Beaulieu seeks to support Quebec culture and French-language media by demanding that U.S. digital platforms pay taxes. He also advocates for stronger environmental protections against permanent circumventions of environmental laws, often asserting his viewpoint is the undisputed consensus by stating, “the real issue is.”Written by AI from their statements. Updated .
Average grade
A–
The average grade of 61 analysed statements. 26 more were analysed but were too short to grade.
87 / 100 over 61 statements
Signal92 / 100
Relevance83 / 100
Respect100 / 100
Clarity93 / 100
Averaged over the 61 of 87 statements graded so far.
In their own words
Loses points more than most for
Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.3.4 times as often as most members.What the tags mean →×3.4
“This bill affects things the provinces control, like schools and child protection. I want the government to consult Quebec and the other provinces, and let them set their own rules.”
“Madam Speaker, because it has jurisdiction in the area of telecommunications, the federal government may make regulations on social media and digital safety, but this also affects areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces in terms of social matters, youth protection and education. Would my colleague agree that Bill C‑34 should have an asymmetrical and flexible approach and that Quebec and the provinces should be consulted?”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, because it has jurisdiction in the area of telecommunications, the federal government may make regulations on social media and digital safety, but this also affects areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces in terms of social matters, youth protection and education. Would my colleague agree that Bill C‑34 should have an asymmetrical and flexible approach and that Quebec and the provinces should be consulted?
“This bill gives a lot of power to a new group of unelected officials. We must look at the details very closely so we do not hand our responsibilities over to them.”
“Madam Speaker, the bill would establish the digital safety commission of Canada, a new federal bureaucracy that would be entrusted with deciding a number of important and contentious matters. The bill is something of a framework legislation, but it delegates a great deal of authority to that commission. Does my colleague agree that we will need to examine all of these contentious details very carefully to ensure that the bill truly reflects Parliament’s intent and that responsibility is not simply handed over to unelected officials?”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, the bill would establish the digital safety commission of Canada, a new federal bureaucracy that would be entrusted with deciding a number of important and contentious matters. The bill is something of a framework legislation, but it delegates a great deal of authority to that commission. Does my colleague agree that we will need to examine all of these contentious details very carefully to ensure that the bill truly reflects Parliament’s intent and that responsibility is not simply handed over to unelected officials?
“This bill only sets out broad ideas and leaves the hard details to a new government commission. Parliament should study and settle these difficult issues directly instead of handing that power over to unelected officials. I want to know if my colleague agrees.”
“Madam Speaker, the bill would defer many important details by delegating responsibility for these matters to the commission it seeks to create, the digital safety commission of Canada, a new federal bureaucracy. A number of contentious issues remain unaddressed in the bill, which seems to set out broad principles, delegating the details to the commission for later consideration. Does my colleague agree that all potentially contentious issues should be addressed and studied as fully as possible so that the law reflects the legislative intent and so that responsibility is not unduly delegated to officials?”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, the bill would defer many important details by delegating responsibility for these matters to the commission it seeks to create, the digital safety commission of Canada, a new federal bureaucracy. A number of contentious issues remain unaddressed in the bill, which seems to set out broad principles, delegating the details to the commission for later consideration. Does my colleague agree that all potentially contentious issues should be addressed and studied as fully as possible so that the law reflects the legislative intent and so that responsibility is not unduly delegated to officials?
“Giving billions of dollars to oil companies is one reason the government has a big deficit. I want the member to say if those subsidies should continue.”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the factors making the deficit so big is the billions of dollars in subsidies that have been handed out to oil companies. Does my colleague think that this type of subsidy should continue?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, one of the factors making the deficit so big is the billions of dollars in subsidies that have been handed out to oil companies. Does my colleague think that this type of subsidy should continue?
“These bills give too much power to the Prime Minister's Office. It lets them decide on oil projects all on their own. The finance minister just repeats what the Prime Minister says. That is why committee members want to question the Prime Minister himself. What does my colleague think about this?”
