Xavier Barsalou-Duval

[Official Languages, October 3rd, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport can laugh it up all he wants, but Quebeckers are worried.

Every time CN is mentioned in the same breath as official languages, it is because it is going off the rails. In 2020, CN moved about 60 rail traffic controller jobs out west. Last year, it did not have a single francophone on its board. Today, CN wants to move 50 customer service jobs from Quebec to western Canada. Matters of language are also matters of safety.

Does the Minister of Transport agree with these CN cuts, yes or no? Does he think that CN has to offer services in French, yes or no?

[Official Languages, October 3rd, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives are standing up for oil companies, we are going to speak on Quebec's behalf.

Federally regulated businesses continue to disregard French. According to the union, CN wants to relocate some 50 customer service jobs in Quebec to western Canada.

That is very bad news for the 50 Quebec workers who could lose their jobs. It is also very bad news for service in French if CN relocates those jobs to unilingual western provinces.

Does the Minister of Transport think it is acceptable and safe for CN to reduce its ability to serve francophones?

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Timmins—James Bay for his speech on the Conservative motion. Why am I congratulating him? In his speech, he appealed to people's intelligence, unlike today's Conservative motion, which appeals more at the reptilian brain, if not lower.

When we look at the Conservative motion, we can see that it is not based on facts. The Conservatives are not interested in the facts when the facts do not fit their narrative. They are not interested in reality and the truth. That is okay. When the facts do not work for them, they come up with an alternative reality. They write motions full of half-truths and then complain about how everyone else voted against the motions. They are saying that the carbon tax applies in Quebec when it does not apply in Quebec. They are saying that the Bloc Québécois supported regulations that the government adopted.

What does my NDP colleague think of these tactics? Does he think that we are here in Parliament to elevate the debate, or to use spin regardless of whether it is true or false?

[Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, September 25th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the speeches from the Conservatives, who seem to delight in reminding us that removing the GST from housing was their idea. Whether the idea came from the Conservatives or the Liberals, ultimately, will it actually make a difference?

I sincerely wonder, because in the end, the money will not go back into the pockets of those who rent housing, but rather into the pockets of those who build it. This sends a message to builders that they will be able to build homes for less. As the Minister of Finance said, it will cost them $25,000 less to build a $500,000 building. If the building is valued at $800,000 on the market, why would someone sell it for $25,000 less? It will be sold at the same price and the builder will simply make more profit.

I am having a hard time understanding how this magic solution will suddenly solve the problem.

[Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, September 25th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I did not have a chance to ask the Minister of Finance a question earlier when she made her speech. Since my colleague across the way is from the same party, I assume he may be able to answer my question.

In her speech, the Minister of Finance mentioned that the proposed cut to the GST on housing construction with the rebate system would help lower the cost of building a housing unit. For example, for a housing unit valued at $500,000, the rebate would be $25,000.

The cost of building a home will be reduced for the person building it, but after that, the housing unit will be sold to the person who will start renting it out.

What incentive does that person have to lower the rent if the market price remains the same? We know that if the market price for rent is $2,000 to $3,000—

[Excise Tax Act, September 25th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging the position taken by the member who just spoke. I assume he was speaking on behalf of the Liberal government. I must commend his stance, because all too often we see governments, whether Liberal or sometimes Conservative, oppose bills simply for the sake of opposing them. Obviously, it is currently a Liberal government.

The Bloc Québécois has introduced many bills, and we have often been disappointed to see the Liberals oppose certain ones for no good reason. Basically, they want to prevent their opponents from building a track record. Even if the bill is a good one, the Liberals will oppose it.

In this case, there is some light at the end of the tunnel. I hope this will not be the only time. The Liberals are saying that even though Bill C-323 is not one of their own bills, it may have enough merit to be considered. That is a good start.

My colleagues will have guessed that there is a good chance that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑323, based on what I have been saying. We are not supporting it because it is a Bloc bill, because it is not a Bloc bill. It is not an NDP bill either. It is a Conservative bill.

This is worth noting because I often feel disappointed by the kinds of questions the Conservatives ask in the House and their priorities, like oil and gas, abortion and firearms. There comes a point where there are other things to talk about. When their attention shifts to other topics, the results are sometimes positive. Bill C‑323 is a good example. I congratulate the Conservatives for tabling this bill. It shows a different side of them. Even if it never happens again, we are glad of it now.

I am going to say a few words about Bill C‑323, a bill to amend the excise tax. Whenever we make a transaction, we pay a 5% federal excise tax. The bill's goal is to amend a specific section of the act to exempt psychotherapy and mental health counselling services from this tax.

