Xavier Barsalou-Duval

[Strong Borders Act, September 16th, 2025]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments of my colleague opposite, and I beg to disagree with some of the points she raised. Though I am far from a proponent of Bill C-2, an analysis shows that the bill could ultimately be beneficial. That said, some significant changes may be needed.

My colleague says that a 150-page bill is an omnibus bill, which surprises me a little. I think that comment may be a little over the top. However, the substance of what she is saying sort of makes sense. For example, she mentioned concerns that this bill would be passed without any substantial amendments.

Is she also concerned that the Conservatives might repeat what they did last spring, when they did the Liberals' dirty work for them by preventing us from taking the time to properly study bills introduced in the House? Some aspects of Bill C‑2 deserve to be studied and explored in more detail.

[Strong Borders Act, September 16th, 2025]

Madam Speaker, welcome back to the House.

I listened to my colleague talk about Bill C‑2, but there is an elephant in the room when it comes to this bill. People are reluctant to talk about it, but it is one of the reasons why we in the Bloc Québécois are inclined to be in favour of this bill.

The number of asylum seekers at the border is skyrocketing. While much of this explosion in asylum claims is attributable to international events, some of it is due to irregular crossings. We believe that treating these people properly is important, but so is ensuring a fair distribution of asylum seekers across the country.

We know that, unfortunately, Quebec is still receiving the greatest share. In fact, Quebec takes in nearly 50% of the asylum seekers who come to Canada. Figures for the other provinces indicate that they are not doing their part. Not long ago, an ad in Le Journal de Montréal condemned this situation, and I was surprised to see that it caused something of a scandal. After all, the real scandal is that the other provinces are not pulling their weight.

Why must Quebec bear such a heavy burden? What are my colleague's thoughts on the unequal distribution of asylum seekers? Why are the other provinces not taking in more of them?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, September 15th, 2025]

With regard to government expenditures associated with the monarchy: (a) for the Office of the Governor General, the Department of National Defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, the Department of Canadian Heritage, the National Capital Commission and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, for the years 2022-25, as of May 28, 2025, what is the (i) cost of operating the Office of the Governor General, (ii) salary of the Governor General, (iii) cost of support provided by the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, (iv) cost of Royal Canadian Mounted Police support for protecting the governor general, (v) cost of federal assistance to organizations of former governors general (the Michaëlle Jean Foundation, the Rideau Hall Foundation and the Institute for Canadian Citizenship), (vi) cost of the Rideau Hall residence (National Capital Commission), (vii) cost of pensions for all former governors general (and their surviving spouses), (viii) cost of the governor general’s visits abroad; (b) since Governor General Mary Simon took office on July 26, 2021, what are the total expenses incurred by her office or any other department for French language training; and (c) for each trip outside the province of Ontario, what is the total cost of the trip, specifying the number of accompanying persons each time?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, September 15th, 2025]

With regard to the expenditures of the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General, the Department of National Defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the royal family’s visit to Canada on May 26 and 27, 2025, as of April 28, 2025, broken down by department and visit: what was the (i) cost of air and ground transportation, (ii) cost of meals during transport and at destination, including the list of meals, (iii) number of accompanying persons who made the trip and their role, (iv) cost of transportation and security staff and their number and role, (v) cost of accommodation and the list of locations, (vi) cost of travel arrangement fees, (vii) value of receipts submitted by the various staff and accompanying persons, (viii) amount of expenses incurred for the Prime Minister, the Governor General, and their accompanying persons, (ix) amount of all other costs related to the trips?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 15th, 2025]

With regard to the federal government’s purchase of the Quebec Bridge: (a) did the federal government carry out one or more expert assessments on the lifespan of the Quebec Bridge; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, how long ago were they performed; and (c) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what was the assessed remaining lifespan of the Quebec Bridge, in years?

[One Canadian Economy Act, June 20th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my Green Party colleague for her diligent work on this bill. Although she does not sit on the committee, I had the opportunity to read all the amendments she put forward, sometimes even late into the night. It is not easy to do the work when it is clear that there will be little support around the table.

I had the opportunity to vote in favour of most of her amendments. I would like her to tell us whether she is proud to be Canadian knowing that her suggestions were rejected by all the parties in the House except for the sovereignists.

[One Canadian Economy Act, June 20th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, during the study of this bill, we spoke out about the fact that the government does not need to comply with any criteria or constraints in designating a project as being in the national interest. Yes, the bill does include certain criteria and factors, but the problem is that these criteria and factors are completely optional. It is entirely up to the minister to decide whether to follow them or not. That means, for example, that the minister could designate the pool they want to have built in their backyard as being of national interest. It is that crazy.

Does my colleague think that is acceptable? I do not understand why the Conservatives decided to draft their amendment in a way that allows the government to simply issue an order in council to create its own definition. Does my colleague think that that is sufficient and that we can trust the government to that degree?

[One Canadian Economy Act, June 20th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is very interesting. Indeed, we managed to get rid of a whole bunch of extreme powers that this government wanted to give itself.

Unfortunately, we had to do our work hastily on the back of a napkin in five minutes. We were adding acts in a rush, but we were unable to do a comprehensive review, which means that there are likely many other laws that are not in this bill that can still be circumvented.

This country has been around for more than 150 years. Many laws have been voted on, but, unfortunately, a list of 10 or 15 laws is not enough to ensure that this bill will have the necessary framework and limitations.

[One Canadian Economy Act, June 20th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, given how long the parliamentary secretary has been here, he should have been rewarded with a ministerial position for his good service to the Liberal Party.

Essentially, he is saying that a majority of the population supports the bill. He even claims that a majority of Quebeckers support the bill, but I have not seen any figures to back that up, and I know very well that he does not have any. The government did not want to listen to the people, poll them or give them time to form an opinion because the Liberals imposed time allocation on the study of the bill, even in committee.

The only majority the member is talking about is the parliamentary majority, and that is not necessarily the majority of the population, because the Liberals are muzzling Parliament.

[One Canadian Economy Act, June 20th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that my Conservative colleague is asking that question, because we were able to mitigate the most extreme aspects of the bill, even though it remains every bit as problematic and troublesome.

It is not quite as bad as it was, but what really disappointed me is that some of the amendments we proposed would have had an environmental impact and would have provided greater protection for biodiversity. Unfortunately, every time we mentioned the environment or biodiversity, the Conservatives were not on our side.