- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Shefford
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $81,135.43
- Government Page
- May/28/24 6:31:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in my previous intervention, I forgot to address one thing that I consider equally unacceptable and degrading for our democracy, and that is when members sink to spreading disinformation or lies or to using divide-and-conquer tactics.
Claiming that challenging the president of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie was an insult to francophones outside Quebec is a lie. It is disinformation. It is an attempt to divide and conquer. Accusing us, the Bloc Québécois, of dwelling on this matter because the Speaker is a Quebecker is a low blow. I have no words to describe how absurd this attack is. Whether or not the Speaker is a Quebecker is irrelevant.
I heard some members of the NDP and even some Liberals accuse us of objecting to the fact that the Speaker is a Quebecker. Ultimately, all this does is divide and conquer. It helps no one in our democratic system.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 12:29:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is not easy to speak today after all my eloquent Bloc colleagues and before those who will speak after me.
My takeaway, so far, is this: The freer Quebec is, the better off it is. The federal system meddles in things that are none of its business. Year after year, budget after budget, the federal government keeps interfering in areas that do not come under its jurisdiction. It needs to stop. Interference causes delays, especially in Quebec, where everyone agrees that this spending power is illegitimate. The Bloc Québécois therefore demands that Quebec be given the right to opt out with full financial compensation, unconditionally and in every instance where Ottawa meddles in areas that are not its own.
I am going to attempt to once again explain what it is we are trying so hard to get people to understand. I will talk about the fact that Quebec is progressive, the failures of the federal system's meddling and, finally, the fiscal imbalance.
First, all of Quebec's major social and economic advances occurred after we withdrew from federal programs ill-suited to our needs or after we created programs that later, ironically, provided the inspiration for programs that the federal government then tried to impose on us.
By refusing to join the Canada pension plan, we were able to create the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, a powerful lever of economic development and modernization in Quebec. By withdrawing from the EI special benefits program, we were able to implement our own parental leave, which caused women's participation in the workforce to explode and paved the way for work-life balance. By withdrawing from the federal student loans program, we were able to implement a financial aid system that made Quebec the North American leader in access to education. By withdrawing from federal labour programs, we were able to implement an employment policy that brought together workers, employers and educational institutions to have training better meet the needs of the labour market.
Now, I want to talk about some of the concerns. The latest example is the dental plan, which falls under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction in health. Ottawa is taking on new power and choosing to give $2 billion to Sun Life, a private company, to manage this plan. What is more, Ottawa is not harmonizing this plan with Quebec's public program, which already covers children. If the federal government chooses to introduce a pharmacare program, which also falls strictly under Quebec's jurisdiction, we can expect further centralization and a significant risk of it not being harmonized with Quebec's program. There is no shortage of examples of failed interference.
Last fall, the government introduced a bill to set up sector tables to discuss labour market training. Even though Quebec already has a system in place and is managing it, Ottawa is simply ignoring that fact and is proposing to duplicate the program without any harmonization or compensation. This is not an isolated case. Just look at financing for Quebec's provincial and municipal infrastructures; housing, where Ottawa is duplicating targeted, complex programs, creating a cumbersome and confusing situation that is delaying the completion of projects; or health. Ottawa introduced health initiatives in the last budget, but is offering no services. Meanwhile, the health care system is in crisis.
Here again, health transfers come to mind. They have increased six times less than expected and come with conditions that have led to a tug-of-war. As a result, the necessary money is slow in coming. In fact, it could be said that the decline in Quebec's autonomy and the erosion of Quebeckers' ability to make their own choices is a strong trend. Even the Institute for Research on Public Policy, a Canada-wide research group based in Ottawa, concluded the same thing last June.
All this is taking place in a context where Ottawa is already doing a very poor job of managing the issues under its jurisdiction, multiplying its spending without seeking efficiency or results, and slashing its transfers to the provinces by multiplying conditions and delaying the payment of the promised amounts. The delays are just as unacceptable in the case of infrastructure or housing programs, where it takes years for an agreement to be reached and for the approved sums to be paid out, because here too, Ottawa is interfering.
In terms of the issues that I deal with as a critic, the government delayed getting money out to domestic violence shelters during the pandemic. What is more, despite our repeated requests, the government still refuses to increase OAS by 10% for seniors aged 65 to 74. Finally, as a third example, in my riding, the government is not contributing to a cost-shared infrastructure program for the construction of the Saint-Césaire arena. Inflation has driven up costs and the other two levels of government have done their part, but we have not heard from the federal government.
This is concrete evidence that the interference and incompetence of the federal government is delaying and even undermining our work.
Ottawa is doing this because it has the upper hand due to the persistent fiscal imbalance. In Canada, there is a serious fiscal imbalance to the detriment of Quebec and the provinces. Year after year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer keeps repeating in his fiscal sustainability report that the provinces' finances are not sustainable over time.
