Xavier Barsalou-Duval

[Justice, June 6th, 2025]

Madam Speaker, one does not respect Quebec's jurisdictions by attacking Quebec's laws. I do not think the minister really understand his role.

By spending $1 million in legal fees to challenge Bill 21 before the court proceedings have even begun, the federal government is proving one thing: It will stop at nothing to crush Quebeckers and undermine Quebec's secularism. It will stop at nothing to attack the notwithstanding clause and the ability of Quebec and the National Assembly to pass its own laws, laws that we want and that Quebeckers want, but that are not the laws of Canada.

The federal government wants to fight the will of Quebeckers no matter what the cost, but why is it taking their money to do so?

[Justice, June 6th, 2025]

Madam Speaker, $1 million is not the next 6/49 jackpot; it is the amount of public money that the federal government has already wasted fighting Bill 21, Quebec's secularism bill. The Supreme Court has not even begun hearing the case, but the Liberals have already spent $1 million of our tax dollars on attacking secularism in Quebec.

Is there a limit to the amount of money Quebeckers will have to shell out to fund the Liberals' attack on their own laws with their own money?

[Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act, June 6th, 2025]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague that is particularly relevant to Quebec, but that may appeal to his Canadian spirit.

We often hear about the infamous equalization payments and the fact that English Canada, especially in the west and Alberta in particular, sends a lot of equalization payments to the rest of Canada. This time, however, it seems that Quebec made a large lump-sum equalization payment when the federal government scrapped the carbon tax.

The first thing the Prime Minister did after he was elected was abolish the carbon tax, yet he still sent out cheques. One could even say that he was writing NSF cheques, since people had not actually paid the tax to begin with. A total of $3.7 billion was paid out to all of Canada except Quebec. In the end, Quebec is left with a bill of $800 million.

Does my colleague think that is fair? Does he think it is all right to treat Quebec this way? At the end of the day, we got played. We got ripped off. We paid out $800 million to the rest of Canada. What does my colleague think?

[Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act, June 6th, 2025]

Madam Speaker, I have two questions in one for our esteemed Minister of Finance, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain.

I would assume that, as a seasoned parliamentarian, he has a solid understanding of the value of Parliament and the importance of respect and consideration for Parliament. His government was pretty pleased with itself for getting the throne speech and the ways and means motion adopted. I wonder if he intends to respect what Parliament added to the Speech from the Throne, that is, the request that a budget, or at least an economic update, be presented before the summer. That is my first point.

I will now turn to the bill we are debating today. The member is also a member from Quebec, so I would assume that Quebec is important to him. He may be aware that $3.7 billion was paid out in carbon tax rebates to the rest of Canada, but not to Quebec. That means we handed over $800 million for Canadians, even though no money was being collected. In short, money was paid to Canadians, even though they did not pay either. This is a serious problem.

As a Quebecker, does the member opposite think it is right that Quebec is not getting its fair share?

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2025]

Mr. Chair, the Canada Gazette has published new regulations for travellers' rights.

Can we expect these regulations to be implemented by the current government?

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2025]

Mr. Chair, how much longer are we going to wait before a decision is made? It has already been too long, in my opinion.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2025]

Mr. Chair, this situation has been going on since October 2024. We are in June, which means it has been more than six months, even eight months.

In the meantime, Via Rial is losing customers and keeps experiencing delays. It is a Crown corporation that falls directly under the government's authority.

Is the future of this Crown corporation important to the minister? If so, why is it taking so long to resolve the problem?

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2025]

Mr. Chair, time is flying, and there is another topic I would like to discuss.

The minister must be familiar with Via Rail. Since October 11, 2024, its trains have been forced to slow down because of a dispute with Canadian National, or CN. Last December, the government asked CN to produce documents to justify its decision. Litigation made its way to the Superior Court. On April 23, the Superior Court ruling essentially said that it is not up to the court to rule on the matter. Rather, it is up to Transport Canada and the minister, who has all the powers to do so.

Will the government resolve this situation soon?

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2025]

Mr. Chair, we will have to look at the entire budget to see whether we will indeed vote in favour of it. It would be helpful if there were positive measures for electrification.

Let us talk about electrification. The government made many promises during the election. Right now, we see that one of the Prime Minister's priorities is to meet with oil and gas companies and to try to ensure that new pipelines are built. However, we see that there is no firm commitment to the electrification of transportation.

Is the government still committed to electrifying and decarbonizing transportation?

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2025]

Mr. Chair, if the government intends to resolve the situation, that means we can expect the $9 million to be refunded to SMEs in Quebec and the $11 million to be refunded to SMEs in Canada.

However, can we also expect the return of the much-touted subsidy for zero-emission vehicles in general, beyond the money that was owed?