Sébastien Lemire
Abitibi—Témiscamingue, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the member from downtown Toronto gave a speech on the challenge of access to housing and housing construction, because I get the impression that, for the last 30 years, the federal government has been doing nothing but building housing in downtown Toronto.”
“Mr. Speaker, five years ago, I rose in the House to note that my son, Léon, was finishing elementary school. Naturally, five years later, it is time for his high school graduation ceremony, which he will be attending on Saturday.”
“That is, of course, provided that it does not take two years to sign the agreements, meaning that inflation eats up the lion's share of the funds allocated to Quebec. The Canada housing infrastructure fund agreement was finally signed after two years.”
“As a result, it has to ask CMHC—or perhaps I should say “the agency formerly known as CMHC”—to do what it used to do: review applications. Who suffers as a result? The projects and the organizations themselves. For my region, the upshot of this is that we will often miss the construction season.”
“It is rather ironic that the Auditor General of Canada issued a report on child care services. As members know, this policy resulted in an unconditional transfer being made to Quebec. That is because, in 1997, Quebec had already created the network of early childhood centres to provide affordable child care for everyone.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wish I were wrong, but the record of the last 10 years in this Parliament shows that I am not wrong and that funding does not reach Quebec, or if it does, it is only after several years' delay. Obviously, this means there is less money in current dollars available for the construction of these homes.”
The complete record
Every one of 447 lines we hold for Sébastien Lemire, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 9.
“Government officials cannot even identify the new functionalities or the short-term program operating costs. Apparently, the post-2031 operating costs have not even been evaluated. That is an additional $660 million per year. That is an annual cost overrun equivalent to a whole SAAQclic, and it was not planned for. The federal government needs to do the responsible thing and give us the real numbers. The initial estimate, $1.75 billion, was only for the tranche 1 costs. The government says there is no problem and it really did not have that information. According to a 2023 briefing note to the Minister of Citizens' Services at the time, the December 2020 cost estimate was $2.2 billion for the benefits delivery modernization program, which included old age security, employment insurance and the Canada pension plan.”
“However, obviously, the money being wasted in this financial scandal belongs to Quebeckers and Canadians. Two weeks ago, we were given a technical briefing. It seemed as though the Liberals no longer had any good answers to give the House. The government decided to provide a technical briefing to try to manage the crisis. The technical briefing told us little that we did not already know. That is one of the problems. They did the same thing with journalists. The journalists reported—so this is public—that Ottawa knew the first estimate was not reliable and costs were going to explode. Is that responsible management? Absolutely not. Government officials said that IT projects always involve cost overruns. Why is that? If we all managed our own finances that way, it would be catastrophic.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is important for me to rise in the House and speak about the Cúram software because there have been outrageous cost overruns. I will remind members of the facts. In the beginning, the project was expected to cost $1.75 billion, but it is now costing $6.6 billion. That is a cost overrun of more than $5 billion, which is almost ten times the cost of SAAQclic. In that case, Quebec took its responsibility seriously and had a judge conduct an independent inquiry. Recommendations were made to ensure that these sorts of IT errors would not happen again. Ottawa seems to be ignoring this reality. We asked questions in the House and we were told by ministers that we should be happy about Cúram and that the Bloc Québécois was just fearmongering.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. We obviously wish him a speedy recovery from his cold. I would like to hear his thoughts on the situation. My colleague said that it is not up to the state to determine which religion is the right one. However, when people use religion as a pretext to commit violent, serious or deadly crimes, or when they incite hatred by hiding behind that pretext in order to be acquitted or get reduced sentences, is it not the state's responsibility to intervene and change the law so that people can no longer hide behind religious pretexts to incite hatred?”
“Mr. Speaker, I hear the Conservatives’ rhetoric. I also see it circulating on social media. The Conservatives are spreading misinformation about the Bloc’s position, and I find that quite unfortunate. The only thing the Bloc wants is for it to be illegal to use religion to promote hatred. Ultimately, we want to prevent crime from being committed in the name of religion, crimes that could have catastrophic, even fatal, repercussions on the lives of innocent people. Can the Conservatives respect the Bloc’s position, which was put forward in an amendment and which, at the end of the day, is simply common sense?”
“Mr. Speaker, admitting that there is a problem is part of the solution. Every time Ottawa gets involved with IT, it is a disaster. Today the Auditor General showed us in her report that this is not over yet and that, by replacing the disastrous Phoenix software with a new system called Dayforce, the Liberals are repeating the same mistakes all over again. The Auditor General revealed that they want to speed up the three-year transition, while also ignoring certain expenses. They still want to cut corners, even after having cut corners with Phoenix, Cúram, ArriveCAN, and so on. When will there be an independent public inquiry into these disasters?”
“Mr. Speaker, there has been a dramatic turn of events in the Cúram software saga. For weeks now, the Liberals have been insisting that there are no cost overruns even though costs have jumped from $1.75 billion to $6.6 billion. On Friday, the federal government admitted to the media that the $6.6-billion figure was far from a grand total. The Liberals admitted that they forgot to include operating costs. According to one expert, this could cost an additional $660 million per year. That is a bit like paying for a SAAQclic scandal every year. When will there be an independent public inquiry?”
“A part of Rodger Brulotte will always be with us as long as our children continue to walk up to home plate with determination. With sadness in our hearts, we must face the truth. Rodger has called his final home run.”
“Mr. Speaker, for decades, summer in Quebec had a soundtrack: the subtle buzz of lights, the crack of a bat, the snapping of a leather glove and Rodger Brulotte's unique voice. He brought the melody of baseball to the soul of Quebeckers. Rodger Brulotte, a proud ambassador for our Expos, has passed away. Starting out on radio, then moving on to TV, Rodger was the voice of baseball in Quebec for more than 40 years. He has also left his mark on amateur baseball in Quebec, in the charities he supported, in his columns and in the hearts of an entire nation. We had hoped he could be with us when our Expos finally make their comeback. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I offer my deepest condolences to his spouse, Pascale, his loved ones and all sports fans.”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which includes my Liberal colleagues, unanimously adopted a motion calling for a commission of inquiry into the failures of the following federal IT systems: Phoenix, ArriveCAN and Cúram. The Quebec National Assembly has also unanimously called for such a commission of inquiry. The federal government's IT track record shows taxpayers' money going into flawed systems and people ending up in trouble as a result. These billions of dollars could have been better invested. It is time to shed light on all of this. When will there be an independent public inquiry?”
“Mr. Speaker, he is quite the banker. We are talking about $5 billion in cost overruns. Add to that the human cost for seniors struggling with Cúram. It was supposed to cost $1.75 billion, and it is not over yet. We know this because it is the same old story every time. The costs keep climbing. There are private firms and consultants laughing all the way to the bank as they listen to the Prime Minister today. This government acts like it has no obligation to manage public money properly. It is as though no one were responsible. I would like to hear from the Prime Minister. When will there be a public and independent inquiry into the Cúram fiasco?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would be curious to know what my colleague's definition of “freedom” is. There is an expression in Quebec, and I imagine it is used elsewhere: One person's freedom ends where another's begins. When people can commit a crime and justify hatred with religious texts, are they not infringing on the freedom of others? Ultimately, there is a collective issue at stake here. Does it not involve the public interest?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts held a meeting on the subject of infrastructure. We realized that, according to page 298 of volume II of the Public Accounts of Canada 2025, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation was allocated $2.1 billion in financing for housing. However, it spent only $1.3 billion. On that same page, we see that $5 million was not spent in 2025. In other words, nearly $2 billion was not spent. Are things structured in such a way that all the lovely promises in the budget do not translate into money flowing and construction happening in the regions? Is that not a problem?”
“Mr. Speaker, the answer is obviously yes, because the municipalities, towns and regions are the ones with the expertise, but there is hope. I would like to give an example: The Abitibi-Témiscamingue CEGEP has partnered with the Regroupement innovant pour l'impression d'immeubles durables, or RI 3 D. I want to highlight the leadership of a high school friend, David Laliberté, who is a CEGEP teacher, in implementing this innovation that helps to build walls. Perhaps the homes of tomorrow will be built thanks to initiatives like the one at the Abitibi-Témiscamingue CEGEP.”
“This would prevent them from occupying available housing, since we know that they are not going to put down roots. We want to leave that housing for people who are investing in our community and who will be able to stay there. As a result of the housing shortage, workers fly in and fly out. This is the reality because the programs have not been tailored to the situation in Abitibi-Témiscamingue over the past 20 years. This is a huge problem, and I hope that this new initiative, Build Canada Homes, will be able to respond to it.”
