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 7 of 11.
“A year and a half ago, we learned that the main objective for developing small nuclear power plants was to support the oil and gas sector by supplying the heat needed to extract bitumen and to enable it to export more gas rather than using other types of energy to process oil sands. The budget also includes incentives for the conversion of liquefied natural gas power plants. Once again, massive support is being offered to fossil fuels. Then there is the whole hydrogen component. In the last two or three budgets, there were considerable tax benefits for green hydrogen. There is no hiding the truth any longer: More flexible tax credits means that the gas and oil sector will be able to produce hydrogen from gas and oil and benefit from a tax credit.”
“If the government added tax credits or subsidies to the fossil fuel sector, which has greatly benefited from such measures, the Bloc Québécois could not support the budget. In fact, we voted against the budget without hiding behind the curtains. Bill C-15 includes an increase to the carbon capture and storage tax credit. The period currently goes from 2031 to 2036, but it is being extended to 2041, which will negatively impact the energy transition. We know that the principle of carbon capture and storage is mainly aimed at carbon-neutral oil production, which is a pipe dream. It also expands the clean technology investment tax credit to include small nuclear power plants.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-15 . This bill is part of the government's efforts to respond to the current tariff crisis with the Americans. I would say that it is a very weak, very lukewarm response. The negotiations with the Americans are currently on hold, and I do not believe anything in the budget will help meet the needs of Quebec. I do not think that it will help meet the needs of Canadians either. I will try to explain why. There was one aspect of Bill C-15 that was very off-putting to the Bloc Québécois, and that was the addition of several billion dollars in new subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. Our leader indicated from the outset that this was a non-starter.”
“Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked a bit about the forestry industry. We saw the Prime Minister 's announcement today. Unfortunately, although there is a program that provides liquidity support, it is struggling to get up and running. People in the forestry sector do not want more debt. What they want is a program that would allow the countervailing and anti-dumping duties to be bought up, which is not necessarily the case today. The fact that there is no such program does not help the forestry sector in the short term. I do not know whether my colleague has forestry companies in his riding, but this clearly does not meet their needs. I would like to hear his comments on that.”
“Mr. Chair, my colleague is always an ally when it comes to the forestry sector. We have seen many initiatives here before, including a bill on the use of wood. Unfortunately, even though this bill was passed, it has no teeth since it is not binding. The government is being advised to use wood as though it has never been advised to use it before. I find that a little odd. Does my colleague agree that the government should have a measure in place that allows carbon footprints to be considered in its calls for tenders? That way, wood would qualify every time. It would be a binding measure to promote the use of wood and would give the forestry sector a helping hand, at least in the government's tendering process.”
“Mr. Chair, we are not content with empty slogans like “elbows up” and “who cares”. We need proposals. There is a proposal on the table. Unfortunately, my Conservative colleagues have not taken a position on it. This proposal calls for the government to buy back 50% of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties at the end of each month. Does my colleague agree?”
“Mr. Chair, earlier this evening, in response to the Leader of the Opposition , I said that tonight we cannot settle for mere slogans. Saying “elbows up”, “who cares” or “we care” four times is not good enough for people in the forestry sector. A proposal is on the table. Unfortunately, no one in the Conservative Party has been able to tell us whether they support it or are not interested. No one will answer us. I will rephrase the proposal for my colleague. People in the forestry sector are asking the government to absorb 50% of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties at the end of each month. That would save jobs. Does my colleague agree with that?”
“Mr. Chair, I will do the same thing to my colleague as I have been doing all evening. I am going to ask him a very simple question. The proposal that is currently circulating, and what people in the forestry sector are asking the House to do, is to set up a program that would buy back 50% of the countervailing duties. Unfortunately, when I asked the Leader of the Opposition about this tonight, he would not answer me. I hope I will be more successful with my colleague.”
