Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, June 4th, 2025]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mirabel for his presentation.

I thought that his focus on the Trojan horse that is one economy out of 13 was interesting. The Liberals claim that they have changed, that they have turned over a new leaf. However, if we look back over the history of governments in the House, whether following the events involving the Patriotes, the world wars, the 1980 referendum, the 1995 referendum or COVID‑19, governments have consistently taken advantage of a crisis to advance their efforts to centralize power and extend their tentacles.

Now they have a crisis. Are we once again witnessing a centralizing offensive ultimately designed to pursue the same course as the one steered over the past 10 years? In other words, this government's thinking is much the same as it has always been over the past 10 years, except that now they have an excuse.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, June 4th, 2025]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. He suggested that the pipeline is an element of nation-building. The new Canadian identity is taking shape. We neglected this concept for decades, but now the American giant is forcing us to define Canadian identity. Some believe this new identity should be shaped by a pipeline.

If I understand correctly, Alberta's gambit was to convince people that it had separatist inclinations and then, at this week's first ministers' meeting, convince everyone that its pipeline construction plan is in the whole country's interest.

Does my colleague agree that, if Quebec opposes this project, if Quebec's conditions are not met, the pipeline will not cross Quebec's territory?

[Steel and Aluminum Industry, June 4th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, we are not interested in who the minister had supper with yesterday. We want to know what she is doing today.

The aluminum and steel industry has been dealing with tariffs for three months now. For three months, Ottawa has offered nothing to help them. The Prime Minister's negotiations did not produce results. The tariffs even doubled. Today, cash flow and wage subsidies are needed to guarantee that Quebeckers are not laid off.

What is Ottawa waiting for? When will it support our industries and protect our workers?

[Steel and Aluminum Industry, June 4th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers were told during the election to vote Liberal because their leader would have superpowers that could neutralize Donald Trump. We are seeing the outcome of that today: Donald Trump doubled the tariffs on steel and aluminum. Well done.

The Bloc Québécois has said it before: These industries need to be offered liquidity and the money from the retaliatory measures need to be redistributed. We also need to prepare a wage subsidy in the event of layoffs. Aluminum and steel have been subject to tariffs for three months. Now they have doubled.

Will Ottawa finally announce some support for them?

[Regional Economic Development, June 3rd, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, when Ontario's auto industry was threatened with tariffs, Ottawa rushed in with $2 billion.

Quebec aluminum has been subject to tariffs for three months now. Still, not a single cent has been released. Ottawa should have already offered direct assistance to the industry and shared some of the proceeds from the retaliatory tariffs. In the next 24 hours, Donald Trump could double his tariffs. However, there is still nothing for Quebec aluminum.

The Liberals got elected on tariffs. Why are they not ready today?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, May 28th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the matter of creating one economy out of 13.

The House has recognized on two occasions that Quebec is a distinct nation. The first was when the symbolic motion was adopted in 2006. The second was during the 2019-21 Parliament. The government officially and constitutionally recognized that we are a distinct nation. It voted for that. However, the government seems to think that that distinction should not apply when it comes to Quebec having its own economic model. Being a distinct nation does not mean anything if, in the end, we have to extinguish, stifle and eliminate what makes us economically distinct.

Are our new colleagues opposite reneging on their past vote for recognizing Quebec as a distinct nation?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, May 28th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have asked my leader a question, but since we did not confer together earlier, I do not expect any kudos for the quality of my question or my hard work.

In fact, what I have to say is quite simple. We heard this question and we know that Ottawa has a long history of using crises to further centralize power. We have also heard multiple times about different Trojan horses, like not having 13 economies but only one, even though Quebec has been trying since the 1960s to build an economy, a separate model for its institutions, its own approach to the community sector, its own approach to the social sector, and its own approach to SMEs.

What is my colleague's response to hearing the Prime Minister, time and again, speak of nothing but unity when he was asked this question today? Although the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a motion expressing its concerns, they seem to have no effect on him at all.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, May 28th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, today, the third day since our return to Parliament, I am rising for the first time this session. I want to sincerely thank the voters of Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for giving me a third mandate. The riding's name has changed, but it still has the same borders and the same extraordinary constituents. I love them from the bottom of my heart. I will live up to the mandate they have given me once again.

This is my question for my colleague. I just want to ask him whether he thinks that Donald Trump started shaking when he read the Speech from the Throne. Someone must have summed it up for him. I am curious to know what my colleague thinks. Imagine being the White House strategist who has to sum up this Speech from the Throne and write up some notes about recommendations and suggestions. We might have expected a particularly assertive document after such a fearmongering campaign, after everything we were told during the election campaign. We were told that we needed the Liberals to save Canadian sovereignty.

I am curious. Just for fun, could my colleague tell us how he thinks the speech might have been summed up in a few lines for President Trump and how the President might have reacted?

[Committees of the House, December 17th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, it is a very simple principle. The less we depend on one country, the better off we are. There may be ups and downs. At the moment, we are talking about the United States, but, no matter which partner we are talking about, when we put all our eggs in one basket, we make ourselves vulnerable to this kind of situation, as we saw in 2019 when China decided to halt all imports of Canadian pork.

Regarding the agreement with Ukraine, I voted in favour of it, as did my colleagues. I would have opposed Conservative amendments during the committee's study. Some members wanted to include arms sales in a trade agreement. I saw that as an extremely dangerous possibility. Nevertheless, I did not agree with those amendments being ruled out of order, even though I was against them.

When we are kept in the dark during negotiations and are forced to vote on a finished product once talks are over and we cannot change anything or amend anything, that is a transparency issue. Plus, we have to vote on legislation to implement the agreement, not on the agreement itself. In other words, we have to take the finished product as is. It is a take-it-or-leave-it situation.

[Committees of the House, December 17th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I think it goes without saying that we are always better off going into negotiations ourselves, 100% focused on our own interests. We should not have to fight tooth and nail to promote and protect little bits of our interests here and there. I gave a few examples. It is a good thing we were there to fight for aluminum, although a concrete change in the status of aluminum in the agreement would no doubt be the real victory. The same can be said of supply management. We are currently fighting to get the unelected Senate to take up this issue.

These issues would not come up if Quebec were independent. Of course, as in any negotiation, sometimes we might make concessions, experience setbacks or send bad negotiators. Independence also means making our own mistakes. However, the blame would be ours and ours alone. We would not be an ultra-minority, always fighting for a little corner of the blanket to keep us warm, which is what we are constantly doing in the Canadian system.