So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 157 - Feb/9/23

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

Context: House Hansard - 71 - May/13/22

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

Context: House Hansard - 71 - May/13/22

May/13/22 11:26:27 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the problem. The border is long and people can cross wherever they want to, even though they should be going through official border crossings. If we suspended the safe third country agreement, migrants would be redirected to the 117 border crossings across Canada, instead of converging to cross at Roxham Road, as 92% of them are doing. The number of irregular crossings is expected to rise significantly on the weekend, so the minister cannot stand by. He can immediately suspend the agreement and shut down Roxham Road. Will he finally do something?

97 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 70 - May/12/22

May/13/22 11:25:22 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister refuses to close Roxham Road on the pretext that that is not the solution because irregular migrants “will cross elsewhere”. Yes, they will cross elsewhere. They will cross at the border crossings. That is what they did before the safe third country agreement. If the Prime Minister suspends the agreement, something he can do unilaterally, migrants can cross at any border crossing in Canada rather than coming in through the woods. It is simple, safe and humane. When will the federal government suspend the agreement and close Roxham Road?

96 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 70 - May/12/22

May/12/22 11:01:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-13

Madam Speaker, we simply want this bill not to apply to Quebec. That would be the best thing to do.

20 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 66 - May/6/22

May/12/22 10:46:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-13

Madam Speaker, I would like to say from the outset that French in Quebec and outside Quebec is alive and well. In the House, I sometimes get the impression from some speeches that French is being dismissed as a dying language. People have brought up certain monuments from the past. I agree that we can be proud, but French is not a thing of the past and the Bloc Québécois can attest that it has a future. However, I think Bill C‑13 is a step backward. I will explain what I mean, as some of my colleagues have, but perhaps on a bit more of a personal level. We all have a very close and personal connection to our mother tongue, and even to what I did outside the House. In my professional life, this was always very important. I mentioned a step backward. First there was Bill C-32, and today we are debating Bill C‑13. We can all agree that sometimes bills are two sides of the same coin. They do look somewhat similar. There is talk of urgency and improvements, but urgency is relative given that the Liberals decided in 2021 to shut down Parliament and call an election just after the Minister of Official Languages had introduced Bill C‑32. Some changes were made. I remember hearing a colleague say earlier that the previous bill was really quite extraordinary, so much so that they decided to rewrite it in the next Parliament. We keep hearing about equality. To me, “equality” is a pretty strong term. It is not “equity” or “the possibility of equity”. I do not think Bill C‑13 is about equality. Even in terms of institutional bilingualism or individual bilingualism, I think it is a denial of the truth to say that bilingualism truly exists in Canada. I could talk about my personal experience as a private citizen, and not just with the Air Canada example. Even though Bill C‑13 supposedly sets out to achieve “substantive equality”, this is still just a bill. As with any rights issue, there can still be a right, and the idea with that right can be equality, but in actual fact and in practice in real life, there has to be a lot more than that. A colleague talked about “teeth”, but I think that overstates what is in the bill. I talked about a step backward, so “teeth” is not really what we have here. One thing the Bloc Québécois feels is important is the acknowledgement of a fact. I am not sure this particular fact is worth getting excited about, but the bill does acknowledge the fact that French is in a minority situation in Canada and in North America. We agree on that. These are just numbers, but at least there is that acknowledgement, and that is one step in the right direction, albeit a small one. The Bloc Québécois often comes back to the issue of minority status. Quebec's French is the language of the minority in Canada and we stand by that. It is not the language of the majority. It is in Quebec, but it is still surrounded by English. I will come back to that later with personal examples. I believe it is important to talk about the minority status of French. The Bloc Québécois naturally stands with francophones outside Quebec. Bill C‑13 does not have the same impact on communities outside Quebec as it does on those in Quebec. That could sometimes be a good thing for certain communities. I was thinking about what the Minister of Official Languages was saying earlier concerning the court challenges program. For francophone groups outside Quebec, it may be useful. However, in Quebec, it is the complete opposite. It is destructive. With regard to Bill C‑13, the best approach would have been to respect Quebec and its choices. Only a nation can properly defend its own language. Language is the main vehicle for culture. It is a means of expression that is replete with history and meaning. It is up to Quebec to protect it. Quebec knows best how to do that, such as with the Charter of the French Language. Here the feds are imposing a bill that conflicts with our existing mechanisms to protect and promote the language. They are forcing us to do all kinds of things. I have emphasized that repeatedly this week. The feds force a lot of things on us. Earlier, I talked about denial. I could talk about something that rings totally false. The government's proposal will be harmful. We really want something asymmetrical, but that is not at all what this is. I wish I could have talked about a lot of other things. I really could have used 20 minutes, but I will move on to something more personal. Anyway I think we all agree, and we have said it over and over: there is no way we can accept this. I would have liked to talk about the differences between a right and a responsibility. In the case of Quebec, this bill enables federally regulated businesses to choose the language, whereas the charter says that employees must speak French at work. That is a big difference. It is night and day. Protection needs to take precedence over choice. If the choice exists, we will not be able to defend our language. Sometimes, people choose the easy way out, and the easy way out is Bill C-13. That being said, I would like to talk about my own personal experience. My colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île specializes in languages, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé is a historian and my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert is an actor. My background is in the humanities. I enjoy literature. I am a literature professor. I worked in writing and publishing. My house is full of books. Of course, they are books of French literature, even though I also worked on British literature. The fact remains that, even though this was not a family trend, I somehow stumbled into the humanities and the language field. Every day, my thoughts turn to issues related to language, literature, culture and identity. Language is part of our identity. I also have children. When one has children, they have a mother tongue. Of course I taught them French, but our children are not our children. That is the way it is; it is part of our existence. I have three children, one of whom is very small. He does not talk yet. I also have older children. Despite my efforts, all I see in their lives—this is a debate about territory, so I hope my colleagues will allow me this more or less accurate analogy—is like what the Romans did, but with English, which seeks to extinguish the French language right in our own homes. I am not against all these digital tools, but when I look at my children, I can see that, language-wise, it is no longer like it was in 1950, when people had to cross the border to swim in an anglophone sea. Now it is in our very own homes, so we really have to come up with some very strong measures. I think of my son who is a gamer. He is bilingual, and I am glad he is. I speak several languages too. I speak a little German and Spanish. I studied Latin and Greek, and I speak French and English. I love languages. I see that he has become bilingual, but at the same time, I see how much languages change. I am talking about the written language, the spoken language and our relationship to language. Even though my kids are young, certain languages still dominate. In the concept itself, the idea of cultural domination means that one will assimilate the other. The same is true of my daughter, through the use of social media, and I mean that in the pejorative sense. Sometimes she has no choice regarding what information she can access, even though the amount of information is astronomical. We have a huge encyclopaedia at our fingertips. She will end up becoming anglicized, too. This will also be true for my little boy, with platforms like Netflix and everything he will have access to. Most of it is in English. Everything I just described is really happening, and legislation like this is truly a complete setback. When we want to strengthen a language, and I am still talking about Quebec, we do not introduce legislation that goes against the will of a nation and against the will of a government. This would only weaken the language. In my opinion, and my words will be harsh, this bill is an indirect linguistic assimilation policy for Quebec. When something cannot be done directly, it is done indirectly. I think Bill C‑13 is smoke and mirrors.

1543 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 66 - May/6/22

May/6/22 11:39:26 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is unacceptable that in 2022, people in distress, like Valéry Bélisle, still cannot reach emergency services. The lives of tourists, the Innu, and the people of Havre-Saint‑Pierre and Natashquan should not be a secondary consideration. Ottawa is responsible for telecommunications. It has an obligation to make this an essential service that is accessible everywhere. The CRTC is a year late in announcing who will be awarded the contract for setting up the cell network. Why? Can the minister finally announce who is getting the contracts for providing cell coverage along Route 138, between Sept‑Îles and—

109 words

Context: House Hansard - 46 - Mar/25/22

May/6/22 11:38:10 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Valéry Bélisle, a young woman from my riding, got in a serious car accident about 70 kilometres from the closest cell network. She had to extricate herself from the car on her own and wait on the side of the road for 30 minutes before a good Samaritan, Tony Jean, who I sincerely thank by the way, stopped and drove her to the hospital. The Minganie RCM in Manicouagan has no cell coverage for 420 kilometres, and this is the result. How many more accidents will it take before the minister puts pressure on the CRTC to finally grant the contracts necessary to complete—

115 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 46 - Mar/25/22

Mar/25/22 11:26:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the National Assembly is unanimous: Health transfers must be increased unconditionally. Quebec knows what it needs. All elected members and the public understand that in Quebec, except for the federal Liberals and the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. They are the ones who know best what the Government of Quebec must do. They know about health care. How many federal family doctors or nurses are there? The government must increase health transfers to 35% with no conditions, the escalator—

84 words

Context: House Hansard - 45 - Mar/24/22

Mar/25/22 11:25:11 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have been asking the government to increase health transfers for years now. The Conservatives cut the escalator and the Liberals have always refused to correct the situation, which means that the federal government's share is decreasing every year. While Quebec is being forced to make tough choices, the federal government keeps lecturing us while cutting health care. That is cynical, and people are suffering the consequences. Will the minister listen to Quebec and increase health transfers to 35% with no strings attached?

86 words

Mar/24/22 7:29:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-246

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully question whether the speech by the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is relevant, given the topic currently before the House.

26 words

All Topics

Mar/1/22 1:58:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. The member spoke a great deal about the mechanics of the process, so I would like to know what position she is taking as an MP from Quebec and a member of the Quebec nation. Simply put, will she vote in favour of the Bloc Québécois motion?

60 words

Mar/1/22 1:42:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I too am proud of my heritage, as the member for Winnipeg North said. Of course, my last name, Gill, is quite British—Gills were kidnapped, raised, and adopted by Abenaki people—and here I am in the House to represent Quebec. As my colleague from Drummond said earlier, we are able to walk and chew gum at the same time. We now have proof that Canada is deciding what is good for Quebec. They are telling the Bloc Québécois that it should not be using this opposition day to talk about what it wants to talk about, namely, what concerns Quebec. I find it a bit ill-advised to put it that way. We are also being told that we have an urgent crisis. I completely agree that what is happening in Ukraine right now is truly a crisis, but we can multitask. I would add that I find it rather odd to be lectured by a party who was unable to manage a street and is now talking about a war outside Canada. I would like to know whether the member for Winnipeg North agrees with our motion.

201 words

Mar/1/22 1:32:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Shefford for her question. I am disappointed to hear that anyone would try to minimize the impact of the Bloc Québécois's actions or accuse us of picking a fight. I think that is intellectually dishonest. I could make an analogy here, but like any analogy, it may be murky or flawed. Still, Ukraine is not picking a fight right now. We want to stand up for our nation, our people, our values, our self-government and our integrity, and I think that is legitimate. It is legitimate for others, and it is legitimate for Quebec. Standing up for one's rights is not picking a fight.

118 words

Mar/1/22 1:30:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I would like to address two things. Of course, one always wants the best possible representation for the people. However, I have made a clarification several times, and I have quoted the Canadian Encyclopedia, Sonia Lebel and my leader, François Legault. We are saying that representation is necessary, but that it is not a simple mathematical calculation of proportion. Quebec is a nation and this must be taken into account. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois will support anything that improves the democratic process.

100 words

Mar/1/22 1:29:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Outremont for her question. I do not want to speak for all my colleagues, but I dare to imagine that the only thing that would satisfy the Bloc Québécois is Quebec's independence. We sit in the House of Commons because Parliament exists in Canada. I send my taxes to Ottawa and of course I want Quebec to be free to benefit from them as it sees fit. When we ask that our nation, which has been recognized, retain its political weight, that is only a half measure. It already makes sense and it should make sense for parliamentarians and for the government. Of course, we will always want more, because we want a country.

126 words

Context: House Hansard - 33 - Feb/17/22

Mar/1/22 1:18:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by telling my colleague from Drummond how much I admire him and how much I appreciate his work as a member of Parliament. Sometimes we have to say these things to each other as colleagues. He works so hard, and he is so passionate about everything from his role as heritage critic to his sponsorship of Bill C-246, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (representation in the House of Commons), which he introduced on February 8. He introduced the bill to promote and protect the interests of people in his riding, in mine and across Quebec, to protect Quebec's weight in the House of Commons by guaranteeing that 25% of the seats here will belong to Quebeckers because Quebec is a nation. It is therefore with conviction, but also with the certainty that I am doing what is right for Quebeckers and Quebec, that I rise today to debate the Bloc Québécois motion. This motion also addresses Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons, and it reads as follows: That, in the opinion of the House: (a) any scenario for redrawing the federal electoral map that would result in Quebec losing one or more electoral districts or that would reduce Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons must be rejected; and (b) the formula for apportioning seats in the House must be amended and the House call on the government to act accordingly. Basically, what the Bloc Québécois is asking the House to do is to commit, as we have, to demanding that the government meaningfully protect Quebec's weight. I repeat, Quebec is a francophone nation within a country that is bilingual on paper. The Bloc Québécois is certainly not tabling this motion by chance or on a whim. Like pictures, numbers are worth a thousand words. From 1867 to 2021, Quebec's weight in the House of Commons declined, shrinking from 36% in 1867 to 23.1% in 2015, and it is still declining. At the same time, the number of MPs from Quebec has very slowly and humbly risen, from 65 out of 181 MPs in 1867 to 78 out of 338 MPs in 2015. In the next redistribution, which would take effect in 2024 at the earliest, Quebec's weight would continue to drop, eventually to 22.5%. Moreover, for the first time in history, Quebec would lose a seat, with its number of elected officials dropping to 77 out of 342. For the Bloc Québécois and Quebec, that is unacceptable. Of course, the decennial process of electoral boundaries redistribution is not a surprise, nor are its mechanics. First, the Chief Electoral Officer determines the electoral quotient, that is, the population per electoral district, by assessing the population increase since the last redistribution exercise. Currently, with a population increase of nearly 10% in 10 years, the population per electoral district is almost 122,000. The number of seats allocated to each province and to Quebec is then calculated by dividing the total population of Quebec and the provinces by the electoral quotient of 122,000. However, as the Quebec minister responsible for Canadian relations and the Canadian francophonie, Sonia LeBel, has said repeatedly, there is more to it than a simple mathematical formula. It is important to take into account the real weight of Quebec's representation in the House of Commons. We are francophones; we have a special status and a nation to defend. Quebec's specificity must prevent us from losing seats in the House of Commons. There is more to redistribution than a simple rule of three. If that were the case, Prince Edward Island would have only one member in the next redistribution, and some Prairie provinces would lose members. That is why there are two clauses in addition to the electoral quotient: the senatorial clause and the grandfather clause. I just illustrated this by talking about the Prairies and Prince Edward Island. The third and final aspect is the following. It is the last element for now, but I hope there will be another. This third element shapes the electoral redistribution that the Chief Electoral Officer must adhere to. It is called the representation rule. In other words, when a province does not have enough MPs to represent a riding, then more ridings, more members, need to be added. These clauses and rules were enacted over the past 150 years, roughly, but they are not immutable. I will quote the Canadian Encyclopedia, something I never imagined I would do. It concludes its article on the redistribution of federal electoral districts by focusing on the principle of balance: Although at first glance, this would seem to be a straightforward mathematical exercise, the principle of political equality exists alongside the fact that Canada is a federal state and the idea that effective representation also requires the recognition of distinct communities. Balancing these principles is at the heart of the redistribution process. Quebec is nothing less than a nation of more than eight million people who share a territory, a language, a culture and a vision. In 2006, the House of Commons recognized the Quebec nation. This is a nation whose official and common language is French, as the House of Commons recognized in 2021, when it voted in favour of the Bloc Québécois motion to that effect. As long as Quebec is not a country, it will not have all the tools it should have for self-determination, and this will necessarily have political consequences, namely respect for Quebec's autonomy and its national assembly, the signing of asymmetrical agreements, and the acknowledgement of Quebec's distinct character in federal laws and policies. That is what Quebec is calling for today. It is calling on the House to take into account our nation and its corollary, in other words, the defence of its political weight. The Bloc Québécois is waiting for a firm and unequivocal commitment from parliamentarians and wishes to clarify the position of parties in the House. Let us remember the following. In 1992, the Charlottetown accord guaranteed that Quebec would have 25% of the weight in the House of Commons. The former Progressive Conservative Party was in favour of that. The Reform Party of Canada was against it. John Turner supported it, but Pierre Elliott Trudeau was against it. In 2006, the NDP supported it, but what about now? Some Canadian political parties have disappeared, and others have transformed into something different, but the Bloc Québécois has remained true to itself: logical, consistent and always ready to defend Quebec's interests. We want to know if, like Quebeckers, Canadian political parties are worried about the fate of Quebec, if they will reject any electoral redistribution scenario that reduces Quebec's political weight, and if they will act accordingly. To that end, why not add a “nation clause”? That is the role of parliamentarians. To conclude, I would like to quote my leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, and the Premier of Quebec, François Legault, who have both made statements since October expressing how Quebec feels about this threat. The Premier of Quebec said that “the Quebec nation deserves a certain degree of representation in the House of Commons, regardless of how many people live in each province”. He said that “this is a test for [the Prime Minister of Canada]. It is all well and good to recognize Quebec as a nation, but now he needs to back that up with action.” We are calling on the Prime Minister of Canada to “protect the proportion of members of Parliament from Quebec”. My leader also pointed out at the beginning of his speech that Quebec's weight has been reduced. Quebec absolutely cannot lose a seat, since this so-called bilingual country cannot allow its institutions to diminish the relative weight of its country's francophone territory. I want to echo what he said. Canada has no idea how big a fight the Bloc Québécois will put up if Quebec's weight continues to decrease while it is still in the federation. If anything, that will make us leave even sooner. I cannot wait until Quebec is able to make its own decisions.

1420 words

Context: House Hansard - 30 - Feb/14/22

Feb/17/22 4:39:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I must say, I was a little taken aback by the arrogance of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie when he talked about my leader and the Bloc Québécois. I think my colleague is being disingenuous. He implied that the Bloc leader is not looking at the act in an intellectually honest way, when what we said is that these are two different laws. At this point, it is like using a bazooka to kill a fly, after all. The Prime Minister had three weeks to take action under existing legislation, but he did not lift a finger. Now we are being put in a position that no one wants to be in. I would like to know whether the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is aware that Quebec as a whole, that is, his own National Assembly, opposes the use of the Emergencies Act on Quebec territory. We do not need it. My colleague does not represent only himself. He represents Quebeckers, so he should take that into account in his comments.

183 words

All Topics