“Mr. Speaker, the culture of cronyism in the Liberal Party is still a danger. What I also find dangerous is not knowing what the government is using our money for. Abitibi—Témiscamingue creates approximately 2% of Canada's GDP, notably through its mining and forestry sectors, but what does it get in return? We have been experiencing a housing crisis for 20 years. Housing costs are just as high in Abitibi—Témiscamingue as they are elsewhere. A neighbourhood in what is known as the buffer zone has to be relocated. Yes, there are a lot of questions about the federal government. I can give a very simple example. According to current specifications, Canadian roads do not account for the fact that rectangular houses have to be shipped. There are companies that make prefabricated houses, which could be used by workers, in particular.”
“Lumber is cut in our forests, processed in my riding and sent to Boucherville, Toronto or the United States before coming back to my region, generating a lot of transportation costs, not to mention the environmental impact. That is one of the key issues, and I hope that it will be addressed by this new bureaucratic structure.”
“Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the fact that there is an agreement, but, once again, we need to be able to look at that agreement to see how it is applied. The reality is that we do not feel that this money is having a real impact in the regions. When we look at the public accounts, we see that the Canada Infrastructure Bank has invested zero dollars in Abitibi—Témiscamingue. That is unacceptable. A Radio-Canada article showed that Ontario received $2 billion from the Canada public transit fund and Quebec got nothing. Does that make sense? Programs are simply not being designed for Quebec's reality. Needs are not being taken into account, particularly the issue of energy efficiency in the north. They are also causing more delays. Is that fair? It is already costing us close to 30% more.”
“For example, income-based affordability, in the case of housing that costs less than 30% of pre-tax income, can be applied differently. Again, this calls for flexibility and an understanding that there may be income disparities in certain regions. I will stop here. I will continue my thoughts during questions and comments.”
“We would need programs tailored to six, 18, or 24 housing units to have an equally significant impact on our populations. In a rural town or census area, we must take into account the geography and the ability to create and organize these projects to also meet bureaucratic requirements. I would also like to note an important aspect of the definition of affordability. During the committee's study of the Auditor General's report on the current and future use of federal offices, I had the opportunity to question officials from the Department of Housing, Infrastructure, and Communities on this. While Canada has always been out of touch, I was pleasantly surprised by the thought process that officials had gone through.”
“The federal government and the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities have a vision based on the concept of census agglomerations versus census metropolitan areas, with a scale ranging from 10,000 to 100,000 people or fewer. I am sorry, but there is a significant difference between a municipality of 45,000 residents located eight hours away from major urban centres and a municipality of 45,000 residents that is two hours away from Montreal or Toronto. (1735) Programs need to reflect the reality of these remote regions. They need to reflect the fact that building 150 housing units in municipalities like Baie-Comeau, Sept-Îles, Rouyn-Noranda, Amos, La Sarre, or Notre-Dame-du-Nord is much more difficult, almost inconceivable.”
“That is to say nothing about the consultants that the CMHC asks for, even though the Quebec civil code already provides various options for recourse. That is completely unnecessary duplication. As a result, the Government of Canada and non-profit organizations are paying consultants to analyze something that is already covered or has already been done. There is a saying that laws are made for Ontario, not for Quebec. This is a clear example of that. Money is being flushed down the drain. Let me go back to the definition of what a rural area is and what an urban area is. Once again, there is a clear lack of vision.”
“The subsidy does not increase, and we know how much interest rates can fluctuate depending on the situation. However, the CMHC takes months not only to make decisions, but also to disburse funds. When we talk about non-profit organizations, or NPOs, and co-operatives, we are not talking about organizations that are rolling in money and have deep pockets. They are being asked to pay construction costs just to wait. Wait for what? Once an organization reaches its project completion percentage, the CMHC money arrives but it arrives late. A non-profit that takes out a loan has to pay interest on the loan purely because the CMHC is not paying on time. That is a lot of money that the non-profit and the co-operative cannot reinvest in their facilities. These are additional costs that increase project costs.”
“There were problems with the construction of a women's shelter for victims of domestic violence, the Maison l'émeraude, in La Sarre. The project almost never saw the light of day because of bureaucratic delays. It also almost did not happen because of repeated last-minute requests that do not apply to the Quebec reality, but are required nonetheless, such as requiring the organization to take out a mortgage. All of this can have an impact on the quality of services, the size of the building or even the quality of the fences to protect the women. There are consequences to such a lack of consistency and lack of efficiency. This kind of delay slows down construction. These delays hold up projects, leading to increased costs for developers.”
