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 2 of 11.
“I must admit that this is a sign of respect for a francophone. I will explain to him why I prefer to speak to a minister in French. The reason is that, often, when someone is not speaking in their mother tongue, there are small nuances that they do not properly grasp. I will give him an example that he is very familiar with. We were chatting after I found out that he was likely going to be appointed ambassador. I asked him how his wife was taking the news, whether she would be going with him and whether she would be giving up her job. He told me that, yes, she would be going with him because she loves having new adventures. “Having new adventures” has a bit of a different meaning in French. That is why I always speak in my mother tongue. My father had two life mottos.”
“The problem was that people at Siemens thought I was part of the government, so they felt free to speak frankly to the member for North Vancouver—Capilano about what they thought of a hydrogen strategy involving carbon capture and storage. At that moment, even though it was not the answer they were expecting, the member did not lose his composure. It was a demonstration of true non-partisanship and a certain degree of trust. I sincerely thank him for that. Earlier, in his speech, he talked about how grateful he is that he learned French. He managed to do that during his time in office. I think that is very much to his credit, and I want to share a brief story. On one occasion, the member for North Vancouver—Capilano asked his assistant why I was talking to him in English when I always spoke to the member in French.”
“The two billion trees program did not go as smoothly, but he always defended it adroitly. I believe he can be proud of everything he has done in defence of the environment. He has been a resource for many people in various groups. Even when attempts were made to undermine his credibility, it was quite difficult to do so, which suggests that the member for North Vancouver—Capilano had a strong reputation among environmental groups. I have often wondered, when people talk about zero-emission vehicles, whether anyone actually owns a hydrogen-powered vehicle. The member for North Vancouver—Capilano is the only person I know in Canada who does. I would also like to thank him for a trip we took to Berlin, where we were able to meet with representatives from Siemens.”
“I got to know the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie in the private sector. That happens to us all. I especially want to highlight the fact that he has been a non-partisan parliamentarian. Debates in the House of Commons can often be heated. With the exception of his responses regarding the carbon tax, my friend, the member for North Vancouver—Capilano, generally responded candidly to the questions put to him. I also observed that non-partisanship in the work we did with him. It is thanks to him that we were able to add phosphate to the list of critical minerals. That was essential for my region. There was also the program to build greener homes, which faced some challenges. He was always very helpful and always open to assisting colleagues, even those on the opposition side.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is such a pleasure today to be able to speak about the remarkable career of the member for North Vancouver—Capilano . I was surprised today when I looked up information about my colleague to try to find things I did not know about him. We share a similar background in political science and philosophy. Maybe that is why we get along so well. As members know, my colleague was the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. That is how we got to know each other. What I did not know was that, in the 1990s, he was part of Roy Romanow's team as a constitutional negotiator and an expert in federal-provincial relations. For a Quebecker, knowing Roy Romanow is not a good thing. However, let us not hold it against anyone.”
“Among these solutions is a buyback program that has been supported by everyone in the forestry sector, yet the government continues to turn a deaf ear. I would like to know how my colleague can explain this lack of responsiveness on the part of the government and the lack of action we are seeing in the forestry sector.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed to see the member for Winnipeg North rewriting history in every one of his speeches. Earlier, he referred to the fact that the Prime Minister was unable to resolve the tariff crisis during his first few months in office, yet that is exactly what the Prime Minister had promised during the election campaign: With his background, he would be able to resolve this tariff crisis. It is easy to say, in retrospect, that it was impossible, but it was still an election promise that was very important to him at the time. However, I will set that aside. I will simply point out to the parliamentary secretary that the situation in the forestry sector is currently untenable. Solutions exist. The province most affected by the tariff dispute is Quebec, with its aluminum and forestry sectors.”
“Mr. Speaker, part of the reason for the economic slowdown is the tariff war we are engaged in with the United States. It is all well and good to criticize the government, but we also have to make proposals from time to time. One sector that has undoubtedly been hit harder than the others is the softwood lumber sector. A solution has been circulating for some time now. It was developed in collaboration with forestry companies and the major unions. The program involves buying back some of the anti-dumping countervailing duties. I am sure my Conservative colleagues are familiar with the proposal. Do they agree that the Canadian economy and the forestry sector should be given a boost by implementing a program to buy back the anti-dumping countervailing duties?”
