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 6 of 7.
“Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to ham it up a bit and say that I am not even aware of this new government's current priorities. It seems to be recycling the old ones. We are talking about the notwithstanding clause now, and we talked about it in 2023. There is nothing new here. They are just sticking with the same agenda. Are they organized? I do not get the sense that they are. Time will tell. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois will be very vocal about reminding the government to do its job.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a funny question because of the role reversal. The Constitution's notwithstanding clause is meant to protect Quebec and the provinces, so that is a totally different premise. The Constitution, which Quebec still has not signed, includes this notwithstanding clause, so the question is hypothetical. It is political fiction, and I do not think it is up to the courts to debate it. What we want is for legislatures—which are elected every four years at most, even if things can always change and legislation can be voted on again—to be able to invoke the notwithstanding clause for five-year periods. In short, there are already mechanisms in place that have been discussed. That question makes no sense.”
“However, I have not heard the federal government say that they are anti-democratic, that they may be using or bringing back firing squads, or that they are reintroducing slavery. (1350) I think that the Liberal government should be able to say that to the world. I also believe that Quebec will be as free as those nations that have adopted mechanisms such as the notwithstanding clause and that are, of course, free to address legitimate issues that are within the purview of their own national assemblies.”
“It calls itself multiculturalist, open-minded and postnational, as I said earlier, but it should also look at what is being done elsewhere, both in terms of form, such as override clauses or the democratic tools that parliaments can use, and in terms of content. When we look at what is being done in the European Union, for example, we see that a number of countries are using those tools and trusting each other. The federal government is challenging a tool in its own Constitution in court, which is unbelievable. The government can use this tool, as other countries do. The same goes for the content. When it comes Bill 21 and religious symbols, other states, such as Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, have substantial provisions in that area.”
“We can see where the government members from Quebec stand. At this point in the debate, I would like to remind members that just because a member is from Quebec does not mean they are defending Quebec and our National Assembly. In my opinion, based on what I have heard in the debate so far, only the Bloc Québécois members are defending Quebec's National Assembly, and therefore Quebec, tooth and nail. I would like to hear my colleagues on the other side of the House say that is not true if they wish, because that is not what I have been hearing since the debate began. I would also like to see the government broaden its perspectives.”
“Our laws are legitimate; they were passed by our national assemblies. Some Quebec members in the House, like my colleague who spoke earlier, are afraid to say whether they are in favour of Bill 21, a law duly passed by Quebec. I would like to add that what he was saying, whether he was for or against it, is that, in his view, his National Assembly is not legitimate and cannot even vote on its own laws. I have a big problem with that. Another government member said that there are currently more Liberal members than Bloc members. I would like the Liberal members—because beyond that, we are members from Quebec—to also be able to defend Quebec. It is all well and good to have Liberal members in the House, but I think we have a problem if they decide that their National Assembly is not legitimate in their eyes.”
“This is really a question that goes beyond the issue of secularism, because there is the substance and there is the form. The substance remains a pretext for attacking Quebec, but the form also remains a reason for attacking democracy and the rights that all provinces and Quebec have under the Constitution. This fear on the part of the federal government, as expressed by the Attorney General of Canada in his factum, is an attack on the form. We are talking about the notwithstanding clause, but also about the approach taken by the federal government, which has been criticized on several occasions for being unable to tackle the issue head-on, instead resorting to roundabout ways to attack Quebec. I find it disgusting—yes, that is the first word that comes to mind—that it has decided to use Quebec taxpayers' money against them.”
“We want to pass our own laws because they define us as a society and define the projects we have as a nation. Besides the issue of identity, our democracy is at stake. We once again have a self-righteous government that thinks it can look down at us and judge what is good for Quebec and what is not. However, Quebec is sovereign when it comes to passing its own laws, such as Bill 96 on language and Bill 21 on secularism. I do not think Quebec is the only one worried. Yes, I am defending Quebec, but I was talking about democracy. That is what we want to defend here today as well. (1345) Several Canadian provinces have supported Quebec because they see that the sovereignty of their own assemblies is also threatened by the federal government's paternalistic desire to decide what is good for the provinces and Quebec.”
“It is really an ideological attack. We are seeing the same agenda as there was under former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, under the most recent prime minister, and even the current Prime Minister . Since last March, they have been trying to tell us it is no longer the same government and it is a different government, but the agenda has remained the same. Today, they are pursuing the same agenda as Trudeau Sr., one that transformed into a postnational agenda under our former prime minister Trudeau Jr. and now under the current government. Absolutely nothing has changed. I talked about identity. Obviously, the Government of Quebec has invoked the notwithstanding clause a number of times, including on matters of language, as well as social issues. Those are topics that distinguish Quebec from Canada and that make us who we are.”