“The developer was waiting for CMHC's final approval before starting construction and getting on with the work. Months went by. The documents were submitted correctly, but CMHC was slow to issue its final approval. April and May passed, but nothing happened. In June, CMHC finally responded, but with a letter announcing that unless the work started in the next two weeks, the money would be allocated to another project. Developers are waiting for the bureaucracy to act, but the bureaucracy can say that it is going to spend the money elsewhere, even though CMHC never gave its final approval. I hope that Build Canada Homes will learn from that. Although it will allegedly be much more agile, implementation issues around the transition from CMHC to Build Canada Homes are precisely what happened over the past year.”
“I discussed this with the Parliamentary Budget Officer when he was appointed recently. If Ottawa let the provinces manage their own affairs and simply transferred the money, that would save enormous amounts of money that are currently being wasted on unnecessary bureaucracy. One good example is the child care program. The government took inspiration from Quebec and transferred the money. Quebec is where the most spaces have been created. Why not repeat that pattern when it comes to building housing? It is such a simple solution, perhaps too simple. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, takes too long to make decisions and does not even meet its own deadlines. In my region, one project was approved in January 2025 with construction set to begin in April or May.”
“That is not right, and it is so frustrating because the problems are just getting worse, especially in Quebec. (1730) Two years after the program was launched, an agreement was reached for $1 billion of the $6 billion allocated to the fund. That is 16.6% of the envelope even though Quebec accounts for 22% of Canada's demographic weight, so there is a huge equity issue there that needs to be addressed. Quebeckers are receiving less, and they are receiving less two years on, which means that it is much less. It is also important to understand that with the skyrocketing construction costs, Quebec is not meeting its housing needs, all because Ottawa is incapable of respecting its jurisdictions. It is one thing for Ottawa to want to invest in housing. It needs to transfer the money to Quebec.”
“The goal was to modernize and develop essential infrastructure, such as drinking water and waste water treatment infrastructure, to support new housing projects. The agreement with Quebec took two years to finalize. Things happened a lot faster in Ontario, as usual. Why? The reason is that Ottawa's programs are designed with Ontario laws in mind. They do not take Quebec's reality into account, and the government refuses to transfer the funds. We have seen this play out before, such as in 2017, when there was the agreement with the provinces. It took three years for the money to make its way to Quebec. There was the COVID‑19 pandemic, ballooning costs and inflation, which meant that we were building a lot less than everywhere else in Canada, especially Ontario.”
“Given that Build Canada Homes has not been created yet, we must talk about the problems we experience almost daily with the CMHC in the hopes that, at the very least, changes will be made and that, in many cases, the promised money can be disbursed. The first key point is delays. There is no big surprise there. For 10 years, this Liberal government has made long delays one of its specialities. This has happened in many areas other than housing, but it has also happened in housing, even very recently. On January 21, 2026, Ottawa finally signed an agreement with Quebec as part of the Canada housing infrastructure fund. However, Ottawa launched the program nearly two years before that, on April 16, 2024.”
“The question certainly seems relevant when we look at projects like Alto. I want to bring this Parliament back down to earth because we need to identify the problems that we are now facing if we want to resolve them in the long term. Speaking of coming back down to earth, I would like to talk about rural life, a reality in a region like mine. My team, particularly my executive director Lynda Perreault, has helped many non-profit organizations work out the intricacies of housing projects. Our team can easily list the obstacles to the development of social and affordable housing in my region of Abitibi—Témiscamingue.”
“Since Build Canada Homes is designated as an agent of the Crown, it will be able to expropriate residents and will benefit from tax exemptions. That will be good for the cities, which will be unable to collect property tax to fund this infrastructure, because that is a possibility. The same goes for land use planning, if the government can simply decide to expropriate residents to build wherever it wants to build, all while having the opportunity to acquire shares in affordable housing companies. That can open a Pandora's box. If a real estate company receives government support for a private project in which the government is a shareholder, could Build Canada Homes use these expropriation and tax exemption powers to increase the value of its investment? The answer is obvious.”
