Mario Simard
Jonquière, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has a bad habit of saying one thing and doing another. For example, in his campaign platform, the phrase “climate change” appeared 28 times, while the word “pipeline” did not appear even once, yet it is his pipeline that takes priority.”
“There is something glaringly obvious when we look at this bill and past legislation in the context of Canadian federalism. I do not need to talk about predatory federalism, which we have often seen and involves an encroachment on areas of jurisdiction, but there is something glaringly obvious in the fact that the federal government has re…”
“It provides a direct transfer to the provinces, as we have been calling for, rather than, as is often the case with the federal government, a proliferation of top-down structures and criteria imposed by Ottawa, without Ottawa necessarily being familiar with the specific challenges faced by the provinces and municipalities.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mirabel , the one they call “the MP with the golden voice”, just like little Joselito, and whom the people of Alto call “le député du petit train de l'amour”. It is a pleasure to speak today to express the Bloc Québécois's support for Bill C-26 .”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a new one. I did not see that coming. Equalization payments must be calculated on a per capita basis, and there are more people in Quebec than in Manitoba.”
“Virtually all of the public services governments are required to provide are delivered by the provinces and Quebec, yet the federal government's tax base allows it to collect 60% of the total tax revenue.”
The complete record
Every one of 523 lines we hold for Mario Simard, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 11.
“I was talking about the government's objective and the situation we are in, which leads me to a very basic question: In what way does this bill support Quebec's economy? In what way does it address the crisis that Quebec is facing right now, namely, the tariffs that are being imposed mainly on the aluminum industry? Frankly, it does not address that at all. In my opinion, we have to differentiate the bill's objective from the situation we are in. The situation is the tariff crisis. The government's answer gives it a way of reducing the regulatory obstacles it is facing, especially for oil and gas projects. Even if the Liberals do not want to say so, this bill will, above all, facilitate new oil and gas projects. Let me give you an example that occurred this week and that I found just appalling.”
“In my opinion, that amendment was not accepted because the government quickly forgets that there is more than one nation in Canada. There are the indigenous nations and the Quebec nation. Since the government is quick to forget, I wonder in which nation's interest these projects will be carried out. They will certainly not be projects that are in Quebec's interests, since the amendments that would have required the government to get Quebec's approval were rejected, as were the amendments that would have required approval by indigenous nations. Clearly, the bill in its current form is aimed at defending the interests of the Canadian nation. I am not trying to be flippant, but these interests often coincide with the interests of the oil and gas industry. We will come back to that later.”
“That is pretty ironic considering that, during the election campaign, I heard Pierre Poilievre say that, if a Liberal government were elected, inflation would be so high that people would be forced to hunt for food. I am teasing, but I will stop there because I do not want to be too hard on Mr. Poilievre, who is probably watching at home. The government's intention is to provide a legislative response to the tariff crisis. Bill C‑5 does anything but respond to the tariff crisis. First of all, I would like to consider the definition of a project of national interest. My colleague from Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères , who did excellent work on Bill C‑5, tried to introduce an amendment that would have allowed us to define what constitutes a project of national interest.”
“Mr. Speaker, let me start off by staying that history is repeating itself. Once again, we have before us a legislative measure in the grand tradition of predatory federalism, which has no use for Quebec and the provinces and considers the Quebec nation and the provinces to be mere branch-plant economies. What is the purpose and intent of this bill? During the election campaign, the Prime Minister told us that he was going to propose robust legislation to resolve the tariff crisis. The idea behind this measure is to build Canada. I am not surprised that he used the idea of building Canada, because the former leader of the official opposition spent three years telling us that Canada was broken. What does surprise me is that my Conservative colleagues decided to support the government and its gag order.”
“Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the week, I have been trying to understand how Bill C-5 is going to help aluminum processors and primary aluminum producers. I have not found the answer. Perhaps my colleague can help us with that. Bill C‑5 was supposed to respond to the tariff war. How does Bill C‑5 support primary aluminum producers and aluminum processors?”
