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 3 of 11.
“Now it is wondering why it is so hard to invest in infrastructure and why all the small communities in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and the rest of Quebec that depend on forestry are losing their shirts. It is insane. Sawmills are consolidating. The pulp and paper sector is ailing. Meanwhile, the tariff crisis is going on, but there is no federal government support in any form. Last August, the federal government allocated funding to the forestry sector. Seven or eight months later, no one had yet seen a penny of that money. The program parameters had to be tightened to be able to fund certain forestry companies. I get the impression that the same thing is going to happen in the aluminum sector. Primary aluminum is doing relatively well, because the price is adjusted according to the U.S. Midwest premium.”
“Consequently, not a single primary processor of softwood lumber can receive any kind of support from the federal government. We took a closer look at this, because it seemed so unfair. For medium-sized businesses in the forestry sector, the primary market is Canada. The primary market is domestic; it is within Quebec. Even businesses that do not export anything to the U.S. cannot get any sort of financial support from the federal government. The federal government will soon be tabling a strategy for retooling the forestry sector so that it can get through the crisis and create more added value. That is what we hear, but in the past 20 years, the federal government has never given so much as a dime to the forestry sector.”
“It is because the federal government has always been afraid of standing up for softwood lumber. It is so shocking that even babies are screaming in the House. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mario Simard: I lost my train of thought. I am sorry. I was saying that my region is giving more to the federal government in terms of economic benefits that the sum total of supports it is getting for the forestry sector. Federal investments in the forestry sector go through EDC. The government has never stood up for that sector because primary processors are told that they need to go through Global Affairs Canada. Global Affairs Canada then says that no financial supports can be offered because that would be in violation of trade deals with the U.S. and our trade dispute with the U.S. regarding softwood lumber.”
“If a fraction of that was going to support the forestry sector, we would be over the moon. We would be very happy. However, the federal government has never suggested such a thing. (1335) For carbon capture and sequestration strategies alone, EDC handed out $102 million in 2023 and $464 million in 2022. Obviously, the federal government is focused on the energy sector. Forestry is definitely the part of the natural resources sector that gets the least attention. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean and I actually did a comprehensive study to figure out what the federal supports for the forestry sector amounted to. The economic benefits for the federal government coming from our region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean alone exceed the sum total of federal supports for the forestry sector. That is quite something. Why is that?”
“How can we get this $13 billion back and ensure that it is invested and that the operations and facilities of the forestry sector are maintained? We wondered why Export Development Canada would not play a leading role and make it possible to buy back a portion of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties at the end of each month. The government refused and ignored that. Do members know what I find shocking? The Standing Committee on Natural Resources invited EDC representatives as witnesses, and we spoke with them. Let us look at the double standard I am talking about. In 2022, EDC invested $9.3 billion in the oil and gas sector in tax benefits and incentives. Yes, just in that one sector. It is clear where the federal government's major investments are going. In 2023, the amount was $7.3 billion.”
“That is what the federal government is interested in, as we have seen in recent weeks. It offers well-thought-out, deliberate strategies for the oil and gas sector, and it offers absolutely nothing for the forestry and aluminum sectors, which are facing the highest tariffs. I will quickly talk about forestry, because we submitted a proposal to the government. That was part of the discussions that the Bloc Québécois wanted to have with the government, discussions that did not take place when the economic statement was being prepared. Some people got together to talk about how to solve this problem of countervailing and anti-dumping duties. That is money that is being held at the border, and it has likely exceeded $13 billion to date.”
“As I mentioned on Friday, just for fun, I looked through the economic update to demonstrate this double standard. To figure out the intentions behind a document, we can simply search for keywords. How many times do the words “forest” or “forestry” appear in the government's economic update? I searched for both terms. They show up six times. How about the word “aluminum”? It shows up 12 times. Just for the heck of it and to satisfy the member for Repentigny , I looked up “climate change”; there are five occurrences. If we want to hit a home run, to use the federal government's language, we need to talk about oil and gas. If we look up the word “gas” in the latest economic statement, we see that it appears 45 times. That is the federal government's primary interest. The word “oil” shows up 153 times.”
