Xavier Barsalou-Duval

“The Conservatives say they want to reduce the deficit. But their plan will add $5 billion to the deficit and help oil companies instead of regular people. I want them to explain why.”

“Mr. Speaker, not so long ago, the Liberals added $2.4 billion to the deficit by temporarily suspending the excise tax. Today, the Conservatives are saying we should pile another $5 billion on the deficit with the new measures in their motion. Could they explain why they claim they want to tackle the deficit but are suggesting measures that will actually benefit oil companies rather than ordinary people and will swell the deficit?”

In response to a question from Natilien Joseph

“People in Quebec paid taxes for carbon tax rebate cheques sent to the rest of Canada, even though those other provinces never paid that money. We lost $800 million. I want the government to explain this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I could respond very quickly by mentioning the infamous $800 million tied to the carbon tax, which no province actually paid, yet they received funds anyway when the carbon tax was abolished. People in the rest of Canada received cheques anyway. In Quebec, we paid for the cheques that people in the rest of Canada received. I think we got taken for a ride. That $800 million was never seen again. Maybe the Liberals will make an announcement about that today. I would be very happy to hear one.”

In response to a question from Gabriel Ste-Marie

“Both the Conservatives and the Liberals spend billions of taxpayer dollars to help oil companies. They do this instead of helping regular people.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked a very good question. I cannot wait to hear how the Conservatives would answer. I cannot answer for them. What I can say, however, based on my analysis, is that the Conservatives never miss an opportunity to give oil companies a little pat on the back, regardless of how much it will cost taxpayers or how much more it will cost us. Unfortunately, we see that the Liberals have taken lessons from the Conservatives. According to Environmental Defence, we are talking about $10 billion in 2025. Consider the Liberals’ proposed Trans Mountain pipeline, which cost taxpayers $34 billion, or the $1 billion in fees due under the UN convention that the Liberals are going to cover for the Bay du Nord project. The Conservatives never see any problem when it comes to helping out oil companies, yet they rarely show up to help ordinary folks.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 29 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 →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Carlos Leitão

“The government renames old benefits just to pretend it is helping people. Also, cutting the gas tax helps rich people the most, and oil companies will just raise prices anyway.”

“Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that when we talk about giving the impression of helping, the parliamentary secretary talks about the benefit for families. There was actually a lot of marketing behind that. I am straying a bit from the subject of the debate, but I want to address this point anyway, because when I saw the government make that announcement, I could not believe it. I saw it as pure demagoguery. The government used to provide what was called a family allowance or something called the GST credit. Then it decided to basically change the name and call it a grocery benefit, saying it is supposed to help with the cost of groceries. Personally, I think it is crazy that the government thinks it can fool everyone by simply changing the name at the top of the cheque and the name of the program, when it is the same program and the same cheque as before. As for today’s debate on the 10¢ excise tax on gasoline, I think it has been clearly demonstrated that the wealthy will benefit the most, not the poor, and that oil companies are likely to increase their prices even further. Generally speaking, there is a fairly simple principle in marketing that says that prices should be set at the highest possible price that customers are willing to pay. If any flexibility is allowed, what will happen? The oil companies will just raise their prices.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I will vote against this Conservative motion. Cutting gas taxes helps rich people and oil companies instead of the people who need help most. It will also add billions of dollars to the federal deficit.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would first like to inform my colleagues that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Joliette—Manawan, who does excellent work in the House and who used to be our finance critic. I am assuming he will have a lot to say because he is now our critic for economic affairs. These are equally important roles because they are closely related. Today, we are debating a Conservative motion that, not surprisingly, once again deals with oil and gas. That comes as no surprise because it is extremely rare to have a Conservative opposition day that does not focus on these issues. As far as I remember, it has happened only once in this Parliament—and I believe that I pointed it out to the House when it did—even though the Conservatives have an opposition day almost every week or sometimes even twice a week. I invite them to try a little harder and to be a little more creative next time. In essence, what the motion before us is saying—and we may have a chance to talk more about this later—is that the cost of living is high, people are having a hard time making ends meet, and the cost of gas went up, so the gas tax should go down. There is one thing in their motion that I actually think is good. They point out that the price of gas is 13% higher here than in the United States—we pay an extra 22¢ per litre—and that gas now costs 50¢ more per litre than when global oil prices were at the same level in 2014. That is pretty interesting. They themselves are indirectly admitting that there is a problem. Why is gas pricier at the pump if the price per barrel is the same as it was in 2014? Are some people cashing in along the way? That is something worth exploring. My Conservative colleagues may have an opportunity to elaborate on that statement because we do not often hear them criticize oil companies, which are more accustomed to lining their own pockets than the other way around. I also want to note that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this motion. That should come as no surprise to anyone. We are not big fans of oil and gas companies. Essentially, if this measure is implemented, there is a risk that the deficit will get even bigger and that oil and gas companies will get more leeway to raise their prices so they can line their own pockets even more. For our part, we work for everyday people. We do not work for the oil and gas companies, unlike the Conservatives and the Liberals. These days, the Liberals have teamed up with the Conservatives to defend the oil and gas companies practically on a full-time basis. I think that is just about the only thing they have accomplished in the year since the new Prime Minister took office. I want to get back to the fact that the Conservatives are saying today that the Liberals have not done enough. In their speeches so far, the Liberals have said that, a few months ago, they cut gas prices by 10¢ a litre, which is the equivalent of the excise tax. It is a temporary measure that is theoretically supposed to help the taxpayers who are struggling the most and that will be in effect until September. We said it at the time about this measure. The Conservatives keep making a big fuss about the federal deficit. Let us be clear: the federal deficit is significant, it has reached record levels, and it is worrisome. I think they are right to make such a fuss about it. We do the same on many occasions. Generally speaking, when the Conservatives propose measures, we would expect them to be aimed at reducing the deficit, given the context. Instead, they are proposing measures that will only increase the deficit even further. They are not satisfied with the $2.4 billion the Liberals added to the deficit by temporarily eliminating the 10¢ excise tax. They want even more than that. They say one thing and do the opposite. As we know, the Liberals have already lowered the price at the pump by 10¢ and temporarily eliminated the excise tax, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because the Conservatives were constantly demanding a reduction in the gas tax. They ultimately came up with a sort of compromise. The Liberals decided they would do something symbolic to give the impression they are helping people. The hope was that this would ease the pressure and they could say they had cut the gas tax and beat the Conservatives at their own game. That is essentially the Liberal reasoning behind it. The Liberals are telling people they will save money at the pump, but the reality is quite different. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has done the math and said that it is not the poorest Canadians who will benefit from this situation, but the richest. The government is telling the poorest 20% that they will get an extra $59, which is maybe the cost of filling a Honda Civic when gas is cheaper than it is at the moment. The richest 20%, on the other hand, will receive $211, which is far more money. Based on my calculations, they will get four to five times more money than the poorest people will. Is that what helping people is all about? Is that what helping ordinary citizens is all about? I am not entirely convinced that the government has chosen the best approach. The Conservatives are proposing something similar today. They do not want to just suspend the excise tax temporarily; rather, they want implement permanent measures, or at least measures that would be in effect until the end of 2026, measures that would affect not only the excise tax but also the GST. I want to point out in passing that the Conservatives are always talking about making life more affordable for Canadians, but they have never proposed removing the GST on electricity, for example, even though electricity is a clean energy. No, they are proposing to eliminate the GST on gas, which emits greenhouse gases. Perhaps they could add electricity next time. The Conservatives are always saying that we should operate on a level economic playing field, that we must not subsidize electrification. Basically, they want to help people, but only those who choose gas rather than electricity. That was just a quick editorial comment, by the way. Basically, what I want to say is that, rather than adding $2.4 billion to the deficit, the Conservatives’ proposal will add about $5 billion to it. That is not $5 billion including the $2.4 billion, but $5 billion on top of the $2.4 billion that has already been approved. That would mean approximately $7.4 billion in tax breaks for oil, which is a lot of money. We are not opposed to helping those most in need. We are not opposed to helping the middle class. However, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s calculations have already shown, this kind of tax will primarily benefit those at the top rather than those at the bottom. We have a problem with that, especially when we see that the wealthiest are ultimately the ones who benefit. What the Conservatives are telling us is that the rich need to get richer and get even more tax breaks. Meanwhile, the government will have to tighten its belt, and everyone will have to pay for that deficit. What is even more interesting is when the Conservatives mention that the price of oil has gone up over the past year. Why has it gone up? We know that it is because of the war in Iran. How has this affected ordinary people? They are paying more, of course. However, who has benefited from higher gas prices and the higher price per barrel? It is not us. It is the oil companies. Look at Suncor’s stock price, for example. In January of this year, Suncor shares were trading at $60. Today, in May, they are trading at around $90. That is a 50% increase. Suncor shareholders have benefited. However, it does not cost the company more to produce oil. It does not cost more to supply its customers. It is making more money off us, but the Conservatives are not putting the blame on them, and neither are the Liberals. Here is another example. In January, Imperial Oil shares cost $120. Now, in May, they cost $180, which is also an increase of more than 50%. Suncor CEO Rich Kruger was paid $36 million in 2024. I am guessing he can afford to fill his tank. He has the money. Putting gas in his car is no hardship for him. These are the people the Liberals and Conservatives want to help. I think that is sad, especially since, according to Environmental Defence, fossil fuel subsidies hit the $10‑billion mark in 2025. Oil and gas companies are not giving us a discount on gas even though they were given $10 billion. They are making money hand over fist and their share prices are skyrocketing, yet the Conservatives and the Liberals are eagerly joining forces to help oil companies even more. I think that is outrageous. The government should be helping real people, not oil companies.”

