Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

[Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1, November 26th, 2025]

Madam Speaker, I presume that my colleague is also in favour of a durable resolution as part of the renegotiations of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement and would agree that we can no longer allow endless lawsuits that bankrupt industries.

[Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1, November 26th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, I have a fundamentally different opinion from my colleague on several points, particularly the idea of forcing and imposing energy projects without public support.

However, I do agree with him on one point, namely that visits to Washington are a smokescreen, ultimately yielding no concrete results and leading nowhere. For example, during the much-touted televised meeting, the Prime Minister was simply congratulated for not being humiliated live on air. That is pretty much it.

What more could my colleague tell us about the fact that this party was elected on the promise of resolving this issue? No one here can fault him for not being the saviour we needed. After all, he is dealing with Donald Trump, who is a tough negotiator. The problem is that it was he, the Prime Minister, who presented himself as a saviour and even set a deadline for resolving the tariff crisis.

[Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1, November 26th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, there is one measure in the budget that did not get much attention. This measure allows the federal government to exempt itself from the law in the name of innovation or economic growth. Power is quietly being given to the minister, who can temporarily exempt anyone from any federal law based on promises of innovation or economic growth.

It seems to me that this opens the door to a number of possible abuses. Would the member not agree?

[Softwood Lumber Industry, November 25th, 2025]

Mr. Chair, that is an excellent question, and I do not understand why lumber is not regarded more as a major industry and considered a major material.

For years now, government reports have indicated that we could radically increase the amount of wood used in construction as an alternative to concrete, because it is more environmentally friendly and emits far less greenhouse gas. It is an industry that will create more cooling islands in cities. In short, it contributes in every way to decarbonization for the future.

Indeed, this industry has not always been above reproach. We remember Richard Desjardins' film—

[Softwood Lumber Industry, November 25th, 2025]

Mr. Chair, as I have said and my colleagues have repeated several times, the short- or medium-term solution is immediate assistance.

As I said earlier, the long-term solution would be to resolve this issue within the framework of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, which will be reviewed no later than next year. There needs to be a mechanism in place in case of trade actions, because no one can guarantee that the bad faith shown by an administration will suddenly disappear. Future administrations will still be able to behave the same way, which is why we need to set a real time limit, as we were meant to do from the beginning.

The notion of imposing a time limit on the dispute settlement mechanism between states was raised from the outset. The maximum period discussed was one year. In the end, that changed. It was supposed to be one year, but that excluded the time needed to appoint arbitrators. That is where the Americans found ways to stall and draw things out. This aspect will have to be addressed head-on in the next review.

[Softwood Lumber Industry, November 25th, 2025]

Mr. Chair, I get the impression that this has not been a top priority. I have given several examples of missed opportunities, of times when this should have been at the forefront and at the top of the list. However, the industry has always been ignored, even though it is an extremely important industry, one that is also important to the Americans.

During a mission to Washington, I met with representatives of the National Association of Home Builders. They are radically opposed to what is going on and are wondering whether the folks in charge are crazy. At a time when there is a housing crisis and millions of Americans are struggling to find housing, construction costs are going up. Home ownership is extremely difficult, access to housing is just as difficult and, suddenly, we find out that this is happening.

Alliances could have been built, but the government's approach has clearly failed so far. It was supposed to resolve the issue in a matter of weeks or months at the most, but the situation remains unchanged as of today.

[Softwood Lumber Industry, November 25th, 2025]

Mr. Chair, I was not sure it would be my turn at this point, but I am pleased to rise to speak.

Once again, we are having this take-note debate. This must be the third time we have had such a debate in the evening since I became a member of Parliament. However, I am sure there have been many more for a crisis that has been going on for 40 years. Unfortunately, this crisis is so recurrent and repetitive that it has become a bit like background noise. It is as though it no longer elicits a reaction, and the government simply shrugs its shoulders, which is unfortunate. It is extremely unfortunate, because people and families are affected. There are regions that are affected. Then there are the consumers who are affected. There are folks who will suffer as a result.

I often give talks at high schools in my riding. I often use forestry as an example. People ask me what influence the federal government has. They often feel that municipal government has more influence in their life. When the garbage truck does not show up, they call their city councillor and the problem is solved the following week. I often use the example of lumber to show that the federal government does have a role to play. Lumber tariffs seem distant, foreign and very remote, but in fact, they have repercussions here. They make lumber more expensive and unaffordable, forcing companies to lay off workers here at home. It means someone coming home before Christmas and telling his family that he no longer has a job, that he will not be able to buy them gifts and that he is going to have a hard time making ends meet at the end of the month.

This has been going on for 40 years. I have been a member of Parliament since 2019, and I have seen a lot of missed opportunities in my time. I remember our first debates on renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. We examined the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, which was meant to replace NAFTA. The dispute settlement mechanism issue was left unresolved. The Americans know they are going to lose the legal proceedings. They know it full well. They know they are going to fail. They are playing the long game. Their strategy is to force us into bankruptcy, to block us by slowing our competitiveness and preventing us from modernizing as we should while they make gains on their side. They are biding their time. That is why we need cut-off dates for legal proceedings under CUSMA.

The Trump administration brought back the tariffs, but I remember a take-note debate we had back when the Biden administration increased them in 2021. Several colleagues were there at the time; some are still here. We wore masks back then, but it was the same colleagues. Despite these new tariffs, there was no mention of the issue in the Minister of International Trade's mandate letter, published a few weeks later. That just shows how lightly the issue was taken.

We saw the minister rush off to Washington to talk exclusively about the auto industry because there was a plan by the Biden administration that would harm our domestic industry. Softwood lumber was not on the agenda. When other tariffs were announced later, I remember being invited to the World Trade Organization summit. I did not go, but I was invited by the international trade minister. Softwood lumber was not on the list of topics she wanted to discuss either.

The result, as we can see today, is that we have assistance programs that are woefully inadequate. This is part of a general philosophy of complete indifference, as evidenced by the constant delays.

I remember asking the Minister of Industry some questions a few weeks ago in the House. She told me that she knew that the forestry industry was important in my riding. There is no forestry industry in my riding. My riding is an hour away from hers. There is no forestry industry in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton. It is an hour away from hers. I asked those questions in my capacity as my party's trade critic.

I am being told that my time is up. There are so many other things I wanted to talk about this evening, but there are still questions and comments.

At some point, the government has to recognize the problem and take it seriously. That is what matters.

[Softwood Lumber Industry, November 25th, 2025]

Mr. Chair, there are several layers to that question. There are, of course, the assistance programs and solutions that we are proposing in the short and medium term, because there is a real emergency. I think they are clear. We have discussed them. We have not been able to get a clear answer on this.

Now, my colleague is on the government side. We also know that there will soon, very soon, within a year, be a review or even a renegotiation of the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement. That is a possibility.

Is it not time to properly regulate the dispute resolution mechanism to prevent trade actions from dragging on unnecessarily and bankrupting our industries?

[Softwood Lumber Industry, November 25th, 2025]

Mr. Chair, as we know, the softwood lumber crises began about 40 years ago. They ebb and flow, so much so that they have unfortunately become a kind of background noise as of late.

I would still like to share some of the things I have seen here since 2019, when I was first elected. First, I saw the renegotiation of NAFTA, when the government unfortunately did not seize the opportunity to review the dispute settlement mechanism. If it had, lawsuits would not be so drawn out and we could avoid situations like the ones we are seeing now.

Then, in 2021, I saw the Biden administration impose punitive new tariffs on our industry, and immediately afterwards, the international trade minister organized a mission to Washington, but only to discuss the other issue at hand, namely the risks that the Biden administration was posing to the automotive industry in Canada.

On the heels of those same new tariffs, I also saw that the words “softwood lumber” were not even included in the international trade minister's mandate letter a few weeks later.

I see that the Chair is asking me to wrap up—

[Export and Import Permits Act, November 19th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, tonight we are debating Bill C‑233, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, introduced by the member for Vancouver East.

I will begin by outlining the main points. Bill C‑233 amends the Export and Import Permits Act to remove certain exemptions for the export of arms, ammunition and military or dual-use equipment.

The objectives of the bill are as follows:

(a) clarifying that parts, components and technology necessary for the assembly or use of arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war are included in the meaning of those terms; (b) preventing exemptions from the Export Control List for arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war based on their country of destination; (c) preventing the issuance of general export permits for arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war; (d) preventing the issuance of general brokering permits for arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war; (e) enhancing the considerations that the Minister must take into account in issuing a permit to export or broker arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war; (f) providing that the Minister must require end-use certificates from the government of a country to which arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war are being exported if doing so would sufficiently mitigate a substantial risk of war crimes or violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law; and (g) requiring the Minister to prepare and table in Parliament an annual report on the export of arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war and Canada’s compliance with the Arms Trade Treaty.

Obviously, the example that comes to mind today is the brutal Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I know that there are other examples, but this is the one we are going to use to illustrate certain points during our discussion. Let us not forget that the NDP, which is introducing this bill, and the Bloc Québécois were among the first to demand an end to arms sales to Israel. We still support that. Neither the NDP nor the Bloc Québécois has been shy about denouncing the crimes being committed by the Netanyahu administration in Palestine, whether in the past, present or possibly in the future.

The idea underlying the bill we are discussing is this: Even if everyone agrees on the need to stop selling weapons to a country that would misuse them, whether in Gaza or elsewhere, nothing currently stops a country from selling arms to a third country. A country could buy weapons from Canada and then resell them to another country officially boycotted by Canada. The example closest to home would be if the United States were to buy weapons from Canada and then ship them to Israel, making it appear as though Canada had sent weapons to Israel itself.

I want to start by saying that we support the intentions of Bill C‑233. I also want to commend the member for Vancouver East on her constant efforts to promote world peace. This bill is a testament to her commitment to that. The bill is full of good intentions, but the Bloc Québécois has a number of concerns about some of its aspects.

Our first concern is that it is doubtful whether it will actually work, because the defence industries of the United States and Canada are extremely integrated. That is already quite a headache. Bill C‑233 amends the Export and Import Permits Act to add restrictions. It eliminates the exemptions that were provided for under the act.

In addition, the bill would require U.S. importers to produce a certificate stating that the weapons or ammunition would not be used to commit any crimes. The intention is entirely commendable, but the addition of such constraints and the lack of predictability in the government's decision mean that American companies will simply seek out other suppliers to reduce the risk that their imports will be blocked by the Canadian government. In short, to use the example given, the Americans would stop buying weapons from Canada but could continue to get them elsewhere and sell them to be used in Gaza anyway. We have no control over the choices the Americans make, and it is unrealistic to think that we have any kind of leverage over them.

Another problem with the bill is that the threshold for refusing an export is unclear. For example, the bill states that an export permit should be denied if there is a risk that a weapon could be used against civilians or civilian buildings. In that case, all exports to the United States would have to be halted, since there is always a risk—through negligence, through error or sometimes deliberately out of necessity, unfortunately—that civilians or buildings will be hit by a U.S. strike. Take the example of soldiers who disobey their rules of engagement and commit war crimes. The threshold set out in the bill is too vague, too arbitrary.

Here is what the bill says:

...where there is a substantial risk that they would be used to commit or facilitate genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which Canada is a party;

While the threshold of “genocide” for denying an export permit is clear, the threshold of “attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such” is vague.

Let me give an example. In Iraq and Syria, Daesh terrorists frequently used mosques, schools or hospitals to store weapons and ammunition. Their reasoning was simple. If the global coalition avoided strikes on such locations, the weapons and ammunition would be safe. Conversely, if the coalition were to strike those places, other international bodies would condemn the attacks, undermining public support for military intervention in coalition countries. However, if I understand the spirit of Bill C-233 correctly, striking locations like schools and hospitals would immediately force Canada to halt its exports to coalition countries.

The Bloc Québécois thinks it would be better to leave this up to the government's discretion. Not only would it improve predictability, but it would allow for the possibility of putting pressure on other countries. For example, rather than following rigid rules, we would be able to threaten to halt exports to a country during negotiations and compel it to comply more strictly with international law. That discretion could give us a bargaining tool.

In short, the Bloc Québécois has serious reservations about Bill C‑233, but we believe it is important to listen carefully to the two-hour debate on the issue. We will listen to all the arguments from all sides on this bill and then make a final decision on whether we should refer the bill to committee.