Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford. Like most members, I spent the summer talking with folks in my riding. One of the issues that keep coming back to us as parliamentarians is the cost of living, the fact that everything is more expensive and the fact that businesses and families are indeed having trouble meeting their needs. At the same time, Canadians, at least in my riding, expressed their confidence in the government's action, in the government's plan and in the government's attempts to assist the Canadian economy. What those folks in my riding told me, and I think it is quite right, is that difficulties and the impact on the cost of living, on the overall price levels, have come from a series of shocks that have hit our economy, shocks that have come from abroad. In fact, affordability and the cost of living are issues in Canada, in the United States, in France, in the U.K., in Germany, in Japan, in Brazil and all over the world. They come from the same source, and that source is the supply shocks we have had since 2022, ever since the invasion of Ukraine, followed by the very uneven recovery from the pandemic, which was happening at the same time. Later on, more recently, there are the very significant price shocks we have had as a result of the war in the Middle East. These are global issues that have a real impact on pocketbooks and on Canadians' ability to face difficulties. We as a government have put in place a number of measures that help their bottom line and at the same time will contribute significantly to diversifying our economy, diversifying our markets, finding new markets and continuing to grow. As an example, the World Bank, which I do not think can be confused with any sort of Liberal-friendly outfit, has stated: Attacks on energy infrastructure and shipping disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, which handles about 35% of global seaborne crude oil trade, have triggered the largest oil supply shock on record, with an initial reduction in global oil supply of about 10 million barrels per day. Even after moderating from their recent peak, Brent oil prices [remain very high, at around the $100 per barrel mark]. Energy prices will continue to remain high throughout the world, at least until the situation is addressed in the Middle East. The chief economist of the World Bank added, “Governments must resist the temptation of broad, untargeted fiscal support measures that could distort markets and erode fiscal buffers. Instead, they should focus on rapid, temporary support targeted to the most vulnerable households.” This is what we have been doing. This is what we are doing with Bill C-38, and this is what we will continue to do. We will be there to continue to support Canadian families with targeted and temporary support. When we announced the fuel excise tax break back in the spring, it was to come to an end on September 7. Of course, by September 7, the situation was far from resolved in the Middle East. In fact, it is getting worse. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that we extend this program for a few more months, until the end of January 2027. I think there is broad support in the House for us to do that. On that, we have said that it will extend after January 31 for two extra months, so it will be a gradual withdrawal. The 10¢-a-litre excise tax relief would not be removed in one shot. It would be removed by 50% until March 31, and then the other 50% would be after March 31. There would be a gradual removal of this support, because as the World Bank and the IMF have pointed out, support for families has to be temporary and has to be targeted to the most vulnerable households. This, in essence, is what we did with the groceries and essentials benefit. It is very targeted. In this case, it is support for five years, but it is very targeted to those most in need. As members will recall, the groceries and essentials benefit is modelled on the old GST rebate, which by definition is targeted to families at the lowest end of the scale. Once again, it is important to resist the temptation to have broad, untargeted fiscal measures because we need to avoid distorting markets. We need to make sure that fiscal buffers remain. We do have the fiscal capacity now to do this, and that is why we are doing it, but it has to be temporary and it has to be targeted. This support would reduce the pressure on prices at the pump. It may seem insignificant, but it is not. At 10¢ a litre, it is significant. The other issue we need to continue to monitor is that the industry itself does not adjust its margins and that this 10¢-a-litre reduction is fully passed on to the final consumer. We will continue to monitor markets very closely to make sure that there is no attempt to sidestep this measure. Going back to the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, a family of four will receive $1,890 this year and about $1,400 a year for the next four years. Again, this is targeted to the families most in need. We are putting more money in the pockets of those who need it most, and we are also leaving more money in the pockets of the middle class with the middle-class tax cut that was implemented right off the bat when we came into power. There are other measures we put in place with the last budget, and there is nothing to say that we will not be doing that again if need be. As long as support is targeted and temporary, I think we should do that. For the time being, in Canada anyway, we are not noticing any shortages of products. It is really a question of affordability that is caused by events completely beyond our control. These are global events that are affecting the same issue in all developed and developing nations. The crucial point here is for the Canadian government to retain its fiscal buffers, its fiscal capacity to intervene, because we must continue to protect families. We will still have that fiscal capacity if we continue to be prudent.

Madam Speaker, indeed, as I pointed out, which is recommended by independent agencies like the World Bank and the IMF, governments should resist the temptation to put in place permanent measures that may distort markets. In a period of need, as is the case now, we should put in place temporary measures. I do not know what will be happening in January. We do not know if the war will still be going on in the Strait of Hormuz and if crude oil prices will remain above $100, but at some point, the oil market will return to a more stable level, and at that time, the temporary measures will be removed.

Mr. Speaker, this government's record is that it has created a very resilient economy. Despite headwinds from the south, our economy continues to grow. In fact, last week I encouraged my opposition colleagues to check out the C.D. Howe Institute's Business Cycle Council. I would again encourage them to do so. They should read its report. They might find it very enlightening, and it might change the Conservatives' message, which is out of sync with reality.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to keep going. Canadians know that, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, 5,000 small businesses closed their doors. Canadians know that the Canadian economy is under pressure from the United States. No, that is not an excuse. I heard my colleagues say that the international context is an excuse. Come on, how could that be an excuse? It is very real, very tangible. There is a trade war being waged by a partner that used to be trustworthy but is not anymore. We in the government are helping businesses get back on track, and we are going to succeed.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time. It is my turn to speak to Bill C-30, which seeks to implement the economic update. I want to address several issues, but, first, I want to talk about why we are doing things a bit differently here today. Last week, at the Standing Committee on Finance, on which I serve, the Conservative members used some pretty intense filibustering tactics during the study of C-30. What I found especially shocking was that the Conservatives themselves admitted that this filibustering had nothing to do with any specific concerns about this bill but everything to do with winning concessions on another bill, Bill C-22. They said so themselves. They made it very clear. To get concessions on Bill C-22, they were prepared to filibuster, change everything and take as long as necessary to achieve that goal. This filibuster was clearly deliberate, especially given how much of the committee's time was spent on a single clause and on an amendment moved by the Conservatives themselves. They then moved subamendment after subamendment. They used a very clear tactic: These subamendments were drafted in English only. We had to wait for them to be translated before work could resume. We can see the mechanism at play. Also, the Conservatives' discussions on these subamendments involved a lot of repetition and many digressions that had very little to do with the matter at hand. That also contributed to delays. In any event, we spent hours and hours on it. It quickly became clear that no progress was going to be made at all. That is a big problem because Bill C-30 is so important. It concerns the April 28 economic update, which contains a number of very useful and very important measures for our economy. I suspect I may run out of time, but before I talk about those measures, I want to address a few problems that have been mentioned today in the conversations and in the debates that we have had here so far. For example, as of the end of the fiscal year, March 31, Canada had met the target of 2% of GDP for spending and investments in national defence. That was confirmed by NATO itself, and it is something that Canada had not done in a very long time. Liberal and Conservative governments kept national defence spending at 1% or 1.5% of GDP. We very quickly and practically reached the 2% target, and we committed to allocating 5% of GDP to national defence by 2035. That is a very significant commitment. We are making this commitment because the world is a different place now. Today, our situation is very delicate. Our biggest trade and economic partner is also our neighbour: the United States. It is a partner that has very plainly and clearly told us that it does not need what Canada has to offer. We could discuss that at great length. It does not need anything except our energy, our aluminum and other resources. The Americans imposed a number of sector-based tariffs, which is not entirely consistent with CUSMA requirements, but they did it anyway to put the Canadian government under a lot of pressure. They really want to put a lot of pressure on the economy to force us into making all sorts of concessions, to the point where our own sovereignty is at risk. That is why we are investing heavily in defence. It is also why we are going to keep strengthening ties with reliable, dependable and predictable partners. That said, it is also clear that 70% of our exports go to the United States. Our neighbour will always be our neighbour. We cannot change geography. We still have good relationships with American businesses and the American people. We are going to maintain those relationships. We have also committed to doubling our non-U.S. exports. Let us look at the reasoning behind that. Even if we can double the 30% of our exports going to non-U.S. countries, and I think we will get there, 40% to 50% of our exports will still be going to the United States. It will still be important to maintain our trade relationship with the United States. That is why we are still committed to updating CUSMA. That work continues, despite the obstacles the administration sometimes puts in our way. We remain focused on that, but we need to have a broader perspective on all of this. It is important to point out one other thing that is very clear in the economic update. Our colleagues opposite keep saying that we are running huge deficits, that we are heading straight for a wall and that things are not working. Our colleagues sometimes paint a rather apocalyptic picture. Let us review some basic facts. Our deficit stands at 2.1% of GDP, which is entirely manageable. Canada's public debt is equally manageable. In fact, that is why our AAA credit rating is being maintained. If Canada were truly a country on the brink of ruin, how could we still have a AAA credit rating? I will conclude on this point. How is it that long-term bond yields, for example 10-year yields, are around 3.5%? That is roughly 100 basis points, or one percentage point, lower than in the United States. If we are as broke as our colleagues opposite claim, why are interest rates on the financial markets still so favourable in Canada? We are on the right track. We are going to diversify our economy and continue to sign trade agreements.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that our borrowing capacity is not unlimited. Of course there are limits. However, in Canada, we are still a long way from that limit. Canada continues to have very easy access to financial markets. We have a AAA credit rating. The interest rate on 10-year government bonds is much lower than in the United States. The financial markets have confidence in Canada, and we will remain committed to diversifying the economy.

Mr. Speaker, culture and supply management are issues on which we will not compromise. That is important. We have said it before, we stand by it and that will not change. However, it must also be noted that we have said from the start that a bad deal would be far worse than signing just anything. So far, we have not signed anything precisely because what was presented to us was unacceptable. No, we have not caved. On the contrary, we are standing our ground.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is correct. They were subamendments. Every time the Conservative Party proposed a subamendment, the subamendment was always worded in English only, so we had to wait for it to be translated. That was one of the factors that caused the delay in our proceedings. Whenever we asked if we could set that aside and keep working while the translation was being done, we were denied.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the excellent speech she made and also for underlining her commitment to this country and to progress. I thank her for that and welcome her, again, to the group. I have a question about the economic update and Bill C‑30. Could my colleague speak to the fact that the government continues to intervene to protect industries that are at risk from the U.S. trade war, and could she speak to the measures we continue to put in place to support industries at risk?

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have been doing for the past year: changing course. We recognize that we are in a very complicated situation because of the tariff war and the global economic situation. That is why we have introduced policies to help diversify our economy. Now, I also want to tell my colleague that, over the weekend, perhaps he could consult the C.D. Howe Institute's Business Cycle Council to get a real definition of what is going on right now.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I suggest that our colleagues in the Conservative Party consult the C.D. Howe Institute's Business Cycle Council over the weekend to gain a proper understanding of what is currently happening in the Canadian economy. Beyond that, I would also like to mention to the House that short-term and long-term interest rates in Canada are stable. What does that mean? It indicates that the financial markets have full confidence in the Canadian economy and full confidence in how the Government of Canada is managing the Canadian economy.

Mr. Speaker, there is a whole jumble of things in there. Anyway, let us focus on what I think is the main thing: the statistics. Let us look at the statistics. What the statistics also say is that Canada's economy created 88,000 jobs in May, including 150,000 full-time jobs. Most of these new jobs were in construction. I am assuming that if people are being hired to work in construction, the purpose is to build something. There are indeed 27,000 new jobs in construction. That is where we are headed.

Mr. Speaker, today we are celebrating Portugal Day, the day of Camões and Portuguese communities. For me, this day holds a very special significance. Like thousands of Portuguese before me, I left my country of birth in search of new opportunities. Canada welcomed me and allowed me to build a career, a family and a life, for which I am deeply grateful. Today, Canadians of Portuguese descent contribute to the prosperity of our communities. They are entrepreneurs, workers, teachers and artists. I wish everyone celebrating this day in Canada, in Portugal and around the world a very happy Portugal Day. Long live Canada. Viva Portugal.

