Xavier Barsalou-Duval

[Natural Resources, June 19th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, guess who is thrilled about Bill C-5, apart from the Conservatives and the oil companies. Brookfield is thrilled. The Prime Minister's former firm is getting quite the assist from the Liberals. Brookfield owns a company that produces nuclear reactors. Bill C-5 deals with that. Brookfield owns natural gas processing plants. Bill C-5 deals with that. Brookfield own pipelines and has interests in the oil sands. Bill C-5 deals with that.

Is the Prime Minister imposing a gag order on Bill C-5 in order to please Brookfield shareholders of which he is one?

[Intergovernmental Relations, June 17th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 allows Ottawa to impose pipelines on Quebec, the provinces and indigenous people without their consent. Bill C-5 allows the government to breach 13 laws and to add others by order in council. Bill C-5 sets out criteria for projects of national significance, but those too can be circumvented.

This is no joke. Bill C-5 even allows ministers to circumvent Bill C-5. That is why the Bloc Québécois is proposing amendments. Without our amendments, Bill C-5 is nothing more than a licence to steamroll over Quebec. Will the Liberals support that?

[Intergovernmental Relations, June 17th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that he would never impose energy projects on Quebec or any province without its consent. Unfortunately, Bill C-5 states the opposite. This bill allows Ottawa to make a unilateral decision by order in council and then hold bogus consultations once the project has already been approved. The Bloc Québécois thought this must be a mistake, because that is not what the Prime Minister had promised. We are proposing an amendment in line with what the Prime Minister said. It would require him to obtain the approval of Quebec and the provinces before moving forward.

Will the Prime Minister support it?

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2025]

Madam Speaker, listening to the Conservative member, one would think that we are on the brink of apocalypse because of electric cars. He seems to believe that these cars would never sell and would be left on the lots. That is a surprise to me, because we know that Quebec's figures show that EV sales targets are surpassed every year. More EVs are sold each year than is required by the government. That is surprising.

How does my Conservative colleague explain that? How does he explain the fact that 50% of EVs sold in Canada are sold in Quebec? Does it not look like there is an appetite somewhere for these vehicles?

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2025]

Madam Speaker, it is clear today that the Conservatives are on a crusade against electric vehicles. Looking back a few years, during the pandemic and even more recently, people could be waiting a year or two, maybe even three, to get the vehicle they wanted to buy.

Does my colleague agree that if we go back to saying that there is no need to force dealerships to sell electric vehicles, we risk ending up in the same situation where customers are sold what dealers want to sell, not what consumers want to buy, and that we will once again delay the necessary energy transition?

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2025]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that my Liberal colleague intends to vote against the Conservative motion. I would have been very concerned if she had decided to vote with the Conservatives.

While she seems to be saying that we need to transition to electric vehicles, which is a great, her government is introducing more and more pro-oil industry policies. I am thinking in particular of Bill C‑5, the fact that they buy pipelines and the fact that they support carbon storage.

Will my colleague commit to trying to get her government to stop constantly working in favour of the oil companies? We cannot have it both ways. We need to choose a direction and follow it. We cannot keep moving in opposite directions.

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Repentigny on his speech.

We know that the transportation electrification strategy is essential for reaching greenhouse gas reduction targets and that the Liberal government suddenly stopped funding electric vehicles.

What does my colleague think about the fact that we are still waiting and that the government has stopped helping to electrify transportation?

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, I am relieved to see that my Liberal colleague intends to vote against the Conservative motion, but I would still like to ask him about something else related to this motion.

Fewer electric vehicles are currently being sold than in the past. This is specifically due to the sabotage by his government, which, in a completely unexpected and unannounced manner, decided to cut subsidies for electric vehicles. People do not know whether the subsidy will come back or not. The government was reelected, but has yet to make any commitments regarding the return of these subsidies, which is creating a great deal of uncertainty in the market.

I would like to know when the government will put an end to this uncertainty so that sales will pick up again.

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member is aware, but there is a very strong transport electrification hub in Quebec. An entire industry has developed there. There are a lot of people who are excited about working on the energy of the future and clean technologies.

Is my colleague trying to attack a strong industry in Quebec that generates thousands of jobs by declaring war on electric vehicles?

[Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, June 16th, 2025]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑210, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (oath of office).

Mr. Speaker, it is not every day that a bill to amend the Canadian Constitution is introduced. Today, I am pleased to introduce in the House a bill to amend section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867, to eliminate the obligation to swear an oath to the King. Under this bill, the oath to the King would be replaced with an oath of office similar to the ones sworn by judges and some senior government officials. An MP who is elected by the people officially takes office once they have sworn an oath. However, what should be a moment of pride and celebration becomes a painful, humiliating experience that besmirches our honour and undermines the credibility of our institutions. Many Canadians, along with nine out of 10 Quebeckers, reject the monarchy, the living embodiment of old British oppression. This is therefore a test and an opportunity for Canada to show that it is as inclusive and open as it often claims to be. Everyone knows that an oath to the King is nothing more than a remnant of colonialism, and it is time to free ourselves from that.

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