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 4 of 11.
“Mr. Speaker, the only benefit Quebec can derive from the automotive industry is if there are more electric vehicles on our roads and if people use more electricity. That way, Quebeckers get something out of it. The Leader of the Opposition's indifference toward Quebec is well known. Just think of Don Cherry and the Order of Canada. The leader of the official opposition supported his nomination, despite all of Mr. Cherry's highly controversial statements about Quebec. Some of his own MPs even called him out on that. Will any of his MPs call him out on this, to ensure that electric vehicles are always available in Quebec with a rebate?”
“Mr. Speaker, conversations about the auto industry are a bit triggering in Quebec. I would like to remind my colleague about what happened during the 2008 financial crisis. The federal government paid out $10 billion, and we know that about $6 billion of that became a direct subsidy to the auto industry. I would like my colleague to comment further on that. Earlier, I talked about the double standard. The Conservatives want to talk about industrial sectors in the rest of Canada, such as the oil and auto sectors, but they do not want to talk about sectors that are concentrated in Quebec, such as aluminum and softwood lumber, which are currently the most-tariffed sectors. Does my colleague agree that there is a double standard when it comes to Quebec's economic sectors?”
“Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today effectively represents federalism as we know it. The Conservatives are showing us their concern for the auto sector and for the oil and gas sector. However, apart from the Bloc Québécois, no one in the House ever takes advantage of an opposition day to talk about economic sectors that Quebec has a stake in. The economic sectors most affected by tariffs right now are aluminum and softwood lumber, both of which are very important to Quebec. What I am seeing from the Conservatives is an attempt to remove the only incentive of value to Quebec society, namely the EV incentive, to create a one-size-fits-all measure that works for Ontario's auto sector. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the Conservatives' insensitivity to Quebec's economic reality.”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are federal programs to support housing co-operatives. It is only natural for an MP to support projects in their constituency. That is simply part of an MP's job. What I wish the member for Winnipeg North would take away from my speech today is that the government is putting the cart before the horse. The government is creating a framework without first securing the materials that are logistically required for housing construction. That is what my colleague should worry about. Creating a framework to address the housing crisis without taking care of the underlying logistics makes no sense.”
“Mr. Speaker, what my colleague so eloquently highlighted is the injustice that Quebec has become accustomed to. Specific sectors of the Quebec economy are overlooked when it comes to government policy. Which two sectors are currently subject to the highest tariffs? They are the aluminum sector, which is predominantly based in Quebec, and the softwood lumber sector. Is anyone in government expressing concern about those two sectors? All we hear about are the gas, oil and automotive industries. That is Canadian history in all its glory. That has been the case for the last 30 or 40 years. There is a fairly simple solution: independence.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague on the bureaucracy issue. I do not believe that creating a Crown corporation is the way to solve the housing crisis. The simplest solution would have been to take the money associated with this program and transfer it directly to Quebec and the provinces, which have the capacity to build these housing units. However, the federal government likes to slap a little Canadian flag on its measures and continues to be a little less efficient than it should be.”
“Mr. Speaker, I said that the agreement with Quebec and its $1-billion infrastructure funding was a good thing. I certainly will not stand in the way of housing construction. It is the government's ineptitude that is killing one of the economic sectors that is essential to housing construction: softwood lumber. The federal government is literally allowing this sector in Quebec to die. There has been no negotiation to resolve the tariff crisis that is affecting the softwood lumber sector. I am not hearing anyone across the way express concern for forestry workers or their plight. Sawmills might eventually get a retooling program, but they are all in the process of closing down. I am not the one slowing down housing construction in Canada. The government's inaction is to blame.”
“That way the government could keep lumber mills operational and ensure that, when its Build Canada Homes strategy is deployed, we have an industry that is capable of supplying lumber in Quebec and the rest of Canada.”
“That is what the federal government should be doing. How can it go about it? How can we maintain our capacity to produce construction materials? It is fairly simple. The forestry industry will not be able to turn things around overnight. It will take months and months to rebuild its capacity. It will take a fairly long time before it is able to supply materials for the construction of new homes. If we want to keep jobs in the forestry industry in the meantime, the only solution is for the federal government to accept the proposal that was made by industry stakeholders and the major unions. We, too, have been pushing for the government to accept that proposal. At the end of every month, the government could easily buy back 50% of the anti-dumping and countervailing duties from people who sell softwood lumber to the United States.”
“In response to the crisis, the government announced a loan guarantee program in collaboration with the Business Development Bank of Canada in early August. Seven months have passed. Having spoken to many stakeholders in the forestry sector, I can assure members that no one is feeling the impact of the program put in place by the federal government. Without a short-term resolution to the liquidity crisis facing the forestry industry, by 2026 we will see many companies significantly wind down their operations, leading to the the loss of thousands of jobs and the accelerated decline of numerous communities that depend on forestry. I say this because the first thing the federal government should do is protect Canada's capacity to manufacture building materials to ensure these materials remain accessible when Build Canada Homes is rolled out.”
“That represents a net loss for Quebec of 2,158 permanent jobs and 1,927 part-time jobs. Let us not forget that this whole fiasco mainly affects Quebec's disadvantaged regions. Right now, the softwood lumber dispute is resulting in a 45% decrease in revenues for sawmills that export their products to the U.S. market. I do not need to point out that no industry can survive with a 40% cut to their profit margins. With countervailing and anti-dumping duties, plus a 10% tariff, this sector is facing the highest tariffs in Canada, yet the government refuses to take action. Not only is it failing to prioritize softwood lumber negotiations, it is also refusing to introduce a duty buy-back scheme, as industry representatives are calling for. I will explain this later.”
“(1250) In my view, before even thinking about implementing a strategy like Build Canada Homes, the government must ensure that it can help as many stakeholders in the forestry industry as possible continue to operate. Therein lies the problem. So far, the government's actions do not seem to take into account the fact that the forestry sector operates like a chain. When one link in the chain is cut, all related economic stakeholders are weakened. By failing to protect sawmill operations and the operations of small forestry businesses, the government is putting the entire forestry industry at risk. Quebec's ministry of natural resources and forestry estimates that, since April 2017, when the countervailing and anti-dumping duties came into effect, 35 plants have permanently closed and 29 others have temporarily closed.”
“In these circumstances, it seems futile, to me at least, to believe that the industry will make it through this crisis without substantial financial support from the federal government. The major players in the forestry sector are facing a liquidity crisis that is closing off any opportunities for investment in infrastructure and equipment. The federal government needs to understand that. The forestry industry is being asked to invest in new equipment so it can supply the engineered wood needed to build homes at the worst possible time in the forestry industry crisis, that is, when forestry companies have virtually no access to cash.”
“In short, we are well aware that we can no longer rely on the commodity product model, the ubiquitous two-by-four, in the forestry sector. It makes us too dependent on the United States. We must urgently come up with a strategy that would enable us to produce more value-added products. To do that, we need to transform the forestry industry. The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources has spoken on a few occasions about wanting to revitalize the forestry sector. That is very commendable, but given the severity of the crisis facing the forestry sector, we cannot wait for the federal government to roll out a strategy. Immediate action is needed. It is also important to keep in mind that we will not be able to fully replace the American market by increasing domestic use with a program like Build Canada Homes or by developing new markets.”
“Wood is the best construction material, and I want to make a quick aside to talk about that. I do not want to get too far off topic, but I do want to say a little more about the forestry industry. Right now, this industry is experiencing an unprecedented crisis. The industry's lifeblood has been weakened by absolutely appalling conditions, including insect infestations, the historic wildfires in 2023, the caribou order, which created a lot of concern in the industry, and the infamous softwood lumber dispute, which has been dragging on and undermining the entire sector in Quebec. Quite frankly, the softwood lumber industry is now at a crossroads, and its survival is threatened in many regions of Quebec. The vital role it plays for many communities has been seriously weakened.”
