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 2 of 6.
“The bill also makes related amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide that objectives with regard to programs that the offender may be required to complete during the custodial period of their sentence are to be included in the correctional plan developed by the head of the facility in which the offender is held. It would also provide that parole boards are to take these programs into consideration in their assessments when making a determination regarding the granting of parole. This is a meaningful change to the sentencing regime, but behind it lies a fundamental question about the real role that incarceration plays in our criminal justice system.”
“Madam Speaker, as someone who worked for over 25 years at a centre for troubled youth and offenders, I have a special interest in Bill C-240 on offender rehabilitation. While the more corrective aspect of stopping the behaviour is important, it is only part of the solution. In order to work, the process requires rehabilitation and reintegration into society, as well as the resources to achieve this. Bill C-240 proposes amending the Criminal Code to provide that a court may, by order, in addition to any term of imprisonment, prescribe measures that the offender is to take during the custodial period of their sentence, which may include participation in educational, training or treatment programs.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her moving speech. I believe that rehabilitation is very important. It is the very foundation of our justice system, but it takes resources to provide programs, apprenticeships and rehabilitation initiatives. We need to ensure that correctional facilities and other institutions have the necessary resources to achieve these goals. What does my colleague think?”
“Mr. Speaker, currently, the government has set the increase in health transfers at 5%, which is clearly insufficient because system costs are rising, due to population aging, at a rate closer to 6%. The government has not locked in the increase in health transfers, which means that, by 2027-28, it could drop to 2% or 3%, even though the health care systems in Quebec and other provinces are already struggling. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. As we have seen and as we know, the U.S. President has increased tariffs on aluminum- and steel-based products. This will have a major impact on Quebec SMEs. The Bloc Québécois spoke about this often prior to the economic update. The economic update came, but had not a word to say about it. Can my colleague tell us more about that?”
“Madam Speaker, the new U.S. tariffs announced on April 6 specifically target Quebec's SMEs. The economic update should have included protection for Quebec against these tariffs, but it is completely absent from the document. The economic update needs an update, and it needs it now. Quebec lost 300 jobs this week. How many more Quebeckers will face the same fate before the government finally introduces a wage subsidy?”
“As the gap between the rich and the poor grows ever wider and shows no signs of narrowing, as the cost of living skyrockets, social justice erodes, and the line between work and personal life continues to blur, let us stand together and remain resilient.”
“Mr. Speaker, today, May 1, I rise to pay tribute to the folks who are the backbone of Quebec society: workers. On this international day of struggle to assert their rights, and our rights, it is essential that we remember the labour movement's many victories. Let us keep in mind that none of these have come easily, and that goes for more recent gains, like increasing the minimum wage, or what may seem like a basic right, like an eight-hour workday. These have all been hard-fought battles led by the working class. We must never forget this, because now all the battles have to be fought once again in this rapidly changing digital and AI-based economy.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the economic update does not take the current tariff crisis into account. It ignores the fact that President Trump's imposition of new 25% tariffs on all products containing steel and aluminum will create major challenges for many businesses in Quebec and the rest of Canada. What does my colleague think about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, to add to what I said earlier, there does not seem to be an independent appeal process at Measurement Canada. Every time a business in my riding has filed an appeal, it is always the same people issuing the same judgment every time. I even participated in a third hearing, which was supposed to be independent, but they completely disregarded the case file and the reasons why my constituent—who is an entrepreneur—had been suspended. He then took the matter to court, but he did not have the same level of resources as Measurement Canada. He lost on a technicality. In the end, he lost his business, which was his life's work We could discuss this further, and I thank my colleague for his openness. However, should there not be an ombudsman or an appeal process? I would think that is important.”
“Mr. Speaker, I met a business owner in my riding who was a Measurement Canada authorized service provider. He even made his own calibration carts. He had extensive experience and had issued over 450 certificates. One day, Measurement Canada suddenly changed inspectors. The inspector did a test, but it was not based on the specifications of my constituent's calibration cart, which he had invented and which was approved by Measurement Canada. He was told that his workers had failed the test. He asked for a review. Measurement Canada stood firm. He was suspended. I met with the minister's parliamentary secretary. The president of Measurement Canada told me that this business owner was entitled to an independent appeal, but basically, that never happened. He was suspended and lost his business. Is there a mechanism in Bill S‑3 —”
“Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague and friend, the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, on his speech. We talked about the fact that the government does not have an aerospace policy. In the past, we have seen a lack of federal investment in this industry. For example, even though Quebec invested everything it could, we lost out with the Bombardier C Series because the federal government did not want to invest. Does my colleague think that things will be different for the aerospace industry? Could he elaborate on that?”
