So V ote

Mar/22/23 3:01:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, once again, we need to talk about Amira Elghawaby, whom the Prime Minister appointed despite opposition from Quebeckers and who began her first tour this week as special representative on combatting Islamophobia. Right away on her first stop in Ontario, she began attacking Quebec's Bill 21 on secularism. In her own words, her job is to attack legislation like that. This is how she chose to use her first official appearance. I would ask the Prime Minister to clarify Ms. Elghawaby's mandate. Is it to build bridges between communities or is it to tour Canada to fight Quebec legislation?

107 words

All Topics

Mar/9/23 2:43:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague was saying, we are now in the home stretch of the passage of Bill C‑11. I would like to remind members that Bill C‑11 seeks to ensure that Quebec culture and Quebec and Canadian artists have their place and can succeed in the new digital world. The Government of Quebec shared its demands concerning Bill C‑11. It is asking that Quebec have a say in CRTC decisions that impact Quebec culture and that the Quebec act respecting the status of artists be respected. How will the minister respond to Quebec's demands?

103 words

Mar/9/23 10:56:37 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my speech just now, I commented on how much I appreciated the collaborative atmosphere at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. To be clear, I was speaking directly to my colleague from Bow River, who is a big fan of culture. He was right at home on the heritage committee. I really enjoyed our conversations. Now, visual arts—painters and that whole side of things—are holding their own. However, in today's world, a world where things are opening up and borders are disappearing, the digital world, social media and major broadcasting platforms have to be accessible. It is much harder for a small francophone market in an anglophone sea to gain access. That is why Quebec artists, francophone artists, our very own creators, need that support in order to be seen, to get their names out there. They do not want to force themselves on the rest of the world. They just want a way to be visible on those platforms. That is what this is really about.

178 words

All Topics

Mar/9/23 10:54:34 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his great question. I will even add that, once Bill C-11 is passed and the reform of the Broadcasting Act is implemented, it will enable certain TV and radio broadcasters with very specific missions that serve under-represented communities to survive and blossom. As for my colleague's question about the Conservatives' stand, yesterday, I was very perplexed by the speech given by one of my Conservative colleagues, in which she talked about how much she loves artists in general, but especially digital artists. I am very perplexed that the Conservatives moved an amendment to do away with the bill, rather than trying to improve it. I think that says it all.

