Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Mr. Speaker, as part of Bill C-5, the building Canada act, the Bloc Québécois was able to secure the co-operation and support of the Conservatives for an amendment that I myself introduced, which sought to include a sunset clause in Bill C-5. The goal was to at least provide a framework for and limit the extraordinary and exceptional powers that the bill was creating in response to the exceptional circumstances arising from the American threat across the border. The Conservatives agreed with us that these were indeed exceptional powers. Even constitutional experts agreed with us. Some said that Bill C-5 was similar or almost similar to the Emergency Measures Act. In Bill C-39, the Liberals are trying to undo all the measures that we put in place in Bill C-5 with the Conservatives' co-operation, including the five-year sunset clause. I am wondering if we can count on the Conservatives' support once again to prevent this abuse of power.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. The fact is that the federal government has been using Donald Trump to justify imposing its legislative agenda, particularly Bill C‑5, which fast-tracks major projects and sidesteps environmental laws and other laws that they do not like and that get in the way. During the study in committee, we agreed that it looked like a national emergency, as the Liberals were saying, but that President Trump would no longer be here in five years. We therefore included a sunset clause in Bill C‑5 so that we can return to the normal process in five years, but the Liberals want to get rid of that in Bill C‑39. Why is it that, essentially, the justification is becoming permanent? This is not normal. Do they want the rollbacks to be permanent when it comes to the environment, labour laws and decisions made behind closed doors between a future minister and project proponents? I do not think that is right. Why does the member agree with that?

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-39, the Liberals are exploiting the public's fear of Donald Trump. Let us not forget that, under the pretext of fighting tariffs, they gave themselves the power to circumvent all environmental laws in order to build pipelines. That is irresponsible, but at least the Bloc Québécois managed to get a sunset clause added so that it would expire after five years, because Donald Trump will no longer be in office in five years' time. However, in Bill C‑39, they are repealing that provision. They want to circumvent environmental laws for good. Does this not prove that the tariff crisis is basically just an excuse for them to bulldoze over everything?

Mr. Speaker, what the Liberals are doing through Bill C-39 is nothing new. It is rooted in the concept of a permanent state of emergency. That is when a government exploits a crisis, a temporary situation, to impose changes that are actually permanent and that would never be acceptable under normal circumstances. The Liberals are using the trade war and Donald Trump to introduce permanent rollbacks that will impact the environment, workers' rights, land protection, endangered species and more. The Liberals are not doing this to protect Quebeckers; they are doing it to line the pockets of the oil companies. Have they no shame?

Mr. Speaker, during question period, I had an opportunity to ask my colleague opposite about a provision in Bill C-5 that the government wants to remove using Bill C-39. This provision states that, after five years, the exceptional powers conferred by Bill C‑5 cease to apply. In answer to my question, she said that her government was not using Bill C‑39 to backtrack on environmental progress. I have a question for the government. If that is not backtracking, what is? A power that was supposed to be temporary and limited to five years is being made permanent and unlimited, and we know full well that this power is used precisely to get around environmental rules.

Mr. Speaker, I would love to have the opportunity to live in la-la land like my colleague opposite, but I think the reality is somewhat different from what he described in his speech. Let us get back to the matter at hand. Bill C-30 suggests that the government would open the door to the privatization of certain airports, and that it even intends to go ahead with this plan. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that. For example, if a decision were made to privatize the Quebec City airport, would he be okay with that?

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in recent history, more than 100 people died on our roads last year in accidents involving heavy-duty trucks. There were 102 fatalities. That is nearly 20% higher than the average for the previous five years. What has changed recently that could explain this? The answer is, of course, Driver Inc. The federal government turns a blind eye when shady companies put dangerous drivers on the road, and then acts surprised when there are consequences. We have proposed 10 solutions to the Liberals. When are they going to take action instead of allowing more victims to be added to the list?

