Mario Simard · TranslatePolitics.ca

Oral Questions

Government Priorities

2026-06-18

“The Prime Minister broke promises. He said 'climate change' a lot, but didn't say 'pipeline'. Now he likes pipelines more. He said he would fix Trump's tariffs. But he does what Trump wants instead. I don't like that.”

Government Orders

Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C‑26

2026-06-16

“I want to be very clear: this is a trap. Everyone knows it's a trap. You can even look up how it works. It's called 'Dutch disease'. Quebec lost jobs because of oil money making the dollar go up. Quebec paid the price. I remember when the NDP leader used to talk about this. But then he got a taste of power and he stopped caring about Dutch disease.”

“I want Quebec to be independent. Then we could spend our own money on our own priorities without Canada telling us what to do. Canada makes us fund things we don't need like energy instead of what we really want.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the greatest benefit anyone can have in life is political autonomy. My neighbour is not the one who decides what I do with my earnings, how I use that money, how I will make it grow. I am the one who makes those decisions. As I said earlier, politically, we are subject to a level of government that makes decisions that are contrary to our best interest. The government's response to the tariff crisis is one example of that. The only sector with no tariffs is the energy sector. All of the government's strategies focus on the energy sector, and that is what Quebeckers' money is being used for. This proves that the only way to succeed is to have political autonomy, and the only way we can achieve that is through independence.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to defend equalization payments to Quebec. I feel Alberta already gets plenty of Quebec's money. I don't like that the government bought a pipeline.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is a new one. I did not see that coming. Equalization payments must be calculated on a per capita basis, and there are more people in Quebec than in Manitoba. I would urge my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, to take into account the fact that, every year, the Quebec government runs a trade deficit with the oil-producing provinces. Every year, the Quebec government probably sends far more money to Alberta than Albertans can send to Quebec. As for the major investments that were made—yes, it is not a surprise—if the government had not used $34 billion to buy a pipeline and instead made major investments in any other economy, we might be in a different situation today. We have paid for our energy infrastructure. It was Quebec, it was Hydro-Québec, that paid for its own energy infrastructure. It was not the entire federation. That is worse than equalization.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want the money in this bill because it sends federal cash straight to provinces without attaching new structures or plans. I'll cheer for the $1.7 billion transfer but I still think the federal government interferes too much in provincial business. The federal government taxes too much and wants to attach strings instead of just sending provinces the money and letting them handle it. Their job is to just send money to provinces, not make lots of new plans.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mirabel, the one they call “the MP with the golden voice”, just like little Joselito, and whom the people of Alto call “le député du petit train de l'amour”. It is a pleasure to speak today to express the Bloc Québécois's support for Bill C-26. The Bloc Québécois has often advocated for an unconditional transfer of $1.7 billion to the provinces and territories and that is what this bill provides. This money will go directly to the territories to address the major housing crisis we are currently facing, without going through any new structures. That is the best part, that this money is not going through new structures, action plans, or some sort of federal entity as we saw with Build Canada Homes. Not long ago, in fact, I rose to speak to Build Canada Homes. We quickly realized that although this initiative had its appeal, with $7.3 billion to invest, it was slowing down social housing construction. I gave the example, in my riding, of a group called Loge m'entraide, which received funds from the SHQ, or Société d'habitation du Québec, for a major project, and was waiting for an answer about the federal government's contribution through the affordable housing fund. As often happens with federal initiatives, CMHC's affordable housing fund was set aside with assurances that a new initiative was on the way. The new initiative never materialized and had to be picked up by Build Canada Homes, with the result that the Loge m'entraide project is now in limbo. However, that is not what we are seeing with Bill C-26. It provides a direct transfer to the provinces, as we have been calling for, rather than, as is often the case with the federal government, a proliferation of top-down structures and criteria imposed by Ottawa, without Ottawa necessarily being familiar with the specific challenges faced by the provinces and municipalities. We have said many times that the federal government should instead focus on straightforward, unconditional and predictable transfers to the provinces. That is what we are seeing with Bill C‑26, I might add. However, my job is certainly not to sing the government’s praises, so I would like to take this opportunity to address a glaring problem: federal interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Why can I do this in the context of Bill C-26? Because it is, in a way, the exception