Mario Beaulieu
La Pointe-de-l'Île, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that the laws already exist and that they need to be enforced. At least one area does require a legislative amendment, specifically the religious exemption for incitement to hatred.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the repeal of the religious exemption in the Criminal Code for cases of incitement of hatred.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois tabled an amendment that has been adopted. It seeks to abolish the religious exemption in the Criminal Code regarding incitement to hatred. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of this.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois's supplementary opinion seeks to address the issues raised by all of the witnesses and stakeholders who participated in this study. It seeks to resolve the underlying problem behind the current crisis facing Quebec broadcasters, which is driving their calls to reduce the quota.”
“Mr. Speaker, the money for health transfers comes from the taxes paid by Quebec and the provinces. Initially, the federal government committed to covering 50% of the provinces' health care costs. It is now covering just 22%. The provinces protested. They wanted the government to raise that amount to 35%.”
“Recently, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, took a step in the right direction by requiring online streaming companies, such as Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime, to invest 15% of the revenues they generated in Canada in Canadian content, with a view to easing the burden on traditional broadcasters.…”
The complete record
Every one of 260 lines we hold for Mario Beaulieu, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 6.
“Mr. Speaker, does my colleague agree that religious texts should never be deliberately used to incite hatred against a particular group? If so, why not abolish the existing religious exemption in the Criminal Code for this type of offence?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the repeal of the religious exemption in the Criminal Code for cases of incitement of hatred. It definitely does not mean that reading religious texts of any religion whatsoever is forbidden, but it does prohibit deliberately using religious texts to incite hatred against a group or another religion.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois tabled an amendment that has been adopted. It seeks to abolish the religious exemption in the Criminal Code regarding incitement to hatred. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of this. How will this help to foster a more civilized debate and promote respect between different religions and people of all backgrounds?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Conservatives are reluctant to engage in any real debate on a number of points. My colleague said she would like to see this debated further. What solutions would she propose to ensure that we finally reach an agreement?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that the laws already exist and that they need to be enforced. At least one area does require a legislative amendment, specifically the religious exemption for incitement to hatred. Under that exemption, anyone who quotes a passage from the Bible or the Quran to incite hatred will be protected and cannot be prosecuted. Does my colleague agree that a legislative amendment is needed in that regard?”
“Mr. Speaker, the money for health transfers comes from the taxes paid by Quebec and the provinces. Initially, the federal government committed to covering 50% of the provinces' health care costs. It is now covering just 22%. The provinces protested. They wanted the government to raise that amount to 35%. The Bloc Québécois would have liked the government to at least maintain the 6% escalator, but it did not do so. It is probably going to drop to 3% soon. How are the provinces and Quebec supposed to manage if the federal government takes their tax money and then makes cuts to health transfers? What does my colleague think about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government is going to change the mandate of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to include economic considerations. Does my colleague think that hazardous pesticides should be approved for economic reasons?”
“Recently, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, took a step in the right direction by requiring online streaming companies, such as Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime, to invest 15% of the revenues they generated in Canada in Canadian content, with a view to easing the burden on traditional broadcasters. However, the federal government later asked the CRTC to backtrack on that decision. The Bloc Québécois is recommending that the CRTC instead uphold this decision and that the billions of dollars in profits be used to support French‑language music broadcasters.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois's supplementary opinion seeks to address the issues raised by all of the witnesses and stakeholders who participated in this study. It seeks to resolve the underlying problem behind the current crisis facing Quebec broadcasters, which is driving their calls to reduce the quota. I am talking about the unfair competition from foreign digital platforms, the American web giants that profit from the Canadian and Quebec market and make billions of dollars in profits. That is why we are recommending that the government reinstate the 3% digital services tax, which would have been a first step toward tax equity. This tax would have generated $7.2 billion over five years, and the government could have allocated that money to a dedicated fund for the cultural sector, particularly the broadcasting industry.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is not happy with the addition of consecutive sentences for offences that do not constitute crimes against the person. For example, while it is true that car theft is a major problem, we do not believe that consecutive sentences will actually deter criminals. Several studies have proven that. I would like my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a bit ironic that they are having to impose a super closure motion on Bill C‑26 when it could have been passed much more quickly if the government had been more transparent. The government refused to hold a briefing at the outset. We were not sure if the federal government was going to do what it usually does and impose a whole bunch of conditions that would delay and complicate the transfer of the funds. When the bill was introduced, we found out that the money would be transferred directly to Quebec so that it could use it as it sees fit for housing. That solved a lot of problems. Why was the government not transparent from the start? The process would have gone much quicker.”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebec's Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, or FRAPRU, has raised several concerns about the Build Canada Homes project, especially with regard to the high cost of so-called affordable housing that costs much more than the median housing price. For example, the folks at FRAPRU note that many of the projects funded in Quebec include affordable and intermediate housing units that cost much more than the median market rent. The folks at FRAPRU fear that the most vulnerable people will be left behind if most of the funding is invested in building this type of housing. What they want is more investment in social housing. What does my colleague have to say about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a question that has already been asked, but I do not think the answer was adequate: Why replace existing bodies, such as the CMHC, that could very well have fulfilled the same role? Essentially, we are not going to oppose the bill since an agreement has been reached with the Government of Quebec, but it would have been much easier to simply transfer the money to Quebec.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has cast doubt on the government's ability to maintain one of its fiscal anchors, namely its target to reduce the deficit-to-GDP ratio. She predicts that the deficit will be $6.5 billion higher than projected in the economic update. She does also predict that the debt-to-GDP ratio will fall from 2% to 1.5% by the 2030-31 fiscal year, but she estimates that there is less than a 1% chance that Ottawa will achieve an annual reduction in the deficit-to-GDP ratio. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, on the one side, we have the Conservative doomsayers, who exaggerate the problems. On the other, we have the Liberal optimists, who say that everything is fine. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that Scotiabank and the Bank of Montreal both downgraded their growth projections, which are at less than 1%. The most recent report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer also noted a slowdown in growth and a deterioration in the fiscal outlook, with a larger-than-expected deficit and a mere 1% chance that the government will meet its budget forecast.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Canadian economy is not doing well. It is also true that certain Liberal policies have contributed to the fact that we are in a technical recession. However, by painting an overly dire and one-sided picture, are the Conservatives not discrediting themselves? What does my colleague think?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my former seatmate here. I would like to ask the following. The economic update did not take into account the new 25% tariffs imposed by President Trump on all products containing steel or aluminum. This will have a particular impact on Quebec, as 25% of exports from Quebec SMEs to the United States will be affected. Does my colleague think that measures should be taken to support these businesses? The Bloc Québécois is proposing a wage subsidy to help employers maintain ties with their employees. What does my colleague think?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about how the Conservatives want to eliminate all the fuel taxes. That would cost the government at least $5 billion. Would my colleague support scrapping all of the oil subsidies so that the government can recoup that money?”
“Madam Speaker, the Conservatives may be exaggerating a bit, but the fact remains that Liberal policies have in fact contributed to the technical recession we are currently experiencing, although we cannot call it an economic crisis. For example, with their immigration policy that makes no sense whatsoever, they drove up the cost of housing. They also drove up the cost of public services. They do not want to compensate Quebec for that. What does my colleague think about that? What are they going to do for Quebec? The costs relating to asylum seekers are estimated at more than $700 million, and the Liberals are still refusing to pay Quebec for that.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that the Conservative Party, both when it was in power and now that it is in the opposition, made several decisions that have been detrimental to Quebec's economy. Conservative Party MPs opposed including the Davie shipyard in the national shipbuilding strategy, even though Davie is the largest and most efficient shipyard in Canada. They opposed any government aid for Bombardier when the company was seeking cash to finance the C Series aircraft. In the end, the orders were lost to Airbus. They opposed Quebec companies, as in the case of the maritime patrol aircraft proposed by Bombardier... Furthermore, they are fiercely opposed to the energy transition. I want to know if the Conservatives are committed to being more supportive of Quebec's economy in the future.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the economic update overlooked President Trump's tariff increase. This is a 25% tariff on all products containing aluminum and steel, and it affects 25% of exports from Quebec to the United States. This makes Quebec the location most affected by tariffs. The Bloc Québécois is proposing wage subsidy measures. Does my colleague acknowledge that? What solution does he propose?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the billions of dollars in subsidies that are given to the oil companies, and the decision to waive several environmental assessments. Does she think this will be good for the fight against climate change? Does this not ultimately threaten the entire environment, which, I believe, is very important to her?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech. With all the subsidies being given to the oil industry, including under Bill C‑31 , which is expanding these subsidies, I think my colleague will agree that it is becoming impossible for the government to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets. On one specific issue, the bill will make it possible to consider producing hydrogen from methane as a form of clean hydrogen, while in Quebec, green hydrogen must be produced using renewable energy. What does my colleague think about that?”
“Madam Speaker, the budget implementation bill fails to meet a number of urgent needs in Quebec, as well as elsewhere. In particular, there is the fact that the implementation did not take into account Donald Trump's imposition of tariffs on all aluminum- and steel-based products. That affects 25% of products and accounts for a significant proportion of Quebec's exports. We are proposing a wage subsidy for the most heavily affected sectors. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that and what the Conservatives would do in such a case.”
