MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Follow by RSS

Savard-Tremblay presses for protection from U.S. tariffs and for Bill C-251, which would make importers prove goods are not made with forced or child labour, while defending Quebec’s trade interests and its right to choose independence. He argues by wandering into asides — “or at least I hope so”, “We are a democracy” — before circling back to his question.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B
77 / 100 over 24 statements
Signal 69 / 100
Relevance 72 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 95 / 100
Averaged over the 24 of 28 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

Loses points less than most for A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.Less often than most members.What the tags mean

Statements 28

Government Orders ·

Combatting Hate Act

“I am leaving the House of Commons. I want to thank the voters in my riding, my staff, and my Bloc Québécois colleagues for their support. I will keep working to make Quebec an independent country.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected to the House of Commons in 2019, I came with a deep sense of gratitude toward the people of Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot, who had placed their trust in me. That was the name of my riding at the time. I also arrived with a conviction that has been with me for many years, that Quebec is a nation and that this nation must be able to freely choose its future. I became a member of the Bloc Québécois and the Parti Québécois when I was 16 years old. Since then, my involvement has taken many forms. Activism, studying, research, teaching, writing and, ultimately, political representation. These different steps were always guided by the same desire to understand the world that we live in and to contribute in a small way to the advancement of Quebec. Over the past few years, I have had the privilege of representing our region in this House. I have risen in this place to defend the interests of our workers, our businesses, our agriculture and our communities. I have brought Quebec’s voice into debates on international trade, the economy, defence and the choices shaping our collective future. I have also learned how battles are fought here, what crisis management is about, and the importance of dialogue despite differences. Often, behind the sometimes heated debates that pit us against each other, are women and men sincerely devoted to the common good. For that, I want to thank my colleagues from every party, along with House staff members and everyone who contributes on a daily basis to keeping our institutions running. However, my time here has also strengthened some of my convictions. I have witnessed the full scope of the talent, resources and creativity that Quebec possesses and that it will need to rise to the future challenges that await it. I have also seen the limits it confronts when it tries to pursue its national priorities within a political entity whose interests sometimes diverge from its own. This observation has not discouraged me, on the contrary. It has strengthened my faith in Quebec’s capabilities. It has strengthened my conviction that our nation must continue building its institutions, its economy, its culture and its capacity to act. Throughout our history, Quebeckers have often made the most progress when they chose boldness over resignation. We have built institutions. We have developed an economy. We have asserted our culture. Generation after generation, we have demonstrated that we can accomplish great things when we have confidence in ourselves. That confidence is what inspires me today. Public service remains one of the greatest privileges a person can have. No matter where we are called to serve, our duty remains the same, and that is to work with integrity, diligence and loyalty. Once again, I thank the people of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for the honour they have bestowed upon us. I would like to thank my family, my friends, my associates and everyone who has supported me on this journey. I thank all the staffers who have worked in my constituency office over the years. One of them has been with us from the very beginning, and that is Amélie, my wonderful constituency assistant. I would like to thank all the party supporters who led us to three victories, with an increasing number of votes every time. I would like to thank my predecessors, Yvan Loubier and Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, who have always been very supportive. I thank them for their invaluable advice. I cannot leave the House without expressing my heartfelt gratitude to my Bloc Québécois colleagues. Over the years, I have had the privilege of belonging to a political party made up of people who care deeply about Quebec and about advocating for Quebec. My colleagues are competent, generous and dedicated, and their friendship and support have meant so much to me in the political arena and beyond. I am also especially grateful to our leader. I call him our leader because, even though I am listed as independent, I am still a Bloc Québécois member and activist and will remain so until we achieve independence. His leadership, political acumen and confidence have enabled me to grow as a parliamentarian and as a representative of our fellow citizens. I have learned so much working alongside him. The Bloc Québécois will continue to play an essential role in advocating for Quebec. I am now taking on a new challenge, or rather, I have decided to fight this battle elsewhere, but I am still motivated by the sense of hope I felt at age 16 when I first joined the party. My hope is for a Quebec that makes its own choices, that has faith in its capabilities and that is resolutely focused on the future. I will continue to devote myself entirely to this cause until Quebec becomes a country.

Oral Questions ·

International Trade

“Canada lets too many goods made with forced labour cross our border. I introduced a bill to stop this by making importers prove their goods are not made with forced or child labour. I want the Prime Minister to help pass my bill.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump is imposing tariffs on countries that are not doing enough to address forced labour in their imports. Although that is an excuse, the fact remains that Canada is like a sieve; it has hardly made any seizures at the border. Last fall, I introduced Bill C‑251, which would require importers to prove that products from certain regions are not made with forced labour or child labour. Now that the Prime Minister is finally saying he wants to do more to address forced labour, will he get my bill passed at all stages?

Private Members' Business ·

Financial Administration Act

“I will vote for this bill. It creates a public website that lists large debts the government gave up on collecting. The public deserves to know which companies had their debts forgiven.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here to speak to this bill introduced by my colleague, with whom I serve on the Standing Committee on International Trade. We work very well together. I was there when the Minister of Industry appeared before the committee. My colleague pressed her on the issue and had a rather intense exchange with her regarding the Stellantis case. I imagine that had an impact on my colleague’s determination to see this bill through the legislative process. I also read an article from October 22, 2018. It is not exactly recent, but it does show that the practices this bill aims to eliminate have been happening for a long time. The Radio-Canada article is about the Liberal government writing off a more than $2-billion loan it had granted to Chrysler. Actually, it was published by CBC News. The subheadings in the article are “Similarly opaque” and “In the dark”. These are the subheadings found in the article. That says it all. The article revealed that a $2.6-billion loan that had been granted to Chrysler in 2009 during the economic crisis had quite simply been quietly written off. To find this out, someone had to dig deep, had to search, had to consult one of the volumes of the 2018 Public Accounts of Canada to learn about it. The government certainly cannot claim to have been exceptionally transparent. Let me say straightaway that we will be voting in favour of Bill C‑230 at third reading. The bill aims to increase transparency surrounding debts owed to the Government of Canada by creating a public registry in the form of an online, searchable database of debts of $2 million or more that were forgiven or written off in whole or in part. The Government of Canada has an unfortunate tendency to be opaque when it comes to waiving debts, as we saw in the Chrysler case. The bill was amended in committee to clarify a number of things. For example, the minimum amount required for inclusion in the registry was raised. Other types of write-offs or benefits were also added, such as remissions and waivers. The bill was improved in committee. Although it was perfectly acceptable to begin with, it is even better now. Additional amendments would force the government to create the registry within 18 months of royal assent and to exclude certain information for reasons related to the protection of personal, confidential or sensitive information. The President of Treasury Board will be required to provide reasons if information is excluded. To summarize, the bill “amends the Financial Administration Act to require that the President of the Treasury Board establish and maintain a public registry of large debts and obligations owed by certain entities to His Majesty, as well as claims by His Majesty against such entities, that have been [written off or] forgiven”. It also makes “consequential amendments to other Acts”. I will summarize the bill. It adds a section to the Financial Administration Act stating that the President of the Treasury Board must establish an online, searchable database containing information about a corporation, trust company or partnership once certain criteria are met. First, the value of the debt or obligation must be $2 million or more, as in the Chrysler case. Second, the debt, obligation or claim must be owing, meaning that an act of Parliament requires the state to demand repayment when the debt comes due. Third, the debt, obligation or claim must have been totally or partially written off, forgiven, remitted or waived. A write-off, like the one granted to Chrysler in 2018, means that the government believes it will not be able to recover its money and therefore decides to remove the debt from its books, for example in the event of bankruptcy. A partial write-off would mean that the government agrees to write off part of the amount but still demands repayment of the difference. For example, if a company is on the verge of bankruptcy, the government may estimate that it can recover only a fraction of the debt. Forgiveness means that the government formally forgives a debt and legally releases the debtor, for example when the person who owes the money proves that the government made a mistake. This is perfectly normal. The bill is good because it is fairly specific in this respect. For example, it states that the registry must include certain information, such as the name, as well as any business name, of the corporation, trust company or partnership. A numbered company must be included using its identifiable name, not just its actual number on the registry. The registry must also include the following: the amount that was remitted, forgiven, written off or waived; the period to which the amount relates; the legislation under which the debt, obligation or claim arose; and any other information that the President of the Treasury Board considers appropriate. The registry must be established within 18 months after the bill comes into force. The remainder of the bill makes consequential amendments to other acts. All of that is very sensible. We know that the government already has all of the data required by the bill available in house. Some of that data is published in the public accounts, where we can find out the total amount of debt written off by department and the number of ministerial approvals, meaning the number of times the minister approved the write-off or forgiveness of a debt, obligation or claim, and the legislation under which the debt, obligation or claim arose. Other than that, there are no details that will enable us to identify the company or the amount lost. That is a lack of transparency. For example, in the Public Accounts of Canada 2025, volume III, section 2, we can see which department approved the write-off or forgiveness of debts, obligations or claims. We see the total amounts. For 2024-25, for example, we know that the government gave up more than $7 billion, including $5.3 billion in write-offs and $1.2 billion in debt forgiveness. However, we know virtually nothing about the rest. That is a problem. We also know, for example, that under the Old Age Security Act, the government wrote off more than $166 million in 2024-25. That is quite a lot of money, when we think about it. It is staggering that the public does not have access to this information, that they cannot find out any details about what happened, why it happened, which company was involved and under which law. We are talking about several billion dollars last year. The upcoming bill is going to provide access to this information. Because of that, parliamentarians and journalists will be able to do a better job. The general public will be able to learn more. Experts will also have access to more information that they can use to understand the behaviour of certain companies and study solvency and other matters. This is a good thing, especially since Bill C‑230 is not going to create a mountain of work for public servants or cost a fortune to implement, considering that the government has already compiled all the information internally. The bill would simply make it all public. That is about it, just that. In conclusion, I repeat that we enthusiastically support this bill and we will support it at third reading.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“Quebec will have another vote on independence soon, and we will win. Then we will run our own country. As a Quebecker and a member of the Wendat nation, I know our property laws are different. Could this British Columbia court ruling affect Quebec later?”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 42 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I admit that we in Quebec are really accustomed to this. I heard my colleague say that the referendums on independence took place under a Liberal government. I can assure him that the next one will also take place under a Liberal government in the coming years and that we are going to win this time. Then the Liberals can have their country, and they can decide how to govern it. We look forward to that. We will leave Canada to them, and we will take care of our own affairs. I find this issue interesting. Not only am I a proud Quebecker, I am also a proud member of the Wendat nation. It is an important part of who I am. In Quebec, we have rights and legal systems that are quite different, particularly when it comes to property. It is a bit hard for us to wrap our heads around this situation. Can my colleague elaborate on that aspect? Does he anticipate that this ruling from British Columbia could have an impact on Quebec later on?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Mario Simard

“The government protects the auto industry but ignores softwood lumber. When I went to Washington with the trade minister, she only talked about cars, not lumber. The Prime Minister did not even include lumber in the minister's job instructions. This shows an unfair double standard.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade for a long time, and I have been working on this portfolio since I was first elected to the House of Commons. I can give numerous examples. I specifically remember one telling anecdote. The United States had announced new softwood lumber tariffs and, at roughly the same time, it also announced the Inflation Reduction Act, which would have affected Canada’s auto industry. Both came at the same time. I was invited by the former minister of international trade, Ms. Ng, to go to Washington on an urgent mission. I thought we were going to discuss softwood lumber, but that did not come up at all. The only thing on the agenda was the auto industry. A short time later, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sent out his mandate letters. There was not a word about softwood lumber in the then minister of international trade’s mandate letter. Examples like this abound, and I think they illustrate the double standard my colleague was talking about.

In response to a question from Kurt Holman

“The government should have taken action on many issues a long time ago. We need new rules for how the government buys goods and services. For too long, the rules have favoured American companies instead of our own.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, generally speaking, it is clear that there are significant differences between the solutions the Bloc Québécois favours and those the Conservatives favour. That is a fact. We are a democracy. That is just the way it is. Still, there are indeed many criticisms we can level at this government, even if they do not always come from the same perspective. We are currently focusing our criticism on the fact that more proactive steps should have been taken on a wide range of issues a long time ago. I gave the example of targeted measures, such as the wage subsidy. One of the most urgent issues is the public procurement policies. We are expecting these policies very soon. I know there is talk that this should happen. We look forward to reviewing the policies in question. We look forward to seeing what they entail. However, for far too long, we have seen that, in the context of the U.S. economic offensive, procurement policies, or policies designed to circumvent procurement, have often been deliberately crafted to give priority to U.S. companies. There are all sorts of things that should be done and prioritized, but so far, that is not what we have seen.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The government promised to end tariffs quickly, but we have more tariffs now than before. Its current plan does not do enough to help manufacturers. They need wage subsidies and targeted help.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I know that some action has been taken and that is a good thing. We never said otherwise. However, the fact is that the government promised to quickly put an end to tariffs within a few months; yet, today, we have more tariffs than we did when this government first took office. I think that is a sign of failure. Just this morning, I met with furniture manufacturers who said that they agreed with the measures that the government is proposing, but that those measures are woefully inadequate because they do not make much difference. These measures are not really going to help them like targeted assistance or wages subsidies would. That is the bottom line.

In response to a question from Mario Simard

“I want Quebec to become independent soon. Staying part of Canada costs much more than becoming our own country.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, we were talking about the medium or long term. Now, we can start talking about the short term, or at least I hope so. I will let my colleague guess what solution I recommend. I know that he recommends the same one. I will simply remind him that Pierre Falardeau said that, while there is certainly a cost to independence, there is also a cost to dependence, and it is immeasurably higher.

In response to a question from Amarjeet Gill

“Some rules and taxes are good if they are used the right way. We voted with the Conservatives before on their motion. Now I want the Conservatives to vote for our motion to help industries that need it.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 34 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is up to me to explain the behaviour of the Liberal government. That is not my function, not my job. That said, I would like to clarify that some regulations may be good and some taxes may be good. It all depends on how they are applied. As for the rest, this sovereign wealth fund is sovereign in name only. In fact, we voted with the Conservatives on this during their opposition day. Considering our proposals to help sectors in urgent need, I hope that the Conservatives will vote in favour of our opposition motion, as we did for theirs.

In response to a question from Natilien Joseph

“My party generally supports free trade agreements, and they have helped Quebec in the past. But we will not support any deal that is bad for us.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, no. I think that goes without saying. I have always said that we agree with trade agreements in principle, but that our support is not unconditional. In fact, the sovereigntist movement in Quebec was initially a major driving force behind the shift towards free trade and opening up the economy. It was Jacques Parizeau and Bernard Landry who worked very hard in the 1980s to convince Quebeckers to embark on this venture. It has been beneficial to us. If an agreement is flawed, if it contains aspects that will have negative repercussions, we will not agree to it, obviously. That goes without saying.