that proves the rule. There is something glaringly obvious when we look at this bill and past legislation in the context of Canadian federalism. I do not need to talk about predatory federalism, which we have often seen and involves an encroachment on areas of jurisdiction, but there is something glaringly obvious in the fact that the federal government has repeatedly acted in an unjust and unfair manner when transferring funds. This gives me an opportunity to once again address the most glaring injustice in the federation: the fiscal imbalance. We need to talk about this again because the reason the government can transfer $1.7 billion dollars at this point is that it has the fiscal capacity to do so. It has that fiscal capacity because of the fiscal imbalance. It has more revenue than expenses. What I mean by the fiscal imbalance is quite simple. Virtually all of the public services governments are required to provide are delivered by the provinces and Quebec, yet the federal government's tax base allows it to collect 60% of the total tax revenue. Essentially, the provinces and Quebec provide most of the services, such as education, health care and social programs, to name just a few, but the federal government's social mandate is typically limited to old age security benefits and family benefits. Note that employment insurance is not included because the employment insurance fund is not financed through taxation. It is funded by employers and workers. The federal government has no social mission and a lot of revenue. The provinces and Quebec have a lot of social missions, a lot of spending and little revenue. That is the fiscal imbalance at work. That is why, year in and year out, over the past 10 to 15 years, the government has had to focus on transfer programs to the provinces. These transfers were often accompanied by the federal government's involvement in areas of jurisdiction that it knew very little about, through strategies that were not always efficient. We have seen examples of that. Like me, we have experienced that. We could talk about the dental insurance program, which was a disaster. However, the worst disaster in the federation is the fiscal imbalance, which mainly affects health care. I want to emphasize that point because it seems to me that we have not talked about it in a while. If memory serves, 1969 is when the public health care system was put in place. For every dollar invested in health care, 50¢ came from the provinces and 50¢ came from the federal government. The Bloc Québécois has fought this battle. We have come back to this issue on numerous occasions over the past few years because barely 22% of today's funding for our health care systems comes from the federal government. When only 22% of funding comes from the federal government, this implies that the remainder is borne by the provinces. Health care is the Quebec government's most important responsibility and the largest budget item. Looking at the current projections, it quickly becomes clear that between 42% and 45% of the Quebec government's total budget is devoted to a single responsibility: health care. This means that there is just over 50% of the budget left to cover all the government's other responsibilities such as education, the fight against poverty, the needs of local authorities, infrastructure requirements or support for Quebeckers. The federal government sometimes implements industrial strategies to support businesses, but they are not always appropriate. Allow me to give a rather striking example. We are currently experiencing one of the worst slumps in Canada's economic history due to our relations with the United States. The two hardest hit sectors are Quebec's forestry industry and the aluminum sector. The situation in Quebec's forestry industry is the worst. With the combination of countervailing duties, anti-dumping duties and additional tariffs of 10%, 45% of these companies' profit margins are going right down the drain. They have no access to them given the tariff issue with the United States. The other major problem affects the aluminum industry, which is being hit with 50% tariffs. What was the federal government's strategic response? It said that we needed to export more energy. That is rather shocking. The strategic response of the level of government with the greatest fiscal capacity was not to look at which sectors were most affected. Instead, the government looked at what opportunities were available to it. The government had an opportunity to advance the energy sector, one of its primary missions. It therefore chose to support the oil and gas industry, even though that industry was not affected by the crisis. It is true. The oil and gas industry is the only one that has not been affected by the crisis. Here is what I find even more shocking. When we look at the ownership structure of the oil and gas industry, we see that most of the companies belong to Americans. The federal government has therefore decided to invest Quebeckers' money in strategies aimed at supporting the only sector of the economy that is harming Quebec. This is an example of one of the federal government's major investments. This is of direct concern to the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, since he arrived just as I was talking about that. The federal government is making this investment using its fiscal capacity, but it is hurting Quebec. We will therefore take the $1.7 billion, since it is being paid out unconditionally, but once again it strikes me as a counter-example that proves that we are in a predatory federalist system. I would love to hear the member for Winnipeg North contradict what I just said.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Strong and Free Elections Act

2026-06-11

“When the electoral map is redrawn, it should consider communities' shared interests. My riding got split between two different areas. That's not fair. We need to think about the community of interest idea more.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, earlier, in his speech, my colleague referred to the size of certain ridings. When the electoral map is redrawn, there are two concepts. First, there is the concept of the quotient, which is the population base, and then there is the concept of community of interest. Unfortunately, the latter is rarely respected, much less used, when an electoral map is redrawn. As a result, communities that have no similar economic interests sometimes wind up lumped together. That is what happened in my riding. A rather major distinction is made in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. Residents come from either Saguenay or Lac-Saint-Jean. Unfortunately, when the map was redrawn, they took small communities from Lac-Saint-Jean and lumped them in with Saguenay, causing an uproar. We will work hard to represent these people as they deserve, but I think it is important to support this idea of community of interest. Can my colleague elaborate on that?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You're great and everyone likes you. I agree with you about riding sizes. We should review political financing. It's not fair to some people who want to participate. Can you talk more about that?”

Government Orders

Build Canada Homes Act

2026-06-09

“The government keeps announcing programs but nothing happens. A group in my riding can't get the money it was promised. I'm frustrated and I want my riding's program to get their money already.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, one thing that has come up a lot this evening is the fact that, unfortunately, the government makes many announcements, but it is neither effective nor efficient. I gave the example of an organization in my riding, Loge m'entraide, which was supposed to receive its funding through CMHC. Unfortunately, it was told to wait and see whether that CMHC program would be funded again. Now the organization has been told to wait for Build Canada Homes to take over. The federal government is now delaying the construction of social housing in my riding. I wonder if my colleague is experiencing the same thing, because right now, the delays mean that social housing projects may have to wait up to 18 months to see the light of day.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want less federal control. Quebec knows what Quebec needs. Adding another big federal agency will just make things slower and more complicated. Maybe that's not a problem in your province, but it is in mine.”

“The federal government is making housing funding too complex. They add needless red tape when they should trust Quebec's housing agency to do the job. The feds force our builders to wait for yet another new program. Why not let Quebec's housing agency handle the funding directly? It would unblock housing projects in my riding.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question in the same vein. Earlier in my speech, I said that the government was adding a layer of bureaucracy. In the past, there used to be programs managed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC. In my riding, I see a lot of social housing development projects that are unfortunately not being funded. They have funding from Quebec through the Société d'habitation du Québec, or SHQ, but they have not received federal funding for several months because they have been asked to wait for Build Canada Homes. CMHC used to be able to provide funding, however. Does my colleague agree that there is an added layer of complexity here? Perhaps he is seeing the same type of problem in his own riding, where projects are ready to move forward but are being held up by the slow federal government.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The federal government is too slow. They make programs but they don't act quick. Now housing projects are stuck waiting. Maybe you see it too.”

“The government doesn't care about softwood lumber. I want the government to help my preferred industry more. The government shouldn't let the Americans push us around. The government should spend money to fix this.”

“The government is too slow. It must spend more money now to build houses and help my region's industry. We will still vote yes because we don't want to look like we're against housing. But the government should spend more on our programs.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, our position is quite simple: We want more housing construction, and we want support for the forestry industry. Our criticisms concern the government's slow response. If it does not take immediate action to support forestry, this industry will lose its lifeblood. Small regions like mine, whether in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, Abitibi or the north shore, are being hollowed out and will pay the price. The government is turning a deaf ear and is unwilling to listen to the industry's legitimate demands. It is still making announcements rather than responding to the crisis. We are still going to vote in favour of this initiative. If it comes to fruition and is good for everyone, then we will not vote against it. The goal is not to oppose for the sake of opposing. That is not what we do.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The government doesn't care about forestry. They only care about oil. They mentioned oil way more than forestry in a document.”

