Xavier Barsalou-Duval

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague for her speech in the House.

For me, it prompted many questions about the Speech from the Throne, which she vigorously defended. I feel that there are a lot of concerns to be raised.

If members recall, before the Speech from the Throne was announced, the government decided to shut down Parliament. The Prime Minister also decided to deliver a throne speech. We figured it was going to be something big, because Parliament had been shut down and they were going to address the nation. It was going to be revolutionary and change everything.

We did not know what to expect, but the government had created certain expectations. We thought there might be money for Quebec's aerospace sector, which has been struggling since the pandemic, or the transportation sector. We were hoping for health transfers. We know that Quebec is struggling with health care, the system has been hard hit. We thought there might be money for our seniors, who are isolated and have suffered a great deal.

As it turns out, it was a dud. There was nothing new. All we saw were old recycled Liberal promises. The only thing new we saw—

[Proceedings on the bill entitled An Act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19, September 29th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I found it interesting, especially when he said that his government had learned some lessons from what happened in the spring.

If we remember what happened in the spring, we had a government that was pushing all kinds of measures and programs through quickly, saying time was of the essence. Often we would give it the benefit of the doubt and let things slide. Then we would ask for corrections, but the government would refuse them. For example, the work incentives that we proposed implementing in CERB would not have prevented people from receiving the benefit; they would have simply resulted in a better economic recovery.

A new bill is under consideration, and we barely had time to read it. It is going to have to be passed when it could have as many flaws, if not more, than the existing programs. I am trying to understand what they learned from the spring, because I feel like we are going through exactly the same thing.

[Proceedings on the bill entitled An Act relating to economic recovery in response to COVID-19, September 29th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's wonderful speech, in which she spoke about all kinds of important amendments that should be made to the bill. In my opinion, these are worthwhile amendments.

However, we barely have enough time to study the bill. The government wants to rush it through, which means that we will not have time to examine these very important issues. What does my colleague think about the fact that we do not have time to make these amendments?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, September 28th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to point out to you that with all the confusion around me I intended to vote for the motion, but I am concerned that you understood that I voted against. I would like to ensure that my vote is recorded in favour of this motion.

[Proceedings on the Bill Entitled an Act Relating to Certain Measures in Response to COVID-19, September 28th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, my question is for my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville.

For years, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for EI reform to help workers who experience the spring gap, who are not eligible for EI, who are self-employed or who do not have access to sickness benefits.

Since the COVID-19 crisis, the government has woken up and realized that the EI system is not working. There is a problem with it. We are unable to help all those who are losing their jobs. We are seeing that all of the cuts that have been made over the years by Liberal and Conservative governments were not a good idea.

The government rushed to create the CERB during the crisis. That caused problems because it disincentivized work. Rather than holding a meaningful debate, the government created the CERB. Then the WE Charity scandal broke out, and the government decided to shut down Parliament.

Is that something that frustrates my colleague?

If the government had dealt with it from the beginning, perhaps the EI problem would not be as serious as it is today and we would be in a better position. Perhaps the government would not have created programs that disincentivize work, or any other hastily designed programs that ultimately fail to solve the problem.

[COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Matters, July 8th, 2020]

Madam Chair, I have a simple question.

Does the minister work for Air Canada or for Quebec's regions? The regions need this service.

[COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Matters, July 8th, 2020]

Madam Chair, service in the regions is an essential service for airlines. Air Canada has received $800 million from the federal government, on top of the emergency wage subsidy. Air Canada benefits not only from its monopoly, but also from frequent protection by the federal government.

What will the government do to ensure that the regions keep this essential service? Small carriers want to offer this service, but they want Air Canada to stay out of their territory because they know that Air Canada engages in anti-competitive practices.

Will the minister stand up for them?

[COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Matters, July 8th, 2020]

Madam Chair, I will be sharing my time with the member for Manicouagan.

After Air Canada ruthlessly announced that it was cutting service to all of the regions of Quebec, many carriers came forward and said that they would be prepared to take over. However, they are afraid of losing everything if Air Canada decides to barge back in because they have all too often been the victims of Air Canada's anti-competitive practices.

Can the Minister of Transport guarantee that no further assistance will be provided to Air Canada? Can he reassure us in that regard?

[Air Transportation, May 25th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny; last week, when I asked the minister of Transport a question about the Canadian Transportation Agency, he did not want to comment on a decision the agency had made. Maybe he does not know this, or maybe he does, but I want to remind him that in Europe and the United States, airlines are refunding passengers.

Take, for example, Air Canada, which is not on the brink of bankruptcy. It has $6 billion in its accounts, and $2.6 billion of that belongs to its passengers. It has enough money to tough it out for a year—not to mention that the government is allowing the airline to take advantage of the wage subsidy and has offered it $800 million through EDC.

Will he finally make the airlines refund their customers?

[Air Transportation, May 25th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, when a business sells a service but later cannot provide that service, the customer gets a refund. Air Canada and the other airlines need to understand that. It is even enshrined in Quebec law. More than 25,000 people have signed a petition calling on the airlines to refund cancelled tickets. The petitioners are angry, and rightly so. Others continue to join the group. Air Canada has already received $800 million from the government, and now it wants more money from taxpayers to save its own skin.

Will the government send a clear message that the airline will not get any more assistance until it offers refunds to its customers?