“The entire forestry industry back home is in upheaval and going through incredibly tough times, and the government is not doing anything to help. I just wanted to mention that as a response to what my colleague said. What I want to highlight today is the double standard. I have been here since 2019. Whenever the auto sector or the energy sector—which the government generally equates with oil and gas—is in trouble, the government is there to help. The economic update includes investments in oil and gas. That is a normal thing for the government. When it comes to the more Quebec-centric sectors, however, the government is nowhere to be found. I am feeling generous, so I will split my time. I was getting a bit agitated, but I am calming down now. As I was saying, there is a double standard, and it is major.”
“Mr. Speaker, what a nice introduction. I will pick up on what my colleague just said. He supports anyone who supports Canada. The major issue with the tariff crisis is that the federal government keeps crowing about building Canada. However, looking at the proposals that the government put forward these past few weeks, it looks more like building Canada while ignoring Quebec. Which two sectors are the most impacted by the U.S. government's tariffs? There is the aluminum sector, which is primarily based in Quebec. Then there is the forestry sector, which is subject to a mix of countervailing and anti-dumping duties on top of 10% tariffs, for a total of 45%. The forestry products we send across the border to the U.S. have their profit margins cut by 45%. No economic sector can withstand that.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague did not indicate in his speech whether he would be supporting the motion. I am curious. Does he agree with what is before the House today? Will he vote for or against the motion?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague ended his speech by saying that he is pleased that Atlantic Canada was heard in the economic update. I can tell him that I am sad that Quebec was not heard. Quebec is grappling with the worst of the tariff crisis. The two sectors with the highest tariffs are softwood lumber and aluminum, and there is absolutely nothing for these sectors in the economic update, even though it was supposed to respond to the crisis we are currently facing. Does my colleague think that is acceptable?”
“Mr. Speaker, we were all astonished, especially since the leader of the Bloc Québécois seems to have told the Prime Minister about the situation. The following day, after the Prime Minister was made aware of the problem, he told us that we would get an answer in the economic update. Then, lo and behold, the economic update arrived with absolutely nothing. On Wednesday, the Prime Minister said that it was on the way and that we would get an answer. Can we take him at his word? The next few days will tell whether the government walks the talk, but this is deeply concerning.”
“I know the Conservatives are in favour of defending the energy sector tooth and nail, but they would not stoop so low as to take money from Canadians and hand it over to the greedy oil and gas sector, which is making record profits and sending them back to the United States. On that point, I congratulate the leader of the official opposition.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and congratulate her on her excellent French, even though she has not been speaking it for very long. Everyone in the Bloc Québécois agrees that she is remarkable. In my view, issues relating to substance abuse and health fall under the Government of Quebec's jurisdiction. I am not trying to avoid her question. I would, however, like to point out that I have rarely agreed with the leader of the official opposition , but I do agree with him on one thing. He has pointed out on numerous occasions that the major oil and gas companies are acting like corporate welfare claimants by asking the federal government for money.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have read the entire document. The whole problem is that the major investments are being made not in Quebec, but in the oil and gas sector. The accelerated capital cost allowance in the economic update applies only to the gas sector. It does not apply to other sectors that are specific to Quebec. There is nothing for our economic sectors. There is only money for the oil and gas sector. The goal of this economic update is to give even more support to Canada's energy sector using taxpayer dollars. This is being done at Quebec's expense, just as Quebec is dealing with one of its worst tariff crises ever thanks to the United States. If my colleague does not find that outrageous, I can draw him a picture.”
“They asked the federal government to take on the risk for the infrastructure while they raked in the profits. I have never seen a model like that. Capitalism is based on people assuming risks with their own money and then reaping the profits. That is not what the oil companies want. For the oil companies, it means having the government assume the risk so they can reap the profits. They produce 12.3 billion dollars' worth of capital flight. The federal government left Quebec out of its economic update. Instead, it is trying to help the big oil and gas companies that send their money to the United States. That is completely outrageous.”
“The question that troubles me is this: Who benefits from the Canadian energy sector? People looking for an answer to that question will find something quite shocking. When looking at the ownership structure of the major oil companies, it becomes clear that 80% of these major oil companies are owned by foreign interests. I repeat, 80% of the ownership structure of the major players in the oil sector belongs to foreign interests. Furthermore, 60% of the ownership structure belongs to American interests. What does this mean? It means that the energy lobby, which aims to boost the Canadian economy, is working to the benefit of American interests. Here is a hair-raising fact. From 2021 to 2024, these people made $131 billion in profits. Did they invest in their infrastructure? No.”
