So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 157 - Feb/9/23

Feb/16/23 4:40:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Kingston and the Islands. What does he think about the assault on Quebec's jurisdictions that the NDP motion is proposing today?

33 words

Context: House Hansard - 157 - Feb/9/23

Feb/9/23 12:29:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his question. We feel very strongly about the notwithstanding clause in the 1982 Constitution, even though Quebec has still not ratified it. This provision has ensured our survival, our identity, our culture and our distinctiveness all this time. Without this provision, we would drown.

55 words

Context: House Hansard - 127 - Nov/15/22

Feb/9/23 12:20:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when I began studying philosophy in 1992, the first problem we learned about was the notion of government of judges. Ten years after the charter was imposed on Quebec, we were talking about whether, ultimately, judges and unelected individuals should be making decisions, so this is not a new debate. Raise the subject of the notwithstanding clause in Parliament, and one can cut the silence with a knife. I know a French author who would have a lot to say about that. Let us start with a history lesson. Cicero explained that the verb derogare, which means “derogate”, is made up of the prefix de—to take away, as in “demystify”, “decommission” and “deodorize”—and rogare, which means “to ask”. The word “derogate”, strictly speaking, means “un-ask”. In other words, to get out of something. Oresme, another Latin-speaking philosopher who was also an astronomer, mathematician, economist, musicologist, physician, translator and theologian—rather like the members opposite—lived in the 1300s. He left us two legacies: the famous quote, “I know therefore that I know nothing” and the use of the word “derogatory”. One of the most difficult matters in all controversy is to distinguish disputes about words from disputes about facts. If we want to resolve the dispute about facts, let us first examine the words. I often say in the House that a word is a construct of sound and meaning and that sometimes that leads to confusion. Take for example, the word “secularism”. I know everyone will believe me when I say that, in the House, that word can have at least two meanings. When we use words like “secularism” or “derogation”, it is important that we be clear about what we are talking about. The word “derogation” refers to the repealing of an act or some of its provisions. We more commonly refer to the “notwithstanding clause”, which basically means the same thing. The Latin term non obstare means “to not stand in the way of”. The notwithstanding clause prevents the federal government from standing in the way of the provincial government, in this case the Government of Quebec. In every case, the notwithstanding clause constitutes a protection granted by the legislator, the original drafter, so as not to stand in the way of the future, society's progress or changes that occur over time. As soon as it was enshrined in the 1982 Constitution, which, as my colleagues will hear 32 times today, Quebec never signed, Trudeau senior himself thought that adding the provision in question was a good idea having foreseen the possibility of a government of judges. He even said the following, with a style that I will not even attempt to imitate, and I quote: I must be honest and say that I don’t fear the notwithstanding clause very much. It can be abused as anything can, but the history of the Canadian Bill of Rights Diefenbaker had adopted in 1960, it has a notwithstanding clause and it hasn’t caused any great scandal. So I don’t think the notwithstanding clause deters very significantly from the excellence of the Charter. It is a way that the legislatures, federal and provincial, have of ensuring that the last word is held by the elected representatives of the people rather than by the courts. From day one, the notwithstanding clause has given governments in the federation a window to express their choices, their preferences. It enshrined their right to do one thing rather than another without that choice affecting other members of the federation. I will now say the following to head off the question I am sure my colleague from Winnipeg North is going to ask. The notwithstanding clause allows the partners to compromise, strike a balance between individual rights and the collective rights of the different cultures in the federation. Let us take the high road without talking about the Chinese balloon. In terms of geography, Canada is a vast country. We all agree on that because it covers approximately 10 million square kilometres. If we were to move this immense territory to Europe, for example, which has an area of 9.9 million square kilometres, we would see that Europe has 56 sovereign entities. As members know, the area of Quebec is six times greater than that of France. In France's regions, in Burgundy or Alsace for example, the culture is different. The lifestyle and identity are different. Europe is made up of 56 entities. France is not Germany, Germany is not Finland and Finland is not Italy. In Canada, without the notwithstanding clause, everyone living in the 10 million square kilometre area would be treated the same way. It makes no sense. This does not recognize everyone's particular characteristics or at least those of certain areas. In my opinion, geographically speaking, Canada is a historical mistake. Following the European logic, some members would have come together and others would have separated. Quebec would be a sovereign state in the vast landscape of North America. The notwithstanding clause has somewhat made up for this mistake by providing a remedy when necessary. This provision makes up for the inherent imbalance or unfairness of a legislative text, which is a text frozen in time. It provides flexibility for members of a government, or of the federation, in cases not foreseen by the legislator. The opposite of inequity is equity, which is said to be a more perfect form of justice because it takes exceptions into account. Equity is like a line drawn according to everyone's concerns, while equality is a straight line. The notwithstanding clause creates equity, and it also ensures that we do not have a so-called government of judges. The elected are in control, rather than the appointed. Quebec is first and foremost about diversity and tolerance. It has a distinct history, culture and identity. A Polish philosopher I like very much, Maria Ossowska, argued that in relations between nations, one should be open-minded, courageous, intellectually honest and critical. One should speak responsibly—which is sometimes lacking in the House—and have a sense of humour. Above all, one should be decent and treat others as one would like to be treated. I conclude with this anonymous quote: “A treaty is an eternal commitment, but experience shows us that it is often convenient to renege on a commitment. The first time paves the way for the second, until there is nothing left of the word given.” That is kind of what we want.