“Madam Speaker, a moment ago, my colleague seemed to suggest that culture does not receive subsidies anywhere in the world. The opposite is true. Whether funded through taxes or other means, this happens all over the world, just as it does in Europe. Even the Americans subsidize culture. I do not understand this at all. The Conservatives are in favour of subsidizing oil, but they are not in favour of using our tax money for culture and for what defines us.”
“It is therefore high time that the government stopped focusing solely on the anglicization of Quebec through its language law, at a time when French is under greater threat than ever. That is why the draft proposed regulations must make it very clear that positive measures to promote French in Quebec must be taken as soon as possible”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is issuing a dissenting opinion to ensure that the draft proposed regulations require the government to comply with its own new language law, which stipulates that measures to promote French in Quebec must be implemented as part of official language support programs. Since 2020, several ministers have acknowledged that French is in decline in Quebec and that measures must be taken not only to protect English but also to protect French in Quebec. The Official Languages Act was reformed in 2023, but no new measures for French have been implemented. There is a section that specifies that the purpose of the act is to “advance the existence of a majority-French society in a Quebec where the future of French is assured”. Several other sections prescribe asymmetrical measures for French in Quebec.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has stated that lowering taxes, such as the excise tax, primarily benefits the wealthiest and much less so the poorest. Furthermore, we know that even if taxes are lowered, oil companies always want to make more profits. What is likely to happen is that they will charge citizens just as much and line their own pockets with more money. What does my colleague think about this?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague called the Conservatives right-wing. Judging from their current policies, the Liberals themselves seem to be drifting further and further right. Eliminating the excise tax primarily benefits the rich. It also benefits oil companies. We know that their supply costs are not going up, because they get their oil from Canada and the U.S., yet they are basing their prices on the global price of a barrel of oil anyway. Prices dropped slightly when the excise tax was suspended, but they have gone back up. How do we know the oil companies did not just take advantage of this measure to increase their credit margins?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer found that cutting taxes on fuel, such as the excise tax, mainly benefits the wealthiest Canadians, who use more gas. Over time, oil companies tend to raise their prices to increase their profit margins. What does my colleague think about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate my friend and colleague from Joliette—Manawan. I am not an economist, but we saw gas prices drop slightly when the fuel excise tax was abolished only to go back up to where they were before. Could it be that oil companies are pocketing extra profits? We also know that gas prices are rising even though oil from the Strait of Hormuz does not affect us because we get our oil from Canada and the United States. Why are prices rising when our oil is not from sources that have dried up in the Strait of Hormuz?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's point of view. Forcing the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to consider both economic impact and impact on people's health equally will increase food safety risks. Furthermore, encouraging foreign platforms to enter an open banking system will reduce the restrictions that prevent foreign banks from taking control of our banks. What does my colleague think about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-30 will increase food security risks by forcing the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to give equal consideration to economic impacts and impacts on our food security. What does my colleague think about that?”
“I would like to thank all the walkers in La Pointe-de-l'Île, the entire team at the Santé-Marche Roussin club, its president, Christiane Mercier, and all the club members for their contributions to active transportation, social engagement and our collective health. They are visiting Parliament Hill and are with us here today in the gallery. I wish the Santé-Marche Roussin club continued success.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to recognize the Santé-Marche Roussin group in my riding, La Pointe-de-l'Île. It is a walking club for people aged 50 and older, affiliated with the Roussin community centre in Pointe-aux-Trembles. Rain or shine, for the past 32 years, folks have been getting together every morning, Monday through Friday at 9 a.m., at Pointe-aux-Prairies park to walk as a group, socialize and stay in shape. It can never be said enough: Being healthy means staying active. The healthier people are, the more productive they are and the more they can enjoy life to the fullest.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservative motion states that the committee should study the issue over at least 12 meetings but that the report should be tabled before June 19. Given that this is such a complex and important topic, would it not be appropriate to extend that deadline to the fall, if necessary, to ensure that members can discuss the issues in depth?”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier, I asked why we are not debating this issue at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. I was told that it got shut down. My Bloc colleague who serves on the committee told me that, to her knowledge, this was not true and that the motion for a study had simply been moved. The committee met this morning and the motion was not brought forward again. If the government agreed to study this issue in committee, would the Conservatives also agree to do that, rather than appointing a special committee?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague on her excellent speech, which shows her in-depth knowledge of the issue. She already talked about the fact that I asked why the motion was not brought up in committee and that I was told that it was defeated. It appears that is not the case. Can my colleague tell us more about the changes we would like to make to the motion and about the way to create the committee that the Conservatives are proposing?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is true that it is important to clarify the issue and debate it. Why do the Conservatives think that we cannot have this debate at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs?”