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a space-faring nation. We have contributed valuable technologies, research, scientists and engineers, and we are a global leader in the field of space exploration. We can now add another achievement to our list of accomplishments. The first Canadian to orbit the moon, Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen, is in Ottawa today following the success of the Artemis II mission. This mission has inspired Canadians and stands as a symbol of hope for our continued exploration of the final frontier. We commend Mr. Hansen's contribution and, on behalf of all Canadians across the country, thank him for his service.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to comments by the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona regarding the buy Canadian policy and the use of Canadian materials in public projects. We have taken decisive and unprecedented action to help Canadian steel and aluminum producers secure a larger share of the Canadian market. With that in mind, one key element of our response to U.S. tariffs is to ensure that, moving forward, we become our own best customer. We are therefore prioritizing Canadian steel and aluminum in government procurement contracts through our buy Canadian policy. This policy ensures that federal spending prioritizes Canadian suppliers. For example, Canadian steel and aluminum will be used in future infrastructure projects, including ports, bridges and energy projects. The government's buy Canadian policy stimulates our economy while supporting local businesses and workers. By gearing government contracts to Canadian businesses, we keep investments in our country, support small and medium-sized businesses and strengthen supply chain resilience. This approach helps create good-paying jobs, encourages local production and reduces dependence on unstable global markets. It also ensures that taxpayer dollars provide communities with maximum benefits, while fostering sustainable and reliable production. It is worth noting that this approach does not mean we are closing our borders. Rather, it means we are building a stronger, more independent economy that puts Canada on the road to long-term prosperity and shared growth. To further facilitate this transition, notably through the $5-billion strategic response fund, we are supporting companies that are shifting their production to Canadian supply chains. This program will provide Canadian steel and aluminum companies with the support they need to manufacture products that are in demand in the domestic market but are not yet produced here. Furthermore, in a trade environment marked by growing protectionism, the ongoing need for investment in defence equipment manufacturing and critical infrastructure is helping Canadian companies shift their production to meet domestic needs. Our government remains focused on stimulating domestic demand so that Canadian businesses and workers in the steel and aluminum sectors can maintain and expand their operations. Above all, we will continue to support Canadian workers and businesses affected by the instability caused by the arbitrary and unfair tariffs imposed by the U.S. government.

Mr. Speaker, the government remains in constant communication with businesses and workers in the steel and aluminum industries. On April 29, the Prime Minister's new Advisory Committee on Canada-U.S. Economic Relations held its first meeting. This forum will help us better understand the impact of the situation and strengthen our ability to respond to future developments. While quick responses remain important in the short term, our government will continue to work with industry to develop long-term strategies that build resilience, support workers and position Canadian businesses to succeed in an ever-changing and competitive North American market. We will always protect Canadian interests and promote stable, predictable and fair international trade.

Madam Speaker, we could have said a lot of things, but we are short on time. I will just say two things. First, when we break down GDP, we should note that one of the sources of weakness in the first quarter was government spending. We know this is temporary. It is an adjustment, and it will change. However, I agree with my colleague that one of the main issues is exports. Indeed, exports to the United States are a significant problem, and it will need to be addressed over time. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about private investment, especially in a climate of uncertainty. After all, the decline in exports and the trade war are also creating a great deal of uncertainty. Another trend we are seeing is a freeze on private investment, particularly in machinery, equipment, and so on. What does my colleague have to say about that?

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear: Canada is not in a recession. I could tell the member that, per capita, the GDP rose in the first quarter, but I am not going to say that. I could have also told him that the financial markets have completely ignored this message and that they are not in turmoil over it. What I can say, however, is that the Canadian economy is suffering directly from the impact of the trade war and is suffering directly from the impact of the war in the Middle East. Fuel prices are very high. Investment is down, due to uncertainty. That is the problem, but we have a plan.

Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: Canada is not in a recession. Statistics Canada has never said that we are in a recession. The financial markets will determine that. There is no cause for alarm. However, our economy is under threat. Our economy is directly affected by the tariffs. We are the only G7 country that borders the United States, and we are heavily dependent on trade with the United States. That is our problem, and we have a plan to address it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the fine member for Terrebonne, for that very good question. Our aluminum processing companies across Canada, and particularly in Quebec, are facing difficulties related to the tariffs imposed by the United States. Our aluminum processors are the backbone of the Quebec and Canadian economy, representing more than 30,000 jobs and more than $11 billion in sales. That is why we have already allocated more than $20 million to Quebec aluminum processors as part of our regional tariff response initiative, with an overall budget of $500 million. Our government is taking concrete action and we will always be there to help our—

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 65th anniversary of 710 Ste-Rose Squadron, a remarkable institution in our community that has been inspiring and training generations of young people for 65 years. Through its commitment to leadership, discipline, service, and excellence, 710 Ste-Rose Squadron plays a vital role in the development of our youth, instilling in them values that will stay with them for life. I would like to pay tribute to the cadets, instructors, volunteers, families, and everyone who has contributed over the decades to the success and reputation of this vital squadron. On behalf of the people of Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, I congratulate 710 Ste-Rose Squadron on its 65th anniversary and wish it a long and successful future.