“Mr. Speaker, in the same vein, Bill C-5 and Bill C-39 are concentrating power in the PMO, which can declare that an oil project is in the national interest and which makes all the decisions. It seems like the Minister of Finance is merely a mouthpiece for the Prime Minister. That is why people would like to speak with him directly in committee. What does my colleague think of that?”
Mr. Speaker, in the same vein, Bill C-5 and Bill C-39 are concentrating power in the PMO, which can declare that an oil project is in the national interest and which makes all the decisions. It seems like the Minister of Finance is merely a mouthpiece for the Prime Minister. That is why people would like to speak with him directly in committee. What does my colleague think of that?
“Our debt costs are very high, but the government is giving up a lot of money. It dropped the tax on big American tech companies, which hurt our culture and media. It also stopped our broadcast regulator from collecting fees from them, and used public tax dollars to make up the difference instead. I want my colleague to explain why the government did this.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague defends French and culture, and we all agree that debt servicing costs are huge. In this context, we find it hard to understand why the government is forgoing considerable revenue by eliminating, for example, the digital services tax on American tech giants, which are a threat to our culture and our media. Furthermore, the government refused to allow the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to collect levies from these same tech giants, which would have brought in considerable revenue for culture. Instead, it dipped into people’s taxes to try to compensate for the cancellation of the levies. What does my colleague say to that?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague defends French and culture, and we all agree that debt servicing costs are huge. In this context, we find it hard to understand why the government is forgoing considerable revenue by eliminating, for example, the digital services tax on American tech giants, which are a threat to our culture and our media. Furthermore, the government refused to allow the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to collect levies from these same tech giants, which would have brought in considerable revenue for culture. Instead, it dipped into people’s taxes to try to compensate for the cancellation of the levies. What does my colleague say to that?
“The Conservatives say the government spends more on debt interest than on health care. If they cut the cost of the debt, will they promise to give more health care money to Quebec and the provinces?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservative motion says that the Liberal government is spending more on servicing the debt than on health care transfers. If the Conservatives ever managed to reduce debt servicing, would they commit to increase health transfers to Quebec and the provinces?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative motion says that the Liberal government is spending more on servicing the debt than on health care transfers. If the Conservatives ever managed to reduce debt servicing, would they commit to increase health transfers to Quebec and the provinces?
“We are spending a lot of money paying interest on the debt. I want to know if my colleague agrees we should send some of that money to the provinces for health care instead.”
“Mr. Speaker, a great deal of money is going toward servicing the debt right now. Does my colleague agree that we should take some of that money and send it to the provinces to increase health transfers?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, a great deal of money is going toward servicing the debt right now. Does my colleague agree that we should take some of that money and send it to the provinces to increase health transfers?
“Canada has a big deficit, but the government gave up tax money by letting American tech giants off the hook. It did this to make Donald Trump happy, but we got nothing back in the fight over tariffs. What does the member think about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is indeed a significant deficit. We agree. At the same time, the government has forgone revenue by waiving the digital services tax for U.S. tech giants that threaten our culture and our media. They did that to appease Mr. Trump, but they gained absolutely nothing in the tariff war. What are my colleague’s thoughts on that?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, there is indeed a significant deficit. We agree. At the same time, the government has forgone revenue by waiving the digital services tax for U.S. tech giants that threaten our culture and our media. They did that to appease Mr. Trump, but they gained absolutely nothing in the tariff war. What are my colleague’s thoughts on that?
“The government gave up money by dropping the digital tax on American tech giants. Those companies threaten our culture and our media. The government did this to please Donald Trump and got nothing in return. What does my colleague think about this?”
“Madam Speaker, the government forwent revenue by scrapping the digital services tax on the U.S. tech giants that are threatening our culture, our media and our identity. The government did this to please Mr. Trump as part of the tariff negotiations, but it got nothing in return. What does my colleague think of that?”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, the government forwent revenue by scrapping the digital services tax on the U.S. tech giants that are threatening our culture, our media and our identity. The government did this to please Mr. Trump as part of the tariff negotiations, but it got nothing in return. What does my colleague think of that?
