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 5 of 6.
“If a commissioner position is established, does my colleague agree that the incumbent should at least have the authority to compel the government to comply with the early treaties?”
“Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague, with whom I served for a long time on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. When the Conservatives criticize and say that this is nothing but red tape, we have reason to be concerned. The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill. However, we see that it does not provide for the power to enforce compliance. It kind of reminds me of the Commissioner of Official Languages, as I said earlier, whose office was established over 50 years ago in 1970. Since then, French has been in decline and the assimilation rate of francophones has been going up. Year after year, the commissioner has expressed concern and criticized the government, but the government is not doing any better. It seems like things are only getting worse.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill. However, we see that nowhere does it provide for authority to compel the government to do anything. The commissioner will have no power. We worry that it will be a bit like the Commissioner of Official Languages, whose office was established 50 years ago. For 50 years now, French has been in decline and francophone assimilation has been going up. Year after year, the commissioner has expressed concern about violations of the Official Languages Act. Recently, in the latest iteration of that legislation, the commissioner was given some enforcement powers. If the commissioner position is established, does my colleague agree that the commissioner should have the authority to compel the government to implement new treaties?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his rather nuanced speech. He says that he agrees with continuing the reconciliation process and implementing modern treaties, but that he views the commissioner position as bureaucracy. In that case, there are two options. The commissioner could be given more of an enforcement role and more powers so that the position is not just bureaucratic. Otherwise, what mechanism does the member propose to facilitate modern treaty implementation?”
“Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague says that the commissioner position is a distraction. Would he be willing to amend the bill to give the position more teeth? What would he be willing to do to exert more pressure for a real implementation of modern treaties?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois welcomes this bill. This is a step in the right direction. I only hope that it will not be a repeat of the situation with the Commissioner of Official Languages. Although numerous complaints have been filed over the past 50 years, it seems like things are moving backwards instead of forwards. In my colleague's opinion, what will make this position more effective, even though it lacks teeth?”
“Mr. Speaker, we saw that the Liberal defence minister turned a blind eye to all the allegations against Mr. Vance. He pretended he had not received them. My colleague spoke about the need to take action. I think it is good to ensure that the process is no longer exclusively in the hands of the military. However, the Minister of Defence will be the one appointing the judges. Should this not be expanded so that the process does not depend solely on politics? That is one way to ensure that it is truly objective and fair.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech, which was somewhat nuanced. However, considering that it was the Conservatives who appointed Mr. Vance in the first place when there were already allegations of sexual misconduct, and considering that the Liberals did everything they could to ignore those allegations, it is clear that the system needs to be overhauled. The idea behind the recommendations that were made and that are being implemented in the bill is to take the process out of the military's hands and put it in the hands of officials appointed by the Minister of National Defence . However, as we have seen in various cases, the minister does not seem to want to take action and prefers to avoid conflict. I wonder if my colleague could share his suggestions. Should this be removed from political control?”
“Mr. Speaker, as we saw, the Conservatives turned a blind eye by appointing Mr. Vance chief of the defence staff even though rumours of sexual misconduct were already circulating. The Liberals did even worse. I will come back to my colleague's suggestion. Should we not find ways to ensure that the process is not completely controlled by those with political power?”