“The former environment minister has stated on numerous occasions that more money has been invested in promoting carbon capture and storage than in certain carbon capture and storage projects themselves. It is a bottomless pit, and it is completely illogical to try to produce clean oil, but notwithstanding that, we know that Export Development Canada, or EDC, put $102 million into the carbon capture and storage sector in 2023. In 2022, $464 million was poured into this sector, which in no way serves the interests of Quebeckers. I will come back to EDC. When we look at the overall support for the gas and oil sector, we see that it is completely outrageous. The federal government is trying to respond to a tariff crisis by supporting the Canadian energy sector.”
“We had this discussion at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. We heard from Hydro-Québec. Sometimes I like to be a bit mischievous. I asked Hydro‑Québec, which has built two major lines allowing Quebec to export energy to the United States, one to New York and the other to Massachusetts, how much financial support it had received from the federal government to do so. The answer was zero. The federal government did not offer Hydro-Québec a single penny in financial support to develop this energy export infrastructure. We are talking about clean energy, about hydroelectricity. It is a different story when it comes to the oil and gas sector. What does the economic update contain? It includes an increase in the carbon capture and storage tax credit. That information is not coming from me.”
“(1235) The government would not necessarily have to pay out this money, since the anti-dumping duties that are currently being held in the United States will eventually be recovered. The government could therefore recoup its costs. We proposed this solution, but the government never wanted to talk to the Bloc Québécois to try to implement it. The same goes for aluminum. If the economic update is about building Canada while ignoring Quebec, what does this economic update actually contain? In my view, the government's primary intention is to build infrastructure to export energy. The fact that the word “gas” appears 43 times and the word “oil” appears 153 times clearly reflects the government's intention to build oil and gas infrastructure in order to export more oil and gas.”
“I will return to the many repeated proposals we have made. I can talk about that right now. Time and again, we have proposed solutions to the government for addressing the tariff crisis surrounding softwood lumber. The government has always turned a deaf ear to them. What we see in the economic update when the word “forest” appears is a rehashing of what was announced back in August and subsequently expanded. Nothing is new under the sun. We are still in the same position with a liquidity program ill-suited to the needs of people in the industry. We have made concrete proposals to the government with people involved in the forestry sector. We proposed that the government buy back a portion of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties at the end of each month.”
“policies, is the forestry sector. It is subject to 45% tariffs. This figure is the sum of a 10% tariff, countervailing duties, and anti-dumping duties. This means that every time a forestry producer ships $100 worth of products to the United States, $45 is taken from them, stolen. Not many companies can survive with margins cut by 45%. There is another key factor that has emerged in recent weeks. In fact, we were the ones who sounded the alarm for the government, pointing out that, under a new decree, 25% of the total value of aluminum products will now be subject to tariffs, which is destroying Quebec's industrial base. Is this addressed in the economic update? No, at no point does it offer a solution to the problems facing the aluminum and forestry sectors. This makes me think that the goal is to build Canada while ignoring Quebec.”
“We immediately see where the government's priorities lie. Given what is happening right now, the economic update should have responded to the tariff crisis to help the industries in Canada that are currently facing the highest tariffs. Which two industries in Canada are facing the highest tariffs? First, there is the aluminum industry. As we know, primary aluminum producers are managing to get by without too many problems, but this is catastrophic for aluminum processors. The 50% tariffs are catastrophic for them. Many are operating on credit and struggling to stay afloat right now. There will be consolidations unless the government takes action. That is for the aluminum industry, which is mentioned only 12 times in the economic update. The other sector facing the highest tariffs, and the one most severely impacted by U.S.”
“When we want to understand the intent of a government document or proposal, like a budget or an update, there is usually a fairly simple trick. All anyone has to do is search how many times certain words appear in the document. My colleagues will see where I am going with this. Just for fun, I checked to see how many times the word “forest” or “forestry” appears in the economic update. Those words appear six times. Then, I checked to see how many times the word “aluminum” appears in the economic update. We see that word 12 times, which is a bit better. I also checked to see how often the term “climate change” was used, and the answer is five times. When I searched for the word “gas”, I hit the jackpot at 43 times, but the real winner was the word “oil”, which is used 153 times in the economic update. Why am I talking about this?”
“Mr. Speaker, that comes as a surprise to no one. My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé made it very clear that the Bloc Québécois is disappointed in the budget statement, as did my colleague from Mirabel in his response to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue . I think that his answer was very well put and it showed all the shortcomings of the economic update. This week, in response to oral questions, I heard my Liberal colleagues say many times that they want to build Canada. The update document does talk about building Canada. However, I would like to finish the sentence, because I think that, in reality, they are building Canada while ignoring Quebec. That is what the document should have been called, and I will explain why. I have a little tip for my colleagues.”
“Mr. Speaker, in his excellent speech, my colleague pointed out that no negotiations have taken place between the Bloc Québécois and the government to determine what might make this economic statement acceptable to the Bloc Québécois. Some things are quite obvious, such as the fact that the federal government has never reimbursed Quebec for services provided to asylum seekers or for the carbon tax. I would like my colleague to talk about these two glaring inequities by the federal government.”
“Madam Speaker, I cannot believe what I just heard. The Liberals know there are problems with Cúram, because they added $451 million for Cúram and the CRA in the economic update. It is absurd for them to claim that there are no cost overruns when they added $451 million in cost overruns in the update. Meanwhile, they are using their majority in committee to hide information. Yesterday, the minister repeated that Cúram is on budget. Do the Liberals understand that having a majority does not absolve them from being accountable to Quebeckers?”
“Madam Speaker, yesterday, the first thing the Liberals did with their new majority was refuse to release the documents on the Cúram software cost overruns. While costs have risen to nearly $7 billion, the Liberals are using their majority to hide the truth from the opposition and the public. Tens of thousands of seniors are struggling to get their old age pension, but the Liberals refuse to let us address the root of the problem. Is that what we can expect from the next three years of a Liberal majority government?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us be honest, the last thing we need is a squabble caused by the federal government. As I said earlier, workforce training has been under Quebec's jurisdiction for 30 years. Quebec is the one that determines labour market needs and how to meet them. Ottawa's role is strictly to fund those measures. Quebec has both jurisdiction and the expertise. We do not need a government with no jurisdiction to interfere, especially given that the federal government is the undisputed champion of the anglicization of the workplace. When will Quebec receive its fair share of the funds, without any strings attached?”
“Mr. Speaker, in its economic update, the federal government is investing $6 billion to train the construction workforce. The only problem is that workforce training falls under Quebec's jurisdiction. The Liberals say that they want to come to an agreement, but an agreement has already been in place for 30 years now. For 30 years, Ottawa has recognized that Quebec is responsible for determining its own labour market policies and priorities. For 30 years, Quebec has been designing, planning, delivering and evaluating the employment and training services that are right for Quebeckers. In short, will the government transfer Quebec's share to Quebec with no strings attached?”
“The band's creativity would make Salvador Dali blush, and if Mozart were alive, he would call them geniuses. Angine de Poitrine is a sign of Quebec's artistic ingenuity and offers further proof that where culture is concerned, our nation knows how to raise the roof and, who knows, maybe even build a country.”
“Mr. Speaker, are you familiar with Angine de Poitrine, which roughly translates to “chest pain”? I am not referring to the medical condition, but to the duo made up of Saguenay natives Khn and Klek de Poitrine, the hottest music phenomenon on the planet. They are blowing up on social media. Their song Fabienk has become the most viral hit on Spotify worldwide, and they top the charts in 50 different countries, including Canada, the U.S., France, Spain, Australia, and Chile. This is hardly surprising, considering that their music travels more than the Prime Minister . In the Saguenay region, music is by no means a simple matter of “lah, lah, lah”. With Angine de Poitrine, it also includes “dada pythago-cubist mantra-rock”. Even the most eminent music experts are enthralled by all this innovation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with my colleague that we must not play games with the implementation of treaties. Canadian history demonstrates that the federal government has rarely been sensitive to national minorities, whether indigenous or from Quebec. However, there is still a certain degree of consensus. We are prepared to move forward quickly. I would like to know what my colleague thinks needs to be changed in the bill for the Conservative Party to get behind it.”
“However, as an employer with over 350,000 employees, it could overhaul its own private drug insurance plan so that its employees get this coverage. It would be smarter and more realistic for the bill to focus on what the federal government can do rather than promise impossible changes. We support doing the right thing, and we understand the awareness aspect of the bill, but it is important to keep in mind that Quebec is already doing a lot of the things proposed in the bill and that this encroaches on Quebec's jurisdiction over health matters.”
“This means that the person is unable to perform essential functions such as walking, dressing or feeding themselves, or that they can do so but it takes them three times as long as a person without the impairment. Furthermore, this limitation must be present all or substantially all of the time—at least 90% of the time—and be prolonged, meaning it must last more than a year. The bill would also require an analysis of the potential inclusion of treatments essential to sickle cell disease care in public drug insurance plans. Once again, there is a bit of an issue in terms of the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Public drug insurance plans are a provincial matter. As a result, the federal government cannot impose conditions on provincial public insurance plans requiring them to include or not include certain services or drugs.”
“If the federal government wishes to review the criteria in its tax credit to ensure that caregivers of people with a disabling form of sickle cell disease can benefit from a tax credit, we see no reason to oppose that. The bill also provides for the inclusion of sickle cell disease in the eligibility criteria for existing disability benefits. Certain forms of the disease can be associated with severe limitations, so it is entirely appropriate for the federal government to review its programs to ensure that those who should be eligible actually are. Canada offers the disability tax credit as well as the Canada disability benefit. To qualify for the second benefit, a person must first qualify for the first one. To be eligible for the tax credit, a person must have a severe and prolonged impairment.”
“Concerns have been raised about Black women being able to donate blood because their hemoglobin count is naturally lower than Héma-Québec's eligibility criterion. Héma-Québec conducted a study to determine whether taking iron supplements following a blood donation could help replace the iron lost and expand eligibility, which would help optimize the collective blood supply. We view this as more of a scientific issue than a political one. In this matter, we should trust the various experts. Another aspect of the bill calls for an analysis of the introduction of a tax credit for people with sickle cell disease and their caregivers. Both Quebec and Canada offer tax credits for caregivers. The Bloc Québécois supports this proposal.”
“In addition, Quebec already offers sickle cell disease awareness and information tools, including a family handbook that provides parents with a wealth of helpful information about the disease, such as available services, facts about the disease and its complications, information about prevention, medication and treatment, and a list of available resources and websites. The nine-point list in the bill also includes measures to promote and support blood donation by every segment of the population and the creation of a diverse blood supply that allows for safe transfusions. I want to note that Héma-Québec is responsible for blood donations in Quebec, while Canadian Blood Services is responsible for that in the rest of Canada.”
“The bill also provides for measures to support public awareness campaigns on sickle cell disease and blood donation. As everyone is probably aware and as I mentioned earlier, Quebec has repeatedly stated that it wants to retain control over public health policies and any associated public awareness efforts within its jurisdiction. (1400) Quebec already publishes an online public information page on sickle cell anemia and its variants. It summarizes the symptoms, the treatments, the medical follow-up, available support groups and the tests that can be done on people interested in finding out whether they carry the problem gene.”
“Again, I must point out that Quebec already has programs, standards and practice guidelines in place. Next, the bill includes measures to institute universal neonatal screening, postnatal diagnosis when necessary and the provision of results for affected individuals and organizations. Quebec's newborn screening program already screens for various diseases, including sickle cell disease. The program is available to all newborns in Quebec and, as of April 28, all newborns are automatically registered in the program. Screening is now done using a single blood sample taken 24 to 48 hours after birth. This change aims to detect diseases targeted by neonatal screening more quickly and accurately. Here again, we see that this measure in the bill is already in effect in Quebec.”
“I must point out that this is not the federal government's role. Quebec's department of health and social services is already doing it. Quebec already has various guidelines for health care professionals. For example, there is the neonatal blood screening guide, intended for perinatal nurses and midwives. There is also the Quebec neonatal blood screening program, which involves screening newborns' blood for diseases. These are just a few examples of what Quebec is already doing to respond to this disease. The Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec-Université Laval even publishes a newsletter for health care professionals on the Quebec neonatal blood screening program. The bill also provides for the establishment of evidence-based national standards for the diagnosis and treatment of sickle cell disease.”
“We would like to see the bill amended so that it reflects the constitutional reality and the division of powers. Constitutional concerns aside, we recognize that the bill's framework has the merit of drawing attention to a little-known disease. Looking more closely at the bill, we see a proposal for a nine-point national framework that would be developed by the Minister of Health in collaboration with provincial and territorial governments and all relevant stakeholders, such as caregivers, support persons, service providers, representatives of the medical and research communities and organizations. If we look more closely at these nine points, we see that there is a provision that includes measures to address the training, education and diagnostic and treatment tool needs of health care professionals relating to sickle cell disease.”
“For example, Quebec has repeatedly let it be known that it wishes to retain control of public health awareness campaigns in its territory, yet the bill calls for federal awareness campaigns. Furthermore, Quebec has already developed guidelines on this disease for its health professionals. These guidelines have been incorporated into sickle cell disease screening efforts as part of Quebec's neonatal blood testing program. Since Quebec and the provinces have authority over their health systems, it is inappropriate for the federal government to impose guidelines that affect their hospitals, for which it has no constitutional responsibility. We are dismayed that the bill fails to acknowledge Quebec's specific characteristics in the health field.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-201 , an act respecting a national framework on sickle cell disease. This legislation establishes a national framework to support Canadians with sickle cell disease—also known as sickle cell anemia or drepanocytosis—their families and their caregivers. The initiative's primary aim is to raise awareness about this rare chronic disease, which predominantly affects individuals of African or Caribbean descent. The Bloc Québécois acknowledges that sickle cell disease is a serious problem and that people living with it must be supported. However, some aspects of the strategy encroach on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois fully understands the urgency of addressing the issue of sickle cell disease. This is a very noble gesture on the part of my colleague. However, as he probably knows, health care falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. A number of the points raised by the bill are already being addressed by Quebec's health care system. It is true that there is value in raising awareness. However, does my colleague not agree that there are some unnecessary redundancies in certain parts of the bill that are already being addressed by the Quebec ministry of health?”
“Mr. Speaker, on the very day that the Premier of Quebec is visiting Ottawa, the Liberals are announcing that they want nothing less than the right to veto societal choices made by Quebeckers. They are announcing that if the Supreme Court decision comes down against their attacks on secularism and the notwithstanding clause, they are going to take matters into their own hands. Their highly engineered majority is not even official yet, and this is how they are behaving. I wonder what the future will hold. Will they reconsider this total lack of respect for Quebeckers?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am sometimes surprised to hear the Conservatives' complaints about clean fuels, because those who advocate for the industry present these standards to us as beneficial to their sector. Similarly, industry representatives present carbon capture and sequestration, which is incredibly expensive, as beneficial to their sector. I find it strange to hear Conservatives making such a fuss about this today, especially since it is clear that every time fuel taxes are cut, the industry increases its refining margins. This means we are leaving the industry with more room to absorb what could otherwise be passed on to consumers. I would like to hear my colleague say a few words about the discrepancy between the Conservative Party's position and that of industry representatives.”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand that my Conservative colleagues are concerned about inflation, the rising cost of living and the rising cost of fuel. We know that it is cyclical. We know that when there is a geopolitical crisis, the cost of fuel goes up. However, there is a long-term solution that I never hear my Conservative colleagues talk about. The solution is the electrification of transportation. If we want to be less dependent on fuel and fluctuating prices, the best solution we have is to accelerate the electrification of transportation, particularly in Quebec, where hydroelectricity is abundant and very affordable. Does my colleague not think that as the government cuts the gas tax, it should focus more on the electrification of transportation?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is good to give taxpayers a bit of breathing room when they buy gas, but we know that this is a cyclical problem that will disappear and may come back. Would the long-term solution not be to provide more funding for the electrification of transportation? We have seen a rather significant withdrawal on the part of the government in this respect. Does my colleague agree that, if we want to address this issue once and for all, the best thing to do is to accelerate the electrification of transportation?”
“Mr. Speaker, we are in a situation right now where the price of gas is skyrocketing because of conflicts. We are also in a situation that calls for a certain degree of environmental responsibility. Everything points toward facilitating, or even accelerating, the electrification of transportation. The federal EV purchase subsidy is a perfect example. When the government decided to eliminate this subsidy, EV sales dropped. Sales will rebound, which is good news. However, the Conservatives are prepared to scrap the only measure that could benefit Quebec, because the more EVs that are on Quebec's roads, the more electricity we consume. The money spent on Quebec electricity does not go into the pockets of big oil companies; it goes into the pockets of Quebeckers through Hydro‑Québec.”