“The Liberals are running huge deficits and refusing to collect tax money from big web companies. These companies hurt our local media. The government gave up this tax to please Donald Trump, but Canada got nothing in return.”
“Madam Speaker, not only are the Liberals running up massive deficits, but they are also forgoing sources of revenue. One example is that they are refusing to tax the web giants, despite the fact that they are causing immense harm to our local media. Worse still, this outcome was entirely predictable. They did it to appease Mr. Trump as part of the negotiations, but they got nothing in return. They merely whetted the U.S. administration’s appetite.”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, not only are the Liberals running up massive deficits, but they are also forgoing sources of revenue. One example is that they are refusing to tax the web giants, despite the fact that they are causing immense harm to our local media. Worse still, this outcome was entirely predictable. They did it to appease Mr. Trump as part of the negotiations, but they got nothing in return. They merely whetted the U.S. administration’s appetite.
“The government has the wrong priorities for official languages. It spends all $120 million of Quebec's language support money to strengthen English, even though French is the language under threat. It is also cutting 340 jobs at the Translation Bureau, which we need for bilingual work in Parliament. I want to know what my colleague thinks about this.”
“Madam Speaker, I also think this government’s priorities are misplaced. For example, the entire budget for official languages support programs in Quebec, which was $120 million last year, is dedicated to strengthening English in Quebec, even though French is the language under threat. The government also says it has no money for the Translation Bureau, so it plans to make cuts and eliminate 340 positions through attrition at the Translation Bureau, which is essential to ensuring access to both official languages here in Parliament. What does my colleague think of that?”
Madam Speaker, I also think this government’s priorities are misplaced. For example, the entire budget for official languages support programs in Quebec, which was $120 million last year, is dedicated to strengthening English in Quebec, even though French is the language under threat. The government also says it has no money for the Translation Bureau, so it plans to make cuts and eliminate 340 positions through attrition at the Translation Bureau, which is essential to ensuring access to both official languages here in Parliament. What does my colleague think of that?
“This bill gives the Prime Minister too much power. It lets the Prime Minister label projects as important to the country just to bypass environmental laws. I want to know how far this government will go with this trend.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for her excellent speech. When we look at Bill C‑39, which follows on the heels of Bill C‑5, we see the government concentrating even more power in the Prime Minister’s Office by allowing the Prime Minister to designate projects as being in the national interest and circumvent environmental laws. Is Bill C‑40 not simply a continuation of that same trend? How far is this going to go? What does my colleague think about that?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for her excellent speech. When we look at Bill C‑39, which follows on the heels of Bill C‑5, we see the government concentrating even more power in the Prime Minister’s Office by allowing the Prime Minister to designate projects as being in the national interest and circumvent environmental laws. Is Bill C‑40 not simply a continuation of that same trend? How far is this going to go? What does my colleague think about that?
“That is not true. The Bloc Québécois has asked for support for culture. Regulators were just following the law so American web platforms pay their fair share. That would bring $2 billion more to Quebec and French-language media.”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, that is incorrect; the Bloc Québécois has made requests related to culture. Second of all, the real issue is that the CRTC was following the new Broadcasting Act and wanted American digital platforms to pay their fair share, which would have resulted in $2 billion more in revenues for Quebec and French-language media and culture. So the question is—”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, first of all, that is incorrect; the Bloc Québécois has made requests related to culture. Second of all, the real issue is that the CRTC was following the new Broadcasting Act and wanted American digital platforms to pay their fair share, which would have resulted in $2 billion more in revenues for Quebec and French-language media and culture. So the question is—
“I want to congratulate the newly elected Parti Québécois members in my area. I look forward to working with them to protect Quebec culture. The government says it supports different cultures, but it hurt them all when it told the broadcast regulator not to make American digital companies pay fees.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Parti Québécois MNAs who were elected in my riding, La Pointe-de-l’Île, which is now entirely blue. Paul St-Pierre Plamondon was re-elected in the riding of Camille-Laurin. He is also the Premier of Quebec and the minister responsible for combatting homelessness. Stéphane Paquet was elected in the riding of Pointe-aux-Trembles. He is also the minister for economic development, innovation and energy and minister responsible for Montreal and the Montreal region. I am very pleased and very proud of them. I believe we will be able to work together, particularly to defend Quebec culture, the culture of the Quebec nation. That said, I feel that my colleague’s speech completely missed the point. She talked about different cultures, which is great. We agree on that. However, does she realize that, by instructing the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission not to impose levies on American digital platforms, the government has undermined all those cultures?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Parti Québécois MNAs who were elected in my riding, La Pointe-de-l’Île, which is now entirely blue. Paul St-Pierre Plamondon was re-elected in the riding of Camille-Laurin. He is also the Premier of Quebec and the minister responsible for combatting homelessness. Stéphane Paquet was elected in the riding of Pointe-aux-Trembles. He is also the minister for economic development, innovation and energy and minister responsible for Montreal and the Montreal region. I am very pleased and very proud of them. I believe we will be able to work together, particularly to defend Quebec culture, the culture of the Quebec nation. That said, I feel that my colleague’s speech completely missed the point. She talked about different cultures, which is great. We agree on that. However, does she realize that, by instructing the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission not to impose levies on American digital platforms, the government has undermined all those cultures?
“The government claims it protects French, but it spent 120 million dollars promoting English in Quebec and is cutting 340 translation jobs. It also wants taxpayers instead of digital companies to pay fees. I want to hear my colleague's thoughts on this hypocrisy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech, which very accurately described the hypocrisy that we are seeing. The Prime Minister has told us that he considers French to be non-negotiable in tariff negotiations. Furthermore, federal language policy is supposed to have been changed, since there is a new Official Languages Act that is supposed to strengthen the position of French in Quebec. However, last year $120 million from the official languages budget went to promote and strengthen English in Quebec. Two days ago, there was a press conference with people from the Translation Bureau. They said that there is no budget for translation and that 340 positions will be cut. We are seeing much the same thing here. The government says that it does not want to impose levies on digital platforms because they might pass the cost on to consumers, so they plan to pay those levies with taxpayers’ money instead. What does my colleague think about that?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech, which very accurately described the hypocrisy that we are seeing. The Prime Minister has told us that he considers French to be non-negotiable in tariff negotiations. Furthermore, federal language policy is supposed to have been changed, since there is a new Official Languages Act that is supposed to strengthen the position of French in Quebec. However, last year $120 million from the official languages budget went to promote and strengthen English in Quebec. Two days ago, there was a press conference with people from the Translation Bureau. They said that there is no budget for translation and that 340 positions will be cut. We are seeing much the same thing here. The government says that it does not want to impose levies on digital platforms because they might pass the cost on to consumers, so they plan to pay those levies with taxpayers’ money instead. What does my colleague think about that?
“The Liberals say they protect French, but they do the opposite. They spend $120 million a year to support English in Quebec while French is under threat. They also refuse to make American digital platforms pay fees to support Quebec culture, using our tax dollars instead. I want to know what my colleague thinks about this.”
“Mr. Speaker, what really bothers me about this issue is that our Liberal friends say one thing but do the opposite. The Prime Minister has said he wants to defend French in the negotiations with the United States, yet he is spending $120 million a year from the official languages budget for Quebec to support English in Quebec, when it is French that is under threat. The CRTC wanted to require U.S. digital platforms to pay a levy. Instead of enforcing this, however, the Prime Minister is making grand speeches in Europe. Europe requires digital platforms to pay a levy, but here, we just kowtow to them. To support Quebec culture, the culture of the only French-speaking nation in North America, the government will use tax dollars rather than ask U.S. digital platforms to pay their fair share. What does my colleague think about that?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, what really bothers me about this issue is that our Liberal friends say one thing but do the opposite. The Prime Minister has said he wants to defend French in the negotiations with the United States, yet he is spending $120 million a year from the official languages budget for Quebec to support English in Quebec, when it is French that is under threat. The CRTC wanted to require U.S. digital platforms to pay a levy. Instead of enforcing this, however, the Prime Minister is making grand speeches in Europe. Europe requires digital platforms to pay a levy, but here, we just kowtow to them. To support Quebec culture, the culture of the only French-speaking nation in North America, the government will use tax dollars rather than ask U.S. digital platforms to pay their fair share. What does my colleague think about that?