“Any future changes to the practical support provided to jurors must involve voluntary, respectful collaboration consistent with the constitutional division of powers. The strength of this initiative lies in its solemnity and integrity of spirit. Jury duty appreciation week must remain a tribute to ordinary citizens who perform an extraordinary civic duty in the service of justice. It is in that spirit, and only in that spirit, that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill at second reading.”
“In the circumstances, publicly recognizing the importance of jury duty may not solve everything, but it will help enhance the image of this act of civic engagement, humanize the juror's role, and serve as a reminder that the justice system also depends on ordinary people called to perform an extraordinary task. While some will say that an appreciation week is primarily symbolic, Parliament has regularly passed such designations. Examples include Mental Health Week and the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, which is valuable precisely because it is rooted in recognition, remembering and public awareness. The Bloc Québécois supports Bill S‑226 because it recognizes without constraining, commemorates without imposing and brings people together without requiring uniformity.”
“His testimony was used in parliamentary work and in the report titled “Improving Support for Jurors in Canada”, which highlights the potential psychological vulnerability of jurors and the need for collective awareness. This problem exists in Quebec, too. Although Quebec has already taken concrete action, including a more generous per diem than what most of the other provinces provide, sustaining a positive civic culture around this legal duty remains challenging. The increased reliance on penalties to compel people to serve on juries signals a wider problem and a lack of social recognition.”
“Recognizing the work of jurors is a collective responsibility that we share, but determining how to support them in practical terms—financially, administratively and psychosocially—remains the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. The context underlying this bill is nevertheless worth reviewing. For several years now, studies, legal proceedings and personal accounts have highlighted the sometimes severe impact that jury duty has on mental health. We just heard about the well-known example of Mark Farrant, who served as the jury foreman in an Ontario murder trial in 2014. This marked a turning point. His PTSD diagnosis and his public testimony forced institutions to acknowledge a reality that had been ignored for far too long.”
“The selection of jurors, their compensation, the conditions under which they perform their duties, and support measures fall under the authority of the National Assembly of Quebec, and this must not change. It is essential to note that Bill S-226 does not impose any obligations on the provinces. It does not impose any standards, programs, expenditures or administrative structures. This is precisely what makes the bill acceptable to the Bloc Québécois and justifies our support. (1405) However, let us be perfectly clear: If the wording or spirit of this bill were to be interpreted, either now or in the future, as a backdoor federal mandate to harmonize, direct or regulate provincial practices regarding support for jurors, we would oppose it.”
“Jurors have a considerable weight and responsibility on their shoulders. In that context, an appreciation week is a modest but necessary gesture of recognition toward citizens who agree to bear part of the collective burden of justice. For this reason, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill. That being said, we want to emphasize a fundamental point of principle at the heart of our position. This bill must remain exactly what it is: a gesture of recognition, nothing more, nothing less. The administration of justice is the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, and this has been acknowledged by the government. In Quebec, this responsibility is exercised rigorously and consistently, in accordance with a distinct legal tradition deeply rooted in civil law.”
“Too often, jury duty is seen as a nuisance or a burden, rather than a fundamental act of democratic participation. Public disengagement with jury service is real and well documented. When a significant portion of the population systematically seeks to evade this obligation, there are serious consequences. We end up with juries that are less representative of the social, cultural and economic diversity of the society they are meant to serve. When a jury is not representative, it undermines the legitimacy of the verdicts and the public's confidence in the justice system. It is important to remember that jury trials account for only about 1% of criminal cases, but they are generally the most serious, the most complex, and the most consequential, both for victims and for defendants.”
“Designating this appreciation week would enable us to officially recognize the commitment and dedication of thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians who are called upon to perform jury duty every year, often out of a legal obligation and at considerable personal, professional and emotional cost to themselves. Serving as a juror is not an abstract role. Jurors have to put their daily lives on hold, cope with financial and professional constraints, and adhere to strict rules of confidentiality. In many cases, they are exposed to extremely disturbing evidence and testimony. We should publicly and formally recognize that reality. This bill is also a tool for raising public awareness. Greater recognition can help governments, employers and the general public better understand the vital role that jurors play in the justice system.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill S‑226 seeks to designate the second week of May as “Jury Duty Appreciation Week”. On the face of it, this is a small step. However, behind this simplicity lies a fundamental reality of our democracy, which is the critical role that citizens play when they are called upon to participate directly in the administration of justice. The bill's preamble clearly states that jury duty is a civic duty. It is a vital component of our justice system and therefore a central element of our representative democracy. In particular, the bill specifically acknowledges that the well-being and mental health of jurors are paramount to the proper functioning of our justice system.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill, but only insofar as it is a gesture of recognition that does not involve any programs, administrative structures or spending, because the administration of justice is the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Does my colleague agree with that?”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the proposed measures in the bill stipulates that voters may not sign nomination papers for more than one candidate. In other words, they may sign only one paper. However, this could have an unintended consequence, because, up until now, signing a candidate's nomination paper has not necessarily been seen as an endorsement of the candidate, but rather as support for their right to run for office. If we limit this to a single person, it will effectively become an endorsement of the candidate. On the one hand, this raises concerns about ballot secrecy. Voting would no longer be secret. On the other hand, it will somewhat limit emerging parties. Do we really need this measure? We do not think so, and we believe the other measures will be sufficient to address the high number of nomination papers.”