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, there is something that the members opposite have been saying over and over again, which is that, in 2014, oil prices were what they are now and gasoline prices were much lower. That is just not correct. It is factually incorrect. Perhaps they should stop saying that. Oil prices started 2014 at $100 a barrel, and they closed the year at $57. That was the year of shale oil in the U.S. There were massive oil inventories, and that is why gasoline prices came way down. It is not the taxes. Come on. My question is about support for families. Does my colleague think assistance to families should be targeted, or should it be generalized so that rich people get the same relief as poor people?

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. I also commend his party, since he said that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against the Conservative motion. In that regard, we are on the same wavelength. There are, of course, many other things my colleague mentioned that I do not fully agree with. There is just one aspect that I would like him to clarify for me. He said that the government's measures are just giving the impression of helping people. Does my colleague think that the Canada groceries and essentials benefit is just giving the impression of helping? That benefit will help 12 million Canadians starting on June 5.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech, and I thank him for reiterating that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this motion. We are on the same page, which is great. I would also like to thank my colleague for pointing out that, lately, our Conservative friends have often referred to the price of gas in 2014. However, what the Conservative members are saying is factually incorrect. I want to thank my colleague for pointing that out as well. Now I have a question about the groceries and essentials benefit. Does my colleague not think that this is a well‑targeted benefit? We did not simply change the name of the transfer. We are using the GST credit criteria to target those most in need.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the situation very well. In my riding also, folks talk to us all the time about the high prices of gasoline and about the high cost of living. Everybody is worried about that. Also, folks do understand that the current high prices of gasoline come from the very sudden increase in crude oil prices, which is totally out of the government's control. By the way, oil is a global commodity, so global oil prices affect everybody, including the United States. Does my colleague not think that an across-the-board reduction in gasoline taxes would benefit folks at the higher end of the income scale more than people—

Mr. Speaker, I am not even going to go to the money-printing side because that could take a few minutes. That is a whole different discussion. For example, I would never say I would fire the governor of the central bank. As a country, we do not say those things. The very specific question I have is this. In 2014, yes, the crude oil price started the year at $100 a barrel, but it finished at $55 a barrel. There was that sharp decline in oil prices throughout the year that explains the lower gasoline prices. Is the Leader of the Opposition aware of that?

