Mario Beaulieu

“Do you agree that we should study this issue in a committee, as the Conservatives suggested?”

“Mr. Speaker, does my colleague agree that we should study the issue either at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs or at a special committee, as the Conservatives suggest?”

“The government claims it wants to work with us, but it rejects all our changes to this bill. It even rejected our idea to create an inspector general for sexual misconduct in the military. I want to know what my colleague thinks about the government doing that.”

“Mr. Speaker, it reeks of hypocrisy when government members say that they want to consult and work together with the opposition but then they turn around and throw out every amendment. I think that kind of thing fuels criticism toward all politicians. I am going to speak to only one of the opposition’s recommendations, which was to create an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct in the armed forces. That is going to be scrapped. I fail to understand how the government can defend that. What does my colleague think about that?”

“I support this bill at second reading because it focuses on rehabilitation for prisoners. Studies show that job training and education stop people from committing more crimes. However, this bill will only work if the government actually funds modern programs in prisons instead of cutting spending.”

“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. 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. There is a punitive or deterrent aspect, and there is the protection of the public, of course, but above all, there is the need to rehabilitate in order to reduce reoffending. Rehabilitation is the foundation of our justice system. The bill is based on the following observation, which has been well documented: A prison sentence that does not include any structured effort at rehabilitation may have the opposite of the desired effect. An inmate who leaves prison without any training, skills or new tools is much more vulnerable to reoffending, at the cost of public safety and social cohesion. That is a fact. For example, researchers at CIRANO, the Center for Interuniversity Research and Analysis of Organizations, found that, in Montreal, the rate of reoffending among inmates who participated in programs was 10%, while it was 50% among those who did not participate in programs over a five-year period. More specifically, the bill would allow the court to order that the offender participate in training to acquire professional or technical skills relating to prospective employment, subject to program availability and the offender’s acceptance into the program. It would also enable the court to order that that the offender participate in a treatment program approved by the province or Quebec and to take any other measures specified in the order. Under the bill, the offender must also make reasonable efforts to comply with these obligations. In principle, this approach is a step in the right direction. Rehabilitation is not just a humanitarian issue; it is imperative to public safety. Many studies, such as the one I just mentioned or the one conducted by the Office of the Correctional Investigator, clearly show that participation in education and training programs greatly reduces the risk of reoffending. It is with that in mind that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-240. However, if the bill gives the courts the power to order measures, then those measures must actually exist. They must be accessible and they must match current labour market trends. The Office of the Correctional Investigator Annual Report 2019-2020 is unequivocal. It paints a very worrisome picture of the state of the programs offered in federal prisons: outdated training, obsolete equipment, an almost total lack of e-learning, and extremely limited opportunities for post-secondary education. Inmates themselves say that the jobs and training they are offered serve primarily to fill the time rather than to acquire real, transferable skills. The tools and working methods used in several employment and employability program workshops no longer meet current standards and do not lead to any recognized certification. This highlights a fundamental inconsistency. We cannot pass legislation recognizing the importance of training and rehabilitation while maintaining a correctional system that fails to offer credible, modern, adequately funded programs. This inconsistency is all the more worrying given that recent federal budget decisions suggest significant cuts are coming to Correctional Service Canada. Cuts to spending and staff numbers will inevitably have a direct detrimental impact on access to programs, even as Parliament moves to recognize their importance. It really makes no sense. It should be noted, however, that jurisdiction over the administration of justice and rehabilitation lies largely with Quebec and the provinces. Quebec, in particular, has distinguished itself through more effective approaches to rehabilitation within the provincial prison system. Studies by CIRANO show that these programs contribute to a significant reduction in reoffending. Bill C-240 therefore needs to be examined very carefully. Yes, the legislative objective is laudable. Yes, the idea of tying the sentence more closely to accountability and rehabilitation deserves our support. However, without concrete investments, accessible programs and respect for the division of powers, this bill could remain largely theoretical and superficial. Finally, the bill also amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to establish trafficking in large quantities of fentanyl as an aggravating factor. This reality reflects the severity of the overdose crisis, which is affecting many communities and calls for firm responses to large-scale trafficking networks. That said, we cannot fight this crisis solely through harsher sentences. We will also need sustained investment in prevention, treatment and rehabilitation, both inside and outside the correctional system. In short, Bill C-240 raises very important issues and deserves serious consideration in committee. The Bloc Québécois is prepared to examine this bill thoroughly, with an open mind, to try to ensure that the powers granted to the courts are accompanied by real resources and that rehabilitation is not merely a principle enshrined in law, but a real option for people who are incarcerated and for society as a whole. That is why the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-240 at second reading.”

• Echo ×8

  A repeated line

  “It is a step in the right direction.”

  Said 8 times by 8 members since May 1.

  Every time it was said →

“Federal health care funding is not increasing fast enough to cover rising costs, especially as the population gets older. That funding increase could drop even lower in a few years, while health systems are already struggling. I want to know what my colleague thinks about this.”

“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.”

• 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 →

“New American tariffs hurt small businesses in Quebec. The government's economic plan does nothing to protect them, and Quebec just lost 300 jobs. I want the government to help pay workers' wages to save these jobs.”

“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?”

“Today is International Workers' Day, and I am honouring Quebec's workers. Past labour wins like the eight-hour workday were hard to get. We must keep fighting for workers' rights today as living costs rise and new technology changes our jobs.”

“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. 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.”

“I want to know what my colleague thinks about this economic update ignoring the new tariffs. President Trump put a 25% tax on products with steel and aluminum, and it will hurt many businesses in Quebec and Canada.”

“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?”

“Measurement Canada needs an independent appeal process or an ombudsman. Right now, businesses cannot get a fair hearing when they challenge a decision.”

“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.”

“The federal government has no aerospace plan and has not invested enough in this industry. For example, Quebec lost out on the Bombardier C Series because Ottawa refused to help. I am asking my colleague if he thinks things will actually change for the aerospace industry now.”

“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?”

“I support this bill to create Jury Duty Appreciation Week. Serving on a jury is hard work, and we should thank the citizens who do it. But managing juries is still a provincial responsibility, and the federal government must not interfere with how Quebec runs its 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “That the Bloc Québécois will support this bill at second reading.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since April 24.

  Every time it was said →