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 5 of 7.
“These rights were already being discussed long before I arrived. Essentially, we managed to enshrine that in law, but the fact remains that, under the banner of truth and reconciliation, emphasis on the word “banner”, actions are largely symbolic. Once again, we are dealing with form, communication, and appearances. However, on the ground, in the communities, in my opinion, there is no real reconciliation, and indigenous communities still do not have full access to the truth. These are therefore still only symbolic gestures. I have heard the argument put forward by my Conservative colleagues. They say that such a measure is unnecessary, that mechanisms already exist to ensure transparency. They cite the example of the Auditor General and other positions, which, in their view, guarantee government accountability.”
“They have been trying to negotiate a modern treaty for 45 years. I am talking about negotiations, not even about implementation. I acknowledge them because it takes courage, perseverance, patience and even tolerance for them to work toward getting their rights recognized and included in a treaty. We are obviously in favour of the bill because it is all well and good to say that we have a treaty, a treaty is just a vessel. We are also interested in content. It remains a promise, and it is time for action. I must humbly say that I have now been the member for the riding of Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, formerly Manicouagan, for 10 years. I witnessed everything that led up to the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a process that was not easy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C-10 , an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. This is actually the second time this bill was introduced. It was introduced as Bill C-77 in the previous Parliament. The Bloc Québécois supported the bill then and we still do today. I would like to acknowledge the first nations who live in my riding and with whom I interact. I am talking about the Naskapi, who have a modern treaty, one of the first reached with Quebec in the 1970s. I would also like to acknowledge the Innu, particularly the Regroupement Petapan, which brings together the Innu first nations in Essipit, Nutashkuan and Mashteuiatsh, which is not located in my riding but in the riding of Lac‑Saint‑Jean.”
“Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague talking about ways the government could be more transparent in the implementation of modern treaties. Could he give us a brief summary of what is not working? He said that we do not need another commissioner. The Bloc Québécois supports the bill, but I would like to know more about what he is actually suggesting.”
“Madam Speaker, Quebeckers know what it feels like to be steamrolled by Canada. Today, British Columbia is experiencing its own night of the long knives. The Alberta Liberals left British Columbia out of an agreement they reached to impose a pipeline on B.C. in the name of the national interest. Quebeckers had better be careful, because the federal government has been mulling over the idea of forcing us to accept a pipeline across the St. Lawrence River for more than a decade. If this is how the Liberals are acting today, will they do the same to Quebec?”
“These workers are essential to keeping our regions alive and ensuring the success of our forestry, tourism, fishing and other industries. I want them to know that the Bloc Québécois will reintroduce a bill that will propose real EI reform.”
“Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has listened to workers, including those in seasonal industries, who felt that they were not understood or taken into consideration in the latest Liberal budget. There is nothing for EI, even though groups defending the rights of the unemployed, unions and the Bloc Québécois are demanding a major overhaul of the legislation. The measure that had temporarily increased regional unemployment rates was not extended, even though it provided a breath of fresh air for workers. As the holiday season approaches, the Liberal government is once again offering us nothing, even though the spring gap is just a few weeks away for workers in seasonal industries. The Liberals may ignore workers, but the EI spring gap does not spare them.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, there are a lot of measures in the budget, but there are also a lot of things missing, especially when it comes to the forestry sector. From back home in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, to the north shore, to Abitibi, the forestry industry all across Quebec is really hurting. The government is not delivering help. There is no help in the budget, even though there are solutions out there. Announcements were made just yesterday, but they are not good enough for the industry because they are not in line with what it needs. One thing the industry wants is for the government to cover 50% of the countervailing duties until the crisis is resolved. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on what the government plans to do in its budget and on why it is failing to resolve situations that persist in Quebec.”
“How is that good news for regions like mine? I would like my colleague to respond directly to the people of my riding and tell them how any of this is good for the people back home.”
“Mr. Speaker, my Liberal colleague is talking about what he sees in the budget, but as we have said repeatedly, let us talk about what is missing from the budget. Personally, I would like to talk about public servants. The northern bonuses are being eliminated. In some regions like mine, there is no succession in the public service, which means that some positions are not being filled. This prevents public servants from advancing their career and it leads to excessive workloads. What is more, a new pay system is on the way. The government is also reducing public service pension plans, when in fact this is money that has been deferred. It is a salary that has been negotiated, so they are playing with collective agreements. We are talking about 40,000 jobs lost, and 15% in operating costs where cuts are being made.”
“It would help companies weather the crisis and let workers know that they have support and will be able to return to their jobs afterwards.”
“Mr. Chair, all I am hearing from one side of the House are proposals that do nothing to address the current situation. Thousands of jobs, hundreds of thousands of jobs are being lost, and the Build Canada Homes program is not going to bring them back. That said, with all due respect to my colleague who just spoke, what I took away from his speech was a description of the current situation. There are industries, there are workers, there are job losses and there are negotiations that need to be happen. However, I did not hear any proposals. I would have liked to know whether he and his party are of the same opinion as the industry and the unions. Among other things, we talked about the possibility of maintaining connections to employment through subsidies. Is my colleague in favour of that measure?”
“Mr. Chair, I heard the question from my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche. I am a little surprised. He asked the opposition if it was ashamed to have voted against the budget. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of his answer. Perhaps he should tell the people of Abitibi, Saguenay and Lac-Saint-Jean who have lost their jobs that there may be a few problems going forward, given that the Prime Minister clearly told forestry workers to retrain.”
“If we are being at all honest, I think that these numbers reflect a desire, probably on the part of Canada Post, to kill Canada Post. I will conclude by saying that this is hypocrisy. It is not even budgetary window dressing. The government also boasted about passing anti-scab legislation. In the case of Canada Post, it seems that the situation is still going on because it is always possible to find replacement workers. I also stand in solidarity with Canada Post workers and all the workers I mentioned, because the Bloc Québécois stands up for workers. We do not just pretend to stand up for them.”
“I would like to remind the House that Canada Post reporter that half of its second-quarter losses, about $253.5 million, occurred in June. Oddly enough, June is when Purolator suddenly began offering a 65% discount specifically to Canada Post customers. For those who may not know, Canada Post owns Purolator. It owns a 91% stake in Purolator. What Canada Post is doing is corporate cannibalism. Canada Post is basically eating into its own profits with Purolator's help. Yes, we want mail to be delivered. Of course we want it to be convenient and beneficial for all our businesses and for the entire population. However, in my opinion, there is a real lack of good faith here. The numbers are being fiddled. People know they can make numbers say just about anything.”
“It is saying that jobs do not necessarily need to pay well and that the public service is useless. In a region like mine where it is difficult or even impossible to access services, these people do crucial work, but they are not recognized for it. The government is once again eliminating jobs after promising to create them. The Canadian Labour Congress has asked how the government plans to create jobs by eliminating tens of thousands of them. Let us talk about Canada Post. That interests me. I think its situation is rather unusual. The Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement was going on about how much it costs to operate Canada Post, how unbelievably expensive it is and how the government can no longer provide this service. The minister did not even refer to it as an essential service.”
“We studied this in committee. Young people cannot even access EI benefits. As a result, young people's life plans and academic goals are at risk because they are not receiving support either. Let us talk about the Canadian Union of Public Employees. The government says it is going to create jobs, but it is also going to eliminate 40,000 jobs. I want to know whether the jobs the government says it is going to create are quality jobs. There are a few numbers floating around. Will those jobs be unionized? Will those jobs come with benefits? Will those jobs be full-time jobs? Is it creating jobs just to create jobs? Does it even matter, given that the government has decided that cuts were necessary and that it thinks that good jobs are expensive? That is another message the government is sending.”
“It could tell workers that it is going to help them get through the year and get through the spring gap, that they can stay home and that someday, something might be developed. Right now, it is sending them the message, in the forestry industry anyway, that they are not important. It is sending the message that it does not want fisheries. It does not want or care about tourism. People who plant trees in the forestry sector do not matter. For 10 years, the government has been saying that it plans to overhaul EI. EI is supposed to help workers, but it is not fit for purpose yet. For 10 years, I think that we still believed that reform was on the way. Now, no one expects the reform to happen. There is nothing, just nothing. Helping workers also means helping young people. We know that the youth unemployment rate is high.”
“If that is what it means to help workers and build a strong Canada, then, as everyone already knows, I do not want to be part of Canada. As for EI, which is very important in my riding, it is vital to remember that those who apply for EI are not doing it by choice. They are doing it because they have been hit hard, like the workers at the Arbec mill right now. In a rural region like ours, these tough setbacks also affect seasonal industries. Let me just mention that it is the industries that are seasonal, not the workers. (1325) Workers want to work, but things need to get developed for work to happen. We have not even reached the development stage. Villages and entire communities are dying because this government does not want to lend a hand.”
“It is truly the identity of my region that is at stake today. I would now like to discuss Correctional Service Canada. The budget calls for significant cuts of 15%. There is a penitentiary in my riding, and the correctional officers are worried about their future. Resources are already short, in terms of both personnel and security, and officers are not being provided with what they need to do their jobs. Now the government has decided to cut their pension funds. However, a pension fund is part of the negotiated salary. It is not separate. At a certain point, during collective agreement negotiations, workers decided to invest part of their salary in a pension fund. What the government is telling them is that what they negotiated does not matter and that it has decided to cut their pension fund.”
“It is one thing to talk about forestry workers, but the solution is actually quite simple. We had requested a wage subsidy to maintain the employment relationship, as a strong signal to show that the government believes in the forestry industry. This request was denied. We are not asking for loan guarantees. When things are going badly financially, no one wants to take out a loan when they do not know what tomorrow will bring. What the Bloc Québécois is asking for is an advance on countervailing and anti-dumping duties, and that is what the industry wants. However, we have still not received a response from this government. This measure should have been included in the budget. True, the auto industry is in crisis. The steel industry is also in crisis; we produce steel back home too. However, forestry is important.”
“However, the budget does provide funds for pipelines and the western economy. Once again, the forestry sector is being abandoned. Everyone knows that Bloc Québécois members talk about independence in the House. Given this situation, my colleagues will understand why we would rather manage our own money. For more than a decade, we have been living in a petro-monarchy where money is spent on polluting natural resources, namely dirty oil. The Bloc Québécois wants something else for Quebec: a sustainable future for ourselves, for our children, for future generations and for the planet. We would like to see the money invested in other things, but that is not what we are seeing here. Once again, the government is failing to support the forestry industry. I hope the secretary of state or the minister will be able to respond.”
“Yesterday, even before learning about the closure of the Arbec plant, I had the opportunity to ask the Secretary of State for Labour some questions, which he was unable to answer. I expected a lot more from this government, which boasts about creating jobs and making the Canadian economy the strongest ever. In fact, long before the budget was tabled, the Prime Minister had already sent a message to workers, telling them to look elsewhere, to upgrade their skills and to do something other than pursue a career in the forestry industry. In my opinion, this does not send a very positive signal to the forestry industry. Even before the budget was presented, these workers had already been told that they were being abandoned. Now the budget confirms it. No funds are earmarked for forestry workers or the forestry sector in general.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today, although I would have preferred to do so under different circumstances. Of course, I am pleased to speak about the budget, but first I want to express my solidarity with the workers and their families from the Arbec plant in Port‑Cartier, which announced less than 24 hours ago that more than 100 employees in my region would be losing their jobs. One hundred employees is 100 families. Many people are losing their jobs just before Christmas because the plant is closing indefinitely. Of course, I stand with these workers. I would like to take this opportunity to challenge the government, which likes to talk about a “strong Canada” and claims to be creating jobs but then turns its back on all my constituents.”