“The Bloc Québécois will vote for this bill. It punishes foreign officials who threaten or spy on people living in Canada. It also bans their families from getting Canadian visas and helps seize their money.”
“Madam Speaker, after a thorough and careful study in committee, the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of Bill C-219. This is an important initiative aimed at strengthening our legislative framework on international human rights. As mentioned earlier, this bill proposes a definition of what constitutes a prisoner of conscience. A prisoner of conscience is an individual who, in contravention of international human rights standards, has been detained or otherwise physically restricted solely because of their identity or their conscientiously held beliefs, including religious or political beliefs. One of the purposes of this bill is to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to require foreign affairs ministers to table an annual report in Parliament on the government’s actions to advance human rights internationally. The report would include information on political prisoners and prisoners of conscience, as well as Canada’s efforts to support them. Bill C-219 is essentially the same as Bill C-281, which received the unanimous support of the House of Commons at third reading before dying on the Order Paper in the Senate. This bill includes one vital component that we welcome and fully endorse: recognition of transnational repression. This was requested by the Bloc Québécois and it even formed part of its election platform. The bill defines transnational repression as: tactics used by a foreign state to intimidate, harass, surveil or threaten individuals or groups located outside the state borders or physically harm such individuals or members of such groups, including elected officials, political dissidents, human rights defenders, exiled journalists, diaspora communities, civil society activists and refugees, for the purpose of silencing dissent and stifling activism. In Quebec and Canada, we regularly confront transnational repression. Examples were given earlier involving our Uyghur, Tibetan and Taiwanese friends, but there are many others. I have seen cases of transnational repression targeting Kabylia separatists first-hand. Many of them report that simply expressing their opinions publicly or on social media can provoke intimidation against family members and retaliatory measures in Algeria. This bill broadens the scope of the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as the Sergei Magnitsky law, as mentioned earlier, by adding transnational repression to the list of explicit grounds for imposing sanctions on foreign individuals. As has already been noted, Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian lawyer who exposed corruption in the Kremlin. He was subsequently imprisoned for fraud in a Moscow jail. He died in custody in 2009 after being subjected to torture. Bill C-219 will strengthen efforts to combat attempts by foreign states to intimidate, surveil or harass individuals living in Quebec, Canada or elsewhere outside their national borders. It will enable Canada to impose sanctions on foreign nationals who have engaged in activities that undermine international peace, security or stability in a manner inconsistent with international law or who are responsible for, or complicit in, gross and systematic violations of internationally recognized human rights or acts of corruption. The bill also enhances the effectiveness of sanctions by prohibiting visas and other official documents from being issued to the immediate family members of sanctioned individuals. This measure recognizes that family members are often used by sanctioned individuals and criminal actors, both in Canada and abroad, to circumvent the sanctions in place. The bill would give the government new tools by requiring close inter-institutional co-operation between the RCMP and the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, which would have to give the department the necessary information to develop and track the application of these sanctions. Some provisions aim to facilitate the seizure and possible forfeiture of assets belonging to sanctioned foreign officials. The bill would also amend the Broadcasting Act to prevent the issuance, renewal or continuation of licences for broadcasting undertakings influenced by foreign persons or entities involved in a genocide recognized by Parliament or already sanctioned by Canada. All in all, Bill C‑219 would strengthen human rights protections, help in the fight against foreign interference and increase government accountability in the implementation of international sanctions. That is why we will support Bill C‑219.”