- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Shefford
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $81,135.43
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, we Quebeckers have worked really hard to protect supply management. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot in particular has taken up that fight. The minister seemed to be saying this morning that supply-managed sectors would be excluded and therefore protected. There is definitely a lack of transparency. There are still many aspects of this bill that are worrisome.
Can my colleague reiterate the importance of making the risk of prosecution the same for multinationals as for countries? What does he think should be done next to ensure that we get our fair share and that we can monitor the government's lack of transparency?
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Bill C‑316, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act, specifically with respect to the court challenges program.
The Bloc Québécois supports this bill in principle. We would like to look at Bill C‑316 in committee and make recommendations. The Bloc Québécois's current position already favours the continuation of the court challenges program, especially considering the important role it plays in promoting the rights of francophones outside Quebec. We therefore support the idea of ensuring the program's future by including it in the Department of Canadian Heritage Act.
However, in my speech, I will go over the Bloc Québécois's reservations concerning the program's terms and conditions, especially the lack of clarity surrounding its management and the process for deciding which cases and organizations will receive funding. Next, Bill C‑316 proposes measures designed to make the program's administration more transparent. On the surface of things, it seems to answer a Bloc Québécois demand related to one of our major criticisms of the program, namely, its claim to operate at arm's length from the executive.
Finally, I will address the fact that this program is currently being implemented and administered by the University of Ottawa, but it is impossible to prove that decisions about cases are not politically driven because of the lack of transparency and accountability measures.
First, in terms of transparency, Bill C‑316 states that the organization responsible for administering the court challenges program would be required to report annually on its activities, including disclosure of the list of cases funded during the year. These reports would be tabled before Parliament. The Bloc Québécois believes it is imperative that the reports include not only the cases, but also the recipient organizations, as well as the amounts of money allocated. That is one way Bill C‑316 could be improved. We would also then be able to assess the amount each part of the program receives, in other words, official language rights and human rights. It would be interesting if the report also had to include a list of the unsuccessful applicants.
Second, the fact remains that the court challenges program can be used to fund challenges to Quebec laws, such as the Charter of the French Language and the state secularism law. The crux of the problem is that we cannot pick and choose, based on our political views, which laws should be challenged and which ones should not be, even if we have good reason to believe that some laws that do not pass the test in the Canadian courts would be deemed constitutional under a future constitution of Quebec.
A partial fix for this problem as far as the official languages component of the court challenges program is concerned could involve a program framework that takes an asymmetrical approach to Canada's official languages. Since the Liberal government recognizes that only one of the official languages is at risk, then it should agree to grant program funding only to cases that defend the rights of francophones.
The text of Bill C‑316 amends the Department of Canadian Heritage Act to specify that, in exercising the powers and performing the duties and functions assigned to the Minister of Canadian Heritage under that act, he or she shall maintain the court challenges program.
Here are a few explanations. From the Bloc Québécois's perspective, the court challenges program has two major flaws in its design. The first is the fact that, historically, the program has helped to undermine the protection of French in Quebec. The second is that, historically, the program was politically oriented and acted as the judicial arm of the executive branch.
Bill C‑316 could potentially fix, or at least mitigate, the second problem we see, namely the program's lack of transparency and independence. This would be brought about by adjustments and improvements, in particular by disclosing in the annual reports not just the cases funded, but also all the amounts granted and the recipient organizations.
As for the first problem, it could also be addressed, but this would require refocusing the vision of Canada's official languages policy, which the Liberal government and its NDP ally just rejected in the review of Bill C‑13. This problem could be solved with amendments to this bill or with future legislation.
The court challenges program has gone through three historical phases. First, the date of the program's creation is significant. The court challenges program was established in 1978 in a very specific context of heightened language tensions and Quebec-Ottawa confrontations following the election of the Parti Québécois in 1976, and the adoption of the Charter of the French Language the following year. We know that Canada's prime minister at the time, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and his government very much disliked Bill 101.
The year after Bill 101 was passed, Ottawa created the court challenges program to subsidize anglophone lobby groups' legal fees from challenging Bill 101. It was not originally a formal program. The Department of Justice decided which cases would be funded and how much they would receive based on its own objectives. This approach obviously put the government in a conflict of interest.
Between 1978 and 1982, the court challenges program funded six cases, half of which challenged Bill 101. At the time, the program was not at all independent. The cases that would be brought before the courts were selected and funded by the executive branch. To assess applications for funding for language rights, a committee was formed by selecting members from among a small group of candidates proposed by agencies that dealt with official languages.
The third version was initially called the language rights support program. The Stephen Harper government, which had cancelled the first program, was forced to create this new program following an out-of-court settlement with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA.
The new and current court challenges program arose from a Liberal campaign promise in 2015. The administration of the program was entrusted to the University of Ottawa. The program relies on two committees of experts to decide which cases can be funded according to two streams, namely human rights and official language rights. We know that there is a bit of bias here.
Currently, through an access to information request, it is possible to find out which cases were supported, but it is impossible to find out who the recipients were and how much money they got from the program. This means that taxpayers cannot find out how the money allocated to the program is being spent. Since the year 2000, the names of individuals or organizations receiving money cannot be disclosed, after a court ruled that applications and funding contracts are protected by attorney-client privilege. That has made it difficult, if not impossible, to access accurate information for at least two decades. Annual reports, when available, contain only general information and mention only examples.
To ensure transparency and accountability, a report by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights recommended that, after a case is filed, the names of those who received funding from the court challenges program and the nature of the cases be disclosed in each annual report, unless such disclosure would prejudice the litigants. It appears that no follow-up has been done in this regard.
During the committee's consideration of Bill C‑13 on modernizing the Official Languages Act, the Bloc Québécois tabled an amendment to have the program administered transparently, with consideration for the rights granted by provincial and territorial language regimes, and mirroring the position of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, to ensure as much transparency as possible. The amendment was rejected with the NDP's support, despite the party's claims about supporting Quebeckers' right to self-determination.
Issues related to the program's transparency and independence came into clear view during the controversy surrounding the $125,000 in funding provided to the English Montreal School Board to mount a legal challenge to Quebec's secularism law.
The Liberal government is hiding behind the program's alleged independence to avoid having to address the fundamental issue: the Canadian government's financial commitment to supporting challenges to Quebec's secularism and language laws.
In addition to the transparency issues, the other problem with the court challenges program is that, although it has been used to advance the rights of francophone minority communities in other provinces, it has also been used to challenge Quebec laws that are designed to promote and protect the French language in Quebec.
That problem stems from the main flaw in Canada's official languages policy, which assumes that there is symmetry between the anglophone and francophone minority communities. That structure, which was designed by Pierre Elliott Trudeau and which the Liberals just refused to change when they modernized the Official Languages Act, pits the interests of Quebec against those of francophones in Canada.
In closing, the francophone communities of Canada have good reason to care about the existence of the court challenges program and to hope that it will be around permanently because it advances their language rights. That is the main reason the Bloc Québécois is not calling for the program to abolished. Rather, we are asking for it to be regulated and modernized.
There are some good things about the court challenges program, but it falls into the official languages trap. This would not be an issue if the Liberal Party and the NDP were willing to accept the solution proposed by the Government of Quebec and the Bloc Québécois, which is to use a differentiated approach in the implementation of the Official Languages Act, or in other words, to stop putting both official languages on equal footing.
If the Liberal government recognizes that only one of the two official languages is at risk—
1726 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/22 7:18:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. However, I am concerned about government accountability when we use the hybrid model.
It is clear, and studies have shown, that when we study important bills in committee, the informal aspect that allows us to truly engage with our colleagues to look for constructive ways to improve things is not there.
I wonder about how the hybrid approach affects accountability, especially in a context where there are a lot of worrisome signals about democracy. We have seen a government run by closure motions in recent weeks.
It is important to respect the democratic aspect, and this hybrid approach can sometimes make things a little more complicated, especially in committee. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about this.
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/22 11:10:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, it appears I have the thankless task of closing this evening's take-note debate. I am speaking, albeit with a great deal of disgust, as the Bloc Québécois critic for the status of women in this take-note debate on indigenous women and girls.
This debate is taking place the night before Red Dress Day, a day to honour missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.
It is sad to see that even now, in 2022, attacking women is still seen as a way to endanger the survival of a people. It is sad that we are still talking about mothers, daughters, sisters, friends who have disappeared, women who are no longer here, who will never come back.
Nevertheless, I will approach my speech from three angles: the Liberal government's inaction, some of the issues discussed at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, and finally, a bit about Quebec's perspective on this issue.
After waiting more than three years, the Liberal government finally unveiled its action plan to end violence against indigenous women and girls last summer, yet indigenous women and many indigenous organizations feel the response is insufficient and long overdue.
When asked at a press conference about the federal government's progress on the plan it presented last summer, two years late, regarding the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, the Minister of Justice admitted that the government had fallen behind because of the federal election in September 2021 and because of the war in Ukraine, which started on February 24. The government is finding excuses to explain its inaction. Why is the government not stepping up?
The federal government must take its share of the responsibility, but it is not doing so, especially with respect to the report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, on which the federal government has done little to follow up.
The figures are staggering. Between 2004 and 2014, while the homicide rate across Canada was declining, the number of indigenous women and girls who were murdered was six times higher than the rate among non-indigenous women. According to the 2018 figures for Canada, 25.1% of non-indigenous women report having experiencing physical and sexual abuse by an intimate partner, but that figure rises to 43.7% among indigenous women. In addition, 38.2% of non-indigenous women report having experienced physical and sexual violence committed by someone other than an intimate partner, compared to 54.9% among indigenous women. The situation did not improve during the pandemic.
Obviously, these are the official figures, and in cases where women were willing to come forward, of course it is not easy to admit it and speak out against it. It it hard to get out of a cycle of violence. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls stated that ending it “requires a new relationship and an equal partnership between all Canadians and Indigenous Peoples”.
The calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, presented as legal imperatives rather than voluntary recommendations, set out transformative measures in a number of areas including health, safety, justice, culture and ordinarily the following:
We need to establish the position of a national indigenous and human rights ombudsperson and establish a national indigenous and human rights tribunal. The report also talks about developing and implementing a national action plan to ensure equitable access to employment, housing, education, safety and health care.
The government must provide long-term funding for educational programs and awareness campaigns related to violence prevention and combatting lateral violence. Furthermore, the government must prohibit the apprehension of children on the basis of poverty and cultural bias. This is all great on paper, but the government must now stop shelving report after report and start responding to the calls to action.
After the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls tabled its more than 2,000-page report, chief commissioner Marion Buller even stated that despite their different circumstances and backgrounds, all of the missing and murdered are connected by economic, social and political marginalization, racism, and misogyny woven into the fabric of Canadian society.
Indigenous communities need to rebuild, and Quebeckers and Canadians need to acknowledge the collective trauma experienced by these communities, understand it and take steps to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again.
Moreover, the increasing pressure on the federal government, which until that point had disregarded the calls to action, finally gave rise to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada in 2015, almost seven years ago. The commission came out in favour of a national inquiry into the violence disproportionately experienced by indigenous women and girls.
The national inquiry's final report was released on June 3, 2019, and all the long delays were unacceptable, especially on the part of a government that calls itself feminist. Its failure to act tarnished its international reputation. Béatrice Vaugrante, then executive director of Amnesty International for francophone Canada, said as much because numerous UN, U.S., and U.K. bodies asked Canada to end violence against indigenous women. She considered this Canada's worst human rights issue and said the government's failure to recognize the magnitude of the problem and take action was unacceptable.
In October 2004, in response to the tragically high number of indigenous women being victimized, Amnesty International even released a report entitled “Stolen Sisters: A Human Rights Response to Discrimination and Violence against Indigenous Women in Canada”, an unmistakable call to take action and implement concrete measures.
Five years after the initial report, Amnesty International followed up with a second report entitled “No More Stolen Sisters: The Need for a Comprehensive Response to Discrimination and Violence against Indigenous Women in Canada” to underscore the five factors that contributed to the phenomenon of violence against indigenous women. First, the role of racism and misogyny in perpetuating violence against indigenous women. Second, the sharp disparities between indigenous and non-indigenous women when it comes to the fulfilment of their economic, social, political and cultural rights. Third, the disruption of indigenous societies caused by the historic and ongoing mass removal of children from indigenous families and communities. Fourth, the disproportionately high number of indigenous women in Canadian prisons, many of whom were themselves victims of violence. Fifth, inadequate police response to violence against indigenous women as illustrated by the handling of missing persons cases.
At the committee on which I sit, we have seen in many studies—such as the study on the disproportionate impact that the pandemic had on women, the study on invisible work, the study on women in rural communities, and the study on intimate partner violence—that indigenous women and girls are almost always among those who are most affected.
We are in the process of completing a study on the impact that resource development has on indigenous women. In study after study, witnesses from different indigenous communities and organizations are sharing their harsh realities with us. They are also sharing concrete proposals.
As vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, I am also shocked to know that nearly 54% of trafficked women are indigenous. That seems extremely high to me.
I also had to address this issue while filling in at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. In fact, this issue finally made the news for the first time in 2014 when the RCMP released figures on the number of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. A total of 1,017 indigenous women and girls went missing or were murdered between 1980 and 2012. There are still 105 women unaccounted for who have disappeared under unexplained or suspicious circumstances. That is a lot.
Finally, I want to discuss some of the things we are experiencing in Quebec. I want to highlight the work being done at the Val-d'Or Native Friendship Centre. I hope to have the opportunity to visit it one day. We are also sensitive to the issue of restorative justice. Then there is the Viens commission that was launched by the Quebec government following the disappearance of Sindy Ruperthouse, a woman from Pikogan in Abitibi, near Val-d'Or. My colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, could tell the House about this. She said that she has heard a number of indigenous women in Abitibi accuse the police of physical and sexual abuse, and the same thing could happen in many other ridings throughout Quebec. My colleague from Manicouagan can also testify to this.
Here is what an organization in Quebec had to say. According to Viviane Michel, a former president of Quebec Native Women, it is essential that indigenous women, families and communities have the opportunity to be heard as part of any inquiry. She also said that understanding the deep roots underlying the systemic discrimination faced by indigenous women is crucial to ensuring their dignity and safety. She also pointed out that the report itself recognizes that indigenous women are at greater risk of being murdered or going missing, and she wondered why the government was not taking real, concrete, tangible action that would make a difference.
In closing, the Bloc Québécois has been promoting this nation-to-nation partnership with indigenous peoples for several years now. Furthermore, during the election campaign, our party's position was clear. Modern treaties are needed. This position is extremely important to me and my colleagues. It will be up to the nations themselves to say what they want and decide what they want to negotiate with Ottawa.
I would like to mention one last thing. Last fall I travelled to the shores of Lake Memphremagog, at the invitation of the Eastern Townships chapter of World March of Women. Red dresses in varying sizes were hung up on a line. I realized that women and girls of all ages are among the missing and murdered, each with their own story, and they all had loved ones who were left to wonder what had happened to them.
1725 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
