So V ote

Nov/30/23 5:53:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on a bill introduced by my Bloc Québécois colleague. We obviously agree with the principle that Quebec should be heard in this situation, and I will tell you why. We need to go back to last February when the Government of Quebec, through its culture minister, called on the federal government in Ottawa, the Liberal government, to listen to what it had to say and to consult about Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act. I will read the letter that Minister Lacombe sent to his federal counterpart. It says, “It is essential that the distinctiveness of Quebec and the unique reality of French-speaking markets be properly considered in Bill C-11 and in its implementation by the CRTC. In that regard, I want to reiterate our requirement that the act include a mandatory, formal consultation mechanism with the Government of Quebec for that purpose.” Furthermore, Quebec “must always have its say before instructions are given to the CRTC to guide its actions under this act when those actions could affect businesses that provide services in Quebec or the Quebec market.” That was from the letter that the Minister of Culture sent to his federal counterpart on February 4. The government's response? Radio silence. It eventually acknowledged receipt of the letter, but that is all. The government never stepped up to be proactive and hear what Quebec had to say on the matter. In fact, the National Assembly went so far as to adopt a unanimous motion calling on the House of Commons to consult Quebec in a parliamentary committee so that it might voice its demands with respect to Bill C‑11. Unfortunately, the Liberal government's response was once again complete and utter radio silence. We Conservatives brought the voice of the National Assembly to the House of Commons not once, twice or three times, but about 15 times. We did it right here during question period all the way from February 14 to March 7. My colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles and our political lieutenant for Quebec, and I asked the government 15 questions about why it was refusing to hear from Quebec in committee. Of course we did. When a national assembly speaks with a unified voice and a government demands to be heard, that is the very foundation of parliamentary democracy. People deserve to be listened to, all the more so when a government like the National Assembly and its 125 elected members demand to be heard. Of course they should be heard. They were not heard, however. It has been radio silence here, and nobody else has said a word either. That is too bad. We wanted Quebec to be heard during the consideration of Bill C‑11, but that never happened. However, my colleague for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles and I raised the issue in the House about 15 times during question period. We also took the debate to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage at its meeting last March 10, when I moved a motion specifically asking that Quebec be heard on this bill. Unfortunately, but predictably, the Liberal Party refused. Quite surprisingly, even the Bloc Québécois voted against the motion we brought forward at that meeting, which asked that we reconsider the bill and hear from the Government of Quebec on the matter, because the Senate had proposed quite a lot of amendments. Strangely, the Bloc Québécois did not vote in favour of our request. That is too bad. For these reasons, we certainly want to hear what Quebec has to say about its cultural distinctiveness, particularly in the context of Bill C-11. Speaking of which, let us keep in mind that yesterday, the government puffed out its chest and made a financial announcement that it had secured $100 million from Google. Interesting. That is exactly what the government could have gotten a year ago. That is basically what Google offered. In the end, it took a year to come up with pretty much the same proposal that Google had made. On the radio this morning, many people were wondering whether Radio-Canada would have access to the $100 million. The answer came this morning in parliamentary committee, thanks to my colleague, the member for Lethbridge, who asked specific questions to find out where things are headed. The minister quite clearly confirmed that Radio-Canada would be among the media receiving part of this sum, which is precisely the opposite of what the Quebec government was calling for again this morning through its culture minister, Mathieu Lacombe. Now we have a bill that has been introduced. However, the part of the conversation that cannot be ignored is the fact that we Conservatives have been asking for weeks and weeks for Quebec to be heard. The government refused to listen. We asked for this in parliamentary committee and, oddly enough, the Bloc Québécois voted against it, which was unfortunate. Now, however, the Bloc is introducing this bill. For us, it is important that linguistic minorities be heard and that provincial governments tell us what they have to say on the matter. These things are not mutually exclusive. It goes without saying that minority language communities must be heard. That is actually part of the legislation governing the CRTC, but we still need to go a step further. We must ensure that all avenues are preserved. New technology means that people can go anywhere. Earlier, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said that young people no longer watch television, or at least they do not watch it like we used to do. Now they can go on Spotify or on any other global platform. Indeed, this poses some challenges. That is why we need to pay even more attention to linguistic cultural minorities in every community and every province. I will remind members that we asked for Quebec to be heard. This is particularly important because we are talking about Quebec, which, as we know, is the home of the French fact in North America. As we know, the French language is currently vulnerable, and always will be. Now, with numbers to back it up, it is clear that French is under threat in the province of Quebec, particularly in Montreal, where more than half—or close—of the province lives. We must remain vigilant. We must wage a constant battle to ensure that Quebec does not lose ground. An editorial in Le Devoir said that Quebec should definitely have a voice in the study of Bill C-11. I would like to quote a February 16 editorial written by Louise-Maude Rioux Soucy, who said, “The National Assembly's unanimous adoption of a motion demanding ‘that Québec be officially consulted on the directions that will be given to the CRTC’ makes perfect sense”. That is exactly what we Conservatives have been asking for in the House and in committee, and the author of the editorial confirms it by saying the following: That is also the opinion of the Conservatives, the Legault government's objective allies in this inelegant showdown. It is up to Quebec to define its cultural orientations in order to protect its language, culture and identity. BIll C-11, like Bill C-18, which seeks to ensure the fairness and viability of the Canadian digital news market, cannot escape this imperative. Minister Lacombe is right to speak up. That sounds a lot like what we Conservatives have been saying for weeks and weeks here in the House and in parliamentary committee. This bill will obviously be studied in committee. It needs to be examined. There are a few items that need to be clarified. We believe that it contains a lot of vague elements and that definitions need to be incorporated. We will have the opportunity to delve deeper into the bill when it is studied in committee. In closing, I cannot overlook the extraordinary affection that our leader, the member for Carleton, has for the francophone community and especially for Quebec. I will quote from the speech he delivered at our national convention in Quebec City. He said: Quebeckers are fighting to preserve their language and culture.... That is why Ana and I are determined to speak French to our children and to send them to a French school. That is also why I voted in the House of Commons to recognize the Quebec nation. I will always be an ally to Quebec, the Acadian people and all francophones across the country. A less centralized government will leave room for a greater Quebec and greater Quebeckers. It was the leader of the official opposition who said that. I also want to note that for the leader of the official opposition, the member for Carleton, Quebec is a model that should inspire English Canadians. Once again, I will quote the speech he delivered in Quebec City. He said, “This business of deleting our past must end.” He also said, “And this is a matter on which English Canada must learn from Quebec. Quebecers—and I’m saying this in English deliberately—do not apologize for their culture, language, or history. They celebrate it. All Canadians should do the same.” Those are the words of the future Prime Minister with whom I am very proud to serve.

1618 words

Mar/9/23 1:41:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague. I worked with him previously, as we were both journalists. He worked for TVA and I worked for TQS. He had fewer viewers than I did, in Quebec of course. I should not have mentioned it because my friends at TVA will be upset with me, but we were number one when I worked at TQS. What the member said is quite true. However, I would like to remind him why we are so dead set against Bill C-11. It is because the federal government is giving itself all the power to dictate to the CRTC what will be allowed in the algorithms of digital platforms. We cannot accept that. I know that the member is a proud nationalist, that he is proud of Quebec. How can he accept such a blatant abuse of power by the federal government with respect to Quebec?

151 words

Mar/9/23 1:39:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, it is really incredible to see that a representative of a political party that was taken to task three times in 20 hours by unanimous motions of the Quebec National Assembly actually has the nerve to lecture those of us who did our utmost to defend Quebec's desire to be heard by a parliamentary committee. Why did the member and his party not rise to ask exactly what we, the Conservatives, asked, that Quebec be heard in committee? That is why we are in the House. That is our primary duty. Our sacred duty is to be able to call those who so wish to appear before a parliamentary committee, particularly when we are talking about the Government of Quebec. We, the Conservatives, want to hear from the Government of Quebec, but the Bloc Québécois does not. That is shameful.

148 words

Mar/9/23 1:37:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I would remind the House that I myself worked at Radio-Canada. Our party's objective is not to take money away from the CBC, because it is important to us that the CBC have the means to continue doing what it does, which includes disseminating the French fact throughout Canada. What concerns us about this is that the government wants to exert control. We can see how it already wants to control everything that goes on. Just imagine what will happen when it gives itself the power to control what the CRTC tells broadcasters. Again, I am not the one saying this. Professor Michael Geist said, and I quote, “No other country in the world seeks to regulate user content in this way, and it should be removed from the bill because it doesn't belong in the Broadcasting Act.” Will you remove this offensive clause that gives you all the power?

157 words

Context: House Hansard - 165 - Mar/7/23

Mar/9/23 1:27:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5 Bill C-11 Bill C-10

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to take part in this debate about how the Liberal government is taking excessive control over Canadians' choices. Let us not fool ourselves. This bill gives way, way too much power to the federal government, which wants to impose its vision on the choices Canadians make when they use the Internet to watch movies and documentaries and enjoy Canadian culture. The government wants to direct Canadians' choices by issuing orders to the CRTC. That is why we are fiercely opposed to this bill, which is a direct attack on people's freedom to choose whatever they want to see on digital platforms. We are not the only ones concerned about this. Many people who work in the industry are sounding the alarm. I will say more about that in a bit. For now, let us concentrate on what has happened in recent years. We have been talking about this bill for years. Some people keep saying that this needs to get done fast, it is urgent, people want this bill and it is taking too long to pass it. We have been accused of filibustering. The reality is that this bill has been delayed the most by the Liberal government itself. Previously, this bill was known as Bill C‑10, and it was introduced before the unnecessary election that cost $620 million in taxpayers' money. We had to carry out the study all over again. I am prepared to listen to the comments of those accusing us of talking for the sake of talking and other such things. That is political rhetoric. However, the reality is that those who have delayed the debate and passage of this bill the most are not the Conservative members. It is the Liberal government, which triggered an election and even prorogued Parliament to avoid the WE Charity scandal. The election essentially changed nothing. The government spent $620 million of public money to change absolutely nothing, and this delayed debate of the bill, which, at the time, was known as Bill C‑10, and which is now Bill C‑11. We are not the only ones in Quebec to have reservations about this bill. Indeed, the Quebec government wants to have its say on the bill. This is nothing new. Almost 11 months ago, on April 24, the Quebec government sent a letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage informing him of Quebec's major concern about the unprecedented power that the federal government was giving itself under clause 7. This clause gives the executive branch, meaning government and cabinet, the power to give the CRTC directions to dictate what Canadians will be able to watch, by creating algorithms for browsing online platforms. That is why the Quebec minister of culture and communications, Mathieu Lacombe, repeated that on February 4 in a letter in which he stated that it was “essential...that Quebec's cultural specificity and the unique reality of the French language market be adequately considered”, that “Quebec was the homeland of the French language and francophone culture in the Americas”, it was essential that it be heard. He also said that it was essential “to ensure that Quebec's legislative powers were recognized but that these conditions have not yet been met”. The Quebec government raised its concerns last April. Following that letter, the National Assembly adopted a unanimous motion asking the federal government to let the Quebec government have its say in committee. The federal government did absolutely nothing. The minister received the letter and could barely be bothered to send an acknowledgment of receipt. After that, as I said last week in the House, he stuck it on his bedside table, under a pile of other papers, and did nothing about it for an entire year. On February 4, 2023, Minister Lacombe got angry and sent the federal government another request, saying that time was up and that the Quebec government demanded to be heard. The Minister of Canadian Heritage did absolutely nothing. It is not for lack of trying on our part. The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, our political lieutenant for Quebec, and I asked not two, not three, not four, but 20 questions to make it clear that Quebec wanted to be heard on the matter of this bill. We asked 20 questions, and what did the Minister of Canadian Heritage do each time? He resorted to theatrics. He bragged and blustered, he gave a grandstanding response, but he offered nothing for Quebec. It is scarcely surprising that the centralizing Liberal government should take this approach. I could spend days and days reminiscing about how this government and all previous Liberal governments were eager to commandeer the provinces' political powers. In fact, we are currently seeing how the government has made a specialty of sticking its big fat nose into provincial jurisidictions, where it does not belong. It is not surprising that the government is doing that. However, it is disappointing to see the Bloc Québécois abetting this usurpation of ministerial responsibility and especially of Quebec's jurisdictions. These people get elected by saying that they speak for Quebec in the House of Commons and that they express the unanimous opinion of Quebeckers. They play up how important that is. Mrs. Dominique Vien: When it benefits them. Mr. Gérard Deltell: Madam Speaker, when it benefits them, as my colleague so aptly pointed out. What is really going on? While we, the Conservatives, stood up 20 times to ask the government to accommodate Quebec's request, the Bloc Québécois maintained radio silence. It is a fitting metaphor, since we are talking about the CRTC. It was radio silence, not a word. They were missing in action, nowhere to be found. Where is the Bloc when it is time to defend Quebec and speak for Quebec's National Assembly? They drop out of sight. Speaking of the Quebec National Assembly, do members know that, about a month ago, on February 5 and 6, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted three motions condemning the federal government's action? Do members know that those three motions were directly related to positions defended by the Bloc Québécois in the House on Bill C-5, Bill C-11 and the immigrants at Roxham Road? The last motion severely condemned the use of the term “all-inclusive”, which was said in the House by a member of the Bloc Québécois. We know that Bloc members recognized that it was not the best idea. They said it in the House. The Quebec National Assembly did not like that and adopted a motion condemning that statement. I was a member of the Quebec National Assembly. I, too, have had occasion, several times, to vote in favour of motions unanimously condemning an act of the federal government. This time, there were three motions in 20 hours, over two days, unanimously condemning the action taken by the federal government with the support of the Bloc Québécois. When the Bloc Québécois says that it is there to defend Quebec, defend the Quebec consensus and speak on behalf of the Quebec National Assembly in the House, it is not true. That is why we keep saying that it is very important to know how to protect the choice of jurisdictions. Why does Quebec stand up and want to be heard on this bill? This is essential in our debate: Clause 7 states that the government grants itself the power to give directives to the CRTC, which in turn will be responsible for the government's directives to then rework and give directives on the algorithms that will have to be processed by the public. This has many people concerned. That is why the Financial Post said in an editorial that if the government's bureaucrats were given the right to decide what content is imposed on Canadians there is a real risk that the government will be tempted to use its screening power to silence its critics. That is not good. Former CRTC chair Ian Scott said that he did not want to manipulate the algorithms. Rather, he wanted the platforms to do that so as to “produce particular outcomes”. That is how an expert sees it. A former head of the CRTC said that. That is why, as long as this government wants to give itself excessive powers to control what Quebeckers and Canadians have access to, we will be against this bill.

1461 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 164 - Mar/6/23

Mar/7/23 3:15:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, we know that this Liberal government likes to be in control. It clearly demonstrated that yesterday when it created a secret committee with secret hearings, secret evidence and secret findings. That is absolute control. This government is showing that same need for control with the CRTC act. However, there is one thing that this government cannot control, and that is Quebec's desire to be heard. Could the minister convene the parliamentary committee so that Quebec can explain its position?

82 words

Context: House Hansard - 163 - Feb/17/23

Mar/6/23 3:01:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, we, the Conservatives, stand up for Quebec and the provinces. Last April, the Government of Quebec sent a letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. What did the Minister of Canadian Heritage do with that letter? He went into his office, looked around to ensure no one was there, lifted his pile of files and put the letter at the bottom. He did nothing for one year. With the collusion of the Bloc Québécois, there has been radio silence. The Minister of Canadian Heritage is a seasoned parliamentarian. He knows that the best way to tackle a file is to bring people before a parliamentary committee. Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage persuade his Bloc friends to say yes to Quebec's demand?

129 words

Context: House Hansard - 163 - Feb/17/23

Feb/17/23 11:59:55 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the government to be a bit more consistent. First my colleague says that we are filibustering, and then he says that we have done nothing, that we are asleep. It cannot be both. In any case, what we have done is neither one nor the other. We have done our parliamentary work. As we speak, the National Assembly of Quebec is asking to be heard by this government on Bill C‑11, to ensure that Quebec has a voice. If the Bloc Québécois is okay with giving the federal government all of the power, that is its choice. However, we want Quebec to be heard. We have been asking for this for five days now. Will the government hold a parliamentary committee meeting to listen to Quebec and also to review the Senate amendments?

143 words

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

Feb/17/23 11:58:40 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec National Assembly has twice asked to be heard by this government on Bill C-11. However, with the Bloc Québécois's support, co-operation and complicity, the feds just do the work by themselves. The government is maintaining its extremely centralizing, unilateral and heavy-handed position of giving the federal cabinet more powers to tell Quebeckers what the CRTC will let them watch. Maybe the Bloc Québécois agrees with that, but we do not. Will the Bloc-Liberal alliance finally let the Government of Quebec be heard?

100 words

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

Feb/16/23 2:54:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, if the member, or rather the leader of the Liberal-Bloc Québécois party, wants to talk about a caucus, he should maybe look in his own backyard. I am not sure everyone is going to be in the photo of his caucus. I am just throwing it out there. There might be more Bloc Québécois members than Liberals. The reality is that the minister likes to bicker with the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc is not complaining because Quebec's interests must be defended. Will the minister agree to meet with the Government of Quebec in committee so that it can express its views on this bill that it does not like?

125 words

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

Feb/16/23 2:53:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, if the leader of the Bloc Québécois and Liberal Party alliance thinks it is taking too long, perhaps he needs a reminder that it was his own government that called an unnecessary election, which delayed the bill. Even back then, the Bloc Québécois was not interested. I will ask my question again: Can the Bloc Québécois and Liberal Party minister stand in the House and give assurances that Quebec will be heard at the parliamentary committee, as it should be?

95 words

Context: House Hansard - 161 - Feb/15/23

Feb/16/23 2:52:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, for over 10 months now, the alliance between the Bloc Québécois and the centralizing Liberal Party of Canada has scorned Quebec with respect to the bill on the CRTC. Ten months ago, the Quebec government asked to be heard. The Bloc-Liberal alliance refused to respond to that. The Quebec National Assembly voted unanimously on a motion to that effect just this week. There was even one a year ago, but with the complicity of the members of the Bloc-Liberal alliance, nothing was done. Time is running out. It is imperative that Quebec be heard. Will the Bloc-Liberal alliance agree to hear Quebec in a parliamentary committee, to hear what Quebec has to say and—

124 words

Context: House Hansard - 161 - Feb/15/23

Feb/15/23 2:59:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, who would have thought? Not only is the Liberal government no longer bickering with the Bloc Québécois, but now it is bickering with the Government of Quebec at the National Assembly. That is not what it means to speak on behalf of Quebec. The fact is that Quebec is the home of the French fact. The Government of Quebec and the National Assembly want to be heard in parliamentary committee. Could the new star of the Bloc Québécois, who happens to be minister of the alliance between the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party, stand up and assure Quebec that, yes, Quebec's grievances over this bill will be heard in parliamentary committee?

127 words

Context: House Hansard - 160 - Feb/14/23

Feb/15/23 2:56:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, there is more than a consensus in Quebec; there is unanimity. The National Assembly voted unanimously to demand that this government hear what it has to say on Bill C‑11. We realize that members of the Bloc-Liberal alliance may not have read the bill carefully. Clause 7 gives greater power to cabinet to direct the CRTC. This centralizes power at the federal level, and the Bloc Québécois is okay with that. Could the Liberal or Bloc minister, since it is hard to know which is which, tell the House that, yes, they will allow the Quebec proposal and the amendments to be heard in parliamentary committee?

115 words

Context: House Hansard - 160 - Feb/14/23

Feb/14/23 2:54:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the minister to be cautious. Listening to Quebec does not mean filibustering. It means being respectful of the will of the Government of Quebec and the Quebec National Assembly. While the Liberal government may be very happy with its new friends from the Bloc Québécois, which has become the centralist Bloc, and may be refusing to abide by the unanimous position of the Quebec National Assembly and Quebec's request, we, the Conservatives, want to have those debates. Will the government accept our proposal to send Bill C-11 to committee so that the committee can examine the Senate's definitive request and, more importantly, listen to the Government of Quebec?

121 words

Feb/14/23 2:53:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, how can a member from Quebec, a minister from Quebec, refuse to listen to the demands of the Government of Quebec? I understand that the purpose of Bill C‑11 is to centralize power in Ottawa, with help from the Bloc Québécois, which I might have to start calling the “centralist bloc”. Will the Liberal government and its Bloc Québécois buddies allow the parliamentary committee to study the Senate amendments and Quebec's legitimate request?

88 words

May/5/22 4:24:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. In our opinion, this bill does not properly assess the balance we must strike and the fair payment that must be made to all producers and broadcasters, without affecting content quality and creators' initiative, whether on YouTube or elsewhere. Damien, the musician I spoke about earlier, made us understand that.

58 words

May/5/22 4:22:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, that is a very important question. We have a different perspective on that. For sure, we all agree in this House, whatever party we represent, that we need to have a share of representation. If we want to have access to something, nothing falls from the sky, so we have to pay for that and the money should get back to where it belongs. If we want to have new products and good wages for that, we need to have a fair tariff. My colleague talked about Quebecor and TVA, and yes, they have an obligation to produce here. What we are asking is just to be sure that those who produce great-quality documentaries or something else have access to the same platforms that TVA and some others have. We have some concerns with how the bill is written right now, so this is why we are referring it back to the parliamentary committee.

157 words

May/5/22 4:20:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for his kind words. It was very nice of him. I want to take this opportunity to point out that the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles is the son of Antoine Desilets, one of the greatest, if not the greatest, photographers and photojournalists in Quebec. Antoine Desilets showed thousands of Quebeckers, Canadians and people around the world, since his books have been sold across the Francophonie, that it is possible to create beauty without words. He showed that it is possible to capture the moment in time with a camera. One of his photographs was seen around the world. If I am not mistaken, it was taken for UNICEF. My colleague can correct me if I am wrong. In response to my colleague's question, I will say that we need to take a big-picture look at this. As a former journalist, I think there needs to be some balance, allowing for healthy and productive competition among different media outlets but also ensuring that the people who truly need access to information can access it. I think this can be done in a way that allows for competition but does not hold any media outlets back. Earlier, I stated that Le Soleil, Le Devoir and other newspapers now use a paywall, which is appropriate. Obviously, people who are a little more careful with their money may say that they used to have access free of charge. That is true, but I would remind them that nothing in life is free.

269 words