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 4 of 7.
“We know that the bill was introduced in the Senate and that the Senate heard from a lot of witnesses who said that the bill was incomplete and that several amendments had to be made to it. We are ready to do that. Discussions have been held and we can go further to address these discriminatory provisions. The second-generation cut-off breaks up families over rules that could be abolished. We hope to overcome this. The fact is children are being excluded. This deprives thousands of people of their rightful place in their communities. It jeopardizes, and I will come back to this later, the present and future of communities, their language, and their culture. We hope that Bill S-2 will help put an end to the government's control over indigenous identity. It may not be the only bill that will achieve this.”
“I would find it difficult for a government I do not even recognize to dictate what I could pass on to my children, such as my identity, my values, my language and my culture. That is what is at stake every time we come back to the House. I mentioned two bills earlier. For more than 40 years, we have been coming back to the House to say that we need to fix arbitrary, discriminatory provisions, especially when they impact women. According to Chief Verreault-Paul, despite Bill S-2, the definition remains a colonial definition of first nations people. That is what is we are tackling. We know it is a huge undertaking. I mentioned that it has been more than 40 years, but we have to vote in favour of this bill, this amended bill even.”
“These legislative measures do not really address all the discrimination being experienced by indigenous women and, in this case, their descendants, with regard to the transmission of status. I will echo the words of the Assembly of First Nations. The second-generation cut-off rule remains a colonial practice and, as such, it is indefensible. It is also arbitrary. The government cannot force a nation to be or not to be what it is. The government cannot tell people that they are indigenous or that they are not. It is not up to the federal government to decide who is a first nations person and who can give or grant status to their children. Simply calling it “granting status” or “giving status” is telling. I think we need to be empathetic when we are talking about Bill S‑2 and anything to do with registration entitlements.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak today as part of the debate on Bill S‑2 . Before addressing the bill directly, I would like to start by expressing my sincere solidarity with women. The Bloc Québécois also stands in solidarity with them. I mention women specifically because they are the ones who have been experiencing gender discrimination since 1876. As I said, I would like to express our solidarity and tell them that the Bloc Québécois is fully in favour of passing Bill S-2. That said, although the Bloc Québécois is in favour of passing the bill, it should be noted that Bill S-2, like others before it—I am thinking of Bills S‑3 and C-31—addresses injustices recognized by the Supreme Court, but in an incremental and piecemeal approach.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I have the pleasure of serving alongside him on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. I have a question for him. The committee is currently conducting a study that deals broadly with the right to registration, as well as the consultations the government would hold to address the gaps that remain in this bill regarding registration. I have a theory, but I am not sure about it, which is why I want to ask my colleague a question. I am concerned that this could result in a delay or that the Supreme Court could even be asked to postpone the passage of such a bill in order to deal with the other provisions. Does my colleague share my fear that Bill S-2 will not be passed with the proposed amendments and that the adoption of such provisions could be put off indefinitely?”
“Madam Speaker, I have a question about urgency. People talk about the urgent need for housing and social housing. The Fédération québécoise des municipalités, or FQM, and the Union des municipalités du Québec, or UMQ, have levelled some criticism at the government for causing housing construction delays. I would like to hear my colleague briefly address that issue.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question, one that I often hear when I travel around my riding. There is concern that some smaller communities, which do not have the resources of cities like Toronto or Longueuil, may not be able to access the opportunities provided by this program. Not every town needs 400 housing units. Some communities may need only four or six. The mayors and reeves in my riding are concerned about this. I would like to hear the minister tell us whether all communities, regardless of size, will have access to the program. They do not have the same resources as larger cities. At the press conference announcing the agreement with Quebec City, there was some talk of competition. It feels a bit like David versus Goliath, so I hope they will also have access to it.”
“However, we do want to start a conversation on the issue of recreational fishing, in a respectful way and getting everyone involved. I represent individuals and a riding that are simply asking for access to their own resources.”
