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 7 of 7.
“Mr. Chair, the Bloc Québécois would like to see measures to curb the financialization of housing, in particular by combatting house flipping and facilitating the transfer of federal lands at reduced prices for social projects. What concrete action has the minister taken to achieve these objectives? At this time, the appropriations only provide for additional aid for short-term rentals, but nothing else for the measures I just mentioned.”
“Mr. Chair, the Bloc Québécois is proposing that all federal investments in housing be accompanied by an equivalent increase in essential municipal infrastructure, such as water, electricity and waste water treatment infrastructure. How does the minister plan to ensure that municipalities have the necessary resources to accommodate new housing projects while respecting Quebec's jurisdictions?”
“Mr. Chair, a number of stakeholders in Quebec's housing sector have been saying that housing programs are too complex for a long time. The Bloc Québécois strongly believes that federal programs need to be simplified and aligned with Quebec programs, since Quebec has jurisdiction over housing. Are discussions being held with the Government of Quebec to make sure that federal programs do not hinder the transfer of funds or make it harder for organizations to apply for programs?”
“Mr. Chair, the government is boasting about making federal buildings available to organizations and entrepreneurs so that they can be converted into affordable housing. However, will the government change the rule that requires the Canada Lands Company to sell its facilities at market value?”
“Mr. Chair, that does not actually answer my question. It sounds as though they are not going to change anything. What concrete measures will the minister take to review the affordability criteria to create housing that is truly affordable for the least well-off households and to maximize the initiative's effectiveness? When will he do that?”
“Mr. Chair, my questions are for the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure. I would like to start by saying a few nice things about my colleague, Denis Trudel, who was not re-elected, but who worked on the housing file. He said quite a few things that the Minister of Housing might find interesting. Those were some of the same things I heard from people during the election campaign about improving housing construction and affordability. According to the Auditor General's latest report on converting underused federal office space into housing, the current criteria for housing affordability in general were not developed to maximize access for the lowest-income households. That is something the Bloc Québécois has been speaking out against for years.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate once again that while Quebeckers did not pay the carbon tax in April, May and June, neither did any Canadians. However, Quebeckers and British Columbians were the only ones who did not get a cheque for those three months. It is simple. That is the only thing we want. That money was not taken from the carbon tax. It was given to everyone but Quebeckers. We just want our fair share, which would include $10 million for my colleague's riding.”
“Mr. Speaker, I did not consider it necessary to clarify the purpose of the motion, however, in light of the questions I am hearing this morning, it would be good if my colleague could repeat yet again that no one paid the carbon price in April, May or June but that everyone except Quebec got a refund. I think this reminder would be good so that we can finally have a discussion on the actual subject.”
“It was given as an election gift on April 22, when people no longer needed it. I am not saying that there is no financial need, but it was not related to the carbon tax. This is also Quebec taxpayers' money. The member also mentioned British Columbia, which did not receive this money. We do not just want to hear about Bill C‑4 . I would like my colleague to understand the real issue, because what we really heard from him was a monologue. My colleague is an experienced MP. He has been in the House, on the government benches, for a few years now. Out of respect for my colleagues, I would like him to tell us whether he understood and whether he agrees that Quebec should get its fair share. The government has discriminated against us yet again.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, although he did not really relate it back to the motion at hand, except at one point when he felt compelled to do so. I would like to summarize in a few words what our opposition day motion is about. My colleague said that Quebec did not pay a carbon tax and so it is only natural that it did not receive anything. That is his understanding of the situation. In fact, it is an advance payment that some people received. It is an advance payment they received when they were no longer paying that expense. That would be like me telling someone that, in the next three months, it will not cost them anything, but I will give them more money because it will not cost them anything. That money was not paid through the collection of the carbon tax, which no longer existed.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to make a correction to my colleague's speech. He said that Quebeckers had not received the payment because they had not paid the carbon tax. We are not talking about all the payments, just the last payment that was made on April 22 and that was called an advance payment, meaning that it was made before expenses. The tax was no longer in effect as of April 1, but it was paid for April, May and June, a three-month period in which it did not even apply. The $3.7 billion was not paid out of the money that would have been collected from the carbon tax. It was paid out by all Canadians for purposes other than this tax, and Quebeckers are not entitled to it. If they gave some people a gift covering three months of payments on April 22, during the election campaign, why not also give it to Quebeckers?”
“Mr. Speaker, since we started this morning, we have heard, for example, the Minister of Finance talk about relief, young people and the government's plan. He has been a member of the House for about 12 years now, even if he has not always been finance minister. I would expect a plan after 10 years. When it comes to housing, we agree with the GST exemption. It helps, even though it does solve the whole issue. When I toured my riding during the election, young people were also talking to me about available housing. We are waiting for the plan. It is quite incomplete at the moment.”
