- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Drummond
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $108,134.67
- Government Page
- May/23/24 2:57:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today we are debating federal interference in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. One striking example concerns research chairs. The federal government is meddling in higher education and dictating which fields of study our universities must prioritize if they want to receive their share of funding.
Worse still, with its equity, diversity and inclusion, or EDI, criteria, Ottawa is deciding not only what people will study, but also who will teach it. Ottawa is literally taking over our universities.
Why does the government not let universities decide who to hire, based on their qualifications and nothing else?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/16/24 2:40:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are 32 members from Quebec who support the will of Quebec's National Assembly. By supporting the challenge to Quebec’s Act respecting the laicity of the State, Ottawa is really challenging our model for living in harmony.
Quebeckers want the separation of church and state. We have moved on. I am sure this is not easy to understand for members who fight to ensure that the House begins with a prayer every day. However, Quebeckers have chosen secularism. Religion is private and the state is public.
I would like a straight answer from the minister. Why is his government opposed to secularism?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona for being so concise.
On this February 15, before I begin my speech, I would like to salute a few illustrious people, namely François-Marie-Thomas Chevalier de Lorimier, Charles Hindelang, Pierre-Rémi Narbonne, Amable Daunais and François-Stanislas Nicolas. We think of these persons today, as we have done every year on February 15 since 1839.
The bill we are discussing today is a very simple bill. What we are really asking is that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act be amended to ensure that Quebec is systematically consulted when the CRTC puts in place any regulations that would have an impact on Quebec culture.
It is a short bill involving one very simple amendment. Earlier I listened to my Conservative colleague recount the events that followed the passage of Bill C-11. When Bill C-11 was almost ready to be passed, the Conservative Party released a letter that was sent to the government, the Liberal Party, to the heritage minister at the time. That letter set out Quebec's specific demands with respect to Bill C-11, which reformed the Broadcasting Act.
I would like to provide a bit of context. With a little good faith, I think that my Conservative colleague will lend credence to what I am going to tell the House. The Conservatives unduly delayed and blocked the bill in committee for a very long time. Quebec had demands and it was not consulted during the study of the bill, at least not formally.
By the time Quebec's demands finally arrived, the bill was about to be passed. Does that mean that the demands therein were illegitimate? No, not at all. Realistically, however, it was too late to reopen the file in committee and go back to the drawing board, so to speak.
If my Conservative colleague had the slightest understanding of how the Government of Quebec operates in this kind of situation, he would not have talked about having Quebec's minister of culture and communications, Mathieu Lacombe, appear before the committee. If he had the slightest understanding of how the relationship between Quebec and Ottawa works, he would know that Quebec government ministers do not testify in committee. They have a nation-to-nation relationship with Ottawa. They speak minister to minister. Ministers from Quebec do not appear before committees. He should know this, but he does not. It was much more dramatic to take the letter and say that the Bloc and the Liberals do not listen to Quebec. He said the Bloc did not listen to Quebec, did not listen to cultural groups and did not listen to groups in Quebec's broadcasting sector during the study of bills on broadcasting, online news and anything to do with Quebec culture. What a joke. It is funny, actually, so that is how we will take it.
That being said, we have here Bill C-354, which was introduced by my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île. This bill addresses one of the most important demands set out in that letter from Minister Lacombe and the Government of Quebec. This is a natural demand and Minister Lacombe was not the first to make it. Quebec's need, its desire, its demand to have its say in the decisions that are made in Ottawa and that have an impact on francophone culture and the French language dates back to 1929 and has been kept alive by successive Quebec governments.
The premier at the time, Louis-Alexandre Taschereau, saw this weird new technology called radio and thought that it needed to be regulated immediately. That is when a regulatory body was created to provide oversight.
To no one's surprise, instead of agreeing with what Quebec was doing and choosing to play a part in this regulatory body, Ottawa decided to do something else. It created the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, or CRBC, the current CRTC's ancestor. Both organizations were developed in parallel, as is so often the case, with a tiny intrusion into Quebec's jurisdictions. It seems that this was even more commonplace back then and that people did not complain as much. There was no Bloc Québécois to fight for Quebec in Ottawa.
Long story short, wanting to have a say in French-language communications and culture in Quebec is not just a Quebec separatist or nationalist thing. Liberal governments also asked for it, and so did Union Nationale governments. Even former minister Lawrence Cannon, who was a Liberal minister in Quebec before becoming a Conservative minister in Ottawa, asked for it.
This is not a demand being made by spoiled sovereignist brats who want to repatriate all powers to Quebec. This is a reasonable request to ensure that Quebec is consulted on decisions made by the next-door nation that affect the Quebec nation's culture.
We will be voting on Bill C‑354 in a few days. We are not asking for the moon. At the moment, we are not even asking for the right to immediately create a Quebec CRTC, which is also among Quebec's requests and the Bloc Québécois's plans, and quite reasonably so. For now, this is not what we are asking. For now, we are simply responding to a straightforward request from Quebec.
As my Conservative colleague said earlier, the Conservatives tried to promote this request themselves, but it was already too late in the Bill C‑11 process. I presume that the entire House of Commons will support this very reasonable request when we vote on this amendment to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act.
Bill C‑354 was introduced in response to a request from Quebec, the Government of Quebec and the people of Quebec, and I think everyone in the House should agree that Quebec and the provinces that are concerned about preserving French in some of their communities should be consulted when regulations are put in place that will have an impact on the French language and culture in those places.
1042 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I always find it interesting to listen to my Conservative colleagues bash the Liberal government—rightly so most of the time, and I am not suggesting that they are not good at it. However, rarely do we hear anything in the Conservatives' speeches other than criticism of the government's inaction or misdeeds. Rarely do we hear them come up with concrete solutions. There is $900 million of housing money sitting in Ottawa's coffers. It is earmarked for Quebec City to address the housing shortage.
Does my Conservative colleague agree that the federal government should hurry up and release this money unconditionally so that we can find housing for people who do not have a roof over their head and build housing to alleviate the crisis that is currently raging in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada?
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:44:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague from Yukon say that the occupation of Ottawa was over. Indeed, we saw excellent work on the part of the police on the weekend. However, if the occupation is over, what is the point of invoking the Emergencies Act?
I would also add that, if the government still thinks it needs to be invoked when a crisis like this one is on the verge of being over, I hope that the country will never go to war under a government like this one.
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 1:58:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I never thought I would do this, but I am going to pick up on what the member for Timmins—James Bay just said.
When will the Conservatives acknowledge that there is an actual threat that the police clearly do not have the means to contain?
When will they admit that the evidence is right in front of them, what with the weapons seizure in Coutts and the threats made right out in the open on social media?
What more proof does my colleague need to be convinced that the police are failing to contain the ongoing occupation here in Ottawa?
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