1136 words

Context: House Hansard - 125 - Nov/4/22

Nov/15/22 11:54:56 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for giving us his perspective. I would like to ask him this. He brilliantly explained the risks that going in the direction of this bill would pose for Canada, but I would like him to be more specific and tell me whether this bill contains any measures that are good for Quebec. Let us forget about the rest of the country for a moment. What measures does this bill contain that are good for us and what does he think is important?

89 words

Context: House Hansard - 125 - Nov/4/22

Nov/4/22 1:21:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Madam Speaker, to reassure my colleague, Quebec does indeed mention that the right to privacy is a fundamental right. What is most important is that the Quebec act protects the data, no matter where it is used. It is protected based on the location of the individual. The laws apply in that place. At the same time, we do not only consider the size of the entity, but also the source of the data. These are minor differences, but they are important at a time when data is shared around the world.

92 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 102 - Sep/26/22

Nov/4/22 1:01:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by giving a shout out to my constituents in Trois-Rivières, whom I will be visiting all next week in my riding. When I talk to people on the street, privacy is a topic that comes up a lot. They know that I sit on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, and privacy comes up often. People tell me that it is important, that we must do our best to rise to the challenge. Today, we have the opportunity to debate that very subject. Society is a human construct. It is a reflection of how we organize our lives together. It reflects our vision of the world, the role of a citizen, the role of the state. In a democratic society where elected officials are chosen by the people to represent them, our laws must reflect our desires and the desires of our fellow citizens, as well as the way in which their visions can be realized. In other words, a society and its laws are eminently cultural constructs. When we compare the legislation passed in the House of Commons with that of the Quebec National Assembly, the difference is striking. Ottawa tends to emphasize the enforcement mechanism, whereas in Quebec, the emphasis is on the legislator's intent. Ottawa wants to arbitrate, while Quebec wants to prescribe and guide. When it comes to privacy, this is especially true in the digital age: the difference is dramatic. At one end of the spectrum, so to speak, is the United States. In the United States, laws are primarily intended to arbitrate disputes rather than to shape how the digital economy operates. Laws are based on the good faith of the players and on voluntary codes. As one might imagine, this has its limits. Ultimately, if someone is wronged, they can get redress through the common law. At the other end of the spectrum is the European Union. The legislation there prescribes clear obligations. I am referring to the General Data Protection Regulation, better known by the acronym GDPR. In between is Canada, a hybrid creature whose intentions on privacy oscillate between the European and American extremes. This may seem like an academic debate, but there are practical implications that bring us to Bill C-27. When it comes to privacy, European law is the most prescriptive in the world. It is based on a clear principle, namely that our personal information belongs to us and us alone, and no one can use it or benefit from it without our free, informed and explicit consent. Once the government set out that principle or objective, it then provided a mechanism for achieving it. That mechanism is the GDPR. The GDPR is becoming the standard to follow when it comes to privacy, because it is the legal standard with the clearest objectives and the most binding application. Simply put, the GDPR does a good job of protecting privacy. That is one reason why it is the standard we should be emulating; the other is that the EU is projecting its standard-making power beyond its borders. In order to protect the personal information of European citizens, the European Union will soon prohibit European businesses from sharing this information with foreign businesses that do not offer comparable protection. This does not affect us yet, but next year, the EU will be reviewing Canada's laws to see if they offer sufficient protection. The existing legislation on personal electronic information protection dates back to 2000. That was 22 years ago. We were in the dinosaur era, the pre-digital era, an era we barely remember now. Also, it is far from clear whether Canada passes the comparable protection test required under the GDPR. Information exchanges between Canadian businesses and their European partners could become more complicated. This is particularly true in areas that deal with more sensitive information, such as the financial sector. It is therefore absolutely necessary to redraft the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, which is completely outdated. It has not kept pace with technological change and the data economy, where we are both the consumer and the product. It has not kept pace with the legal environment, where Canada is a dinosaur compared to Europe, as I was just saying. Nevertheless, my colleagues will have figured out that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle of Bill C‑27. Nevertheless, I would like to make a general comment about Bill C‑27. For some reason, the government has put into one bill two laws with completely different objectives. The bill would enact the consumer privacy protection act and also the artificial intelligence and data act. Although there is a logical link between these two acts, they could be stand-alone bills. Their objectives are different, their logic is different and they could be studied separately. I have a suggestion for the government. It should split Bill C‑27 into two bills. We could create what I would call the traditional Bill