“Mr. Speaker, first it was the CSN, then first nations and then even a few Liberals, and now environmental groups are also speaking out against Bill C‑5 . Equiterre, Climate Action Network and Ecojustice: the list goes on. According to Greenpeace: Bill C‑5 would...sidestep long-standing environmental protections, silence communities, and violate Indigenous rights in order to ram projects through to the benefit of multi-billion dollar corporations. Everyone is telling the Liberals the same thing. We need to study Bill C‑5 as we normally would, not force it through on a time allocation. Will they listen?”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague. Maybe he was not here in the last Parliament, but the government's management of immigration was mediocre. The influx of migrants into Quebec placed tremendous pressure on our health care system and social services, but Quebec was not paid back in full. Would my colleague not agree that this is a gross injustice?”
“Mr. Speaker, under the Trudeau government, there was indeed some abuse in terms of migration, and Quebec paid the heaviest price. Most of the temporary migrants who were entering the country and putting pressure on the system came to Quebec. The federal government owes Quebec a considerable debt, but we are never going to get that money back. There is a general consensus on the bill before us. We had these debates in the previous Parliament. Why are my Conservative colleagues being so stubborn about keeping this bill from being passed?”
“Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I that the Liberals were very bad when it came to immigration. The massive arrivals of temporary migrants in Quebec put considerable pressure on public services. There was the non-repayment of fees relating to those temporary migrants and the Roxham Road psychodrama. However, we are now considering a measure for which there is consensus. We discussed the bill during the previous Parliament and everyone seemed prepared to get on with it. I would like to reach out to my colleague from Winnipeg North. I would like him to tell me why the Conservatives seem to have such major reservations about a bill for which there is, after all, broad consensus.”
“Madam Speaker, since it is rare that I agree with my colleague, I wanted to rise to speak. This resonates with me. Like him, I have an electric vehicle. I live in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, in northern Quebec. I can confirm that the winters are cold in northern Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. However, I am still able to get here with an electric vehicle. We have heard members try to demonize and vilify electric vehicles by saying that they do not work in winter and that there are no charging stations. However, the majority of people who own electric vehicles do 95% of their charging at home. They use their own charging stations. The network can be developed at home. Here is what I want to ask my colleague. Does he agree with me that, ultimately, our Conservative colleagues' main argument is that we must protect the oil and gas sector's privileges?”
“Mr. Speaker, I find it rather surprising that my colleague is saying that a policy that encourages people to buy electric vehicles would have a disproportionate effect on Canadians. He spent his time demonizing electric vehicles. I live 660 kilometres from Ottawa, and I drive here in an electric car. I have to wait 15 to 20 minutes to recharge my vehicle, so it is one of the best alternatives. The only disproportionate effect that I see is the disproportionate effect that the oil and gas industry is having on the environment, the disproportionate effect that internal combustion vehicles are having on the environment. Those things do have a disproportionate effect. I do not understand my colleague's reasoning.”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebec has already passed legislation on zero-emission vehicles. We did not wait for the federal government. When it comes to the energy transition, Quebec very rarely waits for the federal government. What I find offensive, however, is the billions of Quebec dollars being funnelled to the oil and gas industry. We paid $34 billion for a pipeline. Between 2024 and 2030—”
“Mr. Speaker, the answer is probably simple enough. It is because they offered incentives. It is because they built a network to serve EV owners. The Conservatives' proposals do not align with that vision. What they want to do is not develop the EV sector. The last thing I heard the Conservatives say is that they want to maintain the plastic industry. They said that during the election campaign. They want to keep using plastic straws, and they want to get more gas-powered vehicles on the road. In my opinion, that is no way to deal with the climate crisis we are grappling with today.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will not address Mr. Zappa's comments, which were grossly exaggerated. Once, when I had a gas-powered car, I spilled gas on my shoes. I did not go around saying that my car smelled of gas for four or five weeks. His remarks were exaggerated and do not represent the reality of electric vehicles. That being said, what really annoys me is to see elected members of Quebec's National Assembly stand up on an opposition day to defend an industry that does not benefit Quebec at all. The electrification of transportation would allow Quebec to successfully develop electrification. What the Conservatives want is to make life more difficult for Quebeckers.”
“Mr. Speaker, a Quebecker who decides to plug their car into Hydro-Québec's electrical grid takes the money they would have given in the past to the large oil companies and their shareholders outside the country and gives it directly to Quebeckers. This money can then be reinvested in our health care and education systems. I do not see why we would not take advantage of the exceptional opportunity we have of using an effective and inexpensive electrical grid. Why would we offer the money we invest in mobility to Alberta to contribute to a—”
“Ultimately, the Conservative Party's rhetoric is similar to the Bloc Québécois's rhetoric: if it is good for Quebec, if it does not harm Quebec, we support it. In their case, if it is good for the oil and gas industry, if it does not harm the oil and gas sector, they support it. Otherwise, they oppose it. This motion is just one example of that.”
“I see this motion as an extension of what we have seen in the past. Former Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre is a master at coming up with populist ideas that make no sense. Today the Conservatives are attacking electric vehicles. They are using the slogan of Quebec's Conservative Party: “My car, my choice”. It seems to be a matter of identity for the Conservatives. I understand that we can have polarizing debates. Some people are pro-life, others are pro-choice. They are pro-gas, so they disagree with those who are pro-electricity. I do not understand how a serious party can introduce a motion like this. However, what is most important is that today the Conservatives are trying to defend the oil and gas industry. They are on-side with the government on Bill C‑5 to defend the oil and gas industry tooth and nail.”
“The electrification of transportation will reduce the consumption of fuel, along with our GHG emissions. If anyone does not believe that, they do not believe in climate change. Even worse, it is an essential economic driver in Quebec. I myself have an electric vehicle. Some people would have us believe that electric vehicles are nothing but trouble. That is nonsense. I live in the Saguenay, precisely 665 kilometres from Parliament. I can get here with my car. I have to stop for 20 minutes to charge it at a rapid charging station, then I can continue on my way. Typically, stopping for 20 minutes during a six-and-a-half-hour drive is not a luxury, so there is no reason, with today's new technologies, not to drive a electric vehicle. What the Conservatives want, however, is to keep people dependent on oil and gas.”
“Mr. Speaker, my apologies to the interpreters. I was saying that, with today's motion, what the Conservatives are proposing is to hold Quebec back from its transition to a low-carbon economy and have our investments go to waste. It is simple: The Manichaean view would be that the Conservatives want us in an oil and gas stranglehold. We saw that in the previous Parliament, and they are doing it again. The Conservatives constantly defend oil and gas tooth and nail. Quebec should remain dependent on oil and gas instead of developing its own clean electricity infrastructures. That would make absolutely no sense. That is what I do not understand. Why should we electrify transportation? Oil sands development is the industry with the highest greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Transportation is another major emitter.”
“(1105) To illustrate the pertinence of my arguments, the two main projects that are likely to develop and create an economic boom in my region of Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean are related to the battery sector. I am talking about the phosphate industry, with First Phosphate and Arianne Phosphate. Those are two major projects. Unfortunately, we never hear the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord talk about that. During the election campaign, he preferred to talk about GNL Québec, a project that was rejected by the Government of Quebec and that had no future for us. We never heard him say that it was possible to develop a phosphate sector. We have to put all our eggs in—”
“It is thanks to Quebec's clean electricity that we can produce aluminum and that the Americans depend on us and our aluminum smelters. Quebec has all these significant advantages that are steering us toward a major transformation and the electrification of transportation, yet my Conservative colleagues from Quebec prefer to side with Alberta. In many areas, the battery industry that is crucial to electric vehicles in Quebec is booming. Unlike what they are doing out west, Quebec does not invest in carbon capture or storage strategies. Quebec's investments are in this battery industry. The Quebec minister has repeatedly said that his government is in talks with about a hundred companies to develop such projects.”
“For the past 30 years, there has been an energy transition. I will come back to the issue of setting up a battery industry. Hydro-Québec has developed a unique expertise that could help us become North America's battery producers. What else could be said about Quebec? Quebec sits atop vast reserves of critical minerals. It has clean electricity that is accessible to everyone at a very low cost. No one pays as competitive a price for electricity as we do in Quebec. It is a favourable geographic location that could allow us to become part of the battery industry. It is a vibrant industrial ecosystem with a low carbon footprint. Consider the forestry sector. The forest is a carbon sink that allows us to sequester carbon when we use wood. Consider Quebec aluminum, which is tied to the hydroelectric sector.”
“Let us recall the psychodrama that we experienced in the last Parliament when the Conservatives were shouting about how we were the "Liberal Bloc" and about how we were supporting the infamous carbon tax, a tax that did not apply to Quebec. Now, lo and behold, the Conservatives have seen the light and have understood that this much-talked-about carbon tax did not apply to Quebec. Let us get back to the issue of electric vehicles. I think the key question here is, who has the most to gain from the electrification of transportation and who has the most to lose? The Conservative motion picks a side. It sides with Alberta and the oil and gas sector. The people who have something to lose in the electrification of transportation are in Alberta, the oil and gas sector. The people who have something to gain are in Quebec. What about Quebec?”
“Not only is the party out of touch, but the Conservative members from Quebec do not have the influence they need within their caucus to make progress on the issues facing the Quebec nation. We saw that this week. As members know, we had an opposition day on the $800 million that was stolen from Quebeckers and reimbursed to the rest of Canadians for carbon tax payments they never made. What was my Conservative Party colleagues' reaction? They proposed an amendment to the effect that the $800 million could be repaid, if Quebec agreed to end its carbon exchange. The Conservative Party wanted to tell the Government of Quebec how to take action on carbon pricing.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Repentigny . To put it mildly, the honeymoon between the Conservatives and the Liberals was short-lived. The new couple, united by Bill C-5 , is breaking up this morning over electric vehicles. It seems the Liberals may not be willing to buy into all kinds of nonsense when it comes to the energy transition and carbon pricing. Perhaps they are not prepared to go as far as the Conservatives. I have participated in many Conservative opposition days, particularly with regard to the carbon tax. What are they repeating today with this motion? What are they repeating in this new Parliament? One thing is very clear to me: Today’s motion, once again, shows that the Conservative Party is completely out of touch with Quebec's reality.”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I get the impression that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons dreams of the same Canada as Pierre Poilievre. If the past is any indication, it is all fine and good to say that regulations are what slows projects down, but the truth is that no proponent wants to pay for oil and gas infrastructure. The last oil sector project was the Trans Mountain expansion. The government got taken for $34 billion. I would like to hear the government House leader tell us whether public money will be invested in oil or gas infrastructure.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I must admit, my favourite part was about the meatballs. It went downhill from there. It is quite simple. I would just like to help my colleague understand that Quebec's interests differ from the interests of the oil and gas companies in Alberta. In the past, we saw that Canada was quick to invest in infrastructure related to the pipelines and the natural gas sector. I can assure my colleague that the government has never wanted to support the forestry sector. What this bill will do, at the end of the day, is facilitate the construction of oil and gas infrastructure to the detriment of Quebec's economy. I wonder if my colleague realizes that.”
“Madam Speaker, I am always impressed by the member for Winnipeg North 's ability to warp reality. He is so darn good at it. Earlier, he was talking about what people heard while they were going door to door. I can assure him that, at the doors I knocked on, people were outraged about the government paying $34 billion to expand a pipeline. If anyone were to talk to Quebeckers today and tell them about plans to implement a bill that will help accelerate oil and gas infrastructure, not one of them would be okay with that. I would actually encourage his colleagues from Quebec to tell him what they heard, because I am absolutely sure that message would be very different from the one he heard in his riding.”
“Mr. Speaker, one thing is for sure: The Liberals' national interest is not in the interest of the planet or future generations. In less than three weeks, they have gone from transport electrification to “Drill, baby, drill”. The Prime Minister has gone from Canada standing strong against Donald Trump to sidelining Quebec and forcing pipelines on it without debate, serious study or expert witnesses explaining the implications of Bill C‑5 . The Prime Minister obviously has no respect for the work of elected officials. He has clearly proven that with his gag order. When will he finally understand that this is a democracy?”
“Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-5 , the government is not only muzzling the House, it is also muzzling all forms of opposition outside the House in the name of the so-called national interest. It is silencing all those who think that our clean drinking water could be threatened by dirty oil pipelines crossing our lakes and rivers, including the St. Lawrence. It is silencing all those who are concerned about our farmland and forests. It is silencing the people, the Quebec National Assembly and the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement. Why is it that, for the federal government, building Canada always means weakening Quebec?”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague from Lakeland, who has been a fellow member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources for some time. We are like an old married couple. She talked about the Liberals' mismanagement of oil and gas projects. It reminded me of the last Parliament, when my Conservative friends used to talk openly about the costly Liberal-NDP coalition and the “Liberal Bloc”. I wonder if the Conservatives are going to support a time allocation motion, a gag order. If they do, we will end up with a new coalition, a new cross-party alliance. What should we call this coalition?”
“Mr. Chair, in the last Parliament, we talked a lot about a Canadian strategy for the production of green hydrogen, broadly based on carbon capture and storage technologies. However, Siemens Energy experts candidly admitted to us that it was too technologically risky to go in that direction. Does the minister believe that green hydrogen from gas still has potential?”
“Mr. Chair, I agree with the minister that we need to look forward. For me, though, as I look forward, what I see is climate change. Looking forward, I see the government being complacent toward the industry, which raked in record profits in 2022. In 2022, big oil made record profits of $200 billion. However, from 2024 to 2035, Canada plans to give them $82 billion in tax benefits. Can the minister tell me if there is another natural resource sector in Canada that is benefiting from such largesse?”
“Mr. Chair, I am prepared to support the economies of all the provinces. Our goal is not to make anyone poorer, but we need to keep in mind that the government bought a pipeline for $34 billion. If we look at previous budget years, there are $82 billion in projected tax breaks for 2024-35. Does the minister not think that is a bit much for a single industry?”
“Mr. Chair, I have a hard time grasping the logic of ending carbon pricing while asking sectors like the natural gas industry to reduce their carbon footprint. If a given industry's carbon footprint is reduced, then we can be sure it has to do with carbon pricing. Is there not a disconnect there?”
“Mr. Chair, Rich Kruger, the CEO of Suncor, came before the committee to say that, in his opinion, his company was putting too much emphasis on the energy transition. I do not think that was a clear indication by people in the oil and gas industry that they want to champion carbon capture and storage strategies. To the minister's knowledge, are any oil and gas companies interested in those technologies in the absence of public funding?”
“Mr. Chair, I think the government clearly announced its intent to invest in carbon capture and storage. In the past, as part of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, I had many discussions with oil and gas executives. They told us that, without public investment, those projects were not profitable. I have a very simple question for the minister. Does he believe that low-carbon oil is profitable from a business perspective? He is familiar with projects in the financial and business sector. Does he believe that low-carbon oil is profitable?”
“Mr. Chair, we want to send a strong signal to the oil and gas sector. I find it hard to understand why no proponent wanted to get involved in the Trans Mountain expansion. It took a $34-billion investment. I do not see why, today, someone would be prepared to invest in “pipeline” infrastructure. Perhaps the minister can explain that to me. We know that demand for oil will drop in the coming years. It is unavoidable. Worse still, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that, for a project like Trans Mountain to turn a profit, it will have to be used at its full potential for 40 years. How can an oil infrastructure project be profitable today? I would like the minister to explain that to us.”
“Mr. Chair, the Liberal government paid $34 billion to expand an existing pipeline because there were no proponents. Now they are telling us that they want to build new oil and gas infrastructure. Does the minister know if there are any developers for this new oil and gas infrastructure?”
“Mr. Chair, the “build Canada homes” program has been mentioned a number of times. What we are asking the government to do is include the carbon footprint in the tendering process to prioritize wood as a material, since it has a lower carbon footprint. Is this a solution that the minister is prepared to consider as part of the “build Canada homes” program?”
“Mr. Chair, there was a whole imbroglio involving the woodland caribou issue. The Liberal government threatened to shut down entire villages back home in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. Does the minister agree with me that the woodland caribou issue falls specifically under provincial jurisdiction and not Ottawa's?”
“Mr. Chair, I have been here since 2019. We have been hearing for many years about a grand program to plant two billion trees. I have yet to see those two billion trees. It seems to me that there were discussions between Quebec City and Ottawa about using the two billion tree program to carry out silviculture in Quebec. Is this a solution that the minister would be willing to consider?”
“Mr. Chair, there is appalling inequity. People in the forestry sector are so afraid of the Americans that a forestry company whose main market is Quebec or Canada cannot access funding from Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, or CED. My question for the minister is very simple. Does he think that is normal? Does he think it is normal that an industry cannot receive CED funding?”
“Mr. Chair, there has been a crisis in the forestry sector since 2017. We have never seen the government undertake serious negotiations. The U.S. government is threatening to increase countervailing duties to 34% next year. The only natural resource sector with the potential to reduce Canada's carbon footprint is the forestry sector. I have the following question for the minister: Would he agree to implement a liquidity program to support the forestry sector?”
“Mr. Chair, I do not doubt the minister's capabilities and qualifications. Currently, $2 billion in countervailing duties paid by Quebec is sitting in the United States. That is beyond compare. This industry is not getting any support from the federal government. For Quebec alone, $2 billion is sitting in the United States. Does the minister have a strategy to provide people in the forestry sector with access to liquidity?”
“Mr. Chair, I wonder whether the minister knows how much in countervailing duties from the forestry industry is currently sitting on deposit in the United States. Does the minister know how much money is currently in the United States?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is one question that they have been trying to avoid since the day began. Perhaps my colleague can help me answer it. Someone who does not pay taxes does not get a tax refund. I want to know by what magic trick do Canadians who did not pay the carbon tax get a carbon tax rebate. I would like him to explain the magic formula that makes this possible.”
“Mr. Speaker, the answer is right there in the question. It was indeed a vote-buying handout. I can hardly believe it. During question period, the Prime Minister even said he was proud to have put an end to the carbon tax. He said that the Government of Quebec had its own carbon tax. The Prime Minister himself does not understand the differences between the carbon pricing mechanisms in Canada. Quebec does not have a carbon tax; it has a carbon exchange. I cannot believe it.”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebec has its own carbon pricing system. It is completely illogical for my Liberal colleagues to say that the Canadians who participated in the federal carbon pricing system are entitled to a rebate for a tax that they did not pay. That is like saying there is no need to pay taxes to receive a tax refund. It is totally illogical. The Liberals' only justification for this is to say that Quebec had its own pricing system. That is inconsistent and illogical. It really surprises me to see members from Quebec rise to defend an inconsistency that I consider to be stupid and that is at their constituents' expense. Just for fun, we calculated earlier what $800 million represents. That comes out to roughly $10 million per Quebec riding, stolen from each member from Quebec. The Liberals are pleased. That is what I call lackeyism.”
“Mr. Speaker, when we defend the interests of our regions and our nation, we are told that we are sowing division. I find that rather surprising. I do not know whether the member for Winnipeg North was listening to me, but I listed all the appalling injustices that the federal government has imposed on Quebec, and today he tells me that I am sowing division. According to the vision of the member for Winnipeg North, a good member is someone who puts Canada first, stays quiet, sits here and promotes the interests of all Canadians at the expense of Quebeckers. That is what I understood him to say, and that is the problem I have with his colleagues from Quebec.”