“New American tariffs are hurting our businesses and costing jobs, especially in Quebec. The government is not doing enough to help. Offering loans is not the answer. I want the House to vote for our motion to protect our workers with wage subsidies, support key industries like steel and lumber, and buy local.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what is happening today goes way beyond a temporary trade spat. Since the U.S. administration’s April 6 executive order, we have been seeing a methodical, systematic and deeply harmful hardening of the rules that our businesses were required to follow. Up until yesterday, there was a logical rationale behind the already excessive steel and aluminum tariffs. Today, Washington chose to hit hard by imposing a flat tariff of 25% on the total value of products that contain more than 15% Canadian steel, aluminum or copper. In other words, it is no longer just a tax on a raw material. It is a tax on our ability to process, innovate and export. It is a tax on our economic intelligence. The consequences are immediate. Products that were once protected by trade agreements are now being hard hit. According to available analyses, nearly a quarter of our U.S. exports are affected. This figure of one-quarter needs to be taken seriously. It is a major blow to our economy. However, and this is where the problem lies, the government’s response so far has been timid, if not downright inadequate. The recent economic statement included zero provisions, and the subsequent measures announced yesterday—while showing some awareness of the situation—essentially rely on businesses taking on additional debt when, in many cases, they are already stretched to the limit. They are being offered loans, when what they need is breathing room. They are being offered bureaucratic processes, when what they need is predictability. Meanwhile, the reality is harsh. Orders will fall off, perhaps not today, perhaps not tomorrow morning, but in the coming months, once the current orders have beeen filled. At that point, it will no longer be a question of worrying. It will be a question of closures, job losses and entire regions on shaky ground. The government needs to stop managing on a day-to-day basis. It must act with diligence, consistency and, above all, ambition. We must start by protecting human capital. A temporary wage subsidy, modelled on what has been successfully implemented in times of crisis, would enable us to keep workers employed, maintain expertise and avoid a brain drain that would take years to recover from. Next, we have to defend our strategic sectors: wood, aluminum, steel. These are not things of the past. They are the pillars of our industrial future. We need safeguards to counter unfair practices, whether from the U.S. or any other country. We also have to take a smart financial approach. Buying back part of the countervailing duties that our softwood lumber producers are subject to, for example, is not an expenditure; it is strategic repositioning. Above all, we need to stop trying to act as if buying local were optional. It must become a nation-building obligation. The government has to be an economic driver, not a spectator. We also need to take concrete, pragmatic measures: simplify duty drawback mechanisms, offer centralized support to SMEs and, above all, develop a clear, complete and detailed picture of impacted businesses. Governing means understanding, and understanding requires measurements. Finally, I will say it bluntly: Quebec is facing $8 billion in potential losses, but the response from across the aisle is only $1.5 billion. Numbers do not lie: The response is not serious, it is not enough, and it is not the way to protect our economy. We have to tell it like it is. Donald Trump’s executive order is a direct attack on SMEs in Quebec and Canada. It is a targeted, bold and deeply destabilizing attack. This is no mere trade dispute. These are trade-distorting tariffs imposed by a foreign country with no regard for the established rules. The change in the way section 232 tariffs are calculated, which is now based on the full customs value of the product rather than just the metal content value, is exactly the type of foreign economic interference that the House has always spoken out against. We are talking about a rule that was imposed unilaterally, without notice, which distorts competition and penalizes those who made the right choice: to process here, invest here and create value here. Let us make no mistake. These tariffs are being imposed in bad faith. To keep those measures in place, the White House is circumventing the very spirit of certain United States court rulings. In other words, the American President is governing as he pleases. In light of that, Ottawa’s responsibility is clear: It must protect the Quebec and Canadian economies, protect their workers and