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 9 of 11.
“Madam Speaker, I find that genuinely fascinating. My colleague is saying that he speaks on behalf of Christians and that he represents Christians. According to him, in the bill, Christians, like people of any other faith, should be defended by members of Parliament. Personally, I believe all religions should be treated equally. In that regard, does my colleague not think it is necessary to amend Bill C-9 to ensure that hate crimes based on religious speech are prohibited? I imagine my colleague will agree with that.”
“Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on the excellent synopsis he gave. When it comes to immigration, we do not believe that cultural minorities inevitably turn to hate crimes. However, we must be aware that hate inherited from the past is causing tensions today. There are tensions between ethnic groups. What my colleague seemed to be saying in his speech, which I appreciated, is that the means to resolve interethnic hate should be set out in legislation. To that end, I would like my colleague to talk about the exemption that the Bloc is trying to bring in so that hate crimes are not permitted under the guise of religious belief. I would like him to focus on that dimension, since the minister seems open to the possibility of amending his bill in committee.”
“Madam Speaker, as we have indicated, Bill C‑9 has some merit. It needs to be studied at committee. Earlier, in response to two questions we asked him, the minister told us that he might be prepared to review the religious exemption as part of the study in committee. Are the Conservatives open to that as well? Are they willing to review the religious exemption granted when hateful symbols are displayed?”
“Madam Speaker, I applaud the minister's open-mindedness. In response to a question earlier, he indicated that he was open to reviewing in committee the exemption granted to religious groups when it comes to hate symbols. I would like him to repeat his position, just to be sure. What I understood from the minister is that he is open to a discussion in committee to see whether the exemption for hate symbols could be removed. I do not believe that any hate symbols should be tolerated based on religious principles. Did I understand correctly what the minister said earlier?”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebec's identity is not a distraction. Quebec's plan to govern itself is not a distraction. Quebec's autonomy to make its own choices is not a distraction. The Conservatives should be ashamed of this petty rhetoric they have been engaging in all day.”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, cowardice is the right word. We watched the red herring all day long as the Liberals stood up to say they have nothing against Bill 21, but they want clarifications about the possible impact of the notwithstanding clause. Only the most fearful would go to such lengths to avoid standing by their position. There was a Liberal government in place before. Most of the members I see are familiar faces from the previous Parliament. Every time their Prime Minister rose to bash Bill 21, they stood behind him clapping. Today, they expect us to believe that what they are objecting to is the notwithstanding clause, not Bill 21. Personally, I will let my colleagues judge for themselves.”
“Mr. Speaker, that ploy is not working, not even with the media. If, as they claim, this challenge is not specifically against Quebec, why does their factum specifically challenge Bill 21? Why did they do it in this specific case? I sense a touch of, shall I say, hypocrisy on the part of the government. They want to have it both ways, but the principle is clear. If we go by what the government has said in the past, the Liberals are very much against Bill 21. Now they are trying to sneak this through using the notwithstanding clause so they do not have to take responsibility for who they are. It is sad for them, but not for us.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is exactly right. What happened is that Quebec was sidelined after 1982. If Quebec, as a national minority, wants to follow its own path and create its own laws, it needs some kind of political autonomy. We have constantly been denied that political autonomy by the different federal governments. The notwithstanding clause is an insurance policy that at least allows Quebec to bring in its own legislative measures. Even that is too much to ask for the Liberals.”
“In sum, the Liberals just need to stop telling us that they are against the notwithstanding clause. What they are trying to do—”
“It is clearly a rejection of multiculturalism, a rejection of assimilation, but also the importance of integration based on Quebec's fundamental values. What are those fundamental values? Quebec is a French-speaking state. Quebec is a state where gender equality is non-negotiable, and Quebec is a secular state. Some silly things were said today, justified by quotes from Simone de Beauvoir, about how the notwithstanding clause could somehow infringe on women's freedom to make their own choices. I have never heard so much nonsense in my life. The women of Quebec who had to break free from the Catholic church in the 1950s and 1960s know very well the price women can pay when religion controls everything in a society. I will be pleased to answer questions.”
“Canada became a bilingual country in name only, and biculturalism was completely abandoned in favour of multiculturalism, so that was the first time Quebec was really told no. Canada chose to become a multicultural country where all cultures were recognized. By recognizing all cultures, we might as well say that we recognize none. That is what most commentators have to say about that period. The first time Quebec was told no was during the Laurendeau-Dunton commission. In the process, Quebec decided to develop its own integration model, known as interculturalism, and the debate surrounding Bill 21 on secularism and the place of religion is directly linked to this interculturalism. There are three main principles of interculturalism on which there is a broad consensus in Quebec.”
“To make this perfectly clear, I want to go back to the birth of multiculturalism in Canada. In 1963, the Laurendeau-Dunton commission was set up. What exactly was going on in 1963? We were coming out of the Quiet Revolution. Quebeckers are no longer called French Canadians, but they are Quebeckers. At the same time, in Canada, some people are wondering what kind of collective identity can be developed to integrate Quebeckers. That questioning led to the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, Canada's response to Quebec. What was the original intention? Canada was supposed to become a bicultural and bilingual country. Well, biculturalism was completely ignored.”
“Quebec is a society that treats its linguistic minorities in an enviable way. I would like members to find another linguistic minority that represents 8% of the population but is still squeezing out 30% of education budgets. It does not exist anywhere else but in Quebec, and it would make any francophone community outside Quebec jealous. However, we have to constantly play with this reputational damage that is done to us. This brings me back to the observation I made in my introduction: For Canada, Quebec must become a province like any other. What we are talking about today is undoubtedly the federal government's challenge of Bill 21. Let us say it once and for all, even though the Liberals are trying to pull the wool over our eyes by suggesting that the notwithstanding clause is what they are really challenging.”
“Today, some members are going even further than the Attorney General of Canada's factum by suggesting that Quebec wants to limit freedom of the press, limit freedom of religion, limit the rights of unions and open the door to forced labour and maybe even arbitrary executions. This pile of nonsense that we read is part of a consistent pattern that has caused considerable harm to Quebec's reputation. It must be said for once and for all. There were debates on reasonable accommodations, on Quebec's place within the federation and even on the place of religion in the public sphere. Quebec is not closed to difference. Quebec is not closed to ethnocultural minorities. Quebec is not closed to immigration, but we are constantly seeing this harm to our reputation. Quebec is an open society where there are fewer hate crimes.”
“Trudeau, Quebec's political agenda was described as belligerent nationalism. The Speaker must have seen that. I do not know if anyone here has ever taken history classes, but there was a rather interesting dispute between Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Hubert Aquin. The crux of that dispute is clear to anyone who has ever read The Treason of the Intellectuals . Mr. Trudeau sees Quebeckers as an inward-looking and homogenous nation, while Mr. Aquin makes a rather convincing argument that Quebec has always been a multi-ethnic nation. What made Quebec so different was its culture. (1535) Quebec may have a homogenous culture, but that homogenous culture is made up of people from different ethnicities. These criticisms that denigrated Quebec in the past have reappeared in the factum at hand.”
“There were the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. Both failed and both times, Quebec was plainly told “no”. The same goes for limiting federal spending powers or the fiscal imbalance. We are used to that. In Quebec, we are used to being told “no”. That is what led to the sovereignist movement. However, I get a sense that we are adding a new wrinkle this time. The federal government is no longer content to lock down Quebec's political autonomy, it wants to send us a negative image of who we are. Before I turn my attention to the substance of the factum, I would like to discuss a situation that strikes me as a corollary of what we are seeing today. As members may recall, it has long and often been said that Quebec is an insular community that does not welcome immigration or difference. Even in the good old days under Mr.”
“What we are seeing with Bill 21 is a bit like Groundhog Day. Every time Quebec legitimately uses the tools at its disposal to take responsibility for its destiny, express its difference and defend its identity, the federal government is there to throw up roadblocks. What we witnessed today looked a lot like that. We need only look back over events from the political history of Quebec and Canada, such as the multitude of challenges to Bill 101. Back when Quebec's Bill 101 was debated in this parliamentary chamber, it was portrayed as Nazi legislation. All the federalist parties have consistently rejected the idea of Quebec as a distinct society. The same thing happens when we asked for more power over immigration, or tried to hold rounds of constitutional negotiations. Like me, the Speaker knows about them.”
