Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Mario Simard

Bloc Québécois Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets 109 statements translated

Follow by RSS

Simard pushes for public money to go to people rather than oil: he opposes spending roughly $44 billion on the Pacific link pipeline, wants old age security raised by $110 a year for seniors 65 to 74, forestry sector aid, levies on web giants for culture, and direct housing transfers to Quebec. He argues by analogy and leaps from a single example to a broad verdict, asking whether a colleague would “eat the whole dish” of a budget with rotten fish in it. He also drifts into personal asides mid-debate.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
84 / 100 over 100 statements
Signal 74 / 100
Relevance 83 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 93 / 100
Loses points more than most for A remark off to the side of the point.2 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.0 Wording that hides who did something, or who will.1.9 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.9 Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.1.7 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.7 Loses points less than most for A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 100 of 109 statements graded so far.

Statements 109

Government Orders ·

Build Canada Homes Act

In response to a question from Rhéal Éloi Fortin

“The federal government refuses to stand up to the United States to protect our softwood lumber industry. It also denies federal aid to this sector. This neglect has hurt our forestry industry and forced companies to merge.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. The answer is quite simple: The federal government has never been willing to fight for softwood lumber. We are at the mercy of the Americans. Not only that, but we also have an economic sector that is currently unable to access federal assistance, because it is constantly being referred to Global Affairs Canada and told no. What the federal government has been doing for the past few years is unconscionable. It has allowed the situation to deteriorate, and now we are facing deeply troubling consolidations in the forestry sector.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

In response to a question from Costas Menegakis

“We will vote for this housing bill because we want more homes built. But the government is too slow to help the forestry industry. If the government does not support forestry now, small regions like mine will suffer.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
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 Grade A View analysis

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The government cares more about the western oil industry than the forestry industry. The latest financial update mentions oil 130 times, but it only mentions forestry nine times. The forestry industry has no power with this government.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 3 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I am in collaboration mode, but I am not seeing any results. I sometimes wonder about the government’s interest in the forestry industry. What struck me the most about the “Canada Strong for All” fiscal update is that the words “forest” and “forestry” appear only nine times. However, a search for the words “oil” or “oil company” shows that they appear 130 times. “Canada for all” seems to be Canada focused on western Canada’s energy sector. It is not Canada focused on the forestry sector. As we know, politics is a balance of power, and unfortunately, when it comes down to the forestry industry, right now our balance of power is non‑existent.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade F View analysis
“The government moves too slowly on both housing and the forestry crisis. This bill does not require builders to use Canadian wood, and the government is doing nothing to protect our forestry companies from American tariffs. If those companies close, we will not even have the wood to build these homes.”
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 Grade C– View analysis

Private Members' Business ·

Silver Alert National Framework Act

“I am voting against this bill. Quebec already has its own alert system to find missing seniors, and it works well. Policing and emergency alerts are provincial matters, not federal ones. Ottawa should not step in and try to control them.”

  • A repeated line

    “The Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill.”

    Said 3 times by 3 members since June 5.

    Every time it was said
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 Grade A+ View analysis

Oral Questions ·

Canadian Identity and Culture

“The Prime Minister does not protect Quebec culture in trade deals with the Americans. The federal government gave in to them on streaming services. Quebeckers must protect their own culture.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, let us be clear. The Prime Minister of Canada regards Quebec culture as nothing more than an annoying trade barrier. The Quebec government says that, in the context of the CUSMA negotiations, this sends a signal that Ottawa is prepared to compromise on our culture. Quebec is also considering its own options for making streaming platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime contribute financially, since the federal government is capitulating to the Americans. Do the Liberals realize that they are sending a message to Quebeckers that they can rely on no one but themselves to safeguard the future of our culture?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Statements by Members ·

100th Anniversary of Arvida

“I am celebrating the 100th anniversary of Arvida, an industrial town known for aluminum production and city planning. I thank the local committee working to protect its history.”
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 View analysis