protect their businesses. Yet what are we seeing? We are seeing Ottawa dragging its feet, hesitating, reacting, but always one step behind. The Prime Minister was elected on a promise to defend our economy against this type of trade aggression; yet still today, he remains on the defensive, as though the situation were going to resolve itself. That is not going to happen. Things are only going to get worse. There are more tariffs now than there were when this government took office. While Ottawa is dithering, this is having very real consequences on the ground. Quebec, which is already more vulnerable to the United States’ tariff policies than the rest of the country, is being hit extremely hard. In the manufacturing sector alone, thousands of jobs have been lost over the past year. Entire industries, from forestry to certain segments of the cultural sector, have seen their employment rates decline significantly. With the new measures announced in April, the situation is only going to get worse. It is not just the metal being taxed now. It is the labour, the ingenuity, and the value added by Quebec and Canada. Every processed product becomes a target. Every company that has chosen to move upmarket is penalized. It is a perverse logic that rewards raw materials and punishes economic intelligence. We cannot accept that. Supporting our motion is not a symbolic gesture. It is a necessary step in defending the very credibility of our trade agreements, including the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement. We negotiated these agreements in good faith, with the goal of creating a stable, predictable and equitable economic space. Washington has decided to change the rules midway through the game. This is not trade. It is commercial predation. Predation cannot be met with a wait-and-see attitude. It must be met with firmness. It must be met with concrete measures. It must be met by rising to the challenge. On April 21 in the House, the leader of the Bloc Québécois asked the Prime Minister a very simple question: Will there be any transitional measures to support our businesses and workers affected by the new U.S. tariffs? The answer was clear: Yes, they will be in the economic update. However, the update was tabled on April 28, and it does nothing to address the urgent situation. I mean it when I say “nothing”. There are no targeted measures to counter the tariffs imposed by Donald Trump’s administration. There is no structured response to support the businesses directly affected by the tariffs. There is no plan to protect our industrial base. What we are presented with instead are improvised financial schemes, a $25‑billion so-called sovereign wealth fund, which is sovereign in name only and whose mandate could just as easily have been given to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which, by the way, has not even used all the funds allocated to it. Meanwhile, the debt continues to grow, and with it the cost of servicing that debt, which will exceed $80 billion within a few years, far more than what is being transferred to the provinces for health care. I would remind the House that Ottawa is not complying with its own legislation. However, there are proposals. We had some, we still have some and we will continue to have more. The Bloc Québécois came up with a series of concrete and realistic measures that were adapted to the crisis. Not only were these proposals ignored, but Ottawa did not even see fit to consult us. That says a lot. That is indicative of a government that governs in isolation. That is indicative of a government that confuses a parliamentary majority with not having to listen. Even more troubling, while our businesses are suffering, Ottawa is patting itself on the back for its revenues. More than $10 million was collected in tariffs, but just over half has been redistributed. The remaining $4.5 billion is sitting idle in Ottawa’s coffers while SMEs are forced to shut down and workers are losing their jobs. The tools are there and the money is there. What is missing is the political will. To add insult to injury, the government continues to rely on outdated data to assess the impact of the tariffs. That is not good crisis management. That is improvisation. In an economic crisis, improvisation always negatively affects the same folks: workers, the regions and SMEs. Recognizing a problem is one thing, and that is great. That is probably the first step. Taking action, however, is another matter entirely. At pivotal moments, the nations that come out on top are not those that wait for the storm to pass, but rather the ones that mobilize to confront it directly. While Canada may not be ready to do so, Quebec will do it every time. There are many solutions that just need to be implemented. I hope the House will adopt today’s Bloc Québécois opposition day motion. This is what it comes down to.

