Luc Malo

[Veterans affairs, February 15th, 2008]

You already have the details.

[Quebec Film Industry, February 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will give him another suggestion. In recent years, documentary feature films have become increasingly popular. Take for example Les voleurs d'enfance, Le dernier continent, and L'erreur boréale.

What is the government waiting for to establish a $10 million documentary feature film fund? Can documentary filmmakers expect to see this money in the next budget?

[Quebec Film Industry, February 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the 26th Quebec film festival called the Rendez-vous du cinéma québécois opened yesterday in Montreal. The Quebec film industry, still not acknowledged by this government, has seen its market share decline since the Conservatives came to power. There has been no significant increase in funding, which has prevented a good number of productions from going forward.

Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage intend to exert pressure on her colleague, the Minister of Finance, to ensure that $50 million is added to the Canada Feature Film Fund in the next budget?

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, reforming the Senate would require amending the Constitution. For constitutional amendment to occur, there must be consultation, the sharing of information and decision making with other governments in Canada, namely, Quebec and the provinces.

Before we can even talk about Senate reform, these partners, Quebec and the provinces, must be consulted to see what they think. In that regard, all Conservative members, beginning with the members from Quebec, must be aware that the National Assembly of Quebec has said that there cannot be any constitutional amendments or changes to the Senate without first duly consulting the members of the National Assembly.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the comments made by my hon. colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber are entirely relevant. That is precisely the other issue raised by the introduction of this bill.

This House recognizes that the Québécois form a nation. Should the members of this House not be doing everything they can to act on the unanimous consensus reached by the members of the National Assembly?

My hon. colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber strongly emphasized that, when it comes to the Quebec nation's higher interests and the overwhelming, unanimous and clear consensus reached by the National Assembly, the Conservative members in this House from Quebec prefer to keep quiet, sit down and vote in accordance with the same hard line that other members of the Conservative Party want to take with Quebec. This is unacceptable.

It bears repeating over and over: Quebeckers must remember this when the time comes to deal with these same members during the next election.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, February 12th, 2008]

You are right, Mr. Speaker.

Marc Chevrier, professor at the department of political science at l'Université du Québec added:

The [current Prime Minister] and Trudeau governments, whose ideologies differ fundamentally, share common ground when it comes to nation building: Trudeau by unifying Canadian society with a culture of constitutionalized rights; and [the current Prime Minister] through a federal chamber where provincial debates, through the influence of elected senators, are transformed into national issues.

I cannot put enough emphasis on the fact that it is out of the question for Quebeckers to accept having their nation and their National Assembly lose some of their powers to a reformed Senate. When there is consensus in the National Assembly over certain important issues, the Conservative government turns a deaf ear: what will happen if an elected Senate, claiming to speak on behalf of the regions, interferes between the federal government and the elected members of Quebec's assembly, who are already struggling to be heard?

Another argument that is often used to justify the Senate's existence is that its purpose is to give a second opinion on issues studied by the House of Commons.

If it is outside opinions we are after, then that opportunity already exists: it is one of the raisons d'être of the 24 standing committees of the House of Commons.

I will read an excerpt from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice on the importance of the role of the committees:

Committee work provides detailed information to parliamentarians on issues of concern to the electorate and often provokes important public debate. In addition, because committees interact directly with the public, they provide an immediate and visible conduit between elected representatives and Canadians.

The committees, the standing committees in particular, are important democratic tools. And yet, the Conservative government has often chosen not to respect their opinion. For example, last February, it chose to ignore 21 of the 22 recommendations of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology on the serious crisis in the manufacturing industry.

I will close my speech with a question: instead of trying to unilaterally reform the Senate, in violation of the right to consultation enjoyed by Quebec and the provinces, would it not be more useful and more consistent with the rules of democracy for the government to show more respect for the work accomplished by hon. members and apply the recommendations coming from the committees, especially when their conclusions are unanimous?

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss Bill C-20, An Act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate. Like my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I do not agree with the principle of this bill, and therefore, with it being sent to committee.

I would like to remind members that last November, members of the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted the following motion:

That the National Assembly of Québec reaffirm to the Federal Government and to the Parliament of Canada that no modification to the Canadian Senate may be carried out without the consent of the Government of Québec and the National Assembly.

Whether or not they share the views of the Bloc Québécois regarding Quebec's future, the three parties represented at the National Assembly all agree on this important point. The Canadian Parliament cannot unilaterally change the Senate.

Despite how quick the Conservative government is to boast about recognizing the Quebec nation, it is infringing the interests of that nation by introducing Bills C-20 and C-22.

First, it is proposing to reform the Senate without consulting Quebec, thus going against the governing consensus in the National Assembly that has been expressed on more than one occasion. Reforming the Senate “piecemeal” by way of legislation allows it to avoid reopening the constitutional debate. Second, the federal government is proposing to reduce Quebec’s weight in the House of Commons, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works in fact made a point of emphasizing in a mailing to his constituents.

Quebec and the provinces must necessarily be involved in any change to the essential characteristics of the Senate, that is, everything relating to the powers of senators, the number of senators a province is entitled to and the residence requirements for senators. Legislation is therefore not the appropriate route for Senate reform, and this is also the opinion of the Government of Quebec.

Obviously, sovereigntists in Quebec have long understood that Canadian institutions could not be reformed and that it was impossible to amend the Canadian constitution in a meaningful way: the political party to which I belong is founded on that understanding.