We know that some services are considered essential, and we want to make it so that taxpayers do not have to pay extra for them. When these services are taxed, they become even more expensive for taxpayers. Therefore, eliminating the tax is a way to lower their cost for the people who use them.

We know that there is a dearth of mental health services. Often, when people start getting therapy it takes a bit of time. Problems are rarely solved in one counselling session. This gets expensive very fast.

Unfortunately, this 5% tax, or the federal portion, is added to the 10% tax, which is the Quebec portion. On a $100-per-hour fee, the client pays an additional $15. Eventually that really hurts the budget. Sometimes a person who needs mental health services has money, but sometimes they do not. It is good for people to get help. We welcome this kind of support.

I can share a story. I know that I am running out of time, unfortunately. My constituency office is above a centre called the Centre des Ils et des Elles, a multidisciplinary professional centre for childhood and early childhood. It offers all sort of services, such as speech language pathology, psychoeducation, occupational therapy, psychology, special education, and even sexology.

One of the centre's co-founders is himself a psychoeducator. I met him because my office is upstairs from his, and also because I used some of his services to help my son on his personal journey. This well-known psychoeducator told me that the situation is not normal. He says that he is providing essential mental health services, yet patients do not pay taxes when they go to an optometrist, chiropractor, hearing aid specialist or doctor.

Why should people have to pay taxes for mental health services when they do not pay taxes for any other recognized services? There is an inequity there, and we need to put an end to it.

I would like to congratulate the sponsor of this bill. Above all, I want to say that psychoeducation is one way of lightening the load on psychologists and enabling qualified people to meet the high demand for mental health care.

I would like to comment on another aspect of the bill, namely the issue of mental health counselling, which is not regulated in Quebec. We may want to raise questions about this in committee to determine the impact of recognizing this practice from a tax standpoint when it is not regulated.

[Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act, September 21st, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I did not get a chance to bring up in my speech, but my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques mentioned it. The Conservatives are criticizing the fact that the ports will have additional red tape imposed on them. That is a concern we share.

We agree with the Conservatives that the bill does not meet the expectations of port representatives. The representatives made certain requests, but none of them are included in the bill. That said, we do see value in some of the additional accountability measures, such as the idea of setting up advisory committees to forge links with cities, local residents and indigenous communities and to help develop climate change adaptation plans.

We have a question, however. The legislation imposes a one-size-fits-all approach. The same rule applies to everyone. The problem is that some ports, like the ones in Vancouver and Montreal, are bigger, while others, like the one in Saguenay, are quite a bit smaller. I am more familiar with Quebec than I am with Canada, but it seems to me that there must be small ports in other areas of Canada that might have more trouble than the others in dealing with these rules.

We would like to propose an asymmetrical approach so that the smaller ports are not forced to meet certain requirements, such as filing quarterly financial statements. Preparing those statements takes a lot of time, energy, financial resources and accounting work that could be put to better use in these smaller ports. The federal government does not need quarterly financial statements for small ports.

[Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act, September 21st, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my Liberal colleague's speech earlier. Obviously, words matter. One part of his speech caught my attention, and I would like to go back to it.

He said that one of the bill's objectives is to ensure that port boards have the right people, that the right people are sitting at the table. Who are these right people? Does he mean to say that the people there now are not the right people? Does he mean that the wrong people were appointed in the past?

The government actually has the authority to make numerous appointments to the boards of directors. In fact, this bill specifically discusses the appointment of port board chairs.

In the minds of members on the other side, does “the right people” mean Liberal Party supporters?

[Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act, September 21st, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my colleague talked about something that is worth elaborating on so that we can understand her position. She has an opportunity to illustrate her point to those watching us.

Even though there is not much to Bill C‑33, there is still something that bothers me, specifically the minister's will to have control over the appointment of board chairs of ports across Canada, in other words deciding who goes where. Worse yet, we know that when Liberal ministers do this sort of thing, the people who are selected are not accountable to the public. Their objective is not to develop the ports, but to please the minister. Most of the time, the people who are chosen are friends of the minister or friends of the Liberal Party.

I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that this aspect of the bill is an improvement.

[Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act, September 21st, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I really liked what my colleague said at the end of his response to the previous question, that the government is equating “modernization” with “centralization”.

That brings me to the question that I want to ask him. Often, in banana republics or poor countries, the system in place allows people to secure a position not because they have the necessary skills or degrees, but because they asked their friend who is a senator or mayor to give them a position as a favour.

Now, we are seeing something similar happening with this government. A minister in this government wants the power to decide who will be president of a port.

Does my colleague see this as modernization, or rather as a continuation of the Liberals' habit of appointing their buddies to positions?