“Mr. Speaker, the reality is that 60 Liberal members formed an environmental caucus. Now that the new pipeline has been announced and the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie has resigned, they are nowhere to be found. One of the caucus co-chairs even said that the mandate of the environmental caucus is not to promote environmental issues. We could not make this stuff up. Just think: Their aim is not to promote environmental causes, but simply to bring members together for some good conversations. Wow. This reminds me of the old hot stove league. Is that why they are defending policies—”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Liberal member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie announced that he is leaving politics. He is leaving politics because he had little to no influence on the Prime Minister 's pro-oil decisions. He pointed out that, during the last election, the Liberal platform mentioned “climate change” 28 times but did not mention “pipeline” once. Voters were outrageously deceived. As the member himself said, “I can tell you that I'm not the only one who's uncomfortable with what's happening”. I wonder, where are the others and why are they hiding?”
“Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to reduce the debt and support people as they cope with inflation, all he has to do is stop funding the state-sponsored cronyism in the oil and gas sector that he defends tooth and nail. The motion before us today is an insult to francophones, who form a cultural minority. If they wish to preserve their cultural expressions, they need funding. What the Leader of the Opposition is telling us is that, from a trade point of view, we are a nuisance. He should be ashamed for saying that.”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebec's greatest treasure is its culture. It is the thing that has kept us afloat in a sea of anglophones. It is expressed in our music and in our films. It represents our collective imagination. Faced with the American steamroller, we need support to maintain this culture. We are a francophone drop in an anglophone ocean, and it is insulting to hear the Conservatives refer to us a trade irritant. I did not hear Quebec's Conservative MPs say much about this motion this morning, and I can guarantee that the leader of the official opposition is going to speak to it later. Few francophone members are going to stand with him on this; it would be a disgrace for any francophone MP to support this motion.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous. I do not know if the Conservatives realize that their motion is an insult to Quebeckers and francophones. I hope they have talked to their Quebec colleagues, because this motion is insulting. Essentially, they are saying that we francophones are an international trade irritant. Ask anyone what the difference is between English-speaking Canadian culture and American culture, and they will say that there is no difference. They watch the same movies and listen to the same music. Ask a francophone, and the answer will be very different. That is what the member is saying even though we are the ones bearing the brunt of the U.S. tariffs on aluminum and lumber. On top of that, they have the nerve to tell us that our culture is an irritant. If I were them, I would be ashamed.”
“I get the impression that the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie has reached a point of no return and that today he is going to return to his old convictions. He has realized that the government may have gone too far. In my opinion, the bill proposed by my colleague is a manifestation of the current excesses in the oil and gas sector. I sincerely hope that a large number of members of the House will vote against it.”
“As members know, I have a great deal of respect for the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie . Many people have been critical of the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. He may make an announcement tomorrow. I know that the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie is a well-intentioned person. I know he has decided to do something that is not often done in the environmental movement, namely, to set aside certain convictions in order to be pragmatic. He thought he would try to bring about concrete change. There is something very simple in politics: A person either sticks to their convictions, or they choose to set their convictions aside for a moment to try to advance their ideas in a more responsible way.”
“How is that possible? It is possible because the people at these big oil and gas companies are greedy and are willing to invest in the automation of their processes to cut jobs and production costs. However, they are not willing to invest in infrastructure. Today, we are being presented with a motion that asks us to scrap environmental regulations. Who stands to gain from this? It is certainly not the public. This is to make life easier for the oil and gas giants. In return, they come asking us to pay for their infrastructure. It is absolutely outrageous. I do not understand how we got here. Even though we are in a crisis, I do not understand how people who are supposed to be rational, whether they are Liberals or Conservatives, have reached this point. I would like to conclude by saying the following.”
“I enjoyed hearing the leader of the official opposition straight-out say that corporate welfare exists and that companies want their infrastructure paid for. Those are not my words. Those are the words of the leader of the official opposition. It is up to those companies to pay. However, oil and gas sector officials are saying that, in fact, it should fall on the government to assume the economic risk associated with this infrastructure. It is outrageous. When we look at the numbers from 2021 to 2024, the oil and gas sector raked in $131 billion in profits. Not so long ago, at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, we heard from representatives of the major unions that support the energy sector because they have workers in that sector They told us that we are seeing a dramatic increase in production while there are fewer jobs.”
“Perhaps after that, I would mention water, air and the essentials of life. I would certainly not think about oil. I asked whether this is a situation where anything goes. What we are seeing today is akin to saying that oil is irreplaceable. This would repeal legislation that was put in place to protect the environment in order to promote the oil sector's agenda for the sake of a hypothetical pipeline. That is the question that I asked my colleague earlier. He spoke about the CEO of Enbridge, who described the difficulties involved in building oil and gas infrastructure. However, the Enbridge CEO also said that he personally was not prepared to take on the economic risks of building infrastructure. That is where a reasonable Conservative would draw the line.”
