are going to be immediate and sustainable supports. In fact, in the year that has passed, there have been the initiatives of the government through major projects, the defence industrial strategy, the workmen and apprenticeship programs and the supports for those who are affected by the tariffs. These are the supports the government is providing as a bridge to get through it. The greatest ability is economic growth, and we are outpacing most of the G7 to create those jobs and protect Canada's sovereignty.
That is going to play well and will support Canada's strength.
Mr. Speaker, I have the chance to sit on the defence committee with my hon. colleague. He is our chair, and he is a wonderful chair.
We have been doing historic investments in defence. One of them is the $1.5 billion we announced for L3Harris in Mirabel. I would like to hear the member's comments about how defence investment helps counterbalance tariffs.
Mr. Speaker, the member is with me on the defence committee, and he does an extraordinary job.
The extraordinary job of the government is highlighted in a particular instance of the defence industrial strategy, which is the extraction of the critical minerals that we can then deploy to make greater services. This is from New Economy Canada: “With North America...we are moving beyond extraction and turning our natural resources into the advanced materials that power EVs, defence technologies, and the next generation of innovation. This is about building a stronger economy by doing more of the work here at home.”
Creating jobs, building and selling at home and leveraging the strength of Canada will propel us ahead.
[Translation]
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?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I support anyone in the House who supports Canada. Anyone in the House that wants to propel Canada to provide its strength and defend our sovereignty will have my support. I support the motion in its context because that is about providing support for Canada and Canadians.
[Translation]
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.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech. It was a very fine speech. If I were in his shoes, I too would be angry and asking questions. This morning, I listened to the leader of the Bloc Québécois. I know that the Bloc is critical of U.S. tariffs on Quebec's economy, and rightly so, but our government has already gotten to work. I would remind my colleague that a bad deal is worse than no deal at all.
In this context, does the Bloc Québécois also see the importance of reducing this trade dependency? Do they recognize the needs of Quebec's SMEs to access new international markets?
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.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member from the Bloc for his excellent speech. This bill is about supporting the manufacturing sector. In London—Fanshawe, the manufacturing sector has brought up concerns to me regarding the tariffs. The Liberal government keeps delaying when the so-called negotiations by the Prime Minister will be finalized, the ones dealing with these tariffs between Canada and the U.S.
Does the member from the Bloc agree that the Prime Minister should tell Canadians the specific date when these negotiations will be finalized?
[Translation]
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.
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?
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.
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.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, to be very clear, the government, and particularly the Prime Minister, has been listening very closely. We have been working collaboratively with different unions, businesses and workers in general, understanding the issues surrounding the tariffed industries that are being so profoundly affected, whether steel, copper or aluminum and others. The lumber industry is another area of concern. We have been putting in supports and working with people to protect industries and assure the workers and the families of workers that the government has their backs. These are industries that we will continue to protect. We brought in a holistic approach in a suite of policies to build Canada strong for all Canadians in all regions.
I would not want the member to give the false impression that the government has not been doing anything, because nothing could be further from the truth.
Would the member not recognize—
[Translation]
I have to interrupt the member to give the member for Côte‑Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan a chance to respond.
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.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Bloc colleague for putting this very important motion forward today.
Maybe my colleague could speak about how this government has completely forgotten forestry workers and the forestry sector, and how unfair it has been, in terms of government support for sectors that are struggling due to the harm and damage that Donald Trump's tariffs are causing Canadian workers in industry sectors, and forestry workers in particular.
We heard from the premier of British Columbia just yesterday. He spoke about how the forestry workers in B.C. have not been fairly treated compared to other sectors. We believe that those other sectors should be supported. I also know many forestry workers in Quebec are suffering.
I hope my colleague can share her perspective.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, all the credit goes to my colleague from Jonquière, who looked through the economic update. The words “forest” and “forestry” only appear four times, while oil and gas are mentioned some 150 times. It might be anecdotal, but it is indicative of the government's interest, or lack thereof, for the forestry sector.
What the government is really proposing is retraining. It is offering retraining programs for workers. That is sending a scary message. The government is telling workers that it is turning its back on them even though the economy is strong and it is doing all these great things. If they lose their jobs, all they have to do is retrain and find something else, because the government does absolutely nothing to support the forestry sector. That is what I am reading between the lines.
There is a lot of noise in the House. I want to let the people in the hallways know that the House is in session. I would ask the people in the lobbies to help me out and make sure that the noise levels are kept to a minimum during House proceedings.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Joliette—Manawan.
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.
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.
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Community Service
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour Eva Hilborn, who is in her 100th year and whose life has been defined by service and an unwavering commitment to nurturing a love of learning in children. Born on a Manitoba farm in 1926, Eva began teaching at just 17 years old and went on to shape generations of students across British Columbia. In Port Alberni, she helped build early childhood education programs from the ground up, understanding that a strong start in life begins with books, curiosity and confidence.
Known to first nations families as “the book lady”, Eva has spent decades putting books into the hands of children and supporting education for young women. Her legacy will live in every child inspired to read and dream.
I thank Eva for the lasting impact she has made on generations of children and for a century of inspiring leadership and generosity of spirit.
Justice
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-16, the protecting victims act. The bill would give our justice system the tools to act before violence escalates and before it is too late.
Women are being hurt, controlled and isolated, most often by the very people they should feel the safest with. In Peel Region alone, police respond to roughly 16,000 incidents of family and intimate partner violence every year. That is 16,000 calls for help and 16,000 moments of fear.
Those are only the ones we hear about. Behind closed doors, in silence, there are countless more. Sometimes, that silence ends in tragedy. We call it femicide. Bill C-16 says clearly that this must stop. It recognizes femicide as first-degree murder and it acknowledges that abuse is not only physical. It is coercion, control and fear.
The need is urgent. I urge every member of the House to stand with victims, to stand for justice and to support Bill C-16.
Liberation of the Netherlands
Mr. Speaker, 81 years ago today, on May 5, 1945, Canadian Forces finally secured the liberation of the Netherlands from Nazi occupation. It marked the end of a hard-fought campaign that began on D-Day in northern France, continued through a bitterly cold winter and brutal fighting along the Scheldt River, and concluded with the liberation of Arnhem and surrounding towns and cities.
Victory came at the high cost of the lives of 7,600 Canadian soldiers. From that sacrifice emerged a deep and enduring friendship between Canada and the Netherlands. It led to a wave of Dutch immigration to Canada after the war, including my own parents, and it continues to be honoured on both sides of the Atlantic. Earlier today, we reflected that legacy with a simple yet elegant flag-raising ceremony here in Ottawa, celebrating the lasting bond between two freedom-loving democratic nations. May the friendship endure.
Justice
Mr. Speaker, I rise today again, and as well, to support Bill C-16, the protecting victims act.
The bill is grounded in a simple but powerful principle: that abuse and harassment are not acceptable, no matter whom they target, and we are not going to normalize that any longer. Bill C-16 puts the safety and dignity of victims first, especially women, children and survivors, by modernizing the Criminal Code to address coercive control and online exploitation.
Violence and harassment seldom start with a single act. They emerge through patterns of intimidation. I have experienced personally, as have many of my colleagues, deliberate middle-of-the-night calls meant to intimidate, using a number shared widely by email with incitement to harass. That is not civic engagement.
Bill C-16 recognizes those patterns and gives our justice system the tools to intervene earlier and to act. It also strengthens victims' rights and helps ensure that serious cases are not lost to delay. Bill C-16 helps ensure that safety—
[Translation]
Youth in Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier
Mr. Speaker, as the end of the school year approaches, I am delighted to address all the graduates in my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.
I offer my heartfelt congratulations to each and every one of them. Their tenacity and determination have helped them reach this important milestone. The future belongs to them, and I hope it will be a happy and promising one.
A responsible government must keep our country's spending in check and reduce the deficit so that our young people can feel secure. I assure them of my commitment, as part of the official opposition, to work every day on behalf of our youth.
On a personal note, I would also like to add that I am now a proud grandfather. I have had the immense joy of welcoming little Éloïse into the family; she is the apple of her parents' and her grandfather's eyes. As the parent of two young adults, Charles-Antoine and Ann-Frédérique, who are just as much a source of pride to me as my little Éloïse, I hope that we can help our young people feel secure once again. Let us believe in their abilities. They have a right to their dreams.
National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls
Mr. Speaker, getting into politics means choosing to serve and advance our democracy. Personal attacks, intimidation and hatred have no place in our institutions or our society.
It is up to every one of us to foster an environment in which all people can contribute to public discourse with dignity and kindness. As we mark the National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, we must continue to promote a society based on listening, respect and safety for all.
As chair of the women's caucus, I also want to emphasize women's significant contribution to public and political life in our country and our support for Bill C‑16. A strong democracy is one in which everyone is encouraged to participate and get involved.
[English]
Air Force Day on the Hill
Mr. Speaker, I went to Moose Jaw the way a lot of people do, through the Royal Canadian Air Force, and I decided to plant my roots and build my life in that community. The men and women I served alongside understood something fundamental: Discipline, sacrifice and excellence are not words on a page, but daily choices.
Today, we welcome the Royal Canadian Air Force to Parliament Hill for Air Force Day on the Hill.
I think of the instructors, technicians, aircrews, medics and support personnel at 15 Wing who keep our proud nation alive. NATO allies have sent their pilots there because Canada's training standard is considered the best in the world. Our air force is one of Canada's most vital national institutions, and the people who serve in it are among the best this country has to offer.
To everyone serving, past and present, we see them and we are grateful. Per ardua ad astra.
Red Dress Day
Mr. Speaker, today on Red Dress Day, we honour the memory of missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people.
[Translation]
Across the country, and especially in Manitoba, this tragedy continues to affect families, communities, and entire generations. Every red dress represents a life, a story, and a profound loss.
[English]
Last fall, I had the honour of attending the announcement of the Manitoba red dress alert pilot project, led by the group Giganawenimaanaanig, which means “we all take care of them”. This important initiative reflects the commitment of communities to raising awareness, commemorating and advancing justice.
While this work is essential, much work remains. We must continue working in partnership with indigenous communities to end this national crisis and ensure the safety of indigenous women and girls.
Today, we remember, we listen and we act.
[Translation]
100th Anniversary of Rouyn‑Noranda
Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is nothing more than a tall tale that started in Rouyn, but in the early part of the last century, two Anishinabe hunters, the Mackimoot brothers, returned to their community with a glittering stone from Conia Asini.
Then, a prospector from Nova Scotia, Edmund Horne, took his canoe to the township of Rouyn. Once there, potentially as a result of contact with the Anishinabe, he discovered a huge copper deposit.
Shortly thereafter buildings began to spring up, including Jos Dumulon's famous general store, the Osisko Hotel, the Horne mine and smelter, and the house that belonged to my great-grandfather Eugène Lemire.
On May 5, exactly 100 years ago today, Rouyn became a town, a few weeks after Norcanda, which is what we would still be calling it today had it not been for a distracted printer. Rouyn-Noranda is the copper capital and self-proclaimed cultural capital of Quebec. It is also the capital of endless possibilities.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the incredible journey of our hockey team, the Huskies, who truly reflect who we are: often overlooked but hard-working, proud people with heart and soul who never give up.
I would like to welcome everyone to join us in the celebrations.
Kelly Morrisseau
Mr. Speaker, Kelly Morrisseau was murdered 20 years ago this year. This young indigenous woman, who was seven months pregnant, was found at the entrance to Gatineau Park, less than seven kilometres from Parliament. Twenty years later, her killer remains unknown.
There are thousands of Kelly Morrisseaus, young girls and women who have gone missing or been murdered. We have a duty to remember them. Today, on Red Dress Day, let us honour the memory of the women, girls and other people who have been murdered, as well as those who have gone missing, whose families have never been able to find them.
We know that indigenous women are overrepresented among victims of femicide, domestic violence and vulnerable living conditions, and yet the 231 calls for justice from the national inquiry still have not been addressed by the federal government. We know this is happening right under our noses, just like the murder of Kelly Morrisseau 20 years ago, less than seven kilometres from Parliament.
Let us remember and let us take action.
[English]
Justice
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-16, because safety in Canada is not a privilege, but a fundamental right.
Intimate partner violence isolates people in fear and in silence. It erodes dignity and weakens communities, and it calls on every single one of us to respond with clarity and resolve.
We are also seeing a rise in harassment, including online. Too many people are experiencing it, especially women.
Each of us deserves to feel safe at home, at work and in public life. Bill C-16 would move us forward. It would reinforce something fundamental, which is that in Canada, safety, dignity and respect must be upheld for everyone.
Gas Prices
Mr. Speaker, despite the illusions from the Liberal Prime Minister, it is more cost, more carbon taxes and more of the same. He is just another Liberal.
The Liberals claim that the price of gas is skyrocketing because oil is $100 a barrel. However, the last time oil was $100 a barrel was under our Conservative government in 2014, and gas was only $1.38 a litre then. The same $100 barrel under the Conservatives was 45¢ cheaper. The difference is that Canadians were not being forced to pay high Liberal gas taxes. On top of the newly renamed carbon tax, the Liberals are charging GST on the cost of gas and on the cost of their gas taxes.
Is the Prime Minister putting government revenues from gas taxes ahead of struggling Canadians, or is making gas and diesel unaffordable just good business for a government that pushes an out-of-touch EV mandate?
The Liberals should take our common-sense plan to remove all of the taxes on gas all of the year, unblock our oil and gas production and make Canada affordable and strong—
Justice
Mr. Speaker, right now, in communities across this country, there are women living in fear inside their own homes. Intimate partner violence is not some theoretical problem to be discussed in the abstract. It is happening at the kitchen table, in the grocery store parking lot and in a text message sent at 2 a.m. It is fuelled by misogyny, and misogyny unchecked can kill.
Bill C-16 would take action in service of the victims of such intimidation, harassment and abuse. It would strengthen our Criminal Code to better protect victims, standing for women and with women all across Canada. Bill C-16 is an example of how we can work together to reject misogyny and insist on dignity and safety for all Canadians.
Prime Minister of Canada
Mr. Speaker, despite his illusions and phony promises, the Prime Minister is no different from the last guy. He is just another costly Liberal.
The true diplomatic work on trade with Europe was done long ago by the Harper government. Canada signed trade deals with 48 European countries under the CETA. The Prime Minister has not signed a single new trade deal. His most recent EU tour was just another photo op.
The real barrier to selling to the European market is the Liberal government. The Prime Minister said a new pipeline was more probable than possible, but there is no start date, no route and no plan. He then promised to build at speeds never seen before. They have not been seen before because there is nothing to see.
In fairness, I will list the Liberal accomplishments over the last 11 years. They have the largest deficit outside of COVID, the largest national debt on record, the highest youth unemployment in generations and the only shrinking economy in the G7.
Our biggest accomplishment should be selling energy to our allies, not racking up half-a-million-dollar catering bills for the Prime Minister's plane. It needs to be Canadian energy. He should end the illusions and export Canadian energy now.
Celiac Awareness Month
Mr. Speaker, May is Celiac Awareness Month. Today, we wear the ribbon in recognition of the more than 400,000 Canadians living with celiac disease.
As the chair of the all-party celiac caucus, I hosted Celiac Canada's annual gluten-free breakfast on the Hill. I thank Melissa Secord and her team, and colleagues from all parties who came together in support.
I have heard first-hand from the celiac community, including from families who spoke with me at the Davis Family Farm's sunflower festival, about how managing celiac disease requires a strict, lifelong, gluten-free diet. Let us continue to listen, raise awareness and stand with Canadians living with celiac disease, recognizing their strength and resilience.
Finance
Mr. Speaker, what a a colossal and grotesque waste of taxpayer money. How else could one describe the deliberate Liberal decision to double the size of Canada's deficit and add $1 trillion to Canada's debt? It will increase the amount of taxpayer money wasted on interest payments to $80 billion every single year. That is $5,000 per Canadian household not going toward health care, education or roads. That is money taken from the pockets of everyday, hard-working Canadians and squandered.
If we keep borrowing all this money with no plan to pay it all back, this story will end only one way. It will end with ever-increasing interest charges consuming a larger and larger share of Canada's budget, meaning less money to pay for the essential government services on which we all rely and a deeper hole that will become only more difficult to dig ourselves out of.
I implore the Liberal Prime Minister to put down the shovel, stop digging and restore fiscal discipline and fiscal sanity to this country.
Justice
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, which would strengthen the Criminal Code to better protect victims of violence and abuse.
When I was elected as the member of Parliament for Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, I committed to protecting those experiencing violence and abuse. Today, I reaffirm that commitment. More must be done to address the rise in toxic and harassing behaviour, particularly online. Like many Canadians, I have received persistent, abusive communications. It is harassment and it is unacceptable.
All Canadians, including every elected official in this House of Commons, have the right to a harassment-free home and work environment. Together, we must empower a public culture of respect, safety and dignity for all.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[Translation]
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Mr. Speaker, despite the illusions, this Prime Minister is bringing more costs, more debt, more taxes, and more chaos to immigration. He is just another Liberal. Yesterday, his Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship admitted that this Liberal government cannot even confirm that people who were here as temporary students left the country once their permits expired. She admits that the Liberal government has no plan to deport people who are here illegally.
Does the Prime Minister agree with keeping people who are here illegally, or is he going to fire his minister?
Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to announce that Louise Arbour will be the next Governor General of Canada. She has a deep understanding of and respect for Canadian institutions, the rule of law, democracy, freedom, and the rights of all Canadians and people around the world.
Mr. Speaker, according to her testimony, this is the same Liberal minister who meets with the Prime Minister to chat every week. Her department gave an entry permit to an Iranian terrorist. A brief Google search would have shown that he does not belong here in Canada. The Auditor General confirmed that the Liberals do not screen non-citizens, allowing widespread fraud in the student system.
Will the Prime Minister fire his incompetent minister, or is this incompetence on the Prime Minister himself?
Mr. Speaker, current and former senior IRGC officials and leaders are not allowed into Canada. There is no change in government policy, and we are taking steps to make sure that does not happen.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, despite the illusions, the Prime Minister brings more costs, more debt and more chaos to immigration. Recently, his Liberal immigration minister admitted that her department granted a permit to enter the country to an IRGC terrorist. The Auditor General also confirms that the Liberal government has no way of confirming that people who are here illegally ever actually leave. There is no exit tracking whatsoever.
The Prime Minister appointed the Liberal immigration minister, has kept her in place for a year and meets with her weekly. Is it because she is incompetent, or is her incompetence actually his incompetence, and when will he fire her?
Mr. Speaker, senior officials of the IRGC are not admissible in Canada, full stop. There are several layers of protection, and they work. That is the first point.
The second is this: What has the government done? We have taken back control of immigration. We have reduced the number of asylum seekers by one-third, temporary foreign workers by half and foreign students by two-thirds. We have gotten the flow of immigration back to a level of welcoming that the country can sustain.
Mr. Speaker, that is factually wrong. There are roughly 700 IRGC members here in Canada, according to a report by Global News, and the government claims to have expelled only one, one out of 700.
Furthermore, the Prime Minister has no idea who has left the country, because the Liberals still do not track departures. This is despite the fact that the Liberal government allowed millions of international students to come in, many on a fraudulent basis and many not planning to leave at all. Now we know that the existing Liberal minister has no plan to get them out, despite meeting with the Prime Minister every week. Will he fire her for this immigration incompetence, or does he approve of it?
Indigenous Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister likes to spread the illusion that he is protecting property rights, but the reality is quite the contrary. The Liberal government instructed its lawyers not to defend property rights in the Cowichan case, with litigation directive number 14, which said that in fact those titles did not take priority. Now the dispute is going to an appeal, and the Prime Minister has kept that litigation order in place. In other words, he is directing his lawyers not to defend the property rights of British Columbians.
Why is it that the Prime Minister refuses to defend homeowners?
Mr. Speaker, private property rights are fundamental in this country. The government will always defend them. That is why we immediately appealed the Cowichan decision on September 8, along with the City of Richmond, along with other first nations and along with the Province of British Columbia. All federal agreements with first nations, with indigenous peoples and with rights holders protect private property rights and protect indigenous peoples' rights.
On Red Dress Day, I think we should spend some time on the rights of indigenous peoples in this country.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's answer on property rights is all an illusion. The Liberal government directed its lawyers not to defend property rights. Litigation directive number 14 said that lawyers are not to make the case that fee simple property ownership takes precedence over all other claims.
That directive is still on the government website, meaning that in all the litigation that is coming up on property ownership, the Prime Minister is directing his lawyers not to do their jobs and not to defend British Columbia homeowners. Why is that?
Mr. Speaker, the only illusion is that this makeover is going to work any better than other makeovers.
The government will always defend private property rights. We immediately appealed the Cowichan decision. We have always defended private property rights; we always will, and we will always defend the rights of indigenous peoples to build a Canada that is stronger, fairer and more independent.
[Translation]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, the government has announced business support measures that will certainly have an uplifting effect over the long term, but will not save jobs, maintain the employment relationship or retain expertise within companies, especially companies at greatest risk.
I want to understand why the Prime Minister did not adopt the proposal initially created by his party a few years ago: the wage subsidy program for at-risk businesses.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite, and thank the Minister of Industry, who has provided new programs of $1 billion and $500 million to support workers and businesses in the steel, aluminum and copper industries across Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that, unfortunately, the Prime Minister did not answer the question. I will rephrase my question.
Given that the measures he is talking about will have no impact in the short term, but only in the medium, long or very long term, and that businesses are in immediate danger during the negotiation period with the United States, am I to understand that the Prime Minister, by refusing to implement a wage subsidy program, is saying that he does not have confidence in his ability to get an agreement with the United States?
Mr. Speaker, the amounts I just described will be available immediately for large businesses and especially for small and medium-sized businesses. Mr. Simard, president of the Aluminum Association of Canada, welcomes this injection of funds, which provides a lifeline for small and medium-sized businesses, workers and companies.
Mr. Speaker, two things that the Prime Minister certainly knows—and he will explain it himself much better than someone who is not an economist, like me—is that, first, Jean Simard hardly represents SMEs, and second, businesses cannot take on more debt to save jobs. That is a last resort.
Can the Prime Minister reconsider—again on a non-partisan basis, since we are reaching out—and do what the unions, businesses and chambers of commerce want and create a wage subsidy program for the transition?
Mr. Speaker, I will inform Mr. Simard that he is not interested in Quebec's SMEs. That will come as a surprise.