“The Quebec National Assembly, regional county municipalities and cities are in the best position to understand the needs and to determine priorities, zoning, urban planning and the real needs of the people where they live. For the Bloc Québécois, there is one essential condition: There must be a “Quebec clause,” so that Quebec can opt out of Build Canada Homes with full compensation in the form of dedicated housing transfers paid to the Government of Quebec. At the very least, the government has an obligation to transfer to Quebec the funds to which it is entitled on a per capita basis, without conditions. Quebec is and remains the sole driver of its housing policy. It is up to Quebec to determine its housing priorities and to develop its own tools and programs, not Ottawa. There is something else I am concerned about.”
“Mr. Speaker, today we are continuing our study of a new structure that the government wishes to create called Build Canada Homes. We are not against optimizing housing resources, quite the contrary. It is necessary to invest heavily in housing, and for that to happen, every tax dollar must be invested to generate maximum benefits. However, instead of opting for the simplest and most affordable solution, which is to transfer the money to the provinces, the true housing program authorities and experts, this government is opting to create a new structure. Meanwhile, many of the programs that Build Canada Homes will be responsible for were already being taken care of by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Once again, the federal government is going to set its own housing priorities rather than working with local governments.”
“I would be curious to know whether, if the situation were the same with Ontario, my colleague would be clapping his hands and saying that it is a great program and that we need to continue like this.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from talking about delays and bureaucracy although I really want to. However, I want to ask my colleague from Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas whether he thinks this is a normal state of affairs. On January 21, 2026, the federal government finally signed an agreement with Quebec. However, this program, the Canada housing infrastructure fund, was actually announced two years earlier, on April 16, 2024. Is it normal for it to take such a long time, especially since the agreement amounts to $1 billion for Quebec out of the $6 billion set out in the fund? That represents 16.6% of the envelope, while Quebec has a demographic weight of 22%. Why the discrepancy?”
“Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals say that Cúram is a success story, they fail to mention that it is a global success. La Presse reported that five other governments have installed Cúram and are facing the same problems and cost overruns. This has been going on for 20 years in Australia, since 2006. However, the Liberals did not learn anything from that. As a result, 85,000 seniors are suffering, and there are $5 billion in cost overruns. The Liberals are systematically filibustering at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to prevent us from shedding light on this issue. When will there be an independent public inquiry?”
“Mr. Speaker, all the parties in Quebec City want this government to stop squandering Quebeckers' money. As proven by Phoenix, ArriveCAN and Cúram, every time Ottawa touches IT, it turns into a scandal. The Liberals have wasted more than $10 billion in cost overruns on those three projects alone. Meanwhile, the folks in Quebec City are wondering whether there is enough money to continue funding our children's cultural outings at school. Quebec is unanimous. Quebec is fed up. When will there be an independent public inquiry into federal IT contracts?”
“Mr. Speaker, if I were the minister, I would not be attacking the Auditor General's credibility. We are seeing the same unacceptable flippancy from the Liberals. They are burying their heads in the sand and continuing to spend taxpayers' money. The Quebec National Assembly is reminding us that, in just three IT projects, Ottawa has wasted over $10 billion in cost overruns. With that kind of money, the Government of Quebec could fix up 227 rundown hospitals and still have plenty left over. There is still no accountability in Ottawa. The Liberals keep saying that there are no cost overruns. When will they call an independent public inquiry?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is already less celebrating going on. Pensioners who have not received their old age pensions for nine months would like to celebrate with the Liberals, but they cannot because they do not have one red cent. Taxpayers would like to celebrate too, but when they think about all of the better ways to spend $5 billion than on software cost overruns, they lose their childlike joy. The Liberals will not fix the problems with Cúram because they do not believe that there are any problems to begin with. Now is it clear why a fully independent public inquiry absolutely needs to be called?”
“Mr. Speaker, 85,000 pensioners are victims of errors in their old age pensions because of the Cúram software. Taxpayers are on the hook for $5 billion in cost overruns, and that does not even include the Canada pension plan. According to the Liberals, that is okay because “this is good news for Canada”. Pensioners having financial problems is a success story. The Liberals do not think that we should be calling that out. We should be celebrating that instead. What are the seniors who have been waiting nine months for their pensions complaining about?”
