Monique Pauzé

[Canadian Heritage, September 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, in a letter published on September 16, the Quebec minister of culture wrote: “we are concerned about the initial strategic directions of Canada's cultural policy announced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage”.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage has three priorities: the 150th anniversary, which no one really cares about, the CBC, and pleasing Internet giants like Netflix and Spotify.

Will the minister re-examine her priorities and do something to help rather than harm Quebec culture, beginning by making the Internet giants charge their subscribers GST?

[Amendments to Standing Orders, June 19th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if my colleague has reached the same conclusion as we have in the Bloc Québécois.

Not all committees that are struck are standing committees. For example, the NDP previously set up a committee on pay equity and a sub-committee on the appointment of senior public servants. Independent members are always omitted from these committees, however. Exceptionally, and at the request of the Bloc Québécois, the Special Committee on Electoral Reform included a member from both the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party. Reading the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders, I can see that Standing Order 116 would be replaced and that the Standing Orders shall apply in a standing, special or legislative committee. That means no special committees on which members of the Bloc or the Green Party could sit.

Has my colleague reached the same conclusion?

[Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, June 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, all those who work in Quebec television, actors, technicians, directors, screenwriters, producers, in short, all of Quebec's industry, are calling on the minister to review the decisions made by the CRTC on May 15.

The heritage minister has the power to do so; it is set out in legislation. However, does she have the will to do so?

Will the heritage minister abandon Quebec television, or will she stand up to this attack on our culture?

[Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Jean-Pierre Blais' term as chair of the CRTC ends on Saturday. It would be truly unfortunate if it were to end on a sour note. Renewing the licences for Séries+ and Historia could set a dangerous precedent for Quebec television. The parliamentary secretary told us earlier that he was studying the decision.

Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage act on her own initiative and exercise her authority under the act to actually cancel, and not merely study, the CRTC decision?

[Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, June 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the CRTC's decision is having a negative impact on Quebec television. As soon as the CRTC made its announcement, Séries+ cancelled three TV series. Speciality television that reflects Quebec culture is in danger of disappearing, and it will be the CRTC's fault. It will be responsible.

However, the law gives the Minister of Canadian Heritage the power to act on her own initiative. Will she take that initiative? Will she react to this attack on Quebec television? Will she overrule the CRTC's decision regarding the renewal of licences for Séries+ and Historia?

[Petitions, June 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the petition I am tabling today comes from one of my constituents. Mr. Franco lives in L'Assomption, and he stepped on Quebec soil 35 years ago when he was barely 15 years old.

As a result, he is familiar with the challenges of leaving his country, Uruguay, of leaving his roots, and of coming here with his parents and sister. He knows how difficult it is to adopt a new culture and a new language. That is why he started this petition for the Ishtais, a Syrian family currently living in Lebanon. He wants to help them integrate and he knows how to do it. He is a mathematics teacher, is sensitive to the immigrant experience, and is grateful to Quebec. Basically, Mr. Franco wants to give to someone else what he received himself.

He therefore has the support of his wife, his son, and his community. Today we are posting 519 signatures on the House site, as well as over 1,218 paper signatures, for a total of 1,737 signatures.

This shows that the community is behind Mr. Franco. He is willing to welcome this Syrian family, and $30,000 has been raised in less than a year to do so.

This family, currently in Lebanon, is living in difficult conditions. The father, the mother, a boy and twins are crammed into a small room. They are so eager to come to Quebec that they have written some words in French on the walls of their room.

The petition calls for them to be helped by providing them with better living conditions and by expediting Mr. Franco’s application to sponsor the Ishtai family.

[Infrastructure, June 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice does not seem to have a voice, and I am wondering whether the Minister of Environment has one.

Quebec has put in place tools such as the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, or BAPE, to ensure that environmental impacts are taken into account for all development projects. With the infrastructure bank, projects will be able to ignore our environmental protection laws. The government is trying to attract foreign investors by allowing them to circumvent Quebec laws. That is unacceptable, and it does not make any sense.

Will the government change the law so that the infrastructure bank is not an agent of the crown?

[Points of Order, June 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, during the Standing Committee on Finance's clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-44, I presented an amendment that the committee chair ruled inadmissible. Since the Standing Orders do not recognize us as members of the committee, I was not allowed to dispute the chair's ruling. I was not even able to ask the committee to overturn the ruling. That is how our parliamentary rules treat members of non-recognized parties.

The chair of the Standing Committee on Finance justified his decision on the grounds that it would have broadened the scope of the bill, thereby extending the charge on the public treasury. We disagree. Here is why. The employment insurance fund is no longer part of the consolidated revenue fund. It is managed at arm's length, so there is no burden on the treasury.

Furthermore, my amendment would not broaden the scope of the bill or the benefits. It is not a new benefit. It merely extends the qualifying period, much as Bill C-44 does anyway.

Bill C-44 makes it possible to go back further than 52 weeks when it comes to sick leave, preventive withdrawal, or compassionate leave, but not in the case of parental leave. This bill makes changes to the employment insurance program regarding maternity leave and seeks to increase the number of weeks a woman is eligible for benefits during her maternity leave. What happens, though, when the mother loses her job during her maternity leave or just a few days later? She will be penalized.

The current EI system penalizes women who lose their jobs right after giving birth. This government, which claims to be a feminist government, has been aware of this situation for at least a year, and yet it does nothing. It continues to allow women who lose their jobs to be penalized by the EI system, which it refuses to change.

Our amendment has only one purpose, which is to protect mothers and children when the moms lose their jobs. Imagine a single mother who has just had a baby and then loses her job. That is truly heartbreaking.

I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to allow me to debate this amendment today on behalf of women. I am sure you understand how difficult it can be for women who find themselves in these situations, but I also understand that it is not up to you to change the rules of the House.

[Quebec's Interests, May 17th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, shortly before the first referendum, on May 14, 1980, at the Centre Paul-Sauvé, the Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, made this statement:

...we, the Québec MPs, are laying ourselves on the line, because we are telling Quebeckers to vote NO and telling you in the other provinces that we will not agree to your interpreting a NO vote as an indication that everything is fine...we are willing to lay our seats in the House on the line...

What was the outcome? Quebec had a constitution shoved down its throat. We still have not signed it. Thirty-seven years later, things are still not fine.

Quebec is trapped in a straitjacket that is preventing us from spreading our wings. Ottawa is still trying to get us to fall in line. From one empty promise to the next, today's Liberal Party is the same as the old party, and its 40 phantom members are still not standing up for our interests, just like in the old days.

Je me souviens. I remember.

[The Environment, May 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has confirmed what we already knew, that is, that this government is not responsible. No real action has been taken to decrease our reliance on oil, or, if it has, the information is hidden or redacted. Lecturing or providing advice to other countries about the fight against climate change without a plan to reduce our own use of fossil fuels is as hypocritical as lecturing about human rights and then selling armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia.

When will this government start taking the environment seriously and table a concrete plan to fight climate change?