“The minister wants to pause the gas tax to help people save money. But this will raise the government deficit and help rich people more than poor people. Why is the minister helping the rich instead of the poor?”

“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister on his speech, in which he gave a fine demonstration of his ability to speak English. In his speech, he extolled the virtues of suspending 10¢ of the excise tax on gas, saying that this temporary suspension would help with affordability. Perhaps he forgot to mention to us that this measure will also increase the deficit. The Parliamentary Budget Officer told us who would benefit from this. It seems that the poorest 20% of people will save $59, whereas the wealthiest 20% will save $211. Could the minister explain his decision to favour the rich?”

“The government broke parliamentary rules by sharing details of a bill before showing it to members of the House. Past Speakers have ruled that sharing legislation early with outside groups violates our rights.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege concerning a breach of the collective rights and privileges of members in the House, specifically the fundamental right of members and the House to be informed first about government legislation. The Speaker has consistently ruled that premature disclosure of a bill and its elements to third parties can constitute a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege. This principle has been confirmed on several occasions in rulings rendered by various Speakers of the House, notably on March 19, 2001, March 9, 2011, and December 3, 2012. More recently, on April 10, 2019, Speaker Regan reiterated that disclosing legislative information outside the House before it is introduced in the House undermines the fundamental role of parliamentarians, which is to legislate. On November 29, 2021, Speaker Rota confirmed that such disclosures, even partial ones, may constitute a violation of the collective privileges of the House. Finally—”

“The Prime Minister says he does not care or lose sleep over tariffs. Tariffs matter to a lot of people. I am asking my colleague what he thinks of the Prime Minister's attitude.”

“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. I have a question for him. When we hear the Prime Minister say things like “Who cares?” in response to a question about tariffs, and when we hear that this subject does not keep him up at night, what does that tell my colleague about the Prime Minister’s attitude and his apparent lack of interest, even though it is such a priority for so many people?”