C‑27, which would deal with personal information and the tribunal. Then, what I would call Bill C‑27 B would address artificial intelligence. As I was saying, there are logical reasons for that, but there are also practical reasons. Let me be frank and say that the artificial intelligence act being proposed is more of a draft than a law. The government has a clear idea about the mechanism for applying it, but, clearly, it has not yet wrapped its head around the objectives to be achieved and the requirements to be codified. The mechanism is there, the bureaucratic framework is there, but the requirements to be complied with are not. Apart from a few generalities, the law relies essentially on self-regulation and the good faith of the industry. I have often faced these situations, and I can say that the industry's good faith is not the first thing I would count on. Apart from a few generalities, this relies on good faith, but that is not a good way to protect rights. I am not convinced that this bill should be passed as written; I think it needs to be amended. Bill C‑27 probably deserves the same fate that Bill C‑11, its predecessor, encountered in the last Parliament. The government introduced it, debate got under way, criticism was fierce, and the government let it die on the Order Paper so it could keep working on it and come back with a better version. I think that is exactly what should happen to the artificial intelligence act. The government has launched a healthy discussion, but this is not a finished product. If we decide that the government needs to keep working on it and come back with a new version, we will also be delaying the modernization of privacy and personal information legislation. Given the European legislation, which I talked about earlier, that is not what the government wants to do. That is why I would cordially advise the government to split Bill C‑27. I am going to focus primarily on personal information protection because that is the part of Bill C‑27 that is ready to go and has the most practical applications. As I said before, Bill C‑27 is an improved version of Bill C‑11, which was introduced in the fall of 2020. However, Bill C-27 still does not establish privacy as a fundamental right. Bill C-11 was strong on mechanics, but weak on protection. The principles were also weak and consent was unclear. It was tough on large corporations and much less so on small businesses. When it comes to privacy, however, it is the sensitivity of the data that should dictate the level of protection, not the size of the company. A new start-up that develops an app that aggregates all of our banking data, for example, may have only two employees, but it still possesses and handles extraordinarily sensitive information that must be protected as much as possible. I cannot help but think of the ArriveCAN app, which was developed by just a few people but has a large impact on the data that is stored. Finally, Bill C-11 did not provide for any harmonization with provincial legislation, such as Quebec's privacy legislation. The Bloc Québécois was quite insistent on that. A Quebec company subject to Quebec law would also have been subject to federal law as soon as the data left Quebec. It would have been subject to two laws that do not say the same thing and have two different rationales. This would mean duplication and uncertainty. It was quite a mess. Passing Bill C-11 would have diminished, in Quebec at least, the legal clarity that is needed to ensure that personal information is protected. Here is what Daniel Therrien, the then privacy commissioner, told the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, of which I am honoured to be a member. He said, and I quote, “I believe that C-11 represents a step back overall from our current law and needs significant changes if confidence in the digital economy is to be restored.” He proposed a series of amendments that would make major changes to the bill. I want to commend the government here. It listened to the criticism. It is rare for this government to listen, but it did so in this case. It buried Bill C-11. We never debated it again in the House and it died on the Order Paper. It reappeared only after being improved. Bill C-27 shows more respect for the various jurisdictions and avoids the legal mess I was talking about earlier. Our personal information is private and it belongs to us. However, property and civil rights fall exclusively under provincial jurisdiction under subsection 92(13) of the Constitution of 1867. What is more, privacy basically falls under provincial jurisdiction. That is particularly important in the case of Quebec, where our civil law tradition leads us to pass laws that are much more prescriptive. Last spring, Quebec's National Assembly passed Bill 25, an in-depth reform of Quebec's privacy legislation. Our law, largely inspired by European laws, given that we share a legal tradition, is the most advanced in North America. As we speak, it is clear that Quebec has exceeded the European requirements and that our companies are protected from any hiccups in data circulation. Our principles are clear: Our personal information belongs to us. It does not belong to the party who collected it or the party who stores it. The implication is clear. No one can dispose of, use, disclose or resell our personal information without our free, informed and express consent. Bill C-11 challenged this legal clarity but Bill C-27, at the very least, corrects that. Under clause 122(2) of Bill C‑27, the government may, by order, “if satisfied that legislation of a province that is substantially similar to this Act applies to an organization, a class of organizations, an activity or a class of activities, exempt the organization, activity or class from the application of this Act in respect of the collection, use or disclosure of personal information that occurs within that province;”. In other words, if Quebec's legislation is superior, then Quebec's legislation will apply in Quebec. When I met with the minister's office earlier this week, I asked for some clarification just in case. Will a Quebec business be fully exempt