Xavier Barsalou-Duval
Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I would love to have the opportunity to live in la-la land like my colleague opposite, but I think the reality is somewhat different from what he described in his speech. Let us get back to the matter at hand.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us look back on the last couple of weeks. The chair of the transport committee was the guest of honour of the Canada Truck Operators Association, or CTOA, which is a Driver Inc. lobby group. The Liberals forced the committee to go in camera to prevent any discussion about Driver Inc.”
“Mr. Speaker, for the first time in recent history, more than 100 people died on our roads last year in accidents involving heavy-duty trucks. There were 102 fatalities. That is nearly 20% higher than the average for the previous five years. What has changed recently that could explain this? The answer is, of course, Driver Inc.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix on his speech today. This week, I had the opportunity to sit with him briefly on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, of which I assume he is a full member.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. We might say that he tirelessly defends his party with all the enthusiasm he is known for. That said, although we may not agree on much, I am going to take the liberty of asking him a question.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. Today's debate on Build Canada Homes has led me to reflect on why the government created this agency. The fact is that it did so because of the current housing crisis. What caused the housing crisis?”
The complete record
Every one of 556 lines we hold for Xavier Barsalou-Duval, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 12.
“Mr. Speaker, I would love to have the opportunity to live in la-la land like my colleague opposite, but I think the reality is somewhat different from what he described in his speech. Let us get back to the matter at hand. Bill C-30 suggests that the government would open the door to the privatization of certain airports, and that it even intends to go ahead with this plan. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that. For example, if a decision were made to privatize the Quebec City airport, would he be okay with that?”
“Mr. Speaker, let us look back on the last couple of weeks. The chair of the transport committee was the guest of honour of the Canada Truck Operators Association, or CTOA, which is a Driver Inc. lobby group. The Liberals forced the committee to go in camera to prevent any discussion about Driver Inc. CTOA members contributed more than $100,000 to the Liberals, including more than $20,000 from a company in the chair's riding. This week, the Liberals refused to allow the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to investigate CTOA's ties to the Liberal Party. Why are they protecting their friends instead of the public?”
“Mr. Speaker, for the first time in recent history, more than 100 people died on our roads last year in accidents involving heavy-duty trucks. There were 102 fatalities. That is nearly 20% higher than the average for the previous five years. What has changed recently that could explain this? The answer is, of course, Driver Inc. The federal government turns a blind eye when shady companies put dangerous drivers on the road, and then acts surprised when there are consequences. We have proposed 10 solutions to the Liberals. When are they going to take action instead of allowing more victims to be added to the list?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix on his speech today. This week, I had the opportunity to sit with him briefly on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, of which I assume he is a full member. At that time, I had the opportunity to introduce a motion in which I denounced the close ties between the Liberals and the lobby representing the unregulated truckers responsible for the Drivers Inc. scheme, which undermines people's working conditions and causes accidents. The Liberals seem quite close to these people. Some of them are even Liberal activists who allegedly fund the Liberal Party. I asked that the committee look into the matter. I would like to know if I can count on the support of my colleague and the Conservative Party on this issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps you can clarify something for me. In my speech earlier, I mentioned the Prime Minister by name because I was simply reading the headline of an article. I would like to know whether, based on precedent, it is permissible to include the name of a member of the House when reading the headline of an article.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is new, as my colleague on the other side of the House was saying. Sometimes, we still say his name out of habit. All these problems show—my colleague on the other side of the House might acknowledge this— that government policies and decisions, as well as their implementation, are carried out in English. Quebec comes second. French is an afterthought. Ottawa clearly could not care less about our reality.”
“Then there is the campaign slogan “Elbows up”, which was translated into French as “On lève le coude”. Unfortunately, that phrase actually means raising a glass, as in having a drink. All of this led us to March 25, 2026, when we found out that there were no francophones on the team that wrote Mark Carney's speech. When I—”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. We might say that he tirelessly defends his party with all the enthusiasm he is known for. That said, although we may not agree on much, I am going to take the liberty of asking him a question. We are all familiar with the Build Canada Homes program, which was previously called “Bâtir Maisons Canada” in French. This sparked a lot of reactions, particularly because some people felt the name was a clunky word-for-word translation. This led the government to change the the name of the program. This brings to mind other situations we have seen, including the discovery in January 2025 that the website of the Liberal leader, who has since become Prime Minister , was riddled with errors and appeared to have been translated with Google Translate.”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on her speech. My question will be brief. The bill we are currently studying seeks to create Build Canada Homes. Personally, I am sad that we are in a housing crisis. Earlier, the parliamentary secretary said that his government is working to resolve the crisis. What has the government done that is so special to ease the housing crisis lately, besides finally listening to our criticisms about there being too much immigration?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. Today's debate on Build Canada Homes has led me to reflect on why the government created this agency. The fact is that it did so because of the current housing crisis. What caused the housing crisis? It was the surge in immigration and the government's inability to control the situation. What we have is a pyromaniac federal government that decided to masquerade as a firefighter through new programs. What goes through my colleague's head when he sees that? Instead of admitting that it royally failed and then fixing things, the government chooses to constantly create new programs even though no one knows whether they will work or not.”
“As Minister of Justice, does my colleague not think it is important for there to be transparency in the decisions that are made in the House so that people have an opportunity to speak out on important issues? Right now, given everything this government is trying to do and despite their talk of collaboration, I get the feeling that, for them, collaboration is a one-way street. We have to do what the government says, and that is the end of it.”
“Madam Speaker, unfortunately, despite the fine words from the other side of the House after the Liberals secured their much-vaunted majority, the government is moving forward with one time allocation motion after another. At the end of the day, despite the promises to work together, we are seeing more and more committees being muzzled. I heard someone mention it is happening at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I could say the same thing about the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, which is still shut down. For over a month now, it has been impossible to get any public information about what is going on at this committee.”
“Madam Speaker, the good news is that the parliamentary secretary already responded to petition e-6661, stating that the government was willing to move forward. I believe that the motion we are debating today will simply help speed up implementation. Sometimes, promises do not materialize. This time, I believe that if the entire House of Commons makes a commitment, it would enable us to move faster.”
“That is why it is important on these occasions, which offer us a rare glimpse of military personnel wearing their medals, to congratulate and thank them for their service. We have to do more for them.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague on the other side of the House has caught me off guard a little. However, I can say that when the November 11 memorial ceremony is held every year in my riding, the family of one armed forces member who fought in Afghanistan attends. We lost one former resident of Boucherville, who died while serving. It troubles me because that individual was still in the prime of life, still relatively young, and he never got to see his children grow up or have the good fortune to enjoy a long life like others will. That saddens me. At the same time, I feel that it is important to remember the sacrifice he made every day so that we could enjoy our lives. I think that ceremonies like the one on November 11 are important and need to be valued even more.”
“When it comes to military honours, I think this is a good illustration of what my colleague is currently presenting, the motion we are debating today. If we are unable to commend people on their acts of bravery and give them a pat on the back, especially since these individuals often come home with post-traumatic stress disorder and injuries they will carry for the rest of their lives, often in ways that are invisible in daily life, it is certainly not motivating. On the contrary, these individuals should be singled out for their patriotism.”
“Madam Speaker, that is a very good question from my colleague. As for the impact on recruitment, I must say that about 20 years ago, I myself considered joining the armed forces, since I was a former member of the air cadets. I ultimately decided not to go through with it, in part because I wanted to serve Quebec and felt that doing so as a member of the Canadian military created a somewhat unique situation. That does not mean that no one in Quebec wants to serve in the Canadian military, but I found it hard to reconcile that situation. There are probably things the Canadian military could do to make recruitment easier in Quebec. For example, allowing people to serve only in Quebec could be an option.”
“It brings to mind the Canadian government's difficulties in recognizing those who fought in Afghanistan, or the memorial, which listed names of people who had not actually died. Then there is the whole story of how that contract was awarded. (1120) It is always disappointing to see that the action taken does not seem to match the sacrifices made by members of the armed forces. This time, I believe we have a good opportunity to rectify the situation and make the right decision.”
“The member probably does not agree with the decisions her party has made in the past. On April 15, 2026, she presented a petition with 16,500 signatures. That is a lot of people. The previous petition had collected 14,000 signatures. Even more people signed this petition. In addition to the petition presented by the member opposite, a motion was moved by a Conservative member at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs on April 20. His motion was adopted unanimously there. It was forwarded to the House, and the report was tabled on April 30, 2026, less than a month ago. All of this shows that many steps are being taken to recognize the sacrifice of those who have given so much. There are cases such as that of Jess Larochelle, who did so much for his country and who sadly passed away in 2023 before he could receive this medal.”
“He is also no longer a member of the House, but we know that he served as the leader of the official opposition and, if I am not mistaken, minister of veterans affairs. He sought the unanimous consent of the House to implement what we are discussing here, namely a review board to award the Victoria Cross to deserving individuals. Once again, his motion did not receive the unanimous consent of the House in 2002 and it was rejected. It is now 2026, four years later. Most recently, petition e-6661 was presented by a member from the other side of the House. I cannot name her since she is still in office, but I can say that she is a member representing the Liberal Party. After two Liberal rejections, it is quite a change to see a Liberal member say that we need to exert some pressure and try to get her government to take a position.”
“Nevertheless, perhaps it is time for Canada to choose to use the tools and resources available to reasonably and appropriately honour those who fought for the country. This is not the first time we have talked about this. I just spoke about the action that Rick Hillier has been taking and about how he led a delegation, but there is also petition e‑3636, which was sponsored and tabled in the House by former MP Niki Ashton. I can use her name since she is no longer a member of the House of Commons, but I had the opportunity to serve with her in the past. That petition was tabled in 2022, and no fewer than 14,000 people supported this effort to award the Victoria Cross for the first time. Unfortunately, the Liberal government at the time refused to do so. Again in 2022, MP Erin O'Toole took action in this regard.”
“For example, Canada's former chief of the defence staff, retired general Rick Hillier, led a delegation on Parliament Hill last month calling on the federal government to review cases involving Afghanistan as well as more than 40 cases dating back to the First World War involving veterans who may have been eligible for the Victoria Cross. I would note that the Victoria Cross has occasionally been awarded to other individuals in the past even though it did not exist prior to 1993. It was actually awarded by Great Britain, but Canada is no longer a colony even though it has the same king. We could talk about the monarchy at length today, but that is not the point of this debate.”
“The United States obviously did not award any Victoria Crosses, because they do not exist there. However, they have Medals of Honor, which are roughly the American equivalent. They awarded 18 Medals of Honor. In Canada, however, no medals were awarded. (1115) That is pretty sad considering that people went over there to fight the Taliban and put their lives and their health on the line. In fact, a former Bloc Québécois MP, Michel Boudrias, the member for Terrebonne, went to Afghanistan. We know things were not easy for everyone over there. Many people have spoken out on Parliament Hill to demand change, to get Canada to change how it does things and decide to honour the veterans who fought in Afghanistan. There have been proposals, including some in connection with the Victoria Cross.”
“It is inconceivable that no one committed any exceptional acts over the course of 30 years. That would be very surprising, especially considering all the conflicts that Canada and members of the armed forces have contributed to during that time. In the specific case of the conflict in Afghanistan, in which Canada participated by sending troops, no Victoria Crosses were awarded. However, other nations—or rather, other countries, since there is the Quebec nation and the Canadian nation, and a distinction must be made—that participated in the conflict in Afghanistan decided to award Victoria Crosses. In particular, Great Britain awarded three Victoria Crosses in connection with the conflict in Afghanistan. Australia awarded four Victoria Crosses also in connection with the conflict in Afghanistan. New Zealand awarded one.”
“I therefore congratulate my colleagues who decided to bring this debate to the House today. It should be noted that there is a broader context to this debate. We talk about distinctions, but there is one whose significance underlies today's debate: the Victoria Cross. The Victoria Cross was established in 1993 to recognize acts of valour, self-sacrifice or devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy. Although it was established in 1993—when I was just a kid, since that was more than 30 years ago—it has unfortunately never been given out. It has never been awarded. I realize that this is an exceptional honour. I believe it is the highest honour that can be awarded, so they are not handed out like candy. However, that does not change the fact that, at some point, we need to ask the question.”
“Those voices carry considerable weight, because they represent people of different political stripes sitting around the same table, who have discussed an issue and learned more about it. Once they have considered a matter and studied it carefully, they recommend that Parliament examine it further. I understand from my Conservative colleague's proposal that the idea is to go even further by ensuring that this is not only the will of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, but also the will of the House of Commons as a whole. I assume that, given that the committee adopted the report unanimously, the same should be the case today. It sends a much stronger message when it is adopted by the House of Commons than when it is adopted by a committee, even though a committee adopting something already means a great deal.”
“It is worth noting that the committee did in fact adopt the motion unanimously. Basically, the idea is to acknowledge that, in the past, certain distinctions, medals and honours may have been denied to individuals who have done great things for their country. Unfortunately, after some time has passed, the government is realizing that perhaps it should have awarded those honours, because it did not have all the information needed to make the right decision at the time. I find that interesting and I think it is good. Today, we are doing more than simply presenting a committee report, because we are now debating it in the House of Commons. It is important that our voices be heard. As we know, when a committee presents a resolution, report or recommendation, it often reflects the voices of the committee members.”
“Madam Speaker, today, we are debating the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, which is quite short. It is just one paragraph long. I have seen some pretty long committee reports in my time, but in this case, the report is very clear and effective. It says what needs to be said. Basically, the report states the following: That the committee report to the House its recommendation for the creation of an independent Canadian Military Honours Review Board with the specific mandate to review decisions made under the Directorate of Honours and Recognition and its precursor bodies when new evidence demonstrates that the reconsideration of a military honour is warranted to ensure that no error or omission was made. Upon reading that, it seems obvious.”
“This time, it feels as though the government going to say yes, but it still has yet to be implemented. People go into battle for a country, make sacrifices, lose their health and keep fighting. How does this situation make the government look?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. Today, we are debating a motion that would establish an independent Canadian military honours review board. One of its key mandates would be to potentially award the famous Victoria Cross, which has never been awarded. This initiative is being taken now as a result of the motion we are debating, which stems from a report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. However, similar initiatives have been undertaken in the House of Commons in the past through petition e‑3636, which gathered 14,000 signatures; through a motion adopted by unanimous consent in the House; through delegations; and through petition e‑6661. It feels as though this keeps coming up and the government keeps ignoring the calls.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague opposite for sponsoring petition e‑6661. Based on the parliamentary secretary 's response, it would appear that this petition has helped bring about change. That is great, but I still find it hard to understand why so many other attempts were needed in the past to get this problem addressed and to ensure that Victoria Crosses could finally be awarded. For example, former NDP MP Niki Ashton presented petition e‑3636, and former Conservative Party leader Erin O'Toole moved a motion on the matter, also in 2022. What made the government listen this time? Why did it not listen the last few times?”
“Mr. Speaker, in this and previous speeches, the member opposite boasted about using AI to analyze the Conservatives' motion, so I have a lot of questions. I was under the impression that people elected members of Parliament so they could do their own thinking about topics of debate in the House. Lately, elected Liberal MPs have been using algorithms from foreign platforms to analyze bills and opposition motions, and so has a government spokesperson. I would like to know just how common this has become on the other side of the House.”
