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

Government Orders ·

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

In response to a question from Tamara Kronis

“Healthcare belongs to Quebec, not the federal government. Also, big oil and gas companies should not get government handouts when they are making record profits.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 28 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 would like to thank my colleague and congratulate her on her excellent French, even though she has not been speaking it for very long. Everyone in the Bloc Québécois agrees that she is remarkable. In my view, issues relating to substance abuse and health fall under the Government of Quebec’s jurisdiction. I am not trying to avoid her question. I would, however, like to point out that I have rarely agreed with the leader of the official opposition, but I do agree with him on one thing. He has pointed out on numerous occasions that the major oil and gas companies are acting like corporate welfare claimants by asking the federal government for money. I know the Conservatives are in favour of defending the energy sector tooth and nail, but they would not stoop so low as to take money from Canadians and hand it over to the greedy oil and gas sector, which is making record profits and sending them back to the United States. On that point, I congratulate the leader of the official opposition.

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“This plan spends public money on oil and gas instead of helping Quebec. It gives tax breaks to the gas industry, but nothing to Quebec's economy, even while we face severe U.S. tariffs.”
  • 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, I have read the entire document. The whole problem is that the major investments are being made not in Quebec, but in the oil and gas sector. The accelerated capital cost allowance in the economic update applies only to the gas sector. It does not apply to other sectors that are specific to Quebec. There is nothing for our economic sectors. There is only money for the oil and gas sector. The goal of this economic update is to give even more support to Canada’s energy sector using taxpayer dollars. This is being done at Quebec’s expense, just as Quebec is dealing with one of its worst tariff crises ever thanks to the United States. If my colleague does not find that outrageous, I can draw him a picture.

“The government's economic update ignores Quebec. It does nothing to help our forestry and aluminum industries with high U.S. tariffs. Instead, it spends money to help foreign-owned oil and gas companies.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that comes as a surprise to no one. My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé made it very clear that the Bloc Québécois is disappointed in the budget statement, as did my colleague from Mirabel in his response to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue. I think that his answer was very well put and it showed all the shortcomings of the economic update. This week, in response to oral questions, I heard my Liberal colleagues say many times that they want to build Canada. The update document does talk about building Canada. However, I would like to finish the sentence, because I think that, in reality, they are building Canada while ignoring Quebec. That is what the document should have been called, and I will explain why. I have a little tip for my colleagues. When we want to understand the intent of a government document or proposal, like a budget or an update, there is usually a fairly simple trick. All anyone has to do is search how many times certain words appear in the document. My colleagues will see where I am going with this. Just for fun, I checked to see how many times the word “forest” or “forestry” appears in the economic update. Those words appear six times. Then, I checked to see how many times the word “aluminum” appears in the economic update. We see that word 12 times, which is a bit better. I also checked to see how often the term “climate change” was used, and the answer is five times. When I searched for the word “gas”, I hit the jackpot at 43 times, but the real winner was the word “oil”, which is used 153 times in the economic update. Why am I talking about this? We immediately see where the government’s priorities lie. Given what is happening right now, the economic update should have responded to the tariff crisis to help the industries in Canada that are currently facing the highest tariffs. Which two industries in Canada are facing the highest tariffs? First, there is the aluminum industry. As we know, primary aluminum producers are managing to get by without too many problems, but this is catastrophic for aluminum processors. The 50% tariffs are catastrophic for them. Many are operating on credit and struggling to stay afloat right now. There will be consolidations unless the government takes action. That is for the aluminum industry, which is mentioned only 12 times in the economic update. The other sector facing the highest tariffs, and the one most severely impacted by U.S. policies, is the forestry sector. It is subject to 45% tariffs. This figure is the sum of a 10% tariff, countervailing duties, and anti-dumping duties. This means that every time a forestry producer ships $100 worth of products to the United States, $45 is taken from them, stolen. Not many companies can survive with margins cut by 45%. There is another key factor that has emerged in recent weeks. In fact, we were the ones who sounded the alarm for the government, pointing out that, under a new decree, 25% of the total value of aluminum products will now be subject to tariffs, which is destroying Quebec’s industrial base. Is this addressed in the economic update? No, at no point does it offer a solution to the problems facing the aluminum and forestry sectors. This makes me think that the goal is to build Canada while ignoring Quebec. I will return to the many repeated proposals we have made. I can talk about that right now. Time and again, we have proposed solutions to the government for addressing the tariff crisis surrounding softwood lumber. The government has always turned a deaf ear to them. What we see in the economic update when the word “forest” appears is a rehashing of what was announced back in August and subsequently expanded. Nothing is new under the sun. We are still in the same position with a liquidity program ill-suited to the needs of people in the industry. We have made concrete proposals to the government with people involved in the forestry sector. We proposed that the government buy back a portion of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties at the end of each month. The government would not necessarily have to pay out this money, since the anti-dumping duties that are currently being held in the United States will eventually be recovered. The government could therefore recoup its costs. We proposed this solution, but the government never wanted to talk to the Bloc Québécois to try to implement it. The same goes for aluminum. If the economic update is about building Canada while ignoring Quebec, what does this economic update actually contain? In my view, the government’s primary intention is to build infrastructure to export energy. The fact that the word “gas” appears 43 times and the word “oil” appears 153 times clearly reflects the government’s intention to build oil and gas infrastructure in order to export more oil and gas. We had this discussion at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. We heard from Hydro-Québec. Sometimes I like to be a bit mischievous. I asked Hydro‑Québec, which has built two major lines allowing Quebec to export energy to the United States, one to New York and the other to Massachusetts, how much financial support it had received from the federal government to do so. The answer was zero. The federal government did not offer Hydro-Québec a single penny in financial support to develop this energy export infrastructure. We are talking about clean energy, about hydroelectricity. It is a different story when it comes to the oil and gas sector. What does the economic update contain? It includes an increase in the carbon capture and storage tax credit. That information is not coming from me. The former environment minister has stated on numerous occasions that more money has been invested in promoting carbon capture and storage than in certain carbon capture and storage projects themselves. It is a bottomless pit, and it is completely illogical to try to produce clean oil, but notwithstanding that, we know that Export Development Canada, or EDC, put $102 million into the carbon capture and storage sector in 2023. In 2022, $464 million was poured into this sector, which in no way serves the interests of Quebeckers. I will come back to EDC. When we look at the overall support for the gas and oil sector, we see that it is completely outrageous. The federal government is trying to respond to a tariff crisis by supporting the Canadian energy sector. The question that troubles me is this: Who benefits from the Canadian energy sector? People looking for an answer to that question will find something quite shocking. When looking at the ownership structure of the major oil companies, it becomes clear that 80% of these major oil companies are owned by foreign interests. I repeat, 80% of the ownership structure of the major players in the oil sector belongs to foreign interests. Furthermore, 60% of the ownership structure belongs to American interests. What does this mean? It means that the energy lobby, which aims to boost the Canadian economy, is working to the benefit of American interests. Here is a hair-raising fact. From 2021 to 2024, these people made $131 billion in profits. Did they invest in their infrastructure? No. They asked the federal government to take on the risk for the infrastructure while they raked in the profits. I have never seen a model like that. Capitalism is based on people assuming risks with their own money and then reaping the profits. That is not what the oil companies want. For the oil companies, it means having the government assume the risk so they can reap the profits. They produce 12.3 billion dollars’ worth of capital flight. The federal government left Quebec out of its economic update. Instead, it is trying to help the big oil and gas companies that send their money to the United States. That is completely outrageous.

“The government did not talk to the Bloc Québécois to see what we want in this economic update. For example, Ottawa still has not paid Quebec back for asylum seekers or for the carbon tax. I want my colleague to speak about this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in his excellent speech, my colleague pointed out that no negotiations have taken place between the Bloc Québécois and the government to determine what might make this economic statement acceptable to the Bloc Québécois. Some things are quite obvious, such as the fact that the federal government has never reimbursed Quebec for services provided to asylum seekers or for the carbon tax. I would like my colleague to talk about these two glaring inequities by the federal government.

Oral Questions ·

Public Services and Procurement

“The government added $451 million for Cúram, but they keep saying it is on budget. They are using their majority in committee to hide the truth. They need to be accountable.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe what I just heard. The Liberals know there are problems with Cúram, because they added $451 million for Cúram and the CRA in the economic update. It is absurd for them to claim that there are no cost overruns when they added $451 million in cost overruns in the update. Meanwhile, they are using their majority in committee to hide information. Yesterday, the minister repeated that Cúram is on budget. Do the Liberals understand that having a majority does not absolve them from being accountable to Quebeckers?

“The Liberals are hiding documents about government software that now costs nearly $7 billion. This bad software makes it hard for seniors to get their pensions. I want to know if the government will keep hiding information like this.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the first thing the Liberals did with their new majority was refuse to release the documents on the Cúram software cost overruns. While costs have risen to nearly $7 billion, the Liberals are using their majority to hide the truth from the opposition and the public. Tens of thousands of seniors are struggling to get their old age pension, but the Liberals refuse to let us address the root of the problem. Is that what we can expect from the next three years of a Liberal majority government?

Oral Questions ·

Labour

“Job training belongs to Quebec, not Ottawa. The federal government should give Quebec its share of training funds with no conditions attached.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, let us be honest, the last thing we need is a squabble caused by the federal government. As I said earlier, workforce training has been under Quebec’s jurisdiction for 30 years. Quebec is the one that determines labour market needs and how to meet them. Ottawa’s role is strictly to fund those measures. Quebec has both jurisdiction and the expertise. We do not need a government with no jurisdiction to interfere, especially given that the federal government is the undisputed champion of the anglicization of the workplace. When will Quebec receive its fair share of the funds, without any strings attached?

“The government is spending six billion dollars on construction job training. Job training is Quebec's responsibility, and an agreement has recognized that for 30 years. I want the government to give Quebec its share of the money with no conditions.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in its economic update, the federal government is investing $6 billion to train the construction workforce. The only problem is that workforce training falls under Quebec’s jurisdiction. The Liberals say that they want to come to an agreement, but an agreement has already been in place for 30 years now. For 30 years, Ottawa has recognized that Quebec is responsible for determining its own labour market policies and priorities. For 30 years, Quebec has been designing, planning, delivering and evaluating the employment and training services that are right for Quebeckers. In short, will the government transfer Quebec’s share to Quebec with no strings attached?

Statements by Members ·

Angine de Poitrine

“A music duo from my region named Angine de Poitrine is now famous all over the world. Their success shows the strength of Quebec culture.”
  • Member's statement

    Signal 42 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, are you familiar with Angine de Poitrine, which roughly translates to “chest pain”? I am not referring to the medical condition, but to the duo made up of Saguenay natives Khn and Klek de Poitrine, the hottest music phenomenon on the planet. They are blowing up on social media. Their song Fabienk has become the most viral hit on Spotify worldwide, and they top the charts in 50 different countries, including Canada, the U.S., France, Spain, Australia, and Chile. This is hardly surprising, considering that their music travels more than the Prime Minister. In the Saguenay region, music is by no means a simple matter of “lah, lah, lah”. With Angine de Poitrine, it also includes “dada pythago-cubist mantra-rock”. Even the most eminent music experts are enthralled by all this innovation. The band’s creativity would make Salvador Dali blush, and if Mozart were alive, he would call them geniuses. Angine de Poitrine is a sign of Quebec’s artistic ingenuity and offers further proof that where culture is concerned, our nation knows how to raise the roof and, who knows, maybe even build a country.