“Canada collected 10 billion dollars from retaliatory tariffs, but gave only 5.7 billion dollars back to businesses. Why is the government offering only loans instead of listening to the industry? Why did the economic update ignore this crisis and the help steel businesses need?”

“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. I would like to ask him a question, because he did not touch on something that I believe is important. In 2025-26, Canada collected $10 billion through retaliatory tariffs. However, the portion that was redistributed to businesses amounts to just $5.7 billion. That means that Canada has collected twice as much money as it has distributed to businesses through support measures. In these circumstances, how does my colleague explain the fact that the government is not listening to the industry more and that all the government has to offer is loans? How does he explain the fact that the economic update did not even mention the tariff crisis or the assistance needed for businesses that use steel?”

In response to a question from Gabriel Ste-Marie

“New tariff rules are hurting a steel mill in my riding. Other companies are stopping their orders of Canadian steel.”

“Mr. Speaker, there is actually a mill in my riding that produces steel that could be termed first-level steel. It is not highly refined; it is minimally processed. Afterward, other manufacturing companies will refine it further, especially for export. The problem we are currently experiencing with the new tariff changes is that the steel-processing companies will no longer order steel from major Canadian steel mills. If all these SMEs are no longer ordering—”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Kurt Holman

“We should not turn to the oil industry to deal with tariffs. Quebec's strength is green energy and low-carbon steel made with clean electricity. The federal government should support cleaner steel by taxing high-carbon imports at the border and picking greener bids for big projects.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think it is a shame that my colleague is asking me this question, even though I think it came from a place of good intentions. I do not think it is a solution to say that, because of the tariffs, we are going to abandon all our economic sectors and throw ourselves headfirst into the oil industry. That is not Quebec’s strength. Quebec wants to move toward the energy transition. Our strength lies in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from steel production. The federal government should take that into account with, for example, a border carbon adjustment. It should consider the carbon footprint when evaluating bids for major projects. The reality is that Quebec steel is made with hydroelectricity. It is about a hundred times less polluting than all the steel that exists elsewhere on the planet. It cannot be compared to what is being done in countries like China, where they use coal. That could be a great strategy from the government: to really accelerate the energy transition in order to have greener infrastructure and support our steel sector.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Karim Bardeesy

“The government needs to focus on protecting local jobs. It promised to buy Canadian, but it keeps giving billion-dollar contracts to foreign companies instead of supporting our own workers.”

“Mr. Speaker, I do not see any connection between his question and the issue we are discussing today. It is a shame, because we are in a difficult situation where people are worried about their jobs, and the government is trying to distract us by bringing up other topics. I would urge my colleague to focus instead on the problem we have brought to the table today and to talk to his colleagues so we can resolve this. Let us take the “buy Canadian” policy as an example. Before Christmas, the government promised to make buying Canadian a priority. What happened in the end? A few weeks later, the government could have bought Canadian steel to build future ferries in the Vancouver area, but instead decided to give that contract to the Chinese. That is $1 billion going to China. We could also talk about the renewal of Via Rail’s fleet. A contract is coming up. Will it be awarded to Alstom, or will it go to Siemens again, like last time, when the Americans were given $1 billion to build it? It is important to choose to keep our people employed rather than constantly sending money abroad.”