There are three kinds of dysfunctions. First, by collecting more revenue than is necessary to meet its obligations, Ottawa is not making the effort to manage its administration effectively.
The federal government is notoriously ineffective. When Ottawa gets involved, everything costs more than it should.
Ottawa's continued interference is leading to an unprecedented centralization of power in the hands of the federal government. This weakens the people of Quebec's ability to develop in accordance with their needs, strengths, characteristics and desires. This centralization has been a trend for a long time, since Confederation. Since then, every Canadian government has been working to transform the federation into a legislative union, where Ottawa would reign supreme over the provinces and Quebec. Even under the Harper government, a Conservative government, centralization of power occurred, and that trend is ongoing. In Canada, there is no status quo. The third way, autonomy, that lies between our sovereignty and our assimilation and in which Quebec would be respected, is constantly under attack by the federal government, no matter which party is in power. The conclusion is that things are not working.
To put an end to interference means truly offering Quebec a right to opt out with full compensation and without condition from any new federal program that falls under the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces. The government must immediately undertake negotiations with Quebec to implement this right to opt out of the dental care program and of the possible pharmacare program. It must undertake negotiations with the Government of Quebec to fully transfer to it the temporary foreign worker program, which would be a continuation of the federal government's withdrawal from Quebec's labour market sector, which first started in 1997. It must also systematically apply the principle of asymmetry in every federal transfer, in order to give more flexibility to the Government of Quebec, the cornerstone of a nation that enjoys the inherent right to self-determination. Finally, there needs to be a systematic review of federal programs with a view to determining which ones infringe on the jurisdictions of the provinces or overlap their programs in full or in part. Only Quebec still stands up to the federal government's interference.
When the federal government creates housing programs, it can easily impose them on the provinces, which just accept them and make their contribution. In Quebec, the federal government is barging in on an existing ecosystem, and that causes friction and keeps programs from starting up. After the national housing strategy was announced, it took more than three years for Quebec and Ottawa to come to an agreement. Recently, the federal government again refused to give $900 million to Quebec without imposing any conditions on housing construction. It is hard to believe that negotiations will be streamlined and fast-tracked under a new federal department.
It is the same thing with infrastructure programs. The federal government wants to determine infrastructure priorities for Quebec and the municipalities, going so far as to interfere in matters as local as urban planning and the density of residential districts.
When the federal government announces a new infrastructure program with new conditions, it starts a tug-of-war with Quebec. Programs in Quebec start on average 18 months later that in the rest of Canada, where the government has free rein to take the lead in areas outside its jurisdiction.
In conclusion, one federal party after another has opted out of recognizing the Quebec nation and everything that implies. Even the Conservatives, who say they reject Pierre Elliott Trudeau's legacy, embrace Trudeau's principle of provincial equality. There is no special status; there is no right to opt out. Federal spending that encroaches on provincial jurisdiction negates the division of powers in Canada and erases Quebec's autonomy. There is no way for Quebec to end federal interference.
Federal interference proves that the fiscal imbalance has not been resolved. We know this because Ottawa has extra money to spend in areas under provincial jurisdiction. The fiscal imbalance will never be resolved without ending federal spending power in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Ottawa's conditional transfers and interference are undermining Quebec's autonomy.
The House of Commons recognizes the Quebec nation; everyone seems to be bragging about that today. However, recognizing the existence of a nation is more than symbolic. Just like individuals, nations have fundamental rights. The most fundamental of these rights is the right of a nation to control the social, economic and cultural development of its own society. It is the right to self-determination. We cannot, on the one hand, recognize that the Quebec nation exists and has the right to make choices that are different from those of Canada, and, on the other hand, deny that right by maintaining the federal government's spending power. In the end, the federal government's spending power is its very denial of the Quebec nation.
1751 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, like my colleague, I recognize that mergers have an impact, but hostile takeovers by foreign companies are especially worrisome. I would like him to comment on that.
Bill C-34 is important and overdue. It is a welcome development, but it is incomplete because it does not actually resolve any of the issues. I would like to know what my colleague sees as the next steps. This is, of course, a good first step, but what will happen next? What can we do to better protect our economic levers?
I am thinking about the head offices in Quebec, in particular. As a Quebecker, I am obviously going to stand up for my province.
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C-35 and will support the bill at third reading, even though it finds the bill to be ambiguous.
The bill does not comply with the distribution of powers set out in the Constitution, which clearly states that education and family policies are not under federal jurisdiction. Although the bill states that the provinces will be able to certify child care services and determine the applicable criteria, it also states that every government in Canada will have to comply with the principles set out in the multilateral early learning and child care framework.
This framework is full of good intentions and fine principles, but it is based on the federal government's supposed spending power, which Quebec does not consider legitimate or legal. One thing is clear: This bill was not tabled in the right Parliament.
