House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2011, with 28% of the vote.
Museums December 4th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, barely days after the CN strike began, the Minister of Labour introduced a special bill in this House to force workers back to work and to impose arbitration.
In the meantime, workers at the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Canadian War Museum are on their 75th day of strike action. They are calling for arbitration, but the minister refuses to intervene.
How can the minister explain her double standard?
Madam Speaker, I am certainly not denying the usefulness of funding for Telefilm Canada. That has nothing to do with it. I recognize that Telefilm Canada does excellent work and that it needs even more money, especially to pursue co-productions and to resume leadership in the field with respect to other countries. I will take advantage of the parliamentary secretary's presence here to get that message across.
The parliamentary secretary says he wants to know who made the decision in the sponsorship scandal. My question is about the matter before us. Who made the decision to stop the investigation into Cinar and what are the findings of that investigation?
In answering my last question, the minister admitted that a report was about to be released. When will that be?
Everything the parliamentary secretary is saying about the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics is very interesting, but he really should answer the question.
Madam Speaker, the Department of Canadian Heritage investigated Telefilm Canada in 2007. No action was taken following the investigation's report, and absolutely nothing was done about its findings, which have never been made public.
I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage if the government could release the findings of the investigation into Telefilm Canada. The minister replied that Telefilm Canada has since changed how it operates. I believe him. Indeed, I think Telefilm has seen some major changes. That is why I am talking about Telefilm at that time. The minister told me that the report I was referring to was in the government's hands and that they were taking the necessary steps to look after taxpayers' needs.
I have no problem with that. I understand the minister plans to table the report's findings. I would like to know when. When will the minister table the findings of that report?
However, new facts were brought to light recently. For example, we recently learned that in 2002 the President of Telefilm, Charles Bélanger, decided on his own initiative to pay thousands of dollars in grants to Cinar, which was accused and recently found guilty of infringing Claude Robinson's copyright. We realize that the matter is currently being appealed. Nevertheless, the company was found guilty.
In 2002, Charles Bélanger, president of Telefilm Canada, decided on his own initiative to pay thousands of dollars in grants to Cinar, which was in hot water at the time. Cinar was accused of fraud and of using fictitious authors to obtain government grants, which it then used improperly.
What is troubling in this affair is that, at that time, Charles Bélanger's spouse co-owned Teletoon with Cinar.
Given the new information revealed since Cinar's recent admissions—and accusations—why is the government not reopening the Cinar inquiry? Why is it refusing to shed light on the matter? Why is it not making the information behind all of these inquiries public? Why has it not launched an inquiry into the inquiry? Why was this inquiry halted halfway? Who shut down this inquiry so that nobody would find out the truth, so the facts would never come out? Who did that, and why?
This is quite disturbing. This matter has always been disturbing. It tainted the previous government, the Liberal government, which was in power when the inquiry was halted. Now the Conservative government is trying to cover something up, or seems to be covering for someone or something or some situation that does not look good.
That was the question we had at the time. Who is the government trying to cover for? And in addition to finding out who the government was trying to cover for, we want to know why the government is not being transparent and why it is not giving us all the facts about the inquiry. Why is it not making the results of the inquiry public, and why is it not holding an inquiry into the inquiry to find out why the Liberal government at the time halted it?
Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act November 17th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question and her comment about the Liberal member. He said that we should set an example by signing the free trade agreement, then going down to see the Colombians and show them how democracy is done.
Anyone can see how things are working down there right now. In Colombia, democracy is ailing at best. They are having all kinds of problems running the country and preserving social order. What kind of example would the Conservative government give them? Here is what it would tell them: “Do not do things democratically”. Even this free trade agreement with Colombia is not being done democratically. The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development did not want this agreement, did not want things to happen like this, but the government went ahead despite the committee's recommendation. That is what the Bloc Québécois' amendment is all about. We want nothing to do with this agreement.
Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act November 17th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his very pertinent question. Yes, we do sometimes wonder what came first, the chicken or the egg. Can we help a country by going there and setting an example? Or should we establish preconditions? We could say to them that we will be prepared to enter into a free trade agreement in future but that they first have to address the human rights situation, try to control their militia in the regions and rein in FARC. That is what we must say to them. Most importantly, we must require a prospective trading partner to respect human rights. That is of great importance to me.
I find the member's question a little odd because he says that by going there we can show them how it is done. And yet we cannot go there. The Conservative government opposite tells us, in its travel reports for those who would usually go there, not to go, that it is dangerous. That is what it is telling us. Terrorist targets could be government buildings, airports, restaurants, public transportation vehicles.
How do you set an example in that kind of situation? You cannot. You can tell them to come to our country to see how things work. However, before we explain how it works, all governments must be required to respect human rights. That applies to the government of Colombia as well as to any other government with which we wish to do business.
Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act November 17th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to participate in the debate on the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia.
My colleagues have made it quite clear that the Bloc Québécois is against this bill. As we all know, the bill will help a few large Canadian mining companies at the expense of local Colombian populations and their environment. This bill does not require Colombia to respect human rights. Yet somebody needs to tell Colombia that it has to respect human rights.
It is incomprehensible that a country like Canada would choose to sign a free trade agreement with a country like Colombia.
People have pointed out that our economies are not comparable, yet one of the basic criteria for signing a free trade agreement is that the signatories have similar economies.
Free trade agreements should do more than just foster trade. We need to be able to go visit our partner's country, travel by plane while there, drive on their roads, go out and meet people. We need to be able to get into government buildings. Even if we sign this treaty, we will not be able to go there. It is a shame that the government does not really understand what it is saying.
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada's website has a page about Colombia with advice and warnings for travellers. One of the headings says “Exercise high degree of caution”. These are warnings issued by the Government of Canada to travellers about Colombia.
There is no specific information about future terrorist activities or threats against Canadian citizens in Colombia. However, the security situation remains unpredictable. Possible terrorist targets include military and police vehicles and installations, restaurants, underground garages, nightclubs, hotels, banks, shopping centres, public transportation vehicles, government buildings, and airports located in major cities.
How can we conclude a free trade agreement with a country where it is dangerous to travel to airports located in major cities? How can we conclude an economic free trade agreement with a country where there could be attacks on government buildings? How can we put money in banks in a country that we cannot travel to because it is dangerous? We are talking about terrorist attacks.
In the same section it says:
Canadians should be vigilant and avoid any unattended packages or parcels and bring them to the attention of security personnel.
This makes no sense. Can we recommend that the Conservative government avoid any free trade agreements with Colombia?
Under the heading, “Regional Warning”, it says, “Avoid non-essential travel”.
Under “Official Warning”, it says:
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada [the Conservative government] advises against non-essential travel to the city of Cali and most rural areas of Colombia, because of the constantly changing security situation and the difficulty for the Colombian authorities to secure all of its territory.
Who is going to sign a free trade agreement? What minister would want to go to that country after reading this?
The paragraph goes on to say:
The exception to this would be some parts of the coffee growing area southwest of Bogota (Risaralda, Quindio and Caldas), and resort areas with established tourist industries, such as the Rosario Islands off the Atlantic coast and the Amazon resorts near Leticia. In all cases, travel to rural areas should only be undertaken following the overland travel advice in the Safety and Security section of this report.
There is more. The third warning, “Avoid all travel”, begins like this:
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada advises against all travel to the departments of Putumayo and Narino (excluding Pasto), located along the border with Ecuador, and to the departments of Arauca, Choco, Santander (excluding Bucaramanga) and Norte de Santander (excluding Cucuta), located along the border with Venezuela.
What follows is worth hearing:
The presence of armed drug traffickers, guerrilla and paramilitary organizations, including the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) and the ELN (National Liberation Army), poses a major risk to travellers. These groups continue to perpetrate attacks, extortion, kidnappings, car bombings, and damages to infrastructure in these areas. Landmines are used by guerrilla groups, especially in rural areas.
And we are being asked to enter into a free trade agreement with a country that has guerillas, armed drug traffickers and paramilitary organizations? There is said to be a high risk of attacks, extortion and kidnappings. Who wants to sign a free trade agreement with a country that has these sorts of problems?
You are also advised against all travel to the departments of Cauca, Caqueta, Guaviare, Valle de Cauca (excluding Cali) [earlier, the site said to avoid Cali] and Antioquia (excluding Medellin), to the southern parts of Meta department and to the city of Buenaventura, due to the presence of similar armed groups.
Signing a free trade agreement with a country we cannot even visit is insane. This very government says not to go there because it is dangerous. It says to avoid all travel to certain regions, to avoid all essential travel to other areas and to exercise a high degree of caution because of the possibility of terrorist attacks. I am going to list the places where attacks could occur. It is frightening.
Possible terrorist targets include military and police vehicles and installations, restaurants [Restaurants. Where will we eat? Should we bring a lunch?], underground garages, nightclubs, hotels, banks, shopping centres, public transportation vehicles, government buildings, and airports located in major cities.
We must not go to these places. This government is issuing warnings it is not heeding itself, because I imagine it is planning to go to these places.
According to the Vivre ensemble newsletter, published by Centre justice et foi, an organization that works to build a welcoming society for new immigrants:
—Canada is currently a leader in having Colombian refugees sponsored to settle permanently in the country. However, we must first look at the disturbing role Canadian companies have played in fueling the conflict, with the consent of the federal government. In 1995, the Canadian company Goldfields signed a contract to operate a gold mine with a rich local family. Until then, the mine had been artisanally mined by the inhabitants of the Río Viejo region. At the same time, paramilitaries massacred 400 people and drove more than 30,000 people out of the region. The soldiers who also participated in this atrocious carnage were known to have been trained at the School of the Americas.
This is from the Vivre ensemble newsletter. It is not pretty. It continues:
A second troubling fact is that the Ottawa Citizen recently reported that a Canadian aerospace company was working with the Colombian army to maintain its military helicopters. Vector Aerospace, a Newfoundland company, confirmed that it had received the blessing of the federal government [of Canada] to sign the $6.5 million contract. The government felt that there was no valid reason to believe that this armament would be used against civilians. [Come on. Who else would it be used against?] The Colombian army and its associated paramilitary organizations have been singled out by numerous international observers, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, and found responsible for thousands of violent killings.
That was taken from last spring's Vivre ensemble.
This Conservative government does not care about the well-being of the Colombian people. A number of points make it blatantly clear that there is nothing in this agreement for the people of Colombia.
This agreement is about protecting investments. This agreement is about exploiting the local people and the Colombian environment. This agreement will not help Colombian citizens in any way.
Literary Awards November 4th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, this is the week of francophone literary awards. The Robert-Cliche award, the most prestigious award for young Quebec writers, was won by Olivia Tapiero for her novel, Les Murs. This young woman, who is only 19, chronicles the difficult life of an anorexic teen attempting yet again to commit suicide.
The Quebec writer of Haitian origin, Dany Laferrière, was recognized once more: this morning he won the Médicis award in the French-language novel category for L'Énigme du retour. He is the second Quebecker to win this illustrious prize from France; Marie-Claire Blais won in 1966.
I would also like to mention two other major French literary awards. The Goncourt, the Oscar of French-language literature, was won by Marie NDiaye, for her book Trois femmes puissantes, and the Renaudot was awarded to Frédéric Beigbeder for his novel Un roman français.
On behalf of all Bloc Québécois members, I wish to congratulate these very talented francophone authors, who have taken their places among the great authors of Quebec and French literature.
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said that the media fund is an excellent fund, but we still do not know how it will work. We do not know how it will be managed or what the criteria will be. The only thing we know is that, last spring, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages said that the government would subsidize what Canadians want. Going for ratings at all costs often has a negative impact on creativity, innovation and novelty. Creativity, innovation and novelty are exactly what produce wonder and enthusiasm, as well as ratings based on quality.
That is why I am urging the parliamentary secretary to pay close attention to the criteria I am proposing now.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor during the adjournment debate so that I can follow up on a question that I asked a very long time ago. On June 2, 2009, I asked the parliamentary secretary a question because he had said that Télé Québec was going to be excluded from the media fund. I asked him to clarify the situation.
However, the situation was never really clarified, and now the media fund is really a serious problem. This is an issue that needs to be dealt with right now. Some people think that it is over with and will not come up again until next spring when it is time for the next round of decision-making, but this is a hot topic right now, and people are very worried about the future of the media fund.
This morning in La Presse, there was an article by Nathaëlle Morissette. It is so well-written that I would like to read it to the parliamentary secretary, who is listening right now, so that he understands the problem as Quebeckers see it.
This is what Nathaëlle Morissette wrote, and it will take about two minutes to read:
Original network television programming is being threatened. [Those are not my words. That is really what it said in the paper.] At least that was the message sent yesterday by the Association des producteurs de film et de télévision du Québec (APFTQ) president, André Provencher, who is very concerned about the uncertainty surrounding the Canada Media Fund.
Next fall, original programs such as Aveux and Yamaska might give way to foreign concepts that have been adapted for a Quebec audience, such as Tout le monde en parle or Le banquier, the Quebec version of Deal or No Deal, which are considered sure bets and ratings generators.
If the new media fund (which will replace the Canadian Television Fund in April) puts the emphasis on audience ratings—as many producers fear—the 2010-11 season will suffer, says André Provencher.
Mr. Provencher, also the president of La Presse télé, shared his concerns in a speech delivered yesterday to the Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television. “The BBM report for the week of September 28 to October 4, 2009, showed that close to half the Quebec shows in the top 10 were in fact shows based on foreign ideas and formats”, he said.
“Making the allocation of these funds subject to ratings and reinforcing that specific criterion will prompt broadcasters to turn to blue chip productions,” he added at the end of his remarks. “Formats previously tested on other markets present less risk. There will be a narrower creative space.”
It will be March before producers are told based on what criteria programs will be subsidized under the new media fund. Such uncertainty will likely compromise several projects scheduled for the fall, and next September's programming schedule may well include much fewer new shows than this year's, indicated Mr. Provencher.
“Programs to be put on the air by next September require a production cycle slightly longer than four and a half months,” pointed out APFTQ director general Claire Samson. “This year, we will have to cope with a two-month delay over the usual timeframe.”
Mr. Provencher agreed, saying “Getting new products funded by the media fund and finding a spot for them in the fall programming schedule will cause many problems and challenges to the networks, in my opinion.”
Quebec Science and Culture Awards November 3rd, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the Prix du Québec, the highest honours awarded by the Government of Quebec in science and culture, will be presented today.
Among this year's recipients are filmmaker, actor and screenwriter Paule Baillargeon, who will be presented with the Albert Tessier award in cinema. Actor, screenwriter and playwright Roland Lepage will receive the Denise Pelletier award in performing arts in recognition of his 60-year career.
The Athanase David award in literature will go to poet Denise Desautels, the author of some 30 works; the Georges-Émile Lapalme award for promoting the French language will be presented to lexicographer and terminologist Monique C. Cormier; archeologist Marcel Moussette will be honoured with the Gérard Morisset award in heritage; and photographer Gabor Szilasi will receive the Paul-Émile Borduas award in visual arts.
I would also like to mention the recipients of the science awards: André Gosselin, Otto Kuchel, Gilles Bibeau, Victoria Kaspi and Luc Vinet.
The Bloc Québécois congratulates all the honourees on their creative and scientific genius.