“I have spoken on this issue at length, but I believe that if my constituents were here in the House of Commons, they would continue to speak about it, because this is something they have been calling for repeatedly for several years now. These folks believe they are being treated unjustly and unfairly when they have food right in front of them that is accessible and has been available to them for decades. However, their rights have been slowly and gradually eroded. I wish members were more open to having a broader discussion than what is provided for in my colleague's bill, although I understand why it is as it is. I know that I am running out of time, but this is all to say that we in the Bloc Québécois have some serious concerns about the bill at this time, for reasons based on science.”
“I have noticed that this conversation can be a little disconcerting for the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, not because of my colleagues, but because of a taboo that does not necessarily exist in our communities. Both indigenous communities and other north shore communities know full well that my purpose in talking about recreational fishing is not to destroy commercial fishing. That is not it at all. The point is not that everyone should get to catch a lobster and leave nothing behind for the fishing companies and then everyone will be happy. The point is that we want access to the water too, for different reasons. I also mentioned economic development.”
“That is their mandate, among other things, and recreational fishing is something else entirely. Before my colleague arrived in the House, I had been hoping to raise this issue at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans so that we could study it, or at least so that the matter would be on the record and a plan could be developed that would be broader than a local plan. In his bill, the member talks about inequity. I agree with him entirely. As far as the wishes of his constituents go, I also agree with him. However, the issue demands broader consideration. These waters belong to Quebeckers, to Newfoundlanders and to Canadians. Are they entitled to access their own waters and their own resources? I would like us to discuss the question of recreational fishing even more broadly.”
“It is the same thing for water, for example. This could also be good from an economic standpoint because we are trying to expand the tourism industry. Many small coastal fishing communities are trying to diversify by creating recreational fishing opportunities, including for tourists, similar to what is being done in northern Europe. I am talking about the north because I live in a northern region. This is being done elsewhere, in smaller jurisdictions, such as in coastal communities in countries like Norway or Iceland. In my riding, we have 1,400 km of coastline, yet we cannot do this. Other places are making this happen and bringing in tourists. Something really needs to be done, but we need to think outside the box. Unfortunately, that is not the mandate of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. DFO is focused on stock management.”
“This is something that is very important in my riding and it is set up differently depending on the area. For me, and perhaps for my colleague as well, the real question is, who does this resource belong to? We do not want to do anything to harm the commercial fisheries or the local fishers who support communities and villages. The fishery is a pillar of my riding. Over 25% of Quebec's landings occur in my region, so the fishery is very important. However, we know that there are other options, such as opening recreational fishing up a bit more than it is now, for example by issuing more licences and licences for other species. That could be good for scientists because we would be able to gather more data and more accurate data than what we have now. We would have people on the ground who would make this possible.”
“People think, come on, we have 1,400 kilometres of coastline right at our feet, and we have virtually free access to this organic, healthy food, and yet we are not allowed to harvest it, simply because it is not on people's radar and not part of the plan. The government is saying there are not enough fisheries officers and that pollution is a problem. (1135) I know that all of the mayors and reeves in my riding would be willing to contribute from their own budgets so that this option was available to people. We are not even talking about the federal level here. There are people at the municipal level who really want to discuss this issue and provide resources and funding so that we can use what we have in the river, the estuary and the gulf.”
“I will give a very specific example, one that gives an idea of how things were. People eat what is known as a periwinkle, a type of mollusk commonly used to make soup. It is not a commercial species. It is not an endangered species. That is not at all the case. People do not have access to it. I believe that certain things need to be done that obviously go beyond the scope of my colleague's bill. As I said earlier, I find it very interesting that he is raising this issue. I will give another example. I talked about the 1,400 kilometres of coastline in my region. Some places are very sparsely populated. There are no sewers and there is no pollution, but people are not allowed to harvest clams.”
“It would cost $60 to take the family out for a lobster or crab dinner, so what do we do? We export them, even though they are right there at our feet. Climate change is causing lobster stocks to rise in my region, the north shore. There is an abundance of lobster in our waters, enough for the north shore fishery, of course. However, the locals do not have access to it. I am talking about a commercial species here, but earlier I mentioned opening up fishing to other non-commercial species. Halibut and cod were mentioned. Traditionally, people living on the north shore did not think about whether they were fishing a certain commercial fish stock versus one that was not commercial. It did not work like that. People had access to the land and access to the river. The river provided whatever people wanted.”
“In some respects, it could be called subsistence fishing. This is a topic that is extremely important to me, especially since, as someone mentioned earlier, the rules are different out west, in British Columbia, than in Atlantic Canada. I know Quebec was not mentioned earlier, but we do share the same territory, namely the Gulf of St. Lawrence. No one is talking about that. The rules are different, and the species fished in western and eastern Canada are not the same. We cannot have the exact same rules, but we would like there to be fairness for the public, who say that the cost of groceries is high, as is often mentioned in the House. There are people in my riding who cannot afford to eat the very crab and lobster that they catch. Take a club sandwich for example.”
“The sea is a border, a boundary that cannot be crossed, except perhaps by commercial fishing, which is extremely important in my riding as well. However, I believe it is also vital to discuss recreational fishing. There is the whole issue of commercial fishing, but as my colleague mentioned earlier, people live on the coast. There used to be no borders at sea. Over 60 years ago, back in the 19th century, in fact, when certain communities of fishers from the island of Jersey settled in the area where I now live, there were no borders. People lived off the sea. They could also fish recreationally. Now, I am not talking about sport fishing, because those two concepts are sometimes confused. I am really talking about recreational fishing for personal purposes, simply catching enough to eat.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from New Brunswick who just spoke, as well as my colleague from Terra Nova—The Peninsulas , who introduced this bill on recreational fishing. The bill is very limited in scope. It specifically concerns Newfoundland. I thank my colleague, however, because this is a topic that almost never gets talked about in the House of Commons. My riding is right next door to Labrador. Our ridings are connected by a ferry. The issue of recreational fishing in general comes up every time I go out and talk to the public. My riding has 1,300 or 1,400 kilometres of coastline. All of my constituents, or almost all, have access to the sea. We often have the impression that the sea does not belong to us.”
“However, people cannot make it through the year because they cannot work, there is no investment and they do not have access to EI. I must say, if I could choose, I would rather have support that would help me feed my family year-round.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I would also like to commend the organization Action‑Chômage Côte‑Nord, which is working tirelessly to make elected officials aware of the need to modernize the Employment Insurance Act. My colleague Louise Chabot, who is no longer a member of Parliament, introduced a bill in November 2024 to completely overhaul EI. We do not need to have the Bloc Québécois's name on it, though. If the government wants to take it on and amend the act, the bill is ready. The consultations have been done. We are ready. However, I must say that this is an excellent example of how the measure fails to meet the needs of people back home who work in seasonal industries. The government is talking about issuing a cheque for a small amount every three months.”
“Madam Speaker, I might actually turn that question back over to my colleague. I agree that prices are high. For me, the important thing is to find a solution. If building pipelines and increasing oil and gas consumption means that we pay a carbon tax, I imagine that the more appropriate thing would be to reduce that consumption and production so that we do not have to pay the tax.”
“Madam Speaker, as an elected official, I believe that we can make a difference every day in our work for our constituents, for Quebeckers, for Canadians. Of course, we will see what happens when it comes time to vote. I think that sometimes voting against certain measures also sends a signal to do better. It is one way of sending that message. Obviously, we are willing to admit when a measure is good. At the same time, measures should be designed to reach as many people as possible. There are other targeted measures that could also be worth looking at. I do not think it is going to solve anything. That is basically the message I was sending. I understand that there is good faith, but I do not think this is going to solve the issue.”
“I would like everyone to really pay attention to this. I said that it affects those communities, and it has for a long time. This is nothing new. The housing we are talking about is really not a new issue for them either. The Bloc Québécois supports a measure like this one, but we believe that the government can do better. In any case, we can see that it is increasing its deficit by $3 billion, an amount that will climb to $12 billion, simply to get some good press. Meanwhile, people have basic needs, such as housing and food, and they need help with that now. The Bloc Québécois is proposing solutions to achieve that.”
“People forget that in some places, especially in indigenous communities, in northern regions like mine or in remote areas, food prices are already extremely high, and nothing has been resolved. Nothing was resolved before we started talking about it more in connection with certain urban or non-indigenous communities. Things are still the same in my riding: In the north, in indigenous communities, everything is already extremely expensive. No help is on the way, and prices keep going up for them too. Some programs should be reviewed. Once again, the GST cannot fix these situations. It is a band-aid solution, a marketing ploy. I also talked about indigenous issues. I am now the indigenous affairs critic. Perhaps some people forget about these communities too often, because food insecurity affects them, too.”
“Can we have discussions about what could be done to allow these people, who are already well established in our regions, to remain there? Our population is declining. I want people to be able to stay in my region, but the message we are sending them is that fishing and forestry are bad. Nothing is being done for seniors. Like I said earlier, my riding has a lot of seniors. As for young people, the same thing goes for them. Income tax credits could be provided to help young people. Nothing was said about housing. All of these things are interconnected. There is more to it than groceries alone. What people spend on groceries is money not spent on housing. There are a lot of factors involved. I could also mention Nutrition North Canada.”
“It may seem strange to bring this up now, but while it was not a question of cheques being taken away or reducing GST credits, the measures announced by the government in 2024 are having a real impact on our region. The people who came here to work helped companies develop. Some of these businesses, in certain sectors, are not even sure whether they will be able to stay open. They may have to close down or slow down production, simply because they can no longer manage. The Bloc Québécois is asking for something very simple. Earlier, someone said that all the Bloc does is criticize. That is not true. We have made proposals. Why not put a moratorium on the temporary foreign worker cap? That would give them time to make other arrangements.”
“The economy is being destabilized right now, particularly in the forestry sector in my region. It is happening in other places also and some of my colleagues are seeing it as well. This is not helping people put food on the table. People are leaving the regions because of a lack of measures. The government is unable to stimulate the economy. It is not even able to maintain the precarious situations that existed before. Once again, a GST credit will not do any good. Instead, why not implement a program to temporarily keep workers on the job until disputes are resolved, like the tariffs imposed by the U.S. or the CUSMA renegotiations that will be taking place later on? We remain very vulnerable, and this is yet another blow. I mentioned EI, seniors and forestry. I would also add temporary foreign workers to the list.”
“Food prices are not the same as in Montreal or even in certain parts of my riding. We are already facing huge challenges. People do not have the money to invest and grow. They need a big helping hand, more than just a GST rebate. I said I would come back to forestry. The same goes for the forestry sector. In my riding, some communities are emptying out. It may be an exaggeration to say that entire towns are emptying out, but in places like Port-Cartier, where Arbec is located, and Baie-Comeau, where Domtar is located, hundreds of jobs have been lost, including indirect jobs related to these activities. There are jobs where the government is telling workers that it will not help them at all. These people have no money left in their pockets. They may have to leave the region. Some have already quit and left.”
“It can kill industries like the fishery, for example. It harms tourism, of course. The forestry industry is also affected. We should not be looking down on these industries because they are what help communities like mine thrive. Summer is really difficult these days, and I will talk more about the forestry industry later. There is really a need. (1725) Obviously, we would like this to be developed, including secondary and tertiary processing, so that everything does not need to be sent out and people can work all year round. When you live in a region like the Lower North Shore, for example, where there are not necessarily roads connecting every village, where there are fishers with a few processing plants, it is hard to develop while in a constant state of survival.”
“Once again, the government has been bragging about how it will undertake a reform. It has been 10 years, now going on 11. The Liberals have said in every one of their election platforms that they were going to reform the employment insurance system. It is getting ridiculous. Again, EI is a little bit different everywhere, but in a riding like mine, where many people rely on seasonal industries and there are many seasonal workers, a reform is necessary. These people cannot make it through the whole year. What the government is doing is preventing people from living in and occupying certain areas. At a time when we are talking about sovereignty and matters of national security, the government is displacing people from their land and driving them out of rural regions like mine. That is one way of doing things, and it kills industries.”
“They are still being discriminated against by the government, yet the government refuses to correct that mistake, its discrimination. That would be a good start. Any change in the tax system that would allow seniors to work would be welcome. Many want to work, but feel that they cannot because any money they make—which could help them make ends meet and put food on the table—would get clawed back. That is one example for seniors. I am in a constituency where there are many seniors in vulnerable situations, living with the challenges that come with rural constituencies like mine. People have to travel 300, 200 or 100 kilometres to get services that will never match what is available in large centres. When it comes to employment insurance, I say the same thing every time: We need a reform.”
“People will have to wait three months. However, when people need money, when they want to eat, there is no time to waste. If people want to make a budget, they need to know how much money they are going to receive so they can stretch it out for the time it takes. I am really talking about stretching it out. I know that the election campaign was about 10 months ago, but I want to show how capable we are of acting fairly quickly to resolve certain situations, in ways other than some marketing stunt like this, even though we agree and we want to put more money in the pockets of Canadians and Quebeckers. That is certain. The fact remains that there are other ways to help. My colleague mentioned the issue of seniors, for example. Some of them are in vulnerable situations.”
“Whether in Canada or Quebec, the situation is different depending on the community. Not all communities have the same level of wealth. Not all families have the same income or the same salary. Not all of them live in big cities. My colleague mentioned Costco and Walmart. In a riding like mine, sometimes people do not even have a grocery store within a three-hour drive. I will let my colleagues figure out how expensive that can be and what it means for folks in Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan. That being said, a number of things in my riding could have had a considerable impact. When we talk about the cost of living, of course, the whole issue of groceries comes to mind. Now, we are being told that GST credit increase, as shown, will not be available to everyone. Furthermore, it will not be available quickly.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak following my colleague from Mirabel . I plan to take a slightly different approach in my speech, in that my speech will focus more on my riding. My colleague talked about how this measure could look like an election gimmick. He even asked the Minister of Finance if he had his election signs ready. I want to echo what my colleague was saying, because there are many ways the government could help the entire population, and the unilateral policies look a lot like a marketing ploy on the part of the government, which is boasting about the fact that it is going to help some 12 million Canadians and Quebeckers. For years, everyone has been hammering home the point that people are struggling to make ends meet and put food on the table.”
“Mr. Speaker, the holiday season is a time to be generous toward those who are less fortunate. For the Liberals, that does not seem to be a priority, because they are cutting $25 million from homelessness assistance programs in Quebec. Last Thursday, the minister confirmed that he is ending the encampment and crisis response program as of March 31. How can the government announce cuts to homelessness programs in the middle of winter, when the crisis has never been so bad?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister needs to appease lumber workers, not Donald Trump. By refusing our forestry industry's main request—support for dealing with the countervailing and anti-dumping duties—the Prime Minister is turning his back on them. The softwood lumber dispute has been wreaking havoc since 2017. Donald Trump's tariffs are just making existing problems worse. Our industry is at the end of its rope, and layoffs are on the rise. When will the federal government stop neglecting our lumber workers?”
“Mr. Speaker, since the sitting began, we have been having a hard time hearing certain speeches because the government side is talking very loudly and paying no attention to what is going on in the House. I would like to see more respect for people who rise to speak. We are having a hard time hearing what is being said because of the noise, and the same could be true for the interpreters.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was surprised at the question from our colleague opposite. He is saying that it is time to start moving legislation through the House. I have been here for 10 years and, quite frankly, I find that the government's legislative agenda is rather paltry. Right now there are not a lot of bills on the table. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the Liberal government's legislative record.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nunavut, whom I hold in high regard. I used to work with her on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, and she obviously cares a lot about this issue. There are several indigenous groups that participated in the consultations on this bill. I would like to know what their concerns are in terms of the possibility that the bill may not be passed.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague. With all due respect, what I would say to the Assembly of First Nations is that the government must pass laws itself to monitor it and ensure that it is doing the work it is supposed to do.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would need 10 years just to answer my colleague's question. My answer would also likely be very broad. Whether we are talking about indigenous affairs or other issues, everything is being dragged out, as I said earlier. I get the impression that there is no will to do anything. I am seeing this with committees in particular right now. I was not planning on bringing this up, but it is clear that the government has no desire to convene committees, no desire to call witnesses, no desire to work and no intention of introducing any bills. Even though we are told that it is not the same government, it has been the same government for 10 years. I feel that its members have no desire to work.”
“Mr. Speaker, the fact is, it is the government's responsibility to get the Conservative Party to accept the bill. We agree on the principle and want to study the bill. However, perhaps the government has not been able to fully convince everyone. I think it is the government's job to convince the Conservative Party, so I urge the government to have a conversation with the Conservative Party.”
“That is why, if we need mechanisms or a position like commissioner for modern treaty implementation on a temporary or long-term basis to get the government moving, then we would support that.”
“We also want government accountability. Naturally, the opposition parties require that same accountability. We need to be able to hold the government to account. For all these reasons, although we accept the bill, we would like to study it in committee so we can improve it. We want the process to be really easy and to go quickly and smoothly, and we want the government to be active, but, as I humbly repeat, I have been here for 10 years and I get the impression that time moves slower in the House. It seems like things that could be done quickly and efficiently if there were some degree of determination always end up taking incredible detours and being seriously delayed. Nothing gets done.”
“If it is an urgent matter, I question the usefulness of submitting the report to the minister following the exact same rules, that is, a waiting period of 15 working days from the time the report is submitted to the minister to when we receive it. In my opinion, this does not work. If there is an emergency, we really should receive the report right away, so that we can take action. All that first nations are asking for is transparency, so that modern treaties can be implemented quickly. Indeed, the whole issue of how fast this can be done is a factor. As I said at the outset, I have first nations in my riding that have been negotiating for 45 years. For the time being, they have no treaty. Are we going to make them wait another 50 years before these treaties are fully implemented? That is unacceptable. We want to speed things up.”
“Tabling a report in June right before the House rises obviously does not have the same impact as tabling a report during the fall, when we are sitting all the time, except for two weeks. In the latter case, we would get the report quickly. That is the first criticism. Why not give us the report right away so that we can examine it and take action as opposition members? Let us now talk about the second type of report. The commissioner can submit a special report when they believe it is of pressing importance and should not be delayed. In my opinion, when the submission of a report cannot be delayed and a limited report is made available quickly, it is because there is an issue that needs to be dealt with urgently.”
“The mechanism, of course, includes an annual report that lists, for example, the government's shortcomings in implementing modern treaties. This annual report is first submitted to the minister. Then, the minister has up to 15 sitting days from the time it is submitted to table it in the House so we can consider it. Bloc Québécois members would obviously like to receive the report immediately. We do not see why we should have to wait extra time, since the number of days the minister can wait before tabling the report in the House of Commons is highly variable, highly relative and therefore highly arbitrary. There are in fact two types of reports, and I will explain the distinction between them. The first type is the annual report.”
“If we are not getting the results we want because of a lack of mechanisms ensuring transparent implementation and government accountability, we would obviously support the creation of a commissioner position to fill that void. In fact, indigenous peoples are calling for the creation of just such a position, which sends a clear signal. They do not feel that they are being respected. I therefore believe that we must hear them, listen to them and consult them as part of the truth and reconciliation process, because that is essential to any agreement. I think their request is legitimate. (1235) I have spoken about the form and legitimacy of the first nations' request and about the issue of symbolic gestures, which we want to move past, but I still have some criticisms of the bill and would like to hear my colleagues' opinions afterwards.”
“However, these mechanisms sometimes appear to be deficient, not in terms of the Office of the Auditor General, but rather in terms of the consequences that the government should face when it fails to act as it should or within the prescribed time frame. I can understand that argument, but at the same time, this is about defending a cause. As a Bloc Québécois member, I do not think that Quebec's voice would be heard if I were not here. I am not speaking about myself alone, of course, but my party colleagues as well. I would never be so arrogant as to say that simply about myself. In short, the Bloc Québécois is there to defend Quebec and Quebec's interests only. The same applies here.”