from Bill C‑27, even if the information leaves Quebec? The answer is yes. Will it be exempt for all of its activities? The answer is yes. There is still some grey area, though. I am thinking about businesses outside Quebec that collect personal information in Quebec. In Europe, it is clear. It is the citizen's place of residence that determines the applicable legislation. The same is true under Quebec's legislation. It is not as clear in Bill C‑27. Since the bill relies on the general regulation powers for trade and commerce as granted by the Constitution, it focuses more on overseeing the industry than on protecting citizens. That is the sort of thing we will have to examine and fix in committee. I look forward to Bill C‑27 being studied in committee so we can debate the substance of the bill. I have to say that I sense the openness and good faith of the government. In that regard, I would like to tell the member for Kingston and the Islands to take note that, for once, I feel he is working in good faith. Bill C‑27 will have a much greater impact outside Quebec than within it, because it is better drafted than Bill C-11. That is not the only aspect that was improved. The fundamental principles of the bill are clearer. Consent is more clearly stated. The more sensitive data must be handled in a more rigorous manner, no matter the size of the entity holding them. That is also more clear. If the principles are clear, the act will better stand the test of time and adjust to the evolving technologies without becoming meaningless. We will support it at second reading after a serious debate, but without unnecessary delays. However, we believe and insist that the real work must be done in committee. Bill C-27 is complex. Good principles do not necessarily make good laws. Before we can judge whether Bill C-27 is indeed a good law, we will need to hear from witnesses from all walks of life. When it comes to privacy, it only takes one tiny flaw to bring down the whole structure. This requires attention to detail and surgical precision. The stakes are high and involve the most intimate part of our lives: our privacy. For a long time, all we had to do to maintain our privacy was buy curtains. That is how it used to be. It kept us safe from swindlers. Then organizations started collecting data for their records. Bankers collected financial information, the government collected tax information and doctors collected medical records. This sensitive information had to be protected, but it was fairly simple, since it was written on paper. Today, we live in a different world. Whereas personal information used to be a prerequisite for another activity, such as caring for a patient or getting a loan from a bank, it has become the core business of many companies. Information has become the core business of many companies, which are also large companies. Computerization enables the storage and processing of astronomical volumes of data, also known as big data. Networking that data on the Internet increases the amount of available data exponentially and circulates it around the globe constantly, sometimes in perpetuity, unfortunately. For many corporations, including web giants, personal data is crucial to the business model. Citizen-consumers are now the product they are marketing. To quote Daniel Therrien once again, we are now in the era of surveillance capitalism. Speaking of which, The Great Hack on Netflix is worth seeing. This is troubling. Furthermore, for our youngest citizens, the virtual world and the real world have merged. Their lives are an open book on Instagram, Facebook and TikTok. They think they are communicating with the people who matter to them, but they are in fact feeding the databases that transform them into a marketable, marketed product. We absolutely have to protect them. We need to give them back control over their personal information, which is why it is so important to amend and modernize our laws. I would like to close my speech with an appeal to the government. Bill C‑27 does a lot, but there are also many things it does not do, or does not do properly. Consent is all well and good, but what happens when our data is compromised, when it has been stolen, when it is in the hands of criminals? These people operate outside the law and therefore are not governed by the law. All the consent-related protocols we can think of go out the window. To avoid fraud and identity theft, we will have to clarify the measures to be taken to ensure that anyone requesting a transaction is who they say they are. This really is a new dynamic. In that respect, we are somewhat in the dark, even though, curiously, this is a growing problem. There is another gap to fill. Bill C‑27 provides a framework for the handling of personal information in the private sector, but not in the public sector. The government is still governed by the same old legislation, which dates back to the pre-digital era. The legislation is outdated, as we saw with the fraud related to the Canada emergency response benefit. The controls are also outdated. I therefore call on the government to get to work and to do so quickly. We will collaborate. Finally, there is another thing the government needs to work on and fast. We addressed this issue in committee when we were looking at the geolocation of data. Bill C‑27 indicates what we need to do with personal data, nominative data. However, with artificial intelligence and cross-tabulation of data, it is possible to recreate an individual based on anonymous information. As no personal information was collected at the outset, Bill C‑27 is ineffective in these cases. However, we started by recreating the profile of a person with all their personal information. It is not science fiction. It is already happening. Nevertheless, this is missing from Bill C‑27, both in the part on information and the part on artificial intelligence. I am not bringing this up as a way of opposing Bill C‑27. As I said, we will support it. However, we have to be aware of the fact that it is incomplete. As legislators, we still have some work to do. The time has come to treat privacy as a fundamental right.

3083 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 74 - May/18/22

Sep/26/22 11:10:29 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-238

Madam Speaker, it would be a mistake to oppose Bills C-13 and C-238, so I cannot agree with my colleague. Bill C-238 aims to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Official Languages Act, the Canada Business Corporations Act and the Citizenship Act. I would like to start by telling my colleagues that, when they vote on this bill, they will not be doing Quebec any favours. What they will be doing by voting for Bill C-238 is correcting a historical error and giving justice where justice is due. Everyone understands that Canada was founded by the French then conquered by the British a very long time ago. The two peoples have since lived together in times of peace and in more difficult times. Our history includes victories for some, and bitter losses for others. French Canadians became Quebeckers and chose to assert themselves, shouting until they were blue in the face that their culture, their identity and their language were precious to them. In 1977, under Camille Laurin, Quebec enacted the Charter of the French Language, also known as Bill 101. Bill 101 made French the official language of the Quebec government and courts. French was now recognized as the normal and everyday language of work in education, trade, communications and business. Bill 101 enshrined in law the fact that French was the language of the majority. The French language was precious and statistically a minority language within English-speaking North America. That is why it needed protection. Of course, not everyone was happy about Bill 101. Although it protected the anglophone minority in Quebec, which, incidentally, is the best-protected minority in Canada, the bill was challenged and cut back. Opponents tried to render it meaningless, and some of their efforts were successful. Now we are in 2022, and statisticians have confirmed that the French language is in decline in Quebec, especially in the magnificent island of Montreal. I remember walking with my son on Notre-Dame Street in the middle of Saint-Henri, a neighbourhood Yvon Deschamps described as a place where francophone workers and the poor lived and worked. I remember seeing that the snack bars had been replaced with Internet coffee shops with English names. A very nice student from Toronto who had come to work there as part of a French immersion program spoke to us in English and understood nothing of our “gibberish” as we spoke French. I asked for “un espresso, s’il vous plaît”, and he answered, in as friendly and innocent a manner as can be, “Sorry, I don’t speak French”. This experience was repeated throughout our walk down Notre-Dame Street. Not only was the street anglicized in terms of language, but also in terms of social context. We could have been in Toronto, or anywhere in the globalized world. There is not much difference between “un espresso” and “an espresso”, but, still, French did not seem to be important. Make no mistake: I have nothing against English. Rather, I am simply saying that I am pro-French. Coming back to the example I gave earlier, I find it curious that a student from Toronto who wants to broaden their horizons would come to Montreal, just to work in English in a café located in an area that was historically francophone but has since become primarily anglophone. So much for French immersion. Beyond the statistics pointing to the decline of French in Quebec, simply walking through the streets of Montreal confirms it. From Second Cup to Five Guys, my beloved French is suffering. It is important to understand that beyond fulfilling a simple communication function, language is also a political statement and, above all, a mindset. A bit of an explanation is in order. Let us start by asking the following question: What is language? It is, first and foremost, a matter of linguistics. Language must first be regarded as a system of signs connecting words, drawn from a lexicon and according to specific grammatical rules established by a syntax. Language is the ability to express an idea and communicate through a system of signs. This is where we have a problem. The rampant anglicization of Quebec society prevents people from thinking in French, creating in French and being French. Globalization, which made Céline Dion popular from Algeria to Indonesia, has also flattened cultures, all cultures except for one, the Anglo-Saxon culture. We were told that globalization liberated cultures whereas, in reality, it simply made people want to or have to live in English. Language is all about communicating and thinking. Globalization has brought with it the danger of what I call a single mindset, which occurs when what is essential is no longer distinguished from what is secondary, when far-reaching intellectual projects face the powerful inertia of pervasive mediocrity and small-mindedness, and when tastes and ideas become homogeneous. It is the very perception of existence that is at stake when we talk about a single mindset. English dominates the world and now serves as the platform for this single mindset. That is why we must resist. That is why we are studying Bill C-238 today. Six living Quebec premiers supported the Quebec government's motion to the effect that the French requirement should apply to federally regulated businesses in Quebec. The fact that it is not being applied is anachronistic and can only be aimed at exacerbating the decline of the French language. The former Bill C-223 proposed that those applying for citizenship in Quebec would need to possess an adequate knowledge of French. The fact that this requirement has not already been implemented is equally anachronistic and again can only be aimed at exacerbating the decline of the French language in Quebec. This is why the Bloc Québécois is categorically opposed to the federal government's attempt to supersede provincial legislation in Quebec with its own law. The federal government needs to recognize that the Government of Quebec must remain in charge of language planning within Quebec. Language is a fundamental aspect of the specificity and identity of the Quebec nation. This is the most important part: We must preserve French in order to preserve freedom of thought. That is why I suggest that members of Parliament right a historical wrong and vote in favour of Bill C-238.

1085 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 74 - May/18/22

May/18/22 6:12:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-14

Madam Speaker, if we allow Quebec's political weight to decline, there will be heightened vigilance. What is vigilance? Vigilance is keeping a close eye out to attenuate or avoid harm. We will have to be vigilant, especially with respect to the French language, culture and the economic Francophonie. Last weekend, I participated in a meeting to evaluate the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie's statutes. We had a chance to put some questions to a representative of the OECD, which is headquartered in Paris, and she told us about a set of principles on artificial intelligence. When we read the principles, I asked her who had done the work. She said that people from Egypt, Barcelona, anglophones and some people from Montreal, such as Mr. Bengio, had gone to Paris. I asked her what language people used to talk about the principles in Paris, and she said that the discussion took place in English. Imagine. All those people gathered in Paris, speaking English. What was interesting was that you could see from reading the principles that the work was bilingual. I have nothing against the English language, but there is a thought process at work in the English language, just as there is a thought process at work in the French language. What I object to is the single mindset. If we are forced to operate more and more in English, we lose some of the thinking involved. Researchers who write and create in French and who translate their own thoughts lose out a little, but it is society as a whole that really loses out. When I talk about being vigilant and maintaining our political weight, I am also talking about preserving a way of thinking, a capacity to create, a capacity to be different for the common good of all. The appointment of a Governor General who speaks only English and a similar situation in New Brunswick have been denounced in the House. This also brings to mind the whole Julie Payette scandal from two years ago, when she was Governor General. I asked the Privy Council Office for a copy of the investigation report, but I was told, and I quote: It is available only in English because that is the language it was written in. That makes no sense. The report was later translated at my insistence, since it was only available in English. I am not saying that it was conceived in English, but that it was not available in French. I can read English, but this was unacceptable. It is because of things like this that I talk about vigilance, about monitoring, in order to avoid or mitigate harm. Bill C‑14 does not meet Quebec's demands. With this bill, we do not lose seats, but we begin to disintegrate. At some point, we will assimilate and disappear. What will we be able to say once we have lost our voice? The answer is nothing. Before we reach the point where we are able to do nothing more than wave in the hope that some benevolent soul offers help, we must act and we must resist. For Quebec, Bill C‑14 is a call to resistance, a call to not give in to uniformity of thought in terms of tastes, ideas, and existence. Fernando Pessoa once said that to die is to slip out of view. With Bill C‑14, Quebec slips out of view.

578 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 59 - Apr/27/22

May/18/22 6:11:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-14

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak to Bill C-14 today. We are talking about representative democracy, and representative democracy is about being present, being seen and being heard. The numerous studies on demography tell us that democracies today must have three characteristics to be worthy of this moniker. Those three characteristics are representativeness, trustworthiness and legitimacy. As far as representativeness is concerned, Bill C‑14 proposes to maintain Quebec's seat count. That is representative, to a degree. However, there is a loss of political weight, so it somewhat misses the mark in terms of representativeness. As far as trustworthiness is concerned, we are living in an untrustworthy world. Finally, as far as legitimacy is concerned, doubts are creeping in about democracy. It is therefore very important to be able to determine exactly what is coming down the line. There is consensus about maintaining the 78 seats, as requested by Quebec. However, not maintaining Quebec's weight is unacceptable to us. I simply cannot wholeheartedly endorse this bill. If we allow Quebec's weight to decline, there will—

186 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 43 - Mar/22/22

Apr/27/22 4:21:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Burnaby South for his truly touching words. Dental care is extremely crucial. Teeth are important for smiling, and smiling helps us connect with others. Dental care is definitely something that affects us all. I would like to know if the member for Burnaby South will support the Bloc Québécois' request to adequately compensate Quebec under this program.

72 words

Mar/22/22 4:22:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kings—Hants, who regularly comes up with practical solutions to very real problems. I would like to ask him how he plans to reduce Quebec's sales tax, the QST, which is under provincial jurisdiction. Will there be some kind of compensation? Is this the NDP's influence we are seeing?

59 words

All Topics

Mar/1/22 5:07:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton for his suggestion. Quebec is willing to recognize a nation from its inception. A nation sets itself apart through, and is defined by, its language, which reflects its culture. We are fully willing to recognize other cultures, nations and languages. We have always been in favour of that. I welcome his suggestion.

60 words

Mar/1/22 5:05:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I like what my colleague said. I think his proposal is clear, has merit and should be considered. However, the reason we are doing this today is simple. We are simply offering an answer, a solution to an issue that in the past has not been taken seriously enough. This is our answer to a question that has so far remained unanswered. That is why we are moving forward with this today.

74 words

Mar/1/22 5:03:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are facing this concept of institutional completeness. We must recognize that the bills that have passed over the years have favoured bilingualism. Bilingualism treats both languages the same. The fact is, French is in an asymmetrical situation, and it is not true that the two languages are equal or will be considered equal. Not enough resources are being dedicated to French across Canada. Schools and services are lacking. If I went to Winnipeg North, for example, I am not sure I would be served in French. I would be sad, but that might be the case. In Quebec, however, promoting bilingualism means killing the francophonie.

108 words

All Topics

Mar/1/22 5:02:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Quebec's premier has already stated that he would like to do so, but I will respond directly to my colleague's question. There is a lot of talk about Ukrainian refugees. Out of solidarity, we really have to do something. We agree. However, we have to admit that Ukraine is not a third world country. People are stuck, and they want to stay there. It is only right that we open the door, but we must also realize that sending aid to Ukraine is also very important.

90 words

All Topics

Mar/1/22 5:01:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague raises a very important point. It is a fact that we did not sign the Constitution Act of 1982. Unfortunately, we are stuck with it in negotiating this type of arrangement. We must refer to something, so we are forced to refer to the Constitution. Our first choice would definitely be to have our own constitution and to look after our own affairs.

67 words

Mar/1/22 5:00:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. I will answer candidly. I am not an economist. Oil exists and oil production will continue to exist. We are not against oil as such, but there is a way of seeing the future of the planet that leads us to believe that perhaps we need to mitigate its use. By the way, I believe that oil from Algeria will arrive in Europe before Canadian oil because the infrastructure is already in place. However, I will let the experts respond to this question since I am not one of them and I am not too proud to admit it.

111 words

All Topics

Mar/1/22 4:58:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois felt that this was the wisest choice. There were a number of options available to us, but we believed the moment had come to take action in this regard.

38 words

Mar/1/22 4:45:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to rise today to speak about Quebec's political weight. On October 15, 2021, the Chief Electoral Officer published the new House of Commons seat allocation. This exercise is carried out every 10 years. Under the new allocation, the House would have four new seats for a total of 342 seats, but Quebec would only have 77, thus one less. This would decrease Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons from 23.1% to 22.5%. It would be the first time since 1966 that a province loses a seat. Let us be clear. The Bloc Québécois opposes the reduction in Quebec's political weight. In listening to the debates today, I heard members speak about language, about affection for Quebec, about Quebec's importance and about the friendship between peoples and provinces. Quebec is all for that, but this is about much more than that. Quebec cannot be reduced to just its language, although language is a very strong component of its identity. Quebec is above all one of the founding peoples of the land that became Canada. As such, it deserves consideration that goes well beyond the stupid, malicious, and blind or automatic application of a mathematical formula. Of course, we are not in any way blaming the Chief Electoral Officer here. This is not about placing blame. It is about us having a suggestion to make. The suggestion is to go beyond a standard that is frozen in time. We cannot agree to apply this formula to the letter. The question that we should be asking ourselves throughout today's debate is this: Is this just about one province losing one seat and some of its political weight? Do we want to live in a country that denies representation to a part of its population? Can the blind application of a mathematical formula be the only deciding factor or the only criterion in determining the representation of a nation, the Quebec nation in this case? Demographics is a science that does not lie. People are born and they die. We know what age they are right now and when they can vote. The population of Canada is growing faster than that of Quebec. That is a fact. It is partly due to immigration policies that could be improved since they do not promote Quebec's population growth. Recently, we talked a lot about the unacceptable refusal rate for African students, for example. They were being refused at a rate of about 80%, while anglophone students who applied to come to Quebec were being refused at a rate of approximately 5% to 10%. If the current situation is maintained, and the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendation is implemented, Quebec will be trivialized. It will run the risk of losing its current identity. Unfortunately, that might suit some people, but I still believe that would not be good for anyone. Quebec is a language, a culture, a way of life. Quebec is a potential that radiates around the world. Before I go any further, I would like to suggest some food for thought. A decision of this magnitude cannot be taken lightly. The importance cannot be underestimated before a decision is made. I have heard today that the decision is to be made by an independent commission. Between us, it is ridiculous to believe that it will be a mere administrative decision. Some have said that the Bloc Québécois is making a political proposal today. Of course we are making a political proposal. This is a political debate. I do not think it could be anything other than political, when a political decision must be made. When we have to make a decision, make a choice, which boils down to deciding, expressing a preference and choosing, there are two possibilities. Either there will be an existing rule, or there will not be an existing rule. In this case, there is one: a mathematical formula. However, when we want to make more of an ethical decision, we will ask four questions. The first is whether there is a rule. The answer is yes, there is. The second is whether there is an omission in the rule. That is not the case here. There is no omission. Then we have to ask whether there are two conflicting rules that say two different things. That is not the case here. The fourth question we have to ask is whether the rule is fair in the circumstances. I have to emphasize that point. Is the rule fair in the circumstances? What we have here is an irregular case, where we cannot apply a rule without running the risk of being unjust. Being just is a colossal task, yet it is the task of MPs who will have to decide where they stand on this issue and vote accordingly. Supposing that, in a case I described as irregular just now, the application of the rule would be unjust, we must see, think and do otherwise. If there is no just rule to apply, we have to turn to another element, which we call “values”. We have been brainwashed with great Canadian values for years. Everybody talks about values all the time, but what is a value, if not a statement of preference when there is no rule that can be justly applied? A value is always a good and desirable thing. What values could we point to here that enable us to live together in this state of necessary cohabitation for the time being? I think we need to consider the concept of equity, which is a fair assessment of what each party is entitled to. I will share two examples. Say we have a pie, and we cut it into four slices, and we have one person who is diabetic and another who is not hungry. We might not end up with four equal slices, but it will still be just. Being treated justly is different than being equal. The latter means that everyone is the same. We will agree that we are not all the same. We speak French, we see things differently and live differently. I believe that we should amend the formula for seat allocation. To lose representation is to disappear, and to disappear is to die. To borrow the words of an author I really enjoy, Fernando Pessoa, who is not a philosopher, “To die is to slip out of view”. To avoid slipping out of view, the Bloc Québécois is proposing a motion that breaks down as follows: That, in the opinion of the House: (a) 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; Members are being asked to take a stand on this matter. The second part of the motion states: (b) the formula for apportioning seats in the House must be amended and the House call on the government to act accordingly. I want to share a few facts. Obviously, the distribution formula is enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1867. That is nothing new. The Chief Electoral Officer, or CEO, does not have the authority to determine the number of seats in the House of Commons. He or she has the power to propose riding boundaries but not to change the number of ridings. The only way to change the number and distribution of seats, set out in section 51 of the British North America Act, is through legislation. As we have heard today, section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which Quebec did not sign, authorizes the federal Parliament to make such changes. It is hard to amend the Constitution, though. Nevertheless, two weeks ago, we were talking about the Constitution in relation to Saskatchewan, and that was not too difficult or painful. Even though it is hard to amend a constitution, I remind members that the Constitution of the Athenians, so dear to Aristotle, served as a model for constitutions. Two thousand years later, that constitution has been amended. It has served as an inspiration and evolved because the context has evolved. Making such a change takes an ingredient called courage, which does not exist in theory, only in practice. Given that we are at the beginning of a process of evaluating electoral reform, I believe that the time has come to seriously address the issue. How do we want to live: by losing or by changing? I very much like the word used by one of the members today who was asking if we could stop changing the representations and if we could “set” a representation. I think that is an option worth exploring. I will again make reference to the ancient Greeks, who had several words to designate time. There was one word for the weather, one for the time for going to work, which was chronos, and there was one word that I like a lot, kairos, meaning the right time. We do not tell flowers when to grow. We have to wait for the right time. That is why it is called that. I should also note that, if we wait too long after the right time, it is no longer the right time. I think this is the right time, at the start of this process, and I think members of the House should exert their influence to send a clear message. I do not believe the members opposite hate Quebec, especially not the member for Outremont. I do not think we are acting against one another, but I do think we need to use the powers we have to approve this motion and vote in favour. I would invite the Conservative members. I see them all here. We always enjoy talking to them. I would invite the New Democrats, the Greens, the independents and the Liberals. We are all here together in the House, and I invite them to recognize the importance of Quebec. I will close with a quote from Maria Ossowska, a Polish philosopher who lived during the Second World War and experienced the atrocities we are familiar with. In 1946, she said that, in ethics and in politics, the important thing was to be decent. She added that being decent is to be well socialized, have an open mind, be intellectually honest, be able to think critically and respect one's own word. The time has come to recognize Quebec's political weight and to acknowledge that the seat distribution formula needs to be changed. Quebec's demographic importance is clearly declining, but we will never be small.

1807 words