“Mr. Speaker, it seems that the bill would result in the government no longer being required to disclose the names and addresses of political donors. I asked one of my Liberal colleagues about this earlier. He replied that he did not think the bill would have that effect. If that were the case, it would really open the door to conflicts of interest, corruption and so on. If it turns out that the bill really does make it so that the government is no longer required to disclose the names and addresses of donors, would my colleague agree that that is wrong? Would he oppose that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech. I would like her opinion. The Bloc Québécois is proposing to reinstate public funding for political parties and to cap donations at $500. With public funding, the government contributes an amount based on the number of votes received by each party. Some people will say that the government should not be subsidizing the parties, yet it is happening already through tax-deductible donations. If we keep the limit at $1,775 and a lot of employees from one company make donations, it could create the appearance of conflicts of interest or corruption.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell us a little more about the importance of reinstating public funding for political parties and limiting the scope for donations. Why is that important for democracy and for the fight against corruption and conflicts of interest?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have an important question for my colleague. From my understanding of the bill, the government would be released from the obligation to disclose the names and addresses of donors. Is that indeed the case? If that is so, I think it opens the door to corruption. If people can make donations as high as $1,700 and their names are not disclosed, there is no longer a way to check whether ministers are giving access to certain activities based on donations. There are also all the examples of corruption that have already been identified.”
“Mr. Speaker, the bill does not reform political party financing to restore public funding. As we know, the more an individual can donate, the more likely it is to create the appearance of conflicts of interest or corruption. For example, there was a case where a former prime minister authorized the opening of a new bank in Toronto specifically for the Chinese community in British Columbia. The very next day, he received 45 donations to his riding, each at the maximum amount, from individuals who were members of those communities in Toronto and British Columbia. All this corruption, or the appearance of corruption, could be eliminated by introducing public funding for political parties and limiting the amount individuals can donate.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. From what I understood from his speech, there was not enough consultation to really ensure that the agreement does not take rights away from other Métis communities or other first nations. Does my colleague not think that the bill could be amended to leave room for future agreements in order to respect the rights of all Métis communities?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. He spoke at length about the importance of ensuring that this treaty does not conflict with other treaties and that future treaties with other first nations and Métis nations are harmonized. Can he elaborate on the measures he would suggest for ensuring that all first nations are respected in the treaty-making process?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the bill. We think this is a way to right an injustice that has lasted 150 years, since the promise of a treaty to Louis Riel and his provisional government. My question is somewhat similar to that of my colleague. The treaty is with the Manitoba Métis Federation, or MMF, but there are other Métis groups, like the Union nationale métisse Saint‑Joseph du Manitoba. Will there be other treaties with these other groups? Unless they want to be part of the MMF, is there a mechanism to cover all Métis people within the various groups?”
“Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Conservatives are saying, eliminating the industrial carbon tax would have no impact on prices at the pump. Prices are based on the global price per barrel, not on extraction costs. Basically, the Conservative measure would be nothing more than a gift to the oil companies and it would have no impact on oil prices. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that there are a number of Conservative measures that would penalize Quebec because they would lower taxes even though Quebec has its own system, which includes the carbon market. Does my colleague not think that, every time such measures are taken, some thought should be given to finding a way to compensate Quebec and respect its areas of jurisdiction?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the fact that the Conservative measures do not take Quebec's system into account. Quebec has its own carbon tax system, namely the carbon market. That means that Quebec ended up funding measures for the other provinces. What does my colleague think about respecting Quebec's jurisdictions and providing compensation when Quebec's jurisdictions are infringed upon? One example of that is the vote-buying cheques that were sent to all of the provinces except British Columbia and Quebec to provide a carbon tax refund after the tax had already been abolished. Should British Columbia and Quebec not be compensated for that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to expand a bit on what my colleague said. The industrial carbon tax has no impact on prices at the pump. Ultimately, this is a gift in disguise to the oil companies, a gift disguised as support for the public, but it will not have any effect. It will just help the oil companies, which are already making billions of dollars in profits.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if my colleague has accounted for the impact of these measures on the environment and the deficit. It has been estimated that this would increase the deficit by about $7 billion.”
“Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister says he is disappointed by Michael Rousseau's unilingual English message, the federal government has spent more than $2.4 billion to strengthen English in Quebec since 1995. Billions of dollars have been spent to anglicize Quebec in the past 30 years, and this continues every year. We do not need to look any further to understand how Michael Rousseau has managed to live his whole life in Quebec without speaking a word of French. When will the Liberals realize that there are many people like Michael Rousseau in Quebec and that it is largely their fault?”
“Mr. Speaker, we are celebrating Francophonie Month together. When I say “we are celebrating”, that does not include the Prime Minister , the only one in ages who does not have a francophone speech writer. It also excludes Michael Rousseau, the CEO of Air Canada, who is unable to say more than a few words in French. On the other hand, it includes more than 380 million speakers across five continents. In Quebec, this language shapes our culture and forms the very basis of our vision for society. We salute the resilience of the Quebec people, who, for over 260 years, have had to fight to preserve the status of French and who will only succeed in doing so by making Quebec a country. We also salute the courage of the francophone and Acadian communities who fight every day to use French in public.”
“Mr. Speaker, once again, with this motion, the Conservatives are prioritizing oil and Ontario's auto industry above all else, at the expense of Quebec. They are even proposing to eliminate EV subsidies and to lower environmental standards to please Mr. Trump. Does my colleague think such a motion will be welcome in Quebec?”
“Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I find that a bit ironic. They are saying that there is no need for subsidies for electric cars and that EVs can be bought without them, but at the same time they want to cut taxes for Canadian-made vehicles. If incentives do not work, then why are they good for oil but not for electricity? Basically, the Conservative motion is really all about helping Ontario's auto industry while doing nothing for Quebec. That has put Quebec at a significant disadvantage in the past. I also know many people who bought gas-powered cars without any subsidies or tax exemptions. I find that those kinds of anecdotal examples prove nothing.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are correct in saying that the Liberals do not have a plan to reduce American tariffs, but what they are proposing is not a plan either. It is unconditional alignment with Donald Trump's positions. It is a pre-emptive surrender. How much would it cost to have all these tax exemptions for Canadian vehicles and not for foreign ones? Is it possible that Mr. Trump might interpret this as a tariff on American vehicles and that this would have the opposite effect?”
“Mr. Speaker, basically, if I understand correctly, my colleague believes that the religious exemption should be maintained. In other words, preachers or other individuals could incite hatred and encourage the killing of members of a nation without being prosecuted.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can think of a few examples where religious texts have been used to incite hatred. For example, one time, someone said that Jews were the worst of humanity and should be massacred on judgment day. There have been several such examples. In Quebec, for instance, Adil Charkaoui once prayed for the death of Jews. The director of criminal and penal prosecutions wanted to lay charges and investigate the matter. However, he decided not to, indicating that the evidence would not be accepted under the current legal framework. People in the Jewish community argued that the legal framework should be reviewed, and that is what happened. I would like my colleague to comment on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑9 is designed to prevent religious texts from being used to incite hatred, but by no means does it prohibit anyone from reading or referring to religious texts. Could my colleague elaborate on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, we have a number of examples where preachers called for the death of Jews and Christians and got away with it without facing prosecution. The same thing happened with Adil Charkaoui in 2024. The director of criminal and penal prosecutions was unable to prosecute him, claiming insufficient evidence under the Criminal Code. Even the vice-president of the Quebec branch of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs said that this decision pointed to gaps in the current Canadian legal framework, and that is what the current bill will fix. I think the bill before us will not prohibit reading biblical passages, but it will prohibit using them to make death threats or promote hatred.”
“Mr. Speaker, we know that the Conservatives would not want to create such a centralist bureaucratic structure. Here is my question. Would they respect the fact that housing falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces?”
“Mr. Speaker, does my colleague agree that, instead of creating a large, centralizing structure like this one, the federal government would be better off respecting Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and transferring the money with no strings attached?”
“Mr. Speaker, we generally agree that the problem stems from a bureaucratic structure and that it will delay housing construction. The Bloc Québécois believes that the federal government should stay in its lane and stick to transferring money to Quebec and the provinces with no strings attached. What does my colleague think about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will ask a very quick question. Housing is under Quebec's jurisdiction. Why is the government still trying to centralize it? It slows the process down, and the Government of Quebec, provincial governments and local governments know more about what their people need.”
“Madam Speaker, in my opinion, it is illogical for anyone to be able to invoke religion as a reason for inciting hatred. That seems obvious to me. I think it is a very good thing that the amendment was accepted. I would like to know what my colleague has to add.”