“Mr. Speaker, our colleague spoke at length about the Jonathan Vance case, but both the Conservatives and the Liberals looked the other way in that case and pretended there was nothing to see. There were already rumours about and allegations against Mr. Vance when the Conservatives appointed him as chief of staff and tasked him with taking on sexual misconduct in the military. The Canadian Armed Forces were the subject of allegations at the time and were being widely criticized for their handling of sexual misconduct cases. Why did the Conservatives not appoint someone unimpeachable to the position? Why did they appoint Mr. Vance despite the rumours of sexual misconduct?”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, we never said that. We are all Quebeckers. I agree that diversity of opinion exists among Quebeckers. However, because a lot of Liberals were elected, they sometimes say that they represent Quebeckers. When the 1982 Constitution was introduced, only one Liberal member from Quebec voted against it. It was Mr. Duclos, who subsequently resigned. Furthermore, no Quebec government has ever signed this Constitution. How does my colleague explain that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that one of the very first Black members to sit in the House was elected under the Bloc Québécois banner. That said, one of the challenges we face today is the increasing anglicization of Montreal, a phenomenon caused in large part by Montreal's municipal government. It makes things difficult for us. I am the only Bloc Québécois MP on the island of Montreal. However, I can assure my colleague that I know many immigrants who are running for office and who agree with us that we really must fight to defend French in Quebec. They are on our side—”
“Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. I will continue to address my colleague from Bourassa . Minorities are important. Quebec is probably one of the places that respects its minorities the most. We must continue to do so. Unfortunately, the problem is that we are a minority that is subject to the majority, and legislation such as the Official Languages Act is imposed on us. English is imposed on us as an official language. Secularism is recognized as a perfectly legitimate principle. Whether one agrees with it or not, the ban on religious symbols for government officials in positions of authority is part of this principle. That was one of the findings of the Bouchard-Taylor commission, which was established by Jean Charest. This whole debate was also caused by a Supreme Court decision.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but he just revealed that he did not really listen to my speech, because I did talk about minorities. Quebec is a plurinational state. The charter is supposed to defend minorities against the dictatorship of the majority, except for the Quebec national minority. I do not think Quebeckers are the majority in Canada. He cannot dispute that. We are not recognized as a minority. We are being presented as a big, nasty majority, simply because we want to continue living in French. My God, it is appalling. The only way to be “correct” is to become anglophone. Quebec is a minority that has the right to exist. The people of Quebec have the right to exist with their own language, with their own values, just like first nations, just like other minorities.”
“Why intervene in this matter? The federal government is intervening with our money to challenge our laws. This proves that, as long as Quebec remains in Canada, it must battle for its very existence in an unfair fight with the Canadian majority. The only way forward for Quebec is quite simple: independence.”
“The federal government never challenged the notwithstanding clause in connection with any of these laws. Now, all of a sudden, it is challenging the notwithstanding clause. It is not against secularism, but it is challenging the notwithstanding clause. The current Prime Minister , like Justin Trudeau, sees this clause as unnecessary. He wants to curtail Quebec's right to self-determination. The Prime Minister says that the notwithstanding clause should never be used pre-emptively. Apparently he thinks we should pass laws, wait for them to be struck down by courts all the way up to the Supreme Court, then rewrite them with the notwithstanding clause. The notwithstanding clause was used to keep lawyers out of small claims court. Imagine all the cases that would have to be retried. We condemn the use of the courts for political purposes.”
“The precursor to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights, included a notwithstanding clause, as did the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, the Saskatchewan bill of rights and the Alberta Bill of Rights, all of which predate the Canadian charter. Even Trudeau senior said that the notwithstanding clause is “a way that the [provincial] legislatures...have of ensuring that the last word is held by the elected representatives of the people rather than by the courts”. After the 1982 constitutional power grab, René Lévesque used the notwithstanding clause for all laws in Quebec. Today, it is used for 41 laws, not just for the Act respecting the laicity of the State or Bill 101. It is also used for very progressive legislation, such as the small claims division legislation.”
“We also must not forget that, as we said earlier, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982 was adopted one evening next door, at the Château Laurier, by the federal government and the nine provinces of English Canada during negotiations that were described as the “night of the long knives” because Quebec was excluded from those negotiations on the night of November 4 to 5, 1981. The notwithstanding clause was not Quebec's idea. It came from the other provinces, which agreed to Ottawa's introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the condition that a notwithstanding clause be added, thus allowing Quebec to make its own choices. The notwithstanding clause is an essential element of democratic life and the democratic process.”
“Brun, judges appointed by Ottawa are naturally guided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As such, religious freedom in Quebec's charter cannot be interpreted differently from the courts' interpretation of religious freedom in the Canadian charter. This is a blatant example of how Canada tends toward charter uniformity. It is one of the greatest perils facing Quebec and all other minority nations around the world. The courts and the government of judges have a homogenizing effect.”
