Mario Beaulieu

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?

Madam Speaker, my colleague said that this bill has no teeth and no enforcement measures to compel the government to uphold modern treaties. Could he give us some examples of processes that would produce better results?

Madam Speaker, from what I understand from my colleague's remarks, he is afraid that the legislation will result in reports but no concrete action and thinks that it lacks sufficient teeth or enforcement mechanisms to ensure that results are achieved. Could he give me an example of something that could really strengthen the bill?

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?

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. Under that exemption, anyone who quotes a passage from the Bible or the Quran to incite hatred will be protected and cannot be prosecuted. Does my colleague agree that a legislative amendment is needed in that regard?

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Conservatives are reluctant to engage in any real debate on a number of points. My colleague said she would like to see this debated further. What solutions would she propose to ensure that we finally reach an agreement?

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. How will this help to foster a more civilized debate and promote respect between different religions and people of all backgrounds?

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. It definitely does not mean that reading religious texts of any religion whatsoever is forbidden, but it does prohibit deliberately using religious texts to incite hatred against a group or another religion.

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?

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. I am talking about the unfair competition from foreign digital platforms, the American web giants that profit from the Canadian and Quebec market and make billions of dollars in profits. That is why we are recommending that the government reinstate the 3% digital services tax, which would have been a first step toward tax equity. This tax would have generated $7.2 billion over five years, and the government could have allocated that money to a dedicated fund for the cultural sector, particularly the broadcasting industry. 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. However, the federal government later asked the CRTC to backtrack on that decision. The Bloc Québécois is recommending that the CRTC instead uphold this decision and that the billions of dollars in profits be used to support French‑language music broadcasters.

Mr. Speaker, the government is going to change the mandate of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to include economic considerations. Does my colleague think that hazardous pesticides should be approved for economic reasons?

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?

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question that has already been asked, but I do not think the answer was adequate: Why replace existing bodies, such as the CMHC, that could very well have fulfilled the same role? Essentially, we are not going to oppose the bill since an agreement has been reached with the Government of Quebec, but it would have been much easier to simply transfer the money to Quebec.

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?

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Canadian economy is not doing well. It is also true that certain Liberal policies have contributed to the fact that we are in a technical recession. However, by painting an overly dire and one-sided picture, are the Conservatives not discrediting themselves? What does my colleague think?

Mr. Speaker, on the one side, we have the Conservative doomsayers, who exaggerate the problems. On the other, we have the Liberal optimists, who say that everything is fine. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that Scotiabank and the Bank of Montreal both downgraded their growth projections, which are at less than 1%. The most recent report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer also noted a slowdown in growth and a deterioration in the fiscal outlook, with a larger-than-expected deficit and a mere 1% chance that the government will meet its budget forecast.