127 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 162 - Feb/16/23

Mar/9/23 10:35:12 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-18 Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, as I was just saying, when I heard the comments made by my colleague from Lethbridge suggesting that the artists would not benefit from the reform of the Broadcasting Act, I made a few phone calls. I contacted a few of my artist friends to ensure that the bill would benefit the cultural associations and businesses and not just the broadcasters. They all told me that artists and creators have been awaiting the bill just as eagerly as cultural businesses have. In all humility, I have to say that I am not the most artistic member of the Bloc caucus. The member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, Caroline Desbiens, had a brilliant career in television and theatre. There is also the extraordinary artist we call “La Marsouine”, the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix. She is a songwriter whose work is well known among the international francophonie. There are people in the Bloc Québécois caucus who know what they are talking about. We were inspired by these people and we fought for this bill on behalf of our colleagues who were themselves part of the arts scene. They can tell us how regulating the broadcasting sector benefits our artists. Here we find ourselves at another stage of Bill C-11. This may be the last step; we hope it is. As we have seen, our Conservative colleagues are once again trying to kill this bill. After finding some particularly creative ways to delay its study in committee, yesterday they even brought forward an amendment to completely gut the bill. All this after accusing the Bloc Québécois of failing to stand up for the demands of the Quebec National Assembly. Let us talk about the demands of the Quebec National Assembly. I found it quite rich to hear the Conservatives say that the National Assembly opposed the passage of Bill C-11 as is when, in June 2022, the National Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution that stated the following: Whereas the federal government is under pressure from multiple sources to ensure social media is not subject to Bill C-11, while many companies commercially stream musical and audiovisual content; THAT the National Assembly recall that Québec’s cultural production and its uniqueness are strongly disadvantaged by the lack of regulation of online streaming platforms and social media; THAT it affirm that it is essential that all online streaming platforms, including social media, be subject to federal and provincial laws, such as C-11, so that all digital broadcasters, whether Canadian or foreign, contribute to the creation, production, broadcasting, promotion and discoverability of Québec content; I will spare members a reading of the full text of the resolution. It concludes as follows: THAT, lastly, it urge the federal government to include social media governance in Bill C-11 to amend the Broadcasting Act. Obviously, that does not align with the Conservative position. I want to talk about Quebec's Minister of Culture and Communications, Mathieu Lacombe, who did a bunch of interviews recently, answering journalists' questions about the mandate he took on last fall. When asked, “Should streaming platforms be forced to highlight homegrown content?”, he instantly replied “Yes, this is about Quebec's distinct culture”. Speaking to various media outlets, Minister Lacombe emphasized the importance of discoverability for francophone content from Quebec, meaning how easy it should be to access homegrown content on major digital platforms like Netflix and Spotify, for example. That is what Minister Lacombe said. The National Assembly is hoping for a speedy passage of Bill C‑11. Certainly, Quebec had demands, legitimate demands, such as being consulted on regulations that will impact broadcasting in Quebec and Quebec culture. The unanimous National Assembly motion that set tongues wagging recently reads as follows: THAT the National Assembly acknowledge that the federal government could soon pass Bill C‑11, which aims to amend the Broadcasting Act; THAT it underline that this bill does not recognize the application of Québec laws regarding the status of artists; THAT it recognize that this bill, as it is currently written, grants Québec no rights of inspection on the directions that will be given to the CRTC, and that those directions will have a significant impact on Québec’s cultural community; THAT it remind the federal government that Québec’s linguistic specificity must be respected; THAT it highlight for the federal government that as a nation, it is up to Québec to define its cultural orientations; THAT it demand that Québec be officially consulted on the directions that will be given to the CRTC regarding the bill and that, for this purpose, a formal mechanism be added to the bill; THAT it affirm that Québec will continue to apply, in its areas of jurisdiction, the laws democratically passed by the National Assembly; THAT, lastly, the National Assembly inform the federal government that Québec will use all the tools at its disposal to continue protecting its language, culture and identity. The minister has the means and the tools needed to respond to these demands from Quebec. The real question is whether he will do the right thing through ministerial directives to the CRTC. We will see over the next few days, but I really hope he does. We in the Bloc Québécois will continue to properly and faithfully stand up for Quebec's demands to ensure the protection of its culture and broadcasting sector. Recently, my colleagues and I have all been getting a rather impressive number of emails from people who are opposed to Bill C-11. Oddly enough, they are not well-crafted emails written by an organization representative like the ones we received in previous weeks and months. They are very short emails that are more focused on the issue of censorship and control over what Quebeckers and Canadians will be able to watch online once Bill C-11 is passed. I have no qualms about saying that this is blatant misinformation. However, I want to talk about it a little and explain to the millions of Quebeckers and Canadians who are watching right now what these scare tactics are all about. The word “censorship” is one that has been coming up a lot. People are talking about a law that is going to censor Quebeckers and Canadians and undermine their freedom of speech. If we stop for a second and think about this, we realize that a person would have to be totally disingenuous or a complete conspiracy theorist to believe that, here in Canada, in our current system, a government could impose censorship with impunity like they do in totalitarian states. Feeding that fear is an act of bad faith and intellectual dishonesty. I am not sure that that is very healthy. It may be politically advantageous, but that is another issue. People wrote to us with concerns about the control the government will have over what we can see online and what it wants to ban from being seen online. Bill C‑11 does not say that the government will be able to force people to binge Les filles de Caleb on the weekend. Bill C‑11 seeks to have content produced by creators from here, to showcase stories from here, that our culture and the talent of our creators have their place on streaming platforms. No one is saying that people have the right to watch or not watch this or that. No one is preventing any content from being streamed. I have lost track of how many times I have heard about the manipulation of algorithms. Web giants talked about it at committee meetings. It was like we were asking those companies for the recipe to build a nuclear bomb. It was a bit excessive. I do not think that anyone at the CRTC is going to tell Spotify to open its code so they can mess with it. That is just silly. However, we need to give the CRTC the latitude and the tools it needs to ensure that the objectives are met. Traditional radio used what were known as logger tapes. For younger folks, such as the member for Thérèse-De Blainville, these were reels that turned at very slow speed and recorded 24‑7. It was easy because radio programming was a continuous broadcast on a single frequency. Obviously, the same mechanism cannot be used with online platforms. However, it is important that the regulator responsible for verifying that the objectives are being met actually has the means to verify that they are, in fact, being met. Algorithm manipulation should therefore not be permitted. It is essential to keep the door open to allow future verifications, if this is how verifications must be done. Then, there is the age-old issue of infringement on freedom of expression. I do not understand how anyone could believe that we could pass laws that literally infringe on freedom of expression. For some, any attempt to address disinformation and ensure that people have access to reliable, verified information amounts to an infringement on freedom of expression. We are certainly going to hear about it at length when we debate Bill C-18, but freedom of expression will not be violated by Bill C-11. In any case, a law passed by the government that would infringe on freedom of expression obviously would not stand up in court and would be quashed very quickly. I do not see a problem with imposing discoverability obligations, obligations to promote Quebec, Canadian, French-language and indigenous content, and to showcase the distinct nature of the Quebec nation and of Canada on the online platforms of digital giants. I came up with what I thought was a useful analogy. For those opposed to regulating GAFAM, the major online broadcasting companies, I will present the following analogy. Imagine if, instead of offering cultural content, these businesses were serving food. Would there be any objection to these food service companies being subject to the same health regulations that traditional restaurants are? I doubt it. I doubt there would be any objection if the rules set by MAPAQ, Quebec's department of agriculture, fisheries and food, which apply to restaurants, were also applied to any business that serves food. Even though we talk about a free market on the Internet, there are limits that must be applied there as well. I thought that was an interesting analogy for illustrating the importance or relevance of regulating online businesses as well. I do not want to spend all day debating this. We have debated it extensively, and we are at the stage where we want to come to an agreement as quickly as possible and return this bill to the Senate so that it ultimately gets approval. Then we can move on to the much-anticipated implementation stage of this bill, which is eagerly awaited by the entire cultural community and by broadcasters. However, I am going to move an amendment in closing. It is an amendment to the amendment moved yesterday by the member for Lethbridge. My amendment to the amendment is as follows: that the amendment by the member for Lethbridge be amended by replacing all the words after the word “that”; the motion be amended by adding to the last paragraph “further calls on the government to establish a process for consultation with the Quebec government so that Quebec's specificity and the unique reality of the francophone market are adequately considered by the CRTC” and recalls that the federal Status of the Artist Act respects Quebec's jurisdiction and is consistent with Quebec legislation on the status of the artist.

2012 words

All Topics

Feb/16/23 5:46:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-232

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to rise today to speak to Bill C-232, which seeks to designate April as Arab heritage month. This is also a good opportunity to recognize the outstanding contributions that Arab Quebeckers make to Quebec society and culture and to direct the focus back to the Arab community, which certainly deserves to be recognized for all that it does for our community. I commend my colleague for introducing this bill, which seeks to make April Arab heritage month. There are all sorts of Bloc members. Should we cue the tumbleweeds? One may be gullible or slow, while another may be educated, but all of us are open-minded, welcoming and generous. I think it is important to remind members of that because, although we may be open-minded, welcoming and generous, we also hold certain fundamental values. We have a vision for living in harmony that is different from that of the rest of Canada, and I feel the need to remind the House of that often by rising to speak. I think that these differences are worth acknowledging. They are not better. We are not better. We are different. I like to remind members of that occasionally, and this bill gives me the perfect opportunity. The bill refers to Arab Canadians in general, but I think a distinction should be made between Arab Canadians and Arab Quebeckers. I will begin by saying that we hear a lot of different things about Quebec's Charter of the French Language. We hear about it these days in other contexts, but I do not want to talk about that. Let us just say that people often insinuate that it has bad intentions and harmful effects. However, it is extremely necessary to enable the French language to survive, flourish and reverberate, to keep French in Quebec alive. Quebec's charter has also had an extremely positive impact on many francophones and francophiles around the world. Think, for example, of people who live in generally miserable conditions in certain francophone countries where democracy is often non-existent. Quebec appeared to them as a haven of peace, as a destination where they could put down roots and rebuild their lives in a more welcoming environment. Thousands of Arabs who came to settle in Quebec did just that and made Quebec better over the years. Arab Canadians and Arab Quebeckers certainly do not have the exact same history, especially since the Quiet Revolution. As I was saying, the adoption of the Charter of the French Language and this particular tie that unites Quebeckers of all origins means we have a common history and we are enriching a common culture through the French language. Of course, Quebec and Canada's respective national realities have had an impact on how successive waves of immigrants have been welcomed over the decades. While Canadian immigration laws and policies have been applied throughout Canada and influenced the pace of Arab immigration in what could be called the golden age of immigration, Quebec's explicit desire to strengthen its ties with Maghreb countries and to promote francophone immigration, which it has been expressing since the Quiet Revolution, has necessarily had an effect on the trajectory of Arab immigration to Quebec that sets it apart from the rest of Canada. The linguistic and cultural factor is enough to preclude equating the journey of Arab Quebeckers with that of Arab Canadians. In fact, they do not integrate into the same society. Immigrant populations that settle in Canada outside Quebec integrate into Canadian society, in other words, into the English Canadian majority. Much good may it do them. Immigrant populations that settle in Quebec integrate into Quebec society, which is a totally distinct society. I will not get into that. They also integrate into the Quebec nation, meaning the francophone majority. There are historical factors that explain why many Arab populations already share francophone culture. It is only natural that the integration pathway differs depending on whether it is experienced in Quebec or in Canada. It is quite possible, and even desirable, to recognize the cultural heritage of Arabs in Quebec and Canada. That is why the Bloc Québécois intends to proudly and happily support Bill C‑232. Not all people of Arab origin need to assimilate, however. We would like to make a distinction between those who have settled in Quebec, in the francophone part of the country, thereby enriching the francophone culture, and those who have settled in the rest of Canada. As I said, there is no doubt that the Bloc Québécois is eager to support this bill. We will be celebrating Arab heritage month in April. I will repeat what I have said on previous motions and bills of a similar nature aiming to designate a certain month, week or day as a time to highlight the exceptional contribution of a particular community to Quebec and Canada. I hope this month of April will henceforth serve to highlight everything that has contributed to the enrichment of our respective cultures, both in Quebec and in Canada. What is the point of designating an Arab heritage month if we do nothing with it, if we do not use it to educate people, to promote the community, to forge links and to build bridges? I would like to point out that the first Arab immigrant to Canada arrived in Montreal in 1882. His name was Ibrahim Bounadère and he was Lebanese. Why did he choose to settle in Montreal? Actually, he first went to New York and, when he got there, he heard that people in Montreal spoke French. In those days, people spoke French in Montreal. He was delighted about that and decided that that was where he would settle. The rest is history. I will close by congratulating my colleague for introducing this bill.

992 words

All Topics

Feb/9/23 1:05:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying that I am not the star of this part of the show. I am merely opening for my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, and I am honoured to do so. I love Quebec. I had the good fortune and great privilege to travel the continent in my previous job, and I have visited places around the world for pleasure. Everywhere we go, when we say we are from Quebec, people are curious. What is the deal with Quebec, anyway? Why will it not just melt into the English sea of North America? What is up with that place, where people do not eat the same foods or wear the same clothes as people in the rest of Canada? Just look at the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. He toned it down today, but he usually dresses to impress. What is going on with this province, where the vast majority of artists would rather work in their own language than tap into the riches of the anglophone market at their doorstep? The entire nation steps up to demand that Quebec's artists get the space they deserve on our radio stations, on TV, in our theatres and on streaming platforms. Bill C‑11 was briefly discussed earlier. My colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles talked about it in his speech this morning. Bill C‑11 really highlighted the difference between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Whereas the cultural industry and community in Quebec mobilized to defend the distinct nature, specifically, of French language and culture, the rest of Canada had other concerns and opposed the bill for different reasons, reasons relevant to the rest of Canada. That is fine, but it proves once again that there are major differences. I will continue to talk about those differences. What about this nation where women marry without taking their spouse's name? That is, when they do get married because fewer people in Quebec marry than in the rest of Canada. It is not because we are not beautiful or not in love. It is simply that we do not think the same way. It is a nation where parents, increasingly, give their children their mother's last name. That is quite new. Abroad, people ask us what everyone thinks about the fact that Quebec rejects the exploitation of fossil fuels in favour of renewable energy and that it prefers electric cars to pickup trucks that are too large for our needs. How does one manage a nation that wants to protect its language and culture, its fundamental values and its societal model at all costs? That is often the crux of the issue. We have differences of opinion on what integration should look like, on what society should look like. Quebec is open, but it also requires openness from those who want to integrate. We are not talking about openness to the point of forgetting oneself and melting into a homogeneous lump. No, that is not what we want at all. What we want is an openness to the fundamental values that form the bedrock of Quebec's society: equality between men and women, the separation of church and state, and French as the official language and as the common language. Some members of the House may not know this, but Quebec has a declaration that immigrants who want to settle there must agree to abide by. It reads as follows: Québec is a pluralist society that welcomes immigrants who come from the four corners of the earth with their know-how, skills, language, culture and religion. Québec provides services to immigrants to help them integrate and participate fully and completely in Québec society in order to meet the challenges of a modern society such as economic prosperity, the survival of the French fact and openness to the world. In return, immigrants must adapt to their living environment. All Quebecers, whether they are native-born or immigrants, have rights and responsibilities and can freely choose their lifestyle, opinions and religion; however, everyone must obey all laws no matter what their beliefs. The Québec state and its institutions are secular; political and religious powers are separate. All Quebecers enjoy rights and freedoms recognized by the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and other laws and have the responsibility of abiding by the values set forth in them. It then goes on to talk about common values. I named three of them earlier. The principal values set forth in this Charter, which are the foundation of Québec society, are as follows: Québec is a free and democratic society. Political and religious powers are separate in Québec. Québec is a pluralist society. Québec society is based on the rule of law. Women and men have the same rights. The exercise of human rights and freedoms must respect the rights and freedoms of others and the general well-being. Québec society is also governed by the Charter of the French language, which makes French the official language of Québec. Accordingly, French is the normal and usual language of work, instruction, communications, trade and business. These are important reminders that should be made as often as possible in the House, because we have noticed that people tend to forget. It is not us who forget them. We remember them all too well. It is no secret that the reason behind the resurgence of the current debate on the notwithstanding clause has a lot to do with Quebec's recent use of section 33 in the case of a bill that deals with the French language and state secularism. Public debate often comes back to the path Quebec has taken over the past 75 to 80 years. In fact, it was in the 1960s that the differences really started to be more strongly felt. The affirmation of Quebeckers, the affirmation of their values, is the desire to have their values and their vision of society recognized without embarrassment, without shame. We broke free from something. It was a long process, but we broke free. We wanted a secular society with religion on the sidelines, because the Catholic Church held sway over Quebec society for far too many decades. We wanted a society where the Church did not meddle in everything. I am a child of that generation. I studied in a religious school in the 1960s. I was an altar boy. We went to church every Sunday, sometimes more often, depending on my mother's mood, so I completely understand why Quebec society evolved the way it did, an evolution that led to the removal of religion from the affairs of the state. I am not talking about people rejecting religion. People have the right to practise their religion. In Quebec, everyone thinks that everyone has the right to believe in what they want, but these beliefs and religious convictions are practised in private. It is not something that is practised in any public services offered by the government. When we understand and clearly explain this evolution, we also understand Quebeckers' vigorous protection of the separation of church and state. The problem is that as the years go by, those who have witnessed this evolution are being heard less and less. Therefore, it is even more pertinent today not to fall into the trap of wedge politics. This seems to be the Prime Minister's approach. I will cite an example from yesterday, when we heard him say that the Bloc Québécois does not give a damn about francophones outside Quebec. How shockingly insulting. I will come back to Bill C‑11, the former Bill C‑10, a bill that the Bloc Québécois worked on with francophone associations across Canada, Acadians from New Brunswick and francophones outside Quebec across the country, to present with one voice the importance of promoting all of Canada's francophone culture in our broadcasting system. Hearing that yesterday was an unacceptable insult. Let us not fall into the trap of allowing ourselves to be divided. Avoiding that is the only way to build a society in which we can collaborate despite our differences. We certainly have differences. Regardless of the kind of society we develop over time, whether it is within a somewhat functional Canada or within an independent Quebec that will be a good partner and a good neighbour, we will have to learn to keep the lines of communication open, to talk to one another, understand one another and respect one another if we want to work in a productive and intelligent way. Failing that, it will be a constant battle. To hell with populist rhetoric, and to hell with misinformation. As I said, the notwithstanding clause, although not there to be used all the time, is an important tool for preserving Quebec's vision for a secular society and for preserving and protecting Quebec and its core values, values that may offend some people who might not understand Quebec's reality.

1539 words

All Topics

Feb/9/23 12:48:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is my turn to congratulate my Liberal colleague on his speech. I asked my colleague from Trois-Rivières a question earlier, and I was expecting his answer. I will say that quite candidly. I would like to ask my colleague opposite the same question. Quebec is recognized as a nation in its own right with its own language, culture, values and model for living in harmony, which is different. This model often needs to be defended because it is misunderstood and not always respected. If this notwithstanding clause were not in the Constitution, which we did not sign, by the way, what would Quebec have left to protect its values and its vision for living in harmony? I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

135 words

Feb/9/23 12:29:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the only thing to do at this point is to throw my colleague from Trois-Rivières a softball. He gave an excellent speech, I have to say. Perhaps my colleagues are not too eager to rise and speak because his speech was so eloquent and powerful. I would like to ask him whether he thinks Quebec's specificity, distinct identity and way of living together in harmony could be preserved without the existence of the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian Constitution.

85 words

Context: House Hansard - 150 - Jan/31/23

Feb/9/23 11:14:12 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the speech by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. Let me just say I have no problem with him having an opinion about the subjects the Bloc Québécois brings up on its opposition days. His opinion is fine, but it does not actually matter. Personally, I find the motion we put forward for debate today much more interesting than calling for the cancellation of the carbon tax seven times and being shot down every time. People have to listen too. There was something else about his speech that I found pretty special: the way he likened the Bloc to the Liberals. The member talked about Bill C‑11, and that got my attention. The Bloc Québécois will always defend Quebec's interests above all else, regardless of who is with us or against us in doing so. In this case, our position is slightly more in line with that of the Liberals than that of the Conservatives, who are spewing all kinds of lies and misinformation to scare people about Bill C‑11. To be clear, the purpose of the bill is to defend Quebec's interests and Québécois and francophone culture in Quebec and Canada. Today, we are talking about the notwithstanding clause. I would like to know if my colleague agrees that Quebec and the provinces should be the ones to decide whether or not to use the notwithstanding clause, which is one of their prerogatives.

263 words

Context: House Hansard - 140 - Dec/2/22

Jan/31/23 11:15:55 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague opposite on her speech and particularly for saying a few words in French near the end. That is always appreciated. It was very kind. I thank her for that. We have heard this before. Quebec already has a child care system that has been in place for a long time. It was implemented by Pauline Marois, who was the Quebec education minister in 1997. This is not the kind of thing that can be set up overnight. It is something that is built up and improved over time through trial and error. We are improving our system from year to year. If there is one thing that Quebec does not want to see with something like this that is working relatively well, it is federal interference. There are several recent examples of that with passports and employment insurance. Those are well-documented fiascos. We also do not want to see the federal government put its big paws all over Quebec's child care system. The federal government and Quebec reached a financial agreement that would enable Quebec to opt out of the system with full compensation. That was good to see. It would enable Quebec to use that money for other things. However, that was in the previous version of the bill; it has not been included in Bill C-35. Does my colleague agree that the bill should be amended to specify that Quebec can opt out with full compensation? What are her thoughts on that?

255 words

Context: House Hansard - 122 - Nov/1/22

Dec/2/22 12:47:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-23

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying what an honour it is to speak after my colleague from Repentigny, who shines every time she speaks. She humbles us. She makes us realize how much more work we have to do and that there is still a long way to go. I congratulate her on her speech and thank her for sharing her time with me. I want to say that it is also a privilege for me to deliver my first speech before you, Mr. Speaker, distinguished among the distinguished. I am also pleased to speak to Bill C‑23, which touches on a subject that interests me greatly and that concerns me. It deals with heritage, heritage protection and heritage preservation. First and foremost, and we will come back to this because it is perhaps a little lacking, it talks about the recognition of heritage. Bill C‑23, an act respecting places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and natural heritage, encompasses many things. Real concerns pertaining to this issue of preserving cultural heritage are emerging and drawing attention around the world. Earlier this fall, in late September, I had the opportunity to take part in Mondiacult, UNESCO's major conference on culture. I took the opportunity to invite the Minister of Canadian Heritage and some other colleagues—or maybe it was the other way around, I do not remember exactly who invited whom. In any case, Mondiacult was a fantastic conference, bringing together 150 countries that unanimously signed a declaration. One of the things the declaration said was that the text adopted by the states defines a set of cultural rights that should be taken into account in public policies—and this is very important—ranging from the social and economic rights of artists, to artistic freedom, to the right of indigenous communities to safeguard and transmit their ancestral knowledge, and to the protection and promotion of cultural and natural heritage. My colleague from Repentigny, whose praises I sang earlier, said herself that recognizing indigenous heritage is a first step. I am quite happy to see that Bill C-23 takes that step. I hope that this step will lead to others, because we still have a long way to go. I must also recognize the work done leading up to Mondiacult, this huge UNESCO conference I was talking about. There were months of preparation by the officials of all these countries, organizations and stakeholders from different sectors related to culture. A lot of preparation was done and it was clearly a great success because the declaration was adopted unanimously in the end. A few months later, we have before us this bill, which includes themes that were highlighted at this major Mondiacult conference. We can say for once that the government is walking the talk. I want to recognize that. Clearly, UNESCO's commitment was motivated by the urgency to protect vulnerable heritage. There was an awakening as a result of the many conflicts around the world over the past few years, and also terrorism, as well as wars like the one we are seeing with Russian aggression in Ukraine. There was a realization that special attention must be paid to certain heritage treasures that have become extremely vulnerable as a result of these conflicts. I am talking about conflicts, but we can also talk about climate change, another topic that is very important to my colleague from Repentigny. Many of these historic sites that are global heritage treasures are at serious risk because of climate change. There has been a heightened awareness of this over the past few years. People have realized that if we do not take action, if we do not do anything about this, we are going to lose them when they could have been saved if we had done more sooner. Obviously, this realization uncovered a host of factors that reveal that our cultural and heritage properties are in jeopardy. One of these factors is trafficking. There is an appetite for smugglers, for dishonest people. What is more, there is a clientele for this, which is rather sad. Just recently, nine artefacts from Petra, Jordan, were recovered. Some of them were from the neolithic era. These are priceless items. One would think that smugglers went to Jordan to steal those artifacts and then sold them to collectors of illicit, illegal and rare objects. One would also think that such things really only happen in a few banana republics or in some kind of dictatorship, but that is not at all the case. These artifacts were found in the United States. That is something that caught the attention of stakeholders at the conference and study days that took place in Mexico. The question was asked what could be done, as a country, to combat this problem, and the desire to do so was there. Once again, I think that Bill C‑23 is a small step toward finding a solution to protect our heritage properties and historic treasures. Bill C‑23 meets the expectations of indigenous nations as formulated by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It proposes a new Historic Sites and Monuments Act, 1985. I like that. It also proposes to restructure the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada by clarifying powers that are still symbolic and clarifying the ability to legislate on offences committed in various national parks. I also think that is a good step forward. It will come as no surprise to anyone that Quebec is ahead of the curve when it comes to heritage protection. Indeed, in Quebec, heritage buildings are protected by the cultural property act and are listed in the Répertoire du patrimoine culturel du Québec. Municipalities play a role in protecting heritage as well. This means that Quebec has given itself the means to protect heritage properties and monuments, not just to designate them as such. Meanwhile, in Ottawa, they receive a designation, they are recognized, they receive some protection from a few rules, but it seems to me that we could put a little more teeth into how we take action. Things are not perfect in Quebec. That is why I say that we must not let our guard down. Often, people still have to be militant and protest against the possible demolition of an old heritage house because, even though it may be magnificent, the owners do not have the means or the resources to maintain it. I will make another aside. Members may call me “Mr. Aside” if they want, because that seems to be a habit with me. I remember some extremely interesting conversations I had with Robert Julien, the mayor of Saint‑Guillaume in the riding of Drummond. He cares deeply about preserving Quebec's villages. I know this happens across Canada, but, in Quebec, there is a distinct identity associated with villages. It is all about the old houses, the streets, the way these villages are built. Mr. Julien says that protecting a building is all well and good, but that we also have to protect the integrity of these villages because they tell the story of our past. This is not something we do naturally. We are not in the habit. It is not in our nature to communicate, to bear witness, to share knowledge of our history and our heritage and to pass it on to future generations. It is something we have to learn to do, and we are, gradually. We designate commemorative days, days set aside for remembering this, that or the other thing. We remember that we have to remember, so we do, and then we move on. Those days need to mean something. We have to find other ways to convey that awareness of our heritage, of our historic places and monuments. That happens through education, through teaching, through sharing our history. We have to get our children interested and we have to get future generations interested in the importance of preserving these remnants of our past. Let me share a short anecdote. I went to summer camp when I was young. At the camp, there was a Native American totem pole. The totem pole had obviously been carved into by young campers over the years. The camp got a new director who was outraged by this, and rightly so. Instead of lecturing the kids, instead of punishing them and trying to protect the totem pole, he brought in an elder from an indigenous community. He was from a Huron-Wendat nation, I remember. He came and told the kids at the camp about the significance of first nations history and the ways first nations shared their history. The totem pole, which is actually a tradition that comes more from nations in western Canada, is one such way. I looked into it again a few years ago and spoke with the camp director. He told me that from then on, every year, he invited an elder from a first nation—it was the same one for several years—to come and speak to the kids. The totem pole has never been vandalized since. It is by communicating, educating and teaching that we will one day have heritage assets that will have the respect and reverence they deserve.