“However, it seems that that is not what they were interested in today. This leads me to say that, even though our Liberal friends have pointed out repeatedly that they hold a majority of seats in Quebec, Quebec is being served very poorly today. I would have liked to see a little more respect from the members from Quebec since this motion is so essential to us. What we have before us today is clearly a challenge against Bill 21, which is part of the Canadian government's long history of attempting to make Quebec a province like any other. The common thread running through Canadian political action for many years has been a refusal to recognize Quebec's uniqueness. It has also often involved demonizing, by any means possible, the Quebec nation's desire to express its political autonomy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will start by sharing my thoughts on what I have been hearing all day. The government members, in all their speeches, tried to make us believe that they were not seeking to oppose Bill 21, but rather the notwithstanding clause. Even though we heard the former prime minister, Mr. Trudeau, strongly disavow Bill 21 repeatedly in the past, even though we heard many people on the government side strongly disavow Bill 21, as if by magic today, it would seem that the Liberals oppose the notwithstanding clause. On the other side, the speeches we heard from the Conservatives focused mainly on the increased cost of living. We raised a few points of order to find out whether the Conservatives were going to speak on the motion and whether the Conservatives, particularly those from Quebec, are prepared to support Bill 21.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing. If the Liberals want to amend the Constitution and section 33, the notwithstanding clause, let them launch constitutional negotiations. Let them reopen the Constitution if they want to change its rules. Let them treat Quebec and the provinces as equal partners in a public debate instead of going through the courts. Let them respect their own federation. Let them behave like democrats. Will the Liberals withdraw their factum, which is insulting to Quebeckers, and withdraw from the challenge to Bill 21?”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand from my colleague's response earlier that he is making a distinction by saying that today's debate is simply about the notwithstanding clause, and not about Bill 21. I have a very clear question for him. As a member of Parliament from Quebec, does he support Bill 21, which regulates religion in the civic sphere in Quebec? That is my question for my colleague, nothing more.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is making a statement similar to the one made this morning by the member for Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi . They are arguing that implementing a policy that regulates religion is at odds with invoking the notwithstanding clause, which allows Quebec to follow its own political leanings. I find that quite surprising. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Quebec history will quickly realize that Quebec needed to break free from religion and become secular in order to build a modern society. Perhaps my colleague can enlighten me on this point. How could the notwithstanding clause become a threat to women's freedom, as the member for Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi said earlier?”
“Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that the cost-of-living crisis is a very important and worthy issue that we can talk about. However, there is another very important issue, which is the survival of a minority nation and Quebec's ability to enact its own laws to regulate religion in its society. My colleague did not comment on that, so I will ask him a very simple question. As an elected member from Quebec, does he believe, as I do, that Quebec is fully competent to respond, to make its own laws and to regulate religion? Does he believe that, yes or no?”
“Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I can see why my colleague might think the government is trying to avoid the cost of living crisis, which is affecting people. However, I think that Quebec's Act respecting the laicity of the State and the fact that it is being challenged are important issues for Quebeckers. I would politely ask my colleague to focus on the motion we moved today. I do not understand why anyone would see a connection between the price of peas and the laicity issue.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague quotes Simone de Beauvoir extensively. I would like to congratulate her for that. Kudos to her. However, she should be aware that women in Quebec have been fighting hard to break free from religion. In the 1940s to 1950s, women in Quebec did not have the same rights as men, and they had to campaign for a long time and fight hard to replace religion with something else. Now, what my colleague is saying is that developing the tools to break free from religion would be a setback. I struggle to understand her logic. Either she does not understand Simone de Beauvoir, or I do not understand her argument about feminism and the link she is making between feminism and the notwithstanding clause.”
“I hope that my colleagues will recognize the importance of this bill. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“Second, the bill will require the government to publish the text of the agreement or any amendments to agreements that are already in effect in the Canada Gazette, on its website and in the Canada Treaty Series. It is inconceivable that, in 2025, the government still unilaterally decides what is on the table. It does not report to anyone on how the negotiations are progressing and it assumes the right to sign treaties before their text is made public. It does not even have to ask the public's opinion. The public deserves greater transparency from the federal government. This bill therefore strikes a good balance between the right of elected officials and the public to know what is in the treaties that their government is signing on their behalf and respect for the Crown's prerogative to enter into such treaties.”
“Bill C‑228. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (prior review of treaties by Parliament) . He said: Mr. Speaker, today, the Bloc Québécois is keeping a promise by introducing a bill to enable Parliament to not only review but also vote on the text of trade agreements before the Government of Canada ratifies them. This bill will basically do two things. First, it will require the government to table the text of the agreement in the House, debate it, examine it in committee, receive recommendations from elected officials and vote on its wording.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. Unfortunately, I do not think that Bill C‑2 does anything to address how unfairly Quebec has been treated. Quebec had to foot the bill to take in more than its share of asylum seekers, which put pressure on the health and education systems and the housing supply, as we have said here many times. This whole crisis may have been caused by the previous government and its Century Initiative. In my opinion, this bill seeks to fix problems that the Liberal government itself created. However, the problem that the bill does not fix is that of fairness to the Government of Quebec, which paid more than its fair share as a result of mistakes made by the federal government.”
“Mr. Speaker, it sounds like we agree. My colleague is absolutely right. The majority of MPs in the House, who want to do their job properly, are overwhelmed by highly complex IRCC-related requests. The result is that everyone is frustrated. People come to our offices hoping to find solutions because, the truth is, the immigration system is broken. Unfortunately, it is difficult to get someone on the line. The people in our offices are having a hard time talking to anyone. I agree with my colleague on this point. The responsibility lies entirely at the government's feet. Unfortunately, it does not seem to fully appreciate the scale of the immigration crisis that Canada and Quebec are currently facing.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is rare for me to agree with the member for Winnipeg North. The parliamentary session is off to a very good start. I think we need to continue the work. However, the message I would have liked people to take away from my speech is that sometimes, politically, there needs to be an adult in the room. In the past, in the House, when we have talked about immigration, we have been accused left, right and centre of politicizing an issue for ideological reasons. What makes me laugh a bit is that, when the Bloc Québécois members were talking today about what is in this bill, including parts 7 and 8 on illegal border crossers, that same member for Winnipeg North rose to say that we were fearmongering.”
“I welcome this element of Bill C‑2. It could help restore the reputation of our universities, which was damaged this summer. Universities jump through many hoops to recruit foreign students. It is a very competitive environment. In my riding of Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi had a strategy in place for the past 20 years to be a welcoming place for foreign students. Unfortunately for the university, the excellent reputation it had built up was ruined—and I mean that—due to an inadequate response from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I can say that this inadequate response is not unrelated to the fact that we did not have better legislation to regulate students who apply and come here on false pretenses.”
“A whole host of temporary foreign students arrived in Quebec with fake acceptance letters, which enabled them to file asylum claims. What have been the consequences of that? I will talk about what we experienced in Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean in particular. This has put an enormous amount of pressure on universities and colleges. In recent years, they have had to deal with many applications, some of which were quite far-fetched, without any support from the federal government. I will just mention the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi. French foreign students fall under the memorandum of agreement, so they do not pose a problem. However, there have been disastrous cases where these students' applications were delayed because of the difficult situation involving foreign students who are arriving in the country to make asylum claims.”
“As we saw in the media not too long ago, they have caused accidents that turned fatal. Perhaps it is because they do not follow all the road safety rules, they do not follow all the rules related to logbook entries and they do not have safe and healthy work equipment. Perhaps that is something that should be studied as part of this bill. I know that my colleague for Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères already has documentation on that. Perhaps that is something that could be addressed in committee. There is also all the work that will be done on reviewing asylum claims. I am thinking of part 7 in particular. I do not know whether my colleagues have seen this in their ridings, but, in mine, we have a serious problem with temporary foreign students.”
“That is the reality for Bloc Québécois members, but I imagine the same is true for Conservative and Liberal members. We are making up for the shortcomings of the citizenship and immigration system. I say that because I find that there are some potentially worthwhile solutions in Bill C‑2 . Part 6, which seeks to share information with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, could address some of the problems we have experienced. Just today, my colleague from Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères asked the Minister of Transport to launch an investigation into the notorious Driver Inc. issue. I am not exactly sure how these drivers are referred to, but they are temporary foreign workers who apply for a bulk transport licence without necessarily meeting all the conditions.”
“What has harmed Quebec in recent years is the considerable influx of asylum seekers. That has put pressure on public services, housing, health care services, education and so on. When the Bloc Québécois raised those issues in the last Parliament, I think the government was less attentive. For that reason, I would like us to debate the issue of immigration a little more calmly in the coming months or weeks. From what I have seen since 2019, though, it seems unlikely. (1230) What have we been talking about since 2019? I would remind the House that the Bloc Québécois spoke out many times against what was happening at Roxham Road, against the Century Initiative and against an immigration system that, in my opinion, is broken and in crisis. Our constituency offices have practically become Service Canada offices.”
“I can assure people that, where I come from, Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, his words created quite a stir because a lot of manufacturing companies depend primarily on temporary foreign workers for their survival. With so much talk about immigration at the moment, many members of society have come under its influence and have adopted a rather narrow outlook on the problems that affect us. We have to differentiate between essential temporary foreign workers in certain sectors, and others who may be less essential in other sectors. Realities in the regions may differ from the realities facing large urban centres. We have to make a distinction there, but we also have to distinguish between the different types of immigration. Asylum seekers do not have the same status as temporary foreign workers.”
“Parts 6 to 9 of the bill include proposals that go hand in hand with questions that have been asked by the Bloc Québécois. I think that it is important to highlight this because partisan politics has often been used as an excuse in the House. Whenever members of the Bloc Québécois would raise immigration issues, both Conservatives and Liberals would say that the Bloc Québécois was using the immigration debate for partisan purposes. I will come back to this point because the past few weeks have shown what can happen when the immigration debate is used for partisan purposes. I will not dwell at much length on the Leader of the Opposition 's somewhat inappropriate outburst concerning temporary foreign workers.”
“The Bloc Québécois did not wait until pressure started coming from the Trump administration before raising concerns here in the House that line up with the considerations in this bill. In some ways, this bill represents major progress. However, it is a massive bill, and it includes new powers that could alarm civil rights advocates. I think that was mentioned quite a bit this morning. That is why the committee will have to be diligent and flesh out certain things. I trust my colleagues will do just that. However, one major point still needs to be addressed: the understaffing at the Canada Border Services Agency and at the RCMP. The government seems to be in austerity mode, so I look forward to seeing what solutions will be proposed for this. I would like to add some points regarding the issue of immigration and IRCC.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see you again and to speak to Bill C-2 , a large, complex bill that covers several aspects related to border security, the fight against organized crime, illegal financing and, above all, immigration and IRCC. I may elaborate on that later. It is no secret. As my colleagues from Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon and Lac-Saint-Jean indicated, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill at second reading, but it will do so cautiously, as always. As members may recall, the Bloc Québécois has long been calling for better border control. My former colleague Kristina Michaud asked many questions on the matter, particularly about auto theft, fentanyl trafficking and money laundering.”
“Mr. Speaker, this bill is another example of predatory federalism. The government's objective is to have one economy and just one type of assessment, and be able to shove fossil fuel energy projects down Quebec's throat when they do not meet our expectations. It is going to put billions of dollars into that. What the government is doing is ensuring that it has the regulatory environment to complete this project that only responds to the oil and gas industry's needs.”
“Mr. Speaker, personally, I do not really understand why my Conservative colleagues are grumbling about Bill C-5 . Earlier, during oral question period, my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères said that he thinks it is a Pierre Poilievre bill wearing a red tie. I honestly think that the Conservatives' and Liberals' shared interest in this bill is founded on the sacred bond between those who are pro-oil. The Conservatives should be happy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I always agree with my colleague from the NDP. Yes, it is true, there was a major gas infrastructure project in Quebec and in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. It was GNL Québec. The developers said again and again that if the environmental assessments were not favourable to the project, they would step back. What did they do when they got the results of those assessments? They sued the Quebec government for millions of dollars. Now the government wants to fast-track projects whose details are unknown. Just think of the developers who we will turn down and the money that will have to be spent. This bill is a disaster in the making.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would advise my Liberal colleagues from Quebec to listen to voters. The government cheated us out of $800 million by giving all Canadians a carbon tax rebate even though that tax had not been collected. I am not convinced that the people who voted for the Liberal Party are happy today. With Bill C‑5 , the government is proposing to build infrastructure that will not have any impact whatsoever on Quebec. On the two major industries in Quebec hit by tariffs, the government has remained silent. If I were in my colleague's shoes, I would do some soul searching and I would realize that someone has dropped the ball somewhere.”
“We realized only later that it was far from a loan; it was a gift that had been given to the auto sector. The government never wanted to put a penny into the forestry industry in 2008. Now history is repeating itself. A bill is being proposed that does not meet the expectations of Quebeckers. Once again, this is predatory federalism. No measures are being proposed to support the economic pillars of Quebec, and the government is trying to ram this down our throats by imposing closure. To me, that is far from a triumph.”
“The federal government has always refused to implement a liquidity program that would have helped people in the forestry sector. It has always refused to implement that measure, so much so that today we are seeing many small sawmills in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, on the north shore and in the Gaspé Peninsula shutting down, which jeopardizes the economic vitality of the regions of Quebec. Instead of implementing measures that would have supported the Quebec economy, what the government is proposing is Bill C‑5 , a measure that will help it build pipelines. I will wrap up by saying that the history tends to repeat itself. I remember another crisis we went through in 2008. We all remember the 2008 crisis. The government responded quickly by announcing an $8-billion investment in the auto sector.”
“In 2019, during the CUSMA negotiations, a Canadian negotiator candidly told us that the government had dropped the ball. The only industry that would not be protected under the 2019 CUSMA was the aluminum industry. Steel had some form of protection. The Bloc Québécois speaks from experience because this was the first fight that we waged in the House when we came back in 2019. We wanted to make sure that the aluminum industry would be protected. This is an ongoing issue that proves that the government never pays attention to Quebec's industries. The same is true for the forestry sector, which has been paying countervailing duties since 2017. Ten billion dollars in countervailing duties is currently being held captive in the United States, including $2 billion from Quebec.”
“Of those four million tonnes, 3.3 million tonnes come from Canada, mostly from my region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, and also from the north shore. The government says it wants to carry out major projects, in other words, infrastructure that would require the use of more aluminum. I cannot imagine what magic trick the government thinks it can pull off to replace a market of 3.3 million tonnes of aluminum per year. We will never consume that much in Canada. This week, the government decided to propose some measures that I described as impotent, saying that they would impose certain quotas. That might work for steel, but it does not apply at all to aluminum. This bill will therefore have no impact on the tariff crisis affecting the aluminum sector. It gets even worse.”
“The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has the nerve to use that as an example. To him, building Canada is doing what Robert Bourassa did. There is a disconnect. I think that my colleague should take a history lesson to better understand Quebec's economy. I have been saying from the outset that the government's goal was to respond to the tariff crisis. How does this bill respond to the tariffs affecting Quebec? The answer is that it does not respond to those tariffs in any way. Let me prove it. Quebec is affected by the 50% tariffs on aluminum. When we talk about aluminum, we have to make the distinction between producers of primary aluminum and aluminum processors. (1310) The United States currently consumes four million tonnes of aluminum per year.”
“I asked the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons if he did not find it outrageous that the government had paid $34 billion for the Trans Mountain expansion, knowing that the Parliamentary Budget Officer had stated that that oil and gas infrastructure would have to be used to maximum capacity for 40 years for it to be cost effective. I asked the government leader if he did not find that outrageous. His answer was that we will build Canada the way Robert Bourassa built Quebec with Hydro-Québec. What incredible irony. Do members know how much money the federal government put into Hydro Québec? It did not contribute one red cent. Quebeckers paid for the biggest energy infrastructure in Quebec. They never got any support from the federal government.”