Mr. Speaker, let us look back on the last couple of weeks. The chair of the transport committee was the guest of honour of the Canada Truck Operators Association, or CTOA, which is a Driver Inc. lobby group. The Liberals forced the committee to go in camera to prevent any discussion about Driver Inc. CTOA members contributed more than $100,000 to the Liberals, including more than $20,000 from a company in the chair's riding. This week, the Liberals refused to allow the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to investigate CTOA's ties to the Liberal Party. Why are they protecting their friends instead of the public?

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. Today's debate on Build Canada Homes has led me to reflect on why the government created this agency. The fact is that it did so because of the current housing crisis. What caused the housing crisis? It was the surge in immigration and the government's inability to control the situation. What we have is a pyromaniac federal government that decided to masquerade as a firefighter through new programs. What goes through my colleague's head when he sees that? Instead of admitting that it royally failed and then fixing things, the government chooses to constantly create new programs even though no one knows whether they will work or not.

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on her speech. My question will be brief. The bill we are currently studying seeks to create Build Canada Homes. Personally, I am sad that we are in a housing crisis. Earlier, the parliamentary secretary said that his government is working to resolve the crisis. What has the government done that is so special to ease the housing crisis lately, besides finally listening to our criticisms about there being too much immigration?

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. We might say that he tirelessly defends his party with all the enthusiasm he is known for. That said, although we may not agree on much, I am going to take the liberty of asking him a question. We are all familiar with the Build Canada Homes program, which was previously called “Bâtir Maisons Canada” in French. This sparked a lot of reactions, particularly because some people felt the name was a clunky word-for-word translation. This led the government to change the the name of the program. This brings to mind other situations we have seen, including the discovery in January 2025 that the website of the Liberal leader, who has since become Prime Minister, was riddled with errors and appeared to have been translated with Google Translate. Then there is the campaign slogan “Elbows up”, which was translated into French as “On lève le coude”. Unfortunately, that phrase actually means raising a glass, as in having a drink. All of this led us to March 25, 2026, when we found out that there were no francophones on the team that wrote Mark Carney's speech. When I—

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is new, as my colleague on the other side of the House was saying. Sometimes, we still say his name out of habit. All these problems show—my colleague on the other side of the House might acknowledge this— that government policies and decisions, as well as their implementation, are carried out in English. Quebec comes second. French is an afterthought. Ottawa clearly could not care less about our reality.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps you can clarify something for me. In my speech earlier, I mentioned the Prime Minister by name because I was simply reading the headline of an article. I would like to know whether, based on precedent, it is permissible to include the name of a member of the House when reading the headline of an article.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix on his speech today. This week, I had the opportunity to sit with him briefly on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, of which I assume he is a full member. At that time, I had the opportunity to introduce a motion in which I denounced the close ties between the Liberals and the lobby representing the unregulated truckers responsible for the Drivers Inc. scheme, which undermines people's working conditions and causes accidents. The Liberals seem quite close to these people. Some of them are even Liberal activists who allegedly fund the Liberal Party. I asked that the committee look into the matter. I would like to know if I can count on the support of my colleague and the Conservative Party on this issue.

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague opposite for sponsoring petition e‑6661. Based on the parliamentary secretary's response, it would appear that this petition has helped bring about change. That is great, but I still find it hard to understand why so many other attempts were needed in the past to get this problem addressed and to ensure that Victoria Crosses could finally be awarded. For example, former NDP MP Niki Ashton presented petition e‑3636, and former Conservative Party leader Erin O'Toole moved a motion on the matter, also in 2022. What made the government listen this time? Why did it not listen the last few times?

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. Today, we are debating a motion that would establish an independent Canadian military honours review board. One of its key mandates would be to potentially award the famous Victoria Cross, which has never been awarded. This initiative is being taken now as a result of the motion we are debating, which stems from a report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. However, similar initiatives have been undertaken in the House of Commons in the past through petition e‑3636, which gathered 14,000 signatures; through a motion adopted by unanimous consent in the House; through delegations; and through petition e‑6661. It feels as though this keeps coming up and the government keeps ignoring the calls. This time, it feels as though the government going to say yes, but it still has yet to be implemented. People go into battle for a country, make sacrifices, lose their health and keep fighting. How does this situation make the government look?

Madam Speaker, today, we are debating the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, which is quite short. It is just one paragraph long. I have seen some pretty long committee reports in my time, but in this case, the report is very clear and effective. It says what needs to be said. Basically, the report states the following: That the committee report to the House its recommendation for the creation of an independent Canadian Military Honours Review Board with the specific mandate to review decisions made under the Directorate of Honours and Recognition and its precursor bodies when new evidence demonstrates that the reconsideration of a military honour is warranted to ensure that no error or omission was made. Upon reading that, it seems obvious. It is worth noting that the committee did in fact adopt the motion unanimously. Basically, the idea is to acknowledge that, in the past, certain distinctions, medals and honours may have been denied to individuals who have done great things for their country. Unfortunately, after some time has passed, the government is realizing that perhaps it should have awarded those honours, because it did not have all the information needed to make the right decision at the time. I find that interesting and I think it is good. Today, we are doing more than simply presenting a committee report, because we are now debating it in the House of Commons. It is important that our voices be heard. As we know, when a committee presents a resolution, report or recommendation, it often reflects the voices of the committee members. Those voices carry considerable weight, because they represent people of different political stripes sitting around the same table, who have discussed an issue and learned more about it. Once they have considered a matter and studied it carefully, they recommend that Parliament examine it further. I understand from my Conservative colleague's proposal that the idea is to go even further by ensuring that this is not only the will of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, but also the will of the House of Commons as a whole. I assume that, given that the committee adopted the report unanimously, the same should be the case today. It sends a much stronger message when it is adopted by the House of Commons than when it is adopted by a committee, even though a committee adopting something already means a great deal. I therefore congratulate my colleagues who decided to bring this debate to the House today. It should be noted that there is a broader context to this debate. We talk about distinctions, but there is one whose significance underlies today's debate: the Victoria Cross. The Victoria Cross was established in 1993 to recognize acts of valour, self-sacrifice or devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy. Although it was established in 1993—when I was just a kid, since that was more than 30 years ago—it has unfortunately never been given out. It has never been awarded. I realize that this is an exceptional honour. I believe it is the highest honour that can be awarded, so they are not handed out like candy. However, that does not change the fact that, at some point, we need to ask the question. It is inconceivable that no one committed any exceptional acts over the course of 30 years. That would be very surprising, especially considering all the conflicts that Canada and members of the armed forces have contributed to during that time. In the specific case of the conflict in Afghanistan, in which Canada participated by sending troops, no Victoria Crosses were awarded. However, other nations—or rather, other countries, since there is the Quebec nation and the Canadian nation, and a distinction must be made—that participated in the conflict in Afghanistan decided to award Victoria Crosses. In particular, Great Britain awarded three Victoria Crosses in connection with the conflict in Afghanistan. Australia awarded four Victoria Crosses also in connection with the conflict in Afghanistan. New Zealand awarded one. The United States obviously did not award any Victoria Crosses, because they do not exist there. However, they have Medals of Honor, which are roughly the American equivalent. They awarded 18 Medals of Honor. In Canada, however, no medals were awarded. That is pretty sad considering that people went over there to fight the Taliban and put their lives and their health on the line. In fact, a former Bloc Québécois MP, Michel Boudrias, the member for Terrebonne, went to Afghanistan. We know things were not easy for everyone over there. Many people have spoken out on Parliament Hill to demand change, to get Canada to change how it does things and decide to honour the veterans who fought in Afghanistan. There have been proposals, including some in connection with the Victoria Cross. For example, Canada's former chief of the defence staff, retired general Rick Hillier, led a delegation on Parliament Hill last month calling on the federal government to review cases involving Afghanistan as well as more than 40 cases dating back to the First World War involving veterans who may have been eligible for the Victoria Cross. I would note that the Victoria Cross has occasionally been awarded to other individuals in the past even though it did not exist prior to 1993. It was actually awarded by Great Britain, but Canada is no longer a colony even though it has the same king. We could talk about the monarchy at length today, but that is not the point of this debate. Nevertheless, perhaps it is time for Canada to choose to use the tools and resources available to reasonably and appropriately honour those who fought for the country. This is not the first time we have talked about this. I just spoke about the action that Rick Hillier has been taking and about how he led a delegation, but there is also petition e‑3636, which was sponsored and tabled in the House by former MP Niki Ashton. I can use her name since she is no longer a member of the House of Commons, but I had the opportunity to serve with her in the past. That petition was tabled in 2022, and no fewer than 14,000 people supported this effort to award the Victoria Cross for the first time. Unfortunately, the Liberal government at the time refused to do so. Again in 2022, MP Erin O'Toole took action in this regard. He is also no longer a member of the House, but we know that he served as the leader of the official opposition and, if I am not mistaken, minister of veterans affairs. He sought the unanimous consent of the House to implement what we are discussing here, namely a review board to award the Victoria Cross to deserving individuals. Once again, his motion did not receive the unanimous consent of the House in 2002 and it was rejected. It is now 2026, four years later. Most recently, petition e-6661 was presented by a member from the other side of the House. I cannot name her since she is still in office, but I can say that she is a member representing the Liberal Party. After two Liberal rejections, it is quite a change to see a Liberal member say that we need to exert some pressure and try to get her government to take a position. The member probably does not agree with the decisions her party has made in the past. On April 15, 2026, she presented a petition with 16,500 signatures. That is a lot of people. The previous petition had collected 14,000 signatures. Even more people signed this petition. In addition to the petition presented by the member opposite, a motion was moved by a Conservative member at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs on April 20. His motion was adopted unanimously there. It was forwarded to the House, and the report was tabled on April 30, 2026, less than a month ago. All of this shows that many steps are being taken to recognize the sacrifice of those who have given so much. There are cases such as that of Jess Larochelle, who did so much for his country and who sadly passed away in 2023 before he could receive this medal. It brings to mind the Canadian government's difficulties in recognizing those who fought in Afghanistan, or the memorial, which listed names of people who had not actually died. Then there is the whole story of how that contract was awarded. It is always disappointing to see that the action taken does not seem to match the sacrifices made by members of the armed forces. This time, I believe we have a good opportunity to rectify the situation and make the right decision.

