Debates of May 5th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Measures to Support the Manufacturing Sector

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

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.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

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.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

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.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

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?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

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.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

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?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

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.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

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?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

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.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

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?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

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.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

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.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

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.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

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.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

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.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

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.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

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.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

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.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

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?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

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.

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.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

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?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

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.