Marilène Gill
Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“It is absolutely incapable of doing so. That is what the government is doing right now, so we are wondering whether it is going to help us. For starters, this infrastructure is run down. Some of it is dangerous. We cannot even access some parts of the wharves, even though food is delivered using those wharves.”
“It is going to close certain airports and shut down certain wharves. I mentioned 15 ports and airports, but there are more. There is also the Wabush airport, which is going to be put up for sale. Wabush is next door to my riding, and the airport there provides access to some parts of my riding.”
“That is understandable, but with its bill, the government is threatening some of our hard-won gains. I say “gains”, although not everything is perfect. Let us look at airports and ports. I know that airports are included in Bill C-30, but the government also added some ports that it wants to get rid of.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is just one data point. That said, I will not defend the government. Things seem grim over there, and there is not as much spending as we would like to see to stimulate all sectors of our economy, particularly local ones. I think a broader perspective is called for—a vision, even.”
“The government is always saying that the north should be populated, that it is a strategic territory, that indigenous communities should be supported and that it should be developed. These are communities of 200, 400, 500 and 1,000 people.”
“If we want food at times of the year when the supply ship cannot get through because of the ice, it also has to come by plane. I mentioned ice, but even in summer there are ports where food should be arriving, yet they are no longer in service. People are worried.”
The complete record
Every one of 335 lines we hold for Marilène Gill, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 7.
“Later in my remarks, I will address the way Correctional Service Canada calculates this positive impact, but, generally speaking, we can agree that it is a positive impact. The annual report also noted that although training was being offered, inmates considered it outdated. The same observation was made about prison work. (1125) One of the examples in the report was quite striking. It mentions inmates who have access to computers that are often completely outdated. I am not talking about computers from five years ago, but computers that still use floppy disks. I cannot remember if I have ever used floppy disks from the 1980s. I do not think so. They have enough capacity to hold a single modern photo. These are the tools the correctional service is using to teach the inmates in the penitentiaries.”
“That report specifically criticized the academic and vocational training provided by Correctional Service Canada. For example, in 2020, 54% of inmates had not completed grade 10, and most inmates did not have access to education. At the same time, other reports have noted the impact of training on rehabilitation. According to Correctional Service Canada, someone who completes at least one level of an education program shows a 75% reduction in the rate of conditional release failure for a new crime, compared to offenders who had educational needs but did not participate in an education program. The impact of these programs is significant; their very availability is significant. The federal, provincial, and Quebec governments have conducted several studies on this. The numbers are compelling and they say this has a major impact.”
“Finally, the bill would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act so that, when a person is convicted of trafficking in fentanyl, the court can consider large-scale trafficking as an aggravating sentencing factor. That, in a nutshell, is what passing this bill would mean. We will see later what will happen when, I hope, the bill is considered and debated in committee. I hope it gets that far. It is one thing to say that we agree on passing a bill. Obviously, the rehabilitation of offenders is the very foundation of the justice system. The Bloc Québécois believes in that. However, the government must always ensure it has the means to match its ambitions. Let me explain. In terms of rehabilitation, we can look at the annual report tabled in 2019 or 2020 by the Correctional Investigator of Canada, Ivan Zinger.”
“First, it would amend the Criminal Code itself so that courts can “prescribe measures that the offender is to take during the custodial period of their sentence, which may include participation in educational, training or treatment programs.” It would also amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act because, in order to meet the program objectives, offenders must be required to undergo training during the custodial period of their sentence and such training must be included in the correctional plan developed by the head of the correctional facility. Assessments conducted by the parole board must also take into account these programs when determining whether to grant parole.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-240 , the offender rehabilitation act, at second reading. I would like to begin by reminding members that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-240, which was introduced by the member for Kitchener Centre , and we look forward to discussing it in committee. The bill essentially seeks to allow the courts to prescribe measures that offenders must take, such as participating in educational, training or treatment programs. It also addresses addiction to drugs and other substances, and finally, the bill seeks to ensure that the objectives of these programs are met, which could affect eligibility for parole. As I was saying, we support this bill. The bill seeks to amend three acts.”
“I would add that this is happening just as the government is threatening gains related to the Canada Labour Code, so I wonder how the government can claim to be working for workers when it is doing exactly the opposite.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance how he can boast about his support for workers. He mentioned seasonal workers. There are some in my riding. The Liberals have been promising EI reform for over 10 years now, but they have not proposed anything. We offered them a ready-made bill, but they did not take it up. They could have introduced it themselves if they had wanted to. This is a persistent problem in my riding. There is still no assistance to maintain the employment relationship with businesses that are forced to close. There are people back home who have lost their jobs and who are wondering about their future. The government denied them that support. We are talking about working conditions.”
“I have heard many horror stories—wonderful stories too, but some horror stories—and I hope this bill will help address some of these situations, because we want workers who are happy in their jobs and therefore able to work for everyone's benefit.”
“(1125) I have said it before and I will say it again: The Bloc Québécois supports this bill. I would like to close by acknowledging all the health care workers and all the first responders in Quebec and, of course, in my riding of Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, which is facing significant challenges as a region that is considered rural. I am sure my colleague realizes that there are hundreds and hundreds of kilometres in my region without a network. Sometimes these workers have to respond to emergencies on the water or in the forest, in situations that are already difficult. Working in health care is more than just a job for these folks. It is truly a calling. That is why I am thinking of the workers in my region. I would like to commend them, and I especially want to commend my mother, who was a nurse for nearly 40 years.”
“I know that we are talking about something else here and that this would require reform, but the fact remains that we keep debating the same bills over and over. I am sure that my colleague's bill will be passed. The House agrees on that. We will send the bill to committee and I hope that no election will be called this time because then we will have to once again start studying this bill from scratch, even though we already agreed on it. Bringing bills back from the Senate is a relatively new practice, but it has an impact here. I hope that the House will also be able to find a way to resolve this situation, because then we would not be here discussing this same bill. It would have already been passed and we would already be taking care of first responders and health care workers.”
“I would perhaps add a third point, in addition to the issue of funding and the fact that we absolutely agree with Bill S-233 , one that has come up several times and not just in relation to this bill. I find it unfortunate that the House is unable to pass bills like my colleague's within one parliamentary session. That means that we end up with several bills coming back from the Senate in the next Parliament. Obviously, we can continue to debate these bills, but that slows down the passage of bills and the introduction of new private members' bills. Introducing private members' bills is also part of our job and some members do not get the chance to do so because the House has a hard time getting things done in this regard.”
“I would add to that the whole issue of mental health. When we talk about prevention, naturally we want to protect our workers so that they can properly carry out their duties and avoid violent situations. However, we are not investing enough in the whole issue of mental health either. That is also part and parcel of health transfers, but I am addressing it more specifically because witnesses from various organizations commented that instances of violence have increased most noticeably since the pandemic precisely because of insufficient health funding, especially mental health funding, which is why we are again facing situations that could have been avoided.”
“Examples of organizational factors that contribute to the problem include excessive workloads, inadequate staffing, excessive use of of overtime (mandatory and/or voluntary), lack of managerial support when reporting instances of workplace violence, and lack of perceived consequences when committing violent acts. (1120) We think that the best way for the federal government to improve working conditions for nurses, health care workers and first responders is to increase health transfers. Instead of a paltry 22% transfer that falls far short of the health care system's needs, we want to see 35% transfers made to Quebec and the provinces to fill the gaps caused by the federal government and its refusal to see the direct, harmful and sometimes tragic consequences of denying the health care system proper and adequate funding.”
“For several years now, the Bloc Québécois has been calling on the government to increase health transfers. Indeed, we are talking about sentencing here. There is a punitive aspect, but there is also the whole issue of prevention. We are talking about sexual harassment, psychological harassment and assault, but the fact remains that the health care sector is one of the sectors under the greatest pressure due to a lack of resources. The Canadian Nurses Association, which I mentioned earlier, supports the bill. Here is what the association stated in its brief: The work environment is also known to contribute to workplace violence.”
“First responders experience more violence than other categories of workers, and that is even more true for women. They are the ones who are most affected. Under the Criminal Code, assault, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault or bodily harm against a public transit operator are all considered aggravating factors, so we agree that these same aggravating factors should be applied for the purpose of sentencing when the victim is a health care worker or first responder. I was saying that I think the government should go even further, because these workers already have some level of protection under the Criminal Code. Such acts are prohibited, but that does not solve everything. I heard my colleague from the government say earlier that we, as legislators, are responsible, and that we have a responsibility to take action.”
“We are talking about a committee, a study and a bill. We are here to provide a satisfactory response to this 2019 committee recommendation, which was naturally supported in Quebec and across Canada by a number of organizations, in particular, the Canadian Nurses Association. That being said, here we are talking about this bill again today. I will be quick, because I have already said that we obviously agree that assault against first responders and health care workers should be an aggravating circumstance for the purposes of sentencing. Ultimately, I would like to the government to go even further with this. Members rightly pointed out that these workers experience all sorts of violence. We are talking about assault here, but they also have to deal with things like psychological and sexual harassment. That has been well documented.”
“I will read the summary of the bill: “This enactment amends the Criminal Code to require a court to consider the fact that the victim of an assault is a person who provides health services or a first responder to be an aggravating circumstance for the purposes of sentencing.” As I was saying, the bill we are considering today is the same as Bill C-321 , which was introduced during the 44th Parliament. As I mentioned earlier, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill, which follows up on a recommendation set out in the Standing Committee on Health's June 2019 report on violence facing health care workers in Canada. It was nearly seven years ago today that the report was tabled. Needless to say, there was an election in 2019 and the government was unable to respond. Here we are again in the House almost 10 years later.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-233 , an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to assault against persons who provide health services and first responders. As everyone knows, this is not the first time we are debating this bill in the House. Today we are discussing Bill S-233, but this bill was introduced in the last Parliament by my colleague, who I wish to acknowledge. This bill, which came back through the Senate, was not voted on during the last Parliament, but it received unanimous support from all parties in the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will repeat myself for what is perhaps the third time, but I am trying to be thorough and the Bloc Québécois is, too. I said that I was in favour of the principle of the motion, but not the wording of the motion. I think that gives my colleague an answer.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go beyond what the courts have said. However, as I have mentioned on several occasions, this is exactly the question we are asking ourselves: How can they coexist? On the one hand, when reading between the lines in the New Brunswick judgment, it appears that they cannot coexist, whereas in British Columbia, with the Cowichan Tribes, for example, it appears that they can coexist. However, we do not know how this could be achieved. We have concerns. There could be negotiations, agreements. Will it be on a case-by-case basis? Obviously, there is still a lot of uncertainty, and I cannot speak on legal matters, but I can point out that we are asking these questions responsibly. How can they coexist? How will we find solutions? Will it be through negotiated agreements?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. We certainly do not want to blur the boundaries between the legislative, executive and judicial branches. Nevertheless, I believe these issues are relevant to everyone. That is why I decided to deliver a carefully considered, fact-based speech. Some concerns may be legitimate. The goal is not to interfere in a debate, but these rulings do have an impact on all Quebeckers and Canadians, including members of first nations. I think it is healthy to be able to discuss any subject in the House. Nothing should be off limits.”
“Mr. Speaker, we want to be responsible, reasonable and rigorous, as I said at the outset. These are the three “Rs”. We find that doing all this work in just a few days or a few weeks is asking the committee, and even the government, to work too quickly. We believe that we need time to understand, consult and reflect. That is one of the things I think we can talk about. The whole issue of the special committee is another thing I mentioned. I think it is fair to ask what it is that a special committee can do that the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs cannot. Of course, we can always talk about that. We have these questions and concerns because we want to be productive and because we do not want to engage in partisan politics.”
“I believe it was simply proposed. Today, we held committee proceedings, and the matter was not brought up. Obviously, as I just mentioned, we agree in principle, so I am open to discussing it. It is possible the government said no, but my hon. colleague did not mention a word about it to me.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are actually two points in my colleague's remarks, which I also appreciate. The first concerns the actual impacts. I do not know if my colleague missed the part where I discussed the actual impacts. I said that I had read about the subject in several articles. I said that there were no rigorous and precise studies providing us with conclusive data on the situation. I even said it would be interesting to have such data, because it is of interest to everyone and we want to discuss the issue based on such data. That does not mean we do not want to act quickly. That is one thing. As for the second point, my colleague may not have been paying attention when I specifically mentioned one of his colleagues, who said that we had refused to consider the matter in committee. In fact, it was not put to a vote in committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was not expecting to talk about areas of jurisdiction, even though, as a Bloc Québécois member, we often talk about this. Of course it is important to respect jurisdictions. I discussed what makes Quebec unique in terms of civil law and the issue of the signing of the Constitution, which is something that is missing for us in Quebec. I expect everyone to fulfill their responsibility for dialogue in a fully transparent and productive way.”
“I fail to see the utility of creating a special committee, but I am open to discussing the matter, and then we will see whether we support the motion or not.”
“Once again, this shows the complexity and concerns that can arise from decisions rendered by courts like the Court of King's Bench of New Brunswick or the Supreme Court of British Columbia in relatively similar, yet not identical, cases. Although I will not go into detail, there are some similarities that make it hard to tell exactly where things are heading, despite the need for certainty. I did not have enough time to discuss the Conservatives' motion in detail. Evidently, I can say that the Bloc Québécois supports it in principle. We would certainly like to make some changes to it. I can say without hesitation and in good faith that this topic could very easily be discussed by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. That is what committees are for.”
“When institutions refuse to acknowledge a direct link to decisions, even reviewing the risk model or requesting more detailed legal opinions can increase the costs associated with due diligence. This can result in financial institutions adopting a more cautious approach to new loans and refinancing, as well as access to credit being tightened temporarily in the sectors most directly affected. (1125) I do not have much time left. Although I spoke primarily about Cowichan Tribes, I could have talked about Musqueam as well. I did not talk about the Wolastoqey Nation of New Brunswick either, even though the decision handed down in that case seems like the opposite of the outcome in British Columbia.”
“Some pundits have also noted that, even without an obvious drop in prices, uncertainty about the future liquidity of properties and the ease of resale may be enough to influence decisions to buy, sell or invest. The market is heavily influenced by confidence. A legal jolt like this one could be an additional risk factor that might affect property valuations and influence appraisers' caution, although, as I mentioned earlier, this cannot really be accurately quantified just yet. Moreover, as I believe my colleagues have mentioned, and as was pointed out in several articles I have read, it is not as easy as it once was to get a loan. It is becoming harder. The B.C. government is already trying to address this situation. Let me get back to my point. I tend to ramble when I speak, but I knew where I was going with this.”
“They have met with people, so it exists, but we would also like to have data, because that can obviously inform, support and complement our thinking, as well as our actions, as legislators. Legal experts and economists first point to the reputation and perceived impact of the decision regarding the Cowichan tribes. For market participants, the recognition of ancestral title means new long-term instability and uncertainty regarding the land tenure system in the region in question. There are concerns and legal uncertainty regarding the possibility of future restrictions on land use and development, as well as changes to land-use planning regulations and the governance of that territory.”
“(1120) However, it is important to keep in mind that there are still no studies or analyses with conclusive and robust data demonstrating a general, measurable effect on home values. I am not saying that such an effect cannot exist or does not exist. I am saying we do not have the data. I was talking earlier about information, and I believe that here we are addressing an issue of interest to all Quebeckers and Canadians. The goal is to determine what the actual impact is, without limiting ourselves to mere interpretation. I am not saying it is just an interpretation, because some of my colleagues have specifically mentioned that there are real, concrete cases.”
“As a result, members do not have fee simple ownership, but rather a right of possession recognized under the Indian Act. Furthermore, fee simple ownership is enforceable against all persons, including the state. I would like to add a few words about residential property values and project financing, which is something my colleagues are concerned about, especially my official opposition colleagues who moved this motion. I have to admit that the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada ruling and its interpretation by the business and financial communities seem to have already had economic and political repercussions. We can see it. We can read it in the extensive coverage in both French and English media in Quebec and across Canada.”
“It is the most comprehensive type of ownership recognized by common law and most closely resembles the absolute title concept set out in civil law. The theoretical concept of fee simple, however, is fundamentally different from what we have in Quebec. In theory, under common law, land is held by the Crown, not owned with absolute title, which means that the owner has a real estate right to the land, and fee simple ownership is the most complete type of estate. Despite the appearance of absolute title, the ownership in question remains a tenure, meaning that the Crown, theoretically, retains radical title. Fee simple ownership does not terminate on the holder's death and can be disposed of or passed on by the owner or tenant. Indigenous reserve lands are held by the Crown in trust for indigenous communities.”
“Ownership is a real right exercised over the thing itself, directly and without an intermediary. Section 947 defines it as follows: “Ownership is the right to use, enjoy and dispose of property fully and freely, subject to the limits and conditions for doing so determined by law.” This means that, under Quebec civil law, ownership has other essential characteristics, such as the fact that it is absolute, exclusive and guaranteed in perpetuity. Registering that right in Quebec's land registry renders the right of ownership enforceable against third parties, meaning that the right is recognized and must be respected by third parties. In Canada, things are different. The concept of fee simple ownership can be traced back directly to British common law.”
“I want to come back to fee simple ownership. As I said, the Conservative motion makes no mention of civil law, so I want to talk a little bit about that. I will likely be the only speaker today who talks about Quebec's specificity. As I was saying, two legal traditions coexist in Canada: common law and civil law. Civil law governs private law relationships, while common law applies to public law. In the rest of Canada, private law and public law are governed by the principles of common law. Property rights fall within this single legal framework, which means that there are significant differences between Canada and Quebec in the way those rights are defined, exercised and protected. Fee simple ownership does not exist in Quebec. Ownership is an absolute right derived from section 947 of the Civil Code.”
“(1115) Of course, some groups and governments, including Canada, British Columbia and the City of Richmond, opposed that request, as did the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority and two first nations, namely, the Tsawwassen First Nation and the Musqueam Indian Band. It took 513 days for the court to deliver a ruling, which was based specifically on the promise made by British Governor Douglas in 1853. The Cowichan proved their title. Once again, the court decided to omit a ruling or direction regarding the coexistence of aboriginal title and fee simple ownership, which calls into question concepts that we have long regarded as immutable in the history of Canadian land rights. That is unsettling. There is a lack of information. There are also concerns because, when we innovate, we are dealing with the unknown. That is what is happening here.”
“Supreme Court confirmed that the Cowichan have exclusive occupation rights in determining land use. The 863-page judgment was delivered on August 7, 2025, which was less than a year ago. The Supreme Court of British Columbia found that the descendants of first nations demonstrated the existence of aboriginal title. That has already been done. It exists apart from the current provincial land title system. Two property rights, two land entitlements coexist, as I said earlier. The Cowichan Nation sought a declaration of an aboriginal title to their village to recognize an aboriginal right to fish. This is different from aboriginal title; it is aboriginal rights.”
“Those questions need to be answered, even if, it must be said, our response cannot cover off all scenarios. There has been talk of negotiations, so there will have to be agreements. There needs to be a solution, and we do not have one. I would like to go over what led to the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada ruling. As I said earlier, this groundbreaking decision was a precedent-setting game-changer for both ongoing and future claims to aboriginal title. The doctrine of aboriginal title recognizes that indigenous peoples' rights to their territory were not extinguished when Europeans arrived. There is a mechanism, there is case law establishing that aboriginal title is grounded in sufficient, continuous and exclusive occupation of the territory. This is what affirms aboriginal title. The B.C.”
“A clear mechanism needs to be put in place to resolve the issue of the validity of property rights. This is the most pressing issue resulting from this situation, and I believe all my colleagues have mentioned it. Of course, there is also the fact that people in British Columbia are concerned. I have read several articles on the subject and it is clear that the government itself, if not the municipality of Richmond, will provide information to the public and answer questions. It is therefore clear that other levels of government are willing to take charge in order to answer the public's questions and reassure people. If municipalities and the Government of British Columbia itself are already having to inform the public, this shows just how many questions there are regarding the ruling in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada.”
“All issues related to governance, consultation, taxation and the validity of permits therefore remain unresolved. As we have heard, this is a complex issue. If I wanted to really simplify it, I would say that there are two types of rights: aboriginal title and fee simple interests, which establish the ownership of a territory or a piece of land, in the case of individual property. There are distinctions between the two, but we will not go into detail on that. In any case, both involve a property right. They coexist, but it is difficult to uphold absolute rights without any discussion. I think that is what people are afraid of, as they are wondering whether there is a hierarchy of rights. There is no such hierarchy, but people want negotiations. People are concerned because they do not know all the ins and outs of the issue.”
“On the one hand, we have a civil law tradition, but on the other, there is also the Constitution Act, 1982, which recognizes and affirms aboriginal title. I do not know whether I need to remind members of this, but I will do so anyway: Quebec did not sign the 1982 Constitution. When it comes to legal idiosyncrasies and context, I think that we also need to take that into account. I wanted us to consider that as well, and I wanted to remind my colleagues of it. That will have to be taken into account in future broader discussions. (1110) While I do not want to speak for the general public, I think that one problem in the British Columbia case, specifically for the Richmond area and the greater Vancouver area, is that the court deliberately refrained from ruling on the question of how ancestral title and fee simple interests will coexist.”
“Canada also relies on the many court rulings that have been handed down, including the Cowichan Tribes ruling. Fee simple ownership in Canada has roots in British feudal law and is the most comprehensive form of private property ownership. However, the fact that this case challenges private property rights is a good reason for everyone to consider the consequences. We will not necessarily do that here, according to the wording of the motion, but we also need to take into account the legal idiosyncrasies of each province and Quebec. I will come back to that a little later. Quebec is in a unique legal position because of the Quebec Civil Code, which is, of course, different from the common law system. The ruling is based on section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”
“When we talk about land and land rights, it naturally affects everyone. The decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada has raised uncertainties regarding private property rights that cannot be left unaddressed. We have discussed uncertainty and we have discussed concerns. When I mentioned earlier to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations that we need to clear up grey areas, that is what I meant. That is one way of doing things. There are others that are complementary, but that is one. I would like to mention that property rights are not consistent across the country. The wording of the motion does not take that into account. I will give the example of Quebec, because we have a civil law tradition. We grant a real and absolute private property rights. In contrast, Canada takes a fee simple approach, as we see in the motion.”
“Even though I have 20 minutes to speak, I am afraid that will not be long enough to say everything I want to say. This is a testament to just how rich this subject is, how far-reaching it is, and how it merits further discussion. First of all, the reason we support the motion in principle is that the decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada creates real legal uncertainty in Quebec and across Canada. This requires a response from the government, and we cannot simply deny the scope of the decision. It is groundbreaking in the sense of being new, and it creates very real and concrete obligations for both the provincial and federal governments in the reconciliation process with indigenous communities. Of course, as we have been hearing since this morning, this raises fundamental questions about land rights in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois on this opposition day. I would like to begin by explaining the underlying premise of my remarks. I want to talk about this in a reasonable and balanced manner, because I think it is in everyone's best interest for Quebeckers and Canadians to be informed. I am glad the Conservatives moved this motion, because it gives us a chance to discuss an issue that may affect all Quebeckers and Canadians. It is important. For that reason alone, I can say that the Bloc Québécois supports the motion in principle, and I emphasize the word “principle”. That does not mean we agree with all the wording in the motion, and I will have the opportunity in my speech to talk more about certain aspects.”
“I simply want to correct the information provided earlier. I would therefore like to know whether the minister would allow us to find a way to discuss this matter, perhaps in committee, for everyone's benefit.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister said that one of our responsibilities is to explain complexity. I would add that another of our responsibilities is to clear up any grey areas surrounding a topic so that the public, Quebeckers and Canadians can clearly understand it. Today, we are debating a Conservative motion. In a few minutes, I will speak to the Bloc Québécois's position on that motion. Would the minister be willing to have this matter discussed by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, for example? By the way, the committee never shut down this idea. A motion was tabled, and I heard someone say a while ago that it had been shut down, but it was never shut down. That means it can be done. In fact, when certain items of business were being granted priority this morning, the Conservatives did not bring this motion forward.”
“We know this is happening right under our noses, just like the murder of Kelly Morrisseau 20 years ago, less than seven kilometres from Parliament. Let us remember and let us take action.”
“Mr. Speaker, Kelly Morrisseau was murdered 20 years ago this year. This young indigenous woman, who was seven months pregnant, was found at the entrance to Gatineau Park, less than seven kilometres from Parliament. Twenty years later, her killer remains unknown. There are thousands of Kelly Morrisseaus, young girls and women who have gone missing or been murdered. We have a duty to remember them. Today, on Red Dress Day, let us honour the memory of the women, girls and other people who have been murdered, as well as those who have gone missing, whose families have never been able to find them. We know that indigenous women are overrepresented among victims of femicide, domestic violence and vulnerable living conditions, and yet the 231 calls for justice from the national inquiry still have not been addressed by the federal government.”
“Mr. Speaker, sometimes people say that to ask a question is to answer it, and that is what the member did. However, it is true that there is money that is sitting idle, that is, the $4.4 billion that is being unused and that should be going back to the workers. The bottom line is that government has an opportunity to ensure that this money can be used by the industry to get through the crisis. This measure really comes at no cost to the government. The money is there, it is not being used. I do not understand why the government is not accepting this Bloc Québécois proposal, or the other proposals made today, which are all just as relevant and meaningful.”