Julie White from Manufacturiers et Exportateurs du Québec welcomes the measures that the Minister of Industry announced yesterday. They will support our businesses, they will support our workers, and they will build a stronger, more resilient and more independent Canada.
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
He likes to blame the $1.85-a-litre price of gas on the fact that the oil is $100 a barrel. Here are the facts: In 2014, the same barrel of oil cost $100, but the price at the pump was $1.38 per litre. That is nearly 50¢ less than today. This is due to taxes, inflationary deficits that drive up prices, and anti-development policies that reduce the value of our dollar.
Will he get rid of all gas taxes for the rest of the year?
Mr. Speaker, allow me to help out the opposition leader. There is something called a conflict going on in the Strait of Hormuz right now.
The level of uncertainty is indeed unprecedented. Fatih Birol, the executive director of the International Energy Agency, said that this is the largest energy crisis we have ever faced.
Here we have the Leader of the Opposition pointing the finger at the government, even though we did the right thing. We helped Canadians by making things more affordable. We suspended the federal gas tax. People are already seeing the results at the pump. That is what responsible government looks like.
Mr. Speaker, increases in the price of a barrel of oil are partly responsible for the higher prices at the pump. In 2014, the price of a barrel of oil was exactly the same, at $100. However, gas prices were 50¢ cheaper. Also, U.S. gas prices are 15% lower than ours.
There is something that this Prime Minister is doing that explains the difference: taxes, inflationary deficits and a very weak dollar. Will he have the courage to stand up in the House of Commons and announce today that he will get rid of all gas taxes for the rest of the year, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, exactly, we did the right thing. As the International Monetary Fund has noted, we introduced a targeted, temporary measure to help Canadians.
On our side of the House, we are prepared to do what is necessary. The federal government did the right thing by suspending the federal excise tax on fuel. We were there for Canadians. We will continue to be there, and we will continue to support industries, businesses and Canadians, because we believe in building Canada strong.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is just another illusion. The Prime Minister brings more costs, more debt and more taxes.
Let us look at gas, for example. The Prime Minister likes to blame the $1.85-a-litre cost at the pumps on the fact that we have $100 global oil prices, but in 2014, we also had $100 global oil prices and the price at the pump was $1.38, almost 50¢ cheaper, even though the world price was exactly the same. The difference is explained by the Liberal Prime Minister's inflationary debt and newly renamed carbon taxes on top of a weak dollar.
Will the Prime Minister at least take all Liberal taxes off gas for the rest of the year?
Mr. Speaker, I know it is Tuesday, but let me help the Leader of the Opposition. He may have heard of the Strait of Hormuz. He may have heard about Iran. He may have heard about a conflict. What we are seeing is unprecedented. Members do not need to take it from us. They can take it from the head of the International Energy Agency, who says that this is the biggest shock we have seen in energy.
On this side of the House, we are happy to do our part. We are very pleased to have suspended the federal excise tax on gas. We heard from Canadians, who said, “Give us a break. Help us at this time.” We are happy to do our part. We are going to build Canada strong.
Mr. Speaker, the Strait of Hormuz might explain why global oil prices are $100 a barrel, but they were $100 a barrel back in 2014, and at that time, when Conservatives were in power, gas prices were 50¢ a litre cheaper. South of the border, they have the same global oil price of $100 a barrel, yet their gas prices are 15% cheaper.
The difference is explained by high Liberal taxes, including the newly renamed carbon tax; the inflationary spending; and the weak dollar the Prime Minister has caused through his incompetent economic policies.
Will he at least have the courage to stand up and announce that he will get rid of all the taxes for all the year?
Mr. Speaker, here is what the head of the International Energy Agency says: Oil and gas may be in short supply, but so are two other commodities, “trust and predictability.” He believes this government has all four of those, plus nuclear ambition, plus uranium, plus critical minerals, plus potash. That is how we help the world.
Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, they cannot even trust the Prime Minister to stand up and answer questions.
In fact, after a year of being Prime Minister, promising to build at unprecedented speeds, he was asked last week if he even supports ever building a pipeline to the Pacific, and his response was, “So all of that lines up to it’s more likely than not, which means more probable than possible. But none of that says it’s certain. Still a lot of work to be done.”
It is like a riddle from Dr. Seuss.
How much will the cost of green eggs and ham be next year?
Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition would take some time away from his social media clips and look at what is happening, we are building a new pipeline from Taylor to Gordondale, we are building a new pipeline—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition would spend less time on his social media clips, he would see that we are building a pipeline from Taylor to Gordondale, he would see we are building a pipeline in British Columbia, and he might see that the Premier of Alberta just said, again, that she has never been more optimistic about the opportunities in Alberta than today.
Maybe he should read the newspapers.
Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister said he is not even sure he ever wants to see a new pipeline to the Pacific. Now he is insisting on an industrial carbon tax that will not only raise housing and food costs by raising the price of everything that goes into making them but will also make it impossible for energy companies to produce enough oil to put in a future pipeline.
Canadians want a pipeline without a carbon tax. Why does he insist on giving them a carbon tax without a pipeline?
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, they have doubled the deficit, driving up inflation, and now they have increased gas prices with increased taxes at the pumps and a weaker dollar than ever. To top it all off, the Prime Minister, as we have been saying, is just another Liberal, but at least Justin Trudeau was able to stand up on his feet and answer questions.
Will he stand in his place today and answer, will he get rid of his industrial carbon tax so we can build a pipeline and get rid of the gas taxes so Canadians can fill their tanks and fill their grocery carts?
Mr. Speaker, on one hand, they say that families do not want help. They have fought against school food programs. They have fought against early learning and child care. They have fought against support for families. Now, when we actually move forward to support the skilled trades community and get more great-paying jobs across the country, they fight against that too.
Here is what Russ Shewchuk from IBEW said: “This announcement will supercharge the skilled trades across Canada” and help build Canada strong.
Let me ask the question, what do they support? Do they support hard-working people? Do they support hungry kids? It is clear they do not have—
[Translation]
Rail Transportation
Mr. Speaker, Alto has confirmed that the section of high-speed rail between Montreal and Ottawa will go through 1,700 properties. With no input from the owners, 500 of our best pieces of farmland will be cut in half. When the Alto people tell us that they are consulting towns and farmers, it is all for show, because they already know exactly where they want to go and what land they want to expropriate.
Alto is steamrolling our farmers. Will the Prime Minister finally ask it to get the farmers' consent, instead of running roughshod over them?
Mr. Speaker, of course we are going to get the farmers' consent. Of course we are going to work with communities, with mayors, with reeves, with all the stakeholders in Ontario and Quebec. We are going to build green technology that will be a game-changer for mobility in Canada. We are going to invest in this project because Canada is ready to welcome cutting-edge mobility technologies. It will make a difference in the lives of 40% of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the Alto steamroller is barrelling down on the people of Mirabel for the high-speed train project. At first, Alto employees were knocking on people's doors to ask permission to perform inspections on their property, but now, they are sending letters to try to buy unlimited access to properties for three years, day or night, for $1,500.
Imagine how stressful that is for citizens who have not been consulted, but who are being visited by employees and receiving letters implying that their property will be expropriated.
Will the government pause the Alto project and try to earn social licence instead of intimidating people in their own homes?
Mr. Speaker, the member is all up in arms because workers are surveying the land and doing all the work that needs to be done for a 1,000-kilometre high-speed rail line between Quebec City and Toronto that people dream of. Stakeholders, including in the agriculture sector, will be involved. People dream of having that great technology here in Canada, and they are taking note of the opposition and demagoguery from the Bloc Québécois.
Finance
Mr. Speaker, our young people need hope for the future. The Liberals seem to think that everything is fine and there is nothing wrong with the cost of living, but what I hear in Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier is that everything costs more. Taxes are higher, debt is rising and we are maxing out the national credit card. The deficit is huge: $1 trillion since the Liberals took office.
When will this costly Liberal Prime Minister stop spending recklessly and mortgaging our young people's future?
Mr. Speaker, I will continue along the same lines. My colleague, the Minister of Jobs and Families, just spoke about the workforce training program. We will obviously invest the same amount of money on a pro rata basis in Quebec. That means 51,000 jobs, mainly for young people, people in the fields of engineering and construction, and all kinds of people who will help us achieve this great ambition of building a high-speed train in Canada. It is called Alto, and it will be built with our young people. It will truly give them hope.
Wow, Mr. Speaker. Canada's prosperity depends on the high-speed rail project and our young people will be the ones to benefit from it, but in the meantime, we have a problem. They are living in poverty and struggling to make ends meet. The fact of the matter is that Canadians are struggling because the cost of living is too high and the Liberals are continuing to impoverish law-abiding taxpayers.
Let us not be fooled. The deficit has risen exponentially on this Liberal Prime Minister's watch. Will he finally admit that these half measures on the fuel tax are not enough? Why is this Liberal Prime Minister more interested in protecting his tax revenue than in—
Mr. Speaker, it is true that just a week ago, in the spring economic update, we announced an investment of $6 billion to recruit, train and hire 100,000 skilled trades workers in Canada. That includes Quebec. We are building major projects. We are building Canada strong across the country. We will continue to provide career opportunities for young people for the future.
Mr. Speaker, when we say that it is all just an illusion, there is a glaring example of that.
When we go and talk to young people in our ridings, we do not see that enthusiasm, because right now, young people are still lining up at food banks. Young people are still unable to find housing because they have no money; they cannot make ends meet. All of that is because this costly Prime Minister, who is just another Liberal, has chosen to increase the debt by another $1 trillion since he was elected.
When will he stop spending money on the credit card?
Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly young anymore, but with all due respect, I am closer to being young than my colleague.
What young people are telling me is that they want good jobs and opportunities for the future. That is what we are doing with an economy that is the second strongest in the G7 and with job creation through major projects, such as the Port of Montreal's Contrecoeur expansion, the high-speed rail project that my colleague mentioned earlier, the container terminal project at the Port of Québec and the Nouveau Monde Graphite project. We are supporting those major projects through a workforce training program. Between 80,000 and 100,000 training spots will be offered to ensure that young people have good opportunities to build Canada.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, last week, Parliament's budget watchdog said the Liberals are engaging in a trade-off with the spring economic update. She called it potentially a spend now, pay later situation.
We have all seen this scheme: just five easy payments, $19.95, and someone can have the newest thing. They just put it on their credit card, and they pay for it later. It sounds like spend less, invest more is really just spend now, pay more later.
Can the Minister of Finance tell us how much Canadians will pay in the future for all the debt spending he is doing today?
Mr. Speaker, in fact, my colleague has a selective memory because the PBO actually confirmed that the government is on track to reduce the deficit. The PBO addressed the current fiscal policy as “sustainable” under the IMF framework.
We are building this country at a speed and scale not seen in a generation. We are supporting our young people. We are supporting our industry. The Conservatives should just stop complaining and build Canada strong with us.
Mr. Speaker, these top-line numbers sound good, but just pull back the curtain and it is a bit of a different story. We can take the debt-to-GDP ratio. That does not include massive provincial debts, and on the asset side, it includes the CPP and the Quebec pension plan.
Is the Minister of Finance telling Canadians today that he will allow foreign creditors to raid the pension plan and shortchange retirees?
Mr. Speaker, despite that party's best efforts to mislead Canadians about the economy, the spring economic update indicated that our economy is strong. He talked about the PBO. Let us listen to the PBO: “The Canadian economy continues to demonstrate resilience, with most indicators better than anticipated in Budget 2025.”
Canadians have no time to listen to a leader who has never worked a day outside of this House. They have tuned him out.
Let us build Canada strong.
Indigenous Affairs
Uqaqtittiji, May 5 is Red Dress Day, a day to honour the memory of missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ people and to reaffirm our commitment to ending this national crisis.
Could the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations please update the House on the work our government is doing to build a stronger, safer country for indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ people?
Mr. Speaker, ending the crisis is of utmost importance. We are strengthening protections through legislation to crack down on human trafficking and gender-based violence, and through critical investments in shelters, supportive housing and healing centres like the Deh Gáh Got’îê First Nation's shelter in the Northwest Territories or the Aqqusariaq recovery centre in Iqaluit, which is set to open soon.
We will continue to work in partnership with survivors, families and communities to address the root causes of this violence and build a safer country for all.
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, despite the illusions with the Liberal Prime Minister, it is more cost, more carbon taxes and more of the same. He is just another Liberal who is completely out of touch. The Liberals tell us that gas prices are up to $1.83 only because world oil prices are at $100 a barrel. In 2014, under the Conservative government, oil was also $100 a barrel, yet gas was only $1.38. The Liberal government is the problem. Taxes pile up, the loonie drops and Canadians get gouged at the pump.
When will the Liberal Prime Minister stop the illusion, adopt our plan and scrap all gas taxes for all of the year so Canadians can afford to live again?
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the member opposite of the very good news from a week ago, almost $1 billion for small craft harbours. Let me also remind the member opposite that this is very important to her constituents, because they tell me how much it matters. I would advise the member to put down the notes she has been reading over and over, the same notes, and listen to her constituents. She will find that they support what we are doing on this side.
Mr. Speaker, that simply does not answer the question. Families in Newfoundland and Labrador deserve better than her talking points. They know that the math does not add up. Oil prices are the same as they were a decade ago, but the price at the pump is skyrocketing because of a weak dollar and higher Liberal taxes. Our economy is struggling. Our dollar is devalued. Therefore, energy and food cost more. This is a made-in-Canada cost of living crisis fuelled by the Prime Minister.
Enough with the excuses and the illusions. When will they adopt our plan, remove all of the taxes on all of the gas for all of the year, unblock our oil and gas production—
Mr. Speaker, I would advise the member opposite to read the spring economic update. In that update, she will find a list of supports that mean real support for Canadians, particularly in her riding: help for young people and apprentices, real dollars to help our young people get through programs, continued support for families and for seniors, and also continued support to help grow our rural communities. I would advise the member to read the document and to stop these nonsense notes.
Finance
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister sold himself as a financial expert, but since taking office he has doubled the deficit and he is adding $1 trillion to the debt. Despite the illusions, it is more cost, more taxes, more debt, more on the national credit card and more of the same that we got from Justin Trudeau. Canadians are paying more for groceries, housing and everything in between.
When will the Liberal Prime Minister stop the credit card budgeting so that Canadians can afford to live?
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives say they speak for Alberta, but they are offside with Alberta's business community. Business Council of Alberta president Adam Legge said that our spring economic update will support skilled labour, advance the Major Projects Office, strengthen defence procurement and improve our financial position.
Alberta Conservatives should stop repeating their leader's Conservative talking points ad nauseam and start paying attention to the people of the province they were elected to represent.
Mr. Speaker, do you know what Albertans see as the problem with the Liberal government? Every promise of change has turned into another charge on the national credit card. Canadians are now paying more: more at the grocery store, more for housing and more in taxes, all to cover for reckless Liberal overspending.
When will the Liberal Prime Minister get serious and end his costly credit card budgeting so that Canadians can afford to live?
Mr. Speaker, my fellow Edmontonians on the Conservative benches should listen to the people they represent. Edmonton Chamber of Commerce president Doug Griffiths said, about the spring economic update, that he was “excited to see that—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, my fellow Conservatives should listen to the people they represent. Edmonton Chamber of Commerce president Doug Griffiths said he was “excited to see that the federal government is taking a bullish stance on Canadian projects, and signalling confidence in Canada's economic potential to the rest of the world.” I hope Conservative MPs remove their partisan blinders and support our plan.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are on track to add $1 trillion to the national debt. This is the cost of a decade of Liberal credit card budgeting. Now the Liberal Prime Minister, despite his illusions, has added more taxes, more costs and more debt, more of the same. He is just another Liberal. As a result, they are going to be paying more on interest payments this year than on health care.
Will the Liberal Prime Minister finally get serious and cancel his credit card budgeting so that Canadians can afford to live?
Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing to hear a northern Ontario member of Parliament run down the very things that he himself knows northern Ontario leaders and workers have been advocating for, for years, such as investment in infrastructure, investment in major projects, investment in mining and investment in the kinds of things that create great-paying jobs, and on top of it, they are endorsed by people who are training skilled trades workers across the country, like Canada's Building Trades Unions, the IBEW and the colleges in his own riding, which are excited and enthusiastic about building those very well-paying jobs with Canadians. I am disappointed in his advocacy, or lack thereof.
National Defence
Mr. Speaker, the defence minister told Canadians that he fixed the recruitment crisis, but like everything with these Liberals, it was just another illusion. A leaked military memo tells a very different story. Some recruits were unable to communicate in either official language, and there are damning reports of misogyny and racism. This is more Liberal mismanagement and more of the same. These Liberals did not fix the military; they lowered the bar so low and hoped nobody would actually notice.
When will the minister stop ignoring the facts and admit that his recruitment reforms have failed?
Mr. Speaker, no matter how hard we try on this side of the House, we could never be nearly as negative as this member.
The truth is that the Canadian Armed Forces recruitment has just hit a 30‑year high. Our soldiers, our sailors and our aviators do important and incredible work, and we need more of them. That is why we have been reinvesting in our people. We have given our forces a well-deserved pay raise. We are getting them the tools, the weapons, the equipment and the housing they need. We are getting them through training faster. With the good help of the women and men in uniform, we are just getting started.
Mr. Speaker, the minister can sit here and spin his numbers all he wants, but he fails to mention that he actually knew that basic training success rates have fallen down to 77%. It is so bad that one platoon graduated only 48% of its recruits. A military that cannot graduate its recruits, cannot integrate its members and cannot maintain basic standards is not a military that is ready to defend our country.
When will the Liberal defence minister stop prioritizing his press releases over the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces?
Mr. Speaker, every single measure brought before this House, every single measure for the improvement of the Canadian Armed Forces, was blocked by that member and his party.
Here is the good news. Recruitment has hit a 30‑year high. These are the facts. In the past year, applications have more than doubled, to over 45,000. The CAF enrolled 7,310 regular force members, surpassing our target, and 70 of the 97 critical roles, as opposed to 18 last year, have now been filled.
As I said a moment ago, we are just getting started.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, ethnic conflicts from various countries have now found their way into the Canadian Armed Forces.
A leaked internal report from the Canadian Armed Forces Leadership and Recruit School confirms that platoons comprising up to 83% of people who are not even Canadian citizens have experienced serious conflicts, allegations of racism and cultural friction. Instructors even report difficulties in enforcing authority, particularly that of female officers, which directly undermines discipline and the chain of command. It is a total mess.
Does the minister understand that these policies aimed at meeting quotas have undermined the cohesion of the Canadian Armed Forces?
On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, recruitment into the Canadian Armed Forces has just reached its highest level in 30 years.
Our soldiers, sailors and airmen do essential and remarkable work, and we need them. That is why we are reinvesting in our personnel. We have given our forces a pay raise, we are providing them with the tools and equipment they need and we are speeding up their training.
It is a great day, a great week and a great start for Canada, and this is only the beginning.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, that answer is absolutely meaningless.
It is important to understand that, between 2022 and 2025, 192,000 Canadians wanted to enroll but only 15,000 were accepted. Meanwhile, the government recruited permanent residents, non-Canadians and people who do not speak English or French and enrolled them in officer courses. How can we keep our country safe when we rely on people who do not understand our culture, do not understand our language and do not want to listen to orders from women?
Can we get an answer on that?
Mr. Speaker, we have good news for Canada, good news for the Canadian Armed Forces and good news for the member. Recruitment is at a 30-year high. He knows that, and here are the facts. Over the past year, the number of applicants has more than doubled, to over 45,000. We recruited 7,310 regular force members, surpassing our target. In addition, 70 of the 97 critical roles have been filled.
We are just getting started. There is work to be done.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, young Canadians are facing a rising cost of living, global uncertainty and concerns over their future.
Can the Secretary of State for Children and Youth explain how our spring economic update addresses current economic challenges while building Canada strong for everyone?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Les Pays-d'en-Haut for his question.
Our spring economic update is about taking responsible action today while investing in the future for young people. We are investing $6 billion to recruit, train and hire up to 100,000 skilled trades workers across Canada. This includes thousands of jobs in Quebec, such as in Contrecoeur and the Matawinie region.
We are building the strongest economy in the G7 with our domestic workforce.
[English]
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that our immigration system is “under control”. Ordinary Canadians know this is not true. For example, in Canada, we have no idea who is here or not here, because the government has no way of tracking who is leaving the country or when they leave.
When asked about this yesterday, the immigration minister said she wondered the same thing. The Prime Minister appointed this immigration minister. He kept her in her job. He meets with her on a weekly basis. He believes the immigration system is under control. Clearly, she is simply following the Prime Minister's orders.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that this minister is doing a good job implementing his own ideas, or if not, why does he not just fire her?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we have a plan that works. Under this minister, the number of asylum seekers has decreased, the number of new temporary residents has decreased, and we are setting records on economic immigration and attracting French-speaking immigrants.
We will continue to deliver results for all Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the minister just claimed that their plan is working, yet in the last week alone, we found out that the Liberal government issued a special visa to a terrorist so he could enter Canada. It allowed over 21,000 non-citizens who fraudulently came into Canada to claim asylum, and it has no way to track if millions of non-citizens on expired or expiring visas would leave.
The Prime Minister said that this is taking control of the immigration system. If that is his opinion, is that the real reason why he has not fired his minister?
[Translation]
On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, our plan is working quite well. As we have already stated, no individual associated with the current or former Iranian regime has been admitted into Canada.
[English]
No IRGC official attended the congress. I did not authorize the document. There was no decision that was taken on that. I have spoken to officials to ensure that we have a robust system. We will continue to hold the Iranian regime to account and we will protect Canadians. As I said, we are building—
Mr. Speaker, when we listen to that answer and then listen to the Prime Minister say that the Liberals have taken back control of the immigration system, it kind of sounds a little delulu. The entire system is rife with abuse. There is no way to track if non-citizens actually leave and they are issuing visitor visas to terrorists.
If this is the Prime Minister's definition of what taking control of the immigration system is, then the dumpster fire is his fault, not hers. Does she agree?
Mr. Speaker, let me answer this question in the preferred language of the member because she seems to be really confused.
Our government is laying the foundation of a comprehensive exit-tracking system, one that the Conservatives or anybody could have done over 100 or 200 years ago. However, we are doing that. As we said, temporary resident status is temporary. People are expected to leave when they finish.
