Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

[Canada's Auto Industry, December 3rd, 2025]

Mr. Chair, it is costing us dearly. It is costing us a lot to have a government that only cares about Ontario and that backs down on transportation electrification. I think my colleague can speak to that even better than I can. He gave some compelling examples. The government tells a company to go ahead, and then they abandon it.

It also costs us when a supposedly brilliant negotiator gets elected at the national level and charms everyone by saying that he is the one to negotiate with the Trump administration. After his negotiations with the Trump administration, he managed to get 25% tariffs imposed on trucks manufactured here, even though they were initially exempt. Well done.

[Canada's Auto Industry, December 3rd, 2025]

Mr. Chair, I certainly would not say that the Quebec government has gone too far. However, I would say that Ottawa went too far in putting the brakes on electrification. I gave some examples, such as the rollbacks in terms of incentives.

My colleague tells us that he is representing his riding. I am fortunate to represent a riding that includes a city in Quebec with the largest number of green licence plates per 1,000 drivers: Saint‑Hyacinthe. This is also the city that broke the Guinness record for the largest gathering of electric cars a few years ago. I participated in that event in 2021. It is also the city with the largest electric vehicle expo in Quebec, aside from Montreal. I respect the fact that my colleague represents the interests of his constituents. I represent the interests of my constituents.

[Canada's Auto Industry, December 3rd, 2025]

Mr. Chair, that is absolutely the case. Unfortunately, Ottawa put an end to sales quotas and purchase support measures. Of course, the future lies in the development of the electric auto industry, but it must be done the right way. The battery sector, including processing of critical minerals, would have been the best way forward. That is what should have been done, rather than subsidizing exclusively Ontario industries, because that has been a flop, as we have seen.

[Canada's Auto Industry, December 3rd, 2025]

Mr. Chair, I want to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

This debate is about one of the most emblematic industries for Canada and Ottawa. That does not mean that this industry is not fragile, but it is certainly something that Canada's elite are constantly obsessed with, to the point of forgetting all other industries.

They are nowhere to be found when it comes to fighting for softwood lumber. They are nowhere to be found when it comes to fighting for the aerospace sector. There is no strategy or anything whatsoever for that. The auto sector would probably not matter so much to the elite in Ottawa if it were located in Quebec.

Let me give some historical background. The auto pact was signed in 1965. At the time, the industry supported some free trade, on the condition that 10% of production could remain on Canadian soil. Before that, manufacturers were forced to have plants in both countries, meaning in the U.S. and in Canada. Afterwards, since the 10% could have been threatened, members will recall that Ontario was vehemently opposed to free trade, while Quebec supported it when this debate came up during Brian Mulroney's re-election. That election was a referendum on free trade, and Quebec sovereigntists were strongly in favour. Back then, Jacques Parizeau used to say that if he were Ontarian, he would have opposed free trade because it was not in the interests of Ontario, but as a Quebecker, he supported it because it was in the interests of Quebec.

I would like to provide some facts and figures. The government has subsidized the auto industry at every turn in recent years. In 2023, it gave Volkswagen financial support for an EV battery manufacturing plant. The amount is estimated at $13.2 billion in production subsidies. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's estimate was $18 billion, which is higher than what was announced.

Also in 2023, the federal government and the Ontario government announced production subsidies for the Stellantis battery manufacturing plant, up to an overall cap of $15 billion. This would bring the total amount of production subsidies for Stellantis and Volkswagen to $28.2 billion by the end of 2032. The subsidies were so high that the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated in 2023 that it would take 20 years for the government to break even. This is in addition to the $3 billion pumped into Chrysler's operations and the nearly $11 billion for General Motors during the 2008 and 2009 financial crisis. The loans given out during the crisis were subsequently written off for the most part. I should note, however, that when GM came knocking on the government's door for help with modernizing its plant in Sainte-Thérèse, Quebec, Ottawa did not lift a finger. The plant closed in 2022, and that was the end of the auto assembly sector in Quebec.

For the past 18 years, the auto industry has been underpinned by a strategy developed jointly by Ottawa and the Ontario government, whereas there is still no aerospace strategy, as I mentioned.

In March of this year, the government rushed to announce $2 billion in support for the auto industry before the U.S. tariffs even came into effect, whereas Quebec's forestry industry, which represents a similar number of jobs, was left hanging for a very long time.

Even for the battery industry, Ontario comes out ahead. There were two possible strategies for developing the battery sector: leverage the enormous comparative advantage afforded by the critical minerals under our feet to develop a strategy for processing our resources into batteries; or compete with the Americans on their own turf by subsidizing the modernization of the auto industry. In 2022, the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology recommended that the government adopt a strategy to support resource processing. Ottawa, however, went with the subsidy strategy.

In Ontario, the Ford government went ahead and did what the Trump administration did not even dare to do in its first term, and that was to eliminate the incentives. The Ford government went further than almost any other government in removing EV incentives. However, that did not prevent Ontario from pocketing more than 90% of the money, while Quebec was left with scraps. Quebec projects were largely abandoned by Ottawa, leaving them weakened and undermining the battery industry.

I have a lot more to say, but unfortunately, my time is up.

[Canada's Auto Industry, December 3rd, 2025]

Mr. Chair, my comments will stray somewhat from what my colleague was talking about.

He and I probably disagree on the issue of electric batteries. I see the electrification of transportation as the future of the industry.

How does he explain the fact that 90% of federal funds were invested in Ontario, while Quebec was left with crumbs?

Quebec has always been at the forefront in this area, while the Ontario government abolished incentives a long time ago.

[An Act to Implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, December 3rd, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset a few weeks ago, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill even though it will oppose investor-state dispute settlement during clause-by-clause consideration, since we have always been against that. My question will not be on the substance of the agreement, which is good for everyone.

My colleague and I once served together on the Standing Committee on International Trade. He knows how long it takes to conduct in-depth studies on agreements that are sometimes very lengthy. In this case, the government did not abide by Canada's official policy on tabling treaties in Parliament, which is available on the website. There is supposed to be a 21-day period between the announcement of an agreement and the tabling of the legislation. In this case, it was 15 days.

Why did the government not follow its own official policy?

[An Act to implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, December 3rd, 2025]

Madam Speaker, I apologize because you must be getting sick of hearing my voice, but I have not received an answer yet. I asked two members on both sides of the House the same question. I will ask it again now.

What does my colleague think about the fact that the government did not follow the existing policy, the public policy adopted under the Harper government, if I am not mistaken, that there should be a 21-day waiting period between announcing an agreement and tabling it in Parliament?

In this case, it took 15 days. Therefore, the government did not comply with the existing policy.

Does that not show that what we need is a law, not just a policy?

[An Act to implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, December 3rd, 2025]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question, because her answer provided a nice segue. She just talked about the negotiations that took place under the government of Prime Minister Harper. However, that government also adopted a policy on introducing and tabling agreements and treaties in Parliament. Currently, that policy is not being followed, given that the government introduced the bill within a shorter period than required by this policy. This policy is supposed to enable us to do our work more effectively.

What does the member think about the government's failure to comply with the existing policy, which is still available on the Government of Canada's official website? Does she believe that a policy is not enough and that we need legislation like the one the Bloc Québécois is proposing in Bill C‑228?

[An Act to implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, December 3rd, 2025]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague opposite a question. Regardless of the substance, we have already said that we are in favour of this agreement, despite certain details that we can examine together in committee. I hope that he will vote with me against some of the more contentious aspects. However, that said, we are in favour of the agreement itself.

What does he think about the fact that the government has not complied with its own policy on the minimum number of days between the announcement of an agreement and the moment it is presented in the form of a bill before this Parliament?

[Sergei Magnitsky International Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Act, November 26th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is clearly based on very commendable and noble ideas. Furthermore, we truly believe there are some elements that are interesting enough to warrant closer examination, but certain details still need to be worked out.

This idea seems to be inspired by the Americans and directly drawn from the 1990s. We know that when the Americans tightened sanctions against several countries, in the name of fighting corruption, for example, that was accompanied by the extraterritoriality of law, meaning that the Americans forced sovereign nations and companies in other countries not to do business with countries that the United States wanted to boycott.

Is my colleague concerned that with such a bill, Canada would be replicating this form of imperialism to some extent?