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, after a thorough and careful study in committee, the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of Bill C-219. This is an important initiative aimed at strengthening our legislative framework on international human rights. As mentioned earlier, this bill proposes a definition of what constitutes a prisoner of conscience. A prisoner of conscience is an individual who, in contravention of international human rights standards, has been detained or otherwise physically restricted solely because of their identity or their conscientiously held beliefs, including religious or political beliefs. One of the purposes of this bill is to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to require foreign affairs ministers to table an annual report in Parliament on the government’s actions to advance human rights internationally. The report would include information on political prisoners and prisoners of conscience, as well as Canada’s efforts to support them. Bill C-219 is essentially the same as Bill C-281, which received the unanimous support of the House of Commons at third reading before dying on the Order Paper in the Senate. This bill includes one vital component that we welcome and fully endorse: recognition of transnational repression. This was requested by the Bloc Québécois and it even formed part of its election platform. The bill defines transnational repression as: tactics used by a foreign state to intimidate, harass, surveil or threaten individuals or groups located outside the state borders or physically harm such individuals or members of such groups, including elected officials, political dissidents, human rights defenders, exiled journalists, diaspora communities, civil society activists and refugees, for the purpose of silencing dissent and stifling activism. In Quebec and Canada, we regularly confront transnational repression. Examples were given earlier involving our Uyghur, Tibetan and Taiwanese friends, but there are many others. I have seen cases of transnational repression targeting Kabylia separatists first-hand. Many of them report that simply expressing their opinions publicly or on social media can provoke intimidation against family members and retaliatory measures in Algeria. This bill broadens the scope of the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as the Sergei Magnitsky law, as mentioned earlier, by adding transnational repression to the list of explicit grounds for imposing sanctions on foreign individuals. As has already been noted, Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian lawyer who exposed corruption in the Kremlin. He was subsequently imprisoned for fraud in a Moscow jail. He died in custody in 2009 after being subjected to torture. Bill C-219 will strengthen efforts to combat attempts by foreign states to intimidate, surveil or harass individuals living in Quebec, Canada or elsewhere outside their national borders. It will enable Canada to impose sanctions on foreign nationals who have engaged in activities that undermine international peace, security or stability in a manner inconsistent with international law or who are responsible for, or complicit in, gross and systematic violations of internationally recognized human rights or acts of corruption. The bill also enhances the effectiveness of sanctions by prohibiting visas and other official documents from being issued to the immediate family members of sanctioned individuals. This measure recognizes that family members are often used by sanctioned individuals and criminal actors, both in Canada and abroad, to circumvent the sanctions in place. The bill would give the government new tools by requiring close inter-institutional co-operation between the RCMP and the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, which would have to give the department the necessary information to develop and track the application of these sanctions. Some provisions aim to facilitate the seizure and possible forfeiture of assets belonging to sanctioned foreign officials. The bill would also amend the Broadcasting Act to prevent the issuance, renewal or continuation of licences for broadcasting undertakings influenced by foreign persons or entities involved in a genocide recognized by Parliament or already sanctioned by Canada. All in all, Bill C‑219 would strengthen human rights protections, help in the fight against foreign interference and increase government accountability in the implementation of international sanctions. That is why we will support Bill C‑219.
“This bill will be very useful. I want the member to explain how it will punish states or people.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his bill, which will certainly be very useful. I would like him to talk a bit about the process for sanctioning states or individuals.”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his bill, which will certainly be very useful. I would like him to talk a bit about the process for sanctioning states or individuals.
“Climate change makes life more expensive because of disasters like wildfires and floods. Should we study how it affects the cost of living?”
“Mr. Speaker, one thing that is often overlooked but is a major contributor to this affordability crisis is climate change. Think of all the natural disasters, the wildfires and floods, that are caused by climate change and rising greenhouse gas emissions. Does my colleague think it would be a good idea to examine this in depth in the context of the affordability crisis?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, one thing that is often overlooked but is a major contributor to this affordability crisis is climate change. Think of all the natural disasters, the wildfires and floods, that are caused by climate change and rising greenhouse gas emissions. Does my colleague think it would be a good idea to examine this in depth in the context of the affordability crisis?
