Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to taxation, labour rights and the labour code, and the environment, Bill C‑39 is a brutal step backward. Tucked into this bill are provisions saying that oil and nuclear projects will be automatically approved and, even worse, that this will be done in advance. Does the government realize that the framework protecting the people of Quebec and Canada, which took so many years to build, will be destroyed in just 24 hours?

Mr. Speaker, first they privatized airports, now they are privatizing ports. What is more, the government is entrusting the oil companies with a sham environmental assessment process, basically handing over control of Quebec's and Canada's resources to an international financial oligarchy. Things were already bad enough under Justin Trudeau. They are no better under the new Prime Minister. How can anyone who was happy as a Liberal MP under Justin Trudeau be in complete agreement with the new Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker, we are making progress. He named one. The Prime Minister says he is building a stronger Canada to stand up to the United States. Suddenly, sovereignty has become a virtue. However, the Prime Minister is destroying any attempt to rein in climate change, and he is handing the keys to oil companies. The majority of shareholders in western Canadian oil companies are American, 90% of Canada's oil is sold to the United States, and there are no tariffs on Canadian oil entering the United States. Are the trust and concern of Quebeckers and Canadians being blatantly abused?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister personally cancelled contributions of any kind by tech giants to the economy or the arts in Quebec and Canada, including through taxes or content creation, simply to appease the American President. The effort fell flat. Although I remain unconvinced, the Prime Minister claims to have walked away from the negotiation table for language and culture-related reasons. Since the effort failed, should the Prime Minister consider reinstating the digital services tax and allowing cultural contributions by the web giants?

Mr. Speaker, I want to add two points. First, I was in the cultural sector for 20 years in a professional capacity. I know a thing or two about it. Second, corporate contributions have no impact on the cost for users because they are investments the companies would have made anyway. They are funnelled into Quebec and Canada. Given that the Prime Minister wants to build closer ties with Europe, which places great importance on the contribution of businesses and Internet giants to culture, should he not reconsider his policy, which is not working?

Mr. Speaker, given the frequency of attendance here, I will take this as a great sign of respect for the voters and citizens of Quebec and Canada. In my view, the Prime Minister has failed in his strategy to appease the American President. In light of this failure, he should reconsider his decision, which we would welcome, so that the web giants, which are wealthier than some countries around the world, pay their fair share to support the vitality of culture and the arts in Canada and Quebec, especially in French.

Mr. Speaker, in the 1950s, today's Quebeckers were French Canadians who worked for the English. With the Quiet Revolution, which was also an economic revolution, the Quebec nation was created, along with a class of full-fledged Quebec entrepreneurs. In their garages, in their basements or on their boats, these small business owners started from nothing, often with the support of Caisses Desjardins at the time, and built Quebec's SMEs. One of those entrepreneurs is Robert Thibert, who started his business in a garage making rubber mud guards. Thibert has become a large company that distributes various vehicle parts. That is impressive enough. However, in addition to being a tough businessman, although I sometimes find that hard to believe, Robert Thibert is a gentle, attentive, loyal and generous man. For example, he has donated or raised close to $2 million for good causes in his region, in the area around Châteauguay. Let us applaud the great generosity and business acumen of a Quebec builder. Every region of Quebec should have somebody like him. I want to thank Mr. Thibert. The best is yet to come.

Mr. Speaker, this time it is clear. The Prime Minister is abandoning the cultural sector in the face of American digital giants. Not only is he capitulating on the levy increase demanded from streaming platforms like Netflix, Prime, and Disney, but we also found out that he will require the CRTC to cancel every last bit of funding for Quebec and Canadian content. Even the meagre 5% that Ottawa was trying to impose is too much for the Prime Minister. In one fell swoop, he is undoing 10 years of fighting to defend our creators. Is he at least aware that he is openly threatening the future of Quebec culture?

Mr. Speaker, we predicted his appointment would be a disaster, and it is. The Prime Minister is once again abandoning Quebec culture because of Washington. The Union des artistes and the entire cultural community spoke out against it in the media on Saturday. Their letter is entitled “Chronicle of a disappearance foretold”, because our culture is sure to disappear unless the Prime Minister grows a proverbial spine. The European Union collects levies from the web giants. It even lets its member states add to them. Why is the Prime Minister incapable of taking a stand?

Mr. Speaker, at least he prepares his answers. That is $3.4 billion that will be lost in the creative sector in Quebec and Canada. The minister is going to invest $600 million that he is taking directly out of taxpayers' pockets. He is talking about an announcement he made almost a year ago, before all the disastrous decisions made by the Prime Minister, who is kowtowing to the United States. He is even threatening the very existence of the convention on the diversity of cultural expressions, which originated in Quebec. That I know. I was there when it happened. Why is the Prime Minister giving up on the existence of a distinct French-Canadian culture?

Mr. Speaker, here is yet another betrayal of Quebec culture: On day two of the CUSMA negotiations, the government is already asking the CRTC to drop the 15% levy required of major online streaming platforms such as Netflix, Disney+ and Prime Video. After scrapping the digital services tax, Ottawa is once again sacrificing funding for cultural content by allowing web giants to avoid paying their fair share. We are talking about $3.4 billion. Does the Prime Minister know that he is supposed to defend culture, not bargain it away?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister previously abandoned the digital services tax without any concessions from Washington; there was nothing at all. As a result, he deprived the cultural sector of $1.4 billion. Today, he is asking the CRTC to backtrack on the 15% levy imposed on large online streaming platforms. That would mean once again giving up on $2 billion that would essentially come from the United States. He is depriving the cultural sector of billions of dollars, while saying he would spend $600 million of taxpayer money to make up for that. How can he justify the fact that everybody is losing, except for the web giants?

Mr. Speaker, he is forgoing $3.4 billion a year that would come from the United States, and taking $600 million out of taxpayers' pockets. By asking the CRTC to cancel the 15% levy, the Prime Minister is doing something even worse than merely capitulating. He is validating the Americans' claim that Quebec culture and the French language are barriers to trade. By replacing the levy with public funds, he is validating the Conservatives' criticism by making taxpayers pay for the web giants' share. That is their reasoning. The Prime Minister is sending the message that he is weak. Will he reverse this cowardly decision?

Mr. Speaker, when we think of Warwick, we think of cheese. For world-renowned cheeses and culinary and regional specialties that set trends everywhere, look no further than the best cheese maker in Quebec, who can be found in Sainte-Élizabeth‑de‑Warwick. Jean Morin, the charming, generous and indispensable master and founder of Fromagerie du Presbytère, was named Artisan of the Year at the Gala des Lauriers de la gastronomie québécoise. This is yet another one of the many accolades received by Jean Morin and his team. He has an entire wall of them. It is thanks to him that we have the Louis d'Or, the Bleu d'Élizabeth, the Religieuse and the Taliah. All of these cheeses are a pure delight and pair well with a variety of Quebec wines. A lover of local foods, Jean also knows how to bring people together with his Friday events at the Presbytère, which draw tens of thousands of tourists for delicious picnics and great music. Jean embodies the very essence of one of Quebec's most beautiful and gastronomically rich regions. Bravo, Jean.

Mr. Speaker, we were promised that the issue of tariffs and trade would be fixed in June 2025. Clearly, that did not work out. It is not the Prime Minister's fault. It is Donald Trump's fault. One year of dithering later, here we are again, and now the Prime Minister wants a 16-year agreement. I agree, that is fine with me, but it will certainly take a little longer than two weeks. In the meantime, will the government help SMEs with a wage subsidy that would help retain expertise and jobs in Quebec?

Mr. Speaker, in all of this, there is no provision for what virtually everyone in the field is asking for: a wage subsidy program that would help maintain employment relationships, preserve expertise within companies, and prevent foreign workers with specialized skills from being sent home. There is nothing on this for these companies. In the meantime, our forestry industry is in trouble and our sawmills are closing. Will the government implement the cost-free solution proposed by the forestry industry to resume lumber exports?

Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would say this, but those of us with an environmental conscience end up missing Justin Trudeau every so often. I sometimes find myself thinking that the Leader of the Opposition misses him too, but for different reasons, and I am sure the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie misses those days. He has finally had enough of the government and the Prime Minister backtracking all the time and giving up on the environment. They have literally forced out a highly credible spokesperson on environmental issues. Does the government realize that its climate betrayal has gone way too far this time?

Mr. Speaker, there is indeed such a thing as climate change. We can combat the effects of climate change, but not by scrapping the carbon tax, not by funding new oil pipelines, not by suspending environmental assessments and abandoning biodiversity protection measures, not by scrapping greenhouse gas emission caps, and not by abandoning emission capping targets. Will the government start listening and reverse course on its huge climate betrayal blunder?

Mr. Speaker, drawing on his deep understanding of Quebec, the Prime Minister, who said a few months ago that the Battle of the Plains of Abraham was just one big hug fest, very clearly told us yesterday that he thinks a majority of 50% plus one on sovereignty issues is unclear. In that case, I think we ought to start by overturning the 1995 referendum and starting all over. Evidently, this time he should have minded his own business. The Quebec National Assembly reminded him of that with a unanimous motion. There are about 170 Liberal members here, about 40 of whom are from Quebec. I want to know if the members—

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec National Assembly was unanimous in not sharing that view. Some people support sovereignty. Others are on the fence. Some people say they want it later, and some do not want it at all. However, Quebeckers all agree that they have the right to make their own decisions, 30 years on from the shenanigans surrounding the previous referendum. Are the Prime Minister and the government telling Quebeckers that they should not count on Ottawa to defend democracy and their rights and that they can only count on their own will as Quebeckers?

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, 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.

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, 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 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.

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.

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, 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, 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, in the past few days, the Prime Minister again claimed that 85% of Canadian exports to the United States are protected by CUSMA and that the tariffs applied to Canada and Quebec are the lowest the United States is imposing. It seems that, as of April 6, these are now the highest tariffs the U.S. is imposing on any country in the world, but yesterday's economic statement contained no measures. Will the Prime Minister sharpen his pencil and make some changes to help businesses?

Mr. Speaker, that sounds like good news, but to err on the side of caution, I would remind the House that the way tariffs are calculated changed on April 6. Two weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister if he would take action. What I got was pretty much radio silence. I asked him again the following week. He said that there would be measures to help businesses in the economic statement. However, there was no help for businesses in the economic statement. Can I believe him this time?

Mr. Speaker, we dealt with Justin Trudeau for 10 years. As a result, I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister will accept the offer I made at a press conference earlier today and set partisanship and performative politics aside to ensure that, given the serious distress they are in, the businesses that account for roughly half of Quebec's exports to the United States will receive significant, adequate and timely assistance.

Mr. Speaker, for the past year, the Bloc Québécois has been demanding that trade talks with the United States be the top priority. However, that did not seem to be the government's strategy. Today, the government is relaunching the Advisory Committee on Canada-U.S. Economic Relations. The government is even enhancing it, perhaps in the interests of Quebec. The committee was a tool created under Justin Trudeau and has had little impact until now. Now it is sending a message that, once again, the government's priority is negotiation. In the meantime, will the government put transition measures in place for businesses?

