Mario Beaulieu

“Climate change, wildfires, and other disasters make life more expensive. I want to know if the member thinks we should consider these climate costs when we try to make life more affordable.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to know one thing. Unaffordability is caused in part by climate change and the huge costs of wildfires and all the other ecological disasters. Does my colleague think we should take climate change and the associated costs into account as we address unaffordability?”

“This bill rushes environmental reviews, especially for oil projects. It gives the work to agencies that lack the right expertise instead of giving the main agency more resources. This will lead to sloppy reviews, more pollution, and environmental disasters.”

“Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-39, the Liberal government wants to shorten the time frames for environmental assessments, particularly for oil projects. To achieve that, we either have to provide these agencies with more resources so they can conduct their assessments more quickly, or change their mandate. Rather than working with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, this task is being entrusted to other agencies that lack the same expertise and have different objectives. Ultimately, will we not end up with sloppy assessments? Will we not be contributing to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions? Who will pay for the environmental disasters we are going to face?”

“The government used to have a five-year limit on bypassing environmental laws for projects like oil. This bill removes that time limit so they can bypass the rules forever. This helps foreign oil companies while climate disasters get worse. What does the member think about that?”

“Madam Speaker, Bill C-5 allowed the government to circumvent at least 12 environmental laws and seven regulations to make it easier for certain projects, including several oil projects, to move forward. However, there was a five-year limit on that authority. With C-39, the government wants to remove that limit so that it can permanently circumvent environmental legislation. At a time when climate disasters are becoming more frequent and the cost of public services is rising, the Liberals want to circumvent environmental legislation for the benefit of oil companies whose proceeds often go abroad. What does my colleague think about that?”

“Does the member think we need an office to make sure the government follows modern treaties, or does he think we need no oversight at all?”

“Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. Does he not think that having a commissioner or an office to monitor progress and the government’s compliance with modern treaties might be a good thing, or does he believe that there should be absolutely no mechanism in place to monitor compliance with modern treaties?”

“No one should use religious texts to spread hate against any group. I want to remove the law that currently allows people to use religion as a defense for hate speech.”

“Mr. Speaker, does my colleague agree that religious texts should never be deliberately used to incite hatred against a particular group? If so, why not abolish the existing religious exemption in the Criminal Code for this type of offence?”

“Quebec and the provinces pay for health care with their own tax dollars. The federal government used to cover half of these costs, but now it covers only 22 percent and will likely cut future increases. How can Quebec and the provinces run their health systems when Ottawa takes their tax money and cuts health funding?”

“Mr. Speaker, the money for health transfers comes from the taxes paid by Quebec and the provinces. Initially, the federal government committed to covering 50% of the provinces’ health care costs. It is now covering just 22%. The provinces protested. They wanted the government to raise that amount to 35%. The Bloc Québécois would have liked the government to at least maintain the 6% escalator, but it did not do so. It is probably going to drop to 3% soon. How are the provinces and Quebec supposed to manage if the federal government takes their tax money and then makes cuts to health transfers? What does my colleague think about that?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The Bloc Québécois does not want longer back-to-back jail sentences for crimes that do not hurt people, like car theft. Studies show these longer sentences do not stop criminals. I want to know what the member thinks about this.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is not happy with the addition of consecutive sentences for offences that do not constitute crimes against the person. For example, while it is true that car theft is a major problem, we do not believe that consecutive sentences will actually deter criminals. Several studies have proven that. I would like my colleague’s thoughts on that.”

“This housing bill could have passed much faster if the government had shared the details sooner. We were worried they would add conditions to the money, but it goes straight to Quebec to spend on housing. If the government had been clear from the start, we would not need to rush this debate now.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a bit ironic that they are having to impose a super closure motion on Bill C‑26 when it could have been passed much more quickly if the government had been more transparent. The government refused to hold a briefing at the outset. We were not sure if the federal government was going to do what it usually does and impose a whole bunch of conditions that would delay and complicate the transfer of the funds. When the bill was introduced, we found out that the money would be transferred directly to Quebec so that it could use it as it sees fit for housing. That solved a lot of problems. Why was the government not transparent from the start? The process would have gone much quicker.”

“A Quebec housing group is worried that this bill funds homes that are still too expensive for regular people. They fear vulnerable people will be left behind. They want more money spent on real social housing. What does the member have to say about that?”

“Mr. Speaker, Quebec’s Front d’action populaire en réaménagement urbain, or FRAPRU, has raised several concerns about the Build Canada Homes project, especially with regard to the high cost of so-called affordable housing that costs much more than the median housing price. For example, the folks at FRAPRU note that many of the projects funded in Quebec include affordable and intermediate housing units that cost much more than the median market rent. The folks at FRAPRU fear that the most vulnerable people will be left behind if most of the funding is invested in building this type of housing. What they want is more investment in social housing. What does my colleague have to say about that?”