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 6 of 6.
“However, these election goodies distributed to the Canadian provinces, to the tune of $3.7 billion, were paid for with federal funds, meaning by all taxpayers, including Quebec taxpayers. Quebeckers should have received $814 million for it to have been equitable. It was quite the feat by the Liberal Prime Minister. Not only did he sabotage the Liberals' own climate policy, he also managed to create economic and financial injustice for Quebec consumers and taxpayers. He is using Quebeckers' own money to punish them for their good behaviour and their climate responsibility. Quebec is simply being penalized for its efforts to fight climate change.”
“The remaining 10% were invested in energy transition programs. Those rebates were intended to fund the federal policy that most effectively produced real greenhouse gas emission reductions and truly helped decarbonize the economy. The Liberal Prime Minister , before he was even elected, decided to abolish the carbon tax, an important climate policy from his own party, for purely political reasons. The government eliminated consumer carbon pricing as of April 1, 2025, and doled out the carbon rebate, even if people were no longer paying the carbon tax, as an election goody. This is a great example of the elastic ethics of the Liberals, who are masters in the art of buying votes with voters' own money. Since the carbon tax does not apply to Quebec, which has had its own carbon exchange since 2013, it decided not to give Quebeckers anything.”
“The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, also known as the carbon tax, put a price on fossil fuels in eight provinces that did not already have their own carbon pricing system. Quebec and British Columbia were excluded because of their respective systems: a carbon exchange in Quebec and a provincial carbon tax in British Columbia. Canadian consumers paid the tax when they purchased gas or natural gas. The tax was built into the product price. Individuals in the provinces subject to the carbon tax received a rebate cheque in advance of what they would be paying at the pump. The Canada carbon rebate was paid out to individuals four times per year before the tax was collected. In fact, 90% of the revenues collected from the carbon tax were directly redistributed to residents in the form of rebates every three months.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue . The subject of today's Bloc Québécois motion is a good example of the injustices that Quebec is subjected to because we are a distinct nation governed by another nation. For example, the federal language policy uses our tax dollars and its overriding legislative power to impose the language of the Canadian majority on the people of Quebec. The same goes for environmental policy. Quebec's environmental policy and its economy are based on renewable energy, whereas Canada is a petrostate. In fact, Canada is already a conventional energy superpower. It is the world's fourth-largest oil producer and fifth-largest gas producer.”
“Mr. Speaker, we agree with the Conservatives that committing that much money without tabling a budget does not make sense. The Bloc Québécois commissioned a study from the Institut de recherche en économie contemporaine. We wanted to see if food inflation is tied to the carbon tax. The answer we got is that it is not tied to the carbon tax, or at least not in any significant way. However, it is tied to climate change. I would like my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. Throughout the election campaign, the Prime Minister talked about Donald Trump and the disaster that was coming. Now the Liberals are putting forward measures without presenting a budget, which makes no sense. We completely agree on that. It is even more troubling because the fiscal framework the Liberals presented during the election campaign was not realistic. They were supposed to implement it with the $20 billion that they were going to recover through retaliatory tariffs, but we have since learned that there will be no retaliatory measures. In Bill C-4 , the Liberals have included a tax cut and a GST exemption that will amount to roughly $30 billion. Where are they going to get that money? Are they going to slash health transfers?”
“Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague talk about safety and crime. I would like his opinion on the possibility of creating a registry of criminal organizations, restoring minimum sentences for gun crimes and prohibiting community-based sentences for violent sexual offences.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech. She said that the issue of the French language is important to her. I would like to know what she thinks of the fact that her government's official languages policy only supports English in Quebec. For example, roughly $100 million is invested every year in official languages support programs and it does nothing but finance the development of English-speaking communities, the anglophone education system, health services in English and so on. Over the years, more than $3.5 billion has been spent in Quebec to promote English and that is still going on to this day, while it is French that is in jeopardy in Quebec. What does my colleague think of that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. He said that the Liberal government has failed seniors, and I think he is absolutely right. The Liberals increased the pension amount by 10% only for seniors aged 75 and over, so the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to also increase the pension amount for seniors aged 65 to 74. Members supported that bill through almost every stage of the process. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my constituents in La Pointe-de-l'Île for electing me to a fourth term. This is my first speech in this Parliament. There is nothing in the throne speech about unemployment or workers. Will there be measures to improve employment insurance? Will there be measures to support workers grappling with the problems caused by Mr. Trump's tariff threats?”