“I want the government to build houses and use more wood from Canada. But they're too slow. They should give money to companies that make wood. One group in my riding can't build houses because the government hasn't given them money yet. The government talks a lot but doesn't do enough.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I will be sharing my time with the ever-energetic member for South Shore—St. Margarets. I want to talk about a recurring pattern with this government, one that I have observed since the beginning of this Parliament. There are two crises that are affecting us. I will focus on two major crises, although there may be more. The first is the housing crisis, and the second is the tariff crisis. In a previous life, when I was studying philosophy, we were given a definition of “crisis” that was quite simple. It is when a body goes through a period that puts it on the brink of life or death. Responding to a crisis means ensuring the survival of a body. If nothing is done, then that body will die. That was a definition that I had in my philosophy courses. What does that imply? Why do I raise this? It is because during a crisis, what is needed is prompt action that produces results. The best example is perhaps a heart attack. If someone has a heart attack, they would not be satisfied with me telling them not to worry and to keep breathing because it will eventually pass. They would want prompt action. They would want medical care to stay alive. What I am seeing today from the government is precisely a lack of prompt action. Now we have Build Canada Homes, and I will give an example. Loge m'entraide, an organization in my riding that received funding from the Société d'habitation du Québec, or SHQ, to build social housing, was supposed to receive money from the affordable housing fund, or AHF, which was administered by CMHC. That was at the beginning, in 2024. This organization received its SHQ funding. CMHC officials said that if SHQ funding was secured, then AHF funding would be coming. Several months passed. The affordable housing fund disappeared. The government said that it would reach a new agreement with the provinces and that it would then follow up to see whether SHQ projects would qualify. Now, after 18 months, Loge m'entraide is still waiting for federal funding. The government scrapped the AHF, which was supposed to be refinanced by the government in the budget. However, what we learned from the budget is that there would be a new program instead. This new program was going to solve all the problems. This new program is called Build Canada Homes, but in the meantime, no social housing is being built in my riding because the federal government is unable to respond to the crisis. Another point that strikes me as essential is that, throughout the election campaign and even afterward, I heard the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources say that there is one sector that has been particularly affected by tariffs since 2017, and that is the forestry sector. We were already dealing with U.S. tariffs even before the tariff crisis. These two people told us that they knew that the lumber sector was particularly affected, but that they were going to resolve this issue through a major initiative. The Prime Minister said that during the election campaign. The Minister of Natural Resources repeated it ad nauseam. They said they were going to resolve it through a major initiative that would allow homes to be built using Canadian lumber. I am a guy who is all about co-operation. I thought to myself that we have been asking for this since I arrived here in 2019 and that this government may have understood that it had to support the forestry industry. However, where do we stand today? If I look at the Build Canada Homes bill, is there anything that clearly states that Canadian wood has to be used? I do not know whether anyone else has seen that, but I have not. Apart from the Liberal Party's lip service, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that construction will be done with wood. This brings us to another major crisis, the softwood lumber crisis, which mainly affects Quebec, but also Ontario to some extent as well as British Columbia. However, there is absolutely nothing in there to suggest that the federal government wants to prioritize wood as a material, apart from the statements that have been made. I say that because it is very important; I remember that in 2025, for the first time, a federal government said in response to the softwood lumber crisis that it would provide liquidity. In August 2025, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources said that there would be a liquidity program for people in the forestry sector who are going through one of the worst crises they have ever experienced. Eight or nine months later, people in my riding have contacted me to express interest in accessing the Business Development Bank of Canada, or BDC, program, but it is still vague and the rules are so hard to understand that no one I know can access it. Eight or nine months on, we are in a crisis, as I said earlier. If a person has a heart attack, they want an immediate response. Eight or nine months later, absolutely nothing has been done to support the forestry sector. Then, the federal government announces that it is going to launch a broad strategy to use wood in building construction. How is it going to use wood in building construction when the majority of businesses, whether small sawmills or lumber producers, are shutting down? How can the same momentum be recreated when companies in the forestry sector are being left to die? We sat down and came up with proposals. We are in collaboration mode. It is true that we sometimes criticize the government's measures in the House. However, we gave the government a suggestion. The first thing that we did was to go and see people in the forestry sector to tell them that there will be business opportunities. The government wants to launch a major construction project, and so we asked business owners in the industry what they have to offer. These people told us that, before they can offer anything, they have to keep their companies afloat and get through the tariff crisis with the United States, and that the best way to do that would be for the government to cover some of the anti-dumping and countervailing duties at the end of each month. Today, more than $13 billion is being held captive, in trust, at the border by the Americans. That amount belongs to the forestry sector. If we could inject that $13 billion into this sector, everybody would be thrilled. However, this $13 billion is being held captive. People in the forestry sector are accommodating. They do not want to get that money back right away. They want to exhaust all available recourse with the international trade tribunals. In the meantime, they are asking the government to take care of 50% of these countervailing and anti-dumping duties and tariffs at the end of each month. A 10% tariff brings the total tariff amount to 45%. Furthermore, this is not a subsidy, because this problem will eventually be resolved. The forestry industry is asking the government to adopt this proposal so that it can keep its ecosystem alive. When construction starts up again, forestry companies will be there and they will not have all disappeared. The government rejected this proposal. The government was given another proposal to maintain the ecosystem and the value chain that allows us to use wood in construction. The proposal was for the government to provide the equivalent of a wage subsidy, which would be an easy thing for the government to do. The government also rejected this proposal. Last week, the government announced with great fanfare what the task force strategy entailed. It is very interesting. The government talked about $10 billion over 10 years. Will this amount actually be distributed? I do not know, but it was announced with great fanfare. Are there any conclusive solutions and results today that will allow the forestry sector to respond to what will be a vast construction site for the Build Canada Homes projects? There is absolutely nothing. In closing, Build Canada Homes is a great strategy but, at the end of the day, absolutely nothing is being done. This government likes to talk about what it wants to do but is very slow to take action. That is what is disappointing. I look forward to hearing my colleagues' questions on this matter. I also look forward to seeing their record so far.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

Silver Alert National Framework Act

2026-06-05

“We already have this system in Quebec. We don't need Ottawa to standardize it and make it worse. Let Quebec and the provinces handle this themselves.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C‑263. Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill, even though some colleagues in the House seem to support it. We do not support this type of bill, because it clearly encroaches on Quebec's jurisdictions. As well, a similar system already exists in Quebec. Let us be clear, we are not against the alert, much less against leaving seniors to fend for themselves. However, since a similar system is already in place in Quebec, we have no choice but to vote against the bill. In our opinion, the bill could create additional bureaucracy or risk weakening protocols among police forces by trying to standardize and centralize procedures in Ottawa. We want Quebec, the provinces and the territories to create and adopt a silver alert protocol on their terms. We oppose any standardized effort led by Ottawa that disregards local and regional realities in Quebec or in Canada. Many examples have shown that, when too many levels of government are involved, chains of command and approval become longer and far less efficient and that this can sometimes even leave the door open to disaster. One example is the disastrous situation that occurred with the truckers on Parliament Hill, when the federal government basically shut down the Hill for several weeks through its inaction and lack of coordination with law enforcement. As the saying goes, “less is more”. Our police officers already have a lot of power. We just need to let them do their job and carry out their planning. The Bloc Québécois consulted with various people regarding this bill, including Pierre Lynch from the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, or the AQDR. According to him, Quebec's silver alert system is working very well. He also pointed out that, in difficult budgetary times, the federal government should not be creating costly protocols that would undermine the efforts that Quebec and the other provinces have made to set up silver alert systems. He said that it is important to keep in mind that the ultimate goal of such a protocol is to find people safe and sound. Mr. Lynch also believes that a prescriptive framework should not interfere with the system that Quebec and Ontario police forces have spent years carefully building. It should be noted that in missing persons cases, police forces in Quebec and across Canada already work together and coordinate efforts if there is a possibility that an older adult may have left their province of residence. Taking all these factors into account, we are left with the impression that Bill C‑263 is, in a sense, trying to reinvent the wheel and force Quebec, the provinces and the territories to operate under a single protocol, namely, the federal protocol. However, Quebec did not wait for the federal government to act. The silver alert was launched as a pilot project in June 2022 in three Quebec RCMs: Drummond, Joliette, and Vallée-de-l'Or. The announcement was made in June 2022 by Marguerite Blais, a former Coalition Avenir Québec MNA and the then minister responsible for seniors and caregivers. As soon as it was launched, the project received support from the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec and the AQDR. Following several tragic incidents in Quebec in which seniors died or went missing, Minister Blais had made this a ministerial priority. Quebec did not wait for the federal government to act. Subsequent consultations and pilot projects led to the establishment of protocols that were quickly implemented, and the results were conclusive. In February, Sonia Bélanger, Quebec's minister of health and minister responsible for social services, decided to expand the silver alert to cover the entire province of Quebec. The Federation of Quebec Alzheimer Societies also applauded the Quebec government's decision to implement a provincewide silver alert. The organization also noted that cognitive disorders will affect nearly 240,000 Quebeckers over the next 14 years. Quebec's initiative will therefore address a growing need. The first instance of a silver alert in Quebec was officially recorded on February 27, 2026, following the pilot phase, after the silver alert was extended to cover the whole province. The missing person was a 91-year-old resident of Plessisville. The Sûreté du Québec issued the silver alert, and within 24 hours of its broadcast, the man was located in the Kamouraska region. Since there is only a short period that can be analyzed, it should be noted that we do not yet have access to data at the Quebec level, nor to the number of official cases that have been the subject of a silver alert. We can, however, expect that these statistics will become available in the coming years and that we will be able to ascertain the effectiveness of silver alerts in Quebec. In conclusion, I would say that we could support this bill if it were aimed at encouraging common protocols that draw inspiration from the success of the Quebec model for troubling disappearances. Unfortunately, the bill instead seems aimed at creating a purely Canadian solution, led by Ottawa. We cannot support an attempt to change something that is already working in Quebec and to alter initiatives that have already been put in place by the Quebec government. I would also note that, under the Constitution, the federal government is responsible for criminal law, national security and border control, but not for provincial and municipal police forces, and certainly not for the administration of justice and law enforcement. Once again, this amounts to interference in areas under Quebec's jurisdiction. We need to put an end to this constant reflex to centralize everything in Ottawa. The constitutional division of powers is clear, and it is up to the other governments to establish this type of policy, as we know. These days, everything costs more when Ottawa gets involved. We have seen plenty of examples of this here. No one can deny that these days, so I do not see why the federal government would interfere in something that Quebec has already put in place and that is working very well. That is why we will not be supporting this bill.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Canadian Identity and Culture

2026-06-05

“Quebec can only count on itself to protect its own culture. The federal government doesn't care and is selling us out to the Americans.”

Statements by Members

100th Anniversary of Arvida

2026-06-05

“I'm filling time by praising a local place and industry on its 100th birthday. I want it to get UNESCO recognition. This makes me look good to my constituents.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, this year, we are celebrating the 100th anniversary of Arvida, an iconic industrial town in the Saguenay region. Founded in 1926, Arvida is considered an outstanding example of urban planning. It is known for its innovative architecture and the remarkable diversity of its working-class neighbourhoods, which are unique in the history of industrial towns. Arvida has played a pivotal role in Quebec's development by making a major contribution to aluminum production. Its legacy is recognized in several ways: It has been designated a Canadian national historic site and a Quebec heritage site, and more recently, it was recognized by the Quebec National Assembly for its exceptional contribution to Quebec's cultural history and for its potential to be added to the tentative list of UNESCO world heritage sites. I want to commend Carl Dufour and the Arvida Heritage Committee. Thanks to their commitment, Arvida is getting the recognition it deserves. On this 100th anniversary, we are celebrating a legacy that reflects the important role that the aluminum industry and our local expertise play in the economy. Happy anniversary, everyone.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Build Canada Homes Act

2026-06-05

“I support the bill. But it adds complexity. My riding has projects that need money. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation was supposed to give the money. Now we wait for Build Canada Homes. We haven't heard back. The money was due years ago. There has been delay. Now there is another new layer. The government rushed this. Do you have any examples in your riding?”

Government Orders

Business of Supply

2026-06-02

“I have known the hon. member for a long time. We worked together in government. We have a similar background. That might be why we get along. I think he was always even-handed with the opposition. I like that he learned French in office. I usually speak to ministers in French. There are small nuances people miss when it is not their first language. Like 'new adventures' means something different in French. The hon. member has always laughed heartily. That says a lot about someone. It shows they are friendly and likeable. I wish the hon. member well.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is such a pleasure today to be able to speak about the remarkable career of the member for North Vancouver—Capilano. I was surprised today when I looked up information about my colleague to try to find things I did not know about him. We share a similar background in political science and philosophy. Maybe that is why we get along so well. As members know, my colleague was the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. That is how we got to know each other. What I did not know was that, in the 1990s, he was part of Roy Romanow's team as a constitutional negotiator and an expert in federal-provincial relations. For a Quebecker, knowing Roy Romanow is not a good thing. However, let us not hold it against anyone. I got to know the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie in the private sector. That happens to us all. I especially want to highlight the fact that he has been a non-partisan parliamentarian. Debates in the House of Commons can often be heated. With the exception of his responses regarding the carbon tax, my friend, the member for North Vancouver—Capilano, generally responded candidly to the questions put to him. I also observed that non-partisanship in the work we did with him. It is thanks to him that we were able to add phosphate to the list of critical minerals. That was essential for my region. There was also the program to build greener homes, which faced some challenges. He was always very helpful and always open to assisting colleagues, even those on the opposition side. The two billion trees program did not go as smoothly, but he always defended it adroitly. I believe he can be proud of everything he has done in defence of the environment. He has been a resource for many people in various groups. Even when attempts were made to undermine his credibility, it was quite difficult to do so, which suggests that the member for North Vancouver—Capilano had a strong reputation among environmental groups. I have often wondered, when people talk about zero-emission vehicles, whether anyone actually owns a hydrogen-powered vehicle. The member for North Vancouver—Capilano is the only person I know in Canada who does. I would also like to thank him for a trip we took to Berlin, where we were able to meet with representatives from Siemens. The problem was that people at Siemens thought I was part of the government, so they felt free to speak frankly to the member for North Vancouver—Capilano about what they thought of a hydrogen strategy involving carbon capture and storage. At that moment, even though it was not the answer they were expecting, the member did not lose his composure. It was a demonstration of true non-partisanship and a certain degree of trust. I sincerely thank him for that. Earlier, in his speech, he talked about how grateful he is that he learned French. He managed to do that during his time in office. I think that is very much to his credit, and I want to share a brief story. On one occasion, the member for North Vancouver—Capilano asked his assistant why I was talking to him in English when I always spoke to the member in French. I must admit that this is a sign of respect for a francophone. I will explain to him why I prefer to speak to a minister in French. The reason is that, often, when someone is not speaking in their mother tongue, there are small nuances that they do not properly grasp. I will give him an example that he is very familiar with. We were chatting after I found out that he was likely going to be appointed ambassador. I asked him how his wife was taking the news, whether she would be going with him and whether she would be giving up her job. He told me that, yes, she would be going with him because she loves having new adventures. “Having new adventures” has a bit of a different meaning in French. That is why I always speak in my mother tongue. My father had two life mottos. They should be taken with a grain of salt, but my father always told me that I should not trust anyone who does not drink but that I could trust a man who laughs heartily. The member for North Vancouver—Capilano has always had a hearty laugh ever since I have known him. That says a lot about him and shows how friendly and likeable he is. I will conclude by saying that my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean and I very much hope there is a guest room in Brussels. We are trying to broaden our networks. We have joked a lot about this. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I wish him every success in his new role. It will be a pleasure to work alongside him again.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