I will first go into more detail about why we will nevertheless vote in favour of the bill. Then I will explain the Quebec exception and end my speech with an historical overview.
First, the bill excludes Quebec from this federalization of family policy for the next five years. In fact, the Government of Quebec will receive $6 billion in compensation for opting out of this centralist policy. In that sense, the bill respects the will of Quebec not to have the government interfere in its jurisdictions, especially since Quebec is a pioneer in child care services and a model of success, to boot.
Nevertheless, unlike Bill C‑303, the predecessor to this bill, the current version does not contain any wording on exempting Quebec. Indeed, Bill C‑303 stated the following:
4. Recognizing the unique nature of the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec with regard to the education and development of children in Quebec society, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Government of Quebec may choose to be exempted from the application of this Act and, notwithstanding any such decision, shall receive the full transfer payment that would otherwise be paid under section 5.
The agreement concluded with the Quebec government spans a period of five years. Enshrining Quebec's full right to opt out of this program would help avoid another dispute between Quebec and Ottawa in case the federal government ever wants to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions as it does so well.
Passing this bill would also enable Quebec to recover significant amounts that could be used to reinforce its network and improve working conditions for workers in the sector.
By allowing Quebec to withdraw with full compensation, Bill C-35 takes into account these two opposing trends in federal-provincial relations. That sort of consideration is rare at the federal level.
Outside Quebec, Ottawa is seen as the guarantor of social progress, which results in a strong tendency towards centralization. Quebec rejects that type of interference. It would be interesting if Bill C-35 were consistent with the previous version in recognizing that the Quebec government's child care expertise is unique in North America. In fact, the international community acknowledged that in 2003.
The OECD, in its study of child care in Canada at the time, mentioned the following:
[It is] important to underline…The extraordinary advance made by Quebec, which has launched one of the most ambitious and interesting early education and care policies in North America....none of these provinces showed the same clarity of vision as Quebec in addressing the needs of young children and families....
In short, to come back to Bill C-35, public officials said that the bill was drafted with respect for the provincial and territorial jurisdictions and indigenous rights.
They also stated that the bill did not impose any conditions on other levels of government. That was the main concern of some provincial governments during the consultation process. Any provision seeking to ensure that the provinces shoulder their share of the agreement would be part of the individual bilateral agreements signed with each province and territory, agreements that must be renegotiated every five years, as I mentioned previously.
Here are some interesting figures to think about. Access to low-cost regulated child care could lead to the addition of 240,000 workers to the Canadian labour market and a 1.2% increase in the GDP over 20 years. In Quebec, the money would also serve to strengthen the existing network of early childhood education services, which is grappling with a shortage of teachers.
After the committee completed its work, it became clear that the demands of the Bloc Québécois and Quebec were not heard or respected.
Throughout the study, Quebec was cited as a model. It may not be perfect, but the Quebec model was cited on numerous occasions as being a model to emulate. However, at the amendment stage, when the time came to recognize Quebec's expertise in the bill, we saw the three other parties dismiss this reality out of hand. The same thing happened to our amendments giving Quebec the option of completely withdrawing from the federal program with full financial compensation. The only place the other members were even remotely willing to mention Quebec's expertise was the preamble, which is the only place where those words would ultimately have no concrete effect on the bill.
Although Quebec does not get the option of completely withdrawing from this program with full compensation, an agreement to that effect had already been concluded between Ottawa and Quebec. Senior officials who worked on the bill also repeatedly stated, when questioned on the subject, that while nothing would prevent the federal government from imposing conditions as part of a future agreement, the bill had always been designed with the asymmetry of Quebec's reality compared to Canada's provinces in mind. The members of the Liberal government who spoke to the bill also mentioned several times that the Liberals intended to keep working with Quebec on this file. The current agreement also pleased Quebec since it did not interfere with any jurisdiction and gave the Quebec government total freedom to spend the money in whatever sectors it wanted.
Third, let us rewind to 2022, when Quebec celebrated 25 years of the family policy. On January 23, 1997, Quebec's family policy was unveiled by education minister Pauline Marois on behalf of the Parti Québécois government. It was a visionary policy that reflected the changing face of Quebec, including the increase in the number of single-parent and blended families, the growing presence of women in the workforce and the troubling rise in job insecurity.
This forward-thinking policy has allowed Quebeckers to benefit from better work-life or school-life balance and more generous maternity leave and parental leave, and it has extended family assistance programs to self-employed workers or workers with atypical schedules.
This model is an asset. It is a source of pride for the entire Quebec nation, as studies show that every dollar invested in early childhood yields about $1.75 in tax revenues, and that every dollar invested in health and in early childhood saves up to $9 in social health and legal services. Early childhood education services have also been a giant step ahead for education in Quebec. They help improve children's chances of success and keep students from dropping out. They have a positive effect on early childhood development, help identify adaptive and learning difficulties early on, and ensure greater equality of opportunities for every young Quebecker, regardless of sex, ethnic origin or social class.
In conclusion, we also believe that a true family policy is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Quebec and provincial governments. Parental leave, income support and child care networks must be integrated into a coherent whole. In our opinion, to be efficient, this network and all these family policies must be the responsibility of the Government of Quebec alone. The Constitution clearly indicates that education and family policies are not under federal jurisdiction.
One last thing: As the Standing Committee on the Status of Women has noted in more than one report, including the report on intimate partner violence I spoke about earlier in connection with another bill, by providing quality day care that is affordable and accessible to all, we are providing women with an opportunity to fulfill their professional ambitions without compromising their family responsibilities.
What is more, this bill seeks to enhance day care services by providing a safe and protective environment for young children and especially for mothers who are seeking to escape intimate partner violence. What we in the Bloc Québécois are saying is, let us do this with respect for the expertise, but above all, for Quebec's jurisdiction. We will be voting in favour of the principle of Bill C‑35.
I will end with an interesting economic fact. According to the work of Pierre Fortin, Luc Godbout and Suzie St‑Cerny, between 1998 and 2015, with Quebec's child care services taking care of all these young children, mothers' labour force participation rate increased from 66% to 79%. We implemented this feminist measure. Yes, early childhood education is a feminist policy that made it possible for women to return to the labour market, to become emancipated and to provide equal opportunities for young children.
1577 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in her speech, my colleague from Yorkton-Melville talked about a majority of Canadians. She is certainly not talking about a majority of Quebeckers. She brought up the Conservative difference; I am talking about the Quebec difference.
Recently, Quebec's minister responsible for the status of women expressed concern for women's right to abortion.
Does my colleague realize that her bill is truly a threat and could lead to a major setback for women's rights, which have been ardently defended by Quebec women for many, many years?
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/23 10:32:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, it is with a great deal of emotion that I rise this evening on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to close this debate after my incredible colleague from Manicouagan, who spoke earlier this evening.
From the outset, I would like to remind the House that our political party has repeatedly reiterated its commitment to being an ally to the first nations. We believe that it is critical that we collectively remember all missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA persons to honour their memory.
I will go over some of our proposals, and then I will talk about Red Dress Day. I will close my speech by reminding the House of the origin of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
First, we called for the creation of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and we supported its findings. We continue to support initiatives aimed at ending the impact of Canadian colonialism on indigenous peoples.
The government has been slow to implement some calls to justice. Although it publicly underlines the importance of reconciliation, the chronic underfunding of indigenous people in Canada continues. The federal government's inability to make sufficient investments in social and affordable housing, health services and infrastructure, water in particular, in indigenous communities has devastating consequences for indigenous people, their families and communities, in particular indigenous women and girls.
Massive efforts and investments must be made to honour the federal government's commitments and put an end to the crisis being experienced by indigenous women. The investments being made are insufficient to erase the harmful effects of colonialism. The resulting trauma is still deeply felt today and keeps women in particular trapped in a cycle of violence and vulnerability.
The Bloc Québécois is calling for true reconciliation. It must be social, cultural and economic. It must enable indigenous people to free themselves from the harms they were subjected to, and it must be done with the communities, not by imposing a Canadian vision of what reconciliation is.
The Bloc Québécois has always been a strong advocate of nation-to-nation discourse, and we reiterate that position once again. May 5 is Red Dress Day, the National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. It is a time to honour missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ people. We believe that one way to do this is by accelerating the implementation of the calls to action of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Second, Red Dress Day is about honouring the victims, raising awareness of this crisis and encouraging governments to take action to address racist and gender-based violence against indigenous people in Canada.
I saw the REDress Project, which is now a permanent exhibit at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, when I visited Winnipeg for a symposium on human trafficking and the resulting sexual exploitation that disproportionately affects indigenous women and girls, who often wind up missing or murdered.
Third, I would like to talk about how the national inquiry came about. In 2014, the issue finally broke into the headlines as a potential systemic problem after the RCMP unveiled its figures on the number of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. The numbers speak for themselves. A total of 1,007 indigenous women and girls went missing or were murdered between 1980 and 2012. There are still 105 women unaccounted for, who disappeared under unexplained or suspicious circumstances. Between 2004 and 2014, as the murder rate fell across Canada, six times more indigenous women and girls were murdered than non-indigenous. Taking advantage of the momentum generated by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's work, many groups held demonstrations on October 4, 2014, demanding a national inquiry into the causes of the disappearance and murder of indigenous women and a national action plan.
It is also important to note that there is still a disproportionate number of indigenous women in Canadian prisons, many of whom were victims of violence themselves. That being said, pressure was mounting on the federal government, which until that point had ignored all calls for action.
Less than a year later, in 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada called for a national inquiry into the disproportionate victimization of indigenous women and girls.
On June 3, 2019, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls released its final report, “Reclaiming Power and Place”, after more than two years of gathering testimony from indigenous knowledge keepers, experts, and 1,484 survivors and family members of missing and murdered women and girls.
The report contains 231 separate calls for justice. These are legal imperatives, not mere recommendations. They call for immediate action and are directed at indigenous and non-indigenous governments, institutions, social service providers, industries and Canadians from all walks of life.
In Canada, according to 2018 figures, 25.1% of non-indigenous women reported having been physically or sexually abused by an intimate partner, while this percentage rises to 43.7% among indigenous women. Furthermore, 38.2% of non-indigenous women have been physically or sexually abused by someone other than an intimate partner, but this percentage rises to 54.9% among indigenous women.
Internationally, Canada finally signed on to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on June 21, 2021, when the related act received royal assent. This is one of the most important human rights issues facing Canada. The purpose of the act is to affirm the UN declaration as an international human rights instrument that can help interpret and apply Canadian law. This act requires the Government of Canada, in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples, to take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration, to prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the declaration, and to table an annual report on the progress made in aligning federal laws with the action plan.
The act requires that the action plan include measures to address injustices, combat prejudice and eliminate all forms of violence, racism and discrimination against indigenous peoples, including elders, youth, children, persons with disabilities, women, men and two-spirit and gender-diverse persons. It aims to to promote mutual respect and understanding, as well as good relations, including through human rights education. The plan must include measures related to the monitoring, oversight, follow-up, recourse or remedy or other accountability with respect to the implementation of the declaration. This action plan must also include measures for monitoring the implementation of the plan itself and for reviewing and amending the plan.
In their descriptions of encounters, families and survivors who spoke at the national inquiry consistently linked their experiences to colonialism, both historic and modern forms, in one of the following four ways: historical, multi-generational and inter-generational trauma; social and economic marginalization; maintaining the status quo; institutional lack of will; and refusal to recognize the expertise of indigenous women and girls and their capacity to act. The Canadian government and the clergy planned the collective trauma with the ultimate goal of driving all indigenous communities to extinction. Those communities have since been left to deal with the consequences alone.
We might say that indigenous communities need to fight. Quebeckers and Canadians alike need to be aware of the collective trauma experienced in these communities, understand it and make sure these atrocities never happen again. In listening to the testimony of indigenous women, Quebec Native Women counted four types of violence: structural violence, institutional violence, family violence and personal violence. That last type of violence covers actions such as physical violence, psychological manipulation and financial control, and it involves individuals.
In conclusion, the government must act on the report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls on the occasion of Red Dress Day, which seeks to raise awareness of this problem. We are calling on the government to take concrete measures to protect indigenous populations, to recognize the disproportionate level of violence faced by indigenous women and to stand in solidarity with them. We must commit to putting an end to racism and systemic violence against indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people. As elected officials, we must take action and not settle for a simple speech about this situation.
I would like to point out one last thing because the numbers speak for themselves. In a report released in May 2014, the RCMP documented 1,181 cases involving indigenous women, including 1,017 who were murdered and 164 who went missing, between 1980 and 2012 when this all happened. Some estimate that more than 4,000 indigenous women are missing. According to the national inquiry, it is impossible to determine the exact number of murdered and missing women.
The fake feminism must stop, and there must be action.
1527 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I humbly rise today following my wonderful colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé's speech about this bill, which is important for Quebec culture and is central to the very mission of the Bloc Québécois. I would also like to commend my colleague from Drummond for his superb work on this file.
Broadcasting is without a doubt the most effective tool for spreading culture, and it helps define our national identity. Given the rapid development of information and communication technologies, the Bloc Québécois obviously supports the idea of modernizing the Broadcasting Act, which has not been updated since 1991. Back then, I was still listening to music on cassette on my yellow Walkman, and I was only just beginning to take an interest in CDs. I had scarcely even heard of the Internet. The Bloc Québécois contributed substantially to improving the previous version of this bill, the infamous Bill C-10.
I will briefly address the new version, Bill C-11, in my speech. First, I will talk about protecting and promoting original French-language content. I will then discuss the misinformation circulating about the bill. I will conclude by discussing the importance of the bill for local media.
First, let me mention a few crucial aspects regarding the protection and promotion of original French-language content: the discoverability of Canadian programming services and original Canadian content so that there is more original French-language content, proportionally speaking; the promotion of Canadian programming in both official languages, as well as in indigenous languages; a compulsory contribution to the Canadian broadcasting system should a company be unable to use Canadian resources for its programming; the presence of first-run French-language content in order to ensure that platforms like Netflix have new French-language programs, not only old shows; and a sunset clause ensuring an in-depth review of the act every five years.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage promised us that the Bloc Québécois's amendments would be included in the new version of the reform, and indeed they are almost all there. Since nothing can be left to chance in such a bill, we are making sure that we can course correct in the event that changing one simple word has a major impact on the effect of the clause. We have to keep in mind that we want a piece of legislation that will not be obsolete as soon as it is passed. Technology is developing very quickly, and we need a long-term vision to ensure that the act does not become outdated after just a few years. Flexible legislation is important.
From day one, the Bloc, backed by Quebec's entire cultural sector, was the party that worked the hardest on improving Bill C‑10 and getting it passed before the end of the parliamentary session. During the last election campaign, making sure that Bill C‑10, now Bill C‑11, was passed was even the first item on our election platform under arts, culture and heritage. Quebec's and Canada's cultural sectors have been waiting for decades for this act to be updated. The cultural sector made a simple demand just a few days after Bill C‑11 was introduced. It asked us to ensure that this bill passed quickly, because the sector had waited long enough.
Essentially, the objective of the bill remains the same: to apply the Broadcasting Act to the web giants by forcing them to contribute financially to the creation and discoverability of Canadian cultural content. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, will receive new powers that will allow it to determine which online services will have to be regulated and what quotas will need to be met.
Bill C‑11 will help better regulate video streamers such as Netflix, Apple TV+, Disney+ and Amazon Prime Video, but also companies that specialize in streaming music online such as Spotify, YouTube and Apple Music. Bill C‑11 will require these companies to contribute to Canadian content when commercial items such as albums are downloaded and distributed on their platforms.
The exclusion clause, namely clause 4.1, addressed earlier, has been revised. Now creators, users and social media influencers are exempt from the legislation. It still needs to be taken into account. The money a creator earns from their content is immaterial in the eyes of the new legislation. So-called amateur content on social media would be exempt. The legislation focuses specifically on commercial products.
The CRTC will also have the option to impose conditions associated with discoverability and the development of Canadian content. The bill will not touch the algorithms that can influence the recommendations made to users. The department says it wants to focus instead on discoverability outcomes and not intervene directly with respect to web giants' algorithms. Quebec, francophone and Canadian content must be much more accessible on platforms. Ottawa is trying to give the CRTC the power to hold discussions with each of the digital companies to determine how much they could contribute to Canadian content based on their business model.
Second, I would remind members that the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc supported and tried to improve this bill that the Conservatives were against from the outset. They engaged in a smear campaign and tried to find all kinds of far-fetched flaws. They really used their imagination. In Parliament, they used a variety of stratagems to slow down the process, both in committee and in the House. They took the House hostage under false pretenses, claiming that the bill infringes on freedom of expression.
However, since 1991, there has been a provision that forces the CRTC to respect freedom of expression. This provision has always been respected, and there is nothing to indicate that that will change. Pierre Trudel, a law professor at Université de Montréal who is an expert on the CRTC and information technologies, reassured us of that. He categorically stated that the freedom of Internet users is not at risk. There is no thought police on television, and there will be no thought police online.
Given the popularity and growing use of online platforms, there is no doubt that the legislation needs to be reviewed. According to ADISQ statistics on the music consumption habits of Quebec francophones over the age of 15, 50% of users follow YouTube's recommendations when choosing their playlists. When it comes to streaming services, 26% of users choose music suggested by the platform through playlists, and 17% follow recommendations. This is based on their past listening habits. These figures illustrate the importance of making Quebec and Canadian francophone content easily discoverable to users on online platforms in order to give it a boost.
Solutions do exist to address the algorithms. One option to consider would be for Spotify and Apple Music to offer a lot more francophone playlists.
Part of the CRTC's mission is to ensure the proper functioning and development of the Canadian broadcasting system. In doing so, it must respect freedom of expression and the other foundations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Third, both Quebec's and Canada's broadcasting industries are in crisis. According to an August 2020 report from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, or CAB, local television and radio broadcasters were projected to face a revenue shortfall totalling $1.6 billion between 2020 and 2022. According to the CAB, 50 radio stations were at risk of shutting down within four to six months of the report's release, and another 150 could go silent within 18 months, resulting in 2,000 job losses, or 24% of 2019 employment levels. The report added that at least 40 of the 95 private and local television stations in Canada would cease operations by 2023.
The most vulnerable operations are AM stations, independent stations and other private radio and TV stations in smaller markets across Canada. Radio and television revenues have been declining for several years, and COVID-19 exacerbated these disconcerting trends.
We know that the Internet has revolutionized the way Quebeckers, particularly young Quebeckers, consume their favourite TV shows, movies, radio stations and music. Consumption trends have drastically changed. The online broadcasting market is dominated by foreign players. We need to take that into account.
Young Quebeckers are especially likely to skirt the traditional broadcasting system. The vast majority of young francophones aged 15 and up frequently listen to music on YouTube. We therefore need to ensure that they are offered francophone content.
A study conducted by CEFRIO, a research and innovation organization, found that over eight in 10 Quebeckers used a social media site in 2018, an increase of 16% compared to 2016. It is clear that the Internet is changing usage and listening habits.
Since I have only about a minute left, I just want to give a few statistics from the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office. Canadian content production decreased by an average of 12.4% per year between January 2017 and December 2020. It is important to remember that media outlets are currently in crisis, mainly because they have lost their advertising revenue to web giants.
In conclusion, the Yale report was clear: Canadian content is important. It said that if we do not tell our own stories, no one else will. That really made an impression on me. That was why the report set out a suite of recommendations on financing Canadian content with public funds, imposing spending requirements on foreign online broadcasters, and strengthening CBC/Radio-Canada.
One last thing before I wrap up: Last night, I met with Martin Gougeon from the Théâtre de l'Ancien presbytère. He is an artist who has made it his mission to promote our francophone culture to young students. I have also met with local media representatives many times. They are all unanimous. Quebec's cultural and media communities want this. Let us pass Bill C‑11. Enough dawdling.
1700 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Peace River—Westlock for his speech.
I want to tell him that, as a Quebecker, I value the right to die with dignity, and I support the non-partisan work that was done in Quebec in that regard. The intellectual shortcut he took from Bill C-22 to the issue of euthanasia is extremely dangerous.
That said, I have a question for the hon. member. The study of Bill C‑22's predecessor, Bill C-35, ended a year ago when the election was called. Incidentally, today also marks the first anniversary of my re-election as the member for Shefford. I want to once again thank the voters in my riding for placing their trust in me.
At present, Bill C‑22 provides for three years of consultations. That is a long time for persons with a disability who need help immediately and who are being affected by inflation right now.
I also want to remind my colleague that I am very involved with disability organizations. My partner and I have done a lot of volunteer work, and a member of my family had a disability and passed away.
203 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 5:28:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for agreeing to share his time with me.
I am pleased to speak to the Bloc Québécois motion concerning post-secondary studies and research chairs, even though this is a jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.
As the critic for status of women, I am perfectly aware that this group is still under-represented and that more work needs to be done. However, the debate we would like to have is not about the concept of positive discrimination in general, but about the specific policy of the Canada research chairs program, and its requirements and practices concerning equity, diversity and inclusion. We are not against equity. We are not against diversity. We are not against inclusion. I am pleased to note that once again, Quebec is working to raise awareness of such matters.
Today I will be speaking about what is already being done in Quebec, I will come back to Ottawa's paternalistic approach, and I will conclude by speaking about the importance of being proactive, especially in the case of women, but also in the case of indigenous peoples, people with disabilities and minorities.
First, we must speak about what is already being done in Quebec.
The right way to promote equality, diversity and inclusion would instead be to apply a preferential hiring policy, meaning that for equally qualified candidates, preference would be given to certain people. That is what many Quebec universities have already done with respect to women, and it has worked well.
We are not directly opposed to all current, future or possible policies aimed at promoting equity, diversity and inclusion, especially since these exist in Quebec. We are starting a debate on the matter, a societal debate which has not yet taken place, but which is necessary and desirable.
I do want to say that in Quebec, there are also CEGEPs. Today, we are talking a lot about universities and research chairs, but we must not forget about CEGEPs.
There is no university in the riding of Shefford, but there is an excellent CEGEP in Granby. It may be training future researchers. We must not forget them in the post-secondary education continuum, whether it is for pre-university studies or technical courses. That is why I was delighted to present female science students with certificates to recognize their academic excellence as part of Hooked on School Days. I also talked with Yvan O'Connor, the director of the Granby CEGEP, who told me about his institution's projects and development and the problems related to foreign student visas.
If the federal government wants to contribute to education, it should work on matters under its jurisdiction. For example, it could provide adequate funding for science, which it is not doing at the moment.
We are opposed to a federal policy that is specific, ill-conceived and tainted by ideology. It creates paradoxical situations, anomalies or inequities. Moreover, it represents federal interference in an area under Quebec and provincial jurisdiction.
Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, expressly confers jurisdiction over education on the provinces. It is generally known and accepted that education is a Quebec matter. Quebec's universities belong to Quebeckers, and they are funded through taxes paid by Quebeckers.
In fact, it is a direct intrusion into provincial jurisdiction, because the influence of the Canada research chairs program goes beyond simply funding research. In fact, it acts as a professor hiring program. The federal government is dictating hiring conditions to universities. This is unacceptable. The program must be reviewed.
The federal government can use its spending power to finance research, but it cannot, in any way, use this approach to change the way Quebec's universities function. Yet, that is what is happening because of the excessive constraints imposed by the Canada research chairs program, particularly because of its unreasonable equity, diversity and inclusion requirements.
In addition, through the requirements it imposes on its research funding programs, the federal government is undermining the autonomy of universities. There is no excuse for the government dictating the conditions for hiring professors. If the government wishes to appropriate the ability to spend on education, it must do so with no strings attached.
It is unacceptable for the federal government to impose targets on Quebec universities under threat of sanctions. Quebec universities are perfectly free to develop programs to address diversity and inclusion without having the federal government dictate the terms and conditions under threat of having part of their funding withheld. Federally imposed requirements are unacceptable and illegitimate impediments to their independence.
It is possible to have a policy that fosters hiring from certain groups of equal qualifications. That is true and it is already being done for women in some Quebec university departments, for example. However, to apply an equal opportunities policy, you must have candidates who are available and interested.
The federal EDI policy on academic research funding is an ideological drift that creates absurd situations, and it must be abolished.
If we want the academic workforce to be more diverse and representative of the Canadian population, the solution is not to impose arbitrary quotas at the time of hiring, because the most important criteria should be the excellence of academic records and the value of scientific research projects.
The solution should be proactive instead, so that at the time of hiring, the pool of candidates is already more diverse and representative of the general population.
We are therefore being asked to collectively reflect on how we can find positive measures that will promote equal opportunities by stimulating interest in the arts, science and all spheres of society. In all cases, this will be a Quebec discussion, as education is at the heart of our social model.
The federal government's responsibility is to stop interfering in the management of Quebec universities and to improve the granting agencies' research grants for students. Yes, quotas create certain effects. They are unequal. To put it bluntly, the CRC program's current policy prevents some researchers from applying for research chair positions because they are not part of the designated groups. They are automatically excluded, despite their qualifications, even if that means some chairs remain vacant.
The unequal effects of the hiring targets for the four designated groups, namely women, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and visible minorities, came under public scrutiny when Laval University posted an ad for a job in the biology department in the winter of 2022. There was also an interesting column by Jean‑François Lisée, who denounced the incongruity of setting targets using the Canadian average.
With its Université du Québec network, Quebec made the choice to set up universities in the regions. That way, knowledge is not concentrated in the major centres, and this contributes to the social vitality of our regions. The current CRC policy requires our universities to recruit not only outside their walls, but well outside the regions in which they are established. The CRC policy directly hinders Quebec's vision. This is very important to me because it hurts our communities.
The federal government's position is rigid and ideologically driven. What is more, it constitutes interference in provincial jurisdictions. It is also an attack on the autonomy of universities. The federal government should review its research funding policy and allow the universities to determine their own hiring policies.
In Quebec, these criteria are evaluated based on the efforts made by the candidate to promote EDI, not on hiring quotas that exclude qualified researchers. We must not forget the important issue of university autonomy. These requirements prove that the federal policy does not respect the autonomy and independence of universities. The federal government's approach is extremely authoritarian and high-handed.
I would also add that, in the context of a labour shortage, it can take time to renew this pool, as requested by the federal government, given that many years of study are required for this process. That is the quandary faced by universities when they are required to fill positions with people from designated groups, except for women. Setting aside the issue of hiring quotas and the curious fact that women, indigenous people, people with disabilities and ethnic minorities are put in the same boat, this temporary excitement among elected officials and the media gives us an opportunity to again point out a fundamental fact about universities and their autonomy. We should remember that this is not about discussing the legitimacy of certain appointments from specific groups, because, in the case of women, that has been happening for more than 20 years. Instead, we are noting that the requirements imposed by the federal program are not being condemned by universities as an illegitimate and unacceptable restriction on their autonomy.
However, is this not a striking case of the denial of their management autonomy? In other words, these prejudices will be eliminated not by excluding certain people, but by improving selection processes. For example, universities could anonymize CVs or establish standard exams for a position. This is being discussed as a means of promoting the hiring of women.
These are points to ponder, because, beyond the debates on these exclusive criteria, I would like us to have a calm, healthy debate on proactive measures we can take. What barriers need to be broken down? Why are women still under-represented as entrepreneurs? Why are there still fewer women in politics? Why do we have to work harder to recruit female research chairs, especially in economics?
I was reading about that this summer in Hélène Périvier's excellent book about feminist economics, L'économie féministe. I highly recommend it. At the end of the day, I want little girls like my little Naomie to aspire to do the work they want to do, no matter what they choose.
Let us give them the choice. Let us give our universities the choice to operate the way they want.
1685 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
- Mar/1/22 1:31:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Manicouagan for her speech.
There is one thing I want to comment on. She talked about Ms. Lebel and Mr. Legault and what is going on in the National Assembly. Earlier, a Liberal MP once again accused the Bloc Québécois of picking a fight. I actually see us as spokespeople for Quebec's demands.
In 2010, the National Assembly adopted a motion to ensure Quebec would not lose any political weight in the House of Commons. As long as we are here, we must champion and speak on behalf of Quebeckers, who just want Quebec, which is a nation and has that special status, to maintain its political weight in the House of Commons. That political weight is important. It must be protected, and we absolutely cannot lose a seat.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