“I have to wonder why the government wants to create this infrastructure. However, if we look on the bright side, there are some worthwhile announcements here, such as the Canada housing infrastructure fund. I know that many municipalities raised the issue with us before the last election campaign. That was something they were calling for. Along with the housing crisis, municipalities are also experiencing various infrastructure-related problems, whether it be with the water or sewer systems. This is a major concern for municipalities, so it is encouraging to know that Quebec has been allocated $1 billion from that budget to help deal with the crisis. That was one important aspect. Another important aspect of the housing crisis is the need for construction materials.”
“Mr. Speaker, I recall very well the Prime Minister's rhetoric during the election campaign when he introduced this initiative, Build Canada Homes, as part of a strategy that would allow the federal government to support the forestry industry. I have to say that we are disappointed. I will come back to that. It is very commendable for the government to want to respond to the housing crisis, but is creating a Crown corporation really the only solution? As the saying goes, once bitten, twice shy. Generally speaking, federal government initiatives take a long time to be felt on the ground in Quebec. In addition, housing falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. I have to wonder why the government did not simply transfer the money to the provinces, which are in a position to undertake this effort to build more housing.”
“Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concern that we may simply be adding another layer of bureaucracy. Will setting up a Crown corporation give the government the flexibility needed to respond to the housing crisis? That is also my concern. Could the government not have addressed these concerns by simply transferring Build Canada Homes funding to Quebec and the provinces, who have jurisdiction over housing construction? Does my colleague agree with me that the government is creating a centralized structure that may serve no purpose, when it could simply have transferred the money to Quebec?”
“Does my colleague agree that the government is going about things the wrong way and that, for now, it should focus on securing the forestry sector?”
“Mr. Speaker, I get the feeling that the government is going about things the wrong way. There is a major housing crisis. They are going to set up a Crown corporation to address this crisis, but they are not securing the materials we will need to build these homes. Right now, the forestry sector is facing the worst crisis in its history, and we are losing forestry sector players month after month, week after week. By the time the government is ready to roll out its strategy, where will the building materials come from? We will have lost a significant portion of our forestry sector players, and the government is not taking action. The government does not seem ready to negotiate with the Americans to end the tariff war that is still raging.”
“Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals continue to bury their heads in the sand, there are still 69,000 pensioners who are having problems with their OAS pension because of Cúram. After 10 years of problems with Phoenix, the public service union said two weeks ago that there are still 233,000 files to be settled. These are not statistics. These are people who deserve these fiascos to end once and for all. When will there be a public and independent inquiry?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Quebec National Assembly was unanimous and now so is the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. All of the parties, including the Liberals, are asking the government to hold an inquiry into the following federal IT fiascos: Cúram, Phoenix and ArriveCan. Every time Ottawa gets involved in an IT project, it results in serious problems for citizens and staggering cost overruns. The House will soon be presented with the committee's unanimous call for an inquiry, but let us save ourselves some time. Will the government respect this unanimous call and hold an independent public inquiry?”
“Canada is free to honour whomever it wants, but I am sure it can find someone who has not insulted just about everyone who is not a white, English-speaking Canadian man.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are deeply ignorant about Quebeckers and francophones, but now they have outdone themselves. They have nominated Don Cherry for the Order of Canada. If they had nominated his suits, that would have been one thing, but the man himself has been known for making francophobic comments his entire life. He has looked down on Quebec athletes and French-speaking athletes in hockey and other sports his entire life. He has looked down on Quebec and its commitment to protecting the French language and French-language signage. He also spoke out against women in sports journalism. He went even further in his attacks on indigenous people by implying that they were savages and barbarians. He also targeted immigrants, which led to his firing from Hockey Night in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and noticed a potential blind spot. If the government wants to build more housing, it will have to support the forestry industry, which is going through one of the worst crises in its history. Right now, what we are seeing is consolidation within the forestry sector. This means that if a major construction initiative started tomorrow, a lot of players would be missing. Where would we get our lumber then? The question is sure to come up. Does my colleague agree with the proposal jointly presented by the Bloc Québécois and forestry sector representatives? Would he back the idea of introducing a financial support program to help the forestry industry make it through the current crisis?”
“Mr. Speaker, housing construction generally falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. My concern is that the federal government is again creating a structure that will increase the amount of time it takes to build housing. Does my colleague agree with me that it would be much simpler to transfer the money to the provinces and ensure that the homes are built, as they are the ones in the best position to do so? Does my colleague agree?”
“Mr. Speaker, I cannot be the only person who heard the Prime Minister say during the election campaign that he was going to implement an ambitious construction program to help our forestry sector, one of the economic sectors paying the highest countervailing duties and the most tariffs in Canada. Although nothing in the bill necessarily promotes the use of lumber, that is not what concerns me. By the time that the Build Canada Homes program gets off the ground, and given the tariffs that the forestry industry is currently paying, no one will be left in the industry anyway. If it truly wants to build homes using more lumber, the government should find a way to provide funding now and give people in the forestry sector access to liquidity. That does not appear to be the case. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague said in his speech that the government had not presented any cases where hate speech had been uttered based on religious principles. In Quebec, there is the case of Adil Charkaoui, who called for the death of Jews. The director of criminal and penal prosecutions decided not to prosecute him because of the religious exemption. My question for my colleague is very simple. Does he agree that Adil Charkaoui can call for the death of Jews without being prosecuted in court? Tonight, that is exactly what he is defending.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to something important that we seem to have forgotten since this morning. The bill aims to remove the exemption that allows religious speech to promote hatred. For ideological reasons, I will use another example: a socialist. Conservatives have a special fondness for socialists. A socialist could not promote hatred against individuals with a different ideology, say libertarians, and justify it in court. Someone who is religiously motivated can do so, however. This means that my Conservative colleagues agree that it is possible to promote hatred on religious grounds. It is as simple as that. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, when someone wants to promote hatred, that is an offence. That is what we are talking about today. There is a religious exemption that allows people to promote hatred based on a religious text. My colleague says we should keep that because it is part of religious freedom. He says people should have the right to promote hatred if it is based on religion. Furthermore, he said at the beginning of his speech earlier that the government should not interfere in religious matters. The way I see it, religious matters are interfering in government matters. There is a law that says it is illegal to promote hatred. No church or person representing a church should be able to say it has that right based on its beliefs. I cannot fathom why my colleague does not understand that.”
“Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should bring the debate back to the substance of the bill. The bill says that a person cannot promote hatred under the guise of religion. We have been debating this for far too long already. In committee, there has been systematic obstruction from the Conservatives that makes no sense. From what I understand, my friends think that a person should be able to promote hatred if it is for religious reasons. That makes no sense. My colleague said earlier that she would not trust politicians with her religious freedom and freedom of expression. Personally, I would have even less trust in priests and religious experts to tell us how we should behave in society and what does or does not promote hatred. I think she needs to review or reread the bill.”
“It is the epitome of bad faith, as if this bill were going to prevent people from professing their faith. Here is the question I have for my colleague. I am wondering what interest the Conservative Party has in acting this way.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debates all day and I want to say one thing: There is an immeasurable gap between what I am hearing and Quebec's position. People are probably familiar with the expression “the two solitudes”. When it comes to religion, clearly not many members of the House are in tune with what Quebeckers think. There may be a few among the Liberals, but certainly not among the Conservatives. There is a major distinction made in Quebec: religion belongs in the private sphere, while the public sphere, the civic sphere, is reserved for politics. In the debate we are having, it is as if religion could dictate to politics how it should behave. Not only are we having this debate, which is surreal to me, but the debate is in bad faith on the part of the Conservatives.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague is a serious member, so I am confident that he will respond with his usual seriousness. I am wondering whether he truly believes, as some of his colleagues are suggesting, that under this legislation, people will no longer be allowed to quote specific passages from the Bible. Does he think it is the role of a legislator to spread misinformation, in the hope of creating discontent and, ultimately, causing people to lose confidence in the political system? I would like to hear his comments on that. Could some of the remarks made by his colleagues in committee and over the course of the day, suggesting that this bill would prevent people from quoting from the Bible, not have unintended consequences?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague's previous question is a good example of what we have been experiencing with Bill C‑9 . I would describe it as blatant misinformation. I have received calls at my office from people who have a very narrow view of the purpose of the bill. Hate speech is hate speech. We need to make that clear to people. We are not taking away anyone's right to practise their faith. We are not taking away anyone's right to demonstrate their faith. We are asking people not to use their faith to justify hate speech based on very specific guidelines. Why would any politician think it is a good idea to spread misinformation to the public and create concerns. I cannot understand it. Perhaps my colleague could explain it to us.”
“The victim has to register first with the Correctional Service or the Parole Board, instead of receiving information automatically, which leads us to believe that some victims may not be fully aware of their rights. The Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes proposes that the National Office for Victims contact victims or their loved ones as soon as a federal sentence is handed down to inform them of their rights and the resources available. In conclusion, we know that all of the parties supported the mirror bill, Bill C‑320 , during the last Parliament. I seen no reason why we would not do the same for Bill C‑221.”
“Victims and their loved ones already have access to the offender's eligibility dates and review dates, and other information about the offender's release. (1240) Although its intent is commendable, the bill still raises some questions. Will the explanations be technical and concise, or will they be adapted to victims and their loved ones? For example, the law is complex, not to mention the law, especially if information is not conveyed to victims in an appropriate way, considering that most of them have no legal training. We must therefore ensure that information is properly conveyed to victims in an appropriate format. Then there is the fact that, under the existing act and under Bill C‑221 , victims have to request information.”
“In this case, the victim would need to be given the dates but also told how the date was determined. For example, the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board could explain that it was determined that the offender could be granted an escorted temporary absence of 45 minutes, which they would consider sufficient to cover the funeral service, and then be escorted back to prison. Explaining how the dates were determined would help victims understand and hopefully alleviate some of their fears. Victims and victims' families often find it difficult to get answers about the release of inmates. The Bloc Québécois does not understand why it is so hard for victims to get answers about the release of inmates, especially when they are abusers, rapists or murderers.”
“Paragraphs 142(1)(a) and 142(1)(b) of the act essentially contain the same information under the heading “Disclosure of Information” in the part called “Conditional Release, Detention and Long-term Supervision”. This information therefore already includes the dates of release and absences, but no explanation as to how those dates are determined. In some cases, it is quite simple. Statutory release, for example, usually occurs after two-thirds of the sentence has been served, with exemptions contained in the legislation. Explaining the date would therefore potentially amount to simply explaining the law and how the date was determined under the law. In other cases, the situation may be more complex. Take, for example, a man serving a life sentence who is given a one-hour escorted absence to attend his mother's funeral.”
“Here is the information that can be obtained under section 26: (i) the offender's name, (ii) the offence of which the offender was convicted and the court that convicted the offender, (iii) the date of commencement and length of the sentence that the offender is serving, and (iv) eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender under this Act in respect of temporary absences or parole; The Parole Board may also disclose the following information if it is determined that such disclosure would not have a negative impact on the safety of the public: (i) the date, if any, on which the offender is to be released on temporary absence, work release, parole or statutory release, (ii) the conditions attached to the offender's temporary absence, work release, parole or statutory release, (iii)...whether the offender will be in the vicinity of the victim...”
“The bill would therefore simply add a requirement for Correctional Service Canada to explain how the dates were determined. Section 26 and section 142 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act already provide for certain information to be disclosed to victims and their loved ones at the victim's request. The act also allows victims to register with Correctional Service Canada or the Parole Board to obtain information about the offender.”
“Bill C‑221 seeks to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to keep victims better informed regarding eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender in respect of temporary absences, releases or parole. The bill is rather short, amending four subparagraphs of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. These subparagraphs in the existing act already seeks to inform victims about the offender's eligibility dates and review dates applicable in respect of temporary absences or parole; the date of an offender's release; eligibility dates and review dates applicable in respect of unescorted temporary absences or parole; and the date of such escorted or unescorted temporary absences, parole or statutory release.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of Bill C-221. The bill seeks to better inform victims about decisions made by the Parole Board of Canada and the Correctional Service of Canada. This measure will not change the whole game for victims and their loved ones, but it would nevertheless allow for greater transparency. It could answer some of the questions raised by victims, who are too often kept in the dark about decisions regarding offenders. All parties had previously supported Bill C-320 during the last Parliament. It was a mirror bill, so to speak. However, it suffered the same fate as most opposition bills when it died in the Senate.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Quebec company Lithion will be bought out by the Americans if Ottawa does not invest $30 million by March 3. There are four days left to avoid losing another company in our battery industry, this time to an American rival heavily subsidized by Washington. The battery recycling market is expected to top $70 billion by 2040. It is worth the investment. Abandoning a Quebec company to the Americans due to a lack of federal intervention is exactly the opposite of the Prime Minister 's election promises. Will the Liberals support Lithion?”
“On behalf of the thousands of students he moulded into better thinkers, I thank Professor De Koninck. We are freer and more independent thanks to him. On behalf of his friends Gilbert Larochelle and Jean-François de Raymond, I would like to offer my sincere condolences to the family of Thomas De Koninck.”
“Mr. Speaker, on February 16, we were deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Thomas De Koninck, an internationally renowned philosopher and pillar of Université Laval's faculty of philosophy. Thomas De Koninck will, of course, be remembered as the inspiration for Saint-Exupéry's character the Little Prince, but to students like me who knew him personally, he was a legend in a different way. He left a lasting impression on generations of students by awakening our desire to learn, nurturing our critical thinking skills, and fostering a love of culture in all its forms. Professor De Koninck had the ability to pass on his passion for great literature and make even the most complex works accessible. He devoted his life to combatting ignorance and promoting human dignity.”
“The government announced a liquidity program last summer, but there are still people who have not yet seen a penny from this program, and the government continues to refuse to respond to people in the forestry industry, who actually have solutions.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my optimistic colleague who told us that the government is there to help economic sectors that are struggling. He reminded me of the former prime minister, who often said that they would be there to be there. Now that is what I would call really being there. I would simply like to point something out to my colleague. He mentioned Build Canada Homes in his speech. Well, in order to build houses or dwellings with lumber, we need a forestry industry. However, that industry is currently the most heavily taxed sector with all the tariffs and countervailing and anti-dumping duties. We are talking about tariffs of 45%. Federal government assistance is still pending.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to point out to my colleague that he spoke at length about the temporary foreign worker program, which his leader wants to abolish it. Before criticizing our Liberal colleagues, whom we can criticize all we want on this issue, perhaps he should persuade his leader not to abolish the temporary foreign worker program.”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier, the member for Winnipeg North did not answer my question. He said we want to shut down all of oil. That is not an answer. We never suggested shutting down the oil sector. What we are saying is that the federal government should not submit to the industry's will and use Quebeckers' money to give very generous tax credits for carbon capture and sequestration. That is not all. A Liberal member said this is a crock. I would like the member to comment on that. What does he think of the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie , who does not believe in carbon capture and sequestration strategies? I do not want to hear him say that we want to shut down the oil and gas sector.”