“We are talking about an attack against the Quebec nation. With all due respect to my colleague who said earlier that it is not Bill 21 that is being attacked but rather the notwithstanding clause, it is Quebec itself that is being attacked. I would remind my colleague that this is not the first time Quebec has used the notwithstanding clause. It has been used many times—41 times, to be exact—since it was introduced. In all those years, the use of the notwithstanding clause was not challenged; however, as soon as we started talking about state secularism, about the very identity of the Quebec nation and its values, a decision was made to question the legitimacy, validity, and intent of using the notwithstanding clause to defend a bill that was duly passed by Quebec's National Assembly. Clearly, this is really a direct attack.”
“The Bloc Québécois is asking for the following: That the House: (a) call on the government to fully withdraw from the legal challenge of Quebec's Act respecting the laicity of the State before the Supreme Court; (b) call on the government to withdraw its factum filed on September 17, 2025, with the Supreme Court contesting Quebec's right to invoke the notwithstanding clause; and (c) denounce the government's willingness to use the Supreme Court to take constitutional powers away from Quebec and the provinces. I wanted to read the motion again because I have been listening to the speeches ever since this morning and I get the sense that people are saying that this is not important, that it is merely a detail, that there are other matters that should be discussed. However, we are talking here about the Quebec nation itself.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Jonquière . I am really glad to speak today on this Bloc Québécois opposition day. People get involved in politics because they have values they want to defend. We want to defend our constituents, and I, as a proud member of the Bloc Québécois, want to defend Quebec. That is really what we are talking about today. I will repeat the motion.”
“Mr. Speaker, the notwithstanding clause was the condition without which the provinces would never have signed the 1982 Constitution. For Quebec, who never signed the Constitution, the provision remained too weak a safeguard against the federal government's desire to subject Quebeckers to a centralized Canadian authority. Today, that same weak safeguard is too much for Ottawa. The Liberals want to weaken the notwithstanding clause to the point of being meaningless. This is not a legal battle unfolding at the Supreme Court. This is a political battle against Quebec. Will Ottawa back off?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear from my colleague. She said it; she is a pragmatist. Someone said earlier that Quebeckers had voted for a Liberal government. I would like to hear her opinion on the fact that Quebeckers may have voted against themselves. Proposed section 7 states, “Before recommending that an order be made...the Minister must consult”, if he considers it appropriate, with indigenous peoples and the provinces and territories, for example. The minister will consult if he thinks it is worthwhile. In my opinion, that is not respecting the provinces. I would like to know if my colleague thinks that is what Quebeckers voted for.”
“Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate my colleague's thoroughness and the relevance of her comments. I would respond that that question also occurred to me. Why did the government forget? Why did it make such a list, to which nearly any law could be added because of the possibilities that are included in the bill itself? I think it was written quickly. They also want the House to pass it quickly and they do not want to consult anyone. I am proud that the Bloc Québécois has been able to defend certain aspects. For example, we talked about the Canada Labour Code because the unions themselves wondered about it. I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons say that the unions support it, but the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, or CSN, came out and said no, it did not support the bill. People need to be consulted.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am saying that the government is not being transparent but, unless I am mistaken, I believe that my colleague's party wishes to vote in favour of the bill. To me, that is one and the same. It does not matter which side someone is on if everyone votes the same way and there is no transparency. I see no difference there. I would like to ask my colleague the same question. Why is he voting in favour of the bill if he believes there is no transparency?”
“Mr. Speaker, the north shore produces more electricity than any other administrative region in Quebec and, I believe, more than any other place in Canada. However, the Government of Quebec has never received a penny from the federal government for Hydro-Québec. We never needed federal government help for that, not then or now. I think that my riding is doing just fine without federal involvement in Hydro-Québec. We do not need Bill C‑5 to build hydroelectric plants. If the government really wants to look into what goes on in my neck of the woods, I would point out that some people in my riding live in areas where there are no roads, no docks, no air transportation and no bridges for getting home. They live on islands, and they are isolated. It would be an excellent idea to look into that.”
“Port facilities are covered by Bill C‑5. In my opinion, while I am not saying that there is a conflict of interest, there is at the very least an appearance of a potential ethical breach. Bill C‑5 opens the door wide to this type of situation, which the Bloc Québécois strongly opposes. I touched on only two things in my speech, but they are two things that I am sure the people in my riding and the people of Quebec would disagree with. The government's lack of transparency and decision to grant itself all the powers without an informed debate and vote are unacceptable.”
