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 - 157 - Feb/9/23
Mrs. Marilène Gill
  • 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!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 157 - Feb/9/23
Mrs. Marilène Gill
  • 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!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 157 - Feb/9/23
Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ)
  • 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!
  • star_border