On this side of the House, we are focused on attracting health care workers and tradespeople to strengthen our rural economies and communities, and we will continue to—
National Defence
Mr. Speaker, during committee testimony on Bill C-11, we heard from many survivors about concerns with the transfer of cases from the military system to the civilian court system.
Would the Minister of National Defence tell the House whether he would be supportive if the Senate were to amend Bill C-11 to include the sunset clause as passed at the committee stage?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her passionate work behind the bill. Delivering culture change in the Canadian Armed Forces is not only the right thing to do, but it is critical for the operational needs for national security. That is why we introduced Bill C-11. It is to codify in law key recommendations from two comprehensive external reports. I can confirm that we are open to amendment in the Senate to include the sunset clause that would strengthen the bill.
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, despite the illusions, the Prime Minister is just another Liberal with more taxes, more costs, more debt and more crime. Crime is a major problem everywhere. Mayors and citizens are raising the alarm because almost every RCMP detachment back home and across Saskatchewan is operating at a shortage. Last year, these Liberals promised to hire 1,000 new police officers, yet we see no plan and no new officers to fill the shortages.
With the same old Liberals in power, how could Canadians trust them when all they do is break their promises?
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we support the RCMP. We are hiring 1,000 new RCMP personnel to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. They are training and they will be deployed shortly. The safety and security of Canadians is our first and top priority, and we will continue to ensure that our law enforcement sector is assisted. We will ensure that the officers have the right tools to do their job effectively.
[Translation]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, in Canada, the wealthiest 20% of the population owns 66% of the wealth. At the other end of the spectrum, the poorest 40%, almost half of the population, owns only 3%.
After 11 years of the Liberal regime, inequality is rising. Our society is unfair, and people are suffering. According to a survey, the expense that people are most worried about is food. For a Prime Minister who said that he should be judged by the price of groceries, it is a failure.
Instead of giving handouts to web giants and their billionaire friends, when will the Liberals take care of struggling workers?
Mr. Speaker, we understand full well what people across the country are going through. That is why we have been there to make life more affordable. We are keenly aware that the first things on people's minds are affordable housing, groceries and gas.
I have great news for my colleague: the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. On June 5, 12 million Canadians will receive federal support. We are happy to do what needs to be done. We will always be there for Canadians. In the economic update, we introduced our plan to grow our economy and to support each and every Canadian.
[English]
Indigenous Affairs
Mr. Speaker, almost seven years ago, June 3, 2019, the inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirited plus people was given to the government.
Of the 231 individual calls for justice, can the Prime Minister update us as to how many have been fulfilled?
Mr. Speaker, the calls to action and the calls for justice are not with respect to just one project, but a life we need to continue to live.
Violence against indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people must be brought to an end. Our government is taking action at every stage. We have funded more than 90 indigenous women's and 2SLGBTQQIA+ organizations.
We just announced today that we will be funding $300,000 for the red dress alert program with the Province of Manitoba.
There are more things, but I see that my time is up.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[Translation]
Military Justice System Modernization Act
The House resumed from May 4 consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
It being 3:11 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Monday, May 4, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-11.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 110)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Baber
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bonin
Bonk
Borrelli
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
DeRidder
Deschênes
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duncan
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
Généreux
Genuis
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jackson
Jansen
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Kmiec
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lawton
Lefebvre
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Plamondon
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shipley
Simard
Small
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Thériault
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 158
NAYS
Members
AcanAl Soud
Ali
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Auguste
Bains
Baker
Bardeesy
Battiste
Beech
Begum
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bendayan
Bittle
Blois
Boulerice
Brière
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Church
Clark
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dandurand
Danko
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
d'Entremont
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Gasparro
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gladu
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Guilbeault
Gull-Masty
Hajdu
Hanley
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Hodgson
Hogan
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Johns
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Klassen
Koutrakis
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
LeBlanc
Leitão
Lightbound
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Maloney
Martin
May
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
McPherson
Ménard
Mendès
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Morrissey
Myles
Naqvi
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Royer
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Schiefke
Sgro
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
St-Pierre
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thompson
Turnbull
Valdez
van Koeverden
Vandenbeld
Villeneuve
Watchorn
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 178
PAIRED
Members
AndersonFuhr
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Vis
Total: -- 4
I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.
[English]
The question is on Motion No. 2. A negative vote on Motion No. 2 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 3.
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions, and I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the last vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting no.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour of the motion.
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 111)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Baber
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bonin
Bonk
Borrelli
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
DeRidder
Deschênes
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duncan
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
Généreux
Genuis
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jackson
Jansen
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Kmiec
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lawton
Lefebvre
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Plamondon
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shipley
Simard
Small
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Thériault
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 158
NAYS
Members
AcanAl Soud
Ali
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Auguste
Bains
Baker
Bardeesy
Battiste
Beech
Begum
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bendayan
Bittle
Blois
Boulerice
Brière
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Church
Clark
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dandurand
Danko
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
d'Entremont
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Gasparro
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gladu
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Guilbeault
Gull-Masty
Hajdu
Hanley
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Hodgson
Hogan
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Johns
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Klassen
Koutrakis
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
LeBlanc
Leitão
Lightbound
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Maloney
Martin
May
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
McPherson
Ménard
Mendès
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Morrissey
Myles
Naqvi
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Royer
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Schiefke
Sgro
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
St-Pierre
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thompson
Turnbull
Valdez
van Koeverden
Vandenbeld
Villeneuve
Watchorn
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 178
PAIRED
Members
AndersonFuhr
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Vis
Total: -- 4
I declare Motion No. 2 defeated.
The question is on Motion No. 3. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 13 and 14.
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this one, with Liberal members voting yes.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 112)
YEAS
Members
AcanAl Soud
Ali
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Auguste
Bains
Baker
Bardeesy
Battiste
Beech
Begum
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bendayan
Bittle
Blois
Brière
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Church
Clark
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dandurand
Danko
d'Entremont
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Gasparro
Gerretsen
Gladu
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Guilbeault
Gull-Masty
Hajdu
Hanley
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Hodgson
Hogan
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Klassen
Koutrakis
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
LeBlanc
Leitão
Lightbound
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Maloney
Martin
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
Ménard
Mendès
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Morrissey
Myles
Naqvi
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Royer
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Schiefke
Sgro
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
St-Pierre
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thompson
Turnbull
Valdez
van Koeverden
Vandenbeld
Villeneuve
Watchorn
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 171
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Baber
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bonin
Bonk
Borrelli
Boulerice
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
DeRidder
Deschênes
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duncan
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
Gazan
Généreux
Genuis
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jackson
Jansen
Jivani
Johns
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Kmiec
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kusie
Kwan
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lawton
Lefebvre
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
May
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
McPherson
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Plamondon
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shipley
Simard
Small
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Thériault
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 165
PAIRED
Members
AndersonFuhr
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Vis
Total: -- 4
I declare Motion No. 3 carried. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 13 and 14 carried.
[English]
The question is on Motion No. 4. A negative vote on Motion No. 4 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 5.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting no.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour of the motion.
[English]
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 113)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Baber
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bonin
Bonk
Borrelli
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
DeRidder
Deschênes
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duncan
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
Généreux
Genuis
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jackson
Jansen
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Kmiec
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lawton
Lefebvre
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Plamondon
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shipley
Simard
Small
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Thériault
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 158
NAYS
Members
AcanAl Soud
Ali
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Auguste
Bains
Baker
Bardeesy
Battiste
Beech
Begum
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bendayan
Bittle
Blois
Boulerice
Brière
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Church
Clark
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dandurand
Danko
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
d'Entremont
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Gasparro
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gladu
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Guilbeault
Gull-Masty
Hajdu
Hanley
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Hodgson
Hogan
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Johns
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Klassen
Koutrakis
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
LeBlanc
Leitão
Lightbound
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Maloney
Martin
May
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
McPherson
Ménard
Mendès
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Morrissey
Myles
Naqvi
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Royer
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Schiefke
Sgro
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
St-Pierre
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thompson
Turnbull
Valdez
van Koeverden
Vandenbeld
Villeneuve
Watchorn
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 178
PAIRED
Members
AndersonFuhr
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Vis
Total: -- 4
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the result of the previous vote to this vote and will vote against the motion.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats agree to apply the vote from the previous vote, with New Democrats voting yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Green Party also agrees to apply the result of the previous vote to this vote and will vote in favour of the motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 114)
YEAS
Members
AcanAl Soud
Ali
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Auguste
Bains
Baker
Bardeesy
Battiste
Beech
Begum
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bendayan
Bittle
Blois
Boulerice
Brière
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Church
Clark
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dandurand
Danko
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
d'Entremont
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Gasparro
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gladu
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Guilbeault
Gull-Masty
Hajdu
Hanley
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Hodgson
Hogan
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Johns
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Klassen
Koutrakis
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
LeBlanc
Leitão
Lightbound
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Maloney
Martin
May
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
McPherson
Ménard
Mendès
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Morrissey
Myles
Naqvi
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Royer
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Schiefke
Sgro
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
St-Pierre
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thompson
Turnbull
Valdez
van Koeverden
Vandenbeld
Villeneuve
Watchorn
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 178
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Baber
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bonin
Bonk
Borrelli
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
DeRidder
Deschênes
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duncan
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
Généreux
Genuis
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jackson
Jansen
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Kmiec
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lawton
Lefebvre
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Plamondon
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shipley
Simard
Small
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Thériault
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 158
PAIRED
Members
AndersonFuhr
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Vis
Total: -- 4
I declare Motion No. 5 carried.
The question is on Motion No. 6. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 7, 8 and 10 to 12.
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the result of the previous vote to this vote and will vote against the motion.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, New Democrats agree to apply the vote from the previous vote, with New Democrats voting no.
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 115)
YEAS
Members
AcanAl Soud
Ali
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Auguste
Bains
Baker
Bardeesy
Battiste
Beech
Begum
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bendayan
Bittle
Blois
Brière
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Church
Clark
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dandurand
Danko
d'Entremont
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Gasparro
Gerretsen
Gladu
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Guilbeault
Gull-Masty
Hajdu
Hanley
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Hodgson
Hogan
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Klassen
Koutrakis
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
LeBlanc
Leitão
Lightbound
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Maloney
Martin
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
Ménard
Mendès
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Morrissey
Myles
Naqvi
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Royer
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Schiefke
Sgro
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
St-Pierre
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thompson
Turnbull
Valdez
van Koeverden
Vandenbeld
Villeneuve
Watchorn
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 171
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Baber
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bonin
Bonk
Borrelli
Boulerice
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
DeRidder
Deschênes
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duncan
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
Gazan
Généreux
Genuis
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jackson
Jansen
Jivani
Johns
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Kmiec
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kusie
Kwan
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lawton
Lefebvre
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
May
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
McPherson
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Plamondon
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shipley
Simard
Small
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Thériault
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 165
PAIRED
Members
AndersonFuhr
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Vis
Total: -- 4
I declare Motion No. 6 carried. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 7, 8 and 10 to 12 carried.
The question is on Motion No. 9.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting no.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the results of the last vote to this vote and will be voting in favour of the motion.
[English]
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the results of the last vote to this vote and will be voting yes.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 116)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Baber
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bonin
Bonk
Borrelli
Boulerice
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
DeRidder
Deschênes
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duncan
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
Gazan
Généreux
Genuis
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jackson
Jansen
Jivani
Johns
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Kmiec
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kusie
Kwan
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lawton
Lefebvre
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
May
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
McPherson
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Plamondon
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shipley
Simard
Small
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Thériault
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 165
NAYS
Members
AcanAl Soud
Ali
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Auguste
Bains
Baker
Bardeesy
Battiste
Beech
Begum
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bendayan
Bittle
Blois
Brière
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Church
Clark
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dandurand
Danko
d'Entremont
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Gasparro
Gerretsen
Gladu
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Guilbeault
Gull-Masty
Hajdu
Hanley
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Hodgson
Hogan
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Klassen
Koutrakis
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
LeBlanc
Leitão
Lightbound
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Maloney
Martin
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
Ménard
Mendès
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Morrissey
Myles
Naqvi
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Royer
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Schiefke
Sgro
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
St-Pierre
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thompson
Turnbull
Valdez
van Koeverden
Vandenbeld
Villeneuve
Watchorn
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 171
PAIRED
Members
AndersonFuhr
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Vis
Total: -- 4
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the result of the previous vote and is voting in favour of the motion.
[English]
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 117)
YEAS
Members
AcanAl Soud
Ali
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Auguste
Bains
Baker
Bardeesy
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Begum
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bendayan
Bittle
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blois
Bonin
Boulerice
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Champoux
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Church
Clark
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dandurand
Danko
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
DeBellefeuille
d'Entremont
Deschênes
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Garon
Gasparro
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gladu
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Guilbeault
Gull-Masty
Hajdu
Hanley
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Hodgson
Hogan
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Johns
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Klassen
Koutrakis
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
LeBlanc
Leitão
Lemire
Lightbound
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Maloney
Martin
May
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
McPherson
Ménard
Mendès
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Morrissey
Myles
Naqvi
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Normandin
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Royer
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Savard-Tremblay
Sawatzky
Schiefke
Sgro
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Pierre
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thériault
Thompson
Turnbull
Valdez
van Koeverden
Vandenbeld
Villeneuve
Watchorn
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 200
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Baber
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Block
Bonk
Borrelli
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Chambers
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
Deltell
DeRidder
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duncan
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jackson
Jansen
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Kmiec
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lawton
Lefebvre
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shipley
Small
Steinley
Stevenson
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 136
PAIRED
Members
AndersonFuhr
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Vis
Total: -- 4
Business of Supply
Opposition Motion—Measures to Support the Manufacturing Sector
[Business of Supply]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the Bloc Québécois for introducing this motion on U.S. tariffs. I would especially like to thank my colleague from Joliette—Manawan, who is the sponsor of this motion. I have had the opportunity to work closely with him for many years and have always been impressed by his professionalism, pragmatism and kindness, even when we were in deep disagreement.
It is clear that the unjustified tariffs imposed by the United States on Canadian metals directly affect workers, businesses and communities in Quebec and across the country. This is a very serious situation, and our government takes these measures very seriously.
The imposition of tariffs on steel, aluminum and copper is not an abstract decision. These tariffs have very real consequences for business owners and workers in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and the north shore, as well as in Hamilton or Sault Ste. Marie, and for manufacturers and small and medium-sized businesses across the country.
From the very beginning, from day one of these unjustified tariffs, our government has been working hand in hand with the Aluminum Association of Canada and the Canadian Steel Producers Association, with business leaders, yes, but also with workers and the entire aluminum and steel sector.
That is why we are providing $1.5 billion in targeted support for affected businesses. This includes a new $1-billion program from the Business Development Bank of Canada to support liquidity and investment, as well as an additional $500 million to support businesses directly on the ground.
[English]
We are providing $1.5 billion in targeted support for businesses affected by these tariffs. This support will help companies maintain operations, protect jobs and adapt in the face of disruptions.
While we cannot control the decisions of the White House, we can control how we respond to them and how we prepare for our own future. Our approach is not only one of mitigation. It is also one of transformation. We are taking concrete steps to support those sectors most impacted, as we diversify our trade and increase our exports to reliable trading partners around the world.
This work has been a major focus of our government over the last year, and we are already seeing concrete results. Canada's non‑U.S. exports are up nearly 40%. Our aluminum exports, in particular to Europe, have surged as producers pivot to new markets. Canadian businesses are demonstrating incredible resilience, adaptability and ambition, and our government is backing them every step of the way.
We are accelerating investments in strategic sectors and strengthening Canada's economic sovereignty. As part of this work, Canada has now concluded 56 different critical mineral agreements with over 10 different countries, positioning Canada as a global leader in the economy of the future.
Canada has also signed over 20 different trade and security agreements across our four continents over the last year, strengthening our ties with trusted allies and opening new markets for Canadian businesses. As we work to diversify, we continue to engage constructively with our American partners to seek a fair and sustainable agreement that benefits both our economies.
I believe that my colleague, the member for Burlington, will be sharing time with me, as she would also like to contribute to this debate.
Let us be very clear that, as the Prime Minister has said, “We need a good deal...what we don't need is chasing a small deal that disadvantages us.” The risks of such an approach are very plain to see. Just last week, the United States announced significant new tariffs on European goods, despite the EU's having signed a tariff deal with the U.S. on July 27, 2025. That is a clear warning. A deal must be worth the paper it is written on.
Canadians expect their government to stand firm and to protect their interests, and that is exactly what we are doing.
[Translation]
As we respond to this trade war, we are also building a stronger and more resilient economy at home. We are already seeing a rise of nearly 40% in non‑U.S. exports. We are investing in the economy of tomorrow while supporting Canadians during this very difficult transition period.
We have also strengthened our social safety net. Employment insurance is more flexible, with temporary measures to support workers impacted by these tariffs, including extended benefits and faster access.
We have also enhanced the work-sharing programs to help employers retain their workforce and avoid layoffs.
[English]
We are also advancing a game-changing defence industrial strategy, one that will boost economic growth, create high-quality jobs and reinforce Canada's sovereignty in an increasingly uncertain world. Our leadership is being recognized internationally, and I am proud to state that Canada has just been chosen, through a unanimous vote, to host the new defence, security and resilience bank, reflecting the confidence of our allies in Canada's stability, credibility and economic strength.
If we are fighting so hard to protect our sovereignty and to build our economy stronger, it is because we believe in Canada and in the values that define us as a country and as Canadians. That is why we introduced a climate competitiveness strategy, ensuring that Canadian industries remain leaders in low-carbon production. Canadian aluminum, for example, is among the cleanest in the world. That is a competitive advantage, and we intend to build on it.
Our country's greatest riches are in its people and in its land. We are investing in training and in the talent that thrives in every single Canadian. We are also investing in the beauty and in the biodiversity of our land. We are providing $4 billion for a historic nature strategy to protect and strengthen Canada's natural infrastructure. This strategy supports new protected areas while also mobilizing and protecting more money for national parks and urban green spaces, and supporting indigenous leadership in conservation. This is how we build a more resilient, competitive and sustainable economy for Canada and for our children.
[Translation]
We are putting nearly $4 billion on the table for a historic strategy to protect nature because Canada's wealth depends as much on its lands as it does on its talent. This investment will support conservation projects across the country and help build a more resilient, competitive and sustainable economy. Protecting nature also means building a sustainable and resilient economy.
To conclude, in the face of this trade war, Canada is taking decisive action. We are supporting our workers, we are standing up for our industries, we are diversifying our trade, we are strengthening our alliances and, most importantly, we are standing united against this threat.
As a proud Quebecker and proud Montrealer, I would be remiss if I did not mention the Montreal Canadiens' victory in game 7 against the Tampa Bay Lightning last Sunday. In this long-standing rivalry with our neighbour and largest trading partner, this time the result was conclusive and certainly satisfying. The Montreal Canadiens reminded us that when Canada plays with determination, discipline and trust, we can do great things. We know how to win.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I stand today as a proud representative of London—Fanshawe, part of which has a great manufacturing sector. However, we have been hit with tariffs, and, repeatedly, the people of London—Fanshawe are having to deal with the affordability crisis and concerns about being unemployed, or they actually have been unemployed, due to various sectors' being affected by the tariffs.
The Liberals have repeatedly said that they are going to solve the tariff issues, yet the Prime Minister has not negotiated with President Trump in the last seven months, so my question is this: Are we witnessing a political bait-and-switch while Canadians are still waiting for a solution?
Mr. Speaker, the member raised affordability concerns in his riding. He should let his constituents know that they will be receiving a cheque for the Canadian groceries and essentials benefit in a few weeks' time. It is an important measure by our government that will support the most vulnerable Canadians across the country.
With respect to tariffs, just yesterday we announced $1.5 billion in order to support the sectors that have been hit particularly hard by these tariffs. This will ensure that companies can retain their employees to see them through this difficult time in order to continue to grow as they export to new partners.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
Does she believe that building Canada strong and the “nationalism” advocated by the Prime Minister includes respect for provincial jurisdictions? Is a strong Canada not necessarily a Canada that respects the jurisdictions of the various provinces?
In this regard, can we count on the current government to consult the provinces, to really consult them, take their opinions into account, and create programs that respect the jurisdictions and priorities of each province and Quebec?
Mr. Speaker, respect for areas of jurisdiction is obviously very important. The Premier of Quebec met with our Prime Minister within hours of his taking office. It was very important for our Prime Minister to ensure that he was responsive to Quebec's requests.
We have put forward several measures in our budget. We made it quite clear, both to the Quebec government and to the Bloc Québécois, that we would work hand in hand with Quebec on the programs it wishes to advance itself. It will receive the negotiated funds as usual. Our deputy is working with his counterpart in Quebec to that end.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague could provide some additions to her comments about getting a good deal with the United States, with a “good deal” being defined as what is in the best interest of Canadians.
Whatever time it takes, it is absolutely critical that the government focus its attention on getting the best deal possible and that it is consistent with what has taken place over the last year. That has been a holistic approach, whether it is building one Canada, the major projects program or the number of initiatives the government has taken to date to build on Canada's economy, to look at other opportunities to trade and to bring in additional investments. There is a litany of things that the government has done to build Canada strong, a strong country for all people.
Could my colleague provide her thoughts on why it is so important to take that holistic approach and wait to get the best deal?
Mr. Speaker, that is a very large question to respond to in a very short period of time.
What we need to get is a good deal, and we are working with our American partners in order to get to that deal. We are in constant communication and are confident that at the end of the day Canada will get a great deal. It is important for us also, in parallel, as we are doing, to advance the major projects that will help build this country. I am very proud of the projects we are working on, including our high-speed train, including expanding the port of Montreal and including the port of Churchill.
I could go on and on about this topic.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking our Bloc Québécois colleagues for moving this motion today. It is important that we stand together as a nation at this point in time to address the unjustified tariffs imposed by the United States, so I would like to thank them for that.
[English]
I come from Burlington, Ontario. When I look to the west and the south from my constituency office, I see the steel mills in Hamilton. When I look to the east, I see the Ford Motor Company assembly plant in Oakville. In between and all around me, there are small and medium-sized manufacturers in the steel and automotive business that are major exporters to the United States and employ tens of thousands of people in my community and surrounding areas.
