- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Subcommittee on Review of Parliament’s involvement with associations and recognized Interparliamentary groups
Deputy whip of the Bloc Québécois
Member of the Joint Interparliamentary Council
- Bloc Québécois
- Manicouagan
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $175,049.14
- Government Page
- May/31/24 11:27:22 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is indicative of a culture problem within the Liberal Party. The whole purpose of the Standing Committee on Official Languages is to promote French in Canada. All the Liberals need to do is choose five of their 156 members who speak French and who want to protect the French language. That is all. Those are the only two criteria, but they cannot even do that.
Let us get back to the member for Alfred-Pellan, who is arguing in committee that English should become Quebec's official language. Why is he even there? Why is it so hard for the Liberals to send members who do not want to undermine French?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 11:26:01 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Liberals have transformed the Standing Committee on Official Languages into an endless source of reasons to be concerned for the future of French. After the Liberal member for Saint-Laurent said that Bill 96 prevents anglophones from receiving care, and after the Liberal member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell insulted researchers who are worried about the decline of French, yesterday, the Liberal member for Alfred-Pellan added that Quebec should become bilingual in order to be, and I quote, strong, not just a unilingual francophone province. In his opinion, the French language is limiting us.
Once again, is that the Liberals' position? If not, are they going to set their MPs straight?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/24/24 11:25:59 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have all weekend.
The Liberal calvary was out in full force yesterday to save the president of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, or APF. In what was basically an unprecedented situation, interpreters were needed at the meeting because many of the new members do not understand French.
We know the result. The president of the APF kept his position, despite the hurtful, scatological comments he made.
Does anyone in this government seriously think that this is helping the APF's credibility or that this incident has helped the French community here or elsewhere?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/24 11:25:56 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Liberal member from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell spent his 15 minutes of fame denying the decline of French in Quebec. It is an odd choice at a time when the Commissioner of Official Languages notes that it is from my colleague's region along the Ottawa river that he receives the most complaints, including from federal public servants who are unable to work in French. The commissioner said, “The complaints my office has received...attest to the fact that a number of federal institutions do not take their language obligations seriously.”
If the Liberals are not taking the future of French seriously, then why would the federal government?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/24 11:24:33 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the unfortunate thing about the insults uttered by the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell is that they overshadowed opportunities for a substantive conversation about the French language. While he was publicly humiliating himself, the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages went almost unnoticed. However, the commissioner harshly criticized the federal government, describing it as uncooperative. It it uncooperative when it comes to providing services in French and allowing francophones to work in their language.
Instead of insulting Quebeckers, should the Liberals not have announced this week that they are finally going to force the federal government to respect francophones?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I believe that he knows my love for indigenous languages. Aside from the emotional aspect, it is clear to me that language is part of our identity. Protecting indigenous languages is certainly as important as protecting French.
I would like to share a story. I read part of an Innu dictionary and quickly realized that it contained words that presented realities that I had a hard time understanding because I did not have access to the land, to this history with the land. A language is much more than a vehicle; it is an identity, it is the entire person. I know that in communities near where my colleague lives, there are young people relearning the Mi'kmaq language.
Naturally, I will always be an ally. I think we are all simply better for it.
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/22 2:07:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on October 13, 1873, Louis Riel, an iconic defender of the French language and champion of Métis rights, was elected to the House.
Louis Riel should be celebrated for his commitment to his ideals and his dedication to achieving them. He was a symbol of empowerment and a resistance movement that cost him his life. He was slain after Canada wrongfully convicted him. Louis Riel stood up to the federal government, which was trying to suppress the hopes and desires of an entire nation, the Métis nation. The Métis people simply wanted to be heard, to be recognized and to exist. There has been no relief from the injustice perpetrated against Louis Riel, as the federal government has yet to sincerely apologize for his execution.
The history of Louis Riel is intimately linked to the history of Quebec. The Bloc Québécois recognizes this. The affirmation of a nation, a culture and a language is certainly the most fundamental quest for a people seeking to achieve full self-determination.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 2:50:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the French interpretation was not available.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to say from the outset that French in Quebec and outside Quebec is alive and well.
In the House, I sometimes get the impression from some speeches that French is being dismissed as a dying language. People have brought up certain monuments from the past. I agree that we can be proud, but French is not a thing of the past and the Bloc Québécois can attest that it has a future. However, I think Bill C‑13 is a step backward.
I will explain what I mean, as some of my colleagues have, but perhaps on a bit more of a personal level. We all have a very close and personal connection to our mother tongue, and even to what I did outside the House. In my professional life, this was always very important.
I mentioned a step backward.
First there was Bill C-32, and today we are debating Bill C‑13. We can all agree that sometimes bills are two sides of the same coin. They do look somewhat similar. There is talk of urgency and improvements, but urgency is relative given that the Liberals decided in 2021 to shut down Parliament and call an election just after the Minister of Official Languages had introduced Bill C‑32. Some changes were made. I remember hearing a colleague say earlier that the previous bill was really quite extraordinary, so much so that they decided to rewrite it in the next Parliament.
We keep hearing about equality. To me, “equality” is a pretty strong term. It is not “equity” or “the possibility of equity”. I do not think Bill C‑13 is about equality. Even in terms of institutional bilingualism or individual bilingualism, I think it is a denial of the truth to say that bilingualism truly exists in Canada.
I could talk about my personal experience as a private citizen, and not just with the Air Canada example. Even though Bill C‑13 supposedly sets out to achieve “substantive equality”, this is still just a bill. As with any rights issue, there can still be a right, and the idea with that right can be equality, but in actual fact and in practice in real life, there has to be a lot more than that. A colleague talked about “teeth”, but I think that overstates what is in the bill. I talked about a step backward, so “teeth” is not really what we have here.
One thing the Bloc Québécois feels is important is the acknowledgement of a fact. I am not sure this particular fact is worth getting excited about, but the bill does acknowledge the fact that French is in a minority situation in Canada and in North America. We agree on that. These are just numbers, but at least there is that acknowledgement, and that is one step in the right direction, albeit a small one.
The Bloc Québécois often comes back to the issue of minority status. Quebec's French is the language of the minority in Canada and we stand by that. It is not the language of the majority. It is in Quebec, but it is still surrounded by English. I will come back to that later with personal examples. I believe it is important to talk about the minority status of French.
The Bloc Québécois naturally stands with francophones outside Quebec. Bill C‑13 does not have the same impact on communities outside Quebec as it does on those in Quebec. That could sometimes be a good thing for certain communities. I was thinking about what the Minister of Official Languages was saying earlier concerning the court challenges program. For francophone groups outside Quebec, it may be useful. However, in Quebec, it is the complete opposite. It is destructive.
With regard to Bill C‑13, the best approach would have been to respect Quebec and its choices. Only a nation can properly defend its own language. Language is the main vehicle for culture. It is a means of expression that is replete with history and meaning.
It is up to Quebec to protect it. Quebec knows best how to do that, such as with the Charter of the French Language. Here the feds are imposing a bill that conflicts with our existing mechanisms to protect and promote the language. They are forcing us to do all kinds of things. I have emphasized that repeatedly this week. The feds force a lot of things on us.
Earlier, I talked about denial. I could talk about something that rings totally false. The government's proposal will be harmful. We really want something asymmetrical, but that is not at all what this is.
I wish I could have talked about a lot of other things. I really could have used 20 minutes, but I will move on to something more personal. Anyway I think we all agree, and we have said it over and over: there is no way we can accept this.
I would have liked to talk about the differences between a right and a responsibility. In the case of Quebec, this bill enables federally regulated businesses to choose the language, whereas the charter says that employees must speak French at work. That is a big difference. It is night and day. Protection needs to take precedence over choice. If the choice exists, we will not be able to defend our language. Sometimes, people choose the easy way out, and the easy way out is Bill C-13.
That being said, I would like to talk about my own personal experience. My colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île specializes in languages, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé is a historian and my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert is an actor. My background is in the humanities. I enjoy literature. I am a literature professor. I worked in writing and publishing. My house is full of books. Of course, they are books of French literature, even though I also worked on British literature. The fact remains that, even though this was not a family trend, I somehow stumbled into the humanities and the language field. Every day, my thoughts turn to issues related to language, literature, culture and identity. Language is part of our identity.
I also have children. When one has children, they have a mother tongue. Of course I taught them French, but our children are not our children. That is the way it is; it is part of our existence. I have three children, one of whom is very small. He does not talk yet. I also have older children. Despite my efforts, all I see in their lives—this is a debate about territory, so I hope my colleagues will allow me this more or less accurate analogy—is like what the Romans did, but with English, which seeks to extinguish the French language right in our own homes. I am not against all these digital tools, but when I look at my children, I can see that, language-wise, it is no longer like it was in 1950, when people had to cross the border to swim in an anglophone sea. Now it is in our very own homes, so we really have to come up with some very strong measures.
I think of my son who is a gamer. He is bilingual, and I am glad he is. I speak several languages too. I speak a little German and Spanish. I studied Latin and Greek, and I speak French and English. I love languages. I see that he has become bilingual, but at the same time, I see how much languages change. I am talking about the written language, the spoken language and our relationship to language. Even though my kids are young, certain languages still dominate. In the concept itself, the idea of cultural domination means that one will assimilate the other.
The same is true of my daughter, through the use of social media, and I mean that in the pejorative sense. Sometimes she has no choice regarding what information she can access, even though the amount of information is astronomical. We have a huge encyclopaedia at our fingertips. She will end up becoming anglicized, too.
This will also be true for my little boy, with platforms like Netflix and everything he will have access to. Most of it is in English.
Everything I just described is really happening, and legislation like this is truly a complete setback. When we want to strengthen a language, and I am still talking about Quebec, we do not introduce legislation that goes against the will of a nation and against the will of a government. This would only weaken the language.
In my opinion, and my words will be harsh, this bill is an indirect linguistic assimilation policy for Quebec. When something cannot be done directly, it is done indirectly. I think Bill C‑13 is smoke and mirrors.
1543 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
