Xavier Barsalou-Duval

“We worked with the Conservatives before to put time limits on the government's emergency powers. Now the government is trying to remove those limits. I want the Conservatives to help us stop them again.”

“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.”

“More than 100 people died in truck accidents last year, which is 20% higher than the recent average. This is happening because shady companies are putting dangerous drivers on the road. We gave the government 10 solutions, and I want to know when they will act.”

“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?”

“The federal government makes its policies in English and does not care about Quebec or the French language.”

“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.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 10 of 100

  Only 10% of this question directly addressed the speech or the topic being debated.

  See full analysis →

“The government keeps using bad French translations, from the name of this housing agency to the Prime Minister's website and speeches. I have a question about this pattern.”

“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—”

“I want to know what the government has actually done to fix the housing crisis, other than listening to our concerns about high immigration.”

“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?”

“The Leader of the Opposition always talks like the economy is facing total disaster. He blames the Liberals, but he also says the Liberals keep using his party's ideas. Is he saying Conservative ideas helped cause this disaster?”

“Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition. I have been fortunate to sit in Parliament for a little over 10 years. For a little over 10 years, I have had the opportunity to listen to his excellent speeches. They tend to be very good. However, every time my colleague rises in the House, ever since I first had the opportunity to listen to his speeches, I get a sense that they always boil down to much the same thing. To hear him speak, anyone would think we are constantly on the verge of an apocalypse. Obviously, I am not saying that the economic situation is positive; far from it. However, I wonder if he should perhaps change his approach; furthermore, in his criticism today, he said that the Liberal plan is bad for the economy. However, if we look at the Liberal government’s record over the past year, we see that it has implemented measures essentially proposed by the Conservative Party. He says himself that the Liberals spend their time stealing his ideas. Is he telling us that Conservative ideas are partly responsible for this apocalypse?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 36 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“The economy is struggling, and the Liberals share the blame because they are in charge. The Prime Minister promised to fix the tariff dispute with the United States a year ago, but nothing has changed. We need trade with the Americans. The government must sit down and negotiate with them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. While we do not necessarily agree with everything in the Conservative motion before us today, we do believe it raises an interesting and relevant question to which I do not feel the government has provided an answer. Essentially, what the Conservatives are saying is that Canada is in a technical recession, that things are going badly and that the Liberals are to blame. The fact is I cannot say that they are not at least partly to blame. They are the ones in charge, after all. The Prime Minister, who was elected nearly a year ago, promised us he would resolve the tariff crisis with a wave of a magic wand. Here we are a year later, and nothing has changed. Now, today, the government is engaging in rhetoric by trying to contrast having agreements with our southern neighbour with having agreements with other countries around the world. Given the difficult situation, might it not be time for the government to sit down at the negotiating table with our southern neighbour? It might be time for the government to realize that we cannot really get by without doing business with them either.”

“Canadian exports are down, likely because of American tariffs. The Prime Minister promised to fix this by trading more with other countries instead. I want to know if my colleague thinks the numbers show that plan is working.”

“Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague said that exports are down in Canada. Everyone is aware that the effects of the U.S. tariffs are very likely having an impact on exports to the U.S. However, the Prime Minister promised a new policy, namely that we would move away from the U.S. and develop partnerships around the world, which would compensate for the challenges associated with the U.S. Does my colleague think that the data show that this strategy is working?”

“The government just does what the Americans want. As soon as Donald Trump told Canada not to tax digital services, the government dropped the three percent tax and got nothing in return.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague opposite on his speech, which was interesting and seemed to be heading in the right direction. However, it was not necessarily all that reassuring, because, so far, all we have been seeing is his government kowtowing to the Americans. As soon as Mr. Trump told us not to tax digital services, Mr. Carney’s government did away with the much-discussed 3% tax without getting anything in return. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 33 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“The Conservative motion attacks Quebec culture to please the Americans, just like the old Harper cuts. But I am even more worried that the Liberals are too weak to defend our culture and taxes. I want to know what my colleague thinks about the government being so unsure of itself.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech today. I must say that, while I am extremely disappointed by the Conservative motion we are debating today, I am not entirely surprised by it. It is a painful reminder of the Harper years, when cuts were being made to culture left, right and centre. However, this is even worse. They are doing the Americans’ bidding and launching yet another full-scale attack on our culture, Quebec culture, and perhaps even Canadian culture, if such a thing exists. However, I have even greater concerns about the government. It was unable to stand its ground on the much-discussed 3% digital services tax, and it refused to commit to the CRTC’s decision, despite being publicly questioned on the matter. What does my colleague think of the fact that the Liberals do not seem overly sure of their position?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 42 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →