MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Mario Simard

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

Private Members' Business ·

Food and Drugs Act

In response to a question from Burton Bailey

“The Bloc Québécois supports this bill. It helps very sick patients get life-saving drugs faster when other treatments have failed. But the government must work with Quebec and the provinces, because they run healthcare and pay for drugs. We also want to make sure these drugs do not cost too much for regular people.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Bill C-265. It is worth emphasizing that the intention behind this bill is a very noble one. Facilitating access to therapeutic products for patients seeking access to innovative drugs or therapies when that is their only remaining option is a highly commendable objective, it must be said. I would like to point out that many members, like myself, have probably, at one time or another in their careers, received letters from patients who wanted access to a drug that is not available in Canada but is available elsewhere in the world. I am sure that all my colleagues also understand that everyone wants to have access to the best treatment when they are fighting for their lives. For this reason, the Bloc Québécois will be supporting my colleague’s bill. The bill will streamline applications submitted under Health Canada’s special access program. Creating a list of pre-approved drugs will make it easier to process applications. This program allows a physician or dentist to request access to a drug that is not available for sale in Canada. To qualify, certain criteria must be met. First, the drug must be requested in an emergency situation, in other words for someone suffering from a serious or life-threatening illness. This program is a last resort, since it means that all other attempts have failed and that the medication is not available in Canada. The manufacturer sets the cost of the drug. In some cases, it may be offered free of charge, but it is possible that certain costs might have to be borne by hospitals, public or private insurers, or even, in some cases, by patients or their families. Applications submitted under the SAP are reviewed based on a variety of criteria, including the level of urgency, available alternatives, medical history, and evidence of the new drug’s safety and efficacy. The bill would streamline the processing of these applications, as the list of approved drugs would reduce the administrative burden associated with assessing the safety and efficacy of a new drug. In theory, this would help reduce processing times. However, we have some concerns regarding the effects of this bill. First, Quebec and the provinces are not included in this initiative. That is what I pointed out to my colleague in my question earlier. As everyone knows, they are the ones that run our health care systems, especially our drug insurance programs. For access to these drugs to become a reality, it is imperative that Quebec and the provinces be consulted so that they can harmonize their systems. Otherwise, only the wealthiest individuals will be able to access drugs, which runs counter to a fundamental principle at the heart of the Canada Health Act: the principle of accessibility. We would like to know whether the sponsor of the bill considers the current cost provisions in the SAP to be sufficient. This is certainly something that can also be looked at in committee. Quebec already has a program that allows patients, under specific conditions, to access drugs not covered by the Régie de l’assurance-maladie du Québec. It is known as the exceptional medications and exceptional patient program. It does not provide access to drugs that are not marketed in Canada, but it does provide access to drugs that are not on the list of insurable drugs. The bill would therefore not interfere with Quebec’s programs. We still want Quebec and the provinces to be consulted, because it is the hospitals and doctors in the provinces who will have to navigate this program. As for the procedures for adding drugs to the list, we will need to address ethical questions surrounding the creation of the advisory committee and the application process. To that end, the Bloc Québécois will take the time to consult with experts and stakeholders during the committee review of the bill. We will therefore wait until the committee stage to decide on the next steps.

“This bill has good ideas, but health care and prescription drugs belong to the provinces and Quebec. The bill does not include a way to consult them directly. Will that happen later?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his bill, which is intrinsically valuable and very interesting. I only have a small concern that I wish to share. Generally speaking, prescription drugs and health are areas of jurisdiction that fall to Quebec and the provinces. When we look at this bill more closely, it is clear that it is lacking a process for carrying out direct consultation. Perhaps the member should have included some form of consultation with Quebec and the provinces in the bill. Is that maybe coming later?

Government Orders ·

Military Justice System Modernization Act

“The government has a new majority and is ignoring other parties. It ignored our suggested changes to this military justice bill. I want the member to explain why the government will not listen to us.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, earlier, my colleagues from Berthier—Maskinongé and Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon pointed out in their speeches that, with its new majority, the government has a frustrating tendency to no longer listen to the opposition parties. That is what happened with this bill. Some amendments were set aside. I know that the member for Winnipeg North enjoys sparring in the House. Since he rises on just about every issue, he can probably tell me whether the government’s new way of doing things involves ignoring the opposition parties’ opinions and adopting an “I won, so shut up” attitude.

In response to a question from Alex Ruff

“Even with a majority, the government still needs to listen to opposition parties. I want my colleague to share his thoughts on what happens to our work and to this bill when the government does not listen to us.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 41 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, I want to come back to something. My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé clearly described the new dynamic in his speech. Now that the Liberals have a majority, they sometimes forget that democracy is not about saying, “I won, so shut up”. They still have to listen to what the opposition parties have to say. I know that my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, who is also our whip, is very wise. I would like to hear his thoughts on what it means, for both this bill and our work as legislators in general, to have a government that does not necessarily listen to the opposition parties.

Oral Questions ·

Justice

“In a democracy, winning means getting 50 percent of the vote plus one. That is the rule for our elections, and it is Quebec's law for a referendum. I want the Liberals to respect that rule.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, they were not that clear yesterday. We will say it again: Democracy means 50% of the votes plus one. That is the threshold everywhere, for the laws passed here, for elections, for the people who are here. It is the same for everyone. An attack on that is an attack, in Quebec’s case, on a people’s right to self-determination. It is an attack on Quebec’s Bill 99, which establishes the rule of 50% plus one for any referendum and which has stood up in court. It is an attack on the principle of free elections. Will the Liberals stop sliding toward authoritarianism and respect democracy?

“The government says it will use federal rules to judge any future referendum in Quebec. A real democracy lets the people decide by a simple majority of 50 percent plus one. Will the government respect our democratic choice?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister and his Minister of Justice confirmed that any future referendum will be subject to the undemocratic Clarity Act. They want to pick the question and decide what constitutes a majority. We would remind them that a democratic majority is 50% of the votes plus one. That is the rule wherever democracy exists. We would also remind them that the difference between a democracy and a banana republic is that in a banana republic, the government interferes with its citizens’ democratic choice. Is the government going to respect democracy?

Oral Questions ·

Climate Change

“The government is getting rid of rules to build oil pipelines faster. Doing this means the Liberals will fail to reach their own climate goals.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals passed Bill C-5 to expedite so-called projects of national interest. That allows the government to get around laws that could hinder the construction of pipelines. Now, the government has a new solution: To speed up its pipelines, it is simply going to tear up the regulations. If the regulatory framework is slowing down the construction of oil pipelines, then the government is just going to scrap the regulatory framework. The Liberals are the ones who set the target of achieving net zero by 2050. Do they realize that it is their own fault that they are going to fail miserably?

Statements by Members ·

Gérald Savard

“I want to honour Gérald Savard. He has served as mayor of Bégin for nearly 30 years and continues to do his job with courage even though he has terminal cancer.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a great man. Gérald Savard has served as the mayor of the municipality of Bégin for nearly 30 years. He is descended from a long line of public servants. Like his father and grandfather, he has dedicated his life to serving the people of his municipality. Gérald also served as reeve of the Fjord-du-Saguenay RCM for 13 years, during which he dedicated himself to developing our region. Gérald often spoke of Lucien Bouchard, who he said once told him that in order to succeed in politics, one must love people and act with courage. I can assure everyone that Gérald has always been known for his abiding love for the residents of Bégin and for his genuine interest in the people of our region. Today I especially want to acknowledge Gérald’s exemplary courage and perseverance. Despite a terminal cancer diagnosis, he continues to serve as mayor with the same passion and dedication he has shown for the past 30 years. On behalf of everyone back home, and with the utmost respect, I wish to offer our most sincere congratulations on his exceptional career.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Kurt Holman

“The government ignores Quebec workers. It focuses on oil, gas, and cars instead of Quebec's forestry and aluminum industries, which are hurt by tariffs.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 30 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, I heard my colleague from Winnipeg North say earlier that we need to support workers. We in the Bloc Québécois stand up day after day because we support Quebec workers. The main problem is that our colleagues opposite stand up and say that they are here to build Canada. Unfortunately, from what I have seen since the last election, they are here to build Canada while ignoring Quebec. All they talk about is oil and gas and the auto sector. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on the double standard. In Quebec, the tariffs are hitting the forestry and aluminum sectors the hardest, but we are still waiting for a response from the government that lives up to our expectations.

“The federal government quickly helps the car and oil industries, but it gives very little help to Quebec's economy. I want to hear my colleague's ideas on the best solution for Quebec.”
  • 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, my colleague will probably agree with me. Once again, we have proof that Quebec is trapped in the Canadian straitjacket. In 2008, during the financial crisis, money was there for the automotive sector. Today, the logic goes like this: The government is rushing to take action for the auto sector, and the same goes for the energy sector, by which I mean oil and gas. However, when it comes to supporting Quebec’s economy, the response is very, very feeble. I know a solution for that. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts. What would be the best solution for Quebec today?

“Aluminum and forestry businesses need help right now. A wage subsidy would keep people working and give these companies some relief. I do not understand why the government will not support this idea, and I want to hear my colleague's thoughts.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, earlier in his speech, my colleague spoke at length about market diversification and access to the liquidity measures being proposed by the government. The member for Mirabel did a very good job instructing us earlier on the long-term effects of these measures. However, businesses in the aluminum industry and forestry sector need short-term help here and now. One solution that everyone seems to support amounts to the equivalent of a wage subsidy. This would maintain the employment relationship and give businesses some breathing room. I do not understand why the government is closed to the idea. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on that.

“The forestry industry has been in crisis since 2017. Thousands of jobs have been lost and dozens of businesses have closed because of the softwood lumber dispute. The government has not done enough to help. I want to know what my colleague thinks about the need for real support for this industry.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his French. I will give my colleague a passing grade on that, but I will not give the government a passing grade. The forestry crisis has been going on since 2017. Once in a while, I like to go on the website of the Institut de la statistique du Québec to see how many businesses have closed and how many jobs have been lost since 2017. The last time I checked, 35 major businesses had closed and 29 businesses were experiencing sporadic closures. Their operations were significantly at risk. About 2,200 full-time jobs had been lost and 1,900 part-time jobs had been lost. That is what the softwood lumber dispute is doing. The government has not announced anything yet, other than what we saw last August. That clearly did not meet the expectations of the forestry sector. Everything in the forestry sector is currently destabilized. I want to hear my colleague’s thoughts on that, because we are still waiting for an important and worthwhile announcement about support for the forestry industry.

“The government gives huge amounts of money to the oil and gas industry, but ignores Quebec industries like forestry and aluminum. I want my colleague to share their thoughts on this unfair treatment.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague from Mirabel also sees the blatant unfairness in what the government is doing, since it has a double standard when it comes to the oil and gas sector versus sectors specific to Quebec. We saw that the government’s response has been very slow, particularly in the economic statement. We see the astronomical amounts being given to the oil and gas sector. I often think that if only a fraction of the obscene amounts given to the oil and gas sector went to the forestry or aluminum sectors, we would be in a much stronger position. I would like to hear what my colleague, who is highly knowledgeable about economics, has to say about this.

In response to a question from Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

“The government needs to act quickly. Right now, it gives almost all its financial support to the oil and gas industry. I want the government to support the forestry sector just as much. That would be fair.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what an intelligent question. That was fantastic. Yes, that is absolutely true, but it needs to be done quickly. People in the forestry sector and other stakeholders are proposing solutions to the government. The major problem with this federation is that, right now, our entire fiscal capacity to support certain economic sectors is going to the oil and gas sector. I would just like a little bit of that to go to the forestry sector. I would like to see the government have the courage to support the forestry sector in the same way that it supports the energy sector. On that day, we might see a little more fairness in this federation.

In response to a question from Kurt Holman

“The government should help businesses in Quebec instead of putting money into oil. That unfair spending hurts Quebec's forestry and aluminum industries. I want a real plan to support our businesses, not just loans.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 27 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think that what the government should be focusing on right now is finding a lasting solution for Quebec businesses that are suffering as a result of the current situation. Instead, as I was saying earlier, the government has created a road map for investing in the energy sector. This is blatantly unfair. Let me be very clear: This is blatantly unfair to Quebec and is undermining Quebec’s two strongest economic sectors, which are forestry and aluminum. What I want is not just loans from the government, but a comprehensive strategy that will help support our businesses and industries. What I want is for the government to stop throwing all our money at oil, as we saw in the last budget statement and in the budget.

In response to a question from Natilien Joseph

“Our biggest problem is that foreign companies own most of Canada's oil industry, especially American ones. We pay for their infrastructure while they take record profits out of Canada and send them to the United States. We should focus on that.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 45 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk to my colleague about the worst dependency we have. It is the 80% of the oil sector, the major players in that sector, that is owned by foreign interests, and the 60% of the oil sector that is American‑owned. There is capital flight. The sector has made record profits in recent years. Where do all those dividends go? They are going to the United States. That is even more troubling than the forestry sector’s dependence on the American market. We are paying for oil and gas sector infrastructure, while the industry bigwigs are taking their dividends and investing them in the United States. That is what my colleague should be addressing.

“The federal government spends billions of dollars helping the oil and gas industry, but it ignores Quebec's forestry and aluminum industries. American tariffs are hurting these sectors, and our local businesses are not getting the help they need. I want the government to stop pouring money into fossil fuels and start supporting Quebec's workers.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what a nice introduction. I will pick up on what my colleague just said. He supports anyone who supports Canada. The major issue with the tariff crisis is that the federal government keeps crowing about building Canada. However, looking at the proposals that the government put forward these past few weeks, it looks more like building Canada while ignoring Quebec. Which two sectors are the most impacted by the U.S. government’s tariffs? There is the aluminum sector, which is primarily based in Quebec. Then there is the forestry sector, which is subject to a mix of countervailing and anti-dumping duties on top of 10% tariffs, for a total of 45%. The forestry products we send across the border to the U.S. have their profit margins cut by 45%. No economic sector can withstand that. The entire forestry industry back home is in upheaval and going through incredibly tough times, and the government is not doing anything to help. I just wanted to mention that as a response to what my colleague said. What I want to highlight today is the double standard. I have been here since 2019. Whenever the auto sector or the energy sector—which the government generally equates with oil and gas—is in trouble, the government is there to help. The economic update includes investments in oil and gas. That is a normal thing for the government. When it comes to the more Quebec-centric sectors, however, the government is nowhere to be found. I am feeling generous, so I will split my time. I was getting a bit agitated, but I am calming down now. As I was saying, there is a double standard, and it is major. As I mentioned on Friday, just for fun, I looked through the economic update to demonstrate this double standard. To figure out the intentions behind a document, we can simply search for keywords. How many times do the words “forest” or “forestry” appear in the government’s economic update? I searched for both terms. They show up six times. How about the word “aluminum”? It shows up 12 times. Just for the heck of it and to satisfy the member for Repentigny, I looked up “climate change”; there are five occurrences. If we want to hit a home run, to use the federal government’s language, we need to talk about oil and gas. If we look up the word “gas” in the latest economic statement, we see that it appears 45 times. That is the federal government’s primary interest. The word “oil” shows up 153 times. That is what the federal government is interested in, as we have seen in recent weeks. It offers well-thought-out, deliberate strategies for the oil and gas sector, and it offers absolutely nothing for the forestry and aluminum sectors, which are facing the highest tariffs. I will quickly talk about forestry, because we submitted a proposal to the government. That was part of the discussions that the Bloc Québécois wanted to have with the government, discussions that did not take place when the economic statement was being prepared. Some people got together to talk about how to solve this problem of countervailing and anti-dumping duties. That is money that is being held at the border, and it has likely exceeded $13 billion to date. How can we get this $13 billion back and ensure that it is invested and that the operations and facilities of the forestry sector are maintained? We wondered why Export Development Canada would not play a leading role and make it possible to buy back a portion of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties at the end of each month. The government refused and ignored that. Do members know what I find shocking? The Standing Committee on Natural Resources invited EDC representatives as witnesses, and we spoke with them. Let us look at the double standard I am talking about. In 2022, EDC invested $9.3 billion in the oil and gas sector in tax benefits and incentives. Yes, just in that one sector. It is clear where the federal government’s major investments are going. In 2023, the amount was $7.3 billion. If a fraction of that was going to support the forestry sector, we would be over the moon. We would be very happy. However, the federal government has never suggested such a thing. For carbon capture and sequestration strategies alone, EDC handed out $102 million in 2023 and $464 million in 2022. Obviously, the federal government is focused on the energy sector. Forestry is definitely the part of the natural resources sector that gets the least attention. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean and I actually did a comprehensive study to figure out what the federal supports for the forestry sector amounted to. The economic benefits for the federal government coming from our region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean alone exceed the sum total of federal supports for the forestry sector. That is quite something. Why is that? It is because the federal government has always been afraid of standing up for softwood lumber. It is so shocking that even babies are screaming in the House. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mario Simard: I lost my train of thought. I am sorry. I was saying that my region is giving more to the federal government in terms of economic benefits that the sum total of supports it is getting for the forestry sector. Federal investments in the forestry sector go through EDC. The government has never stood up for that sector because primary processors are told that they need to go through Global Affairs Canada. Global Affairs Canada then says that no financial supports can be offered because that would be in violation of trade deals with the U.S. and our trade dispute with the U.S. regarding softwood lumber. Consequently, not a single primary processor of softwood lumber can receive any kind of support from the federal government. We took a closer look at this, because it seemed so unfair. For medium-sized businesses in the forestry sector, the primary market is Canada. The primary market is domestic; it is within Quebec. Even businesses that do not export anything to the U.S. cannot get any sort of financial support from the federal government. The federal government will soon be tabling a strategy for retooling the forestry sector so that it can get through the crisis and create more added value. That is what we hear, but in the past 20 years, the federal government has never given so much as a dime to the forestry sector. Now it is wondering why it is so hard to invest in infrastructure and why all the small communities in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and the rest of Quebec that depend on forestry are losing their shirts. It is insane. Sawmills are consolidating. The pulp and paper sector is ailing. Meanwhile, the tariff crisis is going on, but there is no federal government support in any form. Last August, the federal government allocated funding to the forestry sector. Seven or eight months later, no one had yet seen a penny of that money. The program parameters had to be tightened to be able to fund certain forestry companies. I get the impression that the same thing is going to happen in the aluminum sector. Primary aluminum is doing relatively well, because the price is adjusted according to the U.S. Midwest premium. However, aluminum processors, based primarily in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, are in an impossible situation. They are currently paying off loans they took out in 2018, and now the government says it is going to allow them to take out new loans. Who can operate that way in an industrial sector, constantly taking out loans to cover the cost of tariffs because the government is not doing its job? What was announced may be a good start, but we will see how it plays out over time. What I personally hope is that the federal government stops investing Quebec’s share in fossil fuels and instead uses it to defend Quebec’s own interests. I hope that our colleagues from Quebec, both in the government and in the Conservative Party, will be ready to support us on this.

“I want the member to say if he supports this motion. Will he vote for it or against it?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague did not indicate in his speech whether he would be supporting the motion. I am curious. Does he agree with what is before the House today? Will he vote for or against the motion?

Government Orders ·

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

“Quebec is facing serious problems from high tariffs on softwood lumber and aluminum. This economic update does nothing to help those industries. I want to know if my colleague thinks that is acceptable.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague ended his speech by saying that he is pleased that Atlantic Canada was heard in the economic update. I can tell him that I am sad that Quebec was not heard. Quebec is grappling with the worst of the tariff crisis. The two sectors with the highest tariffs are softwood lumber and aluminum, and there is absolutely nothing for these sectors in the economic update, even though it was supposed to respond to the crisis we are currently facing. Does my colleague think that is acceptable?

In response to a question from Mario Beaulieu

“The Prime Minister promised us an answer in the economic update, but it had nothing in it. Now he says an answer is coming. I do not know if we can trust his word.”
  • 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, we were all astonished, especially since the leader of the Bloc Québécois seems to have told the Prime Minister about the situation. The following day, after the Prime Minister was made aware of the problem, he told us that we would get an answer in the economic update. Then, lo and behold, the economic update arrived with absolutely nothing. On Wednesday, the Prime Minister said that it was on the way and that we would get an answer. Can we take him at his word? The next few days will tell whether the government walks the talk, but this is deeply concerning.