Government Orders ·

Report Stage

“Our committee worked together well across parties to improve this bill. Now the government is shutting down debate instead of working with us. I want to know what my colleague thinks about that.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my colleague spoke about the work we managed to achieve in committee. This showed that, given that this is a minority government—since it was elected a year ago as a minority rather than a majority government—we were able to get things done. I am the Bloc Québécois MP who sits on this committee. I worked extensively with my Conservative colleagues on this issue, as well as with my colleague from the NDP, who is no longer with the NDP but who used to come and see us and nevertheless proposed motions similar to those we eventually adopted. What does my colleague think of the fact that this legacy is now under threat from a government that is no longer a minority government, but that claimed it would collaborate? I would point out that, as we speak, this bill is being considered under time allocation.

“The government is undoing changes that the committee voted for when the opposition had a majority. Now the Liberals have built a majority, and they are cutting off debate. I want to know if my colleague thinks it is wrong to force an end to debate on such an important topic.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who provided a very good outline of the situation, describing a government that was not supposed to have a majority, but that has managed to build one anyway, a government that is demonstrating its utter arrogance, particularly by reversing amendments that were adopted by a majority of committee members. The composition in place at the time was a majority of opposition party members in the House and in committee, as democracy had intended. That was before some members crossed the floor. Now, on top of all that, the Liberals lost their vote, but now that they have a majority, they are trying to reverse that vote with these amendments, in addition to imposing closure on us. They have been telling us all along that they are open to discussing things with others, but now they are imposing closure. Does my colleague not find it outrageous that, on top of everything else, the icing on the cake is a closure motion on a subject as sensitive as this one?

“I agree with sending cases to civilian courts. But civilian courts might sometimes decide that a case is better handled by the military. My party proposed a change to allow this, and the Liberals want to remove it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague talk about intentions. We agreed on the intentions behind the bill. I would remind everyone that we voted to refer the bill to committee. That meant we were also listening to the victims. I agree with what my colleague said in support of the civilian courts. He praised their expertise, and I agree 100%. That said, it is possible that, in light of that very expertise, the civilian courts may consider that in certain specific cases it would be better for matters to remain within the military sphere. Our amendment allowed for this, but the Liberals’ Motion No. 5 will remove that possibility.