In response to a question from Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

“The Prime Minister is failing to help the steel industry deal with American tariffs. Quebec produces one fifth of Canada's steel, but the government only focuses on Ontario while Quebec plants close and workers lose jobs. The government must do more to support Quebec steel and make sure Canadian builders buy Canadian steel.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the reminder. I was just pointing out that I would like to see the Prime Minister in the House much more often. I am sure that this perspective is shared by many in the House. What I wanted to focus on is that the Prime Minister was not even aware that there had been a change in U.S. tariffs. Our leader asked him the question not the morning after or the same day but in fact about two weeks after the change was made through an executive order, and he still was not aware of it. There is something wrong with that picture. Something is not right. When people elect a representative to do something and that person does not do it, the people have every right to be angry and frustrated. When the Prime Minister was asked again about this issue, he said not to worry, that the government was going to fix it, or at least try to. He said that the government was going to announce new measures in the upcoming economic statement and resolve the situation. However, there was absolutely nothing in the economic update. There was not a single line, not a single sentence, nothing to suggest that there would be support measures or adjustments to government programs in response to the U.S. tariff changes. It is frustrating to see this kind of situation unfold. First, the Prime Minister was elected to resolve the situation. Second, he was warned that there was a problem and he was unaware of it. Third, he made a promise that he has decided not to keep. Faced with this completely absurd situation we find ourselves in, the government finally made an impromptu announcement yesterday, and the industry minister said there would be loans for companies. Ultimately, that was the announcement. It is rather disappointing when a government gets elected by saying that the economy and our relationship with the United States will be its priority, but then it becomes clear, in the end, that that is not its priority. We would like to know what it is actually working on. This situation has a major impact on Quebec. I am a member from Quebec. Among other things, there is a steel mill in my riding. According to Desjardins, 24% of Quebec exports would be affected by the changes, and 24% is a lot. For months, the government has been telling us that we did not need to worry about the tariff crisis, that we had the best deal in the world with the United States and that it was ultimately better to do nothing. However, the government is realizing that with the regulatory change that has been ordered, we are going from an average effective rate of 5.7% to 9.6%. Roughly speaking, our situation has just gotten about twice as bad. Businesses are going to suffer. They already were suffering; that is the worst part. I am sad to say that when people talk about steel, they often forget about Quebec. They only ever think about Ontario steel. Ministers always hold their press conferences in Hamilton, Ontario. Quebec might as well not exist. I have some news for this House: Many processed and manufactured products contain steel. Many processed and manufactured products contain aluminum. What is more, Quebec produces 20% of Canada’s steel and represents about 20% of the population. We are doing our fair share, so we expect to receive our fair share of the attention and programs when there are government initiatives regarding steel. The government should stop favouring Ontario all the time. Quebec steel is suffering right now. Are my colleagues aware that 200 employees lost their jobs at the metal powder plant in Sorel‑Tracy last year? That is 200 fewer people working in the steel industry. That is a lot of people. Are my colleagues aware that 90 people lost their jobs when the La Perle foundry in Saint‑Ours closed down? Why did the foundry close down and why was it having such a hard time? One of the reasons was the U.S. tariffs. I am talking about Sorel‑Tracy and Saint‑Ours, which are right next door to where I am, a stone’s throw away from my riding. There is also a steel mill in Contrecoeur, where more than 1,500 people work in the sector. People are telling us that. Workers call me and we talk to them regularly. We also talk to company representatives quite often. What we are being told is that the numbers are down. There are no more overtime hours. Machine maintenance is being spread out. Fewer trainees are being hired. Vacations are being stretched out. They are finding all sorts of ways to stretch out contracts because things are not going well right now. Last year, morale was still high, because this crisis was seen as temporary, and the thought was that there would be negotiations and that the magician on the other side of the House would sort it all out. This year, I would say that people are finding the situation a lot more serious. They are starting to lose hope, because the crisis is not going away, and there is a sense that the government is not taking the situation seriously. The longer the problem drags on, the more the situation will become permanent and the faster job losses will be felt, because people will eventually realize that this situation might not be temporary, but permanent. What is unfortunate is that there are things that the government could have done and could already be doing to resolve the situation, without even having to resolve the tariff crisis with the United States. It is hard to understand why they are not doing it. It cannot be said that there has been no action at all. There were in fact a few limited actions taken in 2024 to reduce import volumes and set quotas. The problem is that the import volumes were already so high that this did not really change much. It mainly affected our market share. Canadian steel consumption is equivalent to what is produced in Canada: We produce roughly 100 million tonnes of steel and consume roughly 100 million tonnes. The problem is that 50% of what is being produced is going to the United States. That was already the case even before the tariff crisis. If we have just lost 50% of our exports, our hope is that we will not lay off 50% of people, that 50% of jobs are not going to disappear and that 50% of mills are not going to close. We have to react and take measures to control our market, since that is what we can control. If we are producing 100 million tonnes of steel and consuming 100 million tonnes, why are we not guaranteed a larger share of the domestic market? The reality is that before the tariff crisis, we held about 35% of the market. Now, it is about 40%. There is still a lot of room, but, in the meantime, the federal government is unfortunately not resolving the issue. For example, there are cases of Chinese dumping still taking place, and the reciprocal tariffs on American steel have been completely dropped. That means that we are affected by tariffs, but the Americans are not when they come here. Another problem has to do with the fact that, in November, the government promised a subsidy system for rail transportation from coast to coast to coast. There are still no conditions. It is still unclear how it will work. The government announced it in November and it is now May. Businesses and workers are tapping their feet. They have no idea what the conditions will be. What is more, marine shipping is excluded. Quebec businesses will suffer as a result, because there is a kind of unfair competition in the system. That is the federal government we have. We are not impressed.”

