Xavier Barsalou-Duval

[Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act, October 7th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that my colleague's speech was not so much about Bill C‑10 as it was about how passionate he is about oil development in his province. Good for him, if that is something that is important to him. However, it seems to me that the bill before us is the main topic of discussion.

The government does not have a particularly good record when it comes to respecting indigenous rights, particularly with the passage of Bill C‑5 last spring. Indigenous groups spoke out about that bill in every possible way, but the government forced it through anyway.

I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on respect for indigenous rights, because the current government does not seem to respect them. I wonder if the Conservatives, if they came to power, would respect them any more.

[Transportation, October 6th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, there is a public danger on our roads because of the Driver Inc. scam. It mainly involves immigrant truck drivers in Ontario who are being exploited by companies to save costs and who are driving heavy trucks without the proper qualifications. This is causing fatal accidents. Vulnerable people are being abused, and truck drivers who follow the rules are facing illegal competition.

Ottawa must launch an investigation, tighten the screws on businesses, and prohibit temporary immigrants from incorporating. It is simple. There are 10 steps to take, but the federal government is looking the other way.

When will the government crack down on dangerous drivers?

[An Act Respecting Cyber Security, September 26th, 2025]

Madam Speaker, I would like to highlight the work of the parliamentary secretary, who always has something to say about virtually every bill introduced in the House. We can see that he has a thorough understanding of each of the issues raised.

Since he is so knowledgeable about these issues, I would like to know whether his government has communicated with the Government of Quebec and Hydro-Québec to ensure that this bill does not interfere with Quebec's affairs.

[An Act Respecting Cyber Security, September 26th, 2025]

Madam Speaker, the bill spells out in black and white that the federal government intends to collaborate on cybersecurity with the provinces and territories. This caught my attention, and I want to come back to the word “collaborate”.

Collaboration often means that Ottawa imposes its will and everyone else does as they are told.

I would like to know whether, this time, the word “collaborate” means true collaboration, where the government consults the other parties concerned, gathers their advice and ultimately reaches a joint decision. In other words, Ottawa does not impose a decision.

Since the government claims that it wants to collaborate on this bill, there should perhaps be some guarantee that Ottawa has held consultations with the Government of Quebec and Hydro-Québec, which will have to live with the consequences of this bill.

[An Act Respecting Cyber Security, September 26th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, who did a good job explaining how Quebec is already doing a lot to ensure its security. Hydro-Québec is doing a lot in this area, because its infrastructure is massive and important to us. We want to protect it, because we care about it so much.

The federal government is proposing new standards and new ways of doing things that would create jurisdictional overlap and even force Quebec to do things differently, even though it already has the expertise and is capable of countering these threats. It is not really surprising to me that this is coming from the Liberals, given their penchant for centralizing everything in Ottawa.

Bill C-8 looks a lot like Bill C-26. Why were the reservations and concerns that the Bloc Québécois previously expressed not taken into account in Bill C‑8, given that the government already had the opportunity to hear these arguments? It also already had the opportunity to hear Quebec's concerns.

How did the Liberals respond to these concerns?

[Democratic Institutions, September 26th, 2025]

Madam Speaker, $52,000 is a lot of money. The $52,000 spent on French lessons for the Governor General reminds us that, last year alone, the monarchy cost us, wait for it, $71 million.

Imagine what we could do with $71 million. For example, today everyone is talking about the postal strike and the reduction in public services.

Does the government not think that $71 million to offer mail delivery to our seniors would be a better investment than spending it on royal trinkets?

[Democratic Institutions, September 26th, 2025]

Madam Speaker, we need to keep talking about the Governor General, because it gets even worse. She has spent more than $52,000 on French lessons since she was appointed; that is 52,000 of our tax dollars. That is more than the average salary in Quebec after taxes. However, she still does not speak a word of French. I am sure all francophones will agree that that is a lot of money just to mock us.

Do the Liberals now understand why unilingual anglophones should never be appointed to bilingual positions?

[Quebec Municipal Elections, September 23rd, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, municipal elections are in full swing in Quebec. On November 2, voters will go to the polls in more than 1,000 Quebec municipalities. It will be an evening of high hopes for all candidates and it will also be the end of an era for our elected members who decided not to run again.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I want to thank all the mayors and the councillors who served the public over the last term. They took on a role that is often difficult, sometimes rewarding, but always essential, with heart and determination.

I also want to wish the best of luck to all those who had the courage to put their face on a billboard and run for office. Voters will make their choice, but there are only winners when thousands of people offer to devote their energy and intellect to the well-being of their fellow citizens.

Quebeckers, go vote on November 2. The future is in your hands.

[Business of Supply, September 23rd, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have never hidden it: They have always said that Quebec's Act respecting the laicity of the State bothered them. Quebec's laws defending French also bother them. Now they have realized that Quebec is using the notwithstanding clause to defend its identity, language and secular principles. Since the notwithstanding clause exists in the Constitution, they are stuck with it and are wondering what the solution is.

For them, the solution is to ask the Supreme Court to reinvent the law in their stead because they do not have the courage to amend the Constitution themselves. They know that they will get neither the support of 50% of the public plus one, nor the support of seven out of 10 provinces, as required by the procedure for amending the Constitution. Since they know that they will not be able to amend the Constitution, they are asking the Supreme Court to do it for them.

Does my colleague not think that this shows a lack of courage on their part?

[Business of Supply, September 23rd, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, although this point has been made since the day started, I think it is important to raise it again.

Upon reading the brief submitted by the Attorney General of Canada with regard to the Supreme Court challenge of Quebec's legislation, An Act respecting the laicity of the State, one can detect something of a sanctimonious tone. The document seems to presume bad faith on the part of the provinces, Quebec in particular, as though they were dangerous. Conversely, the federal government portrays itself as a beacon of virtue, a bulwark against provincial abuse, including at the hands of the people of Quebec.

First, I would like to know whether my colleague shares that opinion. Second, in light of the past 150 years of history, is that what we are actually witnessing?