“When I was a boy of 16 or 17, I had a button from my favourite rock band. That rock band represented my identity. It was important to me. Later on, and this still happens in the Bloc Québécois, we wear symbols that are specific to Quebec. We stick Quebec flags on our computers. That is because of our identity. If we were to define what is Quebec's identity, we would speak about culture and language. For some Conservatives, one part of their identity is the oil and gas sector. That is rather surprising in the current context. In fact, it runs quite deep. I remember one of my Conservative colleagues moving a motion stating that oil is irreplaceable. We debated that for an entire day. (1805) If I were asked to think about something that is irreplaceable for me, I would first and foremost think about my wife and son.”
“Who is willing to go the furthest to support the oil and gas sector? That is what is going on. I do not think we would have seen a bill like this a few months ago if the government had not fallen into the trap of the memorandum of understanding with Alberta. I have seen this kind of one-upmanship many times over the past several years. When I arrived here in 2019, what surprised me was hearing my Conservative colleagues shouting day in and day out, “build a pipeline”. Even though hydroelectricity is important to us, I doubt I would ever see a Quebecker in the National Assembly shouting for the construction of power lines. This is not a lifestyle. It is not a political project. Another thing that struck me was seeing my Conservative colleagues wearing buttons that read “I love oil & gas”.”
“We are in a tariff war with the Americans. What are the two economic sectors most affected by this tariff crisis? They are in Quebec. These are the aluminum industry, facing 50% tariffs, and the softwood lumber sector, facing around 45% in combined countervailing duties, anti-dumping duties and tariffs. These are the two sectors most affected by the current tariff dispute with the United States. What has been the government's response to this threat? It has been to say that we need to invest in our energy sector and increase energy exports. That is what the government has chosen. It signed a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Alberta, and now we are faced with a bill like the one my colleague just introduced. There seems to be a sort of one-upmanship going on between the Liberals and the Conservatives.”
“This makes me think of a novel by Dostoevsky called Demons , which came out at the end of the 19th century, where Dostoevsky, in the face of ideological excesses, poses a rather simple question: Is everything permitted? Is everything permitted in the name of an ideology? What strikes me today about this downward spiral we are currently experiencing whenever there is a crisis—be it in response to the tariff crisis, or even when we were going through the COVID-19 pandemic, or a crisis of national unity—is the fact that anything goes. The only solution the Liberal and Conservative parties can come up with to address these issues is to support the gas and oil sector and call for more state intervention to develop oil infrastructure. The truth is that we are living in a completely absurd situation for this to be happening.”
“Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-264 , which simply seeks to repeal the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act. When I look at this, I see an irrational bill that can perhaps only be explained by an ideological mindset we are seeing more and more of, one that amounts to saying that anything goes for the oil industry. I will explain what I mean when I say that “anything goes for the oil industry.” The idea occurred to me earlier when I asked my colleague a question and he replied—and I am going to take the liberty of speaking in English, which I never do here—“I believe in pipelines.” That is quite the statement. I am a fan of Dostoevsky.”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier in his speech, my colleague referred to Enbridge's CEO. There is a quote I like from the Enbridge CEO. He said he was not willing to take the financial risks that come with a pipeline. The CEO of Enbridge believes that, if a pipeline is to be built, it should be paid for with public money. The pipeline project they are talking about and for which the government wants to repeal a law that protects nature is nothing more than a fantasy. I would like my colleague to enlighten me. Does he agree that it is up to all taxpayers to pay for oil and gas infrastructure that will benefit the oil companies? Also, before throwing out regulations like these, should he not ensure that, at the very least, someone is prepared to be the proponent of a project like the pipeline?”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague 100%. What happened every time the government was lenient with the oil and gas industry by saying it would bring prices at the pump down for consumers? The oil and gas industry turned around and boosted its refining margins, essentially pocketing the tax cut. That is just obscene, especially considering that these huge corporations raked in record profits in 2022, 2023 and 2024, profits that were turned into dividends, most of which went to the United States because their shareholders are American. The government is still investing in this sector. I would like my colleague to comment on that. It is utterly indecent.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have seen this in the past. What do oil companies do when the government cuts fuel taxes? They boost their refining margins. We need to put a mechanism in place if we want to have a direct impact on the price of oil. The best mechanism would perhaps be some type of price management system to ensure that the gluttonous oil and gas sectors do not take advantage of the fact that the government is giving the public tax credits or tax cuts to unduly increase their refining margins. It seems like that would be somewhat more productive than what my Conservative colleagues are proposing today. I look forward to hearing my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”