“Mr. Speaker, the simplest answer I can give my colleague is no. Productivity is not discussed at all here, even though the Bloc Québécois is asking that businesses receive assistance precisely to improve their productivity. Talking about productivity also means talking about competition. No, this bill does not in any way accomplish what it should as far as things like productivity are concerned.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think we could talk some more about the fiscal imbalance, for example. We are always on the losing end in this situation. Until we have full power to decide what is right for Quebec, using our own money, I think this is going to keep happening. This is a prime example. Another example is the fight against Quebec's secularism law. Once again, the federal government is using Quebeckers' money against them. We need full authority to work in Quebec's interest.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the government that, typically, when voters go to the polls, they want to elect a government that is accountable. The Prime Minister promised that the government would be accountable, that the economy would perform well and that Canada would be in a strong position to deal with the United States. As someone who has worked in finance for many years, I know what I am talking about. The government that just came to power is not a new government; it is a continuation of the old government. We saw this earlier when there was talk about old measures dating back to before the Prime Minister took office. The government is not even tabling a budget. To me, that is completely irresponsible.”
“We are seeing this again now with Bill C-4 The National Assembly itself is asking for this, but it is being denied. My colleague, the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères asked the Minister of Finance , the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, but he did not get a response. I hope that the government will respect Quebec, its institutions and its jurisdictions.”
“It was therefore a cheque paid for by Quebeckers for absolutely nothing. Quebec has had its own carbon market since 2013. If some people got a cheque that does not cover any expenses, it is reasonable to wonder why Quebeckers were excluded. We did not get an answer, but that is what the National Assembly is denouncing, saying that of this $3.7 billion, $814 million should be paid to Quebeckers because it is owed to them. The National Assembly asked Ottawa to pay this $814 million that is owed to Quebeckers. They talk about responsibilities, but there is no budget. This measure does absolutely nothing. To me, it was very much a vote-buying cheque. What is more, we have already seen, both before and during the election, that the government does not respect Quebec and its institutions.”
“That is where I got to and I wanted to provide an example of the fact that Quebec and its institutions are not being respected. Just this week, the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously denounced an injustice against Quebeckers, the injustice associated with abolishing the carbon tax, which the Prime Minister did by signing an order in March. The tax was abolished on April 22 at a cost of $3.7 billion. In the middle of the election, one last cheque was paid out to Canadian voters, but not those in British Columbia or Quebec. However, that cheque would not have covered the costs Canadian or Quebec voters would have incurred because those cheques were always sent in advance. The government had already cancelled the carbon tax, but people received a cheque anyway for the months of April, May and June.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to go back to what I was saying earlier. Right off the bat, I addressed the responsibilities of the government, which was elected with a mandate that I would call economic. The tariffs imposed by the U.S. government are threatening the economy, especially where I live on the north shore. I am talking about responsibilities because we expect a government elected on the idea of being able to restore the economy to present a budget. However, we have not gotten one. That is why a motion was moved, calling on the government to table a budget before the end of spring. The Bloc Québécois supported that motion and moved an amendment to the amendment, calling for Quebec's institutions and jurisdictions to be respected.”
“Madam Speaker, an employment relationship is not employment insurance. The Liberals are abandoning our regions. We can see it. There is another example: softwood lumber. Groupe Remabec, among others, is laying off people throughout Quebec, and Arbec is doing the same in my community. Our industry has been in a trade war with the Americans, not since Donald Trump was elected, but since his first term in 2017. Our forestry industry has been getting hit with U.S. tariffs for eight years now, without liquidity and without support for creating added value through processing. How many layoffs will it take for Ottawa to do something about this?”
“Madam Speaker, our aluminum and steel industries have been paying the price for Donald Trump's tariffs for three months without any help from Ottawa. This week, the tariffs doubled. Employers like Alouette and Alcoa are the backbone of the economy in a region like the north shore, not to mention all the businesses that depend on steel. We need to provide liquidity for our industries. The money from the countertariffs needs to be redirected. We need to set up a wage subsidy program to prevent job losses. After three months in a tariff war, what is Ottawa waiting for?”
“The fact is, this cheque is not a rebate to consumers, since the tax is no longer being collected. This cheque is a vote-buying gimmick that will cost us $3.7 billion. I did say “us”, but Quebeckers are not among the privileged citizens who will benefit from this amount. Quebec is being deprived of $814 million. The Quebec National Assembly—”
“It will be $8 in 2026. However, the government is not saying where it is going to get the money to pay for this measure. We hope that the government will respond to the amendment that was adopted and present a budget by the end of spring. We hope that it will respect all the areas under Quebec's jurisdiction that are governed by Quebec's institutions, namely the National Assembly. With that, I will segue to another aspect of the bill, which is the partial elimination of the carbon tax. (1055) Once again, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister promised a cheque to all Canadians, except for people in Quebec and British Columbia, after he abolished the carbon tax. The cheque was meant to cover a three-month period ending at the end of June.”
“Are health transfers going to be reduced? I talked about the economy, but throughout my election campaign, people talked to me about health. As we know, the federal government's health transfers to Quebec and the provinces have dwindled to a trickle. People told me that they cannot get health care in my riding. Out of our 1,300 kilometres of shoreline, there are 400, 500, 600 or more where people cannot get a doctor or receive treatments such as dialysis, for example. As a result, people have to move away. That is a very specific, very concrete example of the needs that we have. We expect the federal government to assume its responsibilities. I will give the government the benefit of the doubt, but in my opinion, the promise to lower taxes was very much an election promise. The tax cut currently amounts to $4 a week.”
“The government is not even tabling a budget, but, in my opinion, the primary responsibility of a government is to explain how we are doing financially and where we are headed. It should provide a status update before deciding how to spend the money from the budget that no one knows anything about. That is the first thing I wanted to mention. Part 1 of Bill C-4 proposes a tax cut. Evidently, we are surprised that the government is proposing a tax cut when it has not even presented a budget or economic statement. The government is already proposing spending without offering any indication of where the money is going to come from. That is causing a lot of concern. Now, we are not going to object to a tax cut. We support lowering taxes in principle. However, we need to know who will pay for the tax cut.”
“In fact, it seemed as though that was the only promise made during the election. I say “fix”, but I do not know if that is the right word. On the one hand, the Liberals talk about the issue of tariffs with the United States. On the other hand, they also remind us that they want to create wealth and make Canada strong, from an economic standpoint. I would like to reiterate something that I think is totally irresponsible on the government's part. I have to say it. In fact, that is what the Conservatives' amendment was about, the one we supported. The government is not even tabling a budget. It is talking about the economy and people's fears. The forestry, aluminum and steel industries are present in my riding. People are worried, but absolutely nothing is being proposed for those industries.”
“Madam Speaker, as I have not had a chance to do so yet, I would like to thank my constituents in Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan for electing me just over a month ago. They have given me their support for a fourth time, and I must say that I was deeply humbled and touched by this renewed trust. I thank my constituents. I also want to thank my team, because an MP is nothing without their team. Yes, there are voters, but there is also our team and all the volunteers around us helping us continue to work on all the issues that are important to us. The election campaign centred on economic issues, and I expected that they would have been addressed in the House already, at the beginning of this Parliament. As several of my colleagues in the House have noted, this government was elected on a promise to “fix” things.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation for his speech, and I congratulate him on his re-election. I, too, would like to ask him a question about housing. In the throne speech, the government said it was going to double the rate of home building. Considering the current shortage of 100,000 housing units in Quebec, not to mention the housing shortage for first nations, I would like to know how many housing units the government plans to build per year and when the situation will be rectified for Quebec and Canada. Can my colleague give us more details?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his fourth election to the House. I am sure that he has observed over the years, as I have, that if we are not moving forward, we are moving backward. He mentioned a few things in his speech, and earlier I talked about employment insurance. What does he think of the government's broken promises, if not its wilful blindness, especially when it comes to EI?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I have a question for her about the budget. She talked about plans, spending and the future. Meanwhile, we have no clue whatsoever about the budget or what it will include. The government is making plans and spending money without even knowing how much it has at its disposal. In my personal life, it does not work like that. I imagine that it does not work that way for her either. Could she explain how her government can spend money without knowing how much it actually has?”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj. He is actually my neighbour. There is only the estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence between us. Our two ridings have a lot in common. He talked about fisheries and forestry. I would add that we also have tourism in common. He mentioned the glaring oversight in the throne speech regarding infrastructure and the extensive investments that would be needed to get us to roughly the same level as the big cities. It is fair to ask for this in order to help our communities grow and keep residents from moving away. I would have liked to hear him talk not only about market diversification, but also about economic diversification. In his opinion, was this also overlooked in the throne speech?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is not one word about EI reform in the throne speech. Stepping back from EI reform in the midst of a tariff crisis is tantamount to betraying workers, period. The Liberals have been promising reform for 10 years. Every possible study has been done, every consultation held. The Liberals have talked enough. It is time to act. Will the government tell us exactly when it plans to introduce EI reform, or will it admit to workers that it is turning its back on them?”
“Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals came to power 10 years ago, they promised to reform the employment insurance system. Year after year, they assured workers that they were almost ready to go, that they would be doing something in a couple of months at most. Ten years later, EI reform is conspicuously absent from the throne speech, despite the fact that we are in the middle of a trade dispute with the United States and key industries like aluminum are being hit with tariffs. Does the government understand that this is the worst time to abandon our workers?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and welcome him to the House. Earlier, we talked about EI. That was a key promise made by the Liberal Party in 2015. It is 2025, and still nothing is happening. I would like to know why the government is not keeping its promises about EI. Why is it that, in regions like mine, many people find themselves in the spring gap, with no income for a huge part of the year? These people are the backbone of key industries such as fishing, forestry and mining. Why do they have to deal with the government's responsibilities? Does he believe that reform is coming soon and that the government will honour the commitments it made to my constituents?”
“Mr. Speaker, my question will be very brief. We are at the beginning of a new Parliament. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of a government that was elected on an economic platform, but is proposing rather extraordinary and exponential spending without presenting a budget. Does my colleague think that is responsible?”