This conversation today is so important because the section 232 tariffs are in direct violation of CUSMA, the agreement we signed with the United States. The tariffs are a challenge to the businesses, but, most importantly, to the people in my community who are looking for certainty and stability and hoping this issue will be resolved soon with the United States.
I have spent so much time over the last year talking to business owners and employees in my community about what these tariffs mean for them. When they were first applied at 25% on the steel, aluminum, auto and softwood lumber industries, and now copper, they had a major impact, but when they were increased to 50%, it was devastating for our economy. I am really glad that the federal government and the Prime Minister recognize that and are acting swiftly to support these businesses. In fact, just yesterday, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Artificial Intelligence announced a $1‑billion additional fund to support businesses and tariff-affected sectors. I have heard from so many businesses in my community that this relief is so important. We need to ensure as a government that we are supporting these businesses in weathering this storm. We know we have some of the most innovative businesses, some of the best manufacturers and most highly skilled workers in the world in southern Ontario and around the country, but we need to support them in getting through this time, and support them to retool, re-skill and find new export markets to make sure they can continue to thrive and be successful.
I had the pleasure of touring some of these amazing plants. I was at a company on Saturday evening in my riding, the Thomson-Gordon Group and Thordon Bearings. They make these incredible ship bearings that do not use oil. They are eco-friendly and export around the world. This is an opportunity for us to showcase that Canadian talent, Canadian skills and Canadian products and use this opportunity to double our exports around the world, to make sure we are bringing this Canadian ingenuity, skill and talent right around the globe.
I do not want to minimize the importance of the relationship with the United States. Eighty per cent of Canadians live within 100 kilometres of the U.S. border. When I talk to manufacturers in southern Ontario, I hear that often 50% to 70% of their exports currently go to the United States. It is so important for us to get a good deal with the Americans, and that is exactly what this government is aiming to do. However, in the meantime, we also have to make our economy more resilient and less dependent on the United States so that we can weather these shocks.
I was in Washington, D.C., a couple of weeks ago and talked to some American colleagues there. One of the key things we have to understand is that we have a lot of friends in the United States. We have a lot of allies in the United States who want to do business with Canada and continue to support what has made both of our countries prosperous, the cross-border trade, the North American economy that we have developed that is so integrated over the last few decades, but we also need to demonstrate to them that we are an important partner and they have to be able to show us that we can trust them into the future.
When the Prime Minister talks about the fact that our relationship has irrevocably changed, what he is talking about is whether Canadians and Canadian businesses can trust that, moving into the future, the agreements that we sign with our American partners are going to be honoured and respected. As Canadians, we value the relationship we have with the United States. We value that cross-border relationship when it comes to our economy, our friendship and our Armed Forces, which have served side by side in conflict after conflict. We are friends, allies and business partners and we want that to continue. However, Canadians need assurances that when the Americans sign those agreements they are going to honour them into the future.
When it comes to the section 232 tariffs, this latest change that we saw on April 6 is going to be really difficult for Canadian companies. That is why yesterday's announcement by the government that we continue to support our Canadian companies is so important.
There was a report that came out of the University of Calgary a couple of weeks ago that looked at the impact of the section 232 tariffs on the overall economy. While it is true that upward of 85% of Canada's exports to the United States are still covered under CUSMA, and we need to do everything we can to protect that and ensure that continues, the sectors that are affected by the 232 tariffs are disproportionately in Ontario and Quebec because it is steel, aluminum and auto manufacturing that are most impacted. When we look at Ontario and Quebec, we see that the percentage of our U.S. exports that are hit by the 232 tariffs in Ontario is 60%, and in Quebec it is almost 55%. This is our manufacturing heartland and something we need to protect, nourish and support moving into the future. If we are going to move forward, as we are planning to, with the defence industrial strategy, building Canada and ensuring we have the infrastructure we need, we need to have a strong and vibrant steel and aluminum sector. That is why we are providing supports to the steel sector. It is why we have imposed import duties on non-free trade partners when it comes to steel in Canada. It is why the buy Canadian strategy when it comes to steel in our infrastructure is so important. These are the industries we rely on to build our country.
I will conclude by saying that today's motion and debate are really important, because we need to be unified. We need to be team Canada. We need to protect the businesses, employees and people who make our country strong and make it run.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I work together on the Standing Committee on Finance. Things have been going well, at least so far. We will make sure it stays that way.
My colleague mentioned the auto industry in her riding and many other large industries that have a certain degree of resilience and are able to secure the loans ranging from $2 million to $50 million that were announced yesterday.
For our part, we are worried about the smaller businesses, which have never seen anything close to a $2-million loan and which will have to shut down tomorrow morning, in a week, or in two weeks if they cannot maintain that employment relationship. We believe that these businesses, which are part of the fabric of Quebec's small and medium-sized enterprises, were not covered by the announcement made yesterday.
Point (d) of the motion calls on the government to take all necessary measures to mitigate the impact. I would like my colleague to tell me whether she believes that yesterday's announcement included all the necessary measures.
Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned about the future of small- and medium-sized businesses in my riding. I have spoken about the big businesses next door to my riding. In my riding, however, small and medium-sized businesses are the ones that need this help.
Yesterday, we announced an envelope of $500 million dollars for regional development agencies. The goal is precisely to support SMEs affected by section 232 tariffs.
Will that be enough? We shall see. We will see how long this lasts, and how we will need to support SMEs.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's focus on supporting businesses in her community. She displayed a very admirable depth of knowledge of those businesses. Burlington, of course, is a region that is deeply connected to cross-border trade, where jobs and local growth depend heavily on the government being able to address these issues.
She praised the government's swift action. I am wondering if the member could name a single U.S. tariff on Canadian goods that has been lifted as a direct result of Liberal government action.
Mr. Speaker, this is not something that the Canadian government wants. I do not think any Canadian wants this. I think most people realize that this is a decision of the U.S. President. We need to do what we can to support Canadian industries. That is exactly what the government is doing.
It continues to be an evolving process. As I mentioned, 85% of exports from Canada to the United States are still covered under CUSMA. We need to protect that. We need to ensure that this continues. We need to do everything we can to ensure that the section 232 tariffs are removed across the board, so that we can protect the vital industries that are so important to our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the premise of today's Bloc motion to condemn the new tariffs. These tariffs affect a growing number of businesses. Could my colleague please talk about our response, which puts workers first? It is all about building a stronger economy at home.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, what we are trying to do as a government is build a strong and resilient economy. We know it is extremely important that we support our industries so that we support our workers. When I talk about the steel sector, and when I talk about the automotive sector, it is not about the plant; it is about the people who work in those plants.
I had the opportunity to visit Dofasco with the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago. We spoke to the employees. I met a third-generation steel worker at Dofasco. The whole reason we are doing this is that we want to ensure that she continues to have that job, that she continues to be able to make a good living and that she has that respectable job that we can continue to have in this country.
All of these measures are about supporting those workers. They make up our community and they make up our economy. The strength of Canada's economy is in our people.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague just touched on the point I was going to start with when she said that we talk a lot about companies, industry and big name corporations, but that the reason we are having this debate today is, first and foremost, for the people who work, for the workers.
Since the start of this tariff crisis, 9,700 jobs have been lost in Quebec. I am talking about well-paying, skilled jobs, often in our regions. Until very recently, we could say we had been spared because CUSMA protected 85% of our exports, although some sectors were more severely affected. The reality in Quebec today is that 441,000 manufacturing jobs are at stake. These are fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters. These are people we have a responsibility to protect.
When we hear about businesses closing, these are the folks we need to think about. Since President Trump announced the new tariffs on April 6, there have been many closures in the furniture sector. Businesses like Bestar and South Shore Furniture come to mind. We have asked the government to follow up. We have asked for it to do something. That was a month ago. There was some resistance at first, but we feel as though the discussion is moving forward. However, the clock is ticking. I think it is important for us to look at the timeline to understand just how far behind the government is in terms of taking action.
President Trump's executive order was issued on April 6. That was about a month ago. From the very first day the order was issued, some businesses were confused and turned to customs and tax consultants to try to find out what it all meant. Even the consultants and lawyers did not know what was happening. People tried to get information from the government, but it was hard to get.
We then asked the government some questions. The first week, the leader of the Bloc Québécois asked the Prime Minister what he was going to do about the United States' new way of calculating tariffs, which meant that some businesses went from paying almost no tariffs to paying 25% tariffs, or just about the highest rate in the world. That day, the Prime Minister basically had no idea what we were talking about, and he was quite honest with us. He said that he would get back to us. We were patient. We waited a week and then we asked the Prime Minister more questions. On April 21, we asked him whether he was going to let these businesses quietly die?
The answer was that we had to wait for the economic update, so we waited for the economic update. When I rent a thriller and there is no climax at the end, I sometimes feel as though I have been taken for a ride. That was the economic update. There were no measures to help these businesses. There was interference in workforce training. There was a sovereign wealth fund with no funding, no objectives, no governance rules, no private investment that would be attracted to the sovereign wealth fund. They had time to think about all sorts of things over the past month, but they never thought about the workers.
We wondered what was going to happen. During the pre-budget consultations, we made a number of constructive requests. When South Shore Furniture closed, the Minister of Finance suggested that it was due to the new tariffs—and that was the case—but that the company also had other management and governance issues and that it was partly their own fault.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Jean‑Denis Garon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance suggested that. As usual, the Liberals are acting in bad faith. We eventually realized that it was a company that had won awards for its management and administration, so there was nothing to it.
The tariff calculation in the economic update was wrong. The Liberals were still using the old tariffs. I do not have the document with me, but the economic update says that the tariffs are around 5%. We heard from the Governor of the Bank of Canada yesterday. He released the bank's monetary policy report. While we accept that these reports are written slightly in advance, the report again said that the tariffs are roughly 5%. However, if we look at the independent study done by the University of Calgary, which has to be read carefully and with steel and aluminum thresholds properly interpreted, or if we look at the study produced by Desjardins Group, which expresses concern for its member businesses, we realize that the average tariff for Quebec's economy is close to 10%. That is the very same tariff under the agreement signed by Europe, which the government calls a bad deal.
The average is 10%, and approximately one-quarter of all Quebec exports are currently subject to tariffs. My colleague has presented different figures. I admit that we do not have exact figures, because the government is not providing them. We are being forced to consult university studies and banks, and there is a problem with the information and with mapping the impact of these new tariffs. In the requests we have submitted to the government, we are asking it to provide us with a clear picture so that we know who is affected by the tariffs, in which sector, in which province and at what rate, so that we can propose constructive solutions.
What has President Trump decided to do? With his new tariff calculations, he has decided to destroy what is, in a sense, the most valuable aspect of the natural resources sector. Why? It is because, for years, Quebec has wanted to get involved in secondary and tertiary processing.
We do not just want to produce wood, iron and steel. We want to produce things like furniture and machines. We want to do secondary and tertiary processing. Under the president's new tariff structure, if steel or aluminum represents more than 15% of the value of a product, even just 16%, the tariff is a flat 25%. This is a direct attack on very small businesses that are in growth mode and that represent the economic future of our regions in many ways. Many of them are also suppliers to larger companies.
Aerospace has a presence in my riding. A lot is at stake in Montérégie, Lanaudière and Beauce as well. That is what President Trump attacked. I suspect he knew it, in a way. The point of tariffs is to do damage. When one country goes on and on about being protected, about how tariffs have virtually no impact except on certain sectors, then the people on the other side may eventually decide to do more damage.
We were calling for measures, including a wage subsidy for the businesses hardest hit by the new tariffs. The government did not provide anything in the budget update, and instead chose to introduce different measures. That was done yesterday by the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Artificial Intelligence. What are these measures?
Criticizing the government's decisions and actions is not necessarily partisan. There are very specific reasons why we think that these measures may be good in the medium and long terms. What is the government doing? First, it is putting $1 billion into business loans. Our smallest, most affected and most vulnerable businesses are already over-leveraged and unable to take on more debt. What the government did was say that there will be no interest in the first year, that interest will be lower in the second year, and that loans will have to be paid back after three years. Why is the government doing this? It is doing this for two reasons.
First, the government did not think to come up with a new program tailored to the new tariffs. They instead looked to see what program they could resurrect to funnel money into it so they could make an announcement on Monday, yesterday, because they overlooked workers in the budget update. That is essentially what happened.
We are hearing from business owners. The member for Joliette—Manawan shared stories of business owners who said they had never had loans for $2 million. They had never had that in their entire lives. They are not able to obtain those loans and do not need them. What they do need is to keep their staff employed. They employ welders and technicians. These are not people who need to go back to school. These people are productive. If they temporarily close their business or have to suspend production for a while in the midst of a labour shortage, they will lose these people, who will go somewhere else.
The government told us that there would be an agreement. Where is the agreement? When will an agreement be finalized? We understand that there is uncertainty for everyone, including in the negotiation process. However, these businesses are seeing their workers leave. This does nothing for them. It jeopardizes their survival.
That is why we need a wage subsidy that maintains the employment relationship, especially since, if these people are laid off, they will have to rely on employment insurance.
Let us not forget that employment insurance has long been in need of reform. They keep rolling out one pilot project after another, one temporary measure after another. We need reform. As for public funds, these people are going to need employment insurance. The EI fund is already under strain. From an actuarial standpoint, it has to break even over a seven-year period. As members will recall, we experienced what is known as a pandemic from 2020 to 2022, which led to increases in payroll taxes in order to restore balance in the fund. This fund is not designed to withstand two crises in seven years.
If we push these people toward EI, we break the employment relationship, we weaken businesses, it costs the public treasury money anyway, if not the same amount as a wage subsidy, and, ultimately, it will lead to higher payroll taxes for small businesses, businesses that are not even affected by tariffs. That, in itself, is a problem.
The government needs to leave the EI fund alone and provide wage subsidies. How much would wage subsidies cost? That needs to be evaluated. If we pro-rate the number of closures based on a projected duration, and compare it to what happened during the pandemic, we probably end up with an amount that is lower than the suspension of the fuel excise tax that the government announced in order to keep businesses afloat and retain jobs.
I want to come back to what my colleague said in her previous speech. These loans may be good for large businesses that are on solid financial footing and for which interest rates and the cost of financing are not an issue. For small businesses that are crushed by debt, however, it is hopeless, and that is a problem. There are people, workers, fathers and mothers who are being left behind.
The second part is the most problematic in the short term, but it is interesting in the long term.
A lot is happening in the short term, though. Businesses have started closing. The crisis has hit BRP, South Shore Furniture, Bestar and many more. The crisis has hit, and businesses are shutting down for good. The government says it will pump $500 million into the regional tariff response initiative so businesses can boost productivity, train workers and buy machinery. The thing is, boosting productivity takes time. It is not like businesses can just say they are investing, apply for a loan and increase productivity by 30% within a month. That is not how it works. Productivity is a long-term thing.
Some small manufacturing businesses export exclusively to the United States. They do not have the resources to modernize their operations right away. As of April 6, their U.S. customers have to pay 25% more. For this measure to work, businesses would have to boost productivity enough to lower costs by 25% immediately. Again, that is not how it works. This is a medium-term measure.
What about the wage subsidy? When a business gets hit with a 25% tariff, that is not its fault. Some businesses are very productive, but there are limits to what they can do when they have to deal with a 25% tariff.
The Bloc Québécois is proposing measures to complement yesterday's proposals, which address the most vulnerable part of our industrial fabric in a Quebec which, as Jacques Parizeau said, has an economy with a large number of SMEs in the regions. Although there are many towns and regions that are home to major industries, they are full of small suppliers who need help.
Earlier today, I met with representatives from the furniture industry. I know they were also meeting with the Liberals, but they told us we are on the right track. I also met with people from the United Steelworkers today, and they said we are on the right track.
Now, the government is telling us that export manufacturers and Jean Simard are happy. Of course they are. The measures announced yesterday will benefit large companies. However, there is something missing. The Steelworkers are telling us that we need to look after the workers, that we need a wage subsidy and that EI has not been overhauled since who knows when. I do not even know if I was old enough to vote the last time it was overhauled, and I am not getting any younger. We are on the right track.
People in the furniture industry told us that it was already too late, that we could not possibly ask them to completely overhaul their production in a short time frame. A mattress manufacturer told me that there is no such thing as a queen-size bed in Europe because European standards are different. How is he supposed to get a loan to produce and export within two months mattresses that his machines cannot even make while facing an immediate crisis?
In his economic update, the finance minister asked us to take his hand and dance with him. We have been extending our own hand for so long our shoulder is hurting.
What are we asking for? We are asking for a wage subsidy so that these small businesses can survive, a subsidy that would be revenue neutral if we consider the fact that the laid-off workers will get EI benefits.
We are also calling for permanent safeguard tariffs against dumping. We are all familiar with the issue of Asian furniture today. There is a decline in global demand and a slowdown. Dumping is a problem. Safeguard tariffs are needed, but they must be more permanent, especially with Asia, so that we are not constantly renegotiating them and that the unions are not always having to monitor whether they have been renegotiated.
Part of the countervailing duties in the forestry industry must be bought back. These people are sending money that is held in trust to the United States, and they end up winning in court and getting the money back later. It is an asset, but they cannot use it as collateral to secure financing. That is an issue. The government could buy back some of those assets with its cash reserves and allow the forestry industry to continue operating.
There needs to be a binding buy local policy. As for the “buy Canadian” slogan, “Canadian” for me is a brand of beer. The Liberals do not have a real buy local policy. They have a strategy that is riddled with holes and full of exceptions. If it is not binding, then people will only look at one thing, and the government will only look at one thing: the price. In order to make buying local a factor, a binding policy is needed.
The duty refund program for re-exporters needs to be accelerated and simplified. Currently, some products containing steel and aluminum cross the border two, three, four or five times. That is the nature of the Canada-U.S. border. Folks pay the fees over and over again and, eventually, get them refunded. In the meantime, those companies do not have that liquidity. The program is not agile enough. It is not fast enough. This solution would also be revenue neutral, because the program already exists.
Businesses need a single point of service where they can turn for help. Everyone here has to understand that for a company with 22 employees, managed by a limited number of staff, the prospect of paying $300 or $400 in legal or consulting fees just to grasp what is going on with these tariffs is a problem. The departments in the best position to inform these companies are Global Affairs Canada and the Department of Finance. There needs to be a single point of service. Someone who owns a small business has to be able to get precise information by phone. That also forces the government to keep up with the times because right now it always seems to be lagging behind, out of date. It gives the impression that the math does not add up, that the tariff rates quoted over the phone are somehow blurred with confusion. When the survival of their business is at stake, owners need a single point of service.
Above all, they need a detailed understanding of the tariffs, including the number of businesses, industries and sectors affected. They need to know the average tariff, and the average by province and by region. They need to know the number of companies affected.
There are smart people on both sides of the House; not all of them, but some. I jest. I am trying to make people laugh because I know my colleagues like that. People are capable of coming up with good ideas, but they need a road map, and it is typically up to the government to provide that.
That is the intention behind our motion. I think it is important to listen to the other side. This is all constructive. I would like to take a few moments to say that some people I hold in high regard are on Parliament Hill today. I cannot say where they are, but I can give them my regards.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. As he mentioned, we work very well together at the Standing Committee on Finance. I very much appreciate everything he said.
I want to ask him to tell us a bit more about how his constituents are affected and how important it is for them to get the support that they need. I liked when he talked about SMEs and the importance of retaining workers.
Does the hon. member have anything more to say on that subject?
Mr. Speaker, I am in touch with wood processing plants in my riding that have been somewhat impacted for a long time. Some sectors have been subjected to 50% tariffs for a long time, and we know that a solution cannot come fast enough.
The aeronautics and aerospace industries have been relatively spared, at least for the time being. In Mirabel, we have been lucky, but small businesses are worried. They have two points that they want to raise, and that is not rhetoric.
Their first point is that they are not informed. They learn about tariffs on TV, on the radio and from Bloc Québécois members, because the Bloc Québécois is on top of things.
Their second point is that they cannot hope to survive with only a loan, especially the smallest businesses.
I want to end by mentioning the pandemic emergency loan. How many businesses were not able to pay, or are still unable to pay, even if they were profitable and were closed during the pandemic? I think that we need to learn from these lessons when it comes to smaller businesses.
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. It is apparent that he was a teacher before becoming an MP.
Going back to the $1.5-billion program, we are talking about loans that must be repaid over three years. However, companies are losing money due to U.S. tariffs. With these 25% tariffs, they are forced to lower their prices to remain competitive, or they will be forced out of the market.
If businesses decide not to take advantage of this program, could it speed up the closure of small and medium-sized businesses in Canada, given that it is not the government that is experiencing the tariff problem, but businesses, because they have to pay back or postpone the losses they are currently experiencing?
Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes, for the most vulnerable businesses.
Similarly, I would like to point out that it is not equally easy for all types of businesses to diversify and seek out new export markets. A large manufacturing company has the resources to do so, but a smaller company often exports a larger proportion of its production to the United States. It is therefore more difficult, takes more time, and involves greater risks. It is also far from clear in the very short term whether these loans for one, two or three years are the solution. These businesses know that they are going to have to become more productive or diversify. However, a three-year time frame for small and medium-sized businesses is, in many cases, highly unrealistic.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière was right in saying that it is easy to see that the member for Mirabel used to be a university professor. He has a knack for putting things simply.
I, on the other hand, am even simpler than that. I am not exactly an expert when it comes to economics and finance. When I am not an expert in a particular field, I tend to stay on the path forged by others who know more about the subject than I do.
I remember the recent pandemic we experienced about five or six years ago. At the Bloc Québécois's suggestion, the House passed a wage subsidy. My colleague talked about it in his speech and others have also talked about it. It worked and it helped to save businesses. That is the well-beaten path that I would tend to follow since I do not know much about this.
However, our Prime Minister, who knows a lot about economics and finance, does not seem to want to follow that path. I do not understand why. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Does he not think that we should rely on what has already been done rather than trying to reinvent the wheel and possibly falling flat on our faces?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is a macroeconomist. This explains why he lacks an eye for detail in certain areas.
In the case of the wage subsidy, its purpose is to allow the business to pause operations while production is halted, in a context where the EI system is inadequate or where its actuarial structure means that if these workers were covered, then smaller SMEs would end up being taxed more heavily. It is an effective mechanism that supports workers, maintains employment linkages and acknowledges, as the government has said, that this is an artificial crisis created by the Americans and that it is temporary.