“Mr. Chair, I congratulate my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, on his speech. It is a pleasure to work with him. I know that he is a sensible, non-partisan guy. I also know that, at committee, he heard about the solution I mentioned earlier, which was proposed by Chantiers Chibougamau, Remabec, Domtar and union representatives. I would like to get a clear answer from my colleague this evening. He is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources . Does the Liberal government think that this proposal can be studied, or will it be dismissed? I would like a clear answer. I think that the people in the forestry sector expect one.”
“I want to explain it properly, because I was a bit rushed earlier. Where does the real problem with countervailing duties come from? It comes from the fact that 45% of all money in forestry transactions is held captive. We could recover that 45% if the government agreed to pay 50% of the anti-dumping countervailing duties at the end of each month. (2030) If that were to happen, we would save jobs and support the forestry sector. The government would be guaranteed repayment once the dispute is resolved. It would not cost anything, no one would pay for it and we would save one of Quebec's leading economic sectors.”
“The allegations made by the American lobby only involve wood from public forests, so we are asking for an exemption for wood from private forests. It has long been known that the Americans claim that Canada's forestry sector is being illegally subsidized with very low stumpage fees, which is no longer the case. However, the special status of private forests, which are in another sector, is never recognized. We must ensure recognition for Quebec's forestry system, which operates on an auction model and complies with free trade requirements. We must create an industrial development strategy focused on increased resource processing and on research to develop new products. The government may be working on this, but it will take time, as I said earlier. This brings me to what I consider to be the key measure.”
“However, if the government sets up a program similar to the emergency account, it could help those people. The government could set up a wage subsidy program to enable laid-off workers to keep their jobs. What we want to do with the people who are in limbo because of sawmill closures, such as in Saint‑Michel‑des‑Saints, is to keep them working so that they do not disappear into other sectors, and we do not end up with weakened industries once the construction crisis in the United States is over. As part of the renegotiation of CUSMA, we need to ensure that the dispute mechanism is better structured in order to prevent the American stalling tactics that we are currently seeing. The Americans always lose at international trade tribunals. However, since the United States plays dirty, it is continuing the dispute.”
“What we need during that 10-to-15-year period is concrete action. As I said, we want to talk about concrete measures this evening. I would like to share a few suggestions with my colleagues right now. I will come back to payments for countervailing duties at the end of my speech. We could implement a program modelled on the Canada emergency business account, which we used during the COVID‑19 pandemic, by offering interest-free loans that are conditionally repayable, in part, to self-employed workers and forestry subcontractors. That is important. When I talk about subcontractors and self-employed workers, it is important to realize that the forestry sector is an industry with people whose job profiles are very different. Liquidity programs are very little help to subcontractors and the self-employed.”
“The 150 employees in Saint‑Michel‑des‑Saints who are unemployed because of the mill closure will remain unemployed. Between August 5 and the time things started moving in late October, early November, I feel like it took a very long time before action was taken. It is also important to point out that Building Canada Homes can be part of the solution, but we will never be able to replace the entire American market. I take no pleasure in saying that. People in the forestry sector say that we will never be able to completely replace the American market. We need to accept that. If we want to achieve that, the forestry sector will have to undergo a major transformation, and that is not going to happen in five or six months, or even in two or three years. It will take 10 to 15 years.”
“Madam Chair, I will manage to finish this debate, I promise. I do not share the enthusiasm of my colleague from Trois-Rivières and my friend the parliamentary secretary . As for the announcements made on August 5 regarding the $700 million in access to liquidity and the $500 million earmarked for improving production chains, unfortunately I am hearing on the ground that the $700 million will be used up by March. There will be nothing left for access to liquidity. However, I would remind members that this $700 million is intended to compensate for the $10 billion that is currently being held captive in the United States. I also found out today that the people affected by the closure in Saint‑Michel‑des‑Saints do not have access to the $700 million for administrative reasons that escape me. They do not have access to it.”
“Madam Chair, there is a very simple principle: Quebec's elected officials should defend the interests of Quebec, and Ontario's elected officials should defend the interests of Ontario. This government's top priority right now is to build a pipeline and develop a carbon capture and sequestration strategy. The Liberals are all in agreement about that, but that does us absolutely no good in Quebec. The government is killing a key industry in Quebec. I hear very few Liberal members expressing concern about the forestry sector, but they are all there to applaud when it comes to a pipeline and to carbon capture and sequestration.”
“The government does not want to deal with the issue. It has not done so since 2019. Now we are in a period where there could be a breakdown, and we could lose the entire industrial landscape that has been developed in Quebec's forestry sector. In my opinion, all regions of Quebec will suffer in a way that the government has yet to calculate.”
“Madam Chair, in everything I have heard the government say about the trade dispute with the United States, it keeps saying time and again that it is looking for an agreement on steel, aluminum and energy. It is important to understand the sectors involved. Aluminum is produced in Quebec. I know that aluminum processors are struggling, but primary aluminum producers are able to pass on the tariffs. They are able to survive for now, which is not the case for the forestry sector, where the companies are not passing the tariffs on. They are paying them. I do not know of any industry that can operate with a 35% to 45% loss. There are no such industries. No one can do that. I do not know if they are waiting for companies to drown, but clearly there is either a misunderstanding or a lack of will.”
“If the government wants the forestry sector to survive intact, what it can do, while it waits to get through this crisis and for negotiate an agreement, is pay 50% of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties at the end of each month. This does not violate our trade agreements. Predatory hedge funds are already doing this. It would simply be a matter of the government giving the forestry sector a serious helping hand.”
“Madam Chair, to be very clear, there is a proposal that has been under consideration for a long time, which is that the government could buy back the entire $11 billion that is tied up in the United States. That is a massive sum. What we are presenting today is not that. At the end of each month, the government would buy back 50% of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties levied on every transaction with the United States. Let me paint a clear picture. When $1,000 worth of wood is shipped to the United States, the forest producer pockets only $550, because $350 goes toward countervailing and anti-dumping duties, and another $100 goes toward customs duties and taxes. No economic sector can survive with ratios like that. Nobody can absorb a 45% liability.”
“If the government is not prepared to do that, it is because it is afraid of being afraid or because it does not trust its ability to resolve this issue. The 50% is actually within reach. The money sitting in the United States belongs to the companies. The government cannot dispose of it as it pleases, since it belongs to the companies. What we want is a settlement. Once there is a settlement, the government can pay itself back.”
“Madam Chair, I completely forgot to say that I would be sharing my time. I may speak again a little later. I will just quickly respond to my colleague. I do not know how that can be arranged. There are already predatory hedge funds that are buying up between 30% and 70% of certain companies' countervailing duties. These hedge funds buy countervailing duties as though they were financial products, and that does not violate our international trade agreements. The beauty of this is that the forestry sector managed to recover 80% of the money that was held captive in the United States when the last dispute was settled in 2016, despite the fact that we lost $1 billion, as we saw. In my opinion, it is not too much to ask the government to pay 50% of the money, knowing full well that the dispute will eventually be resolved.”
“People are talking about a $500-million investment that will transform the sector, but the timing is off, because the transformation will take 10 years. Someone needs to wake up. I want answers from my colleagues tonight.”
“Those folks could continue to trade in softwood lumber with the United States while we wait for the worst of the crisis to subside, because right now construction in the United States has basically come to a standstill. Our companies could remain operational, which means that they will be able to respond in the future, when this government has its much-touted Build Canada Homes program up and running. (1955) That seems to be the most acceptable solution, and it has the support of everyone in the industry. Unfortunately, it seems that the government refuses to listen. We are getting radio silence from it, not a “yes”, but not a “no” either. Earlier, I tried to ask the Leader of the Opposition a question. Everyone is playing a game of cat and mouse, and no one wants to take a position. The forestry sector cannot wait any longer.”
“These folks all came here to say that they had found a solution. Right now, $11 billion in anti-dumping and countervailing duties is lying dormant in trust in the United States. At first, people were saying that the government should buy back some of these duties. I understand that that is a big pill to swallow. That is why these people joined forces. They got together and decided that the best solution would be for the government to buy back 50% of the duties they had paid at the end of each month. It was a compromise reached by people in the industry, who said that the government could buy back 50% of the duties they would have paid at the end of each month. What would that mean? It would mean that the industry could continue to operate and that no workers would lose their jobs.”
“What is happening now is not just equivalent to cutting just one link, but cutting five or six links. This crisis has been dragging on since the early 2000s. In the early 2000s, the forestry sector supported 95,000 jobs. Today, there are barely 30,000 left. Not so long ago, the government announced measures. On August 5, it proposed to offer $700 million in loans. To this day, the government is still struggling to get that measure off the ground. The sawmill in Saint-Michel-des-Saints does not qualify for it. People here in Ottawa seem to have no clue when it comes to the forestry sector. As a final point, I would like to talk about a proposal that has been around for some time, one that was made here by representatives from Chantiers Chibougamau, Arbec, Groupe Rémabec, Domtar, the FTQ and Unifor.”
“I have been here since 2019, and unfortunately I have never seen any real will on the part of the government, nor on the part of the opposition, which cared very little about the forestry issue. We are having a take-note debate this evening, and I hope that we will be able to find solutions for the people of Petit-Saguenay whose sawmill has shut down, for the people of Saint-Michel-des-Saints—I will come back to that later—and for the people of Amos and Port-Cartier. I hope that we will have enough respect to find solutions for these people. As I was saying earlier, the forestry sector is experiencing a perfect storm. To understand it, we have to think of the sector as a big chain. When one link is cut, the entire chain stops working properly.”
“After that, we had insect infestations that made it very difficult for many in the forestry sector to access fibre. On top of all that, since 2017, we have been dealing with the softwood lumber dispute with the United States with countervailing and anti-dumping duties. What we have here is a perfect storm. People in the forestry sector are calling our office to tell us that we should expect to see consolidation. Businesses are going to disappear. There are people who will not be able to fulfill their contracts. Jobs will be lost. The forestry sector is the economic heart of many regions, such as mine, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. The same is true for Abitibi, the Lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspé and the North Shore. Many regions of Quebec have small municipalities that rely exclusively on the forestry sector.”
“Madam Chair, I talk to a lot of business owners and workers in the forestry sector, and they all agree that what they are going through is the perfect storm. It is important to explain the context so that people really understand what is happening in the forestry sector. Not that long ago, we experienced unprecedented forest fires that kept small forestry operations out of the forest even though they are an essential link in the chain. They lost a lot of money. This has impacted the entire chain. After the forest fires, we had the woodland caribou problem, which caused anxiety all around and put work plans on hold. Even though the order was not finalized, it caused cash flow problems because the banks were nervous about the forestry sector.”
“I want the Leader of the Opposition to tell me that he is prepared to support this measure and that he is prepared to support the forestry sector by giving it some breathing room.”
“Madam Chair, people in the forestry industry are not interested in listening to nasty remarks and verbal game playing tonight. People in the forestry sector are not interested in hearing about who cares about the situation and who does not. They want to hear that people are ready to commit and that they are considering the solutions that have been put in place. A proposal was made and it has been on the table for three or four weeks. However, I do not hear anyone in the opposition taking ownership of it or talking about it. People in the industry say that the countervailing and anti-dumping duties, or at least a portion of them, need to be bought back. It will not cost the government anything. Predatory hedge funds are doing it.”
“I hope he will understand the situation better. I hope that tonight we will hear speeches from the Liberals that offer solutions, not empty talking points.”
“Madam Chair, this evening, we will have plenty of opportunity to demonstrate the government's incompetence. I just want to start with a little update, for the benefit of the parliamentary secretary. Usually, when we talk about a subject, we should try to understand it first. The issues for the forestry industry are the countervailing and anti-dumping duties. Tariffs are also an issue, and these are at 10%. The biggest issue that is making life difficult for people in the forestry industry is these countervailing and anti-dumping duties. If the parliamentary secretary does not understand that, I am beginning to understand why the government is incapable of taking action on this situation: anti-dumping and countervailing duties are repaid once the dispute is settled. I was saying that to help my colleague.”
“Mr. Speaker, I hope my question does not upset my colleague, because I do not want to be known as the loudmouth from Saguenay. I hope he will not be too offended. In the budget, there is a line that specifically mentions Pathways Plus, a carbon capture and sequestration project. The federal government is going to give the greedy oil and gas sector tax credits so that it can reduce the carbon footprint of oil. That makes absolutely no sense when you consider the fact that all those oil and gas companies made record profits from 2021 to 2024 and most of the money paid out in dividends goes to the United States. Does my colleague agree with me that it is unrealistic to try to reduce the carbon footprint of the oil and gas sector, and that taxpayers should not have to pay for that?”
“Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague spoke at length about inflation. The very high cost of energy is one of the causes of inflation. High energy costs are often caused by the huge profits that folks in the oil sector are making, not by carbon pricing. For example, from 2021 to 2024, they raked in a record-setting $131 billion. During that same period, those people, most of whom are connected to American companies, paid themselves about $80 billion in dividends. That means $10 billion a year leaves Canada and goes directly to the United States as dividends. When my colleague looks at the oil and gas sector, does he not see it as a source of shame rather than a source of pride for Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is all well and good for the Liberals to brag about Canada's credit rating, but they also need to listen to what the experts are saying. Last week, the Parliamentary Budget Officer indicated that too many of the expenditures in the budget are being labelled or categorized as investments. My colleague from Mirabel has repeatedly spoken out about this creative accounting on the part of the government. Is my colleague not concerned about this? The Liberals are trying to pull the wool over people's eyes with this budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's glowing speech on the budget, and I understand why it was so glowing, because she is in government, but she should also be somewhat concerned. As a member from British Columbia, she will see her Prime Minister announce a pipeline from Alberta on Thursday without the consent of Premier Eby, and even in the face of a lot of harsh criticism. What we see in the budget right now is the government allowing itself to waive all environmental assessments for projects similar to those in Bill C-5 , deemed projects of national interest. My colleague may not know this, but she may very well be getting a pipeline shoved down her throat.”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's concerns about safety. However, there is an aspect of the government's bill that is also concerning, and that is the hidden expansion, so to speak, of Bill C‑5 . On page 300 of this bill, part 2 is entitled “Exemptions to encourage innovation, competitiveness or economic growth”. These exemptions give the government broad powers, similar to those set out in Bill C‑5. In my colleague's opinion, is this not the government's way of doing what it did not dare announce publicly, by hiding it in the budget bill, so it could grant itself excessive powers? Does my colleague agree with that?”
“Mr. Speaker, here is the proof that this budget fails to meet the needs of Quebeckers. Yesterday, the same day that the budget was passed, the Arbec forestry company laid off nearly 100 workers in Amos. However, just three weeks ago industry representatives, including representatives from Arbec, were in Ottawa pleading for support. They were asking the federal government to advance them 50% of all future countervailing and anti-dumping duties payable. They also asked for a wage subsidy so that they would not have to lay off workers. There was nothing for them in the budget and what happened? One hundred workers are losing their livelihoods. What is the government waiting for? When will it take action?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to issue the same warning that I gave my colleague earlier. This is a very serious matter. We must be careful not to undermine public confidence in our institutions. It seems to me that, since this morning, the Conservatives have been trying to stir up discontent among the public by saying that everything is broken, criminals are being set free and the system is not working. It is surprising, nonetheless, that this morning the Leader of the Opposition said that we need an emergency debate on Liberal extortion, that the Liberal Party is responsible for extortion. I am asking my Conservative colleagues to bring the discussion back—”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been listening carefully to my Conservative colleagues' speeches today, and what I am hearing is actually quite surprising. I get the feeling that, rather than wanting to move this legislation forward, the Conservatives are trying to stir up discontent among the public by giving examples that, although deserving of discussion, should not be overblown. I do not know what their objective is here. This morning, the Leader of the Opposition was calling for an emergency debate on a somewhat far-fetched issue by saying that the Liberals are now responsible for certain crimes in society. This is, of course, political, but I am not convinced that it is helping to advance the current debate. Perhaps my Conservative colleagues should reframe their comments if they want them to be relevant.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague was a member of the previous government. Like me, he saw the measures that I found insufficient, but that at least partially acknowledged the problem of climate change. He probably noted, as I did, that carbon pricing was in the previous budgets. He probably noted, as I did, that there was an emissions cap. Now I am wondering how he interprets this budget, which completely ignores climate change and cannot do enough to support the oil and gas industry. Does he think climate change disappeared between the two Parliaments?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the leader of the official opposition on his speech. I hope he has impressed his troops. We want to keep it a minority government. The budget includes plenty of investments in fossil fuels. It is utterly silent on the energy transition. It includes massive investments in defence. It is a Conservative budget, as my colleague from Mirabel said, so much so that some Conservatives have decided to cross the floor. I want to give the leader of the official opposition an opportunity to tell us that he is not jealous of what was tabled. I want to give him a bit of time to answer that question.”
“Madam Speaker, what the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is not saying is that the government took amendments that were duly adopted in committee meetings and threw them out. Right now, my colleague is talking about the government's majority in the House. That is one thing. However, committees serve a purpose. Otherwise, we would not have them. We would vote on bills here in the House and that would be it. Perhaps my Conservative colleague can comment on the fact that the government behaved very inappropriately by completely rejecting amendments that were duly adopted in meetings of a committee of the House of Commons, which must serve a purpose. What does my colleague think about that?”
“I would like my colleague to explain why the Liberal Party is upset about the fact that our amendment on the issue of language testing to ensure minimum language proficiency was rejected. It is completely inconsistent.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate my Liberal colleague's lyrical flight of fancy, but there is still one niggling question. What about integration? Migrants need to integrate into the host society. Even in his speech, he sort of proved our Conservative colleague right when he said that Canadian society is not actually founded on any strong symbols of identity. Language is the strongest symbol of identity. If someone does not speak the language when they arrive in a country, how can they communicate? How can they be part of a collective identity? It is downright impossible. My colleague spoke about the RCMP but, even though I have the utmost respect for the RCMP, it does not help develop a collective identity.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the introduction to his speech, my colleague did a great job of explaining a major problem facing the federation, which is the fact that people try to smear Quebec's reputation whenever there is talk of immigration. The same thing happens when there is talk of secularism. Looking back, the same issue came up when Bill 101 was passed. However, today, not a single elected official would suggest that Bill 101 is a regressive law that prevents people from integrating. I would like my colleague to tell us whether we are experiencing something similar when it comes to secularism. Perhaps in 25 years, federalist politicians will understand that it was a good thing after all.”
“I would like my colleague to tell us more about the issue of integrating migrants in a context where we are told that a national identity does not exist.”
“Mr. Speaker, while I may have some disagreements with my colleague, I cannot help but agree—for the most part, of course—with what she said in her presentation on national identity. In Quebec, the issue of collective identity is critical. A cornerstone of Quebec's collective identity includes the idea of secularism. How can we integrate migrants if we do not have a collective identity? It is absolutely impossible. The challenge of integration is a challenge that Quebec must face. That is why we are trying to establish immigration guidelines. We want to ensure that migrants are integrated into society in French and that they respect the values of Quebec society, which include gender equality and secularism. It is true that, within the Canadian framework, it is much more challenging to have this type of thinking.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague really hammered on the notion of feeling safe, and I get the impression that by using random examples and saying that people released on bail commit other crimes, it may be we politicians, myself excluded, who are somehow exacerbating this feeling people have of being unsafe. New media may also be making it easier to access this very specific type of case. I would like to ask my colleague this: How can we truly achieve justice? Are tougher measures and more severe bail restrictions the answer?”