- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Subcommittee on Review of Parliament’s involvement with associations and recognized Interparliamentary groups
Deputy whip of the Bloc Québécois
Member of the Joint Interparliamentary Council
- Bloc Québécois
- Manicouagan
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $175,049.14
- Government Page
- Feb/17/23 11:27:46 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the federal government continues to play petty politics with its conditions on health. While it plays sorcerer's apprentice, Quebeckers are waiting. I am talking about people unable to see a family doctor. I am talking about people waitlisted for surgery. I am talking about exhausted nurses. The federal government's promised transfers are insufficient, but can it at least provide them so that our health care professionals, who do know how things works, can make use of them?
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/23 11:26:31 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to health, this government is unbelievably arrogant. Ten days after forcing Quebec and the provinces to accept an offer that covers one-sixth of the needs in our hospitals, the government is demanding accountability and forcing the provinces to commit in writing to accepting conditions and submitting action plans, failing which it will cut the pitiful amount of money that was promised.
How many hospitals does the federal government run again? It does not run any. It does not have even an iota of expertise. Will the government just transfer the money?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 3:54:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I imagine that the use of the notwithstanding clause would be entrusted to legislatures and my national assembly. I have to say that I have full confidence in the National Assembly of Quebec when it comes to the use of the notwithstanding clause.
That decision belongs to elected officials, who are also my representatives in my legislature, and I trust them to know how they use it or will use it.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 3:52:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I have to say that as a separatist, I do not need any extrinsic motivation. My intrinsic motivation is quite strong.
I would add that in any event, any nation with an appetite for freedom will use any means in its power. I represent people who voted for me as a representative of a fiercely separatist party. I represent my people and we have the right to sit here.
Secondly, I would say to my colleague, who wondered whether this was acceptable or if Canada was broken, that I do not need that kind of reason either. Canada can fix itself, but Quebec can live alone quite well, without Canada, whether broken or put back together.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 3:50:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was saying that, if the member for Outremont was not saying the same thing again and again using different words or stating the obvious this morning, then I would be completely open to hearing what she had to say and even reading the Hansard to find out. I understand that she was voicing a concern since she also brought it up in her last question.
To answer the second part of her question, as long as Quebec is not independent, then I will, of course, fight tooth and nail and more for Quebec, for any freedom it has and for anything that will give it more freedom, including this notwithstanding clause.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 3:50:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would have preferred for my colleague from Outremont to tell me what she said this morning. In fact, I did not hear her. It would be difficult for me to—
Ms. Rachel Bendayan: Because you were not there.
Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille:You need to listen.
Ms. Rachel Bendayan: I am listening.
Mrs. Marilène Gill: Madam Speaker, may I have the opportunity to reply?
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 3:41:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as my colleague said earlier, the Bloc Québécois is asking the House today to recognize a fact by asking “[t]hat the House remind the government that it is solely up to Quebec and the provinces to decide on the use of the notwithstanding clause.”
Acknowledging a fact seems like a no-brainer. That said, history, even very recent history, reminds us that we should take nothing for granted. Nothing is ever a given.
This is serious. Think, for example, of Morgentaler reading the bills from the member for Yorkton—Melville, of Pythagoras learning of the Flat Earth Society, of John Locke hearing the Prime Minister of Canada exclaim on January 23, 2023, that he is going to intervene in the Supreme Court case involving Bill 21, right down to tagging the use of the notwithstanding clause. No, nothing is ever a given and no right is a given.
The Bloc Québécois knows this and is watching out for Quebeckers, and even for the provinces and territories in this case. We want to reiterate that it is imperative that the House unanimously reaffirm that Quebec alone must decide when it should use the notwithstanding clause.
Does the Prime Minister really know Quebec? Does he even know the history of Quebec? I have my doubts, most of the time. To know Quebec is to love it, not fear it or coerce it.
Does the Prime Minister remember the people of Quebec who have slowly but surely distanced themselves from the church and its robes? Does he remember the long journey Quebeckers have taken to achieve the full separation of church and state? Does he remember the night of the long knives? Does he recall that Quebec never signed the Constitution of 1982? Does he realize that perhaps, for Quebec, the notwithstanding clause is like a tiny bit of sugar in a glass of poison hemlock? I truly and sincerely do not think so.
To know Quebec is to recognize how enamoured it is with equality and freedom. It is to recognize that Quebec's biggest source of faith is intelligence and reason. It is to know that Quebec believes in the sovereignty of the state and that if it is subordinate to anyone, it can only be to itself, to the Quebec people.
The gods, whoever they may be, do not belong in the affairs of the state. They may be in the bedroom, in the kitchen, in the car, in the street, or in the church, mosque or synagogue, in a book or in our thoughts. They are certainly not here in the House or in the robe of any Supreme Court justices, who do not make the laws.
Imagine for a moment what it means to a Quebecker like me, who knows and remembers her history, to theoretically be the subject of a monarch—a monarch who is the head of the Anglican Church, no less—and to sit in a Parliament where MPs ask the Christian god to legitimize their duties and their votes on a daily basis. As an elected representative, I answer to the people, not to gods.
Imagine, too, what it means to a Quebecker like me to hear the fear, arrogance, disdain and intolerance in the Prime Minister's articulation of the fundamentally dishonest and misleading stereotype of a xenophobic or even racist Quebec where freedom and equality are but mirages. As an elected representative, I answer to the people, not to myself.
The Prime Minister's outsized attack on Bill 21 is a violent attack on the people of Quebec, for what is violence if not one party imposing its will on another by force? Violence and democracy are two sides of the same coin.
Speaking of outsized, what is the elephant in the room here? What is this terrifying Bill 21 that gives the Prime Minister the green light to go ballistic on Quebec sovereignty, its national assembly and the will of the Quebec nation?
The law simply prohibits the wearing of religious symbols by state employees in a position of coercive authority, as well as teachers in the public school system, while grandfathering in those already in their positions on March 27, 2019, the day before the bill was introduced.
Bill 21 marks the separation of state and religious powers. It guarantees freedom and equality for all. Freedom of conscience remains. We must always keep in mind that we, as elected officials, are accountable to the people and I, as a Bloc Québécois MP, to my National Assembly.
I was listening this morning to the member for Outremont. In a nutshell, she said that using section 133, the notwithstanding clause, was not consistent with section 33. That was her concern. She is worried that the notwithstanding clause is a notwithstanding clause. I do not think the government intends to open up the Constitution, but what I am hearing is that there is a concern that Quebec is Quebec.
In closing I would say that the notwithstanding clause is a place for the Quebec nation in the Constitution of Canada, a document that René Lévesque never signed. It is a place to wrest a little freedom for Quebec. I think that is hyperbole. It is a little freedom for its identity, for its essence. Quebec is granted permission to exist using an exception.
By asking these judges to stifle the notwithstanding clause, the Prime Minister intends to stifle Quebec. Why is it that the only way the Prime Minister can be Canadian is to viciously attack Quebec? No nation has the right to dictate to another nation what it should be. Quebec has its values. Quebec is secular. The notwithstanding clause does not by any means allow Quebec enough room for its existence. No one can dictate to me the kind of person I should be. I am for state secularism. I am a Quebecker. I am a separatist, and my bags have been packed for a long time now.
1024 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, if I were to try to sum up my thoughts on the importance of the council with respect to the calls to action and how effective the council itself will be, I would say that it is going to be up to the indigenous people themselves.
One of the things I forgot to mention in my speech is that one of the government's responsibilities will be to provide all the information that indigenous people feel is necessary to do this work.
That is important, but the government will not be able to free itself of all its responsibilities, either. It must ensure that it does not prevent the council from functioning properly.
On the one hand, the council must be independent, but at the same time, the government is responsible for providing everything that is needed for concrete action to be taken until the Indian Act and all colonial practices are completely abandoned.
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 11:47:02 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating myself, the National Assembly unanimously supports health transfers. Granted, it is somewhat of a shared jurisdiction, but Quebec is the one with all the expertise.
I believe the member talked about playing a role in the health care system, which I always find interesting. The money is in Ottawa, but the needs are in the provinces. There is a fiscal imbalance, and we do not talk about it often enough.
The needs are there. The Quebec and provincial governments are asking for this. I will say it again: The federal government needs to transfer the money and stay within its own jurisdiction.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