As well, there are many countries that have adopted a unicameral parliament: Sweden and Denmark are but two examples of countries whose democratic credentials cannot be doubted, and that are even the envy of many nations in several respects. There is also the oldest parliament in the world, the Icelandic Althing, whose origins go back to the 10th century and which abolished its upper chamber in 1991.

It may be worth pointing out that Quebec and the Canadian provinces that had a similar institution in the past abolished their upper chambers several decades ago. In 1968, for example, almost 40 years ago, Quebec chose to abolish its Legislative Council. During the debate on the bill that was introduced for that purpose, a number of speakers rose to speak on the question of whether or not this kind of institution should be retained. Some of the things said in 1968 may still apply today.

At the time, René Lévesque was the member for Laurier. He had been the leader of the unified sovereignist forces under the banner of the Parti Québécois for a little over a month. I would now like to read a passage from the debates of the National Assembly, which was still known as the Legislative Assembly at the time. I will take a few liberties with the speech delivered by René Lévesque, whose easily recognizable intonation and manner of expression come shining through right down to the punctuation in the text. Obviously, I will not attempt to reproduce his very distinctive delivery. Here is what René Lévesque said on November 26, 1968, about the upper chamber:

I think it would be a good idea to remember that the institution we call the Legislative Council, which remains fundamentally unchanged, is rooted, here and elsewhere, in a society that witnessed the birth of democracy. It goes back to a time before our societies' acceptance of democratic institutions. In most cases, regardless of what we call these kinds of institutions—Senate, upper chamber, House of Lords, and so on—they were created at the behest of privileged members of society when it became clear that divine right monarchies everywhere were losing their old absolute power over citizens. These kinds of councils and institutions were created with the intention of reining in the will of the people being freely expressed through universal suffrage.

After hearing that, people may point out that the Conservative government's proposed reform seems to have been inspired by democratic principles because it provides, at least indirectly, for the election of senators. I, however, feel that an elected Senate would only confuse matters and mess up the entire legislative process.

In the beginning, the supposed role of the upper chamber was to protect regional interests. However, it seems that partisanly appointed senators tend to represent the interests of the party that appointed them. To hide that obvious disparity, the member for LaSalle—Émard, when he was Prime Minister, decided to appoint senators affiliated with other parties, so as not to stack the deck too much. Indirectly electing senators would not solve the problem because political affiliations would be even more evident.

In reality, by proposing this Senate reform, the Conservative government is trying to marginalize Quebec. In June 2006, Marc Chevrier, a professor in the Department of Political Studies at the Université du Québec à Montréal, wrote the following:

—equality of the provinces in the Senate clashes with the idea of Quebec being a distinct nation. To enshrine such equality is to finish what was started in 1982: bringing Quebec into line by forestalling its demands as a nation. Basically, the Harper and Trudeau governments, whose ideologies differ so fundamentally—

[Petitions, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition calling for the elimination of detergents containing phosphates. It has been signed by 409 citizens of Verchères—Les Patriotes, and 171 others signed a reply coupon about this that appeared in my householder last fall. In all, 580 people have expressed their support for this measure.

I would invite the members to do the same by supporting Bill C-469, which was introduced by my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé.

I would also like to salute those companies, such as Innu-Science in Sainte-Julie, that are miles ahead on this issue and have been providing biodegradable household and industrial cleaners for 15 years now.

[Montreal Symphony Orchestra, February 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the flair for innovation that typifies the Montreal Symphony Orchestra. On February 20, 2008, the orchestra is performing a special concert to pay homage to the legends of the Montreal Canadiens.

Pieces by Strauss and Satie will be featured, but more importantly, the MSO has commissioned an original piece, produced by composer François Dompierre in collaboration with writer Georges-Hébert Germain. The participation of certain of our favourite players, past and present, will give an added dimension to this special event, taking spectators back to some great moments in the history of the Habs.

This daring juxtaposition, which transcends an invisible barrier, serves two purposes. First, it serves to renew interest in classical music among the general public and second, it casts a new light on a sport that is very much a part of our collective psyche. On the eve of the Montreal team's 100th anniversary, this MSO initiative is even more meaningful.

[HIV-AIDS among Aboriginal People, February 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, if the Parliamentary Secretary for Health has doubts as to my constitutional option for Quebec, then I will reassure him right now. I support Quebec's independence and I have made it my personal cause. I became involved in politics on that account.

Having said that, I am surprised that he is asking why we are taking part in the debate today because the Bloc Québécois—and my hon. colleague opposite is certainly aware of this—speaks for the most disadvantaged, for those who suffer. And that comes through in everything we say.

In my opinion, the current situation of Vancouver's aboriginal people must be raised in this House because, as I was saying in my speech, it is a reflection of what is happening in many aboriginal communities. We must be aware of this.

Therefore, I urge the Parliamentary Secretary for Health to put forward policies that will make the health of aboriginal people a central part of this government's actions because it is a worrisome situation. I see that he is nodding and I gather that he agrees with this comment.

What will happen to aboriginal peoples under a sovereign Quebec? That is an excellent question.

The National Assembly of Quebec was one of the first legislatures to acknowledge the very existence of the first nations. It recognizes aboriginal people as a nation within Quebec and already has a nation-to-nation dialogue with them. I believe that it is clear that, when Quebec is sovereign, this dialogue will continue and Quebec will assume its full range of responsibilities, including the well-being of aboriginal people in partnership with native governments.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to finish my reply.