Mr. Speaker, I felt compelled to speak when my colleague from Mirabel mentioned South Shore Furniture, a company in my riding. I salute its employees, who unfortunately lost their jobs recently. I have worked very closely with the Laflamme family on the challenge that they are currently facing. This company has borne the consequences of Chinese dumping in recent years.
Together with the Canadian Wood Products Alliance, we met with the Minister of Finance, who has asked the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to launch an investigation. I would like to know whether my colleague discussed this investigation during his meetings. What feedback has he received?
Mr. Speaker, I did not talk about that investigation specifically, but it is clear that it is a problem. It is clear that the Minister of Finance was right to take that initiative. Just because we are opening our borders and there is a type of free market between the countries does not mean that everything coming into our country is competitive.
There are problems with Chinese products. That is true for the furniture sector. Some pieces of furniture are coming in almost 95% assembled. A bit of Canadian upholstery gets added, and then the furniture gets resold as a Canadian product for re-export. That is a problem.
My thoughts are with the employees as well. The company that closed its doors was not a company with productivity or governance issues. It was not a company that was told that it needed to invest in its productivity in the short term to get through the crisis. There are aspects of the market that far exceed what that company could have done. Unfortunately, it is too late. Maybe the lessons we learn from this will help save other jobs in other companies.
Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague from Mirabel also sees the blatant unfairness in what the government is doing, since it has a double standard when it comes to the oil and gas sector versus sectors specific to Quebec. We saw that the government's response has been very slow, particularly in the economic statement. We see the astronomical amounts being given to the oil and gas sector. I often think that if only a fraction of the obscene amounts given to the oil and gas sector went to the forestry or aluminum sectors, we would be in a much stronger position.
I would like to hear what my colleague, who is highly knowledgeable about economics, has to say about this.
Mr. Speaker, if there is one sector that does not need government support, it is the energy sector, particularly in the west. I believe that the oil companies are getting about $10 billion a year in subsidies for small modular reactors that make it possible to produce even more oil.
The accelerated capital cost allowance has also been expanded to include enhanced oil recovery, which basically involves injecting CO2 underground to extract even more oil.
Mr. Speaker, I know that you like oil, and I am not stopping you from liking oil, but it is the subsidies to oil companies that are problematic and that could be put to better use. That is why I am happy to talk about them.
Mr. Speaker, everyone can see that my colleague's economic knowledge serves him well.
However, he said in his speech that the government was resurrecting an existing program. I think that is a good thing, so that companies that are truly in need receive help quickly. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, businesses are not going to get help quickly that way. The program is not agile enough. I did not say that the program was all bad. I said that these two programs were never designed to handle a situation as urgent as the one we are facing today. That is what I said. These are good tools for doing something, but not for doing what needs to be done today.
Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to have the opportunity to debate motions tabled by the opposition parties. Today, our hon. colleague from Joliette—Manawan moved a motion about the challenges posed by the U.S. tariffs, particularly for our manufacturing sector.
I appreciate the way the Bloc Québécois has presented this motion today, because I think the wording of the motion is relatively fair. I have friends on the other side of the House of Commons, among the Conservatives. However, I find that there is always some sort of catch in how the Conservative motions are worded. That said, I feel that the Bloc's work presents an opportunity for MPs from all parties to discuss a crucial issue, namely the impact of the U.S. tariffs, particularly the section 232 tariffs. This is important for communities across the country, including those in Quebec, of course, as well as in southwestern Ontario and in my riding. I am pleased to have the opportunity to present the perspective of my constituents in Kings—Hants, as well as my own as Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. I think everyone here understands that the situation is difficult.
There are four aspects to the Bloc Québécois motion. Point (a) condemns the imposition of the new U.S. tariffs that came into force on April 6, 2026, as contrary to the principles of free trade. We agree with that aspect of the motion. It is important to remind all Canadians that we have the best agreement with the United States, CUSMA. More than 85% of our goods and services trade is tariff-free. This is very important for our national economy.
However, it is true that, for the sectors affected by the section 232 tariffs, things are very difficult. Things are difficult for the steel industry, for the aluminum industry and for the forestry sector. Now, with the revised tariff structure, it is no longer simply a matter of a tariff on certain non-U.S. products, but rather a tariff imposed on the full price of products in general. This increase stems from a decision by the U.S. administration. In some cases, there was a tariff of 2% or 3%, and it has now risen to over 20%. There are many examples. Our colleagues have mentioned some today. We agree with the first part of the Bloc Québécois opposition motion.
Point (b) says 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. We agree on that. As I mentioned, it is how the U.S. administration decided to expand its section 232 policy. That is a problem for our SMEs across the country.
We generally agree, but we have some reservations about point (c). It is not that it is problematic, but rather that we are already taking corrective action and helping our businesses.
Point (c) of the motion expresses concern that this new trade environment could have irreparable effects on our manufacturing sector and the employees who depend on it. Yes, we understand that the situation is very difficult, but I believe that now is the time to help the sectors affected by tariffs and, at the same time, build a resilient economy.
I would like to raise some important points about our government's approach to addressing the challenge posed by tariffs for the affected sectors, as well as for the economy as a whole.
First, we will be our own best customer in the steel, aluminum and softwood lumber sectors. That is why the minister responsible for procurement here in Canada is focused on how to buy more from our SMEs and our industries in general. I am proud of the products made by our local companies, I understand them better and I know that Canadians are now proud, too. With the government's purchasing power, we have an opportunity to support our businesses across the country.
When it comes to helping businesses, the next focus will be on agriculture and agri-food. We have a lot of farmers, especially in Quebec, but also in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. Based on certain aspects of U.S. policy, I think it is also important to help farmers, especially our small-scale farmers, with a buy local policy. The national school food program provides an opportunity to buy local products. That is one aspect of our national policy.
With the goal of being our own best customer in mind, I am thinking of the Irving Shipyard in Halifax. We likely have more than 4,000 local workers, skilled workers, who have the opportunity to build and repair Royal Canadian Navy ships. This is a good example of our investment in the defence sector. It will be an opportunity not only to support members of the Canadian Armed Forces, but also to create good jobs across the country.
There are other examples, such as the Davie Shipyard in Quebec City, CEI in Montreal, and Bombardier. There are many examples across the country. Now is the time to help these sectors.
It is also important to find other markets. We agree with the proposal to continue our long-standing good relationship with the United States and recognize the importance of that market for our industries in general. That said, we must find other markets to support our businesses and diversify our free trade relationships around the world.
I am very proud of the work done by our government to open new markets and create export opportunities for our products. There are many different sectors in that context, but it is very important in Europe, in South America, in the Asia-Pacific region, just as it is in India, Indonesia and China, in some cases. I am aware of the impacts on some of the manufacturing sectors, but new markets are very important in certain areas.
When it comes to supporting workers involved with the EI extension and the specific funding initiatives for companies impacted by U.S. tariffs, we have invested over $5 billion in a program called the strategic response fund in order to help companies in the auto, steel and forestry sectors withstand the impacts of the section 232 tariffs and the tariffs imposed by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
We recognize the importance of finding a way forward in the context of free trade with the U.S. administration. However, at the same time, we are here. We are here for workers in Quebec, in Ontario and across Canada. In the Atlantic, we have other products that are targeted by the U.S. tariffs.
We have programs in place. I am also proud to highlight the importance of the funding allocated to Canada's regional development agencies. There are various agencies across the country, and there are funds dedicated to helping affected companies, but funds are also being distributed to provide regional support in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, the Prairies, and western Canada. My colleague from Winnipeg North is familiar with the programs available in western Canada.
There are two other important aspects to consider when building a resilient economy. One is major projects.
The opposition motion we are seized with today was moved by my Bloc Québécois colleague from Joliette—Manawan. I am going to talk about major projects in Quebec, such as the Port of Montreal project in Contrecoeur, which is very important. It is very important for Montreal, for Quebec, but also for Canada. This is an example of a major project aimed at benefiting many sectors, such as the sectors affected by tariffs, including steel and aluminum, as well as workers, who face various challenges because of the tariffs.
Nouveau Monde Graphite is a good example of a critical mineral project in Quebec. It is a good example of innovation in Quebec and Canada. Alto is also important when it comes to transportation and Canadian procurement. This is an opportunity to support that industry.
In Nova Scotia, there is the Wind West transformation project, which is important for energy in Atlantic Canada. There is the Bay du Nord project in Newfoundland and Labrador. From what I understand, the premier of New Brunswick wants to implement a nuclear project in the province.
We therefore have many opportunities to strengthen our economy in general.
I also think that we need to invest in major projects to increase our export capacity. I mentioned the Contrecœur port, but the Minister of Transport has over $5 billion to invest in railways, ports, airports and logistics hubs through the trade diversification corridors fund. There are many important investments that can act as catalysts for private sector investments. That is another reason why it is important to get to work and focus on what helps us to be masters in our own house.
We recognize the importance of finding a path forward with the U.S. in the context of CUSMA. That being said, as the Prime Minister noted, it is impossible to control the President of the United States, Mr. Trump. What we do have control over is our regulations, our initiatives here in Canada and our economic vision for the future of our communities and regions. I think this aspect is absolutely crucial in the context of what is to come.
Now that I have gone over the first three points of the Bloc Québécois motion, I will read the last one, point (d):
(d) call on the government to take all necessary measures without delay to mitigate the impact of these unjustified tariffs, including providing direct support to affected businesses and workers in Quebec and Canada, until a trade agreement with the United States is restored.
We still have free trade with the United States, but we like the idea of charting a path forward in a context where tariffs are reduced or eliminated for the affected sectors. As I mentioned, we have more than $500 billion set aside specifically for companies, sectors and industries directly affected by the U.S. tariffs.
We believe in the importance of these sectors and our workers in this context. The repercussions are known, and they affect not only Quebec and Ontario, but the entire country, given our continental economic integration with the United States. That is why we are going to seek out other markets. We are going to continue to help businesses, SMEs and workers affected by the tariffs. We understand that the situation is very difficult and that companies have little room to maneuver.
We will also continue to invest in the Canadian Armed Forces. We have invested billions of dollars to buy more equipment and provide homes for our soldiers, for Canadian Armed Forces personnel. We believe that these investments are crucial for protecting our sovereignty, but also for our industrial capacity across the country. That includes Quebec companies.
I see that I am out of time. It was a pleasure to have the opportunity to highlight the federal government's measures in general and to share some personal insights at the same time. I am ready to answer questions from my colleagues.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary Crowfoot, Finance; the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, Public Services and Procurement; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Health.
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his French. I will give my colleague a passing grade on that, but I will not give the government a passing grade.
The forestry crisis has been going on since 2017. Once in a while, I like to go on the website of the Institut de la statistique du Québec to see how many businesses have closed and how many jobs have been lost since 2017. The last time I checked, 35 major businesses had closed and 29 businesses were experiencing sporadic closures. Their operations were significantly at risk. About 2,200 full-time jobs had been lost and 1,900 part-time jobs had been lost. That is what the softwood lumber dispute is doing.
The government has not announced anything yet, other than what we saw last August. That clearly did not meet the expectations of the forestry sector. Everything in the forestry sector is currently destabilized. I want to hear my colleague's thoughts on that, because we are still waiting for an important and worthwhile announcement about support for the forestry industry.
Mr. Speaker, I agree that the forestry sector is important in Canada. My riding is home to companies such as Elmsdale Lumber and Ledwidge Lumber. In Nova Scotia, the forestry sector is absolutely crucial to our rural communities. I think that we can place greater emphasis on all the ideas put forward by members of the House of Commons to ensure that we have specific programs in place to help the sector as a whole during these very difficult times.
We have over $1.5 billion earmarked for the forestry sector. Things are tough right now due to the conflict with the United States, but we need to focus on this sector to ensure it has a future. Solid wood construction is also more important in the context of Build Canada Homes.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite understands the problem, but he is not providing the solution. Instead of talking about the issue, he was focused on improving his French in his speech.
The U.S. continues to impose tariffs on key Canadian sectors: steel, aluminum, lumber and auto parts. If Canada wants a deal with the United States, we need leverage. Our leverage comes from our strengths: our energy, our critical minerals and our ability to supply the inputs that North American industries depend on.
Why have the Liberals failed to defend Canadian industries and workers in these critical sectors?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of my use of French here in the House of Commons. Of course I speak English too, but I will not apologize for speaking French.
[English]
To address the member in his own language, he talked about the work that this government is doing. We are focused on building, and maybe he did not hear because he was not listening very closely through the translation about the work that the government is doing to build up energy and natural resource projects in the country. That is exactly what we are doing. We are engaged, and we are at the table.
We will take no lessons from the Conservatives. We see the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North going down and engaging. He is not in a mandate to actually do that.
I will remind my hon. colleague that before his time in the House, in the last NAFTA renegotiation, the Conservatives suggested that the government should fold and try to get a deal at the time. We are going to make sure that the deal we make is in the best interest of Canadian industry and workers. When we are at that point, we will have more to say on that.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from Kings—Hants. I note that we have relatively similar ridings in terms of wood, steel and aluminum manufacturing processing. We share another similarity, and that is agricultural products.
My colleague provided a good outline of what we are doing for the primary sectors he mentioned. Can he also explain how we are supporting the agricultural sector given the difficult situation we are facing with the United States?
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on introducing her bill regarding the importance of cellular service in rural areas. I am very proud of her and her work because this is a very important issue in the riding of Compton—Stanstead, in my riding of Kings—Hants as well, and in many rural communities.
In the agricultural sector, we are going to introduce a national food strategy that will be particularly important to farmers in both of our ridings. I could give many examples, but I do not have much time. That said, we are paying particular attention to agricultural issues in general.
Mr. Speaker, earlier in his speech, my colleague spoke at length about market diversification and access to the liquidity measures being proposed by the government. The member for Mirabel did a very good job instructing us earlier on the long-term effects of these measures. However, businesses in the aluminum industry and forestry sector need short-term help here and now.
One solution that everyone seems to support amounts to the equivalent of a wage subsidy. This would maintain the employment relationship and give businesses some breathing room. I do not understand why the government is closed to the idea. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, we have a lot of funding programs available to support sectors currently affected by the U.S. tariffs. I think and I imagine that the hon. Minister of Industry is open to suggestions from all the parties in the House of Commons. I will pass these ideas on to the minister. I know that it is important to the minister that they be brought to the government's attention. All options are on the table, because we understand the importance of supporting our workers affected by the U.S. tariffs.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned vision. If this is the Liberal government's vision, I find quite concerning, especially as I represent the people of London—Fanshawe, but it is also concerning for the region of London. We are talking about the affordability crisis and the cost of living crisis, and London's 9.1% unemployment is the highest in Canada. That is a concern also.
Also with regard to vision, especially for the people who have to utilize the food bank, what we do tell the people in the lineup of the food bank about when the Prime Minister is going to come through and solve the tariff issue?
Mr. Speaker, I will leave it to the Canadian people to decide whether or not the Prime Minister and the government have the vision they are looking for. I would remind my hon. colleague that according to basic statistics right now, almost 70% of Canadians approve of the general direction of the government. It is not for me to say and perhaps not for him to say. We obviously wear different partisan-coloured shirts in the House, so to speak, but I believe, in the context, and I have travelled across this country, that Canadians believe in the vision the Prime Minister is putting forward.
We obviously understand that right now this is a difficult context of sectors that are being impacted, and I would suggest that it is through no fault of the government. We did not walk in wanting this. We are dealing with the circumstances. When I think about businesses in London, I think about the defence sector and the investments we are making that can help support business in London and help support people who are being impacted.
With respect to affordability, I would ask the member to support the programs we are putting in place for some of the most vulnerable people. Accordingly, it is important for him to jump on board to support the government for some of the people who are being impacted.
Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was very informative. Our government has been diversifying to help the agricultural sector. We recently opened trade with Mexico. In particular, potatoes are going to go into Mexico. There are exporters in my riding who are very excited about that.
Can the member speak to that?
Mr. Speaker, I would simply highlight that the Minister of Agriculture, who is from the member's home province, has been doing great work in Mexico, whether it is with potatoes or other things. In my context, it is apples from the Annapolis Valley, and there is also the beef sector. I say “well done” to the Minister of Agriculture and the government on creating new markets.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, what is happening today goes way beyond a temporary trade spat. Since the U.S. administration's April 6 executive order, we have been seeing a methodical, systematic and deeply harmful hardening of the rules that our businesses were required to follow.
Up until yesterday, there was a logical rationale behind the already excessive steel and aluminum tariffs. Today, Washington chose to hit hard by imposing a flat tariff of 25% on the total value of products that contain more than 15% Canadian steel, aluminum or copper.
In other words, it is no longer just a tax on a raw material. It is a tax on our ability to process, innovate and export. It is a tax on our economic intelligence. The consequences are immediate. Products that were once protected by trade agreements are now being hard hit. According to available analyses, nearly a quarter of our U.S. exports are affected.
This figure of one-quarter needs to be taken seriously. It is a major blow to our economy. However, and this is where the problem lies, the government's response so far has been timid, if not downright inadequate. The recent economic statement included zero provisions, and the subsequent measures announced yesterday—while showing some awareness of the situation—essentially rely on businesses taking on additional debt when, in many cases, they are already stretched to the limit. They are being offered loans, when what they need is breathing room. They are being offered bureaucratic processes, when what they need is predictability.
Meanwhile, the reality is harsh. Orders will fall off, perhaps not today, perhaps not tomorrow morning, but in the coming months, once the current orders have beeen filled. At that point, it will no longer be a question of worrying. It will be a question of closures, job losses and entire regions on shaky ground.
The government needs to stop managing on a day-to-day basis. It must act with diligence, consistency and, above all, ambition.
We must start by protecting human capital. A temporary wage subsidy, modelled on what has been successfully implemented in times of crisis, would enable us to keep workers employed, maintain expertise and avoid a brain drain that would take years to recover from.
Next, we have to defend our strategic sectors: wood, aluminum, steel. These are not things of the past. They are the pillars of our industrial future. We need safeguards to counter unfair practices, whether from the U.S. or any other country.
We also have to take a smart financial approach. Buying back part of the countervailing duties that our softwood lumber producers are subject to, for example, is not an expenditure; it is strategic repositioning.
Above all, we need to stop trying to act as if buying local were optional. It must become a nation-building obligation. The government has to be an economic driver, not a spectator.
We also need to take concrete, pragmatic measures: simplify duty drawback mechanisms, offer centralized support to SMEs and, above all, develop a clear, complete and detailed picture of impacted businesses. Governing means understanding, and understanding requires measurements.
Finally, I will say it bluntly: Quebec is facing $8 billion in potential losses, but the response from across the aisle is only $1.5 billion. Numbers do not lie: The response is not serious, it is not enough, and it is not the way to protect our economy.
We have to tell it like it is. Donald Trump's executive order is a direct attack on SMEs in Quebec and Canada. It is a targeted, bold and deeply destabilizing attack. This is no mere trade dispute. These are trade-distorting tariffs imposed by a foreign country with no regard for the established rules.
The change in the way section 232 tariffs are calculated, which is now based on the full customs value of the product rather than just the metal content value, is exactly the type of foreign economic interference that the House has always spoken out against. We are talking about a rule that was imposed unilaterally, without notice, which distorts competition and penalizes those who made the right choice: to process here, invest here and create value here.
Let us make no mistake. These tariffs are being imposed in bad faith. To keep those measures in place, the White House is circumventing the very spirit of certain United States court rulings. In other words, the American President is governing as he pleases. In light of that, Ottawa's responsibility is clear: It must protect the Quebec and Canadian economies, protect their workers and protect their businesses. Yet what are we seeing? We are seeing Ottawa dragging its feet, hesitating, reacting, but always one step behind.
The Prime Minister was elected on a promise to defend our economy against this type of trade aggression; yet still today, he remains on the defensive, as though the situation were going to resolve itself. That is not going to happen. Things are only going to get worse. There are more tariffs now than there were when this government took office. While Ottawa is dithering, this is having very real consequences on the ground. Quebec, which is already more vulnerable to the United States' tariff policies than the rest of the country, is being hit extremely hard.
In the manufacturing sector alone, thousands of jobs have been lost over the past year. Entire industries, from forestry to certain segments of the cultural sector, have seen their employment rates decline significantly. With the new measures announced in April, the situation is only going to get worse. It is not just the metal being taxed now. It is the labour, the ingenuity, and the value added by Quebec and Canada. Every processed product becomes a target. Every company that has chosen to move upmarket is penalized. It is a perverse logic that rewards raw materials and punishes economic intelligence. We cannot accept that.
Supporting our motion is not a symbolic gesture. It is a necessary step in defending the very credibility of our trade agreements, including the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement. We negotiated these agreements in good faith, with the goal of creating a stable, predictable and equitable economic space. Washington has decided to change the rules midway through the game. This is not trade. It is commercial predation. Predation cannot be met with a wait-and-see attitude. It must be met with firmness. It must be met with concrete measures. It must be met by rising to the challenge.
On April 21 in the House, the leader of the Bloc Québécois asked the Prime Minister a very simple question: Will there be any transitional measures to support our businesses and workers affected by the new U.S. tariffs? The answer was clear: Yes, they will be in the economic update. However, the update was tabled on April 28, and it does nothing to address the urgent situation. I mean it when I say “nothing”. There are no targeted measures to counter the tariffs imposed by Donald Trump's administration. There is no structured response to support the businesses directly affected by the tariffs. There is no plan to protect our industrial base.
What we are presented with instead are improvised financial schemes, a $25‑billion so-called sovereign wealth fund, which is sovereign in name only and whose mandate could just as easily have been given to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which, by the way, has not even used all the funds allocated to it. Meanwhile, the debt continues to grow, and with it the cost of servicing that debt, which will exceed $80 billion within a few years, far more than what is being transferred to the provinces for health care. I would remind the House that Ottawa is not complying with its own legislation.
However, there are proposals. We had some, we still have some and we will continue to have more. The Bloc Québécois came up with a series of concrete and realistic measures that were adapted to the crisis. Not only were these proposals ignored, but Ottawa did not even see fit to consult us. That says a lot. That is indicative of a government that governs in isolation. That is indicative of a government that confuses a parliamentary majority with not having to listen. Even more troubling, while our businesses are suffering, Ottawa is patting itself on the back for its revenues. More than $10 million was collected in tariffs, but just over half has been redistributed.
The remaining $4.5 billion is sitting idle in Ottawa's coffers while SMEs are forced to shut down and workers are losing their jobs. The tools are there and the money is there. What is missing is the political will.
To add insult to injury, the government continues to rely on outdated data to assess the impact of the tariffs. That is not good crisis management. That is improvisation. In an economic crisis, improvisation always negatively affects the same folks: workers, the regions and SMEs. Recognizing a problem is one thing, and that is great. That is probably the first step. Taking action, however, is another matter entirely.
At pivotal moments, the nations that come out on top are not those that wait for the storm to pass, but rather the ones that mobilize to confront it directly. While Canada may not be ready to do so, Quebec will do it every time. There are many solutions that just need to be implemented.
I hope the House will adopt today's Bloc Québécois opposition day motion. This is what it comes down to.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's wonderful speech. I can see that he is really upset, that he is angry.
Here is the question I would like to ask my colleague. Would he be prepared to sacrifice Quebec's economy in order to hurry up and sign any agreement, without thinking it through?
Mr. Speaker, no. I think that goes without saying. I have always said that we agree with trade agreements in principle, but that our support is not unconditional. In fact, the sovereigntist movement in Quebec was initially a major driving force behind the shift towards free trade and opening up the economy. It was Jacques Parizeau and Bernard Landry who worked very hard in the 1980s to convince Quebeckers to embark on this venture. It has been beneficial to us.
If an agreement is flawed, if it contains aspects that will have negative repercussions, we will not agree to it, obviously. That goes without saying.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the excellent speech he gave and the concerns he displayed.
Manufacturing industries are closing. Canadian workers and businesses already know there is no deal on the tariffs coming any time soon. Jobs are moving south. The U.S. is offering incentives for the manufacturing sector while the Liberal government is offering delays, higher taxes, more red tape and no clear path forward.
Why are the Liberals making it harder to build and produce in Canada? Can the member explain the impacts of higher taxes, more regulations and the lack of a real plan to support our industries?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is up to me to explain the behaviour of the Liberal government. That is not my function, not my job. That said, I would like to clarify that some regulations may be good and some taxes may be good. It all depends on how they are applied.
As for the rest, this sovereign wealth fund is sovereign in name only. In fact, we voted with the Conservatives on this during their opposition day. Considering our proposals to help sectors in urgent need, I hope that the Conservatives will vote in favour of our opposition motion, as we did for theirs.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague will probably agree with me. Once again, we have proof that Quebec is trapped in the Canadian straitjacket. In 2008, during the financial crisis, money was there for the automotive sector. Today, the logic goes like this: The government is rushing to take action for the auto sector, and the same goes for the energy sector, by which I mean oil and gas. However, when it comes to supporting Quebec's economy, the response is very, very feeble.
I know a solution for that. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts. What would be the best solution for Quebec today?
Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, we were talking about the medium or long term. Now, we can start talking about the short term, or at least I hope so. I will let my colleague guess what solution I recommend. I know that he recommends the same one. I will simply remind him that Pierre Falardeau said that, while there is certainly a cost to independence, there is also a cost to dependence, and it is immeasurably higher.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, as a government, we have witnessed a great deal of support, as recently as just the other day when government members talked about the importance of the Business Development Bank of Canada, with $1 billion going toward that. We talked about Canada's regional development agencies and the role they are going to be playing, with $500 million for that. Whether it is steelworkers, copper workers, the aluminum sector or even, if I would extend it, the lumber industry, we recognize that there are industries in Canada that the Prime Minister, along with every Liberal member of Parliament and, I would like to think, everyone, is concerned about in regard to protecting the interests of workers and protecting our businesses. That is why we are providing those types of supports.
It is something that has been ongoing virtually since the last election, when Canadians elected the current Prime Minister. It is not something that has just come up. We will continue to be there for our workers and businesses into the future. It is more of a comment than a question.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I know that some action has been taken and that is a good thing. We never said otherwise.
However, the fact is that the government promised to quickly put an end to tariffs within a few months; yet, today, we have more tariffs than we did when this government first took office. I think that is a sign of failure.
Just this morning, I met with furniture manufacturers who said that they agreed with the measures that the government is proposing, but that those measures are woefully inadequate because they do not make much difference. These measures are not really going to help them like targeted assistance or wages subsidies would. That is the bottom line.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, real relief does not come from government loan programs. It comes from getting tariffs reduced or eliminated. Loans do not restore competitiveness. They saddle struggling businesses with more debt, while the underlying problem remains.
At the same time, the Liberals are failing to focus on what Canada can control. Instead of strengthening our economy at home, they continue to layer on red tape, slow approvals and policies that make it harder to build, produce and compete. I wonder if the member from the Bloc could expand on this.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, generally speaking, it is clear that there are significant differences between the solutions the Bloc Québécois favours and those the Conservatives favour. That is a fact. We are a democracy. That is just the way it is. Still, there are indeed many criticisms we can level at this government, even if they do not always come from the same perspective.
We are currently focusing our criticism on the fact that more proactive steps should have been taken on a wide range of issues a long time ago. I gave the example of targeted measures, such as the wage subsidy. One of the most urgent issues is the public procurement policies. We are expecting these policies very soon. I know there is talk that this should happen. We look forward to reviewing the policies in question. We look forward to seeing what they entail.
However, for far too long, we have seen that, in the context of the U.S. economic offensive, procurement policies, or policies designed to circumvent procurement, have often been deliberately crafted to give priority to U.S. companies. There are all sorts of things that should be done and prioritized, but so far, that is not what we have seen.
Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague from Winnipeg North say earlier that we need to support workers. We in the Bloc Québécois stand up day after day because we support Quebec workers.
The main problem is that our colleagues opposite stand up and say that they are here to build Canada. Unfortunately, from what I have seen since the last election, they are here to build Canada while ignoring Quebec. All they talk about is oil and gas and the auto sector.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the double standard. In Quebec, the tariffs are hitting the forestry and aluminum sectors the hardest, but we are still waiting for a response from the government that lives up to our expectations.
Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade for a long time, and I have been working on this portfolio since I was first elected to the House of Commons. I can give numerous examples. I specifically remember one telling anecdote. The United States had announced new softwood lumber tariffs and, at roughly the same time, it also announced the Inflation Reduction Act, which would have affected Canada's auto industry. Both came at the same time. I was invited by the former minister of international trade, Ms. Ng, to go to Washington on an urgent mission. I thought we were going to discuss softwood lumber, but that did not come up at all. The only thing on the agenda was the auto industry. A short time later, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sent out his mandate letters. There was not a word about softwood lumber in the then minister of international trade's mandate letter. Examples like this abound, and I think they illustrate the double standard my colleague was talking about.
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton's speech on this motion, which was entirely relevant and appropriate under the circumstances. The situation that the Bloc Québécois is speaking out against is one that is long-standing and extremely problematic. The government is always playing catch-up. That is what is happening with health care. In the beginning, the federal government was covering 50% of health care costs. Now it is covering less than 20% of those costs, and it takes everything we have got to try to get it to cover 6% of the annual cost increases. The federal government is not there yet. It does not want to. The federal government does not want to put money into health care, even though Quebec and the provinces are asking it to.
Let us come back to the problem of agreements with the United States. I understand that the Prime Minister of Canada cannot decide to remove the tariffs. The American President is the one who imposed them. However, when the Prime Minister took office, he made promises and commitments in that regard. He told us that he would put an end to the tariffs within months, which did not happen. As my colleague pointed out, the tariffs have even increased. That is a sign of failure.
If the government cannot keep its word and deliver what it promised last year, should it not find other ways to at least cushion the blow for Quebeckers and Canadians? Yes, that would cost money, but we have talked about a number of things. All of that can be funded relatively easily. My colleagues from Jonquière and Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton just noted that the federal government always invests to save businesses elsewhere in Canada but very rarely in Quebec.
What if the government cut the oil subsidies? That is a commitment we made. Members will recall that Canada signed the Paris Agreement. It made environmental commitments. It is clear, as every observer and auditor has confirmed year after year, that Canada is not meeting its targets, it is not on track to meet its targets, and it is not making any changes to make that happen. Let us try to live up to our commitments. Let us eliminate the oil subsidies. That would help the government meet its Paris targets and save $25.7 billion over five years that it could use to support the energy transition.
This money could also be used for other programs. The idea of $25.7 billion is a bit abstract, but it is basically $25,700 million, cash. That is $5,140 million a year or $428.33 million a month. I can break it down even further than that. It is $99 million a week. The government would have access to an extra $99 million every week for five years. We could afford plenty of support programs for our businesses. We could support our workers as well as our softwood lumber, aluminum and steel industries. We would be able to support everyone who needs support. Unfortunately, it seems that this government does not have the political will to do it.
We should recoup that $25.7 billion and put it to use. For example, in just two months out of that five‑year period, the government could repay the $814 million owed to Quebeckers because the federal government decided to hand out an election bribe last year by channelling that money to citizens in western Canada. Quebec has been left high and dry. That $814 million could be paid back. It would help.
Why not reform employment insurance and address the infamous spring gap that we have been talking about fixing year after year? I have been here since 2015, and I have been hearing about the spring gap since 2015. Let us take this opportunity to fix it. It would help Quebec and Canadian workers get through the tariff crisis. There are many more ideas like that. Our regional media outlets, and even our national media outlets, are not being subsidized. I have seen criticism from commentators and Radio-Canada analysts about other private media outlets.
I have a great deal of respect for Radio-Canada and I certainly would not want to see it disappear, but why not try to bring a little balance to the media landscape? Why not provide a little more support to private media companies or give them fairer opportunities, while maintaining funding for Radio-Canada?
Why not fix the issue with old age security? The previous federal government decided to create two classes of seniors. The government increased benefits for seniors 75 and over, but those 65 to 75 were told to manage on their own. Maybe they could receive support. That might not be a bad idea in a period of austerity like the one we are in now.
There are other ideas like that. I was speaking earlier about health care. The increase in transfers is 6% per year, which amounts to $14 billion over five years. Earlier I mentioned that $25.7 billion over five years could be recouped just by eliminating the oil subsidies.
There are plenty of solutions, and I could list many others.
Again, I get the message. I may not be an economist, but I get it. I get the Prime Minister's message that he cannot solve the tariff crisis on his own and that it was Donald Trump who imposed these tariffs. I get that, I am not dense, but there are other things that are within our control.
The oil subsidies are within the government's control. As for the media crisis, the government holds all the cards. The election bribe it sent to western Canada using Quebec's money—now that is serious—was within the government's control. The government could sign cheques. It could fix the EI spring gap.
I encourage our Prime Minister to use the skills he says he has, which I do not doubt. After all, he has held several important economic and financial positions over the course of his professional career. I have no doubt of his qualifications, but could he use them for our benefit, since that was why he was elected? Rightly or wrongly, a lot of Canadians and Quebeckers believed that he was the man to help us solve the tariff crisis. A year later, however, we see that not only has he failed to help, but the situation has actually gotten worse.
Let us put that aside for a moment and make use of the tools we have. We could cut the oil subsidies, equalize benefits for our seniors, refund Quebeckers the money they are owed, support our media industry and fix the problems with EI. I could list many other things, but I think that, even with just these, there is plenty of work to be done. The means and the needs are there.
This is something our Prime Minister is capable of doing. The question is, does he have the will to do it?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, as we wind down the discussion on the opposition day motion, I must say that I appreciate the motion. I have enjoyed the debate today.
We are trying to support businesses and workers. It is one of the reasons I have tried to highlight the number of actions the government has taken, and not only the recent ones. I highlighted the Business Development Bank and the regional development agencies. We can talk about the work-sharing programs and some of the bigger holistic approaches we have taken to deal with trade and to expand the opportunities beyond borders. Having the backs of the people of Quebec, and of all of Canada, is critically important to the government, and we will continue to do so.
I want to acknowledge that I value the emotion Bloc members have brought today. I have really enjoyed the debate on such an important issue to all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, what my colleague has just said is a comment, not a question. I will take note of his comment and say the same to him. I am not going to repeat what I said, but, since he is part of this government, is he capable of persuading his leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, to take action? It is all well and good to talk and announce measures, but is he capable of taking action around benefits for seniors, the media, the EI spring gap and wage subsidies?
Wage subsidies were a proposal put forward by the Bloc Québécois during the pandemic six years ago. It worked and we saved businesses.
Can we use the tools we have, follow the well-trodden paths that have proven their worth, and help the citizens of Quebec and Canada get through the tariff crisis?
It being 5:37 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
[Chair read text of motion to House]
The Deputy Speaker: If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 6, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
[English]
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
[Translation]
Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada Act
moved that Bill C-268, An Act respecting the Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of pride that I rise today in the House for the second reading of Bill C-268, the spectrum policy framework for Canada act. This is an important step in the parliamentary process regarding an issue that is truly significant, not only in my rural and mountainous riding, but also for my colleagues across Canada who live in rural, remote, or isolated areas. We are talking about the issue of cellular connectivity.
In recent years, a great deal of work has been done to improve Internet connectivity. I am proud to say that in Quebec, nearly 100% of the population has access to high-speed Internet. With the progress we have made, we can now move on to the next step, which is improving cellular connectivity in rural areas. This issue was brought to my attention during the election. First, in my region, when someone is driving on the roads, even on highways or numbered secondary roads, it is not uncommon for them to have to tell the person on the other end of the line that they are going to lose the connection and will have to call them back a few minutes later. In my area, locals know that whenever someone drives past Mount Orford, they lose connection for a while. It is a minor inconvenience, but it is pretty annoying. We need to remember that there are people living in areas where this service is never available. There are connectivity black holes that need to be addressed, in my opinion.
During the election campaign, this was an issue that many local residents brought up with me, and I promised to work on improving the situation. In my view, this is an issue that the federal government can work on with the provinces, municipalities and telecommunications companies to improve the situation.
To date, it is estimated that roughly 25% of secondary roads in Quebec are not connected. In addition, it is estimated, I think incorrectly, that 97% of the population has access to a cellular network. I believe there is a problem with the way that this is measured if 97% of Canadians are said to be connected, because for many areas in my region, this is clearly not the case. I live in a city with a population of nearly 200,000, and even in my own home it is difficult to get an Internet connection.
For me, this may be anecdotal, but for many businesses and Canadians, it goes beyond that. These are real problems. It is a safety issue and an economic issue, and that is what I wish to address today. That is why I have decided to work with the rural caucus and several stakeholders back home on this situation to help improve it. In 2026, I think that Canadians across the country are entitled to equal cellular service.
The main issue that this bill seeks to address is incomplete or even non‑existent cellular coverage in regions across Canada, including in my own. This is an issue that we talk about a lot within the rural caucus. I know that the teams of the various ministers responsible for this issue are involved in the issue, but I think that it is really important to keep it as a top government priority. In this day and age, we need to move forward. It is a safety issue, because people do not have access to 911. It is an economic issue, because this hinders the development of certain businesses. In addition, it is simply a fairness issue, because cellular service should not depend on the postal code. In 2026, we should not have to live like this.
I want to give a few examples from my riding. I was recently speaking with the chief of the intermunicipal fire safety board in the Coaticook region. In this fairly mountainous region, which is quite close to the U.S. border, firefighters responding to emergencies sometimes have no cell service and are unable to call for backup upon arriving at the scene. As a result, a firefighter, sometimes even the fire chief, has to leave the scene to call for backup.
Some stories are pretty terrifying. Sometimes, especially when first responders are attending incidents in more remote areas, like at the end of a dirt road, it can take several minutes to connect to a cellular network to make a call and then return to the scene. We need to put ourselves in the shoes of these firefighters if they need to reach other services, such as SOPFEU or, in the case of my riding, which is very close to the border, with American services that come to support Canadian services. This means they often have to leave the scene of the fire or emergency to go a short distance away and then come back.
These situations could lead to disasters. Rural areas have managed relatively well so far, but it is important to remember that, in the regions, people are entitled to cell service that is just as good as what is available in the cities.
Someone from my riding came to Ottawa very recently. It was Andrée Gagnon from Maison Séjour, which welcomes women who are victims of domestic violence. Ms. Gagnon indicated that, on certain occasions, there are women who try to get to the shelter to escape a critical situation at home but who do not have access to cell phones. As a result, they are stuck in a home where they are victims of violence. They cannot leave their home because they cannot call for help, because there is a lack of cellular connectivity.
Ms. Gagnon also pointed out a fairly troubling fact: electronic monitoring devices do not work where there is no cellular network or Internet access. Imagine the danger posed by an abuser whose electronic monitoring device does not work and which therefore leaves their victim unprotected. This is where really terrible situations can happen, and this is the kind of situation that needs to be resolved. That needs to be looked at, and that is what Bill C‑268 is about.
I have another example. I talk a lot about safety, and that is something that is very important to think about.
However, there is also a lot of talk about economic development. Take, for example, the transportation industry, where vehicles experience problems when travelling on secondary roads, numbered roads and even highways. These vehicles sometimes do not have access to a cellular network. Truckers cannot maintain contact with their dispatcher or business. Situations like that are very inconvenient for businesses. This does not just happen in rural and remote areas. It also happens on highways. This is the sort of problem encountered by people who transport goods across Canada and to the United States.
This week, I was also talking with the president of UPA Estrie, Michel Brien, who owns a dairy farm. He was telling me that everything on his farm is now connected to his cell phone. He can activate his milking machines and monitor his cameras, but that all really depends on a cellular connection that is not always reliable.
There are some really worthwhile technologies available to farmers. I am talking here about basic farm monitoring, but we are moving towards precision farming, which will save farmers a lot of money on input costs when they are able to fully utilize these tools. However, for that to happen, farmers need to have access to high quality cell service.
Whether we are talking about farmers, forestry companies, transportation companies or SMEs, our economy depends on our ability to communicate and to communicate effectively. This is the kind of challenge we face in my riding, so it is absolutely essential that we sort this out. As I said, it is also a question of fairness: No matter where someone lives in Canada, they should have access to the same cellular service. It is 2026.
The solutions proposed by the bill follow two main lines of action. First, we need a better understanding of the situation on the ground, as we can only improve what we can measure.
As I said earlier, according to the CRTC, 97% of the Canadian population has access to a mobile network. This data comes from telecommunications companies, but I am not convinced that these companies and I share the same understanding of what constitutes access to a mobile network. One bar might constitute a connection for them, but it does not allow someone to make a call, it does not keep a call going and it does not allow for a good-quality conversation. For me, that does not constitute a connection.
The bill's first requirement is to map out the situation with much clearer parameters. It is about choosing a series of parameters that will allow for better measurements and for an independent review of the data. When we have a better idea of where the issues are coming from, we can start to address them.
The second part of the bill is about modernizing the spectrum framework. The spectrum framework is the mechanism by which frequencies used for cellular connectivity are distributed. That framework has not been updated since 2007. When it was last updated, it was assumed that market forces would end up connecting the entire Canadian population. Needless to say, that did not happen. Almost 20 years later, we recognize that connecting remote regions is not profitable. There is no incentive for telecommunications companies to connect remote regions. The change we want to make to the spectrum policy is stated in the bill's preamble. It is about making sure that cellular connectivity takes into account the realities of remote regions.
I think that the timing is perfect. We may be a bit behind, but the timing could not be better for a bill like this. First, we have made many investments in fibre optic Internet connectivity, which makes the construction of new infrastructure more profitable. Having fibre optics allows for cellular towers. Major investments have been made. Spectrum auctions are also coming up.
With the new spectrum auctions approaching, it is important to adjust the auction parameters to ensure that, in the rollout for telecommunications companies, there is not a requirement that 50% of the population in a large region be connected within five years, for example. What that means in a rural area is that only the largest population centre will be connected, leaving a vast expanse of land without any connectivity. We therefore need to recalibrate, and now is the time to do so, as new technologies, such as low-orbit satellites, are being deployed. While satellites are going to be launched in the relatively near future to connect people to cellular networks, this service must prioritize the regions over urban centres, because it is in the regions where connectivity is still lacking. In short, the bill aims to improve measurement, planning and investment.
In conclusion, I am very pleased to see that this bill transcends party lines. Many of my Liberal colleagues have supported it. Some Conservative and NDP colleagues have also supported it. Our colleague from the Green Party supported the bill too. As this shows, the bill crosses party lines. I am also very pleased that Senator Aucoin has agreed to take the matter to the Senate after the bill is studied in the House. I am asking for this bill to be studied in committee, for a more connected, safer, fairer and stronger Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for introducing this bill, which could have far-reaching effects and help a lot of Canadians. Black holes exist in my riding, too. In particular, in one section of the Saint-Nicolas sector of Lévis, right in the city at the head of the bridges on the way to Saint-Antoine-de-Tilly, cell service suddenly disappears. These people are asking us to do everything in our power to restore their service. Will this bill help the people in my riding, especially in Saint-Nicolas?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I have had conversations about this.
The people of Saint-Nicolas live in an urban area. They certainly do not live in a rural area, yet they have cell service issues. The bill aims to map out this situation. We will see that there is clearly an issue in this area. Then, we will be able to roll out services where there are none right now, mainly in remote and isolated areas, but also in regions like his, in urban centres. I live in Rock Forest and face the same challenge as the people of Saint-Nicolas.
I hope the bill will help resolve the situation, even in urban areas.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my colleague for her commitment and dedication to getting this issue solved.
In my riding of Avalon and in many ridings throughout our country, as was just highlighted so many times, cellular connectivity is very poor and in most cases does not exist. There are instances in Avalon when police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders cannot be contacted. It is a huge issue. Families also cannot communicate with each other.
In today's society, people use connectivity in order to make sure we are well connected and that everyone is connected with us. How would the bill address the connectivity gaps that exist in my riding of Avalon and in other rural areas throughout Canada?
Mr. Speaker, I have been working with my colleague, who is chair of the rural caucus. He is a member who is really engaged on this issue. We have been talking a lot about it, and not only talking but taking action as well. We met with Bell and Rogers to talk about how they are helping with this, what their challenges are and where they want to go with it. I thank the member for his involvement and commitment on this important issue.
Yes, the bill would help in Avalon. We would have a better map of the situation, and then we could then address the situation by prioritizing rural places that are a bit outside the scope, so the people in the member's riding can be connected.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Campton—Stanstead on her bill and her speech, which was rich in content and information. It was well researched.
