Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 of 263
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-06-19 15:16 [p.29394]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has no credibility when it comes to the environment. Just 24 hours after declaring a climate emergency, he gave the green light to the Trans Mountain pipeline, which will produce more greenhouse gas emissions than all of Quebec's industries combined.
He is apologizing by saying that he is going to invest $500 million in green energy, but he is investing $14 billion in pollution.
How is the Prime Minister going to fight climate change by investing our money in a project that creates more pollution than all of Quebec?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-06-18 10:20 [p.29266]
Mr. Speaker, I have another 50 or so signatures to add to the 3,792 signatures on last week's petition calling for a public inquiry into the Lac-Mégantic tragedy.
This petition is not just about the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. It is about all aspects of rail safety. Decades of deregulation and privatization have jeopardized rail safety across the country.
Petitions are a way for citizens to make their voices heard. There are other ways. A documentary series about the Lac-Mégantic tragedy is in production. We will not give up.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-06-18 13:06 [p.29290]
Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the parliamentary secretary, who said that a price on pollution improves economic competitiveness. That is what OECD researchers are saying. That is a message for my Conservative colleagues.
However, I do not agree with the Liberals, who keep repeating that the economy and the environment go hand in hand. That is not the case for Trans Mountain.
The more we increase oil sands development, the more we increase greenhouse gas emissions. Here are a few statistics. Since 2005, the oil sands have grown by 158%. Alberta is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, which rose by 28.7% between 2009 and 2016.
The economy and the environment do not always go hand in hand, when it comes to the extraction of dirty oil from the oil sands.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-06-17 19:15 [p.29224]
Madam Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, my colleague talked about young people being environmentally responsible, saying that that is the way to go. I would just remind him that a network called the Établissements verts Brundtland, comprising several green schools in Quebec, was created in the 1990s. People have already started adopting environmentally responsible behaviour. However, that is not going to solve the climate crisis. The elephant in the room is oil and gas, fossil fuels, the oil sands.
What could the Conservatives propose when they want to develop the oil sands at all costs? What could a Conservative government propose to resolve the climate crisis or, at least, to start working on it?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-06-13 14:00 [p.29055]
Madam Speaker, the furor over environmental assessments of federal projects reflects a classic Canadian divide.
On the one side are six provincial premiers who are opposed to the Liberals' Bill C-69 because they believe it does not sufficiently take the financial aspect into account. They want free rein to impose pipelines. On the other side is Quebec, which is also opposed to Bill C-69, but only because it gives too much power to Ottawa and its subpar environmental standards. Quebec wants its own laws to apply on its own territory. Caught in the middle is Ottawa, which has introduced a bill no one wants. It is the classic Canadian quandary.
We in the Bloc Québécois support Quebec. Quebeckers are the ones who should be deciding which projects to approve or deny based on our own laws. That is why we voted against Bill C-69. We are going to also vote against the Conservatives' amendments, but that is because their amendments have just one goal, which is to ram pipelines down our throats without any possibility of a challenge.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-06-12 16:50 [p.29011]
Mr. Speaker, several of the amendments that were rejected came directly from the oil lobby. However, some of the amendments would have affirmed respect for the provinces' rights and municipalities' land use plans. Why were these amendments rejected? The Bloc Québécois proposed similar amendments in committee.
Why must the provinces' rights and municipal land use regulations always be ignored?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-06-11 13:58 [p.28912]
Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague's comments about the softwood lumber, steel, aluminum and automotive sectors, but I did not hear him say anything about supply-managed producers.
We are being asked to ratify this quickly, but would that not mean giving the government a blank cheque to ratify the agreement without compensating our supply-managed producers? We should be sending a cheque to every supply-managed producer rather than giving this government a blank cheque.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-06-11 13:59 [p.28912]
Mr. Speaker, when the people of Lac-Mégantic called for a public inquiry into the rail disaster that happened in their town, the Minister of Transport called them conspiracy theorists. However, a number of questions remain unanswered, including the following:
Why did Transport Canada allow a negligent company to operate massive convoys of oil tankers with only one employee on board?
Why was that allowed even after the National Research Council had warned that safety was an issue?
Who decided to ignore the known deficiencies, and under what kind of pressure?
Why is it that the initial investigation identified six causes for the disaster, all connected to the one-member crew, but they were all removed from the final report?
Why did the Transportation Safety Board not hold a public inquiry, when it could have done so?
Why has the number of rail incidents increased since the Lac-Mégantic tragedy?
Why did an identical derailment kill three people in British Columbia in February?
All these questions show that, rather than insulting people, the Minister of Transport should launch a public inquiry immediately.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-06-10 15:10 [p.28815]
Mr. Speaker, 68 people lost their jobs last week at TVA, and Ottawa continues to support web giants. We are told that it will take some time but that they are working on it.
Our television and film productions are at the heart of our identity. They identify us as Quebeckers and have helped us develop our star system. Productions like Bye Bye epitomize our traditions, while shows like Lance et compte, Annie et ses hommes  and Les beaux malaises are a reflection of our culture. Our cinema is recognized all over the world, but it cannot be found online.
When will the government force web giants to pay their share and contribute to our culture?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-06-10 15:36 [p.28820]
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present a petition calling for a public inquiry into the Lac-Mégantic tragedy and the rail system as a whole.
Last week, the minister was talking about a conspiracy theory, but the petition was signed by 1,592 people online, and I have more than 2,000 signatures here. In addition, the Town of Lac-Mégantic adopted a resolution a few years ago, and the National Assembly of Quebec adopted a unanimous motion.
All of these people want to get to the bottom of what happened because a number of questions remain unanswered. For example, who writes rail companies' regulations? Are there enough inspectors? Is there a law requiring companies to install more hand brakes? Why is the number of rail accidents on the rise?
Those are just a few of the many questions. A public inquiry into the Lac-Mégantic tragedy and rail safety is essential to ensuring an accident like that never happens again.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-06-07 12:10 [p.28758]
Madam Speaker, the loss of 68 jobs at TVA proves that even the most popular media outlets are in trouble. In the meantime, Facebook, Netflix and other companies are not paying their share of tax, are not collecting tax, are not contributing to creating Quebec content, and do not have a single journalist on their payroll. We need to have new fund, bankrolled by the web giants, for local television.
Will the government finally force them to pay their share?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-06-05 15:13 [p.28586]
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the people of Lac-Mégantic called for a public inquiry into the 2013 rail disaster. The minister told them that they were spreading conspiracy theories. The fact that 47 people were burned alive in Lac-Mégantic is not a conspiracy. In February there were three deaths in a similar accident in British Columbia; that is not a conspiracy. The increase in rail accidents since the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic is not a conspiracy.
Will the minister retract his statements, stop insulting the people of Lac-Mégantic and order a public inquiry into rail safety?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-06-05 15:22 [p.28587]
Mr. Speaker, 3,800 people have signed a petition demanding a public inquiry into the Lac-Mégantic rail tragedy. Over a year ago, a motion calling for a public inquiry was unanimously adopted by Quebec's National Assembly.
I think the Minister of Transport should retract his comments about conspiracy theories.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-06-04 14:00 [p.28493]
Mr. Speaker, the findings of the report on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls are tragic and devastating. We must start by acknowledging the courage of the women and families who broke the silence and testified.
The report's findings should come as no surprise to anyone. We must provide access to basic services and protect fundamental human rights. These findings are, for the most part, the same as those of the Erasmus-Dussault commission, which was held 25 years ago, and those of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The solutions are also very similar.
The recent events in Val-d'Or, the cases of kidnapped indigenous children, and the revelations of sexual abuse, especially on the North Shore, have opened Quebeckers' eyes. The thousands of missing and murdered women must serve as a wake-up call for Canada.
We must take real action to change our nation-to-nation relationships and, above all, to put an end to violence and discrimination.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-05-30 13:58 [p.28291]
Mr. Speaker, last weekend, the governing party in the Quebec National Assembly unveiled its plan for reducing Quebec's dependence on oil by 40% by 2030.
Hospitals, schools and public buildings will no longer be heated by oil. The Quebec government is going to have a fleet of electric vehicles. It is taking action. The only thing slowing down Quebec's shift to a green economy and preventing it from taking real climate action is, as always, Ottawa, which wants pipelines at all costs, prioritizes dirty oil and is willing to put wetlands at risk to move its gasoline.
Whether the government is Liberal or Conservative, it amounts to the same thing. It is always the same targets, the same obsession with the oil sands, the same handouts to big oil and the same cozy relationships with oil tycoons.
All the parties in Quebec know that serious action is needed right away. Quebeckers know this, too. Unfortunately, Ottawa still prefers negligence. Is it not time for Ottawa to wake up?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-05-29 15:12 [p.28225]
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Quebec's National Assembly adopted a unanimous motion noting that all projects involving the transportation of petroleum products must be submitted to the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, Quebec's environmental hearings board. However, Ottawa does not understand this, because here, the national interest means the interests of oil companies, and that is that.
We keep repeating over and over that Quebec does not want dirty oil pipelines. We do not want them. That seems pretty clear to me.
Will the Prime Minister pledge not to revive any dirty oil pipeline projects in Quebec, yes or no?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-05-29 15:14 [p.28226]
Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find the unanimous consent of the House for me to move the following motion—
Some hon. members: No.
Ms. Monique Pauzé: Let me finish.
Here is the motion: that the House of Commons reiterate that a woman's body belongs to her and her alone and recognize her freedom of choice on abortion for any reason.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Brantford--Brant.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-05-28 15:04 [p.28148]
Mr. Speaker, here is how the government responded to my question yesterday:
With regard to pipelines, especially pipelines that cross provincial borders, it is up to the federal government to do the work.
For Ottawa, doing the work means always saying “yes” to pipelines, every time, no exceptions. In light of the B.C. Court of Appeal ruling, we are worried about the energy east project resurfacing in Quebec.
Will the government promise to never revive the energy east project in Quebec?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-05-28 15:05 [p.28148]
Mr. Speaker, it is funny how their good projects are always in the industries that pollute the most. Since 1956, Ottawa has always said yes to the oil industry's pipeline requests. The government always says yes and only yes.
Quebec does not want any more pipelines full of dirty oil. Quebec is saying no to energy east, and if Quebec does not want it, then neither does the Bloc.
It is great that the project is not on the table, but the government needs to commit to keeping it that way. Will the Prime Minister commit to never reviving energy east? Will he make that solemn promise today?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-05-27 15:04 [p.28058]
Mr. Speaker, the B.C. Court of Appeal sided with the federal government. Now Ottawa is free to ram a pipeline down our throats, and there is nothing we can do about it.
It does not matter that British Columbia and Quebec do not want pipelines. It does not matter that residents do not want pipelines. It does not matter that first nations do not want pipelines. Oil companies want pipelines, so Ottawa will build some, and that is that.
Could the Prime Minister pledge not to build any pipelines in Quebec without the approval of the people of Quebec?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-05-27 15:05 [p.28058]
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a climate emergency. In the kingdom of Canada, pipelines rule.
Social licence and protecting our lands and waters are not important. What matters are pipelines full of dirty oil that will enable Canada, a so-called green country, to line its pockets with petrodollars with the blessing of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
Why is this government always putting the interests of oil companies ahead of the interests of the people and the planet?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-05-27 16:02 [p.28076]
Madam Speaker, if we are now talking about the climate emergency we are currently facing, it is because, year after year, every time the alarm sounded, Canada hit the snooze button. Ottawa has known for decades that, without a transition to green energy, we were heading towards a wall. We are just about there.
I say “we” because Quebec can try all it wants, but as long as Ottawa keeps on polluting, the global result will be the same. The planet is warming and the climate is destabilizing.
A few weeks ago, the NDP wanted to get one up on the Liberals with a motion on the climate emergency. Now the Liberals want to get one up on the Conservatives with a motion on the climate emergency. While they try to outdo one another, no one is really doing anything to address the issue, even though we have known about it for years. That is how climate destabilization has turned into a climate emergency.
Let's go back in time a bit. On December 19, 2002, Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol on climate change. That was almost a generation ago. A fine motion was moved in the House and eloquent speeches were made on the urgent need to act, similar to what we are seeing today, but then, that was it.
David Anderson was environment minister at the time in Jean Chrétien's government. He was tasked with developing a plan to meet the Kyoto targets, but it was a huge failure. Emissions rose by 20% instead of decreasing by 6%.
Mr. Anderson gave a long interview in February 2007, after he quit politics, to explain his failure. What he had to say now sounds like a warning. While he was minister, everyone claimed to want to combat climate change, but everything fell apart when it came time for real action.
There is good reason to take action when a country is the largest consumer of energy per capita and the second-largest GHG emitter per capita, but there is also a lot of resistance. This means that as soon as he proposed something, someone would be unhappy and the measure would be stalled.
Sure, some business somewhere may have to make changes if the government takes action. This was the case with the Liberals, and also with the NDP, which was afraid of squabbles with the unions. I remind members that oil and auto workers were pushing hard against Kyoto. The Ontario auto sector was, in large part, made up of gas guzzlers like GMC trucks and Ford Crown Victorias.
Each Canadian produces twice as much GHG emissions than a Quebecker. If it cost more to pollute and were more profitable to not pollute, Canadians would be in trouble and Quebeckers would hit the jackpot. That is why nothing ever gets done, despite the rhetoric.
Let me again reference Mr. Anderson, the former minister. When he was listing all the problems, he said that the only leader whose support of Kyoto never wavered was the Bloc Québécois leader. That was true at the time, and it is even more true today. Finding a policy that suits Quebec without hurting western Canada is impossible.
As a result, any pan-Canadian party that aspires to govern has to cater to both sides. Having a coherent policy becomes impossible. It cannot bring forward sound policy, because it would favour Quebec too much. That is why we are currently in a full-blown climate crisis. That is why the Bloc Québécois had to sign the citizens' universal declaration of climate emergency. The Bloc was the first party in the Parliament of Canada to do so. It remains to be seen as to whether we will remain the only party to do so, for the same reasons that have been motivating the same Canadian parties to continue to accept the same compromises for decades.
As I said earlier, there have been quite a few motions. The NDP moved one to try to corner the Liberals on the climate emergency, and the Liberals moved one to try to corner the Conservatives. However, when it comes time to make a personal commitment, no federal leader, apart from Yves-François Blanchet, has acknowledged the urgent need to sign the citizens' universal declaration of climate emergency. No federal leader, apart from Yves-François Blanchet, has acknowledged the urgent need to support the massive citizen engagement around this issue. No one else has acknowledged the urgent need to support the 365 municipalities that have signed the citizens' universal declaration of climate emergency and that already have an action plan. Also, on May 14, 2019, the organizers of the declaration wrote to the Minister of Environment asking her to table the declaration in question in the House.
They wrote that it is time to walk the talk. We are still waiting. It seems the Liberals are struggling with the kind of frictions one should come to expect when attempting at all costs to keep Quebec within a dysfunctional federation that does not serve our interests.
We agree with every part of the motion we are debating today. We know that climate change is a real crisis that impacts the environment, biodiversity and even human health. That is undeniable. However, we also know that while they were coming to this conclusion, the Liberals were also green-lighting nearly $20 billion in investments in fossil fuels. Furthermore, we know that the Liberals are following the same plan as the Conservatives, who sometimes think they are living in the age of the dinosaurs.
The targets use 2005 as the base year, whereas Quebec and the rest of the world use 1990. Only the “ROC”, meaning the rest of Canada, and the United States use 2005. This practice hides 15 years of free pollution for oil companies.
We also know that, if current trends continue, these “Liberal-Conservative” targets will not be reached. That is not the way to handle a real crisis. The Prime Minister is fiddling while the world burns.
We know that we feel the effects of climate change. Just ask the thousands of Quebeckers who still cannot return home because of the flooding. The cities and towns of Quebec need $4 billion to deal with climate change. Instead of giving them $4 billion, Ottawa spent $4.5 billion buying the Trans Mountain pipeline in western Canada.
We know that climate change is having an impact on coastal communities. Shoreline erosion is a serious problem in Quebec. The shores of the Magdalen Islands are disappearing into the Gulf of St. Lawrence at a rate of 60 centimetres a year. Highways 138 and 132 are under constant pressure from the changing climate. In Montérégie, people are losing their seawall and fear that their homes will end up in the water. When the government talks about the coasts it does not mention erosion. It talks about a coast-to-coast pipeline to export even more oil from the oil sands.
Lastly, we know that the goal of the Paris Agreement is to limit global warming to 1.5°C. In Paris they said we need to limit warming to 2°C, but ideally to 1.5°C. Now people are saying we must not exceed 1.5°C and we have already reached 1.1°C. We also know that Canada is getting further and further away from these targets instead of getting closer. If the world followed Canada's lead, global warming would reach 3°C by the end of the century, a threshold that Climate Transparency calls catastrophic.
Making a commitment to protect the environment is about more than voting in favour of a motion to ease our conscience. We need to firmly believe that everyone has the right to clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment. The fight against climate change is the Liberal government's biggest broken promise. I was in Paris in 2015, and I clearly remember that historic agreement. I saw the government make promises to the entire world. I felt as though I was participating in a historic event. Cities, federated states, scientists, banks, NGOs, businesses and others were all there. Everyone was there and they all sincerely believed that something had changed. Denial was no longer an option. I heard the Minister of Environment say that we needed to stop talking and start taking action.
The Paris Agreement was supposed to be a beginning, not an end. However, there is a good chance that nothing will come of it here because Canada does not have the courage to turn that commitment into an bold, ambitious, radical plan, rather than just a simple motion to keep Parliament talking. Quebeckers will not be fooled.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-05-27 16:13 [p.28077]
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that reminder about the NDP motion, which we supported, just as we support the Liberal motion.
The problem is acting on those motions. In Canada, it is impossible to do anything that is in the interest of both Quebec, which has clean hydro, and the West. In debate, we have seen and heard the Conservatives and the Liberals lob that one back and forth, to no end. It is impossible. As Mr. Anderson, the former Liberal environment minister, concluded, whenever it is time to take action, nothing gets done.
The NDP motion was a good one, with constructive, concrete measures, but it is still clear to us that nothing can actually get done.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-05-27 16:14 [p.28077]
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which gives me a chance to talk about the Conservatives' infamous targets, the ones the Liberals copied. The targets use 2005 as the base year, whereas Quebec and all the other countries are using 1990 as the base year. By opting for the Conservatives' targets, they are basically ignoring 15 years of pollution, especially oil companies' emissions.
In other words, no, I do not think a national government is useful, if all it does is adopt the same targets and fail to meet even those—and all signs point to it not meeting those targets.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-05-16 14:00 [p.27941]
Madam Speaker, May 17 is the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.
Members of the LGBTQ+ community still have battles to fight, and the Bloc Québécois is here to support them. Quebec society has made progress, but homophobia and transphobia are still very real obstacles to equality and people's right to dignity.
Anyone who spends any time on social media knows that cyberbullying has become a major social problem, and it is even worse for LGBTQ people. Nearly 90% of them report reading statements against sexual diversity.
That is why we applaud the work organizations such as GRIS, Fondation Émergence, Alliance Arc-en-ciel and many others are doing to end discrimination and prejudice. Let us work together to make Quebec a place where every individual feels free to express their identity and uniqueness without fear of discrimination.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-05-13 11:37 [p.27661]
Mr. Speaker, my speech will focus on three important things: the situation of French in Quebec, the important role French plays in social cohesion, and parliamentary democracy as it applied to Bill C-421.
What was the most important news about the language issue in Quebec in recent years? It was the record drop in the demographic weight of French speakers and the unprecedented rise in the demographic weight of English speakers.
English is not threatened in Quebec; French is. We are not the ones saying that. It is Statistics Canada, and it cannot be said that Statistics Canada is an organization that supports Quebec nationalism.
Here is what is being said:
The Language Projections for Canada, 2011 to 2036...indicate that, if the demographic conditions observed since 2011 continue, the balance between French and English in Quebec will continue to quickly tip in favour of the latter. According to those same projections, between 2011 and 2036, the weight of French-home-language speakers is expected to drop by approximately seven percentage points, while that of English-home-language speakers is expected to rise by two percentage points.
On the 40th anniversary of Bill 101, Guy Rocher, a sociologist, professor and renowned speaker, quoted some figures from Statistics Canada, as well. These figures relate to the census, which showed that French is declining in Quebec, as a mother tongue, language of work and language spoken at home. This has become a language crisis. We cannot keep turning a blind eye, because we now have figures showing how bad it is. Once again, I remind members that Statistics Canada as an organization is not very supportive of Quebec nationalism or independence.
The situation is critical. Play time is over and now is the time to act. French is under threat in Quebec. I am not fearmongering here. I am simply stating the facts, and everything that can be done to protect the French language must be done. This is what my colleague's bill was designed to do.
Here is another quote from Statistics Canada that demonstrates how important the French language is to social cohesion:
The ability of immigrants to speak one of the official languages is considered an important condition for their full participation in Canadian society.
That is what Statistics Canada says about Canada, and rather emphatically at that. It seems to me that what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. French in Quebec should also get special consideration.
The government is trying to brainwash us into believing that the battle for French is won and that we no longer need to worry our pretty little heads about it. The fact remains, though, that mastering French is less beneficial to immigrants than mastering English. There are social reasons for all that, of course. There are unilingual English brand names and the Internet. Information and communications technology has exploded in recent decades, and with it the use of English at the expense of every other language in the world.
The Government of Quebec also has its own unique problems, such as the language of administration, which is often English; the sign law, which is often disregarded; and challenges related to officially bilingual municipalities. Those are all consequences of the many attacks on Bill 101, our language charter.
Knowledge of French is fundamental to successful integration and access to employment. Knowledge of French is fundamental to strong social cohesion.
Marina Doucerain, a researcher in the area of immigration psychology, has done studies on this. She has indicated that all studies of immigrants in the greater Montreal area that she has been involved in have been unequivocal. It is very clear that the majority of participants, whether they come from the Maghreb region, Russia or elsewhere, want to make Quebecois friends and integrate into the majority culture, which means they must learn French. However, the francization and cultural integration of immigrants remain problematic.
Let us now look at what happened here, in the House of Commons, with my colleague's bill. The exceptional procedure applied to the bill introduced by my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île prevents the bill from even being voted on in a recorded division. This is basically just another attempt to relegate the Quebec nation to a minority status just like every other ethnic minority in Canada.
Canadians, who are still 100% behind Pierre Trudeau's charter, will not stop until there is linguistic free trade from coast to coast to coast.
In closing, what we want is for French, the common language of Quebec, to have the chance to counterbalance English, the common language of Canada, the United States, and globalization because our distinctness is important to us.
I will take a few moments to read a motion that was moved at the end of November 1995 by Mr. Jean Chrétien, who was prime minister at the time.
The motion moved:
That
Whereas the People of Quebec have expressed the desire for recognition of Quebec's distinct society;
(1) the House recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada;
(2) the House recognize that Quebec's distinct society includes its French-speaking majority, unique culture and civil law tradition;
(3) the House undertake to be guided by this reality;
(4) the House encourage all components of the legislative and executive branches of government to take note of this recognition and be guided in their conduct accordingly.
In his argument, the former prime minister said:
The purpose of the motion we are debating today is to have the elected representatives of Canada recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada. As a Quebecker and a francophone [we know that Mr. Chrétien is a Quebecker and a francophone, of course], I understand and share the desire of my fellow Quebeckers to have our difference recognized.
Today I call on Canadians who demonstrated their attachment to Quebec during the referendum campaign to support our government's initiative to recognize Quebec explicitly as a distinct society.
This was adopted on December 11, 1995. Is the quiet nationalism mentioned by the member from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert possible in this country? It would seem it is not. This motion should have been applied to Bill C-421, but it was not.
Federalists are upset by our desire to have our own nation, a nation that proclaims loud and clear our pride in speaking French, and to give it the tools needed to keep our language alive. It also bothers them that we want to base our identity on the common values that bring us together and unite us. “The moment Quebec stands up for itself, federalists become outraged.” These words were spoken by my colleague, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île. He said them in 2015, and we fully endorse them.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-05-08 14:04 [p.27511]
Mr. Speaker, Quebec has a hard time preserving its heritage. For years now, the City of Saguenay and Quebec City have been asking Ottawa to put Arvida on the list of proposed UNESCO world heritage sites.
Arvida's first 270 houses were built in just 135 days. It is a unique and very well-preserved world-famous model of urban design. It played a key role in the development of the Saguenay region, which, because of aluminum, has been integral to Canada-U.S. industrial relations for over a century. UNESCO asked countries to do more to showcase their industrial heritage and 20th-century architecture. Arvida checks both boxes. Enough dithering already.
When will the government put Arvida on UNESCO's world heritage list?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-05-07 15:09 [p.27485]
Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That this House oppose the construction of new pipelines because they would harm the environment, and as the Leader of the Official Opposition said on December 2, 2018—
Some hon. members: No.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-05-03 12:05 [p.27344]
Mr. Speaker, as of January 1, foreign web giants are paying their taxes in Quebec like everyone else.
Not only have Internet media services complied with Quebec's demands, but revenues are twice as high as anticipated. Meanwhile, Ottawa is still letting Netflix and its ilk skip paying taxes at the expense of our cultural industries.
Now that we know web giants are willing to pay taxes, why is the government so determined to give them a free ride?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-05-03 12:06 [p.27344]
Mr. Speaker, the government is also taking a laissez-faire approach to rail transportation. Last week, a train carrying hazardous material derailed in L'Assomption in my riding. Fortunately, nobody was hurt and nothing spilled from any of the cars.
However, on February 16, in Manitoba, nearly a million litres of crude oil spilled in a derailment. On February 4, in British Columbia, three men were killed when a train went off the tracks. Since November, there have been at least eight major incidents that have claimed the lives of six people.
When will the government order a public inquiry on the problems with rail safety?
Results: 1 - 30 of 263 | Page: 1 of 9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data