“This Constitution remains the Constitution of English Canada to this day, since no Quebec government has signed it. Under that Constitution, federally appointed judges dismantled Quebec's Charter of the French Language. As some have said, the Supreme Court is a bit like the tower of Pisa; it always leans the same way. (1635) That is essentially what we are going through. If we do not learn from our history, it repeats itself. We keep hearing that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms defends minorities, but that is clearly not the case. Professor Henri Brun said that the highest court is federal because of judicial appointments. Consider the recent appointment of McGill's Robert Leckey, an enemy of the Charter of the French Language. He was appointed by Justin Trudeau and confirmed by the current Prime Minister . According to Mr.”
“That is more or less what is happening right now. We are told that the Constitution, with its Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeks to protect minorities from the dictatorship of the majority, but it does exactly the opposite for Quebec's national minority. Whether we like it or not, Canada is a multinational country. There are the first nations, Inuit, the Acadian nation, francophone communities descended from the French Canadian nation, such as the Quebec nation, and the English Canadian nation. The best demonstration of how anglophones are not just a minority in a province, but part of the Canadian majority, is the fact that the Constitution and the charter were imposed on us in 1982 to weaken our language planning.”
“Starting in 1969, with Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the Official Languages Act defended the principle that English Canadians are a minority in Quebec, even though the people of Quebec have endured 200 years of British colonialist domination and English Canadian economic domination. Until the 1960s, its institutions were largely underfunded. The Canadian majority imposed the Official Languages Act on us. Rather than trying to repair the damage caused to Quebec by 200 years of underfunding French schools in Quebec, the government decided to support English schools and the anglophone education system exclusively. It decided to promote English in public services in areas under Quebec's jurisdiction. That is the problem. This was done despite the fact that Quebeckers make up 90% of Canada's francophone minority.”
“Today, secularism is not discriminatory; it applies the same way to all religions. Laws similar to the Quebec legislation have been deemed perfectly compatible with human rights by several courts around the world, including Europe's highest court, which has historically developed human rights. It recently ruled that prohibiting the wearing of religious symbols in schools does not constitute a violation of religious freedom. Belgium, France, Bulgaria, Austria and Denmark have even banned the full veil from public spaces. The Quebec people have a unique identity with distinct norms and values, namely Quebec values. However, Quebec is a minority within Canada. Quebec is a national minority that, in reality, is not recognized as such by the English Canadian majority. That much is obvious when we look at the Official Languages Act.”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers care deeply about state secularism. The first demands came from the Patriotes of 1837 and 1838. In their declaration of independence, they called for freedom of conscience and a strict separation of church and state. Secularism is one of the driving forces behind the birth and development of modern Quebec. The Quebec nation has a special history where the Catholic faith had a very strong presence. At one point, the church controlled a lot of institutions. Modern Quebec was born out of questioning that model, which made it practically a religious state. After the Parent commission report was tabled, Catholic teachers were asked not to wear their religious symbols. There was no legislation, but people co-operated and they complied. Then, the system of Catholic and Protestant school boards was abolished.”
“Mr. Speaker, I see a contradiction in what my colleague said. We have heard many people here say that oil can be decarbonized, that there could be green oil or that we could find a way to make oil less polluting. Now some people are saying that lowering the emissions cap means reducing production, so they are admitting that that it is not true. There is no such thing as green oil. Oil inevitably leads to increased greenhouse gas emissions. I also want to know whether my colleague agrees that we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions if we want to reduce the number of climate disasters that are occurring.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Conservative leader for his speech. I would like to know what he thinks is behind the increase in forest fires, floods, climate disasters and global warming. Does he believe that there is a climate emergency?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would describe the Conservatives' motion as kicking down an open door. They are proposing that Canada repeal a cap that does not exist. I would like my colleague to tell us a little more about this. Earlier, a Liberal colleague said that greenhouse gas emissions are down 9%. Is that true? I have the impression that they are plateauing, that they are not falling enough.”
“Mr. Speaker, despite all the Liberals' promises and good intentions, pretty much all experts agree that Canada is not meeting its greenhouse gas reduction targets. Year after year, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development keeps challenging the government's action on climate change and confirming that it is failing. Year after year, the conclusion is the same. We are witnessing a climate failure. What does my colleague have to say about that?”