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question from my colleague. As for the impact on recruitment, I must say that about 20 years ago, I myself considered joining the armed forces, since I was a former member of the air cadets. I ultimately decided not to go through with it, in part because I wanted to serve Quebec and felt that doing so as a member of the Canadian military created a somewhat unique situation. That does not mean that no one in Quebec wants to serve in the Canadian military, but I found it hard to reconcile that situation. There are probably things the Canadian military could do to make recruitment easier in Quebec. For example, allowing people to serve only in Quebec could be an option. When it comes to military honours, I think this is a good illustration of what my colleague is currently presenting, the motion we are debating today. If we are unable to commend people on their acts of bravery and give them a pat on the back, especially since these individuals often come home with post-traumatic stress disorder and injuries they will carry for the rest of their lives, often in ways that are invisible in daily life, it is certainly not motivating. On the contrary, these individuals should be singled out for their patriotism.

Madam Speaker, my colleague on the other side of the House has caught me off guard a little. However, I can say that when the November 11 memorial ceremony is held every year in my riding, the family of one armed forces member who fought in Afghanistan attends. We lost one former resident of Boucherville, who died while serving. It troubles me because that individual was still in the prime of life, still relatively young, and he never got to see his children grow up or have the good fortune to enjoy a long life like others will. That saddens me. At the same time, I feel that it is important to remember the sacrifice he made every day so that we could enjoy our lives. I think that ceremonies like the one on November 11 are important and need to be valued even more. That is why it is important on these occasions, which offer us a rare glimpse of military personnel wearing their medals, to congratulate and thank them for their service. We have to do more for them.

Madam Speaker, the good news is that the parliamentary secretary already responded to petition e-6661, stating that the government was willing to move forward. I believe that the motion we are debating today will simply help speed up implementation. Sometimes, promises do not materialize. This time, I believe that if the entire House of Commons makes a commitment, it would enable us to move faster.