Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

[Combatting Hate Act, June 16th, 2026]

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.

[International Trade, June 9th, 2026]

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?

[Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2, June 3rd, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote and will be voting against.

[Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2, June 3rd, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote and will be voting against.

[Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2, June 3rd, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote, and I will be voting against.

[Petitions, May 26th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, many serious allegations have been made regarding the behaviour and actions of Canadian companies abroad. I have heard accounts from abroad regarding cases of violence against local populations, water pollution and contaminated air. Simply put, the Trudeau government, which is still in office under another name, supposedly created the position of Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise to address this problem.

Unfortunately, this is a shell of an organization that receives complaints but cannot conduct its own investigations. It also lacks independence and the power to compel testimony and order the production of documents.

That is why I am tabling this petition, which also calls on the government to appoint a new ombudsperson since the position has been vacant for a year. That makes the situation all the more unacceptable. The petition also calls on the government to give the ombudsman real authority to act.

[Financial Administration Act, May 7th, 2026]

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.

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2026]

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?

[Business of Supply, May 5th, 2026]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[Business of Supply, May 5th, 2026]

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.