House of Commons photo


Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament September 2008, as Bloc MP for Saint-Lambert (Québec)

Won his last election, in 2006, with 45% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Telecommunications Industry October 30th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, the president of ADISQ also denounced the cuts made to the budgets that allow troupes to tour internationally. When we asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women if the budgets for troupes had been cut, she said no. Yet, $11.6 million out of $17 million was cut from the Department of Foreign Affairs' public diplomacy fund.

Troupes are already feeling the effects of those cuts. So, how can the minister deny this evidence?

Telecommunications Industry October 30th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the president of ADISQ, Paul Dupont-Hébert, denounced the government's decision to raise the ceiling for foreign control in the telecommunications sector. He fears, and with good reason, that such an increase will prompt the relocation of decision making centres and increased control, especially by Americans, over our culture here.

With its chosen approach, is the government aware of the risks involved, not only to our culture, but also to our ability to choose the content?

Committees of the House October 23rd, 2006

Mr. Speaker, as a preamble to my question, I want to draw to the attention of the members of this House that, based on what the member opposite said, we are going through a change in cultural paradigm in terms of governance. I thank him for the frankness and clarity of his statement. The information he provided gives us a better idea of the values he stands for, as compared to the ones we in Quebec stand for.

In Quebec, we have a Minister of Culture and Communications who, while not of the same stripe as us, is opposed to the decisions made by this government. The hon. parliamentary secretary asked why we are bringing this up today. Quite simply, I will say that, when a government makes bad decisions, there is no ideal time. An opportunity arose, and we seized the chance to put a motion forward.

Tomorrow, if the debate on security issues continues, we will gladly participate in it. Our intention in bringing forth this matter for debate was not to hamper security concerns. After hearing what this government's plans are for culture, we need to see. Like doubting Thomas, we believe in what we can see. And we can see that $4.6 million was cut.

Why did the government make such cuts when the national defence budget is $14 billion and yet it has not been touched at all in any way?

Committees of the House October 23rd, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my hon. colleague on the fine presentation he just made in defence of culture in the broad sense and museums in particular.

I would like to ask him a question, though, that is not directly related to what he said but rather to the reactions in the House of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the minister herself: she asked me to name a single museum that had been negatively impacted by the deplorable decisions to make cuts to the museums assistance program.

The Canadian Museums Association and the Société des musées québécois have expressed their concern, their anguish and their frustration with these decisions.

I therefore want to ask my colleague the following question: when a government promotes misrepresentation by way of the minister—people might wonder why—what does that inspire?

Committees of the House October 23rd, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to recognize my colleague, with whom I sit on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I would like to know whether, in his view, it is reasonable to make commitments, in an election campaign, relating to a field that has been operating on a shoestring for a quarter century and then today, once in power, to renege on those commitments? Does behaviour like this help to generate respect for politics or does it rather bring politics into disrepute and lead to the public becoming disengaged from politics and ultimately tarring us all with the same brush?

Committees of the House October 23rd, 2006

Mr. Speaker, there are innumerable members of this House who defend culture, because we know how important it is and what it means to a democratic, open and progressive society.

As I said in my opening statement, we are dealing with grave-robbers, with poachers preying on culture, people who, because of their focus on dogma and ideology, have no idea of the importance of that culture. They are more likely to think that entertainment alone is what defines a culture.

We must continue this discussion nonetheless. I could have gone on at greater length, but I am being told that not much time is left for me to answer questions.

Committees of the House October 23rd, 2006

Mr. Speaker, we work very closely in committee because we have the same interest in culture. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recently heard from representatives of the Canadian Museums Association and other interested individuals who stated that, in the last Parliament, a tremendous amount of work went into developing a new museum policy.

The information is there. It is just a matter of taking it, organizing it and introducing a bill that would outline a new museum policy. It is ridiculous that, at the beginning of this Parliament, we were made to drop this urgent debate and to start over with the museum exercise, to once again question those in charge, managers, curators and everyone involved just to waste time. Allow me to say it: to waste time.

I will confirm what my colleague said: there is enough material today, collecting dust on the shelves, that could be used—were the government to show its goodwill—to serve as a basis for a new museum policy.

Committees of the House October 23rd, 2006

Mr. Speaker, first, concerning the budget of the Canada Council for the Arts, it must be remembered that, for years in this House, the Bloc Québécois and other parties, such as the NDP, have urged that the budget of $151 million be doubled in order to provide artists, creators and artisans with a decent living. When we see an addition of $20,000 one year and $30,000 the next year, I have to laugh. We are far from the results that the museum community expected.

There are a great many creative people in this country, who, out of frustration due to the denial of their applications, give up their essential passion. The cultural situation outside Quebec may be different. I say different because in Quebec, as I have said previously, culture is essential to the survival of the Quebec identity. The more creative people who are at work, the more artisans and artists there are, the greater is the hope for the long-term survival of our culture and history, because it is through culture that one makes one's mark on history and reaches people's hearts.

I return to the savings that were made in the museums assistance program (MAP). I am astounded that any savings would be made in this program because it is a residual amount that has gone back into the public treasury every year. But let us be clear on this subject. We need to put several factors into perspective. When an application is submitted, there is a delay in the response. Projects have to be carried out within a fiscal year, between April 1 and March 31. If a project goes beyond March 31, it is turned down. Some projects, even after approval, have to be abandoned before they can be carried out because people are desperately waiting for a cheque that never comes.

The government is very much aware of this Machiavellian ambiguity—let us call it that—and plays the game marvellously. Without imputing motives, it practices financial retention in a calculated manner. It should be known that the museum assistance program is divided into three components: access and exhibition, aboriginal heritage and organizational development.

Under this program, the minister decides at his or her—in this case her—own discretion, in accordance with utterly obscure criteria, what portion of the budget will be allocated to each of the program components, in a proportion that is unknown to the museums, even though applications are made every year. Only departmental officials know the percentages, and they are not allowed to disclose them.

Let us suppose that the minister, with her discretionary power, were to decide to favour the aboriginal component by providing $6 million from an $11 million budget. The other two components would share the remaining $5 million. Suppose that the aboriginal component only submitted one eligible project worth $20,000; that would leave $5 million and change that would never be spent under the program.

It is impossible for officials to transfer unspent monies from one component to another. The minister's directive is in force for the whole year unless she decides to change it along the way. That is the reality. Figures are juggled when it suits the government that wants to save money on the backs of the most vulnerable and on the backs of the ambassadors of our identity.

Committees of the House October 23rd, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, presented on Thursday, October 5, 2006, be concurred in.

I am grateful for this opportunity to propose to all hon. members in this House that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage be concurred in.

This report reflects a motion adopted by the committee on October 4. The motion reads as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommend that the government maintain the Museums Assistance Program (MAP) at the same level as in fiscal year 2005-2006, that a new museum policy be established, and that the Chair report the adoption of this motion to the House as soon as possible.

I should point out here that this motion was not unanimously passed by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. However, it was supported by a clear majority of members who are worried about the damage done by those who are killing Canadian and Quebec cultures.

On April 10, following the throne speech, which was unacceptably silent on culture, I expressed in this House the concerns that were emerging in Quebec and Canada's cultural sector.

I remember saying that many people are concerned about the future of culture in Quebec and in Canada under a Conservative government, and that some even believe that the term “culture” is not part of the Conservative vocabulary owing to the absence of any significant vision for culture in the throne speech.

I remember telling this government about the importance of culture, explaining that culture is what enables humankind to create a framework for itself and for its development. It helps us to think for ourselves. It enables us to understand the world and to contribute to changing it for the better.

I remember telling this government that, in Quebec, many of us believe that culture is key to having a sense of belonging to a community. It represents the essential fibre of the Quebec people; it influences its thoughts, words, actions and daily life, and it enables the development of individual members of that community. For Quebec culture, this reality is intertwined with the exceptional need to affirm itself and to encourage the expression of its uniqueness in North America.

I remember saying that the silence on the issue of culture leads us to anticipate a slow death of culture by destruction of the arts, artists, the next generation in Quebec, of Quebec's identity, by the liquidation of our cultural sovereignty. I remember saying that this destruction will strike a major blow to Quebec's humanist and progressive culture.

I also remember asking questions. Would the silence concerning culture in the Speech from the Throne be hiding rather the temptation of a massive intrusion by the private sector, with its alienating financial power, into arts and culture? Are we headed towards U.S.-style homogenization and will we eventually undergo the unilateral, impoverishing ideological marking of content in the publishing media? Are we going to witness the accelerated deterioration of our public television and radio services, followed fatally by privatizations and moronic ratings races to sell available brain time to consumerism?

I remember asking the government, on April 10, are we going to witness the dismantling of the museums? The answer to all these questions, and in particular that about Canadian and Quebec museums, was brutal: $4.6 million was hacked from museum budgets.

Museums are vital institutions in communities throughout Quebec and Canada. There are just over 2,000 exhibit spaces in Canada and, of those, more than 400 are in Quebec. We must consider that 40% of these spaces are considered seasonal. Also, exhibit spaces are divided into three types of space: museums, exhibition centres and interpretation centres.

Museums are not only cultural centres but also centres where the arts, history and science are displayed and interpreted.

Quebec and Canadian museums welcome 59 million visitors annually. They receive support from over 400,000 members and 55,000 volunteers.

Quebec museums alone, on average, welcome between 12 million and 13 million of these 59 million visitors annually and employ some 6,000 professionals and employees.

Museums bring citizens together and exhibit our achievements both here and abroad. Museums preserve our history, our art and our scientific and cultural achievements. They are places of learning, for teaching our children, adults and families; they play a major role in building collective identities and in social integration.

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and the Standing Committee on Finance have presented successive recommendations to previous governments and the current government in favour of new investment in museums. The urgency of having a federal museum policy is supported by the current Government of Quebec, by the provinces and territories of Canada, by the tourist industry, the cities, municipalities and several other entities.

In light of this data, the Canadian Museums Association and the Société des musées québécois recently called on the Government of Canada to immediately honour the election promise by the Conservative Party of Canada to implement a new Canadian museum policy with multi-year funding for museums across Canada as soon as possible. And they were absolutely right to remind the Conservative government of the promises it made during the last election campaign.

It is in black and white. Wisdom guides us. On December 16, 2005, the Conservatives made clear promises that are well illustrated in the questionnaire and responses I will read to you.

Question 1 states:

Does the Conservative Party of Canada support the development of a new Canadian Museums Policy to replace the current policy that dates back to 1972?

Here is the Conservatives' response:

Yes, the Conservative Party of Canada supports the development of a new museums policy for Canada. Canadians want to see the country's rich heritage protected and preserved for this generation and for future generations. It is not acceptable that this policy has not been updated and that Canadian museums have been neglected by the federal Liberal government. A Conservative government looks forward to working with the Canadian Museums Association to develop a revitalized and renewed vision for Canada's museums.

Question 2 read as follows:

Does the Conservative Party support the CMA's principal objectives for a new policy:

a. preserve Canada's national heritage, including artifacts of key importance held in museums across Canada;

b. support museums in their role as important economic engines in the revitalization of cities and communities;

c. increase engagement of citizens, visitors, volunteers, and members by greater outreach to community groups and the general public; and

d. stabilize the capacity of museums to achieve these objectives through multi-year funding, endowment programs, tax incentives, and so on.

The Conservatives answered as follows:

Yes, the Conservative Party of Canada supports these objectives. A Conservative government would look forward to discussing these policy objectives with the Canadian Museums Association and to developing a new policy for Canada's museums which allows us to fully realize these objectives.

Question 3 asked:

Does the Conservative party support the investment of $75 million per year, as recommended by the CMA, in sustained, multi-year, predictable programs, to meet these policy goals?

The Conservative Party answered, and I quote:

As was confirmed at our policy convention last spring, the Conservative Party of Canada affirms the federal government's role in the preservation of Canada's natural and historical heritage (such as national parks, museums and historic sites) for the benefit and enjoyment of all and as an enduring reminder to all Canadians of our common inheritance. The Conservative Party of Canada supports stable, long term funding—

And I stress the words:

stable, long term funding for Canada's museums.

And they continued:

We believe that continuity of programming is important and can only be achieved through stable, predictable funding. Canada's museums conduct the valuable work of educating Canadians about their nation's rich history through their conservation and preservation efforts.

This is still the Conservatives speaking.

Canadians are avid visitors to our museums and enjoy viewing museum exhibitions and collections, but many do not recognize that the “behind the scenes” work of conservation and collections management is expensive and labour-intensive. Canada's museums make this look effortless—

How compassionate. It continued:

—but are increasingly strained by a lack of funding.

This is the Conservatives speaking.

Although we would need to see a definitive plan before making a specific funding commitment, please be assured that generous funding for Canada's museums would be a priority for a Conservative government.

How cynical.

Big words. Big mouths. Easier said than done. A hundred rejections hurt less than one broken promise, wisdom teaches.

In reality, the answer of the Conservatives, these culture poachers and vultures, is a brutal one: a $4.6 million slash in the museums assistance program.

Last October 4, the Société des musées québécois passed resolutions at its annual general meeting in the Saguenay region asking the Conservative government to keep its election promise and adopt a new museum policy as soon as possible along with funding to provide multi-year support for museums. They also asked the Conservatives, as the Bloc Québécois has been doing, to revoke their decision to cut the budget of the museums assistance program until a new museums policy has been adopted.

The $4.6 million in budget cuts announced over the next two years amount to one-quarter of the funding currently provided under MAP. If the 50% in budget cuts over the last 10 years is added to that, for the Canadian heritage minister to announce these reductions is totally incomprehensible, especially when the federal government is telling us that it is running a $13 billion surplus.

This situation is all the more paradoxical in view of the fact that the Conservative government is campaigning to have the convention on cultural diversity ratified by as many countries as possible and this convention requires the signatories to ensure a fair income for their artists so that they can make their voices and works felt on the national and international scenes. Ultimately, the Conservative government is making a decision that undercuts this convention and shows no consideration for the difficult situation facing artists and producers who show their works.

This is extremely disturbing news for the Regroupement des artistes en arts visuels du Québec, which is trying to persuade Canadian museum directors to pay visual artists more for their exhibition and reproduction rights—these people, whose average annual income is about $3,500, will be the first to suffer from Ottawa’s decision—but also for all Quebec museums, which suffer from chronic under-funding. Cutting the rations of museums is no way for this government to contribute to the development of the cultural and artistic forces in Quebec and Canada.

While elsewhere in the western world museums are doing tremendously well thanks, in part, to substantial government financial support, museums in Quebec and Canada have been suffering from chronic under-funding for nearly a quarter of a century now and are growing ever weaker.

Allow me to share some reactions to these cuts. In a press release, the Société des musées québécois denounces the cuts made by the Government of Canada.

Montreal, September 26, 2006

The Société des musées québécois was dismayed to learn late yesterday that the Minister of Canadian Heritage was cutting the budgets of some of her department's programs. These cuts are devastating to museums, because the only Canadian Heritage program dedicated exclusively to museums will be reduced by roughly $4.6 million over two years. In fact, these cuts represent a 25% decrease in the already inadequate museums assistance program (MAP) envelope.

According to Guy Vadeboncoeur, president of the SMQ, “this is extremely disturbing news for museums in Quebec, which have suffered from underfunding for several years already”. The museum community is especially surprised at these cuts because last week, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage tabled a report and a recommendation in favour of a new museum policy for Canada.

The situation is also paradoxical, because these cuts affect the mounting and circulation of numerous art, history and science exhibits. Recently, consultations had been held to examine MAP's parameters. They showed the strategic importance of this program and underscored the inadequacy of the program envelope—

Here is the reaction to the cuts to the MAP from the Canadian Museums Association, which was in shock.

Ottawa, September 25, 2006

Late this afternoon, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Hon Bev Oda, announced a series of cuts to her department. In particular we are alarmed that the Museums Assistance Programs has been selected for a $4.6 million cut. MAP is the one program that is dedicated solely to museums.

We are shocked, puzzled and feel betrayed by these cuts—

Quebec and Canada are on the same wavelength on this.

I will conclude with the reaction of the Quebec minister of culture and communications, Ms. Beauchamp. The headline of the article that appeared in the Journal de Montreal on September 29, 2006, read:


Ottawa announces $4.6 million in cuts to museums.

In a press release yesterday, the Quebec minister of culture and communications, Line Beauchamp, expressed her concern following the federal government's decision to cut $4.6 million from its museums assistance program...For Quebec museums, this could mean a shortfall of over $500,000 annually.

The Quebec minister of culture and communications said:

I am surprised by the federal government's decision to slash the museum assistance program, while considerable effort is being made in Toronto to bring together tourism and culture...Museums are a main component of tourism products across the country.

Later, the article went on:

According to Minister Beauchamp, the federal government's cuts only undermine Quebec's ongoing efforts to strengthen its museum network.

In light of all my arguments, my proposal to adopt the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage represents a simple gesture inspired by the desire to protect our museums. We must, absolutely, resist this civilized-seeming barbarity.

Government Programs October 19th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, the question was not about military troops. It was about theatre, dance and music troupes.

I ask the question again: will the cuts to the public diplomacy fund affect the international tours of dance, music and theatre troupes, yes or no?