I would like to come back to the case of unused spectrums. Why do the cell phone companies choose not to develop them, in the hon. member's view?
To me that is absurd.
Mr. Speaker, it is true that there is spectrum that is not being used. The problem is that companies are honouring the agreements they have signed with the government. The way the contracts were drawn up requires, for example, connecting 50% of the population across a very large area within a relatively short period of time. As a result, there are places that are not connected. I would say that the agreements that were signed have, for the most part, been honoured. Clearly, that is not where the solution lies.
The aim is to ensure that future contracts take into account the reality that connection is much more unreliable in rural areas than it is in urban centres.
[English]
Committees of the House
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be amended as follows: Matt Jeneroux (Edmonton Riverbend) for the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson (North Vancouver—Capilano).
Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-268, An Act respecting the Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the people's House, and it is a joy to rise on this occasion to offer our support for this private member's bill. The member for Compton—Stanstead has worked hard on this issue. I hear her refer often to people in rural communities and in the rural areas of her riding and district. I congratulate her on her efforts in addressing this area of grave concern.
Across the country, in rural and remote areas, connectivity is a huge, ongoing challenge. I represent a district that is well acquainted with this challenge. There will be times when I am in the middle of a great conversation, enthralled and just getting to the highlight, and then all of a sudden I am talking to myself. “That didn't work so well”, I think. Whether it is in Arthurette, in Craig Flats, in Brockway or heading toward Forest City, there are lots of dead zones.
For many of the citizens and residents of my region, that is a huge concern for public safety and for health care. If they are in a rural area and do not have really good reception, they are not sure they can get the help they need when they need it. We want to address this and take any steps we can. The bill is one of the steps we can take to address this issue by helping to hold the providers accountable and by bringing transparency. We commend and support those efforts.
We are looking forward to supporting the bill through to committee and then continuing to press the government to do all it can to address the ongoing need for increased coverage and broadband access across the rural and remote areas and regions of our country.
Many times, rural Canada feels forgotten, left aside and not thought about or considered in policy deliberations that take place in the House. I understand that a disproportionate amount of the population is concentrated in urban centres, but so much of what makes Canada a truly incredible country is housed in rural Canada and in remote Canada. Whether that is our vast natural resources of our incredible oil and gas sector, our energy sector and our mining sector, or our agriculture sector, many of the centres and hubs of tremendous resources and financial capacity are housed in rural and remote communities.
Part of making sure that those areas remain vital, vibrant and prosperous is ensuring that people can inhabit those places, still function at a high level and participate in society in a meaningful way. Part of that is connectivity so people can continue to work, do business and be able to reside in these places. Whether they are working in a lumberyard, whether they are on a tractor on a farm and are in need of GPS, or whether they are in the resource sector, working, providing livelihood and gaining substance from that, having the ability to connect is critical.
The bill is one step toward making sure we are holding providers to account and bringing transparency, and we are going to ensure that they are meeting the objectives and the targets that need to be there. It is an important step, but obviously we need continued focus on broadening and opening up competition, on allowing and encouraging more providers to get into the space so access can become more affordable for Canadians and so Canadians who live in rural and remote areas can have options for connectivity.
We will continue to press, from this side of the House, for the bill to remain a priority and for it to get the support it needs. We will also press for an enhanced discussion. Beyond discussion, enhanced action needs to take place to bring connectivity to those Canadians who have oftentimes been overlooked and forgotten.
As I was preparing my speech, I could not help but reflect a bit. I was reflecting on an ancient story that came back to me as I was reflecting on the importance of connection and connectivity. I got to thinking about people and what they go through when they feel disconnected. Oftentimes, it goes far beyond just cell and broadband access. There is a deeper lesson in this, which is that, when anyone feels disconnected, it comes with all kinds of other societal challenges. Social isolation is a big problem. It is very real. Social anxiety is a big problem. When people feel disconnected from family, that leads to many issues. When they feel disconnected from help, that leads to issues. If they feel disconnected from resources and services, that leads to multiple issues.
I was reflecting on an old story, and I believe there is a correlation. It goes like this.
There was once a man who was travelling from one community to another. The way it is written, it is said that he fell among thieves. He was robbed, beaten, left on the side of the road and abandoned. After they had stripped him and taken his goods, they left him there half dead. This man was lying in a ditch with no help. He was feeling isolated, cut off from help, cut off from resources and cut off from his family. He was left to die.
The man heard the sound of footprints coming down the road and was probably feeling happy that help was on the way. I am sure his hopes were rising, even though his strength was faint and he did not have the capacity to help himself fully. He thought that this was his answer because he heard help coming down the road. As this gentleman came up to him, his hopes, which had been rising so quickly, were quickly dashed. Why? It is because this gentleman, who was a priest, a religious man, looked at the man in the ditch and decided he did not have the time to deal with him. It was too messy and too complicated. He had to get to an important meeting, so he crossed over on the other side and kept on walking.
Then came another man. The man in the ditch thought about how the last one did not work out well, how he left him more hurt, isolated and disappointed, but that maybe this one was his answer. Along came a very educated man. He was prestigious, a lawyer, a scribe. He was well regarded in the community. He was distinguished and had all kinds of resources. The man in the ditch thought to himself that this guy could help him, he could get him connected to what he needed to get better. Surely this was his answer.
We can see that the hope was rising up inside the man who was lying by the wayside, in the ditch. He was thinking that surely this was the guy who could get him connected. Though it promised much and the man had the ability to do so, he looked at the man in the ditch and figured that he was too far gone and he had no time for that. He had more important things to deal with. He was busy, so he crossed over to the other side and kept on walking. The man in the ditch grew worse and more despairing.
Then there was a third gentleman who came along that road. Members will recall the story. He did not come from much pedigree. He was not known as a person in a position of great authority. He was a stranger and a commoner, but something happened inside that man when he saw the man in the ditch, who was disconnected, cut off from resources and the sources of help he needed and was desperate for. This kind stranger was so moved, he got off his donkey, climbed down into the ditch, bandaged up his wounds and spent some time with him. Thankfully, he did not just give him a band-aid or put a bandage on him and move on. He did something very important, which relates to this bill, believe it or not. He took the man and connected him. He decided to take him to the local area hospital and make sure that he got the help he needed. He made sure that he was connected, had found a new circle and had the resources he needed to be hooked back up on the way to recovery and wholeness.
Of course, that is the ever-famous story of the good Samaritan.
There is good news in this bill. I see a correlation. If we can help people get connected to the help they need, if they are isolated and cut off, hurt by life circumstances, maybe because of where they live or because they do not have access to all the latest technology, we can somehow build a bridge of connectivity to them and help them gain access to the help, public safety, health care and resources they need to better their situation.
I thank the hon. colleague across the way for her efforts on this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his speech. The lesson to be learned from this parable is that we have a good Samaritan for connectivity in the House. I want to salute the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead and announce that my party will also support Bill C-268, even if it is the member for Compton—Stanstead's bill. It goes to show that anything is possible. I am kidding, of course, there is nothing else to say. In all seriousness, this bill is important. I want to officially congratulate the hon. member for bringing it before the House. I think it could really make a difference. I congratulate and thank her.
This is not a revolutionary idea. We want to bring signal to places where there is currently nothing but a total void. The bill's objective is to modernize the way spectrum is managed, because things currently work as if the BlackBerry was the absolute peak of technological advancement. The bill would force the government to dust off its policy every five years. Five years is a long time in a world where phones become obsolete before we can even finish reading the box.
There is also this almost subversive idea of asking the CRTC to verify whether companies are telling the truth when they claim to cover a region. I know, the word “verify” sounds radical, as in “really verify”. Apparently, on paper, Canada is covered just about everywhere, except where there are people, roads, or an accident on a stormy night.
We are also asking the Minister of Industry to produce a report within 18 months. In Canada, when we are not quite sure what to do, we write a report. Here, at least, there is a deadline, which, in the world of public policy, is already something of an adrenaline rush.
Bill C‑268 also provides for an extensive consultation process, as should be the case for any good report. They will talk to everyone, including telecommunications giants and elected officials in rural municipalities, in other words, those who know very well what it is like to have no signal. They will talk to public safety agencies, academics, the CRTC and, obviously, any other stakeholder as needed. Loosely translated, it means that anyone who is breathing and has an opinion on the topic has a good chance of ending up on the list. On paper, it is beautiful. It gives the impression of a big, inclusive circle where everyone has their say. In real life, it sometimes looks like a family dinner where everyone talks at once, except that no one really has the power to cut the cake when it is time for dessert.
That said, the topics to be discussed are by no means trivial. One of them is competition, a Canadian fantasy that is often talked about but that remains mysteriously absent from monthly phone bills. Another topic is the deployment requirement, in other words, forcing companies to do what they are supposed to do, but do not always do. The topics also include the issue of unused licenses, those bits of spectrum lying dormant somewhere, probably in a virtual drawer, hoping they might have a use someday.
The report will have to contain concrete information, not just impressions, but results. Connectivity assessments will be done, some related to public safety, because when things go wrong, a phone is not a luxury, but a lifeline. Data will be gathered on actual coverage, not the kind of data shown on PowerPoint slides. Ideally, proposals will be submitted to fix a system that quite frankly is falling apart at the seams. In short, consultations will be held, information will be compiled and analyzed, and then action must follow. Cell signal is not going to wait around for the next report before deciding to disappear or finally become available. The crux of the problem is simple: Companies can buy pieces of the spectrum—which is a public good, after all—and decide not to use them, but rather to keep them on a shelf like an old toaster that was bought on sale and never used.
Bill C-268 is essentially saying, politely but firmly, that the government needs to either develop the network or let someone else do it. Meanwhile, we keep hearing that 99.5% of Canadians have access to LTE, the generation preceding 5G. That sounds pretty impressive, except for the fact that it still leaves about 200,000 people in a sort of digital void. Two hundred thousand people is not exactly a small village. We are talking about an entire region staring at their phones the way people used to watch the sky for snow, hoping something would fall.
Even when coverage exists in theory, making a call on a rural road is often practically impossible. If someone has an accident in February, it is not just the ditch that is deep, but also the network. The bill seeks to bring some order to all that. The bill aims to force the CRTC to ensure that coverage maps are not just fiction. It seeks to compel the government to revisit a policy framework that dates back to 2007, nearly 20 years, to a time when the word “streaming” still meant watching water flow.
The fact is that spectrum is a rare resource—invisible, but rare, much like the government's willingness to listen. When two signals overlap, it creates noise. When no one uses it, it creates emptiness. In both cases, it helps no one.
The current framework leaves a lot in the hands of the market by letting companies decide, which is fine as long as nothing goes wrong. In more rural areas, however, the market's motivation is about on par with that of a teenager on a Saturday morning: it exists on a theoretical level.
The Bloc Québécois has a simple reminder: If spectrum is a public asset, then it should serve the public, not only in profitable areas, not only in large urban centres, but everyone, including those who live at the far end of the road.
It is true, Bill C-268 is not going to solve everything. There will still be reports, consultations and committees—the usual trio. There may also be a bit of stalling, because, let us face it, the CRTC sometimes moves at the speed of an old 56-kilobit-per-second modem that goes beep, beep, beep. At least this bill is heading in the right direction, a direction where access to the network is not a luxury, but a basic necessity; where calling for help does not depend on one's postal code, as my colleague pointed out in her speech; and where people finally stop pretending the whole country is covered just because it looks good in a PowerPoint. This bill does not reinvent the wheel, but at least it tries to get it rolling.
Again, I want to congratulate and thank the member for Compton—Stanstead for her important bill.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is my great honour to second debate on this important bill, Bill C-268, an act regarding the spectrum policy framework for Canada. While the title may seem dry, the intent of this legislation is very clear.
We must take steps now to ensure accountability in the provision of cellular services. In part, this must be done because the day-to-day safety of millions of Canadians must be protected. Further, equal access to high-quality and dependable cellular services is absolutely fundamental to the success of thousands of businesses across our country. For those reasons, I want to thank and congratulate my colleague, the member for Compton—Stanstead, for bringing this matter forward.
Like myself and dozens of other members in the House, the member for Compton—Stanstead has heard from many constituents that cellular phone service in many rural areas is poor and unreliable. This is unacceptable, and I share the frustration of constituents in my constituency of Egmont. Time after time, I have had phone calls that are dropped mid-sentence or connections that simply cannot be made. I have heard from residents who have had calls interrupted during medical emergencies, and far too many small businesses have told me about lost opportunities due to inadequate service.
As a public representative, I have spent my career focusing on the value of infrastructure. In my mind, the availability of high-quality and dependable infrastructure is the absolute cornerstone of economic and social progress. At its most basic level, of course, infrastructure is about roads, bridges, wharves, environmental protection and buildings. Of course, all these capital projects are absolutely necessary, but there are further levels to the idea of infrastructure. For instance, an appropriately funded education system is an element of social infrastructure, and the same goes for health care. In other words, the laws, regulations and policies that underpin our extraordinarily important social programs are a form of infrastructure.
What makes all of this so attractive and important to me as a public representative is that the benefits that accrue from a great deal of our infrastructure, whether physical or written, are generally available to all citizens equally and without cost or favour.
In the case of cellular phones, our job is to ensure that these services are provided to Canadians in an equal manner, so that running a small phone-based business in my home community of Tignish is on par with running a similar operation in Toronto or Vancouver. In other words, a phone call is a phone call. It should not degenerate in quality just because a Canadian chooses to live outside of a major urban centre.
As every member should understand, there are undeniable challenges to living in a rural area. There are fewer amenities. There is travel for shopping. Entertainment and work are often a bit of a long haul, and waiting for a snowplow in the winter often requires a degree of patience and planning, but these challenges are all understood, and the benefits of rural life usually outweigh those minor inconveniences.
Inadequate cell phone service is not a minor inconvenience, not anymore. Reliable cellular service has now evolved into a basic, fundamental necessity. In other words, reliable cellular connectivity is now an essential that supports so much of what many Canadians take for granted, such as safety, economic development, health care services, education and social connection.
Let me start with safety. My constituency is a little different from many of the more remote Canadian communities. Generally speaking, we will never be too far from a house, village, town or community, but many parts of Canada experience extremely harsh weather conditions and long stretches of empty highways. I, for one, would not want to be travelling up north in February without a reliable form of communication. In such conditions, the ability to make a call save a life.
Of course, there is the economic aspect as well. As the proposed bill points out in its preamble, equal access to cellular service is currently being undermined, and that is deeply unfair to the millions of Canadians who live in rural areas. In my community of Egmont, all of the sectors that drive our thriving economy rely on cellular service, including agriculture, fishing and tourism. All of these incredibly important sectors need to communicate to the wider world because their customers all have high expectations. Imagine trying to negotiate a deal with one of our valued trading partners in Europe, and the call keeps buzzing and dropping. An awful lot can get lost in translation, and even more can get lost if the customer simply decides the hassle is just not worth it.
We have emergencies and economic links, then, but there is also health care. In my home province of Prince Edward Island, there is an extremely severe health care crisis under way. On the federal side, we have provided the provincial government with hundreds of millions of dollars to address significant shortfalls in access to health care. The province assured the federal government that this additional funding would solve the crisis and that barriers to access would fall immediately after the money was committed. This did not happen.
Despite the sincere efforts of the federal government, the situation has become worse. One solution is virtual care, but what happens when the connectivity is poor? Well, the answer to that question is fairly simple. Once again, the residents of rural areas face a barrier to health care, and the misery of inadequate access to services is worsened again.
Finally, I will turn briefly to education. I am a great believer in making sure that high-quality education programs are easily accessible to all Canadians. As the new technologies began to emerge some years ago, I listened to young residents in Egmont talk happily about being able to access important new skills from the comfort of their home communities. As we all learned during COVID, distance learning was absolutely essential. Today, however, we see the difference in access to many programs widening. There is a gap, and students in major metropolitan areas have another major advantage over their rural counterparts. Is this fair? Is this equal? Of course not, and it is infuriating to many rural Canadians.
Ultimately, appropriate cellphone service is essential to the future of rural Canada. It enhances safety, supports economic activity, improves access to health care and education, and strengthens social ties. As technology continues to evolve, the importance of reliable mobile connectivity will only grow. Ensuring that rural communities have access to high-quality cell service is not just a matter of convenience but essential for equality, opportunity and quality of life across Canada. This is why I support this important bill.
Mr. Speaker, for many people living in big cities, a dropped call is an irritant, but then they dial again and it works just fine. For rural families, it can be dangerous. It can mean a farmer cannot connect to the equipment that keeps his or her modern operation running or, worse, cannot make a call if the combine starts on fire. It can mean a family driving on a lonely stretch of highway in a snowstorm has no way to call for help if disaster strikes. For a first responder, it can mean the difference between getting there on time and getting there too late, and the trauma that can follow.
In Canada, cell service should not be a luxury or simply a perk. It is basic infrastructure in an advanced nation like Canada. When it fails, people notice, and sometimes, particularly in rural Canada, they pay for it. That is why this issue matters so much.
“Spectrum” may sound like something regulators just talk about, but it is the invisible infrastructure behind every call, text, emergency alert and wireless connection that people rely on. It is also a public resource. The public owns it. Companies are licensed to use it, but government is supposed to manage it in the public interest. When spectrum policy works, people get better service, stronger competition and fewer dead zones. When it fails, families pay full price for half service at best sometimes. Signals drop, towers do not get built, smaller companies get squeezed out, and consumers get fewer choices to purchase from. Worst of all, prices stay high, and the same companies continue to call the shots on how this process works.
Bill C-268 would require the CRTC to verify the mobile coverage data it gets from Canadian carriers. That matters because every rural resident knows there can be a huge gap between what the coverage map says and what the phone actually delivers for them. On paper, an area may be completely covered and may appear served, but it is not. In reality, that service may mean one weak bar at best, or a call that drops halfway through, or a signal that disappears the moment the road dips or the weather changes. I bet every single rural member of Parliament in this place knows exactly what I am talking about. We know instinctively where the dead zones are in our ridings. We know where we can make calls on the road, where we simply cannot and where, unless we have downloaded it, an audiobook or podcast is going to cut out, too.
What matters is not just the stretch of highway where we know service is awful. We know that people stand outside their houses holding their phones up in the air hoping they might get that one bar. People live there, and despite being told they are served, they know they are not. That is why accurate coverage data matters. Rural folks do not need someone or some big company telling them they are covered when their own experience shows them that is not the case. They need a system that measures service as it actually exists in the real world.
This bill would force Parliament to take another look at Canada's spectrum policy framework. That matters because the bill's own preamble makes a pretty remarkable admission that Canada's spectrum policy framework has not been updated since 2007. That is not just a long time ago; in the world of telecom years, that is ancient history. This framework predates the smart phone in the world we live in. It predates the app economy. It predates connected farms, remote work and the expectation that people should be able to bank, work, run a business and stay connected from almost anywhere in this great nation. Canada's public airwaves are being managed under a framework that has been sitting on the shelf since the flip phone era, thinking back to when we had to press enough characters 14 different times just to say hello and to have the patience of a saint.
Since then, the world has changed immensely, as we all know, and the framework governing our public airwaves was written for a very different country than the one we are living in today. Bill C-268 would require the Minister of Industry to review that framework, report back to Parliament and hear from people who understand the stakes, such as rural municipalities, first responders, the CRTC, telecom providers and spectrum licence-holders, who would all to come to the table to help us understand what the challenges are and how they can be fixed. In plain English, Parliament would finally have to ask whether Canada's public airwaves are being used to connect people or if we are letting an outdated system limp along while rural communities are left buffering and paying full price for next to no service at times.
It is amazing that we have become accustomed to this issue. In any other part of life, people would be furious to pay full price for a service if it only worked half the time at best. Imagine buying a new truck and it randomly just stops working while driving down certain roads. Imagine ordering home Internet to be told that it works wonderfully, except if someone tries to use it. Nobody would accept these services, yet with cell service, too many people have been trained to just shrug it off as if that it is just the way it is. People know where the call will drop, so they avoid making calls, and if they live in that area, I guess they just do not make calls from their own house without a land line. They know where they cannot send a text, they know what corner of the house gets that service consistently, and they know that stretch of road where they are just out of luck.
Simply, they have adapted to bad service, but that does not make it okay. Even worse, they are expected to accept this from some of the biggest and most profitable telecom companies in the country. At some point, we have to stop treating bad cellphone service like bad weather, as if it just happens and there cannot be anything done about it.
This is the conversation that Parliament is long overdue to have, and it is why Conservatives believe this bill should go to committee for study. At committee, members should hear from those rural municipalities and from our first responders, who understand the public safety risks. They should hear from industry stakeholders about the barriers to deployment and from the regulators about how coverage is measured and, most importantly, verified.
We need to make sure this work leads to the problem being fixed, however. The last thing we need is another taxpayer-funded paperweight. A spectrum policy that only works on paper does not work, at least for the people I represent. A coverage claim that falls apart the moment someone leaves town is not good enough.
For Conservatives, the test is simple. Does federal spectrum policy help get service to people who need it, yes or no? That should be the starting point of this conversation, not whether the consultation process checks every box or whether the department can point to another strategy, another target or another dashboard on some website. The question is whether the person on the rural road, the farmer in his field or his yard, the family at the lake and the small business owner heading through bad weather can connect when it matters most to them.
Does it support competition? People are tired of being told to be grateful for whatever service the few companies decide to provide us. Competition is supposed to mean more choice, better prices, better service and a real reason for service providers to have to fight for their customers. If spectrum policy lets the big players sit comfortably on public airwaves while new entrants struggle to gain a foothold, then the system is not working.
Does it encourage investment in our country? At the end of the day, speeches do not build cellphone towers, and press releases do not expand coverage. People need this infrastructure. The rules should reward deployment, reduce unnecessary delays and create confidence for companies willing to build, especially in places where the business case is harder. A serious spectrum policy should help to get service built where it is needed, not simply where it is easiest.
Does it make better use of a public resource? Spectrum belongs to the public and should not be treated like private property for companies to hoard, because communities will continue to go without the service. If public airwaves are licensed out, people should expect public benefit in return.
Finally, does it recognize that rural Canada cannot be treated as an afterthought? Rural people pay many of the bills for this country. They run businesses. They grow our food. They move the goods we all need across this country. They volunteer in fire halls. They drive long distances, they face tough weather, and they keep our rural communities going and our nation going. They should not be expected to accept second-class service.
Those are the questions I believe this committee should examine. At second reading, we are voting on the principle of the bill. We believe that coverage data should be accurate and rural and remote connectivity should be taken seriously. That does not mean every word in the bill, as I see it, is perfect. It means the issue is real enough, serious enough and urgent enough that it deserves proper study. We can support sending this bill to committee so members can hear from the people closest to the problem, test the evidence, ask the hard questions and make sure the focus stays where it belongs: on better service, accountability, more competition and public safety.
We will also be clear that the government has had years to deal with these problems. Rural dead zones did not appear yesterday. The framework did not suddenly become outdated just last week. People have been raising these concerns for a long time. The bill opens the door to greater scrutiny. The question now is whether Parliament will do more than wring its hands, because in 2026, nobody should have to wonder whether their phone will work when they pick it up to use it and need it most.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-268, the spectrum policy framework for Canada act, first and foremost because of my previous career working in information technology. The wireless spectrum was taught to me when I took computer engineering technology at Lambton College in Sarnia, and also, from time to time, the wireless spectrum was discussed in my information technology career. However, today, this act addresses a foundational yet often overlooked pillar of Canada's digital economy: how we manage and govern the wireless spectrum.
Spectrum is not an abstract concept. It is invisible infrastructure that powers our phones, enables emergency communications, connects businesses and supports the daily lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. In a modern economy, access to reliable connectivity is not a luxury; it is a necessity.
Despite its importance, Canada's spectrum policy framework has not been formally updated since 2007. Nearly two decades have passed without a legislative requirement to review, modernize or even systematically evaluate how this critical public resource is being managed. In that time, the world has changed dramatically. Technology has advanced. Data consumption has surged. Entire sectors of our economy have become digitally dependent, but our framework has not kept pace.
At its core, Bill C-268 introduces three key elements: verification, accountability and transparency.
First, the bill would require the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, to establish a process to verify the accuracy of mobile network coverage data submitted by telecommunications providers. This is not a minor technical adjustment; it addresses a long-standing concern that coverage maps are largely based on self-reported data from carriers.
When Canadians are told that they have service, they expect that service to work, not just in theory, but in practice. Too often, that is not the case. We have all heard stories of dropped calls on major highways, lack of signal in rural communities, lack of signal in one area of someone's residence when there is signal at the other end of the residence, and unreliable connectivity in remote regions. These are not isolated inconveniences. They are systematic issues with real consequences. For a family travelling on a remote road, a lack of signal can mean no access to emergency services. For a small business, it can mean lost revenue. For indigenous and northern communities, it can mean continued exclusion from the digital economy.
Accurate data is the foundation of good policy. Without it, we cannot identify gaps, allocate resources effectively or hold providers accountable.
Second, Bill C-268 would mandate a comprehensive review of Canada's spectrum policy framework within 18 months of the act's coming into force. This is a critical step. For too long, updates to the framework have occurred on an ad hoc basis through departmental processes without a structured, legislated requirement for review—
I have to interrupt the member. The time has elapsed for Private Members' Business. He will be able to take up the balance of his time when this matter next comes up.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
Adjournment Proceedings
[Adjournment Proceedings]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on adjournment business to seek a little more accountability from the government for its response to a question that I asked in question period a couple of weeks ago. I questioned the government about the deficit, which had not yet been tabled. I simply asked whether or not the government could give assurance to the House that it would not be higher than the projected deficit that Justin Trudeau submitted in the last financial update that was tabled in the House when he was prime minister.
Some will recall the chaos around that. The finance minister resigned two days or so before it was to be tabled. For those of us who were here then, we did not even know if there was going to be a budget that day. It was chaotic. There were boxes. Nobody knew if we were even going to get a briefing in a lock-up over it. It was delayed. There was no speech. When we did receive the budget, there was no signature and no name. It was like an anonymous budget just dropped by a random Liberal minister who was called upon to do it. The finance minister resigned over that budget or had resigned already. The former prime minister resigned not long after that.
The issue then was the deficit. The deficit was so big then that nobody was willing to take responsibility for it. The Liberals' own cabinet and caucus decided enough is enough and it was time to bring in somebody who could actually balance the budget or at least control spending and restore fiscal sanity. However, as it turned out, it actually got worse. The first budget the government tabled was more than twice the last budget, which was so bad it resulted in resignations.
In response to that, this is what the member said. He would not give assurance that there would not be more than $30 billion in deficit. It turned out to be $67 billion. However, he said, “We are building big, we are building bold and we are building across this country.” What are Liberals even talking about? What are they building? They are not building anything.
They talk about the need for energy infrastructure. They talk about the need for all kinds of infrastructure. They have been campaigning and talking about this since 2015 without doing anything. Here we are, over a year after the Prime Minister said they were going to build major projects at unimaginable speeds. The government gave itself extraordinary new powers to approve new major projects. None have been approved. None are being built.
The Liberals are not building big across the country. They are just talking about it. Each time, it is as if they are having an out-of-body experience when they say, “Oh, if only we had a pipeline, we could be an energy superpower.” They had one on the table that was approved. The very first thing they did in 2015 was cancel the northern gateway pipeline. Then they chased out the proponent of the energy east pipeline. Then they chased out the private sector builder of the Trans Mountain pipeline.
The government has no track record on building anything, and the budget that it brought in is twice as bad as Trudeau's final budget, the one that triggered his resignation.
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House that our government's focus remains clear and disciplined. We are controlling what we can control, which means maintaining fiscal sustainability while making targeted, high-impact investments for Canadians; maintaining our fiscal anchors; and ensuring that every dollar spent on behalf of Canadians supports growth, resilience and improving the well-being of Canadians. That is the direction we need right now, and it is in the context of global changes we are witnessing, which are sudden and, I would say, unprecedented.
Global economies are more than a year into a profound rupture, characterized by the trade decisions made by the U.S. administration. Economic security, industrial policy and geopolitical competition are increasingly shaping investment, trade and financial decisions. Of course, the recent conflict in the Middle East, which has disrupted key shipping routes and damaged energy infrastructure, has pushed energy prices higher, underscoring the fragility of global supply chains and adding to already elevated uncertainty.
Despite this environment, the government is delivering an $11.5‑billion improvement in the projected 2025-26 budgetary balance. This strength carries into future years, improving the budgetary balance relative to last year's budget by an average of $10.7 billion per year from 2026-27 to 2029-30 before new measures. I will note that, in addition, our deficit-to-GDP ratio, one of the key fiscal anchors, is well below the G7 average, as shown on page 12 of the spring economic update.
Fortunately, this fiscal room allows the government to improve affordability and raise Canadians' standard of living through targeted and responsible policy measures, particularly in the areas of fuel, food and housing affordability. This is a move that started in budget 2025 and indeed, before then, with some income tax cuts for which we were happy to get the support of the other side. It marked a strategic shift in the government's management of public finances, focusing on expanding federal capital spending to mobilize investments while maintaining fiscal responsibility.
Our budget 2025, as members know, set out a clear plan to build the strongest economy in the G7. We are moving toward that with very strong growth rates projected in relation to other G7 countries, and again, the strongest fiscal position in the G7, in particular with a debt-to-GDP ratio well below that of our G7 peers.
Our plan remains rooted in fiscal responsibility, not for its own sake, but to create the capacity to invest our long-term economic strength and greater self-reliance. I want to mention again that there are two fiscal anchors, which are balancing operating spending with revenues by 2028-29 and maintaining a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio, both of which we are obtaining.
We also remain committed to the disciplined implementation of budget 2025 efficiency measures, including the comprehensive expenditure review, which, together with other measures in budget 2025, total $60 billion in savings and revenues over 5 years.
We are now in the implementation phase. The focus is turning toward targeted, ongoing reviews, beginning with efforts to rein in spending on external management and other consulting services. These are not easy decisions; they are challenging but necessary actions. We will continue to support our objective of spending less to invest more.
In these serious times, with these serious geopolitical headwinds, it is important to make targeted investments, control what we can control, maintain our fiscal anchors and attend to the affordability and economic needs of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, is he talking about maintaining their fiscal anchors? Is this parliamentary secretary serious?
He was not here, I guess. Maybe he has not been here to see how many fiscal anchors have been declared and discarded since 2015, even the one he cited in his remarks. He possibly misspoke, but he said that they have a declining debt-to-GDP ratio. They do not. If we look at the budget, it is right there in the statement. They got rid of that fiscal anchor. That is not the current one.
He talked about the Liberals congratulating themselves on their deficit being $11 billion lower than what they forecasted five months ago. That is like congratulating themselves for taking off the carbon tax after they put it on in the first place.
I do not know what else to say. The standard of living is unchanged in 10 years with these guys.
Mr. Speaker, in case the Hansard did not pick it up, I want to make sure it is heard that it is the deficit-to-GDP ratio that is declining. The debt-to-GDP ratio is the lowest in the G7 by some considerable margin.
The deficit-to-GDP ratio and balancing operating spending with revenues are two of the key fiscal anchors that we are achieving. Again, I refer my colleague to page 12 of the spring economic update for some more context.
I would invite him to reflect on which of the investments and key supports we are bringing in on the affordability and business support side that he would cut. Would it be the groceries and essentials benefit? Would it be national child care, which is supporting thousands of people in my riding and, I know, in his riding? Would it be the Canada dental care plan, or the investments we announced yesterday to support the steel, aluminum and copper sectors, which are struggling because of the tariffs?
I think Canadians know that these investments are the right ones.
Public Services and Procurement
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's Cúram software platform has become the newest IT project to make the list of over-budget, chronically delayed programs it delivers to Canadians. The program was launched in 2017, just two years after the Liberals took office. The Auditor General found that, by 2022, the program had run into delays and into cost overruns that increased by 43% before a single benefit had been processed by the system. Reports from Le Journal de Montréal estimate that the once $1.75‑billion IT project meant to modernize old age security payments will cost up to $6.6 billion.
I wish I could say that this project was the first of its kind. Unfortunately it is the latest in the long list of Liberal-managed IT projects where costs ballooned, and connected consultants got paid. Members of the House voted to launch an independent inquiry into these projects, such as Phoenix, the arrive scam scandal and now Cúram, to find out how the same pattern of delay is followed by cost overruns and by a big bill for taxpayers to pay, while the people overseeing the projects are not held accountable, and why the middlemen involved walk away, getting paid every time.
During the arrive scam scandal, connected consultants working out of a basement apartment took millions of dollars without performing any work. They engineered a bid to build the ArriveCAN app, and they contracted out all the work to others while pocketing the difference. The project was originally projected to cost just $80,000 but ended up costing $64.5 million. The connected insiders kept millions of dollars, and Canadians were left footing the bill for an app that the Auditor General found did not provide value for money.
Cúram may not simply cost upwards of $6 billion. Reports from March indicate that tens of thousands of seniors were having issues with their benefits, and delays had reached up to 85,000 people. Members of the Liberal government stood up in the House, after taking questions, and first denied anything was wrong, but then they told members to reach out personally and to not make the issue political.
Since when has question period, a time when opposition members ensure accountability by asking questions of the government, become a time when the Liberals continually demonstrate arrogance by suggesting that by pointing out that the Liberals failed to deliver the Cúram program on time or on budget, or that nearly 85,000 seniors could not access their benefits, political opponents are playing politics? That attitude is beneath members of this place.
I will ask the minister the question again: Why do Liberal programs always massively exceed their projected costs, and why are seniors forced to pay the price for the Liberals' incompetence?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek for her concern and her engagement on this, and I want to convey, on behalf of the government, that we do take those questions seriously.
I want to address how the system is working at ESDC and issues around the accuracy of payments. I also want to clear up some misinformation surrounding program costs. Let us start at the beginning of this journey. In 2010, the Auditor General noted there was a high risk that in time, the IT infrastructure would not be able to support the delivery of core programs like OAS, EI and CPP, based on systems that were decades old. We knew an upgrade was essential.
Since 2017, we have been investing in benefits delivery modernization because Canadians deserve functional, responsive and dependable services. We knew that any interruption to accurate and on-time payments could significantly affect recipients' ability to meet their daily needs, such as buying food or paying rent, needs that are addressed significantly by those supplements and benefits. We also knew that this would be an incredibly complicated task and that doing the job correctly would require significant investment.
Between 2017 and March 31 of this year, the federal government spent $1.8 billion on the benefits delivery modernization program. The recently completed old age security on benefits delivery modernization project was delivered as planned and under budget. The total cost, however, has evolved, and that is due to what we now understand and what we are learning about some of the evolving threats and changes in the information technology space. Current estimates have evolved over time as we have gained a greater understanding of the complexity of unravelling 60-year-old systems.
The 2023 Office of the Auditor General report acknowledged the department's commitment to revising estimates, as I think is appropriate. The program's long-term estimate of $6.6 billion now covers the completion of four main projects by 2031: the full transformation of benefits delivery for all old age security, employment insurance and Canada pension plan payments, as well as modernizing all of ESDC's call centres.
What is different from when the estimates were first generated? Well, the cybersecurity landscape in 2017 was much less complex than it is today. Fraud and cyber-threats have been increasing in speed, scale and sophistication. This impacts the complexity and cost of the modernization. In other words, the threat environment raises the cost of keeping Canadians secure, and we are responding proactively, ultimately to protect the financial health of the program and the interests of Canadian taxpayers.
Of the $473.4 million announced in the 2026 spring economic update, $176 million over two years will be used to increase OAS processing capacity and for OAS system maintenance and support.
In terms of some of the questions the member has raised regarding the selection of proponents, we are fully transparent and we follow standard practices. Every contract includes clear deliverables. All contracts are competitively awarded and proactively disclosed in accordance with the rules in place.
In terms of the beneficiaries, of who is benefiting from this transformation and the hard work that has been done by hard-working public servants and others, 7.4 million old age security clients were migrated to the new platform last year. Each one continued to receive payments as planned. The new system is currently providing 7.7 million seniors with pension benefits every month, many of whom rely on OAS as their primary or only source of income.
The system is operating correctly, and 89.6 million payments have been issued with a value of nearly $84.7 billion. The number of clients waiting beyond their first month for payment has declined, and the department continues to ensure that these cases are processed and that clients have access to the benefits to which they are entitled.
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General did find we needed a new system. That much is true.
However, she did not advise the Liberals to manage the program so poorly that 85,000 seniors could not get their benefits in a timely way. The Auditor General certainly did not tell the Liberals to manage the program so poorly that it cost an extra $5 billion.
The Liberals want to pretend these failures of Cúram are not their fault. Cúram is yet another example of how Liberal overspending and underdelivering affects everyday Canadians. There is always someone else at fault, and no one is held to account. The pattern is clear, and Canadians see it.
Under the Liberals, connected, costly consultants get paid while projects fall further and further behind, running over budget by the billions, and Canadians are left paying the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I want to address the issue of missed payments. Some seniors have waited longer than they should. These delays were operational issues for files largely involving new applications or changes to payments. The department has worked to improve processing times with an OAS action plan implemented to improve service delivery, which has led to a 41% decrease in the inventory of new OAS applications.
It is important to compare the question that the hon. member asks with the cost of not acting quickly. If we had not acted quickly, millions of OAS, EI and CPP recipients would have been stuck with an old system that would have potentially led to much worse outcomes for them.
We are very proud of the transformation that is happening, which is taking place in a responsible and transparent manner, in a series of well-planned and prudent phases within the appropriated budget.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be here tonight. I would first like to begin by extending my congratulations to Louise Arbour on her appointment today to serve as Canada's next governor general. She is a human rights champion, and she has had a remarkable career. She will, no doubt, continue to serve our country well in this new role.
With that, I would like to turn the topic of debate this evening to Alberta's Bill 11 and the Canada Health Act.
In the last election, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that a Liberal government would protect our values and way of life. The Liberal platform highlighted our public health care system as an example of Canadians' belief in the common good and a key difference between Canada and the U.S. The Liberal platform pledged to defend the Canada Health Act and told Canadians, “It’s time to return to the foundational values upon which our national health care was developed: free of charge, fair, universal, and accessible.”
Today, those values are under threat, but instead of fighting for what matters to Canadians, the federal government is looking the other way. This morning, an independent legal opinion was published that confirmed what many have been saying for months. Alberta's Bill 11 violates both the letter and the spirit of the Canada Health Act. The legal opinion, commissioned by the Canadian Health Coalition, explains that allowing people to pay privately for faster access to medically necessary care creates unequal access based on one's ability to pay.
In plain terms, Bill 11 would create an American-style, two-tier health care system. It is time for the minister to make clear that the government will keep its promise to Canadians and defend the Canada Health Act. The minister has called herself “the guardian of the Canada Health Act”, but since December, she has failed to act on this threat to our public health care system.
Today, the Canada Health Coalition held a press conference with health and legal experts, calling for the minister to act, to take a clear position against Bill 11 and to speak about the threats the bill poses for all Canadians.
Jason MacLean, chair of the Canadian Health Coalition, spoke about how the crisis in our health care system, fuelled by Conservative premiers, is seen as a business opportunity by major insurance companies. That should concern every Canadian who believes that health care is a right.
Dr. Melanie Bechard, the chair of Canadian Doctors for Medicare and a pediatric emergency physician at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, also spoke today in Ottawa. She spoke about how allowing dual practice will impact wait times, stating, “If we are...prioritizing...patients who can pay privately, that means that the majority of patients who rely on the public system will have to wait longer.”
Let us be clear. Canadians deserve quicker access to the health care they need, but a two-tier health care system is not a solution to long wait times.
Chris Gallaway, the executive director of Friends of Medicare in Alberta, also spoke in Ottawa today and called on the minister to take action to stop Bill 11. He said bluntly, “no more delays. No more stalling. No more talking about looking at regulations and implementation. We need you to do your job and show leadership”.
If the federal government fails to enforce the Canada Health Act now, it sends a clear message far beyond Alberta. It tells provinces that the rules can be bent. It tells private interests that our public system is open for profits. Canadians did not build Medicare so that it could be quietly replaced with a system where wealth determines who gets treated first. If the federal government does not act now, it risks opening the door to further privatization across the country.
I will ask this again: Will the minister stop stalling, enforce the Canada Health Act and stand up for a health care system that serves everyone equally?
Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the incoming governor general, the Hon. Louise Arbour, who is a voice for human rights, a voice for women in the law, a voice for official bilingualism and a voice for many of the values we hold sacred in this country. I want to congratulate her on her appointment.
I also want to share my resonance with the values the hon. member is identifying. I am the son of two physicians who were immigrants and chose Canada over the United States because of their belief in providing health care regardless of the cost and regardless of someone's ability to pay. Indeed, my first interest in politics came from hearing their stories about their bedside conversations about what was happening in the hospital where they were working and their concern that medicare was maybe under threat.
The hon. member and I are just two of the millions of people who care passionately about our universal public health care insurance system and share our commitment wholeheartedly, something that has become key to our national identity. It is one of our defining nation-building achievements, reflecting who we are and what we value as a nation: a simple, enduring principle that access to medically necessary care can be based on need, not the ability or willingness to pay, and something that has a strong cross-partisan consensus.
The Canada Health Act, an achievement of previous Parliaments, puts that principle into action, safeguarding universal access to medically necessary hospital and physician services without financial barriers, and setting the standard that provinces and territories must meet in order to receive their full share of the Canada health transfer payment.
As guardian of the Canada Health Act, and of those payments, the government will uphold it with resolve and care. When a province or territory allows patient charges for medically necessary services, dollar-for-dollar deductions are made from that jurisdiction's Canada health transfer payment, as I think Canadians would expect. Since 2015, those deductions have totalled more than $329 million. Deductions are not taken without some serious consideration of the potential violation that is involved.
I think that is evidence of the federal government's steadfast commitment to the values at the heart of medicare, values that are a shared duty, a shared responsibility, if we are going to protect them. Our health care system is strongest when governments at all levels work together to ensure that Canadians can receive the services they need without financial barriers. This shared duty guides how we enforce the act. Our goal is not to penalize provinces and territories at the first sign of non-compliance but to uphold the principle of medicare through collaboration, through connection and through communication.
When issues arise, we reach out. We listen. We gather the facts and share information openly. We work with our provincial and territorial partners to resolve challenges, as I know the minister is doing. We apply the act fairly and consistently, always mindful that co-operation, not confrontation, has kept medicare strong for generations.
This approach has actually delivered results. Since 2018, more than $227 million has been returned to provinces and territories after they took action to eliminate patient charges for medically necessary services. This shows how collaboration protects access to care based on need, how the collaboration we do results in a reaction by the governments we are engaging with.
We bring that spirit of collaboration to the work before us today. We will remain engaged, reviewing proposals in good faith, asking questions early and keeping lines of communication open. Where adjustments are needed to respect the Canada Health Act, we will work together to ensure that they are made. That is how we protect patients. That is how we keep medicare's promise.
Mr. Speaker, here we are. We are the last people here again. It has been four weeks in a row that I have dragged the government in here because it has not done its job to fulfill its promises when it comes to protecting our public health care system or to enhancing our system. In fact, it has failed to even protect it from the threats it is facing. This is no slight to the parliamentary secretary of industry, but it is shameful that the Minister of Health or her parliamentary secretary could not show up for this very important debate tonight. It is very disappointing.
I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the member. He cannot refer to the absence or the presence of a parliamentary secretary or any member of the House.
I will let the member continue, but he cannot make a reference in that way.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.
Chris Gallaway was here today. He is from Friends of Medicare from Alberta. He highlighted that the minister, who has claimed over and over again in questions from me and from my colleague, the member for Edmonton Strathcona, that she is the guardian of the Health Care Act, has not told Canadians what she thinks about the act, what her plan is, and what regulations would suit her needs and what ones would not. She has not communicated publicly on this issue, which would really help us know what her thinking is, how we can move forward on regulations and what is happening. She has not shared that as our federal health minister.
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, the shared commitment to medicare, as expressed through the Canada Health Act, is a very strongly held commitment. We are very fortunate to have a minister who is a fierce guardian of that commitment.
The exact way in which we engage with any one situation, again, relies on those principles that I mentioned around collaboration to ensure that access to medically necessary care remains based on need, not on the willingness to pay a loan. Enforcement is one tool, yes, but there are other tools we can use to engage provinces and health care providers constructively in this conversation.
I know that commitment, on this side of the House, is very firm, and it comes from a very deep place of commitment to our values as a party and to national identity.
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer