Xavier Barsalou-Duval

[Business of Supply, September 23rd, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, the reason why we are having this debate today, and my colleague did not mention this in his speech, is that Quebec decided to use the notwithstanding clause to implement the state secularism act to ensure secularism in Quebec. Quebec also used the notwithstanding clause to protect the French language in Quebec. It is funny, right? The Liberals on the other side of the House and all the governments before them never said that using the notwithstanding clause was wrong, until Quebec decided to use it to protect secularism and the French language in Quebec. That is the reality: We are dealing with complete hypocrisy, although no one will call it that.

In short, what is happening is that the Liberals are realizing that the notwithstanding clause bothers them and that it does not suit their purposes. The reality is that it was imposed by the other provinces—not even by Quebec, but by the other provinces—in order to ratify the Constitution that was imposed on us. Since the Constitution does not suit the government, is the government admitting that its Constitution is not so great after all? What it all boils down to is that, since the Liberals cannot unilaterally amend the Constitution, they are giving the Supreme Court a political role.

[Business of Supply, September 23rd, 2025]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to answer the question that I put to you earlier.

I would like to know why, as a staunch federalist, but especially as a member of the Conservative Party, which always claims to be the most decentralizing party in Canada, he is not defending the rights of his province. He has an opportunity right now to prove it. The Liberal government says that it is going to attack powers that are already in the Constitution and that allow provinces to overcome possible federal overrreach or certain constraints that the federal government could impose on the provinces.

Since the member supposedly supports decentralization, why is he not defending his province's power to enact its own laws?

[Business of Supply, September 23rd, 2025]

Madam Speaker, what is happening right now is really frustrating and insulting. I hope you will call my colleague to order because we are talking about an issue that is crucial for Quebec. The federal government is attacking Quebec's ability to decide its own destiny and make its own laws. My Conservative colleague, who is himself from Quebec, does not appear to have any interest in the matter and is not taking a position on today's motion, even though we have only one day to debate it.

When will my colleague talk about his position on today's topic?

[Business of Supply, September 23rd, 2025]

Madam Speaker, in her speech, my colleague across the way claimed to want to defend women's rights by attacking the notwithstanding clause. I find that odd because it is well known that Quebec's state secularism law clearly indicates that the equality of men and women is non-negotiable. My colleague wants to indirectly fight against Quebec's state secularism law, which enshrines women's rights.

She also says that she wants to protect workers' rights, even though her own government has intervened countless times to prevent workers from going on strike and exercising their rights. Worst of all, she also cited the Blaikie decision, which was one of the first times the Supreme Court weakened Bill 101 in Quebec. I do not understand.

What she is basically saying is that she wants the Supreme Court to create a constitutional amendment. That is what the federal government is demanding. It wants to the Supreme Court to change the Constitution to further weaken Quebec. What is my colleague ultimately hiding? What Quebec legislation does she want to attack? What other legislation does she not like? How concerned should we be about her work?

[Canadian Multiculturalism Act, September 23rd, 2025]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑245, An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (non-application in Quebec).

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to introduce a bill to exempt Quebec from the application of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. It is clear that Canadian multiculturalism is directly at odds with Quebec's integration model, interculturalism.

By reducing the people of Quebec to just another minority, the Canadian doctrine takes a simplistic view of Quebec. It denies that there is a majority host society. It denies the duty to integrate. It denies the existence of the Quebec people. The Canadian model basically trivializes and isolates communities, while, in contrast, the Quebec model seeks to promote a progressive cultural convergence through contact and exchanges between newcomers and the host society. Under the Quebec model, it is not a question of rejecting otherness, but rather of adding it to who we are.

Canada treats Quebec like nothing more than an administrative entity, but we are much more than that. We are a nation that aspires to govern itself.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Democratic Institutions, September 19th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, the other ministers do not spend thousands of dollars. They may spend $100 on a pair of boots, but not thousands of dollars. Her salary is $400,000 a year. At that rate, she can afford to buy her own shoes.

In 2023 and 2024 alone, the position of Governor General and her entire royal entourage cost taxpayers $59 million. That is $59 million wasted in one year to maintain the luxurious lifestyle of a symbol that could be replaced by a stamp; $59 million for a symbol of domination by a foreign sovereign.

When is the government going to put a stop to this?

[Democratic Institutions, September 19th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, nothing is too good for the monarchy. The Governor General, yes her again, billed taxpayers $1,117 for shoes and nearly $7,500 for clothing last year.

Meanwhile, Quebeckers are talking to us about the cost of groceries. How are we supposed to explain to taxpayers that they have to pay for the high heels of a monarch who earns $400,000 a year while they are struggling to cope with skyrocketing inflation?

The Governor General, like all of her predecessors, has a compulsive shopping problem. When will the government take away her credit card?

[Strong Borders Act, September 16th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to put my question to one of my colleague's colleagues who spoke earlier. I did not get an answer, so I will repeat my question.

As I have said several times today, a disproportionate number of asylum seekers make their claims in Quebec, which puts a lot of pressure on our resources. We already have an immigration crisis and a housing crisis, but we also have a resource crisis. Unfortunately, the government has not yet taken meaningful action to ensure the fair distribution of asylum seekers.

I would like the Conservative Party's opinion. Should asylum seekers be distributed fairly among the provinces, or should Quebec alone take on these challenges and this burden?

[Strong Borders Act, September 16th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. I have a question for him.

I was a bit taken aback during the spring parliamentary session. We were used to the Conservatives being hyper aggressive all the time, raring for a fight, when suddenly they became the muscle for the Liberal government in the context of Bill C‑5. Closure was imposed and we barely had any time to study the bill in committee. Today, all sorts of developments and consequences have come out of adopting Bill C‑5, which has become law.

Can my colleague tell me wether the Conservatives plan a repeat of what they did with Bill C‑5 or are they thinking of following the Bloc Québécois's lead and acting like responsible parliamentarians who properly study bills that fundamentally change our society, before working for the Liberals?

[Strong Borders Act, September 16th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Jonquière on his speech. I also thank him for referring to some of the issues I am currently working on.

I would like to ask him a question in relation to Bill C‑2.

My colleague referred to the immigration crisis. I think that he is absolutely right. It really is a crisis. Everyone is talking about it, and we see it in our offices. Can he tell us more about the impact this is having on our resources in Quebec and also talk to us about the unfair distribution of refugee claimants across the country? Is there anything in Bill C‑2 that would solve this crisis?