Mr. Chair, it is my turn to talk about Bill C-30 and to talk about the economic context in which our economic update was presented recently and, especially, the Canadian economy. What we have witnessed in the last year at least, since I have been here, is that our colleagues from the official opposition have developed this skill of offering really simplistic solutions to what are highly complex and serious problems. In that context, let us talk about the economic update. It was an economic update, not a budget, but of course, there were some fiscal measures that were also announced in the budget. What does the economic update tell us? To start with, the economic update tells us that the deficit for 2025‑26 in fact turned out to be about $66.9 billion rather than the $78.3 billion that had been forecast back in the November budget, so there was an improvement of about $11 billion in the public accounts of the government, of the country. Why was the deficit less than expected? It has nothing to do with the high price of oil. Conservatives talk about the GST on oil and say that it causes oil prices to go up and that is where the government makes its money, etc. No, the deficit was $11 billion less than what had been anticipated earlier because the economy in 2025 was much stronger than what had been expected. Government revenues were higher, and government spending was lower. That is where that $11 billion comes from. Not only is the economy of Canada a resilient economy that has been able to withstand severe shocks, but it grew at a reasonable pace when compared with our neighbours and peer countries. The economy of Canada is not broken. We are in fact leading the way among the G7 countries, which is recognized by our peers. That brings me to the next point I want to make, which is that this proves that Canada really has considerable fiscal strength. Our fiscal house is in order. We have a deficit of 2.1% of GDP, which, when we compare it to peer countries, is perfectly manageable. That deficit is projected to go to 1.4% of GDP by 2030, so the deficit is on a downward track. The debt-to-GDP ratio is at about 41% and will remain around that level in the fiscal framework into 2030 as well, which gives Canada a AAA rating. How can a country with a AAA rating have a broken economy? It does not. It does not make sense. We have a AAA rating because our fiscal house is in order and because our economy is growing despite the severe headwinds and shocks. By the way, I remind all members of the House and all those listening to us with great enthusiasm that this Friday, the GDP numbers are coming out for the first quarter. I do not know what those numbers will be, but I am pretty certain that Q1 GDP growth will be fairly strong. We hear this business that Canada has the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7. No. In fact, we have one of the fastest-growing economies in the G7 despite the shocks and the very uncertain context in which we are operating. I would like to take some time to talk about that context. It is important to talk about the economic context because context is everything. Our colleagues from the opposition keep on saying that “2014 was this, 2014 was that, and 10 years later, blah blah blah.” The context is very important. We could go all the way back to 2007-08 and the financial crisis. I will not go that far, but I think we could because the world economy did go through a severe shock in 2007-08. The adjustment that took place afterwards took some time and left some scars globally. What has happened since 2020? We had the pandemic. The economy shut down. Governments in the OECD area shut down their economies because no one knew what was going to happen. Everything was stopped. To prevent a massive depression, because that was what was going to happen if nothing was done, governments in the OECD area spent massively to support their economies. The Conservatives will say we wasted all that money. If governments had not done that, then the OECD economies and the global economy would have slipped into a major depression. That was a big shock in 2020. It was then followed by an economic rebound, a very sharp rebound, that took place in late 2021 into 2022, and it was a rebound in the context of broken supply chains. The result of that was massive upward pressure on prices. Inflation took off in the OECD area. It was not a “Liberal deficit”. Were the Liberals also responsible for the U.S. deficit, the German deficit and the French deficit? Let us be serious. It was a result of the sharp rebound with broken supply chains, compounded by the war in Ukraine. The war in Ukraine led to, among other things, a very sharp increase in the prices of oil and other products, like grains. The global economy was already unbalanced in 2022-23. It was a very different environment than what we had before. New solutions and new proposals had to be put in place because the times were very different. As if that was not sufficient, then what did we have in 2024-25? A new administration in the United States decided to trigger a trade war. The world as we knew it is no longer the same. The United States, our trusted ally, no longer wants to buy things from Canada, because it claims it does not need anything from Canada. It does, but that is what it claims. Therefore, we have this weird world of 50% tariffs on aluminum from Canada in the name of the national security of the United States. The U.S. actually needs Canadian aluminum. We have a very complex world. The tariff war is real. The tariff war is something we did not ask for. The tariff war is what is leading to profound adjustments in our manufacturing sector and in our economy as a whole. As our Prime Minister has repeated over and over again, this is not just a simple adjustment. This is a rupture in the world as we knew it, and the world now is different. The world has changed. That is something provincial premiers have fully realized. Whether it is Mr. Ford in Ontario, Ms. Smith in Alberta or Mr. Moe in Saskatchewan, all Conservative premiers, they have realized the world has changed and Canada has to adjust to this new world order. Then, as if that was not enough, we have the war in the Middle East, which has led to a doubling of oil prices. That is a very different context that requires serious measures, which is what was done—

Mr. Chair, I have some questions for our excellent Minister of Finance. I am sorry about where I am sitting because we will have to turn. I did not choose my seating arrangement strategically. Perhaps the Minister of Finance could talk to us a little about what it really means to have a AAA credit rating. When he travels and meets with colleagues from other G7 countries, what does it mean to him that Canada has a AAA credit rating? What is the benefit of that for all Canadians?

Mr. Chair, the International Monetary Fund released its annual report a short time ago, which includes very encouraging remarks about Canada and the Canadian economy, despite the cloud of uncertainty hanging over the global economy. The IMF had some really positive things to say about us. When the minister is abroad, speaking with his counterparts and with investors looking to invest here, what advantage does he get out of the fact that the IMF has such high praise for Canada?

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, 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.

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, 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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, Canada's debt stands at the figure that my colleague mentioned, or 41% of the GDP. That is one of the most manageable levels of debt in the G7. Now, I have a question for my colleague. Where do the Conservatives want to make cuts? What programs do they want to eliminate? Will they reduce old age security benefits? Will they cut the $8 billion that goes to the Canada child benefit? Where would you make cuts? Tell us.