“Madam Speaker, I think there are some very good things in this bill that will correct some injustices. I am sure other changes need to be made too. The Citizenship Act as a whole is very confusing. Does my colleague agree that the Citizenship Act is in need of a complete overhaul?”
“Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague and congratulate him on his speech. There are cases where the law seems unfair. For example, Canadian citizens who go to a foreign country for work and have a child there have to reapply for citizenship for the child when they return. If that child then leaves the country, they will also have a hard time obtaining citizenship for their child. Can the member give me a specific, very clear example of a situation where someone would get Canadian citizenship through Bill C‑3 in a way that he deems unfair?”
“Madam Speaker, I commend the member on her speech. Earlier, one of her colleagues spoke about language issues. Given that Quebec is a nation, a bill has already been introduced to make a knowledge of French a requirement for obtaining citizenship in Quebec. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the oil and gas industry causes an increase in greenhouse gases. Does my colleague agree that we need to find a way to transition away from the oil economy to one that is more reliant on renewable energy?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Does she think that electric vehicles are better for the environment than gas-powered vehicles?”
“Madam Speaker, sooner or later, we are going to have to limit greenhouse gas emissions and the use of gas-powered vehicles. Sooner or later, we are going to have encourage the use of electric vehicles. Does my friend think that the federal government should bring back the electric vehicle incentives?”
“Mr. Speaker, we know that transportation accounts for 25% of greenhouse gas emissions and that oil development and mining operations generate 30% of greenhouse gas emissions. Does my colleague believe that climate change is real and that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? If so, how would he go about it?”
“Mr. Speaker, apparently, the Conservatives are in favour of free choice. They are against EV subsidies and the incentive program for zero-emission vehicles. If we apply their reasoning around free choice, oil companies that want to keep operating and polluting should receive no government subsidies. Does my colleague agree that the federal government should provide no subsidies, whether direct or indirect, to oil companies?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals seem to want to pick up where the Conservatives left off and abandon the fight against climate change. Their EV incentive program was discontinued well before the deadline, causing challenges for dealers who wanted to meet the zero-emission vehicle standard. Some dealers advanced as much as $11 million to pay for federal subsidies, but they did not receive the expected payments. Dealers in Quebec alone accounted for approximately $9 million of that amount. The Minister of Industry announced that the government would resume the EV incentive program, but nothing is happening. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about this.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. For several weeks now, we have heard the Conservatives criticize the Liberals on ArriveCAN and GC Strategies and question their ethics. This legislation will really give the Liberals superpowers, allowing them to shield their developer friends from the law. Proposed section 21 will allow them to exempt developers from ethics laws, the Canada Labour Code, and so on. I wonder why, in this context, the Conservatives supported the closure motion that will allow the Liberals to pass this bill without any serious consideration and without members being able to improve it.”
“Mr. Speaker, my Liberal colleague is saying that this is written in the Liberal platform and that it is necessary. What is actually necessary is to not impose a gag order and circumvent Parliament. It reminds me of the saying that the ends justify the means. If the ends justify the means, then anything is justified, including violence and breaking the law. This government says it is going to consult the provinces and first nations, but it does not even want to consult members of Parliament. This gag order is totally unacceptable, and I hope that every opposition member will vote against it.”
“Mr. President, my colleague said that the government presented its platform during the election. However, nowhere in the platform does it say that it would claim unprecedented power, the power to govern by decree. For example, section 21 allows any proponent to circumvent any and all laws. We heard our Conservative colleagues talk about GC Strategies and ArriveCAN. Moreover, the government is trying to have the bill adopted by imposing a gag order. The government would have the power to exempt proponents from the application of any law. Even the Canadian Cancer Society has expressed concerns that this could place people's health at risk. I do not understand at all. The Liberals never announced such a power grab during the election.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. We agree in principle with a tax cut and eliminating the GST on new homes. That said, it brings the spending up to about $30 billion. The problem is that there is no budget. We do not know where that money is going to come from. Will it come from a reduction in health transfers? Is the government going to abandon the measures to compensate workers in the current context of tariff threats? Where is the money going to come from?”
“Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for his speech. I want to pick up on what my colleague from Repentigny was saying. The Liberals did away with the carbon tax and their measures to fight climate change. However, during the election campaign, they promised to increase the carbon tax for big industry. However, there is nothing about that in this bill. Do they intend to do something, particularly since the European Union is planning to charge countries, like Canada, where it is free or does not cost much to pollute?”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. Canadian citizens stopped paying the carbon tax as of April 1, which means that their rebates were just vote-getting handouts. Earlier, one of my fellow MPs from Quebec said that no one in Quebec asked to be reimbursed, but he is unaware that there has been a lot of talk about this situation in the media. The Quebec National Assembly even voted unanimously in favour of a motion in this regard. Even Liberal MNAs agreed that it was inconceivable that the federal government was handing out election goodies paid for in part by Quebeckers, who received no compensation.”
“Mr. Speaker, in fact, we take the opposite view. The carbon tax should not have been eliminated. It should have been maintained. We shall see what happens with industrial carbon pricing. There was nothing about it in the Liberals' recent bill, but we hope that something will be done. In all honesty, if the industrial tax is not maintained or even increased, that will hinder our trade diversification with Europe.”
“Mr. Speaker, we obviously agree that industrial carbon pricing should be maintained, because it is very important. However, my colleague missed the point. In this case, the Liberals decided to hand out election goodies for electoral purposes, as they tend to do. In this case, we are talking about a total of $3.7 billion taken from government funds. Quebec taxpayers ended up paying for the Liberals' election goodies without receiving any compensation.”
“We are asking all members to support our motion calling on the government to pay Quebec, without conditions, an amount equivalent to its contribution to the $3.7 billion in spending, estimated at $814 million. That would be a step in the right direction toward rebuilding public trust in justice for all in the fight against climate change. We have to start by respecting Quebec consumers, taxpayers and citizens by responding positively to the unanimous request of their elected representatives in the Quebec National Assembly. The Bloc Québécois's request is nothing but a modest request to correct an obvious and specific injustice.”
“The carbon market system in Quebec allows us to trade carbon credits with companies in California and Washington State. In a world where pollution is increasingly costly, Quebec enjoys a clear comparative advantage thanks to its abundant production of zero-emission energy. The Liberal government abolished carbon pricing for individuals in Canada outside Quebec and is proposing to reform industrial carbon pricing, but it is not providing any further details. If it decides to abolish it, it will further undermine efforts to diversify exports and increase trade with Europe. Canada can still choose the energy transition, sustainable growth and economic and environmental sustainability.”
“In order to prevent carbon leakage and unfair competition, Europe will be imposing a tax adjustment on certain imported products from countries with no or low carbon pricing starting January 1, 2026. The United Kingdom adopted similar legislation in 2024, and it will come into force on January 1, 2027. When a product enters Europe, the European Union will impose an import tax equivalent to what the carbon pricing would have cost had it been manufactured in Europe. Carbon adjustment is new, but border tax adjustments are common and in line with trade rules. Let us consider that the World Bank has identified 73 carbon pricing mechanisms in 53 countries. That is 69 more mechanisms than 20 years ago, and no country in the world has abolished carbon pricing, except Canada, which is the first to choose this path.”
“This comes at a time when we need to diversify our export markets more than ever, and at a time when Europe is imposing a carbon border adjustment system on products from irresponsible countries such as Canada. Quebec accounts for one third of trade between Canada and Europe and attracts close to 40% of European investment in Canada. Quebec has a clear strategic advantage. In a way, it is a bridge between North America and Europe. The Bloc Québécois would like to see Quebec double its trade with Europe, including the United Kingdom, from $42 billion to $84 billion within five years. The European Union adopted Regulation (EU) 2023/956 establishing a carbon border adjustment mechanism at the European Union's borders in 2023.”
“The Quebec National Assembly voted unanimously in favour of a motion calling on all federal political parties to commit to giving Quebec back its fair share of the payment, which it estimates to be over $800 million. All members of all the political parties represented in Quebec voted in favour of that motion. That is not to mention the price that Quebeckers pay for the effects of the greenhouse gases emitted in Canada outside Quebec. We learned just today that Quebec, like other northern regions, is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the planet, with considerable harm to health and infrastructure, and that is related to the western continent. (1345) I should add that Canada's abandonment of carbon pricing threatens Quebec's economy.”