Government Orders ·

Build Canada Homes Act

“My party supports this bill, but I worry it makes housing funding too complicated. Housing projects in my riding were supposed to get money years ago, but they are still waiting because of this new agency. Creating this agency has caused more delays.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports the bill, but I agree with my colleague that it adds another layer of complexity. My riding is home to some social housing projects that were supposed to be funded by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Now we are waiting for the funding, because the program has been deprioritized or sidelined by Build Canada Homes. As of today, we are still waiting for a response from Build Canada Homes regarding funding that was due years ago. There has already been a delay, and now a new structure is being added. The government appears to have rushed this process. I am wondering whether my colleague has any similar examples in her riding.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“I am honouring the member for North Vancouver—Capilano as he leaves politics. He worked hard on environmental issues, learned French, and was willing to work well with other parties. I wish him success in his new role as ambassador.”
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 View analysis
“The Prime Minister broke his promise to fix the tariff problem. Quebec's forestry and aluminum industries are hurting because of these tariffs. The government is ignoring a buyback plan that the forestry sector supports. I want to know why the government is not taking action to help our forestry industry.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed to see the member for Winnipeg North rewriting history in every one of his speeches. Earlier, he referred to the fact that the Prime Minister was unable to resolve the tariff crisis during his first few months in office, yet that is exactly what the Prime Minister had promised during the election campaign: With his background, he would be able to resolve this tariff crisis. It is easy to say, in retrospect, that it was impossible, but it was still an election promise that was very important to him at the time. However, I will set that aside. I will simply point out to the parliamentary secretary that the situation in the forestry sector is currently untenable. Solutions exist. The province most affected by the tariff dispute is Quebec, with its aluminum and forestry sectors. Among these solutions is a buyback program that has been supported by everyone in the forestry sector, yet the government continues to turn a deaf ear. I would like to know how my colleague can explain this lack of responsiveness on the part of the government and the lack of action we are seeing in the forestry sector.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis
“The trade fight with the United States is hurting our forestry industry. Companies and unions want the government to help by buying back the lumber duties they were forced to pay. I want to know if the Conservatives support this plan.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, part of the reason for the economic slowdown is the tariff war we are engaged in with the United States. It is all well and good to criticize the government, but we also have to make proposals from time to time. One sector that has undoubtedly been hit harder than the others is the softwood lumber sector. A solution has been circulating for some time now. It was developed in collaboration with forestry companies and the major unions. The program involves buying back some of the anti-dumping countervailing duties. I am sure my Conservative colleagues are familiar with the proposal. Do they agree that the Canadian economy and the forestry sector should be given a boost by implementing a program to buy back the anti-dumping countervailing duties?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Oral Questions ·

The Environment

“Liberal members formed an environment group, but they are not defending the environment. Now that a new pipeline is announced, they are quiet. Their group is just talk, not action.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that 60 Liberal members formed an environmental caucus. Now that the new pipeline has been announced and the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie has resigned, they are nowhere to be found. One of the caucus co-chairs even said that the mandate of the environmental caucus is not to promote environmental issues. We could not make this stuff up. Just think: Their aim is not to promote environmental causes, but simply to bring members together for some good conversations. Wow. This reminds me of the old hot stove league. Is that why they are defending policies—

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis
“A Liberal MP is leaving politics because he could not stop the Prime Minister from supporting oil. The Liberals tricked voters about climate change. Other Liberal MPs who feel the same way should speak up.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Liberal member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie announced that he is leaving politics. He is leaving politics because he had little to no influence on the Prime Minister’s pro-oil decisions. He pointed out that, during the last election, the Liberal platform mentioned “climate change” 28 times but did not mention “pipeline” once. Voters were outrageously deceived. As the member himself said, “I can tell you that I’m not the only one who’s uncomfortable with what’s happening”. I wonder, where are the others and why are they hiding?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“If the Conservative leader wants to lower the debt and help with high prices, he should stop giving money to oil and gas companies. This motion insults French speakers. They need government funding to protect their culture.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to reduce the debt and support people as they cope with inflation, all he has to do is stop funding the state-sponsored cronyism in the oil and gas sector that he defends tooth and nail. The motion before us today is an insult to francophones, who form a cultural minority. If they wish to preserve their cultural expressions, they need funding. What the Leader of the Opposition is telling us is that, from a trade point of view, we are a nuisance. He should be ashamed for saying that.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis
“Quebec needs support to protect its French culture and arts. It insults us when Conservatives call our culture a trade problem. French-speaking MPs should not vote for this motion.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Quebec’s greatest treasure is its culture. It is the thing that has kept us afloat in a sea of anglophones. It is expressed in our music and in our films. It represents our collective imagination. Faced with the American steamroller, we need support to maintain this culture. We are a francophone drop in an anglophone ocean, and it is insulting to hear the Conservatives refer to us a trade irritant. I did not hear Quebec’s Conservative MPs say much about this motion this morning, and I can guarantee that the leader of the official opposition is going to speak to it later. Few francophone members are going to stand with him on this; it would be a disgrace for any francophone MP to support this motion.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis
“The Conservative motion insults Quebec and French speakers. It treats our language and culture like an annoying trade problem. We have a distinct culture, and we are already the ones hurt most by American tariffs.”

  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 43 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous. I do not know if the Conservatives realize that their motion is an insult to Quebeckers and francophones. I hope they have talked to their Quebec colleagues, because this motion is insulting. Essentially, they are saying that we francophones are an international trade irritant. Ask anyone what the difference is between English-speaking Canadian culture and American culture, and they will say that there is no difference. They watch the same movies and listen to the same music. Ask a francophone, and the answer will be very different. That is what the member is saying even though we are the ones bearing the brunt of the U.S. tariffs on aluminum and lumber. On top of that, they have the nerve to tell us that our culture is an irritant. If I were them, I would be ashamed.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B– View analysis

Private Members' Business ·

An Act to repeal certain restrictions on shipping

“I am voting against this bill. It gets rid of a law that protects the environment just to help big oil companies.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-264, which simply seeks to repeal the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act. When I look at this, I see an irrational bill that can perhaps only be explained by an ideological mindset we are seeing more and more of, one that amounts to saying that anything goes for the oil industry. I will explain what I mean when I say that “anything goes for the oil industry.” The idea occurred to me earlier when I asked my colleague a question and he replied—and I am going to take the liberty of speaking in English, which I never do here—“I believe in pipelines.” That is quite the statement. I am a fan of Dostoevsky. This makes me think of a novel by Dostoevsky called Demons, which came out at the end of the 19th century, where Dostoevsky, in the face of ideological excesses, poses a rather simple question: Is everything permitted? Is everything permitted in the name of an ideology? What strikes me today about this downward spiral we are currently experiencing whenever there is a crisis—be it in response to the tariff crisis, or even when we were going through the COVID-19 pandemic, or a crisis of national unity—is the fact that anything goes. The only solution the Liberal and Conservative parties can come up with to address these issues is to support the gas and oil sector and call for more state intervention to develop oil infrastructure. The truth is that we are living in a completely absurd situation for this to be happening. We are in a tariff war with the Americans. What are the two economic sectors most affected by this tariff crisis? They are in Quebec. These are the aluminum industry, facing 50% tariffs, and the softwood lumber sector, facing around 45% in combined countervailing duties, anti-dumping duties and tariffs. These are the two sectors most affected by the current tariff dispute with the United States. What has been the government’s response to this threat? It has been to say that we need to invest in our energy sector and increase energy exports. That is what the government has chosen. It signed a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Alberta, and now we are faced with a bill like the one my colleague just introduced. There seems to be a sort of one-upmanship going on between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Who is willing to go the furthest to support the oil and gas sector? That is what is going on. I do not think we would have seen a bill like this a few months ago if the government had not fallen into the trap of the memorandum of understanding with Alberta. I have seen this kind of one-upmanship many times over the past several years. When I arrived here in 2019, what surprised me was hearing my Conservative colleagues shouting day in and day out, “build a pipeline”. Even though hydroelectricity is important to us, I doubt I would ever see a Quebecker in the National Assembly shouting for the construction of power lines. This is not a lifestyle. It is not a political project. Another thing that struck me was seeing my Conservative colleagues wearing buttons that read “I love oil & gas”. When I was a boy of 16 or 17, I had a button from my favourite rock band. That rock band represented my identity. It was important to me. Later on, and this still happens in the Bloc Québécois, we wear symbols that are specific to Quebec. We stick Quebec flags on our computers. That is because of our identity. If we were to define what is Quebec’s identity, we would speak about culture and language. For some Conservatives, one part of their identity is the oil and gas sector. That is rather surprising in the current context. In fact, it runs quite deep. I remember one of my Conservative colleagues moving a motion stating that oil is irreplaceable. We debated that for an entire day. If I were asked to think about something that is irreplaceable for me, I would first and foremost think about my wife and son. Perhaps after that, I would mention water, air and the essentials of life. I would certainly not think about oil. I asked whether this is a situation where anything goes. What we are seeing today is akin to saying that oil is irreplaceable. This would repeal legislation that was put in place to protect the environment in order to promote the oil sector’s agenda for the sake of a hypothetical pipeline. That is the question that I asked my colleague earlier. He spoke about the CEO of Enbridge, who described the difficulties involved in building oil and gas infrastructure. However, the Enbridge CEO also said that he personally was not prepared to take on the economic risks of building infrastructure. That is where a reasonable Conservative would draw the line. I enjoyed hearing the leader of the official opposition straight-out say that corporate welfare exists and that companies want their infrastructure paid for. Those are not my words. Those are the words of the leader of the official opposition. It is up to those companies to pay. However, oil and gas sector officials are saying that, in fact, it should fall on the government to assume the economic risk associated with this infrastructure. It is outrageous. When we look at the numbers from 2021 to 2024, the oil and gas sector raked in $131 billion in profits. Not so long ago, at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, we heard from representatives of the major unions that support the energy sector because they have workers in that sector They told us that we are seeing a dramatic increase in production while there are fewer jobs. How is that possible? It is possible because the people at these big oil and gas companies are greedy and are willing to invest in the automation of their processes to cut jobs and production costs. However, they are not willing to invest in infrastructure. Today, we are being presented with a motion that asks us to scrap environmental regulations. Who stands to gain from this? It is certainly not the public. This is to make life easier for the oil and gas giants. In return, they come asking us to pay for their infrastructure. It is absolutely outrageous. I do not understand how we got here. Even though we are in a crisis, I do not understand how people who are supposed to be rational, whether they are Liberals or Conservatives, have reached this point. I would like to conclude by saying the following. As members know, I have a great deal of respect for the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. Many people have been critical of the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. He may make an announcement tomorrow. I know that the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie is a well-intentioned person. I know he has decided to do something that is not often done in the environmental movement, namely, to set aside certain convictions in order to be pragmatic. He thought he would try to bring about concrete change. There is something very simple in politics: A person either sticks to their convictions, or they choose to set their convictions aside for a moment to try to advance their ideas in a more responsible way. I get the impression that the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie has reached a point of no return and that today he is going to return to his old convictions. He has realized that the government may have gone too far. In my opinion, the bill proposed by my colleague is a manifestation of the current excesses in the oil and gas sector. I sincerely hope that a large number of members of the House will vote against it.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis
“The CEO of Enbridge said he will not take the financial risk of building a pipeline without public money. We should not cancel environmental protections for a pipeline that no company actually wants to pay for. I want the member to explain why taxpayers should pay for private oil projects.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, earlier in his speech, my colleague referred to Enbridge’s CEO. There is a quote I like from the Enbridge CEO. He said he was not willing to take the financial risks that come with a pipeline. The CEO of Enbridge believes that, if a pipeline is to be built, it should be paid for with public money. The pipeline project they are talking about and for which the government wants to repeal a law that protects nature is nothing more than a fantasy. I would like my colleague to enlighten me. Does he agree that it is up to all taxpayers to pay for oil and gas infrastructure that will benefit the oil companies? Also, before throwing out regulations like these, should he not ensure that, at the very least, someone is prepared to be the proponent of a project like the pipeline?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“Tax cuts for oil and gas companies do not lower gas prices. The companies just keep the money and send their record profits to American shareholders. The government should not keep funding this industry.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague 100%. What happened every time the government was lenient with the oil and gas industry by saying it would bring prices at the pump down for consumers? The oil and gas industry turned around and boosted its refining margins, essentially pocketing the tax cut. That is just obscene, especially considering that these huge corporations raked in record profits in 2022, 2023 and 2024, profits that were turned into dividends, most of which went to the United States because their shareholders are American. The government is still investing in this sector. I would like my colleague to comment on that. It is utterly indecent.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis
“When the government cuts fuel taxes, oil companies just raise their prices and keep the extra money. We should control gas prices instead of cutting taxes so oil companies cannot do this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we have seen this in the past. What do oil companies do when the government cuts fuel taxes? They boost their refining margins. We need to put a mechanism in place if we want to have a direct impact on the price of oil. The best mechanism would perhaps be some type of price management system to ensure that the gluttonous oil and gas sectors do not take advantage of the fact that the government is giving the public tax credits or tax cuts to unduly increase their refining margins. It seems like that would be somewhat more productive than what my Conservative colleagues are proposing today. I look forward to hearing my colleague’s thoughts on that.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis