SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

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

Marilène Gill

  • 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: 65%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $175,049.14

  • Government Page
Context: House Hansard - 120 - Oct/28/22
Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ)
Mr. Speaker, I will speak to this Senate bill very briefly today. The Bloc Québécois will naturally vote in favour of this bill so it can be referred to a committee. I would like to speak about two things very quickly. The first is the importance of the names given to federal electoral ridings. It is important in terms of representation, because people must feel understood and represented by the name. It is also important for many other reasons, for example so the constituents know who their representative is and can easily understand that there is a link between the general geographic area and the specific place where they live. That is important, and that is essentially the goal of the bill. The second thing I want to talk about is consultation. For the name of a riding to be recognized as being representative of the people, ideally the people must be consulted. There are different ways to do that, but we must ensure that the elected officials of a riding, the main organizations and the stakeholders agree on the name. From what I have heard, no such consultations were held. I will say a little bit more about that and members will understand why, especially in reference to the commission. Therefore, right from the outset, there is a problem with the legitimacy of the bill. Holding prior consultations would have been advantageous for the bill, as for any other bill, to ensure that the work being done is really aligned with what the people are asking for. As I was saying earlier, the purpose of the bill was to correct a mistake, namely, the fact that Lacolle is not part of the riding of Chateauguay—Lacolle. A mistake was made when the riding names were last changed. Lacolle is part of the Saint‑Jean riding, so clearly there is a mistake that needs to be corrected. At the same time, correcting a mistake does not mean correcting it by making another mistake. Let me explain. Adding “Les Jardins‑de‑Napierville” is causing confusion for the people in the riding. They might even think that it refers to a neighbouring riding because there is an RCM with that name. As members know, people sometimes confuse federal, provincial and municipal ridings, as well as regional county municipalities and even administrative regions. My riding is a good example. It covers an entire administrative region of Quebec. In short, to paraphrase what the people from the Roussillon RCM are saying, what they really want, as an RCM, is for people to have a sense of belonging. That is most likely what people want for a federal riding too. The Roussillon RCM submitted a brief that talks about this, saying that this bill, which renames the riding “Chateauguay—Les Jardins‑de‑Napierville”, is causing some confusion. This brief was submitted to the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission on October 5, 2022. The RCM's recommendation expressed some concerns about the name change. It states that this decision would be confusing for the citizens of the city of Châteauguay and the towns within Roussillon, an RCM located in that riding—because Roussillon is split. This would undermine Roussillon RCM's strategic positioning and its efforts to create a sense of belonging and build its presence and its profile throughout Quebec. Those are some of the RCM's strategic objectives for the coming years. For the residents of this regional municipality, this is detrimental to their desire of showcasing the RCM. It could leave the residents feeling as though they are not part of the Roussillon RCM, but rather the Jardins‑de‑Napierville RCM. That is the essence of their brief. It was simply to reiterate the idea that we need to consult our constituents, the people who are affected when we make a change like this. I will address my second point a little more quickly, because in referencing the brief I have already touched on it. I want to talk about the relevance of introducing the bill. I know it originated in the Senate, but it is being brought back here and sponsored in the House. It is a question of relevance, in the sense that this very issue is already part of the work being done on the readjustment of federal electoral districts. There is already a proposal on the table for the exact same name. I humbly submit that the work is being done twice. We are working in parallel on the same issue while, once again, there is already an opportunity through the commission to make a change and to make a decision on this side. As members of Parliament, we are also called on, invited to and encouraged to make proposals ourselves. That is one thing. This would be an opportunity to use the time in the House for another bill that might be more worthwhile and relevant to the riding itself and to the surrounding ridings. To sum up, I think we need to question the legitimacy of the bill with respect to the way the people are represented as well as its very relevance given that we are already working on exactly the same issue at the commission. As I was saying earlier, the Bloc Québécois will not oppose to this bill, but I still wanted to make a few comments that may be useful to me and to all of my colleagues for the work we have to do in the House.
939 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 64 - May/4/22
Mrs. Marilène Gill
  • May/4/22 8:23:38 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Chair, my thoughts about the inquiry are the same as my thoughts about the royal commission on another issue in 1996. They consult and consult and consult without ever reinventing the wheel. There is a huge need for consultation here, but it results in precious little action. That is certainly what I am seeing yet again. I may not seem very upset, but I am kind of tired of hearing what amounts to lip service. I just want to give my colleague an example. Something happened two days ago in my riding. Two bodies were found after the snow melted. Without really thinking about it, my immediate reflex was to wonder whether they were women, children or girls. It is unbelievable, but that was my first thought. It shows how traumatized people are, including me. Obviously, this hit home. This violence is embedded in our collective imagination. We cannot shake it, and it is frightening. It was two men this time, and I would like to tell the community of Nutashkuan and the people of Natashquan that I stand with them. They know that, but I wanted to say it again. Talking about building cultural centres does not at all reflect the vision and purpose of tonight's take-note debate.
212 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 64 - May/4/22
Mrs. Marilène Gill
  • May/4/22 8:16:47 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Chair, I replied earlier by saying that all the reports and recommendations have been written. They are there, and I am not about to reinvent the wheel. If I did, as a white woman, I would find myself pointing out which of the recommendations are the best. As a parliamentarian, however, I would really like to see a plan for these recommendations. The government has said that it will fix the issue of indigenous housing by 2030. We can see pretty clearly in the government's own numbers that it is not going to work, and it is not that hard to calculate. It is a simple rule of three. We are not going to get there by 2030. This is the kind of thing we see in the House of Commons. I want to see a concrete and realistic plan. What I want to hear is that there is a real desire for reconciliation, that steps must be taken and that the government is ready to take them and ready to make proposals. Again, consultation is needed, because reconciliation is not a unilateral process. The plan must therefore include first nations. It might seem like I am asking for something huge, but it is really just a plan, and I think that anyone who wants to achieve anything needs a plan.
223 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border