“However, if we look at the Liberal government's record over the past year, we see that it has implemented measures essentially proposed by the Conservative Party. He says himself that the Liberals spend their time stealing his ideas. Is he telling us that Conservative ideas are partly responsible for this apocalypse?”
“Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition. I have been fortunate to sit in Parliament for a little over 10 years. For a little over 10 years, I have had the opportunity to listen to his excellent speeches. They tend to be very good. However, every time my colleague rises in the House, ever since I first had the opportunity to listen to his speeches, I get a sense that they always boil down to much the same thing. To hear him speak, anyone would think we are constantly on the verge of an apocalypse. Obviously, I am not saying that the economic situation is positive; far from it. However, I wonder if he should perhaps change his approach; furthermore, in his criticism today, he said that the Liberal plan is bad for the economy.”
“Now, today, the government is engaging in rhetoric by trying to contrast having agreements with our southern neighbour with having agreements with other countries around the world. Given the difficult situation, might it not be time for the government to sit down at the negotiating table with our southern neighbour? It might be time for the government to realize that we cannot really get by without doing business with them either.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. While we do not necessarily agree with everything in the Conservative motion before us today, we do believe it raises an interesting and relevant question to which I do not feel the government has provided an answer. Essentially, what the Conservatives are saying is that Canada is in a technical recession, that things are going badly and that the Liberals are to blame. The fact is I cannot say that they are not at least partly to blame. They are the ones in charge, after all. The Prime Minister , who was elected nearly a year ago, promised us he would resolve the tariff crisis with a wave of a magic wand. Here we are a year later, and nothing has changed.”
“Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague said that exports are down in Canada. Everyone is aware that the effects of the U.S. tariffs are very likely having an impact on exports to the U.S. However, the Prime Minister promised a new policy, namely that we would move away from the U.S. and develop partnerships around the world, which would compensate for the challenges associated with the U.S. Does my colleague think that the data show that this strategy is working?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am so worked up over this that I am naming people that I should not be. What I wanted to say to my colleague across the way is that we see this government caving in and failing to defend Quebec's culture. Even the minister, when asked to respond to the CRTC's decision, was unable to say that this was the right thing to do and that we needed to stand up to the web giants, who are sucking up revenue without giving anything back to our culture. Why are the Liberals not doing more and standing up for our culture?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague opposite on his speech, which was interesting and seemed to be heading in the right direction. However, it was not necessarily all that reassuring, because, so far, all we have been seeing is his government kowtowing to the Americans. As soon as Mr. Trump told us not to tax digital services, Mr. Carney's government did away with the much-discussed 3% tax without getting anything in return. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech today. I must say that, while I am extremely disappointed by the Conservative motion we are debating today, I am not entirely surprised by it. It is a painful reminder of the Harper years, when cuts were being made to culture left, right and centre. However, this is even worse. They are doing the Americans' bidding and launching yet another full-scale attack on our culture, Quebec culture, and perhaps even Canadian culture, if such a thing exists. However, I have even greater concerns about the government. It was unable to stand its ground on the much-discussed 3% digital services tax, and it refused to commit to the CRTC's decision, despite being publicly questioned on the matter.”
“Mr. Speaker, when I read the Conservatives' motion this morning, I nearly fell off my chair because I see it as nothing short of an attack on Quebec culture. I am not sure if they realize it, but without certain rules ensuring that a portion of the budget and certain investments are allocated to Quebec culture, we would be completely buried under content from the United States. That is all there would be. Maybe they do not care because that is already the case. What solutions do they propose for Quebec culture? Do they want us to consume mostly American products and become American like they do in English Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member opposite and I found his speech and his arguments fascinating. Among other things, he criticized the fact that the Conservative proposal would essentially favour the wealthy at the expense of the less fortunate, while increasing the deficit. In this context, I was wondering about something, because it seems to me that the same argument could be made about suspending the excise tax on gas. Why did his government put that in place? Does he agree with his government's decision? Ultimately, suspending the excise tax on gas is the same principle as suspending the GST. It is calculated the same way, and it benefits the same people.”
“Mr. Speaker, not so long ago, the Liberals added $2.4 billion to the deficit by temporarily suspending the excise tax. Today, the Conservatives are saying we should pile another $5 billion on the deficit with the new measures in their motion. Could they explain why they claim they want to tackle the deficit but are suggesting measures that will actually benefit oil companies rather than ordinary people and will swell the deficit?”
“Mr. Speaker, I could respond very quickly by mentioning the infamous $800 million tied to the carbon tax, which no province actually paid, yet they received funds anyway when the carbon tax was abolished. People in the rest of Canada received cheques anyway. In Quebec, we paid for the cheques that people in the rest of Canada received. I think we got taken for a ride. That $800 million was never seen again. Maybe the Liberals will make an announcement about that today. I would be very happy to hear one.”
“The Conservatives never see any problem when it comes to helping out oil companies, yet they rarely show up to help ordinary folks.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked a very good question. I cannot wait to hear how the Conservatives would answer. I cannot answer for them. What I can say, however, based on my analysis, is that the Conservatives never miss an opportunity to give oil companies a little pat on the back, regardless of how much it will cost taxpayers or how much more it will cost us. Unfortunately, we see that the Liberals have taken lessons from the Conservatives. According to Environmental Defence, we are talking about $10 billion in 2025. Consider the Liberals' proposed Trans Mountain pipeline, which cost taxpayers $34 billion, or the $1 billion in fees due under the UN convention that the Liberals are going to cover for the Bay du Nord project.”
“Personally, I think it is crazy that the government thinks it can fool everyone by simply changing the name at the top of the cheque and the name of the program, when it is the same program and the same cheque as before. As for today's debate on the 10¢ excise tax on gasoline, I think it has been clearly demonstrated that the wealthy will benefit the most, not the poor, and that oil companies are likely to increase their prices even further. Generally speaking, there is a fairly simple principle in marketing that says that prices should be set at the highest possible price that customers are willing to pay. If any flexibility is allowed, what will happen? The oil companies will just raise their prices.”
“Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that when we talk about giving the impression of helping, the parliamentary secretary talks about the benefit for families. There was actually a lot of marketing behind that. I am straying a bit from the subject of the debate, but I want to address this point anyway, because when I saw the government make that announcement, I could not believe it. I saw it as pure demagoguery. The government used to provide what was called a family allowance or something called the GST credit. Then it decided to basically change the name and call it a grocery benefit, saying it is supposed to help with the cost of groceries.”
“In January, Imperial Oil shares cost $120. Now, in May, they cost $180, which is also an increase of more than 50%. Suncor CEO Rich Kruger was paid $36 million in 2024. I am guessing he can afford to fill his tank. He has the money. Putting gas in his car is no hardship for him. These are the people the Liberals and Conservatives want to help. I think that is sad, especially since, according to Environmental Defence, fossil fuel subsidies hit the $10‑billion mark in 2025. Oil and gas companies are not giving us a discount on gas even though they were given $10 billion. They are making money hand over fist and their share prices are skyrocketing, yet the Conservatives and the Liberals are eagerly joining forces to help oil companies even more. I think that is outrageous. The government should be helping real people, not oil companies.”
“What is even more interesting is when the Conservatives mention that the price of oil has gone up over the past year. Why has it gone up? We know that it is because of the war in Iran. How has this affected ordinary people? They are paying more, of course. However, who has benefited from higher gas prices and the higher price per barrel? It is not us. It is the oil companies. Look at Suncor's stock price, for example. In January of this year, Suncor shares were trading at $60. Today, in May, they are trading at around $90. That is a 50% increase. Suncor shareholders have benefited. However, it does not cost the company more to produce oil. It does not cost more to supply its customers. It is making more money off us, but the Conservatives are not putting the blame on them, and neither are the Liberals. Here is another example.”