“Mr. Speaker, we know that the government has used some creative accounting in its budget to magically turn debts into investments. I would like my colleague to enlighten me on how, for example, security costs for the FIFA World Cup can be a government investment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I must say that, as an MP from a forestry region, I hear the government talk about jobs and employment measures for young people, but I am not satisfied with what I am hearing. Yesterday, I learned that a wood processing plant in my riding is laying off 100 workers, with Christmas just around the corner. The government is doing absolutely nothing for the forestry industry. I would like to know whether my colleague sees things the same way I do, not only with regard to the budget but also with regard to all of the government's actions in relation to the forestry industry.”
“Mr. Speaker, we need to take action before industries shut down. Things are bad in the forestry sector, Ottawa knows that, but I do not know if it truly understands. Yesterday, there were 100 layoffs at Arbec in Port‑Cartier. Last week, workers in Amos learned they would be laid off for Christmas. Last June, there were layoffs in Lac‑Saint‑Jean, Mauricie and elsewhere. After all these job losses, the Liberals still refuse to provide the solutions the industry is calling for. We need wage subsidies and money to compensate for the Americans' illegal tariffs. Why are the Liberals still waiting?”
“Mr. Speaker, the news came as a shock: the Arbec mill in Port‑Cartier is laying off roughly 100 workers. The federal government needs to wake up. Forestry industry representatives, including Arbec, were in Ottawa less than a month ago to share their concerns and discuss solutions. A wage subsidy is needed, precisely to prevent layoffs like those in Port‑Cartier. For the sector in general, the federal government must offer 50% of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties to be paid. How many more layoffs will it take for Ottawa to actually do something?”
“Mr. Speaker, in his excellent speech, my colleague summed up the reasons the Bloc Québécois will be voting for Quebeckers. I would like my colleague to talk about the regions. He talked about his riding. I come from a rural region where the forestry sector is not getting its fair share of the budget, and neither is the aluminum sector. Workers in seasonal industries and in the fishing industry have also been left out in the cold. I would like my colleague to talk about the fact that the government also forgot about the regions of Quebec.”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers did not vote Conservative, but this is a Conservative budget, despite its Liberal deficits. Health care cuts, mass layoffs and climate capitulation are all Conservative ideas. The government House leader actually confirmed that in the House on Wednesday when he said that this is a budget that even Conservative voters can like. It must be working, since the Conservative ranks are in turmoil. They can identify with this budget. Why did the Liberals decide to pander to the Conservatives instead of listening to Quebeckers' demands?”
“Mr. Speaker, there would never have been a confidence vote on the budget today if the Liberals had worked in Quebec's best interests, but, unfortunately, here we are. We are here because they refused to negotiate in good faith despite their minority status. They rejected Quebec's demands on health care and infrastructure, just as they ignored the needs of seniors facing the cost of living crisis and the needs of young people hoping to become homeowners. Why did they orchestrate this confidence vote instead of just responding to the needs of Quebeckers?”
“We could not be prouder of our port and its entire team and board of directors, who are catalyzing innovation, economic development and wealth not only in the Baie-Comeau community, but on the whole north shore. Karine can always count on my full support as an ally to bring about the future she is forging day after day, a future as boundless as our north shore.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to welcome representatives from the Port of Baie-Comeau to Parliament Hill today, and I especially want to welcome its president and CEO Karine Otis, a woman I admire. Like them, I am here to talk about the north shore, Baie-Comeau and our port, which is a gateway to the entire world. It has close ties with the Port of Rotterdam, which is Europe's largest port, and it is second to none with a leader like Ms. Otis at the helm. The Port of Baie-Comeau is prosperous and teeming with activity, since it handles four million tonnes of goods annually and is the fourth-largest port of call for international cruises.”
“Madam Speaker, the forestry industry is on the brink of collapse. It can no longer bear the costs of the softwood lumber dispute on top of Donald Trump's tariffs. Representatives from businesses, workers' groups and municipalities were in Ottawa this week. They are calling on the federal government to cover 50% of future countervailing duties to be paid until the end of the dispute, when our businesses will be reimbursed. Ultimately, this will cost the federal government nothing, but in the short term, it would save businesses and jobs. Will Ottawa do the right thing?”
“My colleague may talk later about the bill introduced by the Bloc Québécois entitled the Émilie Sansfaçon act. When someone is unable to fight because they are fighting for their life, they need support. I think that it is a good social agreement to say that we will use the means that we have to take care of our own when they need it the most. I would like to once again thank my colleague for his initiative. My thoughts also go out to all those in the House or outside of Parliament who have experienced a tragedy like this and who need support. I want them to know that the Bloc Québécois is with them.”
“I wholeheartedly agree with this bill. I would say that, in Quebec, we have this protection under the Quebec parental insurance plan. Quebec has its own plan when a baby is born. People who are in mourning already benefit from this protection, from this assurance that they will be able to navigate this difficult time with dignity, respect, understanding and kindness, without having to worry about the economic and administrative side of things. (1355) I repeat that I completely support this bill. I hope that all members of the House will be able to come to an agreement rather quickly. I do not believe that we can even call this a debate here in the House of Commons. We all want to take care of these people and we have the means to do so. I hope my colleague will improve the employment insurance regime to make it more humane.”
“Lived experience often leads us to realize that we need to improve things and take these grey areas into account, and perhaps shed some light on certain things. That is what we are doing today. We think this situation is absurd. We have the empathy necessary to understand the need to change the law and the Canada Labour Code. I also believe that we have the means to do so. I do not know if that argument should be made today. Personally, I think we are well beyond purely monetary considerations. Canada is a rich country. I understand that things are really tough right now, but the difficulties are cyclical and contextual. However, irrespective of that, there are still things we can do. Workers and employers pay premiums, of course, and that is what funds EI. That fund needs to be able to support families.”
“This is when we should fight with all our strength, but it is also when we have the least strength, because we are busy trying to survive. I believe this is what bereaved families and parents are going through: They are simply trying to survive. As my colleague said, there are anomalies, even absurdities, that would be so easy to correct. Examples include the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code. Take, for example, the requirement to call in every two weeks to report on one's status. Families do not need that kind of burden. I believe that, as legislators, it is also our duty to make laws more humane. There are often grey areas, things that we did not think of when passing legislation.”
“This is something extremely human and there is no way to avoid the human experience. I am a mother myself. As a mother and with all the empathy that we have as human beings, when we put ourselves in the shoes of these families who have to say goodbye to a newborn child, we understand the pain and suffering they experience. I, too, have had difficult experiences. I have several children, but I have a little boy who suffered a perinatal stroke at birth. No one will ever know why these things happen. Moments like that are filled with fear. Life is fragile; it is fragile in the moment, and it remains fragile afterwards. As my colleague so eloquently described, it is in these moments that we experience true sorrow. These may be the moments in our lives when we are the most fragile.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague for introducing Bill C-222 . As we have seen in the few minutes that we have been discussing it, this bill should be something we can all agree on. Ideology and partisanship often prevail in Parliament, but in this case, we are talking about what we hold most dear, our loved ones, our children, those we have lost. That brings a whole new perspective to the debate. I am not even sure that we can call this a debate. I would therefore like to thank and recognize my colleague. My thoughts also go out to Evan's family. This bill, which I hope will become law, bears his name. Like several members have pointed out, seeing newborns come into our lives and sometimes also having to say goodbye to them is something very human that we all share.”
“Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber industry does not have 10 years to wait for the Prime Minister and his economic diversification trips. The Bloc Québécois is calling for a real rescue package for our forestry industry. To begin with, Ottawa needs to finally release the financial aid it has already promised. That would be a good start. On top of that, a wage subsidy is needed to protect workers and their employment relationships if layoffs do occur. When will the federal government show the same urgency for Quebec's lumber industry as it does for Ontario's auto industry?”
“Mr. Speaker, the same Prime Minister who returned from Washington empty-handed cannot now abandon workers as if the tariff war were over. Every Quebec labour union is demanding that Ottawa maintain all of its emergency measures related to access to EI. They also point out that if the Liberals had reformed employment insurance like they have been promising for the past 10 years, we would not need emergency measures today. Workers need a reliable system, but in the meantime, will Ottawa at least cancel its October 11 cuts?”
“Mr. Speaker, the conflict with Donald Trump is far from over and yet Ottawa is already abandoning our workers. On October 11, Ottawa is set to make cuts to its emergency measures for accessing employment insurance and reduce the adjusted unemployment rates that allowed more workers to quality. It is creating an additional distinction between different types of workers at the expense of seasonal workers, contract workers and other such workers. Yesterday, all the major unions in Quebec demanded that the Liberals reverse course. Will they listen to the unions and continue to protect workers?”
“Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote postal workers: “Repeated government interventions in our dispute have completely ruined...negotiations. Every time the Government has stepped in, it has only made reaching new collective agreements that much harder. With every intervention, the Government has pushed the parties farther apart.” Ottawa created this conflict and is solely responsible for the disruption of postal services. Does the minister realize how much damage he has caused by trying to dismantle a public service?”
“Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will not always be this arrogant. We are talking about thousands of workers who are at risk of losing their jobs and who have been calling for reform for 20 years. It is not like Canada Post only started losing $10 million a day one year ago. It takes some nerve to ask the two parties involved in the postal dispute to be reasonable and return to the bargaining table when it was the government that got them into this mess. This dispute is solely, completely and absolutely the Liberals' fault. Even though we do not make budgets, we are all aware that Canada Post's business model needs a major overhaul. Did the Liberals give the union just two minutes' notice of their plans to—”
“Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the week, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Jobs have been asking Canada Post and the union to go back to the bargaining table to settle the general strike. Before this government got involved, there was no general strike. Before last week, the parties were negotiating. The union was waiting for an offer from the employer, and mail was being delivered. Will anyone on the government side recognize that the Liberals are the only ones responsible for the crisis at Canada Post?”
“Mr. Speaker, the tariff war is ramping up, but Ottawa is abandoning workers in rural areas as if the dispute were over. Starting October 11, the federal government is cutting back on temporary employment insurance measures and lowering the unemployment rate that is used to determine eligibility. Worse still, it is creating two classes of workers by favouring those whom Ottawa describes as “long-tenured” workers over seasonal workers and workers in more volatile industries. Once again, we need to remind the people in Ottawa that seasonal workers are “long-tenured” workers. Their jobs are seasonal, but the workers themselves are permanent, as are the needs of their families. On October 11, instead of copying Stephen Harper's measures and depriving rural workers of EI, the Liberals must renew all the flexible measures for workers.”
“Madam Speaker, the postal service is an essential service, particularly in rural areas where the delivery of medicines is on the line. No one is receiving their mail today because the minister triggered a general strike at Canada Post. In the middle of negotiations, while both parties, including the workers, were coming up with solutions for the future of postal services, Ottawa killed the negotiations by announcing a reform without consultation. If the Conservatives had done that, the minister would have been the first to speak out about the situation. What will he do today to restore dialogue?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have already answered this question. I would instead prefer my colleague to share with us whether she is standing up for Quebec and whether she is in favour of Bill 21, which was voted on by our National Assembly and which is legitimate. This member from Quebec is right now telling us that Quebec does not have the legitimacy to pass its own laws.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Shefford for her question. It not only specifically calls attention to the government's paternalistic attitude, a term I used earlier, but also its contempt and arrogance towards Quebec. Simply to assume that Quebec, as my colleague said, had passed 41 laws using the notwithstanding clause—laws that were progressive and sought to improve the lives of Quebeckers—clearly shows, I say it again, contempt, arrogance and ignorance, and disrespect for Quebec.”