1570 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 82 - Jun/6/22

Nov/1/22 2:02:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the curtain fell on the Québec Cinéma gala in 2022, with its last broadcast on Radio‑Canada. This is a sad and, I believe, ill-advised decision. Obviously, it is not up to this Parliament to decide on public television programming, and I am not about to tell Radio‑Canada decision-makers what should or should not go on the air, but as a proud Quebec film buff, I am concerned. I am concerned when an opportunity to showcase Quebec cinema is shut down, when our creators, talented and brilliant creators, are no longer recognized for their work. I am concerned that people are quietly disconnecting from our culture. The Québec Cinéma gala was an extraordinary showcase that Radio‑Canada has shattered without any consideration for our artists, our cultural milieu and our film industry. When something does not work, it should be fixed and improved, not destroyed. This decision is unfortunate, but it is not too late to correct it. The Quebec film industry deserves much better.

181 words

Jun/6/22 11:43:14 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-246 Bill C-14

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his eloquence and his knowledge, which he always very generously shares with us. I would have liked to listen to him for a few more minutes, but the time has come to close the debate on this bill, which I had the honour of introducing on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. Throughout the debates, we saw that there were two different understandings of Bill C-246. In good or bad faith, and I would tend to say more often in bad faith, people have pretended they do not understand what is at stake. They ignore or dismiss the fact that what Quebec is asking for is not a whim or anything outlandish; it is also not intended to pick a fight, but rather to ensure appropriate representation in the House of Commons based on recognition of the Quebec nation. I would remind you that this recognition comes with obligations on both sides. It comes with obligations for Quebec, and it comes with obligations for the federal government. I heard many of my colleagues cite the maritime provinces or Saskatchewan in the discussion on fair representation in the House of Commons. It is true, appropriate and correct. There are mechanisms in place to maintain a minimum number of MPs in parts of Canada that would otherwise be inadequately represented. I am thinking for example of Prince Edward Island and the territories. What differs from the measures in place for some Canadian provinces and territories is that Quebec is a nation. I am not making this up: It was unanimously recognized by the House of Commons more than once and in more than one way. The federal government recognized the Quebec nation in 2006. It was a motion introduced by Stephen Harper, not the Bloc Québécois. In 1995, Jean Chrétien, the most Liberal of prime ministers, recognized the concept of distinct society. In particular, and this is a very important difference, he said that the House of Commons must take this fact into account in all of its decisions. That is important. In June 2021, in response to a Bloc Québécois motion, the House of Commons recognized French as the only official language and the common language of the Quebec nation. My point is that recognizing Quebec's status as a nation comes with political obligations, and others as well. For example, Quebec's autonomy must be respected when it comes to development-related decisions. The government must also respect the fact that, on occasion, asymmetrical agreements must be signed based on Quebec's specificity. Quebec's distinctiveness and Quebec society's interests must also be taken into account by the federal government when developing legislation. This is somewhat related to what I was saying earlier with regard to the idea put forward by the Liberal Prime Minister at the time, Jean Chrétien. It is quite understandable that, this year, the Bloc Québécois is determined to defend Quebec's interests. I repeat, Quebec must have appropriate representation, in keeping with its status as a nation. Last fall, when the Chief Electoral Officer announced that the new distribution of seats for the House of Commons would result in Quebec losing a seat and falling to 77 seats instead of 78, the Bloc Québécois swiftly opposed that outcome. I will acknowledge that the other parties also recognized that it did not make sense. On March 2, on our opposition day, we moved a motion calling not only for the number of seats not to be reduced, but also for the protection of Quebec's political weight with a 25% threshold. With 266 members of the House voting in favour, the motion was adopted with a very strong majority. Then the Liberals show up with Bill C‑14, which is a half measure that only protects the number of seats. That is not enough. To protect the Quebec nation, its uniqueness, its identity and francophone culture, which is in decline in North America, not just in Canada and not just in Quebec, we need something stronger, and we need to protect Quebec's political weight. That is why I invite all of my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C‑246.

738 words

All Topics

Jun/2/22 1:30:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-14

Madam Speaker, maybe the reason nobody said anything during the member for Kingston and the Islands' speech is that we were all speechless as we watched him dig himself deeper and deeper into a hole. The member spoke at length and in great detail about the Bloc Québécois opposition motion we voted on on March 2. He said the Bloc Québécois is frustrated by the outcome of its opposition day vote and is responding to defeat by trying again. That motion said that any scenario for redrawing the federal electoral map that would result in Quebec losing one or more electoral districts or that would reduce Quebec’s political weight in the House of Commons must be rejected. That day, we won the vote. We did not lose. Two hundred and sixty-one members of Parliament voted in favour of our motion. Who were some of those 261 MPs who voted in favour of it? The member for Kingston and the Islands, for one, and the member for Winnipeg North, for another. The member for Kingston and the Islands could answer my question by simply apologizing and saying that he did not understand, or that he never understands what we are voting on, or that he simply has no credibility. Those would all be good answers, and I will let him choose one.

233 words

All Topics

Jun/2/22 12:46:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-14

Madam Speaker, I have two quick points that I feel are valid. I could have been handsome or intelligent. Unfortunately, I am neither. I am trying to see the link between the passionate speech by my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and the Bloc Québécois's proposal to broaden the scope of Bill C-14 and study it at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. There may be a link, but I need some clarification. Second, I do not mean to be critical of my colleague's passionate style, but I would very respectfully like to point out that he is speaking very quickly and that the interpreters are sometimes having a hard time following. It is very important for us to be able to properly hear his comments.

138 words

All Topics

Jun/2/22 12:35:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-14

Madam Speaker, I am going to take the liberty of passing the puck to my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. He can decide whether it lands on his stick or his skate; it depends how he takes it. We are trying to make the Liberals understand that the Bloc Québécois does not want to pick a fight. We just want to maintain Quebec's political weight and representation in Parliament. That is the rationale for the 25% representation that Quebec is requesting, which is the same ratio that was entrenched in the Charlottetown accord, as my colleague mentioned. When asked about this, the Liberals repeat that they have already given Quebec what it wanted, 78 seats. However, they set that number without considering representation, which is still at risk based on demographics and the gradual increase in the number of House seats. I would like to hear my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie offer his opinion and expertise on the Liberals' attitude. They do not understand what we are trying to say when we demand that Quebec's political weight be maintained in Parliament.

194 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 77 - May/30/22

Jun/2/22 12:07:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-14

Madam Speaker, that is just amazing. I think there is a picture of my colleague from Winnipeg North beside the definition of “bad faith” in the dictionary. In fact, I am eager to check the latest edition to make sure. The hon. member for Winnipeg North speaks of the maritime provinces, and I think that is good. I think it is a magnificent region of Canada. It is wonderful to visit. However, I am trying to remember when in history Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland, for example, were recognized as nations. I would like to remind my colleague that the goal, the idea and the intention of what the Bloc Québécois is proposing is that we walk the talk. It has been recognized that Quebec is a nation. It has been recognized that Quebec has its own identity, an identity it must protect, and that it should be given the tools to protect its unique identity and its values. That is precisely what we are talking about today. Can my colleague tell me in a few words whether, yes or no, he understands the importance Quebecers place on this principle of defence—

199 words

All Topics