“Victims told our committee they want a choice between military and civilian courts. This bill moves all cases to civilian courts. My party passed a compromise to let a civilian court keep a case in the military system if that works better, but the government is trying to undo it. What does my colleague think about this?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is doing some excellent work on these issues at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and who is studying a number of topics related to the ones I am studying at the Standing Committee on National Defence. Naturally, we often have overlapping areas of focus, and this is one of them. In committee, many victims came to plead in favour of freedom of choice. It is important to note that one of the major proposals in this bill is that all cases, without exception, be transferred from military courts to civilian courts. We in the Bloc Québécois proposed a compromise that was adopted, but that amendment is now threatened by what the government is trying to do. We were not even asking for complete freedom of choice, but we were saying that in some cases, if the civilian court felt that it would be better to leave a case with the military court, it could stay there. That does not seem like the end of the world to me. What does my colleague think about that?

“Our committee worked for weeks to make this bill better, and a majority of us voted to change it. Now the government is trying to undo our changes instead of respecting what the majority decided.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 44 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the committee that conducted the study for weeks and that succeeded, with our Conservative colleagues, in getting a majority to adopt amendments. These amendments were informed by witness testimony and greatly improved the bill. We worked patiently for weeks. We heard from witnesses who told us where we needed to go. I believe that we managed to move this bill in the right direction. What does my colleague call a government that does not respect the verdict of parliamentary democracy, when a majority of members have decided to move the bill in one direction, but this government is trying to overturn that by moving the bill in the other direction?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“The member used to be Quebec's finance minister, and he used to fight for more federal health money for Quebec. In the latest budget update, payments on the federal debt will grow much faster than health transfers to the provinces. I want him to tell us what he thinks about that.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was once part of the Government of Quebec. He was a member of the Quebec National Assembly. He was even the finance minister, so he is very familiar with Quebec’s financial structure and the relationship with Canada in this respect. He was also part of a government that, like every government since the 1990s, fought to ensure that Quebec got its fair share of health transfers. The Government of Quebec advocated strenuously for that. On many occasions, by means of motions adopted unanimously in the Quebec National Assembly, he even criticized Ottawa for failing to pay its fair share. Here are some of the numbers in the economic update. I am not pulling these numbers out of thin air. Health transfers will rise from $54.7 billion in 2025‑26 to $67.5 billion in 2030‑31. Over that same period of time, interest payments on the public debt will climb from $54 billion to $80.9 billion. The rising cost of simply servicing the public debt is greater by far than growth in spending on something as important as health transfers. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

“This investment fund is not independent from the government. It will only pay for projects the government has already chosen.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if my colleague can comment on the fact that this sovereign wealth fund is in no way sovereign, nor is it in any way independent of government. Its purpose will be nothing more than to advance projects this very government already selected in the economic update.

“The government should have consulted the opposition parties before creating this sovereign wealth fund. We had good ideas to share, and the government promised to work with us.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague described the sovereign wealth fund as something major, a major step, a major event. That is how the government presented it to us as well. When there is a major event like this, it seems to me that the least the government could have done was to consult the opposition parties. We might have had things to say or suggestions to make. That would have been constructive, especially from a government that had promised to work together with the opposition parties, given that it won its majority in a not very legitimate way.

Statements by Members ·

Guylaine Barré

“I am honouring Guylaine Barré, who died last week. She ran a flower shop in our community for 40 years. I send my condolences to her family and staff.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, to her loved ones’ shock, Guylaine Barré breathed her last. This morning’s Courrier de Saint-Hyacinthe got it right: She was a “merchant of happiness”. Guylaine was a fixture in our region’s business community. It gave me great joy to interact with her regularly because my offices were located downtown near her shop, Rita Fleuriste, which she ran so passionately for 40 years. Few entrepreneurs could ever leave such a lasting impression on us. She was cheerful and energetic, and her smile was contagious. Listing all of her qualities would take much longer than my allotted time. Just as she herself adored flowers, Guylaine was surely a rose among thorns. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I extend my deepest condolences to her family and everyone at Rita Fleuriste. Make no mistake, an entire community has been mourning her loss for nearly a week. Farewell, Guylaine.