“Now, the government has come up with a new gimmick, under the misnomer “Build Canada Homes”. The government thinks that will solve everything. However, it is just another layer of bureaucracy. Should we place unquestioning trust in Build Canada Homes?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saskatoon West for his intervention and for understanding the power that should be exercised at the level closest to the people, that is to say, at the municipal level. Municipalities are the ones that know the reality in our regions. I would like to point out that back home in Rouyn‑Noranda, the housing shortage has been going on for more than 20 years, and the situation is critical. Federal programs were never implemented in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, and it is a catastrophe. Nothing has improved in 20 or so years. When agreements were signed in 2017, we expected them to produce results in Quebec. Three or four years later, the COVID‑19 pandemic hit and costs soared. In the end, more housing was not built. That was the Liberal government's fault.”
“There is nothing in the bill that gives me the sense that there is a desire to decentralize and move closer to rural regions. Build Canada Homes has so many criteria that, at the end of the day, decision-making is still centralized. The government is not connecting with people's needs, particularly in rural areas. Is my colleague concerned about that too?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would first like to take a moment to congratulate the Citadelles de Rouyn‑Noranda on making it to the finals of the Quebec International Pee-Wee Hockey Tournament. It was a remarkable achievement. Indeed, my nephew Renaud was among those who participated in the tournament. I want to tell everyone that I am very proud. It was a heartbreaking overtime loss, just like Team Canada. Still, it is an experience that makes us proud and that will inspire the youth of Rouyn‑Noranda. As for Build Canada Homes, there is something that still baffles me. It is the federal government's stubborn determination to build only in already populated areas where housing already exists. These programs are not going out to the regions.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to say something in connection with Build Canada Homes. The program's implementation was somewhat chaotic. The government wanted to simply sweep away what was there, but in my home region of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, that could have had serious consequences. A women's shelter with confirmed funding was put on hold for months. The very survival of this project was hanging in the balance. What is more, when it was approved, we had to fight for it, I had to call on my colleagues, and we had to push for it. There were so many contradictory responses from the minister 's office and various other sources. Is all this confusion normal, considering women's safety could be jeopardized while we try to secure political will for Build Canada Homes? I have a lot of questions. Where are we headed with this?”
“Mr. Speaker, 85,000 pensioners are having problems with their OAS pension because of the Cúram software, which has chalked up $5 billion in cost overruns to date. What are the people responsible doing? They are paying themselves bonuses. In 2024‑25, senior officials at Employment and Social Development Canada received bonuses amounting to more than $15 million. When 85,000 pensioners are having problems because of the federal government and when taxpayers are on the hook for more than $5 billion in cost overruns, why in the world should the people responsible be rewarded for their “good” work?”
“How much more will they spend to cover the different stakeholders' travel and accommodation expenses? This bill is another example of Ottawa spending money so that it can interfere in provincial jurisdictions. In closing, I nevertheless wish to underscore the importance of this evening's discussion.”
“Even if Bill S‑211 was truly intended to address public health issues, changes would have to be made to restrict the provinces from issuing private contractor licences, for example. That could reduce competition from online sports betting sites, which are all fighting for a vulnerable clientele. Where are the amendments to the excise tax, for example? Where are the funds earmarked for health and social services to help Quebec and the other provinces offer better services to those affected? No, all that this bill proposes to do is introduce a national framework. We know how much it costs to manage a national framework program. Take the child care system, for example: It cost $50 million just to send a cheque to Quebec. How much will taxpayers spend on drafting a Canada-wide strategy?”
“The Montreal Canadiens decided to rebuild around young players: Caufield, Suzuki, Hutson, Demidov. Each team chose a model that suits them. Each team will try to win the Stanley Cup. A team using any of the three models could make the playoffs and try to win the Stanley Cup, except perhaps the Maple Leafs. I am still a realist, after all. Because they each have their own way of doing things, Montreal and Edmonton could make it to the Stanley Cup final and achieve the same result. At this point, it is all a matter of chance. Some of them may have other goals for the time being because they have not reached the same place yet. That is what Quebec is asking for: Let us manage our affairs as we see fit in order to achieve the goals we want to achieve.”
“Not all problems can be approached in the same way in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and, I would even say, at the local level. The approaches have to be different. That is why we are talking about decentralization. That is why remote regions are asking for the tools they need to develop economically. A one-size-fits-all approach never works. Since we are talking about sports betting, I will use sports examples to illustrate my point. Each Canadian team in the NHL has opted for a different development model. The Maple Leafs have chosen to overpay their four best players. The Oilers have decided to invest a little bit everywhere, except in a goalie. The Jets invested heavily in a goalie, but less elsewhere. The Canucks and Flames decided to rebuild.”