“When people make hasty decisions or buy shares in a company, for example, they tend to forget that, in fact, they we should be serving is the common interest, not their personal interests. I am not saying that that is necessarily what is happening, but it is a strong possibility. Everything is hidden. How can we know whether everything is being done properly and in accordance with the will of the people? I will give one last example: the Brookfield issue. We know that the Prime Minister has a stake in Brookfield. I would like to point out that Brookfield owns railway lines, which are covered by Bill C‑5. Brookfield owns natural gas processing plants, which are covered by Bill C‑5. Pipelines are covered by Bill C‑5. Companies that design, build and operate nuclear power plants are covered by Bill C‑5. The oil sands are covered by Bill C‑5.”
“Projects will be approved in advance behind closed doors, and the public will not know a thing. The decision will already be final. The government says that there can be consultations or discussions afterward, but the fact is, the decision will have already been made. I know this will not be the first time the government has held consultations after making decisions, but this is still a very big deal. The text of the bill is very clear. Consultation may happen, but whatever the government wants to do will be done. We will just have to live with the consequences of decisions made behind closed doors. Closed doors, stupidity, selfishness and personal interests are things that humans are familiar with.”
“As for projects that “contribute to clean growth” and to meeting Canada's climate change objectives, it is very clear that the stated criteria or objectives are not necessarily the ones the government wants to apply. We all see how much backpedalling our theoretically new government is doing in that regard. The minister can actually ignore those criteria entirely. It is like they are trying to convince us that we will be protected by guardrails of some kind, but the fact is, they do not even have to pay attention to those guardrails and that, too, is unacceptable. Once a project is designated as being in the national interest, the minister can issue approvals at every stage, and no one will be privy to the nature of the projects or the conditions they have to satisfy. After that, there is no turning back, which is unbelievable.”
“In its present form, the bill allows the government to consider and evaluate the projects according to five evaluation criteria. One criterion is whether the project could “strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security”. The criterion of whether the project could “provide economic or other benefits to Canada” is very broad. Being feasible is also very broad. The criterion of whether the project considers “the interests of Indigenous peoples” theoretically protects the Indian Act, but what about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? Considering interests is not at all prescriptive; it sounds optional.”
“Federally regulated businesses have just been protected under the Official Languages Act. Just imagine the Income Tax Act or the Criminal Code. The entire text of the bill, including the schedules, allows for exempting major proponents from laws that have been duly passed by the House of Commons. (1540) That is the first item I wanted to talk about. In my opinion, a law that supercedes all other laws leads to opaque and arbitrary decisions, which is unacceptable. That brings up the subject of ethics. What is opaque and arbitrary is the opposite of what is ethical and of what our constituents expect. What they want is transparency. What they want is accountability. What they want is to have a say. That is what democracy is all about. That is not what is happening with Bill C‑5 , however.”
“However, these laws protect the population as a whole, be they Quebeckers or Canadians, by guaranteeing that projects respect the principle of the common good. Bill C-5 actually does away with those guarantees. These laws were duly voted on, considered and debated, yet we are being told that they basically have no purpose, because Bill C‑5 is above those laws. In fact, the expression I just used, "to be above the law", summarizes exactly, perhaps even to my surprise, what Bill C‑5 is proposing. I would also like to point out that clause 21 remains, despite the Bloc Québécois's request to remove the schedule from the bill, which was rejected. Clause 21 allows the government, by a simple order in council, to exempt proponents from the application of any law, no matter which one. That is also very concerning.”
“However, I note in passing that “national interest” has not been defined yet. What does national interest mean? What falls in that murky category? This is, indeed, also a matter of murkiness. Of course, now, we are trying to protect various statutes by proposing amendments to the bill. I myself tabled an amendment to exclude the Canada Labour Code from the list of statutes and regulations. I must say the list seemed infinite. It includes the Fisheries Act, the International River Improvements Act, the Impact Assessment Act, the migratory bird sanctuary regulations, the wildlife area regulations, the marine mammal regulations, the port authorities operations regulations and more. These are all statutes that we will be able to circumvent. Of course, "we" excludes the person speaking.”
“Imposing this gag order is one of the most serious attacks on democracy since the Emergency Measures Act, which replaced the War Measures Act. The government has decided to circumvent democracy. No matter who was elected here, I do not believe that voters want to see their MP support a bill that seeks to circumvent the democratic process. I am not talking about the gag order here, but rather about the bill itself, which allows the democratic process to be circumvented and its means, powers and possibilities to be stripped. As I said already, once a project is designated in the national interest, its developer will be able to circumvent any federal statute or regulation. That is huge. The decision of what is in the national interest lies in the hands of one individual.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at third reading of Bill C-5 . I would first like to thank my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères for all the work he has done, despite the challenges posed by situation resulting from the gag order. He has worked with the Bloc Québécois as our constituents expect us to work in the House, that is, with the thoroughness and transparency. Transparency is precisely one of the issues I would like to address today with regard to Bill C-5. In fact, there are two issues I would like to address: the fact that this bill would exempt proponents of major projects from laws and an ethical issue, which I will address in the second part of my speech. Clearly, the Bloc Québécois does not support Bill C-5. I am going to repeat what some of my colleagues have said, because it is important.”
“Mr. Speaker, the CSN is adding its voice to the Assembly of First Nations. It even joins a few Liberal MPs and, no doubt, a few ministers who prefer to remain silent. They are the ones we are addressing as the vote approaches. Bill C‑5 makes it possible to circumvent all environmental measures and suspend nearly all legislation by order in council. It is the most authoritarian bill since the Emergencies Act. Will the ministers who disagree have the courage to oppose it before it is too late?”
“Mr. Speaker, the CSN is also speaking out against Bill C‑5 and how it will impose energy projects on Quebeckers. The CSN said, and I quote: The use of closure to pass Bill C‑5 is an undemocratic tactic supported by the Conservative Party of Canada that will open the door to irreversible mistakes... I will repeat word for word the question that is troubling the CSN: If Bill C‑5 is so good for workers, why not take the time to study it properly?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thank my colleague from Northumberland—Clarke for his point of order. I agree with what he just said because, when we look at the two amendments that have been grouped together, one of which I myself brought forward, we see that the proposals clearly relate to completely different subjects. Members might very well want to vote in favour of one and against the other, which would mean that the Canada Labour Code might not be excluded, as my colleague also pointed out very clearly. I personally would also prefer that these two amendments be split so that we can have completely separate votes.”
“The course of action we are proposing is both proactive and open when it comes to the economy, yet rigorous and prudent when it comes to respecting environmental standards, the principle of social acceptability and the jurisdictions of Quebec.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to add something to the point of order raised by my colleague from Vancouver East . I would like to mention that the Bloc Québécois also sent a letter to the governing party. I would like to read two paragraphs regarding our request to split Bill C‑5. We believe that a bill on trade and labour would progress more quickly if it were assessed individually and on its own merits. Conversely, in its current form, the part of Bill C‑5 that your government refers to as the “Building Canada Act” could potentially hinder the adoption of other important measures in the current context of economic uncertainty. Splitting this bill in two, as we propose, would show the public the collaborative attitude that it expects from our respective political parties in the newly elected minority Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech, and I thank her for her contribution to discussions in the House. She mentioned the project designation criteria several times. She also talked about leadership. In her opinion, does leadership mean not respecting the laws that were duly passed by the House of Commons? Does it mean not respecting provincial jurisdictions? I could provide more examples. Being in government means showing leadership and being accountable. Does that mean disrespecting jurisdiction and the laws duly passed by the House of Commons?”
“They need to explain their involvement, which is not conducive to a fair and lasting resolution of the dispute. More importantly, they need to back down.”
“Mr. Speaker, everyone is affected by the Canada Post labour dispute. However, the government is making a mistake by siding with the employer instead of supporting a lasting, negotiated settlement. First, the government suspended workers' right to strike in December. Then, yesterday, the Minister of Jobs and Families announced that she will force employees to vote on Canada Post's unilateral proposal instead of going to arbitration. This repeated Liberal meddling has poisoned the collective bargaining atmosphere. Today, the Liberals are shutting down the dialogue by forcing a vote. It seems rather clear that the arbitrator has chosen the winner of the game. The Liberals' role is to act as guarantors of law, fairness and genuine social dialogue.”
“Mr. Chair, I hope there will be a conclusion, not just a discussion. The French language commissioner published a report in November 2024 about understanding the decline of French and reversing that trend. It stated that the federal public service is primarily responsible for the anglicization of the Outaouais region, with rates of nearly 60%. Will the secretary repeat what his organization says, namely that 25% of civil servants are francophone and that 95% of civil servants in bilingual positions meet the requirements of their position?”
“Mr. Chair, the government is trying to cut costs and get unions to agree to less compensation. It recovered overpayments and was sometimes not justified in doing so, and only then did it reimburse public servants dealing with pay errors that cost them thousands of dollars. For a person who lost their house, a total of $2,500 for four years is not very generous. Will the government finally provide adequate compensation to its own employees and take full responsibility for the problems caused by its own negligence?”
“Mr. Chair, during the pilot phase, several departments reported that the system was far from satisfactory. Why did the government continue to roll out the pay system despite the warnings and poor test results?”
“Mr. Chair, at the time, Australia had already experienced problems with the system, and the unions alerted the federal government, whether it was the old one or the new one. Why did it still buy the software?”
“Mr. Chair, I hope it happens faster than it is taking to address the Phoenix issues. Speaking of Phoenix, that pay system has been failing for nine years, and those failures are putting public servants' lives at risk. As a member from the North Shore, I know what I am taking about. Does the government intend to launch an independent investigation into this scandal?”
“Mr. Chair, on top of having to go through Phoenix when it comes to their pay, public servants now have to go through Canada Life when it comes to their insurance. As the employer of the public service, when will the President of the Treasury Board address the situation?”
“Mr. Chair, during the election, the new Liberals promised to enable border services officers to retire after 25 years of service instead of 35, as their union requested. As the employer of the public service, does the President of the Treasury Board intend to implement that measure?”
“That is a 190% increase, and it has nothing to do with the new spending on military equipment, which is in a separate document. How does the government explain the 190% increase in spending on miscellaneous equipment purchases?”
“Mr. Chair, it is odd that the estimates are being tabled a little later than usual, yet the government is increasing spending eightfold. I hope that the health transfers will be sizable. In Quebec, the government is on the defensive because the new computer system for the Société de l'assurance de l'automobile du Québec, or SAAQ, cost twice as much as expected, $1 billion instead of $500 million. One minister resigned. A public inquiry is currently under way to get to the bottom of this. Meanwhile, in Ottawa, the government thinks it is normal to present estimates that triple the amount allocated to equipment purchases. The budget was $2.7 billion last year, and the government wants to increase that to $10.8 billion.”
“Mr. Chair, the government is increasing spending. We understand that. Much has been said about the $38 billion in new operating expenditures in the main estimates, which are up by 8.4%. However, when we take a closer look, it is even worse. Major transfers to individuals, such as old age security, or to the provinces, such as health transfers, are statutory appropriations that have not been voted on. Statutory appropriations are only increasing by 2.6%, which seems very reasonable, but it is not enough. The main estimates that we will be voting on next Tuesday are what keep the federal bureaucracy running, and those are the amounts that are skyrocketing. They are increasing by $31 billion, a 16% increase. That is eight times more than what the Liberal Party promised during the election, when it promised to cap the increase at 2%. Why?”
“Mr. Chair, I was actually referring once again to a reduction that might make Quebeckers less inclined to use tax havens. In budget 2023, amidst a big scandal over contracts awarded to McKinsey, the government announced that it would substantially reduce the budgets allocated to consulting firms. That never happened. Instead, the main estimates indicate that the amount allocated to consultants, that is, the “professional and special services” line item, will increase again this year by $7 billion, or 26%, from $19.1 billion to $26.1 billion. Why can the government not honour its own commitment to reduce the use of external consultants, which is costing taxpayers a fortune?”
“Mr. Chair, this new government is already 10 years old and after the answer I just got, it seems that it is not really going to change, either. I will move on. Is the CRA's reduced budget good news, in fact? Will Ottawa finally agree to allow Quebeckers to file a single tax return and to allow Revenu Québec to handle it? Is the elimination of the duplication reflected in the estimates?”
“Mr. Chair, there is something strange in the estimates. The Canada Revenue Agency's budget is cut by $7 billion, or 40%. For years, when we press the government to take action against those who profit from the use of tax havens, it has been telling us that it will add resources to the CRA to fight against international tax avoidance. Now the government is cutting that money. Are the estimates telling us that the government is giving up, might I say even more, on the abuse of tax havens?”
“Mr. Chair, the estimates detail the amount of spending that the government is asking Parliament to approve. At the same time, the government is supposed to tell us what it intends to do with that money through the departmental plans that it usually tables at the same time. However, we still do not have the departmental plans. The government is asking us for money but refuses to tell us how it plans to spend it. Does the President of the Treasury Board think it is acceptable to ask for blank cheques?”
“Mr. Chair, earlier the Bloc Québécois addressed the issue of homelessness and the minister addressed it as well. Many community groups are speaking out about the chronic underfunding of homelessness programs in Quebec. We are critical of that too. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that there is roughly a $3.5-billion shortfall annually to achieve the goal of reducing homelessness by 50%. Beyond the $121 million announced in the estimates for all of Canada, will the upcoming Liberal budget include a substantial and permanent increase in homelessness transfers to Quebec?”