In response to a question from Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

“The Prime Minister promised to end U.S. tariffs, but the problem is getting worse. The Americans added more tariffs on steel and aluminum, and the Prime Minister did not even know about the changes.”

“Mr. Speaker, an election was held about a year ago. A saviour came along and told everyone that he had all the right skills to solve the problem we were facing at the time because of the new, scary U.S. President and that he could get rid of the tariffs. Everyone would see that all the problems would be resolved in a matter of weeks, as if by magic. People wanted to believe in the fairy tale. Here we are a year later, still in exactly the same place, waiting for the situation to be resolved. Not only has the situation not been resolved, but it is getting worse. While people’s concerns about the current situation are entirely understandable, everyone also understands why businesses and workers are growing increasingly impatient and dissatisfied that the situation is not being resolved. To say that these folks are dissatisfied is really an understatement. People are beginning to realize that this government was elected to solve a problem that it is not solving, choosing to focus on all kinds of other things instead. What is more, the situation is getting even worse. What happened on April 6? The Americans decided to rub salt in the wound. Instead of imposing tariffs of just 50% on the raw material or on the raw material component in the product, and to simplify the calculation, the Americans decided that if the product contained more than 15% steel or aluminum, they would apply a 25% tariff, period. As everyone can imagine, this is hurting a lot of people. As angry as we may want to be at the United States, we have no control over the United States. We do, however, have control over what we do. Unfortunately, when we elect someone to be in charge, we would expect a response from them. The most frustrating thing is that when our leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, asked the Prime Minister the question during question period on a Wednesday, and I should point out that it is rare for the Prime Minister to be there on Wednesdays, the Prime Minister was not even aware of the change in—”

“The government wants to borrow $25 billion for an investment fund. It takes on all the financial risk for risky projects so private businesses can make a profit. Since the member across the way likes this plan so much, I want to know if he will sell his own assets and invest in it.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government’s infamous sovereign wealth fund proposes, among other things, to use the $25 billion in borrowed money to invest in projects that are too risky for the private sector, projects that the private sector did not want to invest in. The government is also proposing to allow individuals, like us and our constituents, to invest in this sovereign wealth fund while guaranteeing the security of their investments. We are told that these investments in the sovereign wealth fund will help attract more private investment. As a result, the fund will “derisk” these operations. The way we see it, the sovereign wealth fund will absorb the risk so the private sector can make a profit. Given his great enthusiasm for the sovereign wealth fund, does my colleague opposite intend to sell his personal assets and invest them in the sovereign wealth fund, as he would be able to do?”