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 5 of 11.
“Not only that, but the member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie says that the greenwashing that the government has just allowed directly responds to what the oil companies want. What does the member for Winnipeg North think of his colleague's remarks?”
“Mr. Speaker, we have repeatedly pointed out the lack of consistency in the budget regarding the tax credits that will be given to the oil and gas sector. The member for Winnipeg North is trying to tell us that this is the best thing since sliced bread. However, one of his colleagues does not believe this. Just this week, on a podcast, the member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie said that he has had many meetings with people from the oil and gas sector and that, each time, he had serious doubts about whether carbon capture and storage will be achieved. The member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie, who is a former environment minister and former minister of Canadian identity and culture, even said that oil companies spend more on advertising than on their emissions reductions strategies.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to take a moment to commend the work of my colleague from Mirabel. The government often accuses the member for Mirabel of levelling harsh criticism. When we take a closer look, we see that he is a model of co-operation. He is a champion of collaboration. Through this bill, he managed to get the government to add phosphate to the list of critical minerals, which will ensure that Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean has an industry that is as promising as the forestry and aluminum industries. When the member for Mirabel says that studying bills of this magnitude takes time, he is absolutely right. I would like him to tell us what else could have been amended, what else could have been improved if he had more time.”
“I would like my colleague to talk to me about the lavish tax breaks being given to the oil and gas industry in the budget. Is he comfortable with that?”
“Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague for Calgary Centre, who used to serve with me on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. His mother is from Jonquière. That is why I like him. I know that he shares some of my views on the special tax treatment given to the oil and gas industry. In the budget, there are major tax credits for carbon capture and sequestration. There is also the accelerated capital cost allowance, which will enable the oil and gas industry to benefit from lavish tax breaks. The government is offering all of that even though the oil and gas industry has been making record profits since 2022. I would like to remind the House that, since the big oil and gas companies are mainly American-owned, most of the profits are going to the United States.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have already had this debate. The members of the Bloc Québécois moved a motion during an opposition day to close Roxham Road and to call on the federal government to reimburse the health care costs of certain asylum seekers because Quebec was the place that was receiving the most asylum seekers. The Conservatives did not seem overly concerned about that at the time. I find it odd today to see this unfortunate conflation today regarding criminal migrants who take advantage of health care. It has become a—”
“What my colleague is trying to do today is fuel public cynicism and sow discontent. The same is true of the speeches I heard earlier. That is a very dangerous game. One day, there may be a Conservative government in power, and he will have to follow that script.”
“Mr. Speaker, the worst thing a legislator can do is to use their speeches to increase public cynicism and cause people to lose confidence in institutions, to lose confidence in the role of legislators and politicians. I have been here since 2019, and since the arrival of the new Conservative leader, I have seen more and more of this type of rhetoric. We were told some time ago that people are asking for medical assistance in dying because they no longer have enough to eat. My colleague just said that Canadians are living in fear. I do not know anyone in my circle who lives in fear every day. That does not mean we agree with extortion, but members need to propose solutions that are feasible and viable. There are already provisions in the law to ensure that asylum seekers who have committed crimes cannot obtain refugee status.”
“We fondly remember the president's speech to the House, particularly the care he took to thank the House in French. In closing, the Bloc Québécois solemnly affirms its solidarity with the Ukrainian people and with Quebeckers of Ukrainian origin and their families. We believe in peace and freedom for Ukraine and in the right of Ukrainians to exist as a nation.”
“On February 20, 2025, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a motion recalling Quebec's ongoing commitment toward Ukraine and its people, reaffirming its engagement to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity, supporting the reinforcement of international efforts for Ukraine's reconstruction, and expressing its solidarity with the Ukrainian people and Quebeckers of Ukrainian origin. Since 2022, the Bloc Québécois has been suggesting possible solutions to the federal government to facilitate the process of issuing or renewing visas for Ukrainians. We always support concrete measures to help protect Ukrainian refugees and displaced persons. The Bloc Québécois was also deeply honoured to attend the reception for the President of Ukraine on September 22, 2023.”
“In addition to welcoming displaced persons at the international level, Quebec has provided direct international assistance through organizations working in the areas of health, education, and culture. Since 2022, Quebec has participated in supporting educational continuity in Ukraine through the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization to ensure the continuity of educational services for Ukrainian pupils and students after thousands of schools were destroyed by the war. Since 2022, the Ukrainian flag has flown on the third tower of the Quebec National Assembly as a symbol of solidarity with the Ukrainian people.”
“Quebec has welcomed thousands of Ukrainian nationals who are benefiting from special temporary immigration status, the Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel, and specific assistance measures. We need to recognize that the Ukrainians welcomed into our country face several challenges, such as the cost of living, credential recognition, integrating their children into the school system, and learning French, which some manage to do in just a few months, demonstrating their commitment and courage. The debate on Bill S-210 should be an opportunity for us to remember our duty of solidarity as a host society toward all Ukrainian nationals who have been welcomed since 2022.”
“However, it should be noted that ties between Quebec and Ukraine are based on a long history of migration, vibrant communities and solidarity between free peoples, which has only grown stronger since the war. Ukrainian Quebeckers have long formed a community with a unique cultural heritage, as evidenced by its vibrant social fabric. This can be seen, for example, in the work of organizations such as the Alliance des Ukrainiens de Québec, which preserves and enriches the community's cultural heritage and helps to forge strong ties between Ukrainian identity and Quebec identity. In response to the European migrant crisis caused by Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Quebec mobilized to welcome and support displaced Ukrainians.”
“Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill S-210 , which seeks to designate September as Ukrainian heritage month. By supporting this bill, we want to recognize the role that the Ukrainian community plays in Quebec society and reaffirm our commitment to supporting the efforts of the individuals and families who settle in Quebec, learn French, discover our culture and demonstrate courage and resilience as they integrate into our society. Historically, the Ukrainian diaspora in Canada, which is the second largest in the world with approximately 1.3 million Ukrainian people, was mainly settled in the Prairie provinces.”
“Mr. Speaker, those are two entirely different things. I just want my colleague to acknowledge the facts. What he can do today is acknowledge the facts in front of him, reread the motion and speak to the motion. If he believes that irreparable harm has been done to the people of Mirabel, I invite him to convince his colleagues to vote in favour of the motion. It would be a gesture of reparation. If he believes that no irreparable harm has been done to the people of Mirabel, I invite him to look at history and what has been done since 1969 and to take note of it. He therefore has a choice to make. He can either toe the government line to keep his reputation intact, or he can respect the people of Mirabel and vote with us in favour of the motion.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. If they vote against the motion, they will be standing up to say that they do not recognize the wrong that was done to the people of Mirabel in 1969. Not only would they be refusing to acknowledge that wrong, they would be refusing to apologize and to ask for forgiveness. As far as their conscience is concerned, it would mean they are prepared to do the same thing again on the simple pretext that it aligns with the goal of economic development and the government's intentions. That would be very unfortunate, but I am eager to hear my Liberal colleagues' response: Will they agree to apologize to the people of Mirabel, or will they choose to toe the Liberals' party line?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. At the beginning of my speech, I talked about the speech in which the Prime Minister referenced Václav Havel and said that we should live in truth. If the government wants to live in truth, it should take responsibility, apologize and ask the people of Mirabel for forgiveness. The only reason it would not do this is that it thinks there is a political price to pay. If that is the case, it is not acting ethically. It is simply acting in its own best interest and maintaining its image. Personally, I invite all of my Liberal colleagues to reflect on what a good lawmaker should do. The only possible action is to apologize.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government could start by apologizing, and if it does not want to make the same mistakes again, maybe it should not give itself the means to make them. I would invite my colleague to listen to my speech again. Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑15 give the government the tools to make those mistakes again. The hon. member can talk to her colleagues if she wants to prevent that from happening.”
“I am saying all this because, ultimately, we realize that when the government acts in a hurry, disaster often looms. One prime example of this is what was done in the past in Mirabel. Today we want the government to be aware of its actions, to apologize to the citizens of Mirabel and to commit to not repeating this type of mistake.”
“The government is in a hurry to give itself additional powers to build infrastructure without having to comply with laws so that, at the end of the day, it can give more opportunities to American companies. We could not make this stuff up. In recent years, which large companies have made the most profit in Canada? Companies in the oil and gas sector have. For every dollar of profit, 60% goes into the pockets of American owners. Today, with Bills C-5 and C-15, the government is trying to force infrastructure projects down our throats that will have the same kind of impact we saw for the citizens of Mirabel. These infrastructure projects will benefit Americans under the pretext of fighting the tariff crisis, without respecting environmental principles.”
“I will skip over the whole issue of co-operation in the case of the agreement between the federal government and Alberta, which was announced without British Columbia even being informed that negotiations were happening about infrastructure that would pass through its territory. I will leave that aside. Rather, the real inconsistency in the government's behaviour is that it is trying to persuade the public that its measures will address the tariff crisis. When we take a closer look at what the government is actually doing, we quickly realize who would benefit from the creation of oil and gas infrastructure. The biggest players in the oil and gas sector are 80% American-owned.”
“The government is telling us that these exemptions are meant to facilitate innovative projects, but we have our doubts. In reality, what the government's amendment does is place any company above any law. It is at this point that we need to look back on the infamous case of Mirabel and what it teaches us. Rushing ahead the way we are with Bill C-5 and Bill C-15 , while setting aside the principles of the law and abandoning government responsibility, is a disaster waiting to happen. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I would like to give an example of this inconsistent behaviour we are seeing. The government introduced a plan to build oil and gas infrastructure. This infrastructure is supposed to help us get through the tariff crisis.”
“The government goes even further with Bill C-15. Consider, for example, something hidden on page 300 of the bill. There is a seemingly benign amendment to the Red Tape Reduction Act, which was passed by the Harper government. (1250) The government is giving the minister the power, for three years, to exempt any company from any law, except, of course, the Criminal Code. Imagine that. Here is what the bill says: ...a minister may, by order, for a specified validity period of not more than three years and on any terms that the minister considers appropriate, exempt an entity from the application of (a) a provision of an Act of Parliament, except the Criminal Code , if the minister is responsible for the Act; (b) a provision of an instrument made under an Act of Parliament, except an instrument made under the Criminal Code ....”
“We want to make the government aware that it cannot repeat the tragedy of the Mirabel expropriations by contextualizing and blaming challenging conditions that may be adverse to our economy. I say this because the danger of a tragedy like the one in Mirabel happening again is very real. In both Bill C-5 and Bill C-15 , the government is giving itself a way to shirk its responsibilities under the pretext of responding to the tariff crisis. As in the case of Mirabel, both Bill C-5 and Bill C-15 use the rhetoric of major projects that will build a new Canada to justify deviations from democracy without any guarantee of results. I would remind the House that, last June, the Bloc Québécois vehemently opposed Bill C-5, which allowed the government to exempt proponents of major projects from the obligation to comply with certain laws.”
“What we are asking for, namely forgiveness, means taking responsibility, and that is what we are doing today. We are saying to the government that it acted dishonourably in the past and that it needs to take responsibility for it. That is how a wrongdoer expresses responsibility. What we are trying to do today, what we are asking the government to do, is to take steps to acknowledge the wrong that it did to the people of Mirabel so that it never happens again. I want to emphasize that: never again. In fact, all things considered, today the Bloc Québécois is asking the government to reflect on its responsibility, something the government does not often do.”
“With this motion, what we are asking the government to do this morning is to recognize the seriousness of the offence against the residents of Mirabel. In keeping with Vladimir Jankélévitch's perspective, forgiveness is not the same as an apology, where the intent is to reduce liability or erase blame because it was involuntary. My friend from Lac-Saint-Jean often uses the rhetoric of apologies, saying that it is not his fault and that it is unintentional. We forgive him. However, that is not what we are looking for from the government today. Instead, we are looking for true awareness. Apologies are an attempt to downplay responsibility, often by contextualizing, as my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean does and as the government also does.”
“When I looked at our motion, I was inspired by what the Prime Minister did in his speech in Davos. The Prime Minister is a well-read man. In his speech in Davos, he drew attention to an author I really admire, Václav Havel. He talked about the power of the powerless and especially the celebrated idea of living in truth. I would like to invite the Liberals to live in truth, so I want to explore the concept not of apology, but of forgiveness. These are two different things. The philosopher who discussed the concept of forgiveness the most vigorously was Vladimir Jankélévitch. The Prime Minister might be familiar with his work. Jankélévitch said that there is a difference between forgiveness and apology. As Vladimir Jankélévitch sees it, forgiveness is recognition of the seriousness of the offence.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debates since this morning and I see what the government is trying to do by suggesting that we are fearmongering and that we are living in the past. I want to clarify something. I want to clearly state what our intentions are and also explain something that is very troubling to every parliamentarian here. I want to come back to the motion. The motion very clearly calls on the government to apologize to the people whose land was expropriated in Mirabel and to acknowledge the collective trauma experienced by those who were forced to abandon their homes and significantly change their life plans. We are also calling on the government to learn from its mistakes and commit to not undertaking such expropriations again without public consultation, social licence and appropriate compensation.”
“Madam Speaker, earlier, I asked a Liberal colleague who was looking for the best way to help the most vulnerable members of our society deal with food inflation whether he thought that increasing OAS benefits was a good idea. He said that he did not think the effects were significant enough. We will just leave his statements at that, but I will repeat my question for the parliamentary secretary. In the context of increasing food inflation, will the government support the proposal from the Bloc Québécois to increase OAS benefits and, at the very least, eliminate this injustice that exists for seniors aged 65 to 74, while also perhaps resolving the issue with Cúram, which is causing unacceptable delays?”
“Madam Speaker, earlier I was telling a Conservative member that I was rather surprised by the connection being made between the carbon tax and food inflation. However, a connection can be made with the cost of energy. High energy costs can, in fact, cause inflation. A proper analysis of energy costs will show that, since 2021, oil companies have drastically increased their refining margins to the point where they made $131 billion in profits from 2021 to 2024. My Conservative colleagues seem to think that it is still not enough. I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with me that, instead of ending standards that are essential to the energy transition, we should ask the greedy oil companies to do their part by reducing their margins so that we can reduce inflation.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague had a lot to say about affordability. If we want to help the most vulnerable people, one pretty easy way to do that is to increase the old age security benefit. We have been calling for this for a long time. Many of the people with the lowest incomes are seniors. The government is dragging its feet on this issue. In fact, it never agreed to do it. Not only that, but now Cúram is causing more problems for seniors who should have access to OAS. I do not know what my colleague thinks of that, but it is a pretty simple solution. I am disappointed that he did not bring it up.”
“Madam Speaker, I will take my colleague at his word. He said in his speech that we need to be honest with Canadians. The government's strategy to get us through the tariff crisis is to invest in more oil and gas infrastructure. That is what the Liberals said. They are ready. They invested $34 billion in a pipeline, and they are ready to help the industry develop new infrastructure. I do not know if my colleague is aware, but 60% of the entire oil sector is owned by Americans. Is my colleague prepared to be frank and honest with Canadians and tell them that this strategy will do the opposite of weaning us off the American market?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed at the cynicism behind the Conservative Party's motions. They are using a real problem, namely food inflation, but ascribing it to a completely far-fetched cause. They say that food inflation exists today because there is a carbon tax. Only the Conservative Party would try to further the oil companies' agenda by raising an issue that is affecting the entire population. I find that outrageous. Which type of business made the most money in recent years since the end of the COVID‑19 pandemic? It is the oil and gas sector. It has been raking in record profits year after year, and yet that is not enough for my Conservative colleagues. They also argue that the standards that have been implemented should be lowered on the grounds that it would reduce the cost of food. That is preposterous.”
“Mr. Speaker, a great wordsmith has left us. Although his work may not appear in any collections, it echoes throughout our land. Henri Dorion was a geographer, toponymist, professor, diplomat and architect of the Quiet Revolution. As the first president of the Commission de toponymie du Québec, he recorded and standardized place names throughout Quebec. He chaired the Commission d'étude sur l'intégrité du territoire du Québec, the first major effort to define our borders in detail, a task that remains unfinished to this day. Henri Dorion made a name for himself himself internationally as Quebec's delegate to Mexico, Russia and Ukraine, and as the chair of the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to offer my condolences to his four daughters and all his loved ones.”
“Madam Speaker, as the day draws to an end, I must say I am a little disappointed. I have repeatedly asked some of my Conservative and Liberal colleagues to explain the logic behind wanting to build more oil and gas infrastructure, especially since we know full well that 60% of oil-producing companies are owned by American investors. They have made record profits in recent years, and 60% of those record profits are going into the coffers of American companies. How can investing in these companies be seen as a way to reduce our dependence on Americans and respond to the tariff crisis? Perhaps my colleague can enlighten me on this.”
“Madam Speaker, I find it quite surprising that the Conservatives are asking the government to get out of the way in order to ensure Canada's sovereignty. I would remind my colleague that the last oil and gas infrastructure project to be built was the Trans Mountain expansion. It collectively cost us $34 billion. No oil and gas company is willing to invest in oil and gas infrastructure because they know that it is not profitable in the long term. This is even more shocking when you consider that 60% of the major oil companies are American owned. What my colleague is saying, ultimately, is that we should invest Canadian money to make profits for large American oil companies. Is that her view of Canadian sovereignty?”
“Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague with whom I serve on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. I want to benefit from his insights. I find it quite surprising that the Conservatives are trying to reaffirm Canada's sovereignty by proposing more oil and gas infrastructure. Why do I find this surprising? It is because the major players in Alberta's oil sector are mostly owned by American companies. At some point, someone will have to explain to me how we can strengthen our sovereignty and wean ourselves off our dependency on the Americans by supporting American companies. Perhaps my colleague can enlighten me on this.”
“Earlier, my Conservative colleague from Edmonton Manning said that this would significantly increase our workload. His leader spends his time saying that Liberal and Bloc Québécois MPs are lazy because they are not willing to do committee work at the discretion of the leader of the official opposition . However, when it comes to studying something as important as an international treaty, his MP says that it would add too much to our workload. In my opinion, these are considerations are erroneous, and MPs should have read the bill in its entirety.”
“What we are seeing here, regarding international treaties, is Quebec's subordination to federal power. I will not repeat the examples of the softwood lumber and aluminum sectors, but it is a reality. This bill calls for more consultation with members of Parliament and a mechanism that allows us to study these treaties in committee. I was shocked to hear my colleague from Don Valley West say that strengthening our democratic processes would be a waste of time. I heard the Prime Minister's speech in Davos, where he said that we must clearly assert the values and rules governing international trade. Then, the Liberals come here and say that the democratic processes that enable us to assert the rules and potentially hear all sides are a waste of time.”
“I have also never seen the government seriously address the issue of the tariffs on aluminum. Softwood lumber and aluminum are the two main economic sectors currently subject to tariffs, and they are economic sectors specific to Quebec. I was elected in 2019 during the negotiation of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA. We soon realized what the government had done. It had forgotten to protect aluminum. We were caught off-guard, and our political party had to fight hard to get protection for aluminum. In his speech, the Prime Minister talked about living in truth, which is what Václav Havel wrote about in The Power of the Powerless . We need to stop living within a lie. The Prime Minister said, “You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination”.”
“Instead of talking about international powers, let us talk about the federation. In the Canadian federation, it is often carefully calculated interests that drive policy and our trade agreements. Perhaps to the Prime Minister's great misfortune, Canada is not a unitary country. Within Canada, there are national minorities, such as Quebec, that are trying to defend their own economies. I want to come back to the Prime Minister's speech. Speaking about the supposedly rules-based international order, the Prime Minister said that the strongest too often exempt themselves when convenient and that trade rules are enforced asymmetrically. The Canadian government often exempts itself when convenient. In the current tariff crisis, I have never seen the government take concerted or significant action on the infamous softwood lumber issue.”
“Madam Speaker, today's debate has been extremely interesting. Bill C-228 is an opportunity for the Prime Minister to put words into action. Like many, I was captivated by the Prime Minister's speech in Davos for a number of reasons. First of all, among all the wonderful things I have read in my lifetime are the works of Jan Patočka, the person who inspired Václav Havel, a leading Czech philosopher and author of the book The Power of the Powerless . I was fascinated to see the Prime Minister quote him. What the Prime Minister said in Davos was that the power rivalry often causes great powers to forget their duty to middle powers and that carefully calculated interests often rule the day when it comes to international relations. I thought this was interesting because we can follow Prime Minister's lead and draw our own analogy.”
“We plan on supporting the bill while also fully emphasizing the unique contribution that Arab Quebeckers make to Quebec society and the crucial role the French language plays in their successful integration. I will conclude by inviting all members of the House to read Rachida Azdouz's highly enlightening book called Panser le passé, penser l'avenir: racisme et antiracismes . It is a fundamental contribution to cultural reconciliation that demonstrates the richness of both Arab and Québécois intellectual traditions.”
“Immigrant populations settling in Canada outside Quebec integrate into Canadian society, in other words, the English-speaking majority. Immigrant populations settling in Quebec integrate into Quebec society, or the French-speaking majority. (1740) Given the historical factors that explain why many Arab populations already share a francophone culture, it is normal for integration paths to differ depending on whether people settle in Quebec or Canada. It is entirely appropriate to recognize the cultural heritage of people of Arab origin in Quebec and Canada. That is why the Bloc Québécois intends to support the principle of Bill S‑227 . I would simply like to point out that it is unnecessary to equate Quebeckers and Canadians as if they were part of a single community, “Arab Canadians” as the bill seems to mistakenly suggest.”
“While Canadian immigration laws and policies were applied across the entire country and influenced the pace of Arab immigration during what could be called its golden age, Quebec's explicit desire to strengthen its ties with the Maghreb countries and promote French-speaking immigration, which it has expressed since the Quiet Revolution, has necessarily had an impact on the trajectory of Arab immigration to Quebec that distinguishes it from the rest of Canada. Above all, and this cannot be emphasized enough, linguistic and cultural factors alone are enough to make a definite distinction between the life experiences of Arab Quebeckers and those of Arab Canadians. In fact, they do not integrate into the same society.”
“The Bloc Québécois welcomes the House of Commons' recognition of Arab heritage and its cultural contribution to our respective nations, the Canadian nation and the Quebec nation. In reference to Arab Canadians and Arab Muslim communities, the text of the bill paints a picture of Arab populations in Quebec and Canada that does not entirely reflect reality, suggesting that the Arab diaspora forms a uniform community across Canada. This approach is not surprising, since it is consistent with the Canadian multiculturalist vision, which portrays the population of Canada as a vast cultural mosaic that is not influenced by the existence of nations within Canada. However, the respective national realities of Quebec and Canada do in fact influence how successive waves of immigrants have been welcomed over the decades.”
“We acknowledge the courage of citizens of Arab origin at the time, particularly those who took political action to change laws and attitudes and promote the successful integration of new citizens of Arab origin. Ultimately, it is questionable whether Canadians of Arab origin and Quebeckers of Arab origin share the same history, particularly since the Quiet Revolution and the adoption of the Charter of the French Language. That difference is precisely because of the special bond that unites Quebeckers of all origins and that shapes our shared history, namely our shared French language and Quebec culture. Nevertheless, Quebec's history from 1882, which is when Arab immigrants first began arriving in Montreal, to the present day is also part of Canada's history, and Arab Canadians outside Quebec also have their own history.”
“We would also like to remind members of the unique economic, political and cultural ties between Quebec and the countries of the Maghreb, as evidenced by the co-operation agreement on education and training between the Government of Quebec and the Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria. The success of immigrants admitted to Quebec in recent years from countries such as Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco and Syria—as evidenced by statistics—is a sign of the importance of French language proficiency in ensuring successful immigration to Quebec. The Bloc Québécois has not forgotten that Canadian laws discriminating against Asian populations, in force from 1910 to 1950, had a negative impact on Arab immigration. At that time, Syrians were lumped into the Asian category.”
“Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill S-227 , which establishes Arab heritage month. Bill S-227 is a reincarnation of Bill C-232 from the 44th Parliament, which the Senate had not finished studying before dissolution in March 2025. Therefore, the House has already dealt with the bill's content at every stage of the legislative process between February 2022 and March 2023. The Bloc Québécois participated in debating and studying this bill in committee and voted in favour of adopting it. We therefore reiterate our support for recognizing the cultural heritage of Quebeckers of Arab origin or who speak Arabic. The Bloc Québécois would like to highlight the outstanding contribution that Arab Quebeckers have made to Quebec society and Quebec culture.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. It goes without saying that the Bloc Québécois will support his bill. I just want to say that something jumped out at me when I was reading the bill. It is safe to say that there are various Arab identities. It is not only one community. An intermingling has taken place in the Canadian context that also implies a plurality of identities. In my view, it is not the same thing as the intermingling that occurred between people from the Maghreb region and Quebeckers and, perhaps, other types of Arab identities in the rest of Canada. If we want to truly promote the contributions of Arab communities, it might be a good idea to make that distinction. I want to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.”