Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

[Iran and the Middle East, March 9th, 2026]

Mr. Chair, I am going to ask a very simple question.

Today I am hearing the Conservatives say that there is an urgent need to overthrow this regime. How is it that, prior to this American and Israeli attack, I had never heard them calling for such intervention?

[Iran and the Middle East, March 9th, 2026]

Mr. Chair, my colleague clearly has a parliamentary secretary's file on the specific issue of Canada-U.S. relations. I know, having travelled with him before, that he has contacts with the Americans. The relationship with the Americans is important, but that does not mean that we have to take them at their word, follow their every move and repeat everything they say.

Once upon a time, under the leadership of the Obama administration, an agreement was reached with Russia, China, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the United States and Iran. The agreement on Iran's nuclear program worked. It resulted in Iran disposing of 95% of its uranium and inspectors being able to access nuclear power plants without any problems. Is that not a sign that diplomacy still works?

[Iran and the Middle East, March 9th, 2026]

Mr. Chair, I think it is pretty clear where our positions differ. Although we agree that we should not be partisan, it is also healthy to have a debate. It is healthy when not everyone is moving in the same direction. That is normal, because truth emerges from compromise and from tensions reaching equilibrium. That is how things should work in a democracy. If we all moved in the same direction, it would not work.

That being said, we are having a take-note debate here, the whole point of which is to raise different points of view. What does my colleague think about the silence of the Liberal members who wanted this debate, but from whom we are hearing very little this evening?

[Iran and the Middle East, March 9th, 2026]

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for her contribution to the debate, even if we disagree. I fully understand why people desperately want to see this regime relegated to the trash heap of history. However, at what time in history and in which country have we seen an armed liberator successfully impose democracy on a country in the aftermath of an attack?

[Iran and the Middle East, March 9th, 2026]

Madam Chair, that is indeed the case. Consular services are falling short. In fact, the newspaper was reporting on how francophones were being answered in English only. That does not measure up. That is unacceptable, but the scariest part is the lack of preparation before things started.

[Iran and the Middle East, March 9th, 2026]

Madam Chair, quite honestly, I say this with some reservation because I have not specifically researched the subject of the question. I will therefore be cautious with my answers. Based on the wording and the way it was phrased, and if everything is accurate, then yes, there appears to be a significant degree of laxity. What did she say? She said that only one individual had been deported. That is clearly insufficient and shows an alarming degree of laxity.

[Iran and the Middle East, March 9th, 2026]

Madam Chair, I am more than happy to answer that question.

The parliamentary secretary can go back and listen to my leader's speech, which he delivered at around 7 p.m. Actually, I think he could listen to my answer as well. He is asking me a question from the other side of the House. That explains why he was not aware that our leader delivered a speech earlier.

[Iran and the Middle East, March 9th, 2026]

Madam Chair, I will not point out the presence or absence of anyone either, but I will say that I would have really liked, given the importance of this moment, to know the Prime Minister's position. I would have liked to hear it, but I imagine that will not happen tonight.

[Iran and the Middle East, March 9th, 2026]

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for the question, as it will allow me to conclude my speech. What I had left to say would have taken about a minute.

If she wants us to go back in history, we can go back to a fairly recent time when there was a ballistic missile agreement that limited the deployment of nuclear material. This resulted in Iran disposing of 95% of its uranium and allowed inspectors to visit nuclear power plants. This was during Barack Obama's presidency in the United States. The agreement was signed by the United States and Iran, but also by Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. All of these countries sat down at the same table. The heads of state who find it difficult to look each other in the eye today were all at the same table. What this shows us is that the diplomatic approach works, while escalation does not.

[Iran and the Middle East, March 9th, 2026]

Madam Chair, tonight we are holding a take-note debate, but it could have been an emergency debate. In fact, many of us requested that it be an emergency debate. This debate concerns an issue that is extremely serious and extremely worrying: the situation in the Middle East.

As members of the human race, I think we all have reasons to grieve and worry about what is happening.

Some Quebeckers sitting here are about my age, give or take a few years. Like many other Quebeckers, we grew up with that classic Quebec film called La guerre des tuques and with the saying, “War, war, that's no reason to hurt each other.” We remember that.

Unfortunately, once we leave tender childhood behind, we are confronted with the cold reality that war means dead men, women and children; it means the sound of bombs; it means souls; it means civilians dying and returning soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. In many cases, families never see their fathers and husbands again. Unfortunately, some wars are necessary, some wars are just, but it is best to avoid them whenever possible.

In this case, my colleague talked earlier about how the United States and Canada helped overthrow the Iranian regime in the past and installed the shah of Iran. It was a corrupt regime. The transplant did not take and the shah was overthrown. I do not know how necessary it is to point out that no one here in the House has any sympathy for the Iranian regime, for political Islam or for the terrorist practices supported by the Iranian regime.

That is not the issue. I think that the debate needs to focus on other things. Although we may have differing opinions on what needs to be done, no one here has any sympathy or support for those things. However, one thing is certain: Nation building does not work when it is imposed. When imperial wars have been waged to change a regime, no matter how repressive or repugnant the regime was, it has never worked.

Did it work in Iraq? No. Did it work in Afghanistan, even though, in that case, it was a completely justified war because it was a regime that had supported a terrorist attack in the heart of the west? Circumstances made this attack necessary, but the Taliban returned several years later anyway. Is it going to work any better, or work at all, in the case of Iran? The answer is also no.

The Ayatollah regime was on its last legs and was extremely unpopular. Its economy was in bad shape, and it was starting to become unstable. People were protesting, and young people especially were deeply hostile to that regime. It was probably only a matter of time before it fell on its own. However, through these attacks, which were carried out without consulting their partners, the United States and Israel have probably created generations of anti-westerners, who will stay that way for a long time, pass it on and build a common narrative for themselves in that country. They will build a common narrative that will ensure that anti-western hate lasts a very long time.

These nation builders—formerly known as neo-Conservatives during the time of Bush Sr. and Bush Jr., who believed that bombing and invading countries was the way to impose democracy—were, however, denounced by the Trump administration during a different era. I was in Dayton just last spring for the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and the United States gave a speech opposing hegemonic and imperialistic practices. That has never worked anywhere.

Here at home, while we strongly favour diplomatic support, humanitarian support, humanitarian convoys, emergency aid shipments to the most essential consular missions over there, we want to make it perfectly clear: Not a single Canadian soldier is to set foot there for military purposes.

That is a no. It will not work. We would end up getting involved for reasons that are not our own. We would get involved for unsubstantiated reasons in a dispute that solves nothing. My purpose is not to rewrite history, but diplomacy has worked before—