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that Ms. Picard is a member of the committee. I would point out that, three weeks ago, the U.S. president announced harsher tariffs, including some that will affect manufacturing companies that use steel and aluminum. Those are real businesses and real jobs. Now that negotiation is back on the government's agenda, will it bring in transitional measures for businesses that are being affected between now and the end of these negotiations?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister finally seems to understand the impact that U.S. tariffs are having on businesses, which is good. Just because 85% of businesses are still covered by CUSMA does not mean that everything is fine and dandy. That leaves 15% of businesses and 15% of workers affected, which is huge. I look forward to hearing what those measures are. I would like to know whether they will be included in the economic update and whether he is willing to consult us on them.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected because of his economic expertise and because he was going to protect Canada from tariffs. However, the White House has just changed the way it is calculating its already illegal tariffs on steel and aluminum. From now on, derivative articles of steel and aluminum will be subject to a 25% tariff on their full customs value, rather than to the already illegal tariffs on the value of the metal inputs. I assume that the government has raised this change with the United States. Is Canada going to get the Donald Trump and the White House to do away with this method of calculating tariffs?

Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister be any less specific? Literally hundreds and hundreds of Quebec businesses that depend on the American market will have to cut shifts, cut production and, in some cases, perhaps even shut down. This morning, Le Journal de Montréal reported that BRP has lost a third of its stock market value. I want to know what the Prime Minister is going to do right now to help the businesses and workers who are victims of President Trump's latest whim.

Mr. Speaker, it is okay for people to admit that there are things they do not know. Since early 2025, we have heard a lot of talk but seen very little action. Tariffs are making every one of the White House's moves worse. The Prime Minister cannot just wave his resumé around, give speeches and recruit floor crossers. What does the Prime Minister have to say to Quebec and Canadian businesses that are suddenly facing a sharp increase in tariffs on their products and that could be forced to shut down if there is no meaningful government intervention?

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to make one thing very clear: The Bloc Québécois fully respects freedom of conscience, freedom of belief and freedom of religion. That is true for all people, including the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Prime Minister quoted the Bible in a speech. That is his prerogative, but I would like some clarification on what has become a critical issue in light of recent events. Does the Prime Minister support the principle of state secularism and the separation of church and state?

Mr. Speaker, the first word he said was “yes”. That is where the clarity ends. I assume that the Prime Minister believes, as I do and as all members do, that religion and the state are two separate things, one being personal and the other being public and collective, and that religion should not interfere in state decisions. That being the case, can the Prime Minister explain why his government spent millions of taxpayer dollars, some of which came from Quebec, to task Crown attorneys to block and render ineffective a Quebec law that had been duly passed by the Quebec National Assembly ensuring the separation of church and state?

Mr. Speaker, it is one or the other, and the Prime Minister is going to have to make up his mind. Either he acknowledges that religion plays a role and directly influences how his government and the Liberal Party manage government affairs, or he stops challenging Bill 21, which sets out rules for the secular nature of Quebec's state institutions. The Prime Minister cannot say and defend one thing and its opposite. He will have to take a stand and provide an answer. Can he tell us, yes or no, whether he truly agrees with the principle of the separation of church and state?

Mr. Speaker, I would be lying if I said that I was surprised that he does not understand. Pierre Elliott Trudeau's Canada forced a constitution on Quebec. Quebec did not sign it and has never accepted it. Today, we are being told that Ottawa is in charge according to this Constitution and its charter designed against Quebec. By taking action against Quebec in the Supreme Court, is Liberal Canada telling Quebec that its national assembly must submit and that Quebec is a colony of Canada?

Mr. Speaker, bring out the good china; we have visitors in Parliament. Judging by the Prime Minister's inclination to travel the world like Marco Polo, he is his own foreign affairs minister. Unfortunately, this foreign affairs minister is not known for his clarity, and by not accepting his own invitation yesterday, he missed a tremendous opportunity to explain his policies in Parliament. When will he explain his strategic vision for the Middle East?

Mr. Speaker, I should have been more specific in my question and asked whether he spoke with all of our allies in Europe together. Also, it will take a lot more continental drift for the United States to end up in Europe. Does the Prime Minister intend to propose any short-term measures to help people who are suffering and who will continue to suffer as a direct result of this war? I am talking about purchasing power, inflation, pensioners and home ownership for young families. I am talking about all of these issues that cannot be resolved in Norway over a five-year period but that must be addressed now for the people of Quebec and Canada.