- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Joliette
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $132,165.46
- Government Page
- Feb/9/24 1:22:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is always good to see you in the chair. Thank you for that.
I also want to thank the hon. chief government whip for her speech and her open-mindedness on this issue.
Earlier, the member for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation mentioned the importance of having the choice to publish papers in either language, French or English.
The problem is that there are very few scientific publications in French, and the few that exist disappear one after the other.
I would like to ask the hon. whip if the continuously decreasing number of French-language scientific publications is cause for concern in her view. Should the government try to address this?
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank and I congratulate my friend and colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for all the work he is doing to defend and promote French in the House within our party, but also for all the work he has done all his life with various organizations. He has made this his life's mission, and I salute and thank him for it.
Bill C-13 contains some good measures for Acadians and francophones outside Quebec. We welcome that, and we support it. For the first time, the government is recognizing that French is under threat, including in Quebec. That is a first, so we applaud it. However, at the same time that the government is saying that French is threatened in Quebec, it is spending $800 million on English to encourage the anglicization of Quebec.
Does that not expose the utter hypocrisy of the Liberal government?
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I want to point out that his French is very good, and tell him that I really appreciate the fact that he gave part of his speech in French.
I was also impressed with the quality of his speech and the research and thought that went into it. Like him, I recognize that Bill C‑42 is a step in the right direction, but that there is still much to do to tackle money laundering, crime and the use of tax havens.
My colleague raised certain concerns. He spoke about possible amendments to be made to Bill C‑42 to improve it. I would like him to present them again and provide a brief explanation.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have a comment for the parliamentary secretary. I would like him to ask himself some questions. Why does the Bloc Québécois feel it has to filibuster the Standing Committee on Official Languages to slow the passage of the official languages bill? Because the Liberal Party, this government, with the support of the third opposition party, opposes amendments put forward by Quebec to protect French and stop its decline in Quebec.
Ever since Confederation, the number of French speakers outside Quebec has declined so precipitously that they are practically the stuff of legend. Nothing in Bill C‑13 would change that reality. The use of French will continue to decline in Quebec. Fewer than 50% of the people on the Island of Montreal—one in two—speak French. The main reason for that is the Official Languages Act and its policies that support English in Quebec at the expense of French.
161 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/23/22 1:11:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yes, we would have preferred to be in our ridings to celebrate our national holiday, but as elected representatives, obviously we have a duty to be here in Parliament to debate.
We would have preferred that this debate on extending the hybrid model take place at another time. There was no need to rush this motion through. We could have had this debate in the fall, especially since the work was going smoothly.
The less debate there is in the House, the better off the government is, because it is not held to account. However, that is not why we are here. As for the bird names, they are often considered insults in French.
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/23/22 1:00:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today, June 23, and tomorrow, Quebeckers will gather to celebrate. I invite everyone to proudly celebrate our national holiday. The large celebrations in Quebec City and Montreal will be held tonight.
In my riding, we will be celebrating this evening in Joliette, Saint-Charles-Borromée, Notre-Dame-des-Prairies, Rawdon, Crabtree, Saint-Michel-des-Saints and Sainte-Marcelline.
After two years of the pandemic, this national holiday is a very good occasion to get back to proudly celebrating together our love for Quebec and for our national language.
The 188th celebration will bring people together and inspire them. This year's theme is “One Language, a Thousand Accents”, which refers to the immense richness that our beautiful language contributes to Quebec culture and identity. Quebec society is vibrant, innovative and open to the future. We want our nation to develop in French. In that regard, I want to quote Michel Tremblay from today's edition of the Journal de Montréal:
I looked for a new argument to warn against the danger to the French language in Quebec. It seemed to me that everything had already been said and repeated. Then I remembered the last verses of Émile Nelligan's Vaisseau d’or: What has my heart become, thus set adrift at sea? Alas, that ship has sunk in an abyss of dreams! We must not let the French language sink in an abyss of dreams; we must make it flourish, we must make it prevail.
I would also like to take a moment to quote Gilles Vigneault, who was also published in the Journal de Montréal:
Language is like a country, both nomadic and sedentary!
Words, like its inhabitants, travel around the world.
If you recognize them, if these are your words,
They are your passport; this is your country!
Everyone's country is a strange thing
That sleeps through the long winter, like a rose in the garden, only to wake up in the spring, after I'd nearly forgotten about it
Creating a garden that is both numerous and singular
It is, simultaneously: house, garden, ship,
The ocean, the fountain and the tree and the paper.
No sooner had these words come off the pen
Than I heard the wind. A tacking sail
Is inviting me to prepare for a long journey...
What do words offer to the entire planet,
In space and time, where borders don't matter...
Should we leave at night or at daybreak?
The smallest window becomes a mirror in the dead of night
And reflects back to me the words I need to know myself.
At dawn...we have to believe someone is waiting for us, somewhere. Lutetia, Athens, Rome...are they part of my history?
The word LANGUAGE, immense and deep territory, will tell me where I come from, where I'm going...so I'm off!
Before I quoted those two giants, a few moments ago I said “we will be celebrating” in my riding. However, I probably cannot include myself in that “we”, because we here in the House are likely to be sitting late again tonight.
The thing is, in Quebec, local, national and federal elected representatives usually attend the celebrations. It is a perfect opportunity to meet the people we represent. I will not be able to do that this year. We will not be able to do it after two years of a pandemic. We asked the government to wrap things up earlier this afternoon by adopting the Friday schedule, but it refused. The Leader of the Government had zero interest in accommodating our request. Why? Because we have to debate this motion.
The government wants to extend the hybrid Parliament by a year. It seems to think this is a pressing issue that we cannot just discuss when we come back at the end of the summer. This government and its leader stubbornly opted to prevent Quebec members from celebrating our national holiday with our constituents. That speaks volumes about the Liberals' respect for Quebec. That is how Canada recognizes the Quebec nation. We will remember this.
Throughout the spring, the government has been ramping up the number of gag orders to get bills passed quickly. The House did not have to sit late tonight. However, the government and its leader do not care about my nation. I think it is best to describe this government with bird names, which is about all it deserves: mockingbird, cuckoo, woodcock, dodo, cuckold, chicken, tufted tit-tyrant, little bustard, horned screamer, smew, turkey and vulture. I will stop there, even though it is deserving of more.
Their insensitivity is not unrelated to the fact that this session has been marked by a clash of values between the federal government and Quebec, as well as by the ineptitude of a Liberal party that is struggling to keep the government functioning at the most basic level. The Prime Minister has made it official: He intends to attack Quebec's Bill 21 on state secularism, as well as Quebec's Bill 96 on the protection of French.
He introduced a bill on official languages that does not protect French in Quebec but instead protects the right to anglicize federal workplaces. He condoned reducing the political weight of the Quebec nation in the Parliament of Canada.
This government embodies the clash between the values of Canada and Quebec on every issue. We in the Bloc Québécois will continue our work, which is now more essential than ever, to defend and promote Quebec's interests.
This session made it clear just how incompetent the federal government is. If governing means looking ahead, the passport crisis paints a picture of a worn-out government caucus that is struggling to provide even basic services to Quebeckers.
The number of Liberal ministers who have been in the hot seat at the end of this session because of embarrassing mistakes is worrisome. This government is incapable of being proactive. It would rather make grand gestures in front of the camera than ensure the sound day-to day management of the country's affairs.
What is more, the Liberals seem to have knowingly lied to Quebeckers and Canadians about the greenhouse gas reduction targets and invoking the Emergencies Act at the request of police.
We asked for more powers for Quebec in the area of immigration from an unwilling government.
We noted the resistance of federal parties to state secularism when we proposed abolishing the prayer in the House.
We raised the debate about ideological criteria being imposed on funding for scientific research, which the government refused to consider.
The Bloc Québécois voiced the concerns of Quebeckers on gun violence, in particular by introducing Bill C‑279 to create a list of criminal organizations when faced with a federal government that has a lax approach to gun trafficking and organized crime.
We also advocated for the environment in a Canadian Parliament that, in the midst of the climate crisis, supports the Bay du Nord oil project.
We also continued to fight for increased funding for health care and the abolition of two classes of seniors by increasing old age security for people aged 65 and over.
If the Liberals wanted to convince Quebeckers that they have everything to gain by looking after all their public matters themselves, they would not go about it any other way. They used the artificial majority they gained with the NDP's support to oppose Quebec. Quebeckers have taken note. We will remember.
1277 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier for his fine speech.
I would like to hear his comments and analysis about the fact that the government chose to appoint a unilingual anglophone lieutenant governor in our country's only bilingual province. New Brunswick subsequently took this matter to court, and the Liberals are going to fight it before a judge. The government says that future lieutenant governors will always be bilingual, and yet it has just appointed an anglophone to the position.
When it comes to respect, what message is being sent to the people who speak French in New Brunswick or elsewhere in Canada?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as Guy Rocher said, in order to protect the French language these days, we need to pay close attention to these technological changes and legislate accordingly. We see the government trying to do this for new media, and so on. The work is moving very slowly, since there is a lot of opposition.
I think that an independent Quebec could make much stronger legislation to better protect the French language. I keep coming back to the numbers. French is declining in Quebec. French is declining outside Quebec. This government, regardless of its political stripes, is setting French back.
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the statistics show that French has been declining in Canada both outside and inside Quebec for years and decades. Since Quebec is the only place where French is still the majority language, the only logical solution to stop this decline and this assimilation is independence. Independence would allow us to be masters in our own house and to promote the French language in America in a state that allows the French language to flourish. Francophones outside Quebec would have a better ally than they have now, because the frogs are dying off as the water gets hotter.
French is in decline. No language policy, inside or outside Quebec, has changed anything. This is the only logical solution.
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention.
Obviously, there is an entire framework with the digital technologies that can be put in place to promote our francophone culture.
With regard to Bill C‑13 and the entire policy that does not apply to Quebec, I propose that Bill 101 be the legislation to apply to federally regulated businesses, and that the $100 million sent annually to the anglophone minority in Quebec be paid instead to francophones in the rest of Canada, because we can see that the share of French is in decline in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.
The money needs to be better allocated, that might help.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to respond to my friend, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
When we look at the statistics, French is in decline in Quebec. What we see is reflected in the bill. Some $100 million annually is given to the anglophone community, while that community is growing. What is in jeopardy in Quebec is French, which is in decline.
In fact, when we talk about languages in Canada, there are three major problems. First, as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said, there are indigenous languages. We have to tackle the problems in order to properly support them. Then there is French outside Quebec and, finally, French in Quebec. English in Quebec is not at risk, it is growing.
When we look at the past few years and the past few decades, we see that the share of French outside Quebec is in decline. Have the policies and support in place been enough? The numbers speak for themselves: French is in decline. When we look at what is happening in Quebec, the statistics show that French is declining there too. Are the policies in place enough to protect French in Quebec and outside Quebec? The answer we are getting from the statistics is no.
Bill C-13 is nothing special. There will be no revolution. Things will continue as they are. We understand that the aim of the government, regardless of its political stripes, is assimilation, the gradual disappearance of the French language. That is what is happening. French is in decline outside Quebec and in Quebec. It is working, so well done. That is the goal. If that is not the goal, we are dealing with incompetents who have no common sense. I think the government is incompetent in many areas, but not in this area.
In Quebec, francophones thought that their province was the only place where francophones were still in the majority. The only solution that can stop this decline in our nation is independence. I want to reiterate a message of unwavering solidarity to all francophones outside Quebec and reassure them that Quebec will always stand with them. They are all our brothers, our sisters, our cousins. The same goes for all the indigenous peoples throughout Quebec and Canada. They are our brothers and sisters.
My colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île, who is by far the greatest expert on the matter in the House, Quebec and Canada, mentioned frogs. People often call francophones frogs. If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will jump out right away. It will not allow that to happen. However, if you put a frog in a pot of cold water and turn on the heat, the water will slowly heat up. The frog will not realize that the water is too hot until it is too late. I get the impression that that is what is happening to francophones in Canada, both inside and outside Quebec. At first everything is okay. Then they are not so bad. Then they get worse, and when things get really bad and we finally realize it, it is too late. It is not too late for Quebec yet, but we see that the proposed bill will not change anything.
The only solution is independence. I work in economics. If we were masters of our own house, we could have leverage, tools and all the rest. It is important to remember the basic principle of two peoples and two cultures. The only way to protect French and to keep it alive in North America is to declare our independence. If we look at what the government is doing, we see that things are regressing in Quebec and outside Quebec. The numbers prove it. I can only conclude that the goal is assimilation.
I want to quote something that was said by the great Guy Rocher, a key player in the Quiet Revolution and co-author of Bill 101. His remarks were published in Le Devoir five years ago and reprinted in other newspapers for the 40th anniversary of Bill 101. This summer, the bill will be 45 years old and nothing has changed.
Here is the text:
Bill 101 is a national law. It is linked to the identity of the Quebec nation because it addresses the heart of that identity—the French language. Bill 101 has contributed to this identity, and continues to do so, but in a socio-political context that has evolved, one that is no longer that of 1977 and now requires us to rethink our language policy in Quebec.
The Charter of the French Language did not magically appear on the Quebec political scene. It came into being over several years; it has a history. Without invoking a distant past, don't forget that the Bill 101 of 1977 is intertwined with the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s. Indeed, Bill 101 is a direct result of the “Maître chez nous”, masters in our own house, which meant so many things. This phrase was intended, above all, to express the idea that the state and the community would take charge of our Quebec economy, regain control of our natural resources and keep the revenues for ourselves.
But, more deeply, “Maître chez nous” implied the affirmation of a Quebec identity that would replace the French Canadian identity. It was at the height of the Quiet Revolution that this transformation took place. French Canadians became Quebeckers, which at the same time lent an inclusive connotation to our name, so that every citizen of Quebec would feel like a Quebecker.
This transition to the Quebec identity was a prelude to Bill 101. It was certainly an essential condition. It would give Bill 101 its national meaning. The identity function borne by this law originated in that fundamental dimension of the Quiet Revolution.
The other change brought about by the Quiet Revolution, which is also part of the context of Bill 101, is the transformation of the Quebec government. From 1960 on, it became more interventionist in economic, social and cultural matters. It contributed directly to promoting the economic interests of Quebeckers and Quebec society. It took charge of the entire educational system, financially and pedagogically, and created a ministry of culture. It was in this same vein that Quebec lawmakers began to legislate language policy.
From 1967 to 1977, Quebec went through a major language crisis, the most significant in its history. Ten pivotal years in the modern history of Quebec, when Quebeckers were searching for what they were, for what they are. The catalyst for that crisis appeared in early 1968 as a threat to the francophone community: the almost systematic anglicization of children of immigrants, through their large-scale enrolment in English schools rather than French ones. One might say that this choice could easily be interpreted as a rejection of French schools and, as a result, of the French-speaking community in Quebec and its culture.
The freedom to choose a school became a major issue. The question was simple: Should Quebec parents of all origins, whether old-stock or immigrants, be given a free choice between English and French schools? Or should access to English schools be restricted to the English-speaking minority in Quebec? This dilemma inflamed minds and divided public opinion, leading to major street demonstrations and confrontations.
In this climate of turmoil, the Quebec legislator twice tried to calm the situation, but without success. In 1969, Bill 63 entrenched the freedom to choose a school, which outraged the francophone majority. In 1974, Bill 22, which required language tests for immigrant children to attend English schools, outraged the English-speaking minority and ethnic communities. To understand Bill 101, its spirit and its substance, we must place it in the context of the language crisis of 1967 to 1977. The surprise election of the Parti Québécois to power on November 15, 1976, was part of this crisis: it was largely opposition to Bill 22 that brought the Parti Québécois to power.
I just read the first part of the piece. Guy Rocher goes on to say that, 40 years later, many things have changed and we need to think about that.
First, we must design language policy today “for a Quebec that has experienced globalization in all its forms, especially culturally”.
Second, “in 1977, the English language was dominant by virtue of history, the history of colonization by Great Britain”, but, today, “American English has spread as the language of communication well beyond the borders of the Commonwealth and is [very] attractive to Quebeckers”.
Third, “information and communications technologies have exploded, mainly benefiting English over all other languages”.
Fourth, “the status of French no longer strikes a chord with enough Quebeckers to worry political leaders, despite all the signs of the growing fragility of French”.
I will continue to talk about Guy Rocher's words during questions and comments.
1524 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
He spoke about his riding and a town called Gravelbourg. My butcher told me that members of his family established that town a long time ago. He remains in contact with his family who lives there. It is a small world.
French is declining, especially in Quebec. To better protect French, Quebec is asking that Bill 101 apply to federally regulated businesses in Quebec. Does my colleague agree with that?
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
