House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Bloc MP for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert (Québec)

Lost her last election, in 2011, with 28% of the vote.

Statements in the House

June 16th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, on April 19, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages a question in this House about royalties on MP3s and copyrights. The minister told me to wait to see his bill in order to discuss it with full knowledge of the facts. I can now discuss it with full knowledge of the facts, for we have seen the bill.

The minister was tweeting again today on Twitter. He said that Bill C-32 was fair and had broad and deep support from across Canada, including from consumers, provincial ministers, the software industry, the music, film and television industries, small businesses, chambers of commerce and photographers.

Nothing could be further from the truth. We have seen that creators, artists, cultural organizations and the publishing community do not support this bill. Only businesses support it. I do not know what planet he lives on if he really believes that the bill has broad support across Canada.

Every day we receive press releases, open letters and opinion pieces criticizing this bill. I receive them from people not only from Quebec, but from the rest of Canada.

Today, the Canadian Consumer Initiative wrote to the minister to tell him that he was completely out to lunch on Monday, when, in answer to a question, he told me that this bill had the support of consumers and that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce acts in the best interests of the Conservatives, I mean consumers. That was a Freudian slip. It acts in the best interests of the Conservatives, not consumers.

The Canadian Consumer Initiative set the record straight and again condemned the protection of digital locks and the anti-circumvention provisions in the current bill. The letter goes on to say that, in the opinion of the initiative's members, the bill's provisions undermine Canadian consumer interests. I am not the one saying this; it is the Canadian Consumer Initiative, which is made up of four of Canada's largest consumer associations: the Consumers Council of Canada, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Option consommateurs and the Union des consommateurs.

When the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages confuses a chamber of commerce with a consumer advocacy group, we wonder where we are going with this sort of argument. We wonder whether it is really worthwhile talking to someone who does not know what he is talking about.

Today, the Association nationale des éditeurs de livres, ANEL, weighed in on this issue. It said that its board of directors had voted on a strong resolution against Bill C-32. According to ANEL, which is a Canada-wide association, new exceptions to fair use will deprive copyright holders of income they would normally receive. After examining all the provisions as a whole, in an attempt to anticipate the effects of the marketplace, the ANEL board of directors concluded that the bill would lead to the collapse of educational publishing, create serious difficulties for their collective and represent an obstacle to the development of its digital strategy. ANEL also concluded that it was a direct attack on traditional Quebec values of support for creators.

I would like to take a few moments to talk about AGAMM, which includes almost every big name in the Quebec music industry. This organization proposed that the minister have Internet service providers make a financial contribution consisting of a percentage of their sales revenues to music rights holders.

I do not have time to talk about ADISQ. I will let my colleague answer and come back to that.

Copyright June 14th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely wrong. The government has not kept the promises it made to consumers.

The Canadian Consumer Initiative has stated that the digital lock is:

...a punitive approach that has proven ineffective elsewhere in the world. Consumers' rights may be restricted or even denied by the media companies.

That is what national organizations responsible for consumer rights have said. How can the minister deny the fact that his bill favours neither creators nor consumers?

Copyright June 14th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, artists and creators are very critical of Bill C-32, the copyright bill. The bill's new digital lock will not help, because they will have to play the part of investigator, detective and lawyer—just like Claude Robinson—if they want their rights to be respected.

Does the minister understand that by forcing creators, artists and artisans to enforce their rights themselves, he is not giving copyright holders enough protection?

Copyright June 10th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, if the minister had reversed the words “consumers” and “creators”, we might have thought he was a real heritage minister.

The SPACQ also deplores the fact that the government continues to place the burden of taking legal action on creators, who lack the means to assert their rights.

How can the government claim to be supporting creators when it did not invite the Union des artistes or the SPACQ to its consultation and it has introduced an imbalanced bill that clearly favours American companies?

Copyright June 10th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, the chair of the Société professionnelle des auteurs et compositeurs du Québec, Mario Chenart, is bitterly disappointed in the Conservatives' copyright bill. He condemns the government's refusal to extend the private copying levy to digital platforms, thereby depriving songwriter-composers of a major source of income.

Because of the bill's imbalance in favour of American commercial interests, Mario Chenart has this question, which I put to this government: where is the heritage minister?

Copyright June 4th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, there is no monetary compensation for artists in this bill. Sales of music CDs are in free fall and artists' revenues are slowly drying up. However, the appetite for music has not wavered and makers of MP3 players are still raking in huge profits. ADISQ, UDA, the Canadian Private Copying Collective and even the Union des consommateurs are calling for a levy on digital music players.

Why is the government denying creators their fair remuneration?

Copyright June 4th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative bill, which is meant to protect copyright, is deeply disappointing to creators, who want to see a levy imposed on MP3 players. This levy is simply a recognition of the work done by artists.

How can the government justify granting compensation to artists for copies made on blank CDs but not for copies made on MP3 players?

Copyright June 3rd, 2010

Mr. Speaker, the Chair of the Canadian Private Copying Collective, Annie Morin, pointed out that, “By not allowing for a levy on MP3 players, the government is effectively saying that an artist’s work is of no value. But without the music, it is the MP3 player that has no value”.

This bill contains no provision to compensate artists for their work. Why is this government refusing to compensate artists fairly?

Copyright June 3rd, 2010

Mr. Speaker, the government's Bill C-32, which is supposed to protect copyright, will allow people to copy any legitimately acquired work onto the device of their choice for personal use, without fear of repercussions. However, the ADISQ, UDA, Canadian Private Copying Collective and SPACQ would have preferred a levy on digital players like the one on blank CDs, which a House majority recently voted for.

Why is the government refusing to ensure that creators receive fair compensation?

National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Heritage Day Act June 1st, 2010

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the bill that would designate a national hunting, trapping and fishing heritage day. As we know, hunting, trapping and fishing are legitimate activities that have a positive impact on the economies of the regions, and they are part of a way of life for many people and many communities.

This bill does not aim to protect or regulate hunting, trapping and fishing in any way. It does not interfere in the government's business or in its jurisdictions. It is the Government of Quebec's business to enforce the Act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife and the Fisheries Act, among other things.

Those who make a living from these activities often encounter difficulties, and this day will help inform and make the public and decision-makers aware of their situation, of their concerns and their needs. Therefore, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill, as I mentioned before.

This bill would designate September 23 as National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Heritage Day. This would be a day to recognize the economic and cultural contribution made by hunters, trappers and fishers in Quebec and Canada.

We need to distinguish between two main categories of activities: sport fishing and hunting, which are leisure activities, and commercial fishing and hunting, which are how some people make a living or earn most of their income. This is an important distinction, because this bill is about hunting, fishing and trapping as leisure activities, not as ways to earn a living. The two types of activities do not have the same purpose and are not governed by the same laws or sometimes, as in the case of fishing, even by the same level of government.

In Quebec, sport hunting and trapping are governed by regulations made under the provincial Act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife, while fishing is governed by the Quebec Fishery Regulations, which come under the federal Fisheries Act.

Management of the maritime fishery also comes under federal jurisdiction, while the management of the freshwater fishery is a provincial responsibility, except in the four Atlantic provinces. It is important to remember that federal government delegated responsibility for managing the maritime fishery to Quebec in 1922, but unilaterally took back that responsibility in 1983.

In fact, in Quebec, two entities are responsible for managing the freshwater fishery: the Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec, which manages the resource and issues sport fishing licences, and MAPAQ, which issues commercial fishing licences.

Moreover, the fishery has always been among the areas over which Quebec has traditionally demanded control:

The provinces should have exclusive jurisdiction over the following: education, property law and civil law, hospitals, trades and professions, fisheries, marriage, agriculture, municipal institutions and schools, insurance, the establishment...

There are many economic spin-offs from hunting, fishing and trapping activities in Quebec. We have quite a few statistics. For example, 408,000 Quebeckers are hunting enthusiasts; 813,000 Quebeckers are recreational fishers. Each fisher spends $1,287 every year; hunters, $756 each. This spending adds up to a total of $308 million spent by hunting enthusiasts each year. This spending means that 3,322 jobs are either created or maintained, it equals $87.3 million in salaries and it generates $157.3 million in value added. You can see how important it is.

Hunting, fishing and trapping activities are beneficial to managing wildlife conservation. Hunting, fishing and trapping are not only legitimate hobbies for thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians, they are also used by governments as wildlife management tools. If animal or fish populations are not adequately controlled, a number of problems could develop, such as property damage—and related prevention costs—and rodents that damage roads, bridges, dams, drainage systems and wiring. There are also losses to farmers, their crops and livestock, as well as losses to the forestry industry.

I would like to digress for a moment and mention the comments made by Conservative Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu on Sunday concerning the excessive deer population in the Eastern Townships.

He said that the decrease in hunters “has a direct impact on the number of traffic accidents because of deer-vehicle collisions”, explained the senator who worked at the ministry of recreation, fish and game for 15 years.

He added that if deer are not culled in the Eastern Townships, in any given year there are between 5,000 and 8,000 deer collisions. The ministry of transport recorded just 6,000 collisions per year. I say “just” because of the figures provided by Senator Boisvenu. The transport ministry even records minor accidents.

It is obvious that Senator Boisvenu is using the figures—although I am not sure how he has stretched the facts—to support what he is saying. It does not require more hunters or guns, but an increase in Quebec government quotas. Sport hunting and fishing is one way the Quebec government controls animal populations.

I cannot help but raise another one of the senator's ridiculous statements: “It does not occur to 14- to 18-year-olds to buy a gun”. In a roundabout way, he was explaining that he was against the gun registry and that the increasing number of single mothers raising their children alone means that “hunting is no longer a tradition handed down from father to son”.

He added the following comment, that I would call unfortunate, if not ridiculous: “It does not occur to 14- to 18-year-olds to buy a gun”. I would say that it is a good thing that it does not occur to young people to buy guns.

I will continue. We were speaking about controlling animal populations. Hunting and fishing are an excellent way to do that.

Quebec's ministry of natural resources and wildlife is relying on two studies conducted to try to determine the possible repercussions of abandoning sport hunting and trapping as a wildlife management tool. Several animal rights groups claim that hunting and trapping are outdated methods for managing animal populations and that other methods could be used. It is not as simple as that, since animal birth control and relocation are not only quite costly measures, but they have also proven somewhat ineffective.

Wildlife managers also maintain that wildlife management budgets could never be increased enough if sport hunting and trapping were ever abandoned.

I see I am running out of time, but I think I have enough time to share with my colleagues a press release issued by the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs, which welcomes this national hunting, trapping and fishing heritage day.

The Federation...welcomes the private members' bill introduced by the federal member [for Northumberland—Quinte West] designating a national hunting, trapping and fishing heritage day.

The federation sees this as a gesture of recognition of the contribution made by hunters and fishers to the country's social, economic and ecological development. This gesture is a clear demonstration of the government's support for hunting, fishing and trapping activities, which are all fundamental components of Canada's national heritage. This measure fits into the federation's action plan, as we have been trying for seven years to have a national hunting day declared in Quebec.

Pierre Latraverse, president of the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs, confirmed that his organization wholeheartedly welcomes this proposal from the Canadian government. He said that this initiative serves to prove once again the tremendous heritage value of these traditional harvesting activities in Quebec and Canada.