“Mr. Speaker, we do not have this problem in Quebec because of the province's civil law tradition. Why does my colleague think that everything is happening in secret like this? I think the point of setting up a committee is to be able to debate this issue transparently. Why does he think the government seems to be opposed to that?”
“Mr. Speaker, it reeks of hypocrisy when government members say that they want to consult and work together with the opposition but then they turn around and throw out every amendment. I think that kind of thing fuels criticism toward all politicians. I am going to speak to only one of the opposition's recommendations, which was to create an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct in the armed forces. That is going to be scrapped. I fail to understand how the government can defend that. What does my colleague think about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I was listening to our colleague earlier, and I wonder if the government's rejection of the amendments is not, in part, an attempt to avoid upsetting the military hierarchy too much. Among the amendments, there was one that sought to create an inspector general's office dedicated to addressing sexual misconduct within the military. There was also an amendment calling for veterans to be eligible to be appointed as judges and for military judges to be able to leave the armed forces. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why the government is stubbornly refusing to give victims the freedom to choose between a court martial and a civilian court. Why did the government ignore the amendments that the opposition members seemed to support quite unanimously? What does my colleague think?”
“In short, Bill C-240 raises very important issues and deserves serious consideration in committee. The Bloc Québécois is prepared to examine this bill thoroughly, with an open mind, to try to ensure that the powers granted to the courts are accompanied by real resources and that rehabilitation is not merely a principle enshrined in law, but a real option for people who are incarcerated and for society as a whole. That is why the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-240 at second reading.”
“Yes, the idea of tying the sentence more closely to accountability and rehabilitation deserves our support. However, without concrete investments, accessible programs and respect for the division of powers, this bill could remain largely theoretical and superficial. Finally, the bill also amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to establish trafficking in large quantities of fentanyl as an aggravating factor. This reality reflects the severity of the overdose crisis, which is affecting many communities and calls for firm responses to large-scale trafficking networks. That said, we cannot fight this crisis solely through harsher sentences. We will also need sustained investment in prevention, treatment and rehabilitation, both inside and outside the correctional system.”
“This inconsistency is all the more worrying given that recent federal budget decisions suggest significant cuts are coming to Correctional Service Canada. Cuts to spending and staff numbers will inevitably have a direct detrimental impact on access to programs, even as Parliament moves to recognize their importance. It really makes no sense. It should be noted, however, that jurisdiction over the administration of justice and rehabilitation lies largely with Quebec and the provinces. Quebec, in particular, has distinguished itself through more effective approaches to rehabilitation within the provincial prison system. Studies by CIRANO show that these programs contribute to a significant reduction in reoffending. Bill C-240 therefore needs to be examined very carefully. Yes, the legislative objective is laudable.”
“It paints a very worrisome picture of the state of the programs offered in federal prisons: outdated training, obsolete equipment, an almost total lack of e-learning, and extremely limited opportunities for post-secondary education. (1405) Inmates themselves say that the jobs and training they are offered serve primarily to fill the time rather than to acquire real, transferable skills. The tools and working methods used in several employment and employability program workshops no longer meet current standards and do not lead to any recognized certification. This highlights a fundamental inconsistency. We cannot pass legislation recognizing the importance of training and rehabilitation while maintaining a correctional system that fails to offer credible, modern, adequately funded programs.”
“In principle, this approach is a step in the right direction. Rehabilitation is not just a humanitarian issue; it is imperative to public safety. Many studies, such as the one I just mentioned or the one conducted by the Office of the Correctional Investigator, clearly show that participation in education and training programs greatly reduces the risk of reoffending. It is with that in mind that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-240. However, if the bill gives the courts the power to order measures, then those measures must actually exist. They must be accessible and they must match current labour market trends. The Office of the Correctional Investigator Annual Report 2019-2020 is unequivocal.”
“For example, researchers at CIRANO, the Center for Interuniversity Research and Analysis of Organizations, found that, in Montreal, the rate of reoffending among inmates who participated in programs was 10%, while it was 50% among those who did not participate in programs over a five-year period. More specifically, the bill would allow the court to order that the offender participate in training to acquire professional or technical skills relating to prospective employment, subject to program availability and the offender's acceptance into the program. It would also enable the court to order that that the offender participate in a treatment program approved by the province or Quebec and to take any other measures specified in the order. Under the bill, the offender must also make reasonable efforts to comply with these obligations.”
“There is a punitive or deterrent aspect, and there is the protection of the public, of course, but above all, there is the need to rehabilitate in order to reduce reoffending. Rehabilitation is the foundation of our justice system. The bill is based on the following observation, which has been well documented: A prison sentence that does not include any structured effort at rehabilitation may have the opposite of the desired effect. An inmate who leaves prison without any training, skills or new